text
stringlengths 292
49.2k
|
|---|
Meet the Outlaw escaping from prisons in protest against indefinite detention
Riot police stand by as Joe Outlaw swings his prison jumpsuit on the roof of HMP Frankland. Photograph: Alex Elliott/North News/North News & Pictures northn View image in fullscreen Riot police stand by as Joe Outlaw swings his prison jumpsuit on the roof of HMP Frankland. Photograph: Alex Elliott/North News/North News & Pictures northn This article is more than 1 year old Meet the Outlaw escaping from prisons in protest against indefinite detention This article is more than 1 year old Joe Outlaw is one of 2,921 inmates still on IPP sentences, which were abolished in 2012 It should be impossible to escape from a high-security prison, doubly so for prisoners held on the segregation unit, who are allowed only to exercise in a caged yard. But on 21 June, the summer solstice and the hottest day of the year at that point, Joe Outlaw managed to break through the cage and get on to the roof of HMP Frankland, a Durham prison dubbed “Monster mansion” due to many of its inmates being convicted murderers, terrorists and sex offenders. A local photographer captured Outlaw sunbathing in his underpants as he negotiated with prison officers from the National Tactical Response Group. Some social media users may have recognised Outlaw from TikTok and YouTube, where he used to post protest raps and songs from his cell. View image in fullscreen Screengrab from Joe Outlaw’s YouTube channel. Photograph: YouTube It was a huge embarrassment for the prison service, particularly as Outlaw was on the e-list (escape list) at the time. He shed the yellow and blue jumpsuit that indicates a flight risk only when he breached the cage, prompting huge cheers from the prisoners below. It was not Outlaw’s first rooftop rodeo. An expert climber since his youth, when he escaped from numerous care homes, in April this year he managed to get on to the roof at HMP Manchester, better known as Strangeways, by sneaking off from the healthcare unit and crawling through reels of barbed wire. For 12 soggy hours he sat up there in the driving rain to highlight the plight of prisoners in Wales and England, like himself, who are stuck in jail after being given imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences with no automatic date for release. Designed to protect the public from serious offenders whose crimes did not merit a life sentence, these indeterminate sentences were abolished in 2012 after it became apparent that they were “unclear and inconsistent” and resulted in people languishing in jail for many years, often for quite minor crimes, and with no clear path for release. “FREE IPPZ”, Outlaw wrote on Strangeways’ roof in gloss paint that kept running in the rain. View image in fullscreen Joe Outlaw on the roof of Strangeways in Manchester. Photograph: News Images/Alamy Outlaw, now 37, was given an IPP in 2011 after robbing his local takeaway with an imitation firearm while high on drugs. The IPP was imposed, he says, because he already had two firearms offences on his record – including one committed while a juvenile, when he fired a pellet gun in a public park. He knows his crime was serious. “I didn’t hurt him physically, but anyone pointing a gun at anyone is traumatising, and I don’t know what it’s done to [the takeaway worker’s] life. I’ve got to take responsibility for that, and I am sorry for that,” he told the Guardian in one of a series of letters. Outlaw – then going by the name Chris Hordosi, which he changed to Outlaw, his mother’s maiden name, while in prison – was given an IPP with an 18-year tariff, reduced to nine on appeal. Without the IPP element, he would have been eligible for automatic release after four and a half years. Yet 12 years later, he is still in prison, fighting against a system he thinks is rigged to make release all but impossible. He believes the lack of hope has killed other IPPs – 270 so far have died in prison, with 81 taking their own lives. Outlaw says he has tried to kill himself at least once, by setting fire to his cell – which ultimately resulted in an extra conviction for arson. He claims other IPPs have ended up committing murder in prison, figuring out they are basically in for life anyway. After his rooftop protest at Frankland, Outlaw was transferred to HMP Belmarsh, a Category A jail in London that holds some of the most dangerous prisoners in England and Wales. He claims that since 23 June he has been forced to live in “total isolation” on a special unit opened just for him. “I haven’t heard or seen another inmate in almost six months so far. This is not because I’m violent or a danger to anyone. In 13 years I’ve never assaulted a member of staff and I have only had one fight with an inmate [a paedophile in HMP Wakefield]. I have been totally isolated simply because I spoke out in protest against the ongoing illegal imprisonment of IPPs … and to silence my voice and activism,” he said. There is now near-unanimous agreement that IPPs are unfair, with the current justice secretary, Alex Chalk, calling them “a stain” on the justice system. As of 30 September, there were 2,921 IPP prisoners , 1,269 of whom have never been released, with the remaining 1,652 having been recalled to custody. A recent Independent Monitoring Board report on Belmarsh found it was holding four IPP prisoners, including Outlaw, telling ministers: “The Board considers it is inhumane to keep these men in prison for such lengthy periods.” The law is gone but they are still in jail: who will free Britain’s most wronged prisoners? | George Monbiot Read more Last month, Chalk announced reforms that would cut the time that released IPP prisoners serve on licence from 10 to three years. But it remains unclear whether the reforms will benefit Outlaw, who claims he has not been given any information about whether it will give him a pathway for release. He says he carried out his second rooftop protest at Frankland after suffering “horrid levels of abuse and neglect” there. The alternative was suicide, he said: “If I would have not taken that chance to do what I did there I would have ended up hanging myself, I swear to god.” He claims he hid strips of ripped-up bed sheets in his trainers, which he then used to tie himself to the exercise yard cage, while hanging upside down. He then managed to break the cage before he crawled through and on to the roof. “The most shocking thing was that I was in an e-list blue and yellow escape suit at the time, and just six weeks before, I had been on Manchester’s roof,” he said, describing it as “a new level of embarrassment for the Prison Service”, which “begs the question: what if this was a mass murderer or a millionaire drug dealer with a chopper?” Outlaw knows many people may read of his escapades and think: “Joey, no wonder you are not getting out.” But he insists that many far better behaved IPP prisoners are stuck. “Lads have been sweet as a nut, managed to dodge all the war zones, do all the bullshit courses and they still come up with some reason to keep them in,” he wrote. He claims he was originally told “all I had to do was keep my head down, behave and do my [rehabilitation] courses and I’d be back out in no time”. But in reality, he says, “every time lads would complete a course, a new one would be created and the goalposts moved again.” The Parole Board is inherently risk-averse when it comes to IPPs, he says. “They treat people that are in for fights or robbery like they are murderers.” Over 1,800 offenders to have indefinite jail sentences terminated, says MoJ Read more Prisons are corrupt, insists Outlaw. He claims to have watched drones deliver drugs to HMP Manchester every night, and “found myself just smoking weed, sniffing coke, taking Xanax – it was mental, everybody was just on a party mode constantly”. Officers turned a blind eye to rampant smartphone use, he claims, to the point that he started TikTok and YouTube channels to showcase his jailhouse songs, one of which, he claims, gathered more than 150,000 views in three days. He wants readers to put themselves in his shoes when viewing his protests. “What would you do when the people who are meant to be helping you are the ones who are abusing you, when no one around you cares or treats you with respect? There’s people who become your captors who are torturing you on a daily basis … How can you expect a person to change his ways for the better when treated with such disregard?” A Prison Service spokesperson said: “We abolished IPP sentences in 2012 and have already reduced the number of offenders serving them in prison by three-quarters. We have also taken decisive action to curtail IPP licence periods to give rehabilitated people the opportunity to move on with their lives. “Those still in custody are being helped to progress towards release through improved access to rehabilitation programmes and mental health support – but as a judge deemed them to be a high risk to the public the independent Parole Board must decide if they are safe to leave prison.” Explore more on these topics Prisons and probation UK criminal justice North of England England Wales features Share Reuse this content Riot police stand by as Joe Outlaw swings his prison jumpsuit on the roof of HMP Frankland. Photograph: Alex Elliott/North News/North News & Pictures northn View image in fullscreen Riot police stand by as Joe Outlaw swings his prison jumpsuit on the roof of HMP Frankland. Photograph: Alex Elliott/North News/North News & Pictures northn This article is more than 1 year old Meet the Outlaw escaping from prisons in protest against indefinite detention This article is more than 1 year old Joe Outlaw is one of 2,921 inmates still on IPP sentences, which were abolished in 2012 It should be impossible to escape from a high-security prison, doubly so for prisoners held on the segregation unit, who are allowed only to exercise in a caged yard. But on 21 June, the summer solstice and the hottest day of the year at that point, Joe Outlaw managed to break through the cage and get on to the roof of HMP Frankland, a Durham prison dubbed “Monster mansion” due to many of its inmates being convicted murderers, terrorists and sex offenders. A local photographer captured Outlaw sunbathing in his underpants as he negotiated with prison officers from the National Tactical Response Group. Some social media users may have recognised Outlaw from TikTok and YouTube, where he used to post protest raps and songs from his cell. View image in fullscreen Screengrab from Joe Outlaw’s YouTube channel. Photograph: YouTube It was a huge embarrassment for the prison service, particularly as Outlaw was on the e-list (escape list) at the time. He shed the yellow and blue jumpsuit that indicates a flight risk only when he breached the cage, prompting huge cheers from the prisoners below. It was not Outlaw’s first rooftop rodeo. An expert climber since his youth, when he escaped from numerous care homes, in April this year he managed to get on to the roof at HMP Manchester, better known as Strangeways, by sneaking off from the healthcare unit and crawling through reels of barbed wire. For 12 soggy hours he sat up there in the driving rain to highlight the plight of prisoners in Wales and England, like himself, who are stuck in jail after being given imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences with no automatic date for release. Designed to protect the public from serious offenders whose crimes did not merit a life sentence, these indeterminate sentences were abolished in 2012 after it became apparent that they were “unclear and inconsistent” and resulted in people languishing in jail for many years, often for quite minor crimes, and with no clear path for release. “FREE IPPZ”, Outlaw wrote on Strangeways’ roof in gloss paint that kept running in the rain. View image in fullscreen Joe Outlaw on the roof of Strangeways in Manchester. Photograph: News Images/Alamy Outlaw, now 37, was given an IPP in 2011 after robbing his local takeaway with an imitation firearm while high on drugs. The IPP was imposed, he says, because he already had two firearms offences on his record – including one committed while a juvenile, when he fired a pellet gun in a public park. He knows his crime was serious. “I didn’t hurt him physically, but anyone pointing a gun at anyone is traumatising, and I don’t know what it’s done to [the takeaway worker’s] life. I’ve got to take responsibility for that, and I am sorry for that,” he told the Guardian in one of a series of letters. Outlaw – then going by the name Chris Hordosi, which he changed to Outlaw, his mother’s maiden name, while in prison – was given an IPP with an 18-year tariff, reduced to nine on appeal. Without the IPP element, he would have been eligible for automatic release after four and a half years. Yet 12 years later, he is still in prison, fighting against a system he thinks is rigged to make release all but impossible. He believes the lack of hope has killed other IPPs – 270 so far have died in prison, with 81 taking their own lives. Outlaw says he has tried to kill himself at least once, by setting fire to his cell – which ultimately resulted in an extra conviction for arson. He claims other IPPs have ended up committing murder in prison, figuring out they are basically in for life anyway. After his rooftop protest at Frankland, Outlaw was transferred to HMP Belmarsh, a Category A jail in London that holds some of the most dangerous prisoners in England and Wales. He claims that since 23 June he has been forced to live in “total isolation” on a special unit opened just for him. “I haven’t heard or seen another inmate in almost six months so far. This is not because I’m violent or a danger to anyone. In 13 years I’ve never assaulted a member of staff and I have only had one fight with an inmate [a paedophile in HMP Wakefield]. I have been totally isolated simply because I spoke out in protest against the ongoing illegal imprisonment of IPPs … and to silence my voice and activism,” he said. There is now near-unanimous agreement that IPPs are unfair, with the current justice secretary, Alex Chalk, calling them “a stain” on the justice system. As of 30 September, there were 2,921 IPP prisoners , 1,269 of whom have never been released, with the remaining 1,652 having been recalled to custody. A recent Independent Monitoring Board report on Belmarsh found it was holding four IPP prisoners, including Outlaw, telling ministers: “The Board considers it is inhumane to keep these men in prison for such lengthy periods.” The law is gone but they are still in jail: who will free Britain’s most wronged prisoners? | George Monbiot Read more Last month, Chalk announced reforms that would cut the time that released IPP prisoners serve on licence from 10 to three years. But it remains unclear whether the reforms will benefit Outlaw, who claims he has not been given any information about whether it will give him a pathway for release. He says he carried out his second rooftop protest at Frankland after suffering “horrid levels of abuse and neglect” there. The alternative was suicide, he said: “If I would have not taken that chance to do what I did there I would have ended up hanging myself, I swear to god.” He claims he hid strips of ripped-up bed sheets in his trainers, which he then used to tie himself to the exercise yard cage, while hanging upside down. He then managed to break the cage before he crawled through and on to the roof. “The most shocking thing was that I was in an e-list blue and yellow escape suit at the time, and just six weeks before, I had been on Manchester’s roof,” he said, describing it as “a new level of embarrassment for the Prison Service”, which “begs the question: what if this was a mass murderer or a millionaire drug dealer with a chopper?” Outlaw knows many people may read of his escapades and think: “Joey, no wonder you are not getting out.” But he insists that many far better behaved IPP prisoners are stuck. “Lads have been sweet as a nut, managed to dodge all the war zones, do all the bullshit courses and they still come up with some reason to keep them in,” he wrote. He claims he was originally told “all I had to do was keep my head down, behave and do my [rehabilitation] courses and I’d be back out in no time”. But in reality, he says, “every time lads would complete a course, a new one would be created and the goalposts moved again.” The Parole Board is inherently risk-averse when it comes to IPPs, he says. “They treat people that are in for fights or robbery like they are murderers.” Over 1,800 offenders to have indefinite jail sentences terminated, says MoJ Read more Prisons are corrupt, insists Outlaw. He claims to have watched drones deliver drugs to HMP Manchester every night, and “found myself just smoking weed, sniffing coke, taking Xanax – it was mental, everybody was just on a party mode constantly”. Officers turned a blind eye to rampant smartphone use, he claims, to the point that he started TikTok and YouTube channels to showcase his jailhouse songs, one of which, he claims, gathered more than 150,000 views in three days. He wants readers to put themselves in his shoes when viewing his protests. “What would you do when the people who are meant to be helping you are the ones who are abusing you, when no one around you cares or treats you with respect? There’s people who become your captors who are torturing you on a daily basis … How can you expect a person to change his ways for the better when treated with such disregard?” A Prison Service spokesperson said: “We abolished IPP sentences in 2012 and have already reduced the number of offenders serving them in prison by three-quarters. We have also taken decisive action to curtail IPP licence periods to give rehabilitated people the opportunity to move on with their lives. “Those still in custody are being helped to progress towards release through improved access to rehabilitation programmes and mental health support – but as a judge deemed them to be a high risk to the public the independent Parole Board must decide if they are safe to leave prison.” Explore more on these topics Prisons and probation UK criminal justice North of England England Wales features Share Reuse this content Riot police stand by as Joe Outlaw swings his prison jumpsuit on the roof of HMP Frankland. Photograph: Alex Elliott/North News/North News & Pictures northn View image in fullscreen Riot police stand by as Joe Outlaw swings his prison jumpsuit on the roof of HMP Frankland. Photograph: Alex Elliott/North News/North News & Pictures northn Riot police stand by as Joe Outlaw swings his prison jumpsuit on the roof of HMP Frankland. Photograph: Alex Elliott/North News/North News & Pictures northn View image in fullscreen Riot police stand by as Joe Outlaw swings his prison jumpsuit on the roof of HMP Frankland. Photograph: Alex Elliott/North News/North News & Pictures northn Riot police stand by as Joe Outlaw swings his prison jumpsuit on the roof of HMP Frankland. Photograph: Alex Elliott/North News/North News & Pictures northn View image in fullscreen Riot police stand by as Joe Outlaw swings his prison jumpsuit on the roof of HMP Frankland. Photograph: Alex Elliott/North News/North News & Pictures northn Riot police stand by as Joe Outlaw swings his prison jumpsuit on the roof of HMP Frankland. Photograph: Alex Elliott/North News/North News & Pictures northn View image in fullscreen Riot police stand by as Joe Outlaw swings his prison jumpsuit on the roof of HMP Frankland. Photograph: Alex Elliott/North News/North News & Pictures northn Riot police stand by as Joe Outlaw swings his prison jumpsuit on the roof of HMP Frankland. Photograph: Alex Elliott/North News/North News & Pictures northn Riot police stand by as Joe Outlaw swings his prison jumpsuit on the roof of HMP Frankland. Photograph: Alex Elliott/North News/North News & Pictures northn This article is more than 1 year old Meet the Outlaw escaping from prisons in protest against indefinite detention This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Meet the Outlaw escaping from prisons in protest against indefinite detention This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Meet the Outlaw escaping from prisons in protest against indefinite detention 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 Joe Outlaw is one of 2,921 inmates still on IPP sentences, which were abolished in 2012 Joe Outlaw is one of 2,921 inmates still on IPP sentences, which were abolished in 2012 Joe Outlaw is one of 2,921 inmates still on IPP sentences, which were abolished in 2012 It should be impossible to escape from a high-security prison, doubly so for prisoners held on the segregation unit, who are allowed only to exercise in a caged yard. But on 21 June, the summer solstice and the hottest day of the year at that point, Joe Outlaw managed to break through the cage and get on to the roof of HMP Frankland, a Durham prison dubbed “Monster mansion” due to many of its inmates being convicted murderers, terrorists and sex offenders. A local photographer captured Outlaw sunbathing in his underpants as he negotiated with prison officers from the National Tactical Response Group. Some social media users may have recognised Outlaw from TikTok and YouTube, where he used to post protest raps and songs from his cell. View image in fullscreen Screengrab from Joe Outlaw’s YouTube channel. Photograph: YouTube It was a huge embarrassment for the prison service, particularly as Outlaw was on the e-list (escape list) at the time. He shed the yellow and blue jumpsuit that indicates a flight risk only when he breached the cage, prompting huge cheers from the prisoners below. It was not Outlaw’s first rooftop rodeo. An expert climber since his youth, when he escaped from numerous care homes, in April this year he managed to get on to the roof at HMP Manchester, better known as Strangeways, by sneaking off from the healthcare unit and crawling through reels of barbed wire. For 12 soggy hours he sat up there in the driving rain to highlight the plight of prisoners in Wales and England, like himself, who are stuck in jail after being given imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences with no automatic date for release. Designed to protect the public from serious offenders whose crimes did not merit a life sentence, these indeterminate sentences were abolished in 2012 after it became apparent that they were “unclear and inconsistent” and resulted in people languishing in jail for many years, often for quite minor crimes, and with no clear path for release. “FREE IPPZ”, Outlaw wrote on Strangeways’ roof in gloss paint that kept running in the rain. View image in fullscreen Joe Outlaw on the roof of Strangeways in Manchester. Photograph: News Images/Alamy Outlaw, now 37, was given an IPP in 2011 after robbing his local takeaway with an imitation firearm while high on drugs. The IPP was imposed, he says, because he already had two firearms offences on his record – including one committed while a juvenile, when he fired a pellet gun in a public park. He knows his crime was serious. “I didn’t hurt him physically, but anyone pointing a gun at anyone is traumatising, and I don’t know what it’s done to [the takeaway worker’s] life. I’ve got to take responsibility for that, and I am sorry for that,” he told the Guardian in one of a series of letters. Outlaw – then going by the name Chris Hordosi, which he changed to Outlaw, his mother’s maiden name, while in prison – was given an IPP with an 18-year tariff, reduced to nine on appeal. Without the IPP element, he would have been eligible for automatic release after four and a half years. Yet 12 years later, he is still in prison, fighting against a system he thinks is rigged to make release all but impossible. He believes the lack of hope has killed other IPPs – 270 so far have died in prison, with 81 taking their own lives. Outlaw says he has tried to kill himself at least once, by setting fire to his cell – which ultimately resulted in an extra conviction for arson. He claims other IPPs have ended up committing murder in prison, figuring out they are basically in for life anyway. After his rooftop protest at Frankland, Outlaw was transferred to HMP Belmarsh, a Category A jail in London that holds some of the most dangerous prisoners in England and Wales. He claims that since 23 June he has been forced to live in “total isolation” on a special unit opened just for him. “I haven’t heard or seen another inmate in almost six months so far. This is not because I’m violent or a danger to anyone. In 13 years I’ve never assaulted a member of staff and I have only had one fight with an inmate [a paedophile in HMP Wakefield]. I have been totally isolated simply because I spoke out in protest against the ongoing illegal imprisonment of IPPs … and to silence my voice and activism,” he said. There is now near-unanimous agreement that IPPs are unfair, with the current justice secretary, Alex Chalk, calling them “a stain” on the justice system. As of 30 September, there were 2,921 IPP prisoners , 1,269 of whom have never been released, with the remaining 1,652 having been recalled to custody. A recent Independent Monitoring Board report on Belmarsh found it was holding four IPP prisoners, including Outlaw, telling ministers: “The Board considers it is inhumane to keep these men in prison for such lengthy periods.” The law is gone but they are still in jail: who will free Britain’s most wronged prisoners? | George Monbiot Read more Last month, Chalk announced reforms that would cut the time that released IPP prisoners serve on licence from 10 to three years. But it remains unclear whether the reforms will benefit Outlaw, who claims he has not been given any information about whether it will give him a pathway for release. He says he carried out his second rooftop protest at Frankland after suffering “horrid levels of abuse and neglect” there. The alternative was suicide, he said: “If I would have not taken that chance to do what I did there I would have ended up hanging myself, I swear to god.” He claims he hid strips of ripped-up bed sheets in his trainers, which he then used to tie himself to the exercise yard cage, while hanging upside down. He then managed to break the cage before he crawled through and on to the roof. “The most shocking thing was that I was in an e-list blue and yellow escape suit at the time, and just six weeks before, I had been on Manchester’s roof,” he said, describing it as “a new level of embarrassment for the Prison Service”, which “begs the question: what if this was a mass murderer or a millionaire drug dealer with a chopper?” Outlaw knows many people may read of his escapades and think: “Joey, no wonder you are not getting out.” But he insists that many far better behaved IPP prisoners are stuck. “Lads have been sweet as a nut, managed to dodge all the war zones, do all the bullshit courses and they still come up with some reason to keep them in,” he wrote. He claims he was originally told “all I had to do was keep my head down, behave and do my [rehabilitation] courses and I’d be back out in no time”. But in reality, he says, “every time lads would complete a course, a new one would be created and the goalposts moved again.” The Parole Board is inherently risk-averse when it comes to IPPs, he says. “They treat people that are in for fights or robbery like they are murderers.” Over 1,800 offenders to have indefinite jail sentences terminated, says MoJ Read more Prisons are corrupt, insists Outlaw. He claims to have watched drones deliver drugs to HMP Manchester every night, and “found myself just smoking weed, sniffing coke, taking Xanax – it was mental, everybody was just on a party mode constantly”. Officers turned a blind eye to rampant smartphone use, he claims, to the point that he started TikTok and YouTube channels to showcase his jailhouse songs, one of which, he claims, gathered more than 150,000 views in three days. He wants readers to put themselves in his shoes when viewing his protests. “What would you do when the people who are meant to be helping you are the ones who are abusing you, when no one around you cares or treats you with respect? There’s people who become your captors who are torturing you on a daily basis … How can you expect a person to change his ways for the better when treated with such disregard?” A Prison Service spokesperson said: “We abolished IPP sentences in 2012 and have already reduced the number of offenders serving them in prison by three-quarters. We have also taken decisive action to curtail IPP licence periods to give rehabilitated people the opportunity to move on with their lives. “Those still in custody are being helped to progress towards release through improved access to rehabilitation programmes and mental health support – but as a judge deemed them to be a high risk to the public the independent Parole Board must decide if they are safe to leave prison.” Explore more on these topics Prisons and probation UK criminal justice North of England England Wales features Share Reuse this content It should be impossible to escape from a high-security prison, doubly so for prisoners held on the segregation unit, who are allowed only to exercise in a caged yard. But on 21 June, the summer solstice and the hottest day of the year at that point, Joe Outlaw managed to break through the cage and get on to the roof of HMP Frankland, a Durham prison dubbed “Monster mansion” due to many of its inmates being convicted murderers, terrorists and sex offenders. A local photographer captured Outlaw sunbathing in his underpants as he negotiated with prison officers from the National Tactical Response Group. Some social media users may have recognised Outlaw from TikTok and YouTube, where he used to post protest raps and songs from his cell. View image in fullscreen Screengrab from Joe Outlaw’s YouTube channel. Photograph: YouTube It was a huge embarrassment for the prison service, particularly as Outlaw was on the e-list (escape list) at the time. He shed the yellow and blue jumpsuit that indicates a flight risk only when he breached the cage, prompting huge cheers from the prisoners below. It was not Outlaw’s first rooftop rodeo. An expert climber since his youth, when he escaped from numerous care homes, in April this year he managed to get on to the roof at HMP Manchester, better known as Strangeways, by sneaking off from the healthcare unit and crawling through reels of barbed wire. For 12 soggy hours he sat up there in the driving rain to highlight the plight of prisoners in Wales and England, like himself, who are stuck in jail after being given imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences with no automatic date for release. Designed to protect the public from serious offenders whose crimes did not merit a life sentence, these indeterminate sentences were abolished in 2012 after it became apparent that they were “unclear and inconsistent” and resulted in people languishing in jail for many years, often for quite minor crimes, and with no clear path for release. “FREE IPPZ”, Outlaw wrote on Strangeways’ roof in gloss paint that kept running in the rain. View image in fullscreen Joe Outlaw on the roof of Strangeways in Manchester. Photograph: News Images/Alamy Outlaw, now 37, was given an IPP in 2011 after robbing his local takeaway with an imitation firearm while high on drugs. The IPP was imposed, he says, because he already had two firearms offences on his record – including one committed while a juvenile, when he fired a pellet gun in a public park. He knows his crime was serious. “I didn’t hurt him physically, but anyone pointing a gun at anyone is traumatising, and I don’t know what it’s done to [the takeaway worker’s] life. I’ve got to take responsibility for that, and I am sorry for that,” he told the Guardian in one of a series of letters. Outlaw – then going by the name Chris Hordosi, which he changed to Outlaw, his mother’s maiden name, while in prison – was given an IPP with an 18-year tariff, reduced to nine on appeal. Without the IPP element, he would have been eligible for automatic release after four and a half years. Yet 12 years later, he is still in prison, fighting against a system he thinks is rigged to make release all but impossible. He believes the lack of hope has killed other IPPs – 270 so far have died in prison, with 81 taking their own lives. Outlaw says he has tried to kill himself at least once, by setting fire to his cell – which ultimately resulted in an extra conviction for arson. He claims other IPPs have ended up committing murder in prison, figuring out they are basically in for life anyway. After his rooftop protest at Frankland, Outlaw was transferred to HMP Belmarsh, a Category A jail in London that holds some of the most dangerous prisoners in England and Wales. He claims that since 23 June he has been forced to live in “total isolation” on a special unit opened just for him. “I haven’t heard or seen another inmate in almost six months so far. This is not because I’m violent or a danger to anyone. In 13 years I’ve never assaulted a member of staff and I have only had one fight with an inmate [a paedophile in HMP Wakefield]. I have been totally isolated simply because I spoke out in protest against the ongoing illegal imprisonment of IPPs … and to silence my voice and activism,” he said. There is now near-unanimous agreement that IPPs are unfair, with the current justice secretary, Alex Chalk, calling them “a stain” on the justice system. As of 30 September, there were 2,921 IPP prisoners , 1,269 of whom have never been released, with the remaining 1,652 having been recalled to custody. A recent Independent Monitoring Board report on Belmarsh found it was holding four IPP prisoners, including Outlaw, telling ministers: “The Board considers it is inhumane to keep these men in prison for such lengthy periods.” The law is gone but they are still in jail: who will free Britain’s most wronged prisoners? | George Monbiot Read more Last month, Chalk announced reforms that would cut the time that released IPP prisoners serve on licence from 10 to three years. But it remains unclear whether the reforms will benefit Outlaw, who claims he has not been given any information about whether it will give him a pathway for release. He says he carried out his second rooftop protest at Frankland after suffering “horrid levels of abuse and neglect” there. The alternative was suicide, he said: “If I would have not taken that chance to do what I did there I would have ended up hanging myself, I swear to god.” He claims he hid strips of ripped-up bed sheets in his trainers, which he then used to tie himself to the exercise yard cage, while hanging upside down. He then managed to break the cage before he crawled through and on to the roof. “The most shocking thing was that I was in an e-list blue and yellow escape suit at the time, and just six weeks before, I had been on Manchester’s roof,” he said, describing it as “a new level of embarrassment for the Prison Service”, which “begs the question: what if this was a mass murderer or a millionaire drug dealer with a chopper?” Outlaw knows many people may read of his escapades and think: “Joey, no wonder you are not getting out.” But he insists that many far better behaved IPP prisoners are stuck. “Lads have been sweet as a nut, managed to dodge all the war zones, do all the bullshit courses and they still come up with some reason to keep them in,” he wrote. He claims he was originally told “all I had to do was keep my head down, behave and do my [rehabilitation] courses and I’d be back out in no time”. But in reality, he says, “every time lads would complete a course, a new one would be created and the goalposts moved again.” The Parole Board is inherently risk-averse when it comes to IPPs, he says. “They treat people that are in for fights or robbery like they are murderers.” Over 1,800 offenders to have indefinite jail sentences terminated, says MoJ Read more Prisons are corrupt, insists Outlaw. He claims to have watched drones deliver drugs to HMP Manchester every night, and “found myself just smoking weed, sniffing coke, taking Xanax – it was mental, everybody was just on a party mode constantly”. Officers turned a blind eye to rampant smartphone use, he claims, to the point that he started TikTok and YouTube channels to showcase his jailhouse songs, one of which, he claims, gathered more than 150,000 views in three days. He wants readers to put themselves in his shoes when viewing his protests. “What would you do when the people who are meant to be helping you are the ones who are abusing you, when no one around you cares or treats you with respect? There’s people who become your captors who are torturing you on a daily basis … How can you expect a person to change his ways for the better when treated with such disregard?” A Prison Service spokesperson said: “We abolished IPP sentences in 2012 and have already reduced the number of offenders serving them in prison by three-quarters. We have also taken decisive action to curtail IPP licence periods to give rehabilitated people the opportunity to move on with their lives. “Those still in custody are being helped to progress towards release through improved access to rehabilitation programmes and mental health support – but as a judge deemed them to be a high risk to the public the independent Parole Board must decide if they are safe to leave prison.” Explore more on these topics Prisons and probation UK criminal justice North of England England Wales features Share Reuse this content It should be impossible to escape from a high-security prison, doubly so for prisoners held on the segregation unit, who are allowed only to exercise in a caged yard. But on 21 June, the summer solstice and the hottest day of the year at that point, Joe Outlaw managed to break through the cage and get on to the roof of HMP Frankland, a Durham prison dubbed “Monster mansion” due to many of its inmates being convicted murderers, terrorists and sex offenders. A local photographer captured Outlaw sunbathing in his underpants as he negotiated with prison officers from the National Tactical Response Group. Some social media users may have recognised Outlaw from TikTok and YouTube, where he used to post protest raps and songs from his cell. View image in fullscreen Screengrab from Joe Outlaw’s YouTube channel. Photograph: YouTube It was a huge embarrassment for the prison service, particularly as Outlaw was on the e-list (escape list) at the time. He shed the yellow and blue jumpsuit that indicates a flight risk only when he breached the cage, prompting huge cheers from the prisoners below. It was not Outlaw’s first rooftop rodeo. An expert climber since his youth, when he escaped from numerous care homes, in April this year he managed to get on to the roof at HMP Manchester, better known as Strangeways, by sneaking off from the healthcare unit and crawling through reels of barbed wire. For 12 soggy hours he sat up there in the driving rain to highlight the plight of prisoners in Wales and England, like himself, who are stuck in jail after being given imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences with no automatic date for release. Designed to protect the public from serious offenders whose crimes did not merit a life sentence, these indeterminate sentences were abolished in 2012 after it became apparent that they were “unclear and inconsistent” and resulted in people languishing in jail for many years, often for quite minor crimes, and with no clear path for release. “FREE IPPZ”, Outlaw wrote on Strangeways’ roof in gloss paint that kept running in the rain. View image in fullscreen Joe Outlaw on the roof of Strangeways in Manchester. Photograph: News Images/Alamy Outlaw, now 37, was given an IPP in 2011 after robbing his local takeaway with an imitation firearm while high on drugs. The IPP was imposed, he says, because he already had two firearms offences on his record – including one committed while a juvenile, when he fired a pellet gun in a public park. He knows his crime was serious. “I didn’t hurt him physically, but anyone pointing a gun at anyone is traumatising, and I don’t know what it’s done to [the takeaway worker’s] life. I’ve got to take responsibility for that, and I am sorry for that,” he told the Guardian in one of a series of letters. Outlaw – then going by the name Chris Hordosi, which he changed to Outlaw, his mother’s maiden name, while in prison – was given an IPP with an 18-year tariff, reduced to nine on appeal. Without the IPP element, he would have been eligible for automatic release after four and a half years. Yet 12 years later, he is still in prison, fighting against a system he thinks is rigged to make release all but impossible. He believes the lack of hope has killed other IPPs – 270 so far have died in prison, with 81 taking their own lives. Outlaw says he has tried to kill himself at least once, by setting fire to his cell – which ultimately resulted in an extra conviction for arson. He claims other IPPs have ended up committing murder in prison, figuring out they are basically in for life anyway. After his rooftop protest at Frankland, Outlaw was transferred to HMP Belmarsh, a Category A jail in London that holds some of the most dangerous prisoners in England and Wales. He claims that since 23 June he has been forced to live in “total isolation” on a special unit opened just for him. “I haven’t heard or seen another inmate in almost six months so far. This is not because I’m violent or a danger to anyone. In 13 years I’ve never assaulted a member of staff and I have only had one fight with an inmate [a paedophile in HMP Wakefield]. I have been totally isolated simply because I spoke out in protest against the ongoing illegal imprisonment of IPPs … and to silence my voice and activism,” he said. There is now near-unanimous agreement that IPPs are unfair, with the current justice secretary, Alex Chalk, calling them “a stain” on the justice system. As of 30 September, there were 2,921 IPP prisoners , 1,269 of whom have never been released, with the remaining 1,652 having been recalled to custody. A recent Independent Monitoring Board report on Belmarsh found it was holding four IPP prisoners, including Outlaw, telling ministers: “The Board considers it is inhumane to keep these men in prison for such lengthy periods.” The law is gone but they are still in jail: who will free Britain’s most wronged prisoners? | George Monbiot Read more Last month, Chalk announced reforms that would cut the time that released IPP prisoners serve on licence from 10 to three years. But it remains unclear whether the reforms will benefit Outlaw, who claims he has not been given any information about whether it will give him a pathway for release. He says he carried out his second rooftop protest at Frankland after suffering “horrid levels of abuse and neglect” there. The alternative was suicide, he said: “If I would have not taken that chance to do what I did there I would have ended up hanging myself, I swear to god.” He claims he hid strips of ripped-up bed sheets in his trainers, which he then used to tie himself to the exercise yard cage, while hanging upside down. He then managed to break the cage before he crawled through and on to the roof. “The most shocking thing was that I was in an e-list blue and yellow escape suit at the time, and just six weeks before, I had been on Manchester’s roof,” he said, describing it as “a new level of embarrassment for the Prison Service”, which “begs the question: what if this was a mass murderer or a millionaire drug dealer with a chopper?” Outlaw knows many people may read of his escapades and think: “Joey, no wonder you are not getting out.” But he insists that many far better behaved IPP prisoners are stuck. “Lads have been sweet as a nut, managed to dodge all the war zones, do all the bullshit courses and they still come up with some reason to keep them in,” he wrote. He claims he was originally told “all I had to do was keep my head down, behave and do my [rehabilitation] courses and I’d be back out in no time”. But in reality, he says, “every time lads would complete a course, a new one would be created and the goalposts moved again.” The Parole Board is inherently risk-averse when it comes to IPPs, he says. “They treat people that are in for fights or robbery like they are murderers.” Over 1,800 offenders to have indefinite jail sentences terminated, says MoJ Read more Prisons are corrupt, insists Outlaw. He claims to have watched drones deliver drugs to HMP Manchester every night, and “found myself just smoking weed, sniffing coke, taking Xanax – it was mental, everybody was just on a party mode constantly”. Officers turned a blind eye to rampant smartphone use, he claims, to the point that he started TikTok and YouTube channels to showcase his jailhouse songs, one of which, he claims, gathered more than 150,000 views in three days. He wants readers to put themselves in his shoes when viewing his protests. “What would you do when the people who are meant to be helping you are the ones who are abusing you, when no one around you cares or treats you with respect? There’s people who become your captors who are torturing you on a daily basis … How can you expect a person to change his ways for the better when treated with such disregard?” A Prison Service spokesperson said: “We abolished IPP sentences in 2012 and have already reduced the number of offenders serving them in prison by three-quarters. We have also taken decisive action to curtail IPP licence periods to give rehabilitated people the opportunity to move on with their lives. “Those still in custody are being helped to progress towards release through improved access to rehabilitation programmes and mental health support – but as a judge deemed them to be a high risk to the public the independent Parole Board must decide if they are safe to leave prison.” It should be impossible to escape from a high-security prison, doubly so for prisoners held on the segregation unit, who are allowed only to exercise in a caged yard. But on 21 June, the summer solstice and the hottest day of the year at that point, Joe Outlaw managed to break through the cage and get on to the roof of HMP Frankland, a Durham prison dubbed “Monster mansion” due to many of its inmates being convicted murderers, terrorists and sex offenders. A local photographer captured Outlaw sunbathing in his underpants as he negotiated with prison officers from the National Tactical Response Group. Some social media users may have recognised Outlaw from TikTok and YouTube, where he used to post protest raps and songs from his cell. View image in fullscreen Screengrab from Joe Outlaw’s YouTube channel. Photograph: YouTube It was a huge embarrassment for the prison service, particularly as Outlaw was on the e-list (escape list) at the time. He shed the yellow and blue jumpsuit that indicates a flight risk only when he breached the cage, prompting huge cheers from the prisoners below. It was not Outlaw’s first rooftop rodeo. An expert climber since his youth, when he escaped from numerous care homes, in April this year he managed to get on to the roof at HMP Manchester, better known as Strangeways, by sneaking off from the healthcare unit and crawling through reels of barbed wire. For 12 soggy hours he sat up there in the driving rain to highlight the plight of prisoners in Wales and England, like himself, who are stuck in jail after being given imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences with no automatic date for release. Designed to protect the public from serious offenders whose crimes did not merit a life sentence, these indeterminate sentences were abolished in 2012 after it became apparent that they were “unclear and inconsistent” and resulted in people languishing in jail for many years, often for quite minor crimes, and with no clear path for release. “FREE IPPZ”, Outlaw wrote on Strangeways’ roof in gloss paint that kept running in the rain. View image in fullscreen Joe Outlaw on the roof of Strangeways in Manchester. Photograph: News Images/Alamy Outlaw, now 37, was given an IPP in 2011 after robbing his local takeaway with an imitation firearm while high on drugs. The IPP was imposed, he says, because he already had two firearms offences on his record – including one committed while a juvenile, when he fired a pellet gun in a public park. He knows his crime was serious. “I didn’t hurt him physically, but anyone pointing a gun at anyone is traumatising, and I don’t know wha
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
Fiction to look out for in 2024
Clockwise from top left: James by Percival Everett; Lauren Elkin; The Vulnerables by Sigrid Nunez; Evie Wyld; This Strange Eventful History by Claire Messud; Kevin Barry; My Friends by Hisham Matar; and Miranda July. Composite: Gary Calton, Sophia Evans, Karen Robinson View image in fullscreen Clockwise from top left: James by Percival Everett; Lauren Elkin; The Vulnerables by Sigrid Nunez; Evie Wyld; This Strange Eventful History by Claire Messud; Kevin Barry; My Friends by Hisham Matar; and Miranda July. Composite: Gary Calton, Sophia Evans, Karen Robinson This article is more than 1 year old Fiction to look out for in 2024 This article is more than 1 year old The first great lockdown novel, new tales from David Nicholls, Sarah Perry and Percival Everett, and Rachel Kushner’s contender for the Booker… next year promises to be special Nonfiction to look out for in 2024 T here’s a sensational selection of novels to look forward to in 2024, enough to set even the most discerning reader’s heart aflutter. Does it feel like a more ambitious and warm-hearted fictional year than usual? Perhaps. Certainly there are a number of novels here that will be read for decades to come. As usual, I will leave first novels to the Observer ’s debut fiction feature next month. In January, we kick things off with My Friends (Viking) by Hisham Matar, a powerful story of friendship and loss. Khaled and Mustafa are wounded by government agents during a protest at the Libyan embassy in London. The pair find themselves torn between the comforts of their life in the UK and the horrors of a civil war at home. Sigrid Nunez’s The Vulnerables (Virago) is the first great lockdown novel (Nunez, of course, has pandemic form – Salvation City was about a flu epidemic). Beginning in the spring of 2020, The Vulnerables tells the story of an unlikely couple thrown together by the confines of Covid: an older writer and a young college dropout, united by their shared responsibility for a cantankerous parrot called Eureka. April brings yet another novel by the prolific Percival Everett. James (Mantle) – his 28th work of fiction in a career spanning 40 years – is a retelling of Huckleberry Finn from the perspective of Jim, fleeing slavery with young Huck. It’s a rambunctious, perspective-altering book, keeping the adventurous spirit of the original but full of contemporary resonances. Another generous novel with a journey at its centre is You Are Here (Sceptre) by David Nicholls. Marnie and Michael are stuck in the midlife doldrums until they meet on a 10-day hike through the Lakes and Dales. No one does the minutiae of love as well as Nicholls, and while this is a more mature and cagoule-wearing novel than One Day or Sweet Sorrow , it delivers the same satisfying emotional punch. April also sees a new novel from the great Andrew O’Hagan. Caledonian Road (Faber) is the story of Campbell Flynn, a Scot teaching art history in London. When he meets a charismatic young student, Milo Mangasha, he’s struck at once by the “potential for things to get wayward”. It’s a barnstorming book, taking us deep into a London of wealth, crime, fashion and art. I danced a jig when Sarah Perry’s latest novel, Enlightenment (Jonathan Cape, May), landed on my doorstep. It’s glorious, doing what her books do best: intertwining a love story with reams of esoteric learning and big ideas. Enlightenment ranges boundlessly across space and time – from a touching portrait of the friendship between Grace and Thomas, co-worshippers at an Essex Baptist church, to the work of Maria Veduva, a 19th-century astronomer whose ghost haunts a local stately home. This is a beautiful, memorable novel. Also in May, there’s the great Claire Messud , with This Strange Eventful History (Fleet), the sweeping tale of a family – the Cassars – whose life takes them from second world war Paris to the US, Cuba, Australia and beyond over the decades that follow. It’s almost unbearably moving, wise and full of the most gorgeous prose. Finally in May, there’s All Fours (Canongate) by screenwriter and director Miranda July. Usually, Hollywood novels are an embarrassment (or just very boring – thanks Mr Hanks). July, though, is a proper novelist and this is a great book about art, fame and reinvention. I loved Lauren Elkin’s Flâneuse ; in Scaffolding (Chatto & Windus), out in June, she tells the story of two couples who live at the same address in north-east Paris in 1972 and 2019. It’s atmospheric and evocative, the prose elegant and poised. It has been five years since Kevin Barry’s last novel, Night Boat to Tangier . In his latest, The Heart in Winter (Canongate), also published in June, Barry moves to Montana in the 1890s. It’s an Irish western, by turns funny and tragic, full of typically outrageous figures and sublime writing. August sees the publication of the final novel in Catalan writer Eva Baltasar’s unnamed trilogy (the previous book, Boulder , was shortlisted for 2023’s International Booker). Mammoth (And Other Stories), again translated by Julia Sanches, is about an unnamed young lesbian woman who yearns to be a mother. She carves a riotous path from Barcelona to the Catalan countryside, her story told in jagged sentences and eccentric metaphorical language. Benjamin Myers is another whose prolific output doesn’t diminish the quality of his writing: Rare Singles (Bloomsbury) returns Myers to his past as a music journalist, telling a warmly nostalgic tale of northern soul and unlikely friendship in Scarborough. The great but forgotten Bucky Bronco’s visit to the Yorkshire coast is handled with Myers’s customary humour and generosity of spirit. Next, thrillingly, there’s Evie Wyld’s The Echoes (Jonathan Cape). Wyld has always been in a category of her own, but this is stranger, darker and more brilliant than anything she’s written before. Max is dead; we know this because the opening of the novel is narrated by his ghost. The book laces between south London and Australia, between Max, his girlfriend Hannah, and a wide circle of their friends and family, all of their stories hurtling towards the novel’s hallucinatory ending. This is a book that will stay with you for ever – both intimate and extraordinarily ambitious. Finally, in September, there’s my early pick for this year’s Booker: Creation Lake (Jonathan Cape) by Rachel Kushner . It’s a wild and brilliantly plotted piece of science fiction. This is the story of a secret agent, the redoubtable Sadie Smith, sent to infiltrate and disrupt a group of “anti-civvers” – eco-terrorists – in a France of the near future where industrial agriculture and sinister corporations dominate the landscape. Think Kill Bill written by John le Carré: smart, funny and compulsively readable. 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 Fiction 2024 culture preview Percival Everett David Nicholls Sarah Perry Claire Messud Miranda July Rachel Kushner features Share Reuse this content Clockwise from top left: James by Percival Everett; Lauren Elkin; The Vulnerables by Sigrid Nunez; Evie Wyld; This Strange Eventful History by Claire Messud; Kevin Barry; My Friends by Hisham Matar; and Miranda July. Composite: Gary Calton, Sophia Evans, Karen Robinson View image in fullscreen Clockwise from top left: James by Percival Everett; Lauren Elkin; The Vulnerables by Sigrid Nunez; Evie Wyld; This Strange Eventful History by Claire Messud; Kevin Barry; My Friends by Hisham Matar; and Miranda July. Composite: Gary Calton, Sophia Evans, Karen Robinson This article is more than 1 year old Fiction to look out for in 2024 This article is more than 1 year old The first great lockdown novel, new tales from David Nicholls, Sarah Perry and Percival Everett, and Rachel Kushner’s contender for the Booker… next year promises to be special Nonfiction to look out for in 2024 T here’s a sensational selection of novels to look forward to in 2024, enough to set even the most discerning reader’s heart aflutter. Does it feel like a more ambitious and warm-hearted fictional year than usual? Perhaps. Certainly there are a number of novels here that will be read for decades to come. As usual, I will leave first novels to the Observer ’s debut fiction feature next month. In January, we kick things off with My Friends (Viking) by Hisham Matar, a powerful story of friendship and loss. Khaled and Mustafa are wounded by government agents during a protest at the Libyan embassy in London. The pair find themselves torn between the comforts of their life in the UK and the horrors of a civil war at home. Sigrid Nunez’s The Vulnerables (Virago) is the first great lockdown novel (Nunez, of course, has pandemic form – Salvation City was about a flu epidemic). Beginning in the spring of 2020, The Vulnerables tells the story of an unlikely couple thrown together by the confines of Covid: an older writer and a young college dropout, united by their shared responsibility for a cantankerous parrot called Eureka. April brings yet another novel by the prolific Percival Everett. James (Mantle) – his 28th work of fiction in a career spanning 40 years – is a retelling of Huckleberry Finn from the perspective of Jim, fleeing slavery with young Huck. It’s a rambunctious, perspective-altering book, keeping the adventurous spirit of the original but full of contemporary resonances. Another generous novel with a journey at its centre is You Are Here (Sceptre) by David Nicholls. Marnie and Michael are stuck in the midlife doldrums until they meet on a 10-day hike through the Lakes and Dales. No one does the minutiae of love as well as Nicholls, and while this is a more mature and cagoule-wearing novel than One Day or Sweet Sorrow , it delivers the same satisfying emotional punch. April also sees a new novel from the great Andrew O’Hagan. Caledonian Road (Faber) is the story of Campbell Flynn, a Scot teaching art history in London. When he meets a charismatic young student, Milo Mangasha, he’s struck at once by the “potential for things to get wayward”. It’s a barnstorming book, taking us deep into a London of wealth, crime, fashion and art. I danced a jig when Sarah Perry’s latest novel, Enlightenment (Jonathan Cape, May), landed on my doorstep. It’s glorious, doing what her books do best: intertwining a love story with reams of esoteric learning and big ideas. Enlightenment ranges boundlessly across space and time – from a touching portrait of the friendship between Grace and Thomas, co-worshippers at an Essex Baptist church, to the work of Maria Veduva, a 19th-century astronomer whose ghost haunts a local stately home. This is a beautiful, memorable novel. Also in May, there’s the great Claire Messud , with This Strange Eventful History (Fleet), the sweeping tale of a family – the Cassars – whose life takes them from second world war Paris to the US, Cuba, Australia and beyond over the decades that follow. It’s almost unbearably moving, wise and full of the most gorgeous prose. Finally in May, there’s All Fours (Canongate) by screenwriter and director Miranda July. Usually, Hollywood novels are an embarrassment (or just very boring – thanks Mr Hanks). July, though, is a proper novelist and this is a great book about art, fame and reinvention. I loved Lauren Elkin’s Flâneuse ; in Scaffolding (Chatto & Windus), out in June, she tells the story of two couples who live at the same address in north-east Paris in 1972 and 2019. It’s atmospheric and evocative, the prose elegant and poised. It has been five years since Kevin Barry’s last novel, Night Boat to Tangier . In his latest, The Heart in Winter (Canongate), also published in June, Barry moves to Montana in the 1890s. It’s an Irish western, by turns funny and tragic, full of typically outrageous figures and sublime writing. August sees the publication of the final novel in Catalan writer Eva Baltasar’s unnamed trilogy (the previous book, Boulder , was shortlisted for 2023’s International Booker). Mammoth (And Other Stories), again translated by Julia Sanches, is about an unnamed young lesbian woman who yearns to be a mother. She carves a riotous path from Barcelona to the Catalan countryside, her story told in jagged sentences and eccentric metaphorical language. Benjamin Myers is another whose prolific output doesn’t diminish the quality of his writing: Rare Singles (Bloomsbury) returns Myers to his past as a music journalist, telling a warmly nostalgic tale of northern soul and unlikely friendship in Scarborough. The great but forgotten Bucky Bronco’s visit to the Yorkshire coast is handled with Myers’s customary humour and generosity of spirit. Next, thrillingly, there’s Evie Wyld’s The Echoes (Jonathan Cape). Wyld has always been in a category of her own, but this is stranger, darker and more brilliant than anything she’s written before. Max is dead; we know this because the opening of the novel is narrated by his ghost. The book laces between south London and Australia, between Max, his girlfriend Hannah, and a wide circle of their friends and family, all of their stories hurtling towards the novel’s hallucinatory ending. This is a book that will stay with you for ever – both intimate and extraordinarily ambitious. Finally, in September, there’s my early pick for this year’s Booker: Creation Lake (Jonathan Cape) by Rachel Kushner . It’s a wild and brilliantly plotted piece of science fiction. This is the story of a secret agent, the redoubtable Sadie Smith, sent to infiltrate and disrupt a group of “anti-civvers” – eco-terrorists – in a France of the near future where industrial agriculture and sinister corporations dominate the landscape. Think Kill Bill written by John le Carré: smart, funny and compulsively readable. 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 Fiction 2024 culture preview Percival Everett David Nicholls Sarah Perry Claire Messud Miranda July Rachel Kushner features Share Reuse this content Clockwise from top left: James by Percival Everett; Lauren Elkin; The Vulnerables by Sigrid Nunez; Evie Wyld; This Strange Eventful History by Claire Messud; Kevin Barry; My Friends by Hisham Matar; and Miranda July. Composite: Gary Calton, Sophia Evans, Karen Robinson View image in fullscreen Clockwise from top left: James by Percival Everett; Lauren Elkin; The Vulnerables by Sigrid Nunez; Evie Wyld; This Strange Eventful History by Claire Messud; Kevin Barry; My Friends by Hisham Matar; and Miranda July. Composite: Gary Calton, Sophia Evans, Karen Robinson Clockwise from top left: James by Percival Everett; Lauren Elkin; The Vulnerables by Sigrid Nunez; Evie Wyld; This Strange Eventful History by Claire Messud; Kevin Barry; My Friends by Hisham Matar; and Miranda July. Composite: Gary Calton, Sophia Evans, Karen Robinson View image in fullscreen Clockwise from top left: James by Percival Everett; Lauren Elkin; The Vulnerables by Sigrid Nunez; Evie Wyld; This Strange Eventful History by Claire Messud; Kevin Barry; My Friends by Hisham Matar; and Miranda July. Composite: Gary Calton, Sophia Evans, Karen Robinson Clockwise from top left: James by Percival Everett; Lauren Elkin; The Vulnerables by Sigrid Nunez; Evie Wyld; This Strange Eventful History by Claire Messud; Kevin Barry; My Friends by Hisham Matar; and Miranda July. Composite: Gary Calton, Sophia Evans, Karen Robinson View image in fullscreen Clockwise from top left: James by Percival Everett; Lauren Elkin; The Vulnerables by Sigrid Nunez; Evie Wyld; This Strange Eventful History by Claire Messud; Kevin Barry; My Friends by Hisham Matar; and Miranda July. Composite: Gary Calton, Sophia Evans, Karen Robinson Clockwise from top left: James by Percival Everett; Lauren Elkin; The Vulnerables by Sigrid Nunez; Evie Wyld; This Strange Eventful History by Claire Messud; Kevin Barry; My Friends by Hisham Matar; and Miranda July. Composite: Gary Calton, Sophia Evans, Karen Robinson View image in fullscreen Clockwise from top left: James by Percival Everett; Lauren Elkin; The Vulnerables by Sigrid Nunez; Evie Wyld; This Strange Eventful History by Claire Messud; Kevin Barry; My Friends by Hisham Matar; and Miranda July. Composite: Gary Calton, Sophia Evans, Karen Robinson Clockwise from top left: James by Percival Everett; Lauren Elkin; The Vulnerables by Sigrid Nunez; Evie Wyld; This Strange Eventful History by Claire Messud; Kevin Barry; My Friends by Hisham Matar; and Miranda July. Composite: Gary Calton, Sophia Evans, Karen Robinson Clockwise from top left: James by Percival Everett; Lauren Elkin; The Vulnerables by Sigrid Nunez; Evie Wyld; This Strange Eventful History by Claire Messud; Kevin Barry; My Friends by Hisham Matar; and Miranda July. Composite: Gary Calton, Sophia Evans, Karen Robinson This article is more than 1 year old Fiction to look out for in 2024 This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Fiction to look out for in 2024 This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Fiction to look out for in 2024 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 first great lockdown novel, new tales from David Nicholls, Sarah Perry and Percival Everett, and Rachel Kushner’s contender for the Booker… next year promises to be special Nonfiction to look out for in 2024 The first great lockdown novel, new tales from David Nicholls, Sarah Perry and Percival Everett, and Rachel Kushner’s contender for the Booker… next year promises to be special Nonfiction to look out for in 2024 The first great lockdown novel, new tales from David Nicholls, Sarah Perry and Percival Everett, and Rachel Kushner’s contender for the Booker… next year promises to be special T here’s a sensational selection of novels to look forward to in 2024, enough to set even the most discerning reader’s heart aflutter. Does it feel like a more ambitious and warm-hearted fictional year than usual? Perhaps. Certainly there are a number of novels here that will be read for decades to come. As usual, I will leave first novels to the Observer ’s debut fiction feature next month. In January, we kick things off with My Friends (Viking) by Hisham Matar, a powerful story of friendship and loss. Khaled and Mustafa are wounded by government agents during a protest at the Libyan embassy in London. The pair find themselves torn between the comforts of their life in the UK and the horrors of a civil war at home. Sigrid Nunez’s The Vulnerables (Virago) is the first great lockdown novel (Nunez, of course, has pandemic form – Salvation City was about a flu epidemic). Beginning in the spring of 2020, The Vulnerables tells the story of an unlikely couple thrown together by the confines of Covid: an older writer and a young college dropout, united by their shared responsibility for a cantankerous parrot called Eureka. April brings yet another novel by the prolific Percival Everett. James (Mantle) – his 28th work of fiction in a career spanning 40 years – is a retelling of Huckleberry Finn from the perspective of Jim, fleeing slavery with young Huck. It’s a rambunctious, perspective-altering book, keeping the adventurous spirit of the original but full of contemporary resonances. Another generous novel with a journey at its centre is You Are Here (Sceptre) by David Nicholls. Marnie and Michael are stuck in the midlife doldrums until they meet on a 10-day hike through the Lakes and Dales. No one does the minutiae of love as well as Nicholls, and while this is a more mature and cagoule-wearing novel than One Day or Sweet Sorrow , it delivers the same satisfying emotional punch. April also sees a new novel from the great Andrew O’Hagan. Caledonian Road (Faber) is the story of Campbell Flynn, a Scot teaching art history in London. When he meets a charismatic young student, Milo Mangasha, he’s struck at once by the “potential for things to get wayward”. It’s a barnstorming book, taking us deep into a London of wealth, crime, fashion and art. I danced a jig when Sarah Perry’s latest novel, Enlightenment (Jonathan Cape, May), landed on my doorstep. It’s glorious, doing what her books do best: intertwining a love story with reams of esoteric learning and big ideas. Enlightenment ranges boundlessly across space and time – from a touching portrait of the friendship between Grace and Thomas, co-worshippers at an Essex Baptist church, to the work of Maria Veduva, a 19th-century astronomer whose ghost haunts a local stately home. This is a beautiful, memorable novel. Also in May, there’s the great Claire Messud , with This Strange Eventful History (Fleet), the sweeping tale of a family – the Cassars – whose life takes them from second world war Paris to the US, Cuba, Australia and beyond over the decades that follow. It’s almost unbearably moving, wise and full of the most gorgeous prose. Finally in May, there’s All Fours (Canongate) by screenwriter and director Miranda July. Usually, Hollywood novels are an embarrassment (or just very boring – thanks Mr Hanks). July, though, is a proper novelist and this is a great book about art, fame and reinvention. I loved Lauren Elkin’s Flâneuse ; in Scaffolding (Chatto & Windus), out in June, she tells the story of two couples who live at the same address in north-east Paris in 1972 and 2019. It’s atmospheric and evocative, the prose elegant and poised. It has been five years since Kevin Barry’s last novel, Night Boat to Tangier . In his latest, The Heart in Winter (Canongate), also published in June, Barry moves to Montana in the 1890s. It’s an Irish western, by turns funny and tragic, full of typically outrageous figures and sublime writing. August sees the publication of the final novel in Catalan writer Eva Baltasar’s unnamed trilogy (the previous book, Boulder , was shortlisted for 2023’s International Booker). Mammoth (And Other Stories), again translated by Julia Sanches, is about an unnamed young lesbian woman who yearns to be a mother. She carves a riotous path from Barcelona to the Catalan countryside, her story told in jagged sentences and eccentric metaphorical language. Benjamin Myers is another whose prolific output doesn’t diminish the quality of his writing: Rare Singles (Bloomsbury) returns Myers to his past as a music journalist, telling a warmly nostalgic tale of northern soul and unlikely friendship in Scarborough. The great but forgotten Bucky Bronco’s visit to the Yorkshire coast is handled with Myers’s customary humour and generosity of spirit. Next, thrillingly, there’s Evie Wyld’s The Echoes (Jonathan Cape). Wyld has always been in a category of her own, but this is stranger, darker and more brilliant than anything she’s written before. Max is dead; we know this because the opening of the novel is narrated by his ghost. The book laces between south London and Australia, between Max, his girlfriend Hannah, and a wide circle of their friends and family, all of their stories hurtling towards the novel’s hallucinatory ending. This is a book that will stay with you for ever – both intimate and extraordinarily ambitious. Finally, in September, there’s my early pick for this year’s Booker: Creation Lake (Jonathan Cape) by Rachel Kushner . It’s a wild and brilliantly plotted piece of science fiction. This is the story of a secret agent, the redoubtable Sadie Smith, sent to infiltrate and disrupt a group of “anti-civvers” – eco-terrorists – in a France of the near future where industrial agriculture and sinister corporations dominate the landscape. Think Kill Bill written by John le Carré: smart, funny and compulsively readable. 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 Fiction 2024 culture preview Percival Everett David Nicholls Sarah Perry Claire Messud Miranda July Rachel Kushner features Share Reuse this content T here’s a sensational selection of novels to look forward to in 2024, enough to set even the most discerning reader’s heart aflutter. Does it feel like a more ambitious and warm-hearted fictional year than usual? Perhaps. Certainly there are a number of novels here that will be read for decades to come. As usual, I will leave first novels to the Observer ’s debut fiction feature next month. In January, we kick things off with My Friends (Viking) by Hisham Matar, a powerful story of friendship and loss. Khaled and Mustafa are wounded by government agents during a protest at the Libyan embassy in London. The pair find themselves torn between the comforts of their life in the UK and the horrors of a civil war at home. Sigrid Nunez’s The Vulnerables (Virago) is the first great lockdown novel (Nunez, of course, has pandemic form – Salvation City was about a flu epidemic). Beginning in the spring of 2020, The Vulnerables tells the story of an unlikely couple thrown together by the confines of Covid: an older writer and a young college dropout, united by their shared responsibility for a cantankerous parrot called Eureka. April brings yet another novel by the prolific Percival Everett. James (Mantle) – his 28th work of fiction in a career spanning 40 years – is a retelling of Huckleberry Finn from the perspective of Jim, fleeing slavery with young Huck. It’s a rambunctious, perspective-altering book, keeping the adventurous spirit of the original but full of contemporary resonances. Another generous novel with a journey at its centre is You Are Here (Sceptre) by David Nicholls. Marnie and Michael are stuck in the midlife doldrums until they meet on a 10-day hike through the Lakes and Dales. No one does the minutiae of love as well as Nicholls, and while this is a more mature and cagoule-wearing novel than One Day or Sweet Sorrow , it delivers the same satisfying emotional punch. April also sees a new novel from the great Andrew O’Hagan. Caledonian Road (Faber) is the story of Campbell Flynn, a Scot teaching art history in London. When he meets a charismatic young student, Milo Mangasha, he’s struck at once by the “potential for things to get wayward”. It’s a barnstorming book, taking us deep into a London of wealth, crime, fashion and art. I danced a jig when Sarah Perry’s latest novel, Enlightenment (Jonathan Cape, May), landed on my doorstep. It’s glorious, doing what her books do best: intertwining a love story with reams of esoteric learning and big ideas. Enlightenment ranges boundlessly across space and time – from a touching portrait of the friendship between Grace and Thomas, co-worshippers at an Essex Baptist church, to the work of Maria Veduva, a 19th-century astronomer whose ghost haunts a local stately home. This is a beautiful, memorable novel. Also in May, there’s the great Claire Messud , with This Strange Eventful History (Fleet), the sweeping tale of a family – the Cassars – whose life takes them from second world war Paris to the US, Cuba, Australia and beyond over the decades that follow. It’s almost unbearably moving, wise and full of the most gorgeous prose. Finally in May, there’s All Fours (Canongate) by screenwriter and director Miranda July. Usually, Hollywood novels are an embarrassment (or just very boring – thanks Mr Hanks). July, though, is a proper novelist and this is a great book about art, fame and reinvention. I loved Lauren Elkin’s Flâneuse ; in Scaffolding (Chatto & Windus), out in June, she tells the story of two couples who live at the same address in north-east Paris in 1972 and 2019. It’s atmospheric and evocative, the prose elegant and poised. It has been five years since Kevin Barry’s last novel, Night Boat to Tangier . In his latest, The Heart in Winter (Canongate), also published in June, Barry moves to Montana in the 1890s. It’s an Irish western, by turns funny and tragic, full of typically outrageous figures and sublime writing. August sees the publication of the final novel in Catalan writer Eva Baltasar’s unnamed trilogy (the previous book, Boulder , was shortlisted for 2023’s International Booker). Mammoth (And Other Stories), again translated by Julia Sanches, is about an unnamed young lesbian woman who yearns to be a mother. She carves a riotous path from Barcelona to the Catalan countryside, her story told in jagged sentences and eccentric metaphorical language. Benjamin Myers is another whose prolific output doesn’t diminish the quality of his writing: Rare Singles (Bloomsbury) returns Myers to his past as a music journalist, telling a warmly nostalgic tale of northern soul and unlikely friendship in Scarborough. The great but forgotten Bucky Bronco’s visit to the Yorkshire coast is handled with Myers’s customary humour and generosity of spirit. Next, thrillingly, there’s Evie Wyld’s The Echoes (Jonathan Cape). Wyld has always been in a category of her own, but this is stranger, darker and more brilliant than anything she’s written before. Max is dead; we know this because the opening of the novel is narrated by his ghost. The book laces between south London and Australia, between Max, his girlfriend Hannah, and a wide circle of their friends and family, all of their stories hurtling towards the novel’s hallucinatory ending. This is a book that will stay with you for ever – both intimate and extraordinarily ambitious. Finally, in September, there’s my early pick for this year’s Booker: Creation Lake (Jonathan Cape) by Rachel Kushner . It’s a wild and brilliantly plotted piece of science fiction. This is the story of a secret agent, the redoubtable Sadie Smith, sent to infiltrate and disrupt a group of “anti-civvers” – eco-terrorists – in a France of the near future where industrial agriculture and sinister corporations dominate the landscape. Think Kill Bill written by John le Carré: smart, funny and compulsively readable. 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 Fiction 2024 culture preview Percival Everett David Nicholls Sarah Perry Claire Messud Miranda July Rachel Kushner features Share Reuse this content T here’s a sensational selection of novels to look forward to in 2024, enough to set even the most discerning reader’s heart aflutter. Does it feel like a more ambitious and warm-hearted fictional year than usual? Perhaps. Certainly there are a number of novels here that will be read for decades to come. As usual, I will leave first novels to the Observer ’s debut fiction feature next month. In January, we kick things off with My Friends (Viking) by Hisham Matar, a powerful story of friendship and loss. Khaled and Mustafa are wounded by government agents during a protest at the Libyan embassy in London. The pair find themselves torn between the comforts of their life in the UK and the horrors of a civil war at home. Sigrid Nunez’s The Vulnerables (Virago) is the first great lockdown novel (Nunez, of course, has pandemic form – Salvation City was about a flu epidemic). Beginning in the spring of 2020, The Vulnerables tells the story of an unlikely couple thrown together by the confines of Covid: an older writer and a young college dropout, united by their shared responsibility for a cantankerous parrot called Eureka. April brings yet another novel by the prolific Percival Everett. James (Mantle) – his 28th work of fiction in a career spanning 40 years – is a retelling of Huckleberry Finn from the perspective of Jim, fleeing slavery with young Huck. It’s a rambunctious, perspective-altering book, keeping the adventurous spirit of the original but full of contemporary resonances. Another generous novel with a journey at its centre is You Are Here (Sceptre) by David Nicholls. Marnie and Michael are stuck in the midlife doldrums until they meet on a 10-day hike through the Lakes and Dales. No one does the minutiae of love as well as Nicholls, and while this is a more mature and cagoule-wearing novel than One Day or Sweet Sorrow , it delivers the same satisfying emotional punch. April also sees a new novel from the great Andrew O’Hagan. Caledonian Road (Faber) is the story of Campbell Flynn, a Scot teaching art history in London. When he meets a charismatic young student, Milo Mangasha, he’s struck at once by the “potential for things to get wayward”. It’s a barnstorming book, taking us deep into a London of wealth, crime, fashion and art. I danced a jig when Sarah Perry’s latest novel, Enlightenment (Jonathan Cape, May), landed on my doorstep. It’s glorious, doing what her books do best: intertwining a love story with reams of esoteric learning and big ideas. Enlightenment ranges boundlessly across space and time – from a touching portrait of the friendship between Grace and Thomas, co-worshippers at an Essex Baptist church, to the work of Maria Veduva, a 19th-century astronomer whose ghost haunts a local stately home. This is a beautiful, memorable novel. Also in May, there’s the great Claire Messud , with This Strange Eventful History (Fleet), the sweeping tale of a family – the Cassars – whose life takes them from second world war Paris to the US, Cuba, Australia and beyond over the decades that follow. It’s almost unbearably moving, wise and full of the most gorgeous prose. Finally in May, there’s All Fours (Canongate) by screenwriter and director Miranda July. Usually, Hollywood novels are an embarrassment (or just very boring – thanks Mr Hanks). July, though, is a proper novelist and this is a great book about art, fame and reinvention. I loved Lauren Elkin’s Flâneuse ; in Scaffolding (Chatto & Windus), out in June, she tells the story of two couples who live at the same address in north-east Paris in 1972 and 2019. It’s atmospheric and evocative, the prose elegant and poised. It has been five years since Kevin Barry’s last novel, Night Boat to Tangier . In his latest, The Heart in Winter (Canongate), also published in June, Barry moves to Montana in the 1890s. It’s an Irish western, by turns funny and tragic, full of typically outrageous figures and sublime writing. August sees the publication of the final novel in Catalan writer Eva Baltasar’s unnamed trilogy (the previous book, Boulder , was shortlisted for 2023’s International Booker). Mammoth (And Other Stories), again translated by Julia Sanches, is about an unnamed young lesbian woman who yearns to be a mother. She carves a riotous path from Barcelona to the Catalan countryside, her story told in jagged sentences and eccentric metaphorical language. Benjamin Myers is another whose prolific output doesn’t diminish the quality of his writing: Rare Singles (Bloomsbury) returns Myers to his past as a music journalist, telling a warmly nostalgic tale of northern soul and unlikely friendship in Scarborough. The great but forgotten Bucky Bronco’s visit to the Yorkshire coast is handled with Myers’s customary humour and generosity of spirit. Next, thrillingly, there’s Evie Wyld’s The Echoes (Jonathan Cape). Wyld has always been in a category of her own, but this is stranger, darker and more brilliant than anything she’s written before. Max is dead; we know this because the opening of the novel is narrated by his ghost. The book laces between south London and Australia, between Max, his girlfriend Hannah, and a wide circle of their friends and family, all of their stories hurtling towards the novel’s hallucinatory ending. This is a book that will stay with you for ever – both intimate and extraordinarily ambitious. Finally, in September, there’s my early pick for this year’s Booker: Creation Lake (Jonathan Cape) by Rachel Kushner . It’s a wild and brilliantly plotted piece of science fiction. This is the story of a secret agent, the redoubtable Sadie Smith, sent to infiltrate and disrupt a group of “anti-civvers” – eco-terrorists – in a France of the near future where industrial agriculture and sinister corporations dominate the landscape. Think Kill Bill written by John le Carré: smart, funny and compulsively readable. T here’s a sensational selection of novels to look forward to in 2024, enough to set even the most discerning reader’s heart aflutter. Does it feel like a more ambitious and warm-hearted fictional year than usual? Perhaps. Certainly there are a number of novels here that will be read for decades to come. As usual, I will leave first novels to the Observer ’s debut fiction feature next month. In January, we kick things off with My Friends (Viking) by Hisham Matar, a powerful story of friendship and loss. Khaled and Mustafa are wounded by government agents during a protest at the Libyan embassy in London. The pair find themselves torn between the comforts of their life in the UK and the horrors of a civil war at home. Sigrid Nunez’s The Vulnerables (Virago) is the first great lockdown novel (Nunez, of course, has pandemic form – Salvation City was about a flu epidemic). Beginning in the spring of 2020, The Vulnerables tells the story of an unlikely couple thrown together by the confines of Covid: an older writer and a young college dropout, united by their shared responsibility for a cantankerous parrot called Eureka. April brings yet another novel by the prolific Percival Everett. James (Mantle) – his 28th work of fiction in a career spanning 40 years – is a retelling of Huckleberry Finn from the perspective of Jim, fleeing slavery with young Huck. It’s a rambunctious, perspective-altering book, keeping the adventurous spirit of the original but full of contemporary resonances. Another generous novel with a journey at its centre is You Are Here (Sceptre) by David Nicholls. Marnie and Michael are stuck in the midlife doldrums until they meet on a 10-day hike through the Lakes and Dales. No one does the minutiae of love as well as Nicholls, and while this is a more mature and cagoule-wearing novel than One Day or Sweet Sorrow , it delivers the same satisfying emotional punch. April also sees a new novel from the great Andrew O’Hagan. Caledonian Road (Faber) is the story of Campbell Flynn, a Scot teaching art history in London. When he meets a charismatic young student, Milo Mangasha, he’s struck at once by the “potential for things to get wayward”. It’s a barnstorming book, taking us deep into a London of wealth, crime, fashion and art. I danced a jig when Sarah Perry’s latest novel, Enlightenment (Jonathan Cape, May), landed on my doorstep. It’s glorious, doing what her books do best: intertwining a love story with reams of esoteric learning and big ideas. Enlightenment ranges boundlessly across space and time – from a touching portrait of the friendship between Grace and Thomas, co-worshippers at an Essex Baptist church, to the work of Maria Veduva, a 19th-century astronomer whose ghost haunts a local stately home. This is a beautiful, memorable novel. Also in May, there’s the great Claire Messud , with This Strange Eventful History (Fleet), the sweeping tale of a family – the Cassars – whose life takes them from second world war Paris to the US, Cuba, Australia and beyond over the decades that follow. It’s almost unbearably moving, wise and full of the most gorgeous prose. Finally in May, there’s All Fours (Canongate) by screenwriter and director Miranda July. Usually, Hollywood novels are an embarrassment (or just very boring – thanks Mr Hanks). July, though, is a proper novelist and this is a great book about art, fame and reinvention. I loved Lauren Elkin’s Flâneuse ; in Scaffolding (Chatto & Windus), out in June, she tells the story of two couples who live at the same address in north-east Paris in 1972 and 2019. It’s atmospheric and evocative, the prose elegant and poised. It has been five years since Kevin Barry’s last novel, Night Boat to Tangier . In his latest, The Heart in Winter (Canongate), also published in June, Barry moves to Montana in the 1890s. It’s an Irish western, by turns funny and tragic, full of typically outrageous figures and sublime writing. August sees the publication of the final novel in Catalan writer Eva Baltasar’s unnamed trilogy (the previous book, Boulder , was shortlisted for 2023’s International Booker). Mammoth (And Other Stories), again translated by Julia Sanches, is about an unnamed young lesbian woman who yearns to be a mother. She carves a riotous path from Barcelona to the Catalan countryside, her story told in jagged sentences and eccentric metaphorical language. Benjamin Myers is another whose prolific output doesn’t diminish the quality of his writing: Rare Singles (Bloomsbury) returns Myers to his past as a music journalist, telling a warmly nostalgic tale of northern soul and unlikely friendship in Scarborough. The great but forgotten Bucky Bronco’s visit to the Yorkshire coast is handled with Myers’s customary humour and generosity of spirit. Next, thrillingly, there’s Evie Wyld’s The Echoes (Jonathan Cape). Wyld has always been in a category of her own, but this is stranger, darker and more brilliant than anything she’s written before. Max is dead; we know this because the opening of the novel is narrated by his ghost. The book laces between south London and Australia, between Max, his girlfriend Hannah, and a wide circle of their friends and family, all of their stories hurtling towards the novel’s hallucinatory ending. This is a book that will stay with you for ever – both intimate and extraordinarily ambitious. Finally, in September, there’s my early pick for this year’s Booker: Creation Lake (Jonathan Cape) by Rachel Kushner . It’s a wild and brilliantly plotted piece of science fiction. This is the story of a secret agent, the redoubtable Sadie Smith, sent to infiltrate and disrupt a group of “anti-civvers” – eco-terrorists – in a France of the near future where industrial agriculture and sinister corporations dominate the landscape. Think Kill Bill written by John le Carré: smart, funny and compulsively readable. T here’s a sensational selection of novels to look forward to in 2024, enough to set even the most discerning reader’s heart aflutter. Does it feel like a more ambitious and warm-hearted fictional year than usual? Perhaps. Certainly there are a number of novels here that will be read for decades to come. As usual, I will leave first novels to the Observer ’s debut fiction feature next month. In January, we kick things off with My Friends (Viking) by Hisham Matar, a powerful story of friendship and loss. Khaled and Mustafa are wounded by government agents during a protest at the Libyan embassy in London. The pair find themselves torn between the comforts of their life in the UK and the horrors of a civil war at home. Sigrid Nunez’s The Vulnerables (Virago) is the first great lockdown novel (Nunez, of course, has pandemic form – Salvation City was about a flu epidemic). Beginning in the spring of 2020, The Vulnerables tells the story of an unlikely couple thrown together by the confines of Covid: an older writer and a young college dropout, united by their shared responsibility for a cantankerous parrot called Eureka. April brings yet another novel by the prolific Percival Everett. James (Mantle) – his 28th work of fiction in a career spanning 40 years – is a retelling of Huckleberry Finn from the perspective of Jim, fleeing slavery with young Huck. It’s a rambunctious, perspective-altering book, keeping the adventurous spirit of the original but full of contemporary resonances. Another generous novel with a journey at its centre is You Are Here (Sceptre) by David Nicholls. Marnie and Michael are stuck in the midlife doldrums until they meet on a 10-day hike through the Lakes and Dales. No one does the minutiae of love as well as Nicholls, and while this is a more mature and cagoule-wearing novel than One Day or Sweet Sorrow , it delivers the same satisfying emotional punch. April also sees a new novel from the great Andrew O’Hagan. Caledonian Road (Faber) is the story of Campbell Flynn, a Scot teaching art history in London. When he meets a charismatic young student, Milo Mangasha, he’s struck at once by the “potential for things to get wayward”. It’s a barnstorming book, taking us deep into a London of wealth, crime, fashion and art. I danced a jig when Sarah Perry’s latest novel, Enlightenment (Jonathan Cape, May), landed on my doorstep. It’s glorious, doing what her books do best: intertwining a love story with reams of esoteric learning and big ideas. Enlightenment ranges boundlessly across space and time – from a touching portrait of the friendship between Grace and Thomas, co-worshippers at an Essex Baptist church, to the work of Maria Veduva, a 19th-century astronomer whose ghost haunts a local stately home. This is a beautiful, memorable novel. Also in May, there’s the great Claire Messud , with This Strange Eventful History (Fleet), the sweeping tale of a family – the Cassars – whose life takes them from second world war Paris to the US, Cuba, Australia and beyond over the decades that follow. It’s almost unbearably moving, wise and full of the most gorgeous prose. Finally in May, there’s All Fours (Canongate) by screenwriter and director Miranda July. Usually, Hollywood novels are an embarrassment (or just very boring – thanks Mr Hanks). July, though, is a proper novelist and this is a great book about art, fame and reinvention. I loved Lauren Elkin’s Flâneuse ; in Scaffolding (Chatto & Windus), out in June, she tells the story of two couples who live at the same address in north-east Paris in 1972 and 2019. It’s atmospheric and evocative, the prose elegant and poised. It has been five years since Kevin Barry’s last novel, Night Boat to Tangier . In his latest, The Heart in Winter (Canongate), also published in June, Barry moves to Montana in the 1890s. It’s an Irish western, by turns funny and tragic, full of typically outrageous figures and sublime writing. August sees the publication of the final novel in Catalan writer Eva Baltasar’s unnamed trilogy (the previous book, Boulder , was shortlisted for 2023’s International Booker). Mammoth (And Other Stories), again translated by Julia Sanches, is about an unnamed young lesbian woman who yearns to be a mother. She carves a riotous path from Barcelona to the Catalan countryside, her story told in jagged sentences and eccentric metaphorical language. Benjamin Myers is another whose prolific output doesn’t diminish the quality of his writing: Rare Singles (Bloomsbury) returns Myers to his past as a music journalist, telling a warmly nostalgic tale of northern soul and unlikely friendship in Scarborough. The great but forgotten Bucky Bronco’s visit to the Yorkshire coast is handled with Myers’s customary humour and generosity of spirit. Next, thrillingly, there’s Evie Wyld’s The Echoes (Jonathan Cape). Wyld has always been in a category of her own, but this is stranger, darker and more brilliant than anything she’s written before. Max is dead; we know this because the opening of the novel is narrated by his ghost. The book laces between south London and Australia, between Max, his girlfriend Hannah, and a wide circle of their friends and family, all of their stories hurtling towards the novel’s hallucinatory ending. This is a book that will stay with you for ever – both intimate and extraordinarily ambitious. Finally, in September, there’s my early pick for this year’s Booker: Creation Lake (Jonathan Cape) by Rachel Kushner . It’s a wild and brilliantly plotted piece of science fiction. This is the story of a secret agent, the redoubtable Sadie Smith, sent to infiltrate and disrupt a group of “anti-civvers” – eco-terrorists – in a France of the near future where industrial agriculture and sinister corporations dominate the landscape. Think Kill Bill written by John le Carré: smart, funny and compulsively readable. 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 Fiction 2024 culture preview Percival Everett David Nicholls Sarah Perry Claire Messud Miranda July Rachel Kushner features Share Reuse this content Fiction 2024 culture preview Percival Everett David Nicholls Sarah Perry Claire Messud Miranda July Rachel Kushner features
|
Kids Company charity founder Camila Batmanghelidjh dies aged 61
Batmanghelidjh rose to prominence after setting up Kids Company in south London in the late 1990s. Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Batmanghelidjh rose to prominence after setting up Kids Company in south London in the late 1990s. Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Kids Company charity founder Camila Batmanghelidjh dies aged 61 This article is more than 1 year old Family announces death of campaigner known for her charisma, colourful attire and outspoken pursuit of social justice for children Camila Batmanghelidjh, who created the legendary Kids Company children’s charity and became one of the UK’s best known and most powerful campaigners for disadvantaged youngsters, has died aged 61. Batmanghelidjh – known for her charisma, colourful attire and outspoken pursuit of social justice for children – had been ill for many months, though she rallied in recent weeks. She died peacefully on New Year’s Day, having celebrated her birthday with family and friends. In a statement, her family said: “It is with great sadness that the family of Camila Batmanghelidjh announce her passing. She died peacefully in her sleep the night of 1 January, following a birthday celebration with her family. “Camila dedicated her life to advocating for Britain’s most vulnerable children. She was the founder of two groundbreaking charities, Place2Be and Kids Company , which pioneered new therapeutic and clinical models to achieve a singular goal: ‘To see children and young people become safe and able to realise their potential.’” Alan Yentob, the broadcaster and former chair of Kids Company, who worked closely with Batmanghelidjh over many years, said: “All of us who worked with Camila are devastated by this news, as will be the thousands of children whose lives were transformed by her work. She will be sorely missed.” Born in Iran and educated in the UK, Batmanghelidjh rose to prominence after setting up Kids Company in south London in the late 1990s to provide support for youngsters scarred by poverty, abuse, trauma and gang violence, and who had fallen through the gaps of social services and NHS services. Her work, informed by her training in psychotherapy, caught the imagination of the public, politicians and celebrities, and she raised tens of millions of pounds from donors to fund the charity’s groundbreaking therapeutic work with tens of thousands of children. At the height of her celebrity in the mid-2000s she was given the nickname the “Angel of Peckham” by the media. She had the ear of Labour and Conservative prime ministers alike, attracted the support of pop stars and artists, and was known as an distinctive advocate for children’s rights and child protection reform. In 2015, Batmanghelidjh and the charity’s trustees closed Kids Company after its growing financial troubles were exacerbated by a BBC report claiming sexual abuse had taken place at the charity. This triggered a public and media backlash. Police subsequently investigated the allegations, and found no evidence of wrongdoing. For months she was vilified in parts of the media, despite protesting her innocence, an extraordinary reversal of her earlier popularity with the press. The official receiver launched a high-profile and expensive attempt to ban her from holding senior roles in public life, finally culminating in a 10-week court case in 2021. The high court exonerated Batmanghelidjh, and rejected the claim that Kids Company had been mismanaged and charitable funds misspent. The judge praised her for the “enormous dedication she showed to vulnerable young people over many years” and her achievement in building a successful charity that did “incredible work”. Batmanghelidjh was outraged by a subsequent Charity Commission report into the collapse of Kids Company, which claimed the charity had been administratively mismanaged. A year ago she won permission to go to the high court to try to overturn the report but ill-health meant she could not progress her case. During the years after Kids Company, Batmanghelidjh carried on her work below the public radar from her small flat in West Hampstead, helping vulnerable children, advising schools, and staying in touch with many former staff and “graduates” of Kids Company. Her family’s statement added: “Working alongside her devoted colleagues and dedicated volunteers and donors, Camila changed the lives of tens of thousands of children and young people in London and Bristol otherwise neglected by a failing child protection system. She showed these children that they were worthy of love and support. “For all those around her, and especially for her family, she was endless source of inspiration, a fountain of wit, and a kaleidoscope of colour.” The Rev Steve Chalke, founder of the Oasis academy trust, which worked with Batmanghelidjh post-Kids Company, said she had been an inspiration, adding: “In the work she did with traumatised and disadvantaged kids at Oasis, the depth of her wisdom and her sheer love of children shone out.” Explore more on these topics Camila Batmanghelidjh Children Charities Kids Company news Share Reuse this content Batmanghelidjh rose to prominence after setting up Kids Company in south London in the late 1990s. Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Batmanghelidjh rose to prominence after setting up Kids Company in south London in the late 1990s. Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Kids Company charity founder Camila Batmanghelidjh dies aged 61 This article is more than 1 year old Family announces death of campaigner known for her charisma, colourful attire and outspoken pursuit of social justice for children Camila Batmanghelidjh, who created the legendary Kids Company children’s charity and became one of the UK’s best known and most powerful campaigners for disadvantaged youngsters, has died aged 61. Batmanghelidjh – known for her charisma, colourful attire and outspoken pursuit of social justice for children – had been ill for many months, though she rallied in recent weeks. She died peacefully on New Year’s Day, having celebrated her birthday with family and friends. In a statement, her family said: “It is with great sadness that the family of Camila Batmanghelidjh announce her passing. She died peacefully in her sleep the night of 1 January, following a birthday celebration with her family. “Camila dedicated her life to advocating for Britain’s most vulnerable children. She was the founder of two groundbreaking charities, Place2Be and Kids Company , which pioneered new therapeutic and clinical models to achieve a singular goal: ‘To see children and young people become safe and able to realise their potential.’” Alan Yentob, the broadcaster and former chair of Kids Company, who worked closely with Batmanghelidjh over many years, said: “All of us who worked with Camila are devastated by this news, as will be the thousands of children whose lives were transformed by her work. She will be sorely missed.” Born in Iran and educated in the UK, Batmanghelidjh rose to prominence after setting up Kids Company in south London in the late 1990s to provide support for youngsters scarred by poverty, abuse, trauma and gang violence, and who had fallen through the gaps of social services and NHS services. Her work, informed by her training in psychotherapy, caught the imagination of the public, politicians and celebrities, and she raised tens of millions of pounds from donors to fund the charity’s groundbreaking therapeutic work with tens of thousands of children. At the height of her celebrity in the mid-2000s she was given the nickname the “Angel of Peckham” by the media. She had the ear of Labour and Conservative prime ministers alike, attracted the support of pop stars and artists, and was known as an distinctive advocate for children’s rights and child protection reform. In 2015, Batmanghelidjh and the charity’s trustees closed Kids Company after its growing financial troubles were exacerbated by a BBC report claiming sexual abuse had taken place at the charity. This triggered a public and media backlash. Police subsequently investigated the allegations, and found no evidence of wrongdoing. For months she was vilified in parts of the media, despite protesting her innocence, an extraordinary reversal of her earlier popularity with the press. The official receiver launched a high-profile and expensive attempt to ban her from holding senior roles in public life, finally culminating in a 10-week court case in 2021. The high court exonerated Batmanghelidjh, and rejected the claim that Kids Company had been mismanaged and charitable funds misspent. The judge praised her for the “enormous dedication she showed to vulnerable young people over many years” and her achievement in building a successful charity that did “incredible work”. Batmanghelidjh was outraged by a subsequent Charity Commission report into the collapse of Kids Company, which claimed the charity had been administratively mismanaged. A year ago she won permission to go to the high court to try to overturn the report but ill-health meant she could not progress her case. During the years after Kids Company, Batmanghelidjh carried on her work below the public radar from her small flat in West Hampstead, helping vulnerable children, advising schools, and staying in touch with many former staff and “graduates” of Kids Company. Her family’s statement added: “Working alongside her devoted colleagues and dedicated volunteers and donors, Camila changed the lives of tens of thousands of children and young people in London and Bristol otherwise neglected by a failing child protection system. She showed these children that they were worthy of love and support. “For all those around her, and especially for her family, she was endless source of inspiration, a fountain of wit, and a kaleidoscope of colour.” The Rev Steve Chalke, founder of the Oasis academy trust, which worked with Batmanghelidjh post-Kids Company, said she had been an inspiration, adding: “In the work she did with traumatised and disadvantaged kids at Oasis, the depth of her wisdom and her sheer love of children shone out.” Explore more on these topics Camila Batmanghelidjh Children Charities Kids Company news Share Reuse this content Batmanghelidjh rose to prominence after setting up Kids Company in south London in the late 1990s. Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Batmanghelidjh rose to prominence after setting up Kids Company in south London in the late 1990s. Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian Batmanghelidjh rose to prominence after setting up Kids Company in south London in the late 1990s. Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Batmanghelidjh rose to prominence after setting up Kids Company in south London in the late 1990s. Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian Batmanghelidjh rose to prominence after setting up Kids Company in south London in the late 1990s. Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Batmanghelidjh rose to prominence after setting up Kids Company in south London in the late 1990s. Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian Batmanghelidjh rose to prominence after setting up Kids Company in south London in the late 1990s. Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Batmanghelidjh rose to prominence after setting up Kids Company in south London in the late 1990s. Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian Batmanghelidjh rose to prominence after setting up Kids Company in south London in the late 1990s. Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian Batmanghelidjh rose to prominence after setting up Kids Company in south London in the late 1990s. Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Kids Company charity founder Camila Batmanghelidjh dies aged 61 This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Kids Company charity founder Camila Batmanghelidjh dies aged 61 This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Kids Company charity founder Camila Batmanghelidjh dies aged 61 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 Family announces death of campaigner known for her charisma, colourful attire and outspoken pursuit of social justice for children Family announces death of campaigner known for her charisma, colourful attire and outspoken pursuit of social justice for children Family announces death of campaigner known for her charisma, colourful attire and outspoken pursuit of social justice for children Camila Batmanghelidjh, who created the legendary Kids Company children’s charity and became one of the UK’s best known and most powerful campaigners for disadvantaged youngsters, has died aged 61. Batmanghelidjh – known for her charisma, colourful attire and outspoken pursuit of social justice for children – had been ill for many months, though she rallied in recent weeks. She died peacefully on New Year’s Day, having celebrated her birthday with family and friends. In a statement, her family said: “It is with great sadness that the family of Camila Batmanghelidjh announce her passing. She died peacefully in her sleep the night of 1 January, following a birthday celebration with her family. “Camila dedicated her life to advocating for Britain’s most vulnerable children. She was the founder of two groundbreaking charities, Place2Be and Kids Company , which pioneered new therapeutic and clinical models to achieve a singular goal: ‘To see children and young people become safe and able to realise their potential.’” Alan Yentob, the broadcaster and former chair of Kids Company, who worked closely with Batmanghelidjh over many years, said: “All of us who worked with Camila are devastated by this news, as will be the thousands of children whose lives were transformed by her work. She will be sorely missed.” Born in Iran and educated in the UK, Batmanghelidjh rose to prominence after setting up Kids Company in south London in the late 1990s to provide support for youngsters scarred by poverty, abuse, trauma and gang violence, and who had fallen through the gaps of social services and NHS services. Her work, informed by her training in psychotherapy, caught the imagination of the public, politicians and celebrities, and she raised tens of millions of pounds from donors to fund the charity’s groundbreaking therapeutic work with tens of thousands of children. At the height of her celebrity in the mid-2000s she was given the nickname the “Angel of Peckham” by the media. She had the ear of Labour and Conservative prime ministers alike, attracted the support of pop stars and artists, and was known as an distinctive advocate for children’s rights and child protection reform. In 2015, Batmanghelidjh and the charity’s trustees closed Kids Company after its growing financial troubles were exacerbated by a BBC report claiming sexual abuse had taken place at the charity. This triggered a public and media backlash. Police subsequently investigated the allegations, and found no evidence of wrongdoing. For months she was vilified in parts of the media, despite protesting her innocence, an extraordinary reversal of her earlier popularity with the press. The official receiver launched a high-profile and expensive attempt to ban her from holding senior roles in public life, finally culminating in a 10-week court case in 2021. The high court exonerated Batmanghelidjh, and rejected the claim that Kids Company had been mismanaged and charitable funds misspent. The judge praised her for the “enormous dedication she showed to vulnerable young people over many years” and her achievement in building a successful charity that did “incredible work”. Batmanghelidjh was outraged by a subsequent Charity Commission report into the collapse of Kids Company, which claimed the charity had been administratively mismanaged. A year ago she won permission to go to the high court to try to overturn the report but ill-health meant she could not progress her case. During the years after Kids Company, Batmanghelidjh carried on her work below the public radar from her small flat in West Hampstead, helping vulnerable children, advising schools, and staying in touch with many former staff and “graduates” of Kids Company. Her family’s statement added: “Working alongside her devoted colleagues and dedicated volunteers and donors, Camila changed the lives of tens of thousands of children and young people in London and Bristol otherwise neglected by a failing child protection system. She showed these children that they were worthy of love and support. “For all those around her, and especially for her family, she was endless source of inspiration, a fountain of wit, and a kaleidoscope of colour.” The Rev Steve Chalke, founder of the Oasis academy trust, which worked with Batmanghelidjh post-Kids Company, said she had been an inspiration, adding: “In the work she did with traumatised and disadvantaged kids at Oasis, the depth of her wisdom and her sheer love of children shone out.” Explore more on these topics Camila Batmanghelidjh Children Charities Kids Company news Share Reuse this content Camila Batmanghelidjh, who created the legendary Kids Company children’s charity and became one of the UK’s best known and most powerful campaigners for disadvantaged youngsters, has died aged 61. Batmanghelidjh – known for her charisma, colourful attire and outspoken pursuit of social justice for children – had been ill for many months, though she rallied in recent weeks. She died peacefully on New Year’s Day, having celebrated her birthday with family and friends. In a statement, her family said: “It is with great sadness that the family of Camila Batmanghelidjh announce her passing. She died peacefully in her sleep the night of 1 January, following a birthday celebration with her family. “Camila dedicated her life to advocating for Britain’s most vulnerable children. She was the founder of two groundbreaking charities, Place2Be and Kids Company , which pioneered new therapeutic and clinical models to achieve a singular goal: ‘To see children and young people become safe and able to realise their potential.’” Alan Yentob, the broadcaster and former chair of Kids Company, who worked closely with Batmanghelidjh over many years, said: “All of us who worked with Camila are devastated by this news, as will be the thousands of children whose lives were transformed by her work. She will be sorely missed.” Born in Iran and educated in the UK, Batmanghelidjh rose to prominence after setting up Kids Company in south London in the late 1990s to provide support for youngsters scarred by poverty, abuse, trauma and gang violence, and who had fallen through the gaps of social services and NHS services. Her work, informed by her training in psychotherapy, caught the imagination of the public, politicians and celebrities, and she raised tens of millions of pounds from donors to fund the charity’s groundbreaking therapeutic work with tens of thousands of children. At the height of her celebrity in the mid-2000s she was given the nickname the “Angel of Peckham” by the media. She had the ear of Labour and Conservative prime ministers alike, attracted the support of pop stars and artists, and was known as an distinctive advocate for children’s rights and child protection reform. In 2015, Batmanghelidjh and the charity’s trustees closed Kids Company after its growing financial troubles were exacerbated by a BBC report claiming sexual abuse had taken place at the charity. This triggered a public and media backlash. Police subsequently investigated the allegations, and found no evidence of wrongdoing. For months she was vilified in parts of the media, despite protesting her innocence, an extraordinary reversal of her earlier popularity with the press. The official receiver launched a high-profile and expensive attempt to ban her from holding senior roles in public life, finally culminating in a 10-week court case in 2021. The high court exonerated Batmanghelidjh, and rejected the claim that Kids Company had been mismanaged and charitable funds misspent. The judge praised her for the “enormous dedication she showed to vulnerable young people over many years” and her achievement in building a successful charity that did “incredible work”. Batmanghelidjh was outraged by a subsequent Charity Commission report into the collapse of Kids Company, which claimed the charity had been administratively mismanaged. A year ago she won permission to go to the high court to try to overturn the report but ill-health meant she could not progress her case. During the years after Kids Company, Batmanghelidjh carried on her work below the public radar from her small flat in West Hampstead, helping vulnerable children, advising schools, and staying in touch with many former staff and “graduates” of Kids Company. Her family’s statement added: “Working alongside her devoted colleagues and dedicated volunteers and donors, Camila changed the lives of tens of thousands of children and young people in London and Bristol otherwise neglected by a failing child protection system. She showed these children that they were worthy of love and support. “For all those around her, and especially for her family, she was endless source of inspiration, a fountain of wit, and a kaleidoscope of colour.” The Rev Steve Chalke, founder of the Oasis academy trust, which worked with Batmanghelidjh post-Kids Company, said she had been an inspiration, adding: “In the work she did with traumatised and disadvantaged kids at Oasis, the depth of her wisdom and her sheer love of children shone out.” Explore more on these topics Camila Batmanghelidjh Children Charities Kids Company news Share Reuse this content Camila Batmanghelidjh, who created the legendary Kids Company children’s charity and became one of the UK’s best known and most powerful campaigners for disadvantaged youngsters, has died aged 61. Batmanghelidjh – known for her charisma, colourful attire and outspoken pursuit of social justice for children – had been ill for many months, though she rallied in recent weeks. She died peacefully on New Year’s Day, having celebrated her birthday with family and friends. In a statement, her family said: “It is with great sadness that the family of Camila Batmanghelidjh announce her passing. She died peacefully in her sleep the night of 1 January, following a birthday celebration with her family. “Camila dedicated her life to advocating for Britain’s most vulnerable children. She was the founder of two groundbreaking charities, Place2Be and Kids Company , which pioneered new therapeutic and clinical models to achieve a singular goal: ‘To see children and young people become safe and able to realise their potential.’” Alan Yentob, the broadcaster and former chair of Kids Company, who worked closely with Batmanghelidjh over many years, said: “All of us who worked with Camila are devastated by this news, as will be the thousands of children whose lives were transformed by her work. She will be sorely missed.” Born in Iran and educated in the UK, Batmanghelidjh rose to prominence after setting up Kids Company in south London in the late 1990s to provide support for youngsters scarred by poverty, abuse, trauma and gang violence, and who had fallen through the gaps of social services and NHS services. Her work, informed by her training in psychotherapy, caught the imagination of the public, politicians and celebrities, and she raised tens of millions of pounds from donors to fund the charity’s groundbreaking therapeutic work with tens of thousands of children. At the height of her celebrity in the mid-2000s she was given the nickname the “Angel of Peckham” by the media. She had the ear of Labour and Conservative prime ministers alike, attracted the support of pop stars and artists, and was known as an distinctive advocate for children’s rights and child protection reform. In 2015, Batmanghelidjh and the charity’s trustees closed Kids Company after its growing financial troubles were exacerbated by a BBC report claiming sexual abuse had taken place at the charity. This triggered a public and media backlash. Police subsequently investigated the allegations, and found no evidence of wrongdoing. For months she was vilified in parts of the media, despite protesting her innocence, an extraordinary reversal of her earlier popularity with the press. The official receiver launched a high-profile and expensive attempt to ban her from holding senior roles in public life, finally culminating in a 10-week court case in 2021. The high court exonerated Batmanghelidjh, and rejected the claim that Kids Company had been mismanaged and charitable funds misspent. The judge praised her for the “enormous dedication she showed to vulnerable young people over many years” and her achievement in building a successful charity that did “incredible work”. Batmanghelidjh was outraged by a subsequent Charity Commission report into the collapse of Kids Company, which claimed the charity had been administratively mismanaged. A year ago she won permission to go to the high court to try to overturn the report but ill-health meant she could not progress her case. During the years after Kids Company, Batmanghelidjh carried on her work below the public radar from her small flat in West Hampstead, helping vulnerable children, advising schools, and staying in touch with many former staff and “graduates” of Kids Company. Her family’s statement added: “Working alongside her devoted colleagues and dedicated volunteers and donors, Camila changed the lives of tens of thousands of children and young people in London and Bristol otherwise neglected by a failing child protection system. She showed these children that they were worthy of love and support. “For all those around her, and especially for her family, she was endless source of inspiration, a fountain of wit, and a kaleidoscope of colour.” The Rev Steve Chalke, founder of the Oasis academy trust, which worked with Batmanghelidjh post-Kids Company, said she had been an inspiration, adding: “In the work she did with traumatised and disadvantaged kids at Oasis, the depth of her wisdom and her sheer love of children shone out.” Camila Batmanghelidjh, who created the legendary Kids Company children’s charity and became one of the UK’s best known and most powerful campaigners for disadvantaged youngsters, has died aged 61. Batmanghelidjh – known for her charisma, colourful attire and outspoken pursuit of social justice for children – had been ill for many months, though she rallied in recent weeks. She died peacefully on New Year’s Day, having celebrated her birthday with family and friends. In a statement, her family said: “It is with great sadness that the family of Camila Batmanghelidjh announce her passing. She died peacefully in her sleep the night of 1 January, following a birthday celebration with her family. “Camila dedicated her life to advocating for Britain’s most vulnerable children. She was the founder of two groundbreaking charities, Place2Be and Kids Company , which pioneered new therapeutic and clinical models to achieve a singular goal: ‘To see children and young people become safe and able to realise their potential.’” Alan Yentob, the broadcaster and former chair of Kids Company, who worked closely with Batmanghelidjh over many years, said: “All of us who worked with Camila are devastated by this news, as will be the thousands of children whose lives were transformed by her work. She will be sorely missed.” Born in Iran and educated in the UK, Batmanghelidjh rose to prominence after setting up Kids Company in south London in the late 1990s to provide support for youngsters scarred by poverty, abuse, trauma and gang violence, and who had fallen through the gaps of social services and NHS services. Her work, informed by her training in psychotherapy, caught the imagination of the public, politicians and celebrities, and she raised tens of millions of pounds from donors to fund the charity’s groundbreaking therapeutic work with tens of thousands of children. At the height of her celebrity in the mid-2000s she was given the nickname the “Angel of Peckham” by the media. She had the ear of Labour and Conservative prime ministers alike, attracted the support of pop stars and artists, and was known as an distinctive advocate for children’s rights and child protection reform. In 2015, Batmanghelidjh and the charity’s trustees closed Kids Company after its growing financial troubles were exacerbated by a BBC report claiming sexual abuse had taken place at the charity. This triggered a public and media backlash. Police subsequently investigated the allegations, and found no evidence of wrongdoing. For months she was vilified in parts of the media, despite protesting her innocence, an extraordinary reversal of her earlier popularity with the press. The official receiver launched a high-profile and expensive attempt to ban her from holding senior roles in public life, finally culminating in a 10-week court case in 2021. The high court exonerated Batmanghelidjh, and rejected the claim that Kids Company had been mismanaged and charitable funds misspent. The judge praised her for the “enormous dedication she showed to vulnerable young people over many years” and her achievement in building a successful charity that did “incredible work”. Batmanghelidjh was outraged by a subsequent Charity Commission report into the collapse of Kids Company, which claimed the charity had been administratively mismanaged. A year ago she won permission to go to the high court to try to overturn the report but ill-health meant she could not progress her case. During the years after Kids Company, Batmanghelidjh carried on her work below the public radar from her small flat in West Hampstead, helping vulnerable children, advising schools, and staying in touch with many former staff and “graduates” of Kids Company. Her family’s statement added: “Working alongside her devoted colleagues and dedicated volunteers and donors, Camila changed the lives of tens of thousands of children and young people in London and Bristol otherwise neglected by a failing child protection system. She showed these children that they were worthy of love and support. “For all those around her, and especially for her family, she was endless source of inspiration, a fountain of wit, and a kaleidoscope of colour.” The Rev Steve Chalke, founder of the Oasis academy trust, which worked with Batmanghelidjh post-Kids Company, said she had been an inspiration, adding: “In the work she did with traumatised and disadvantaged kids at Oasis, the depth of her wisdom and her sheer love of children shone out.” Camila Batmanghelidjh, who created the legendary Kids Company children’s charity and became one of the UK’s best known and most powerful campaigners for disadvantaged youngsters, has died aged 61. Batmanghelidjh – known for her charisma, colourful attire and outspoken pursuit of social justice for children – had been ill for many months, though she rallied in recent weeks. She died peacefully on New Year’s Day, having celebrated her birthday with family and friends. In a statement, her family said: “It is with great sadness that the family of Camila Batmanghelidjh announce her passing. She died peacefully in her sleep the night of 1 January, following a birthday celebration with her family. “Camila dedicated her life to advocating for Britain’s most vulnerable children. She was the founder of two groundbreaking charities, Place2Be and Kids Company , which pioneered new therapeutic and clinical models to achieve a singular goal: ‘To see children and young people become safe and able to realise their potential.’” Alan Yentob, the broadcaster and former chair of Kids Company, who worked closely with Batmanghelidjh over many years, said: “All of us who worked with Camila are devastated by this news, as will be the thousands of children whose lives were transformed by her work. She will be sorely missed.” Born in Iran and educated in the UK, Batmanghelidjh rose to prominence after setting up Kids Company in south London in the late 1990s to provide support for youngsters scarred by poverty, abuse, trauma and gang violence, and who had fallen through the gaps of social services and NHS services. Her work, informed by her training in psychotherapy, caught the imagination of the public, politicians and celebrities, and she raised tens of millions of pounds from donors to fund the charity’s groundbreaking therapeutic work with tens of thousands of children. At the height of her celebrity in the mid-2000s she was given the nickname the “Angel of Peckham” by the media. She had the ear of Labour and Conservative prime ministers alike, attracted the support of pop stars and artists, and was known as an distinctive advocate for children’s rights and child protection reform. In 2015, Batmanghelidjh and the charity’s trustees closed Kids Company after its growing financial troubles were exacerbated by a BBC report claiming sexual abuse had taken place at the charity. This triggered a public and media backlash. Police subsequently investigated the allegations, and found no evidence of wrongdoing. For months she was vilified in parts of the media, despite protesting her innocence, an extraordinary reversal of her earlier popularity with the press. The official receiver launched a high-profile and expensive attempt to ban her from holding senior roles in public life, finally culminating in a 10-week court case in 2021. The high court exonerated Batmanghelidjh, and rejected the claim that Kids Company had been mismanaged and charitable funds misspent. The judge praised her for the “enormous dedication she showed to vulnerable young people over many years” and her achievement in building a successful charity that did “incredible work”. Batmanghelidjh was outraged by a subsequent Charity Commission report into the collapse of Kids Company, which claimed the charity had been administratively mismanaged. A year ago she won permission to go to the high court to try to overturn the report but ill-health meant she could not progress her case. During the years after Kids Company, Batmanghelidjh carried on her work below the public radar from her small flat in West Hampstead, helping vulnerable children, advising schools, and staying in touch with many former staff and “graduates” of Kids Company. Her family’s statement added: “Working alongside her devoted colleagues and dedicated volunteers and donors, Camila changed the lives of tens of thousands of children and young people in London and Bristol otherwise neglected by a failing child protection system. She showed these children that they were worthy of love and support. “For all those around her, and especially for her family, she was endless source of inspiration, a fountain of wit, and a kaleidoscope of colour.” The Rev Steve Chalke, founder of the Oasis academy trust, which worked with Batmanghelidjh post-Kids Company, said she had been an inspiration, adding: “In the work she did with traumatised and disadvantaged kids at Oasis, the depth of her wisdom and her sheer love of children shone out.” Explore more on these topics Camila Batmanghelidjh Children Charities Kids Company news Share Reuse this content Camila Batmanghelidjh Children Charities Kids Company news
|
‘You can be happy in prison’: climate protester reflects on punishment
Morgan Trowland (3rd right) remembers his colleague Marcus Decker who is still in prison by joining friends as he leaves prison in December. Photograph: Martin Pope/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Morgan Trowland (3rd right) remembers his colleague Marcus Decker who is still in prison by joining friends as he leaves prison in December. Photograph: Martin Pope/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old ‘You can be happy in prison’: climate protester reflects on punishment This article is more than 1 year old Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker received the longest sentences given to non-violent protesters in UK Last year, Morgan Trowland was one of two Just Stop Oil protesters sentenced to more than two and a half years in prison for scaling the Dartford crossing. The sentences handed down to Trowland and Marcus Decker are the longest sentences yet given to non-violent protesters in the UK. Now, after his release on licence last month, Trowland says the 13 months he spent behind bars hardly felt like punishment at all. In October 2022, Trowland and Decker were dropped off at night on the Queen Elizabeth II bridge, hopped over a barrier and shimmied up the thick steel cables that suspend it above the Thames estuary. For almost two days, they hung suspended in hammocks from the top of the bridge, displaying a giant “Just Stop Oil” banner. Police closed the crossing for 40 hours, causing huge delays for the hundreds of thousands of motorists who use it each day to travel between Essex and Kent. Passing sentence, Judge Shane Collery KC told them: “You have to be punished for the chaos you caused and to deter others from copying you.” Decker remains behind bars and faces deportation to Germany on his release, but Trowland, originally from New Zealand, speaks fondly of his incarceration. “I’m personally not that bothered,” Trowland told the Guardian in a phone interview from his home in London. “It was a lot of quiet time to do lots of reading philosophy and poetry. “It’s not good, but personally I don’t think it’s very scary. It just seems really absurd. It feels really absurd to me because, like, that is supposed to scare us into accepting climate and ecological collapse, and accept living in a self-destructive societal system? It’s a nonsense.” Trowland served his sentence across three prisons. As soon as he and Decker were removed from the bridge, they were taken to Chelmsford prison, Essex, where many people are sent on remand. From there, Trowland spent a month in Pentonville, in London – the worst, he said, “because they don’t seem to have the resources or the staff to run any normal, reasonable regime, so they just lock everyone up most of the time”. “But it did have very good vegan food,” he added, speculating that it could be the result of its location in Islington.. After another spell in Chelmsford, Trowland finished the remainder of his sentence at Highpoint, a category C jail in Suffolk. That was much nicer, with “loads of grass and trees” and a gardens block, where Trowland was able to get a prison job. “It’s even got ponds and a wilderness corner and, in summer time, there’s this area that I called the dell with all these beautiful, tall wild flowers, and plants growing up in ponds, and foxgloves, and just all these beautiful things,” Trowland said. “So you see why it just felt really absurd? Like, do they know that environmentalist people like being in the countryside with trees and flowers?” It would be wrong to say prison had not changed Trowland. It was just that it was perhaps not in the way the authorities would have liked. A philosophy course he took at Highpoint gave him a renewed theoretical framework to justify his offending. He explained: “You form a society voluntarily because it’s for everyone’s collective welfare, and so that government that you form together should only be used to do things that are good for everyone. And if it’s doing something like cooking the climate and destroying the ecosystem, that is absolutely contrary to the purpose of forming a society. “It fits the scenario that John Locke laid out because in [Two] Treatises of Government, he lays out scenarios where it’s right and just to rebel against people that have misused government.” The relative deprivation of prison life also provided Trowland with a lesson in practical philosophy. “The biggest thing that hits you is possessions, and the superfluous nature of so many of them – after having hardly anything for a year, just some books and writing pads and diaries. I thought that was fine, that was a good amount of possessions actually – a few treasured books. “And then coming back to an apartment and going and getting stuff of mine from storage, it overwhelms on an emotional level, and on a philosophical level. What is all this for? Oh my God, why? Why spend life managing all these things? It all just seems utterly meaningless, and really overwhelming.” But perhaps Trowland’s most surprising lesson from life behind bars was about happiness. “It was quite easy to be happy in prison, because you can always come up with some mental pursuits … And that felt really good just because, you’re sent there to be punished, right? It’s supposed to be bad, you’re supposed to feel miserable, downcast all the time … So that was a good lesson, that you can be really happy with just some books of poetry and just going to a garden each day.” He does have regrets, not least about the people who were affected by the disruption his protest caused. His trial heard how small businesses lost thousands of pounds in revenue, sick patients missed hospital appointments; a witness at his trial who missed his friend’s funeral refused a note of apology Trowland wrote from the dock. The knowledge of those effects had been his real punishment, Trowland said. “What it raised for me is that that is exactly the kind of process that we don’t do collectively as British people, [which] is face up to the consequences of our actions on people elsewhere,” he said. “And that’s ultimately the reason I was climbing up the bridge, because I’ve met people, like in India, people who have really no resources to deal with climate breakdown, the kinds of people that are in large numbers now dying of climate-induced famine, disease, and that kind of thing. “And those horrific harms are really happening all the time. And people in Britain, we’re never having our day in court to face up to – look, this is what we’re doing to our neighbours in equatorial parts of the world.” “I see these kinds of direct actions as being a very rough justice, just to make everyone stop for a minute, to look at what we’re doing to ourselves, and especially to other very vulnerable people. Which otherwise we really just don’t.” As he readjusts to life on the outside, philosophical and ethical reflections aside, Trowland is happy to be a free man again: “It’s really nice to be home; it’s delightful to just be relaxing at home. I want to see if I can recover that very relaxing mind state that I had in prison. I want to see if I can get relaxed enough to write a poem in the outside world.” Explore more on these topics Just Stop Oil Climate crisis Prisons and probation news Share Reuse this content Morgan Trowland (3rd right) remembers his colleague Marcus Decker who is still in prison by joining friends as he leaves prison in December. Photograph: Martin Pope/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Morgan Trowland (3rd right) remembers his colleague Marcus Decker who is still in prison by joining friends as he leaves prison in December. Photograph: Martin Pope/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old ‘You can be happy in prison’: climate protester reflects on punishment This article is more than 1 year old Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker received the longest sentences given to non-violent protesters in UK Last year, Morgan Trowland was one of two Just Stop Oil protesters sentenced to more than two and a half years in prison for scaling the Dartford crossing. The sentences handed down to Trowland and Marcus Decker are the longest sentences yet given to non-violent protesters in the UK. Now, after his release on licence last month, Trowland says the 13 months he spent behind bars hardly felt like punishment at all. In October 2022, Trowland and Decker were dropped off at night on the Queen Elizabeth II bridge, hopped over a barrier and shimmied up the thick steel cables that suspend it above the Thames estuary. For almost two days, they hung suspended in hammocks from the top of the bridge, displaying a giant “Just Stop Oil” banner. Police closed the crossing for 40 hours, causing huge delays for the hundreds of thousands of motorists who use it each day to travel between Essex and Kent. Passing sentence, Judge Shane Collery KC told them: “You have to be punished for the chaos you caused and to deter others from copying you.” Decker remains behind bars and faces deportation to Germany on his release, but Trowland, originally from New Zealand, speaks fondly of his incarceration. “I’m personally not that bothered,” Trowland told the Guardian in a phone interview from his home in London. “It was a lot of quiet time to do lots of reading philosophy and poetry. “It’s not good, but personally I don’t think it’s very scary. It just seems really absurd. It feels really absurd to me because, like, that is supposed to scare us into accepting climate and ecological collapse, and accept living in a self-destructive societal system? It’s a nonsense.” Trowland served his sentence across three prisons. As soon as he and Decker were removed from the bridge, they were taken to Chelmsford prison, Essex, where many people are sent on remand. From there, Trowland spent a month in Pentonville, in London – the worst, he said, “because they don’t seem to have the resources or the staff to run any normal, reasonable regime, so they just lock everyone up most of the time”. “But it did have very good vegan food,” he added, speculating that it could be the result of its location in Islington.. After another spell in Chelmsford, Trowland finished the remainder of his sentence at Highpoint, a category C jail in Suffolk. That was much nicer, with “loads of grass and trees” and a gardens block, where Trowland was able to get a prison job. “It’s even got ponds and a wilderness corner and, in summer time, there’s this area that I called the dell with all these beautiful, tall wild flowers, and plants growing up in ponds, and foxgloves, and just all these beautiful things,” Trowland said. “So you see why it just felt really absurd? Like, do they know that environmentalist people like being in the countryside with trees and flowers?” It would be wrong to say prison had not changed Trowland. It was just that it was perhaps not in the way the authorities would have liked. A philosophy course he took at Highpoint gave him a renewed theoretical framework to justify his offending. He explained: “You form a society voluntarily because it’s for everyone’s collective welfare, and so that government that you form together should only be used to do things that are good for everyone. And if it’s doing something like cooking the climate and destroying the ecosystem, that is absolutely contrary to the purpose of forming a society. “It fits the scenario that John Locke laid out because in [Two] Treatises of Government, he lays out scenarios where it’s right and just to rebel against people that have misused government.” The relative deprivation of prison life also provided Trowland with a lesson in practical philosophy. “The biggest thing that hits you is possessions, and the superfluous nature of so many of them – after having hardly anything for a year, just some books and writing pads and diaries. I thought that was fine, that was a good amount of possessions actually – a few treasured books. “And then coming back to an apartment and going and getting stuff of mine from storage, it overwhelms on an emotional level, and on a philosophical level. What is all this for? Oh my God, why? Why spend life managing all these things? It all just seems utterly meaningless, and really overwhelming.” But perhaps Trowland’s most surprising lesson from life behind bars was about happiness. “It was quite easy to be happy in prison, because you can always come up with some mental pursuits … And that felt really good just because, you’re sent there to be punished, right? It’s supposed to be bad, you’re supposed to feel miserable, downcast all the time … So that was a good lesson, that you can be really happy with just some books of poetry and just going to a garden each day.” He does have regrets, not least about the people who were affected by the disruption his protest caused. His trial heard how small businesses lost thousands of pounds in revenue, sick patients missed hospital appointments; a witness at his trial who missed his friend’s funeral refused a note of apology Trowland wrote from the dock. The knowledge of those effects had been his real punishment, Trowland said. “What it raised for me is that that is exactly the kind of process that we don’t do collectively as British people, [which] is face up to the consequences of our actions on people elsewhere,” he said. “And that’s ultimately the reason I was climbing up the bridge, because I’ve met people, like in India, people who have really no resources to deal with climate breakdown, the kinds of people that are in large numbers now dying of climate-induced famine, disease, and that kind of thing. “And those horrific harms are really happening all the time. And people in Britain, we’re never having our day in court to face up to – look, this is what we’re doing to our neighbours in equatorial parts of the world.” “I see these kinds of direct actions as being a very rough justice, just to make everyone stop for a minute, to look at what we’re doing to ourselves, and especially to other very vulnerable people. Which otherwise we really just don’t.” As he readjusts to life on the outside, philosophical and ethical reflections aside, Trowland is happy to be a free man again: “It’s really nice to be home; it’s delightful to just be relaxing at home. I want to see if I can recover that very relaxing mind state that I had in prison. I want to see if I can get relaxed enough to write a poem in the outside world.” Explore more on these topics Just Stop Oil Climate crisis Prisons and probation news Share Reuse this content Morgan Trowland (3rd right) remembers his colleague Marcus Decker who is still in prison by joining friends as he leaves prison in December. Photograph: Martin Pope/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Morgan Trowland (3rd right) remembers his colleague Marcus Decker who is still in prison by joining friends as he leaves prison in December. Photograph: Martin Pope/Getty Images Morgan Trowland (3rd right) remembers his colleague Marcus Decker who is still in prison by joining friends as he leaves prison in December. Photograph: Martin Pope/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Morgan Trowland (3rd right) remembers his colleague Marcus Decker who is still in prison by joining friends as he leaves prison in December. Photograph: Martin Pope/Getty Images Morgan Trowland (3rd right) remembers his colleague Marcus Decker who is still in prison by joining friends as he leaves prison in December. Photograph: Martin Pope/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Morgan Trowland (3rd right) remembers his colleague Marcus Decker who is still in prison by joining friends as he leaves prison in December. Photograph: Martin Pope/Getty Images Morgan Trowland (3rd right) remembers his colleague Marcus Decker who is still in prison by joining friends as he leaves prison in December. Photograph: Martin Pope/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Morgan Trowland (3rd right) remembers his colleague Marcus Decker who is still in prison by joining friends as he leaves prison in December. Photograph: Martin Pope/Getty Images Morgan Trowland (3rd right) remembers his colleague Marcus Decker who is still in prison by joining friends as he leaves prison in December. Photograph: Martin Pope/Getty Images Morgan Trowland (3rd right) remembers his colleague Marcus Decker who is still in prison by joining friends as he leaves prison in December. Photograph: Martin Pope/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old ‘You can be happy in prison’: climate protester reflects on punishment This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘You can be happy in prison’: climate protester reflects on punishment This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘You can be happy in prison’: climate protester reflects on punishment 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 Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker received the longest sentences given to non-violent protesters in UK Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker received the longest sentences given to non-violent protesters in UK Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker received the longest sentences given to non-violent protesters in UK Last year, Morgan Trowland was one of two Just Stop Oil protesters sentenced to more than two and a half years in prison for scaling the Dartford crossing. The sentences handed down to Trowland and Marcus Decker are the longest sentences yet given to non-violent protesters in the UK. Now, after his release on licence last month, Trowland says the 13 months he spent behind bars hardly felt like punishment at all. In October 2022, Trowland and Decker were dropped off at night on the Queen Elizabeth II bridge, hopped over a barrier and shimmied up the thick steel cables that suspend it above the Thames estuary. For almost two days, they hung suspended in hammocks from the top of the bridge, displaying a giant “Just Stop Oil” banner. Police closed the crossing for 40 hours, causing huge delays for the hundreds of thousands of motorists who use it each day to travel between Essex and Kent. Passing sentence, Judge Shane Collery KC told them: “You have to be punished for the chaos you caused and to deter others from copying you.” Decker remains behind bars and faces deportation to Germany on his release, but Trowland, originally from New Zealand, speaks fondly of his incarceration. “I’m personally not that bothered,” Trowland told the Guardian in a phone interview from his home in London. “It was a lot of quiet time to do lots of reading philosophy and poetry. “It’s not good, but personally I don’t think it’s very scary. It just seems really absurd. It feels really absurd to me because, like, that is supposed to scare us into accepting climate and ecological collapse, and accept living in a self-destructive societal system? It’s a nonsense.” Trowland served his sentence across three prisons. As soon as he and Decker were removed from the bridge, they were taken to Chelmsford prison, Essex, where many people are sent on remand. From there, Trowland spent a month in Pentonville, in London – the worst, he said, “because they don’t seem to have the resources or the staff to run any normal, reasonable regime, so they just lock everyone up most of the time”. “But it did have very good vegan food,” he added, speculating that it could be the result of its location in Islington.. After another spell in Chelmsford, Trowland finished the remainder of his sentence at Highpoint, a category C jail in Suffolk. That was much nicer, with “loads of grass and trees” and a gardens block, where Trowland was able to get a prison job. “It’s even got ponds and a wilderness corner and, in summer time, there’s this area that I called the dell with all these beautiful, tall wild flowers, and plants growing up in ponds, and foxgloves, and just all these beautiful things,” Trowland said. “So you see why it just felt really absurd? Like, do they know that environmentalist people like being in the countryside with trees and flowers?” It would be wrong to say prison had not changed Trowland. It was just that it was perhaps not in the way the authorities would have liked. A philosophy course he took at Highpoint gave him a renewed theoretical framework to justify his offending. He explained: “You form a society voluntarily because it’s for everyone’s collective welfare, and so that government that you form together should only be used to do things that are good for everyone. And if it’s doing something like cooking the climate and destroying the ecosystem, that is absolutely contrary to the purpose of forming a society. “It fits the scenario that John Locke laid out because in [Two] Treatises of Government, he lays out scenarios where it’s right and just to rebel against people that have misused government.” The relative deprivation of prison life also provided Trowland with a lesson in practical philosophy. “The biggest thing that hits you is possessions, and the superfluous nature of so many of them – after having hardly anything for a year, just some books and writing pads and diaries. I thought that was fine, that was a good amount of possessions actually – a few treasured books. “And then coming back to an apartment and going and getting stuff of mine from storage, it overwhelms on an emotional level, and on a philosophical level. What is all this for? Oh my God, why? Why spend life managing all these things? It all just seems utterly meaningless, and really overwhelming.” But perhaps Trowland’s most surprising lesson from life behind bars was about happiness. “It was quite easy to be happy in prison, because you can always come up with some mental pursuits … And that felt really good just because, you’re sent there to be punished, right? It’s supposed to be bad, you’re supposed to feel miserable, downcast all the time … So that was a good lesson, that you can be really happy with just some books of poetry and just going to a garden each day.” He does have regrets, not least about the people who were affected by the disruption his protest caused. His trial heard how small businesses lost thousands of pounds in revenue, sick patients missed hospital appointments; a witness at his trial who missed his friend’s funeral refused a note of apology Trowland wrote from the dock. The knowledge of those effects had been his real punishment, Trowland said. “What it raised for me is that that is exactly the kind of process that we don’t do collectively as British people, [which] is face up to the consequences of our actions on people elsewhere,” he said. “And that’s ultimately the reason I was climbing up the bridge, because I’ve met people, like in India, people who have really no resources to deal with climate breakdown, the kinds of people that are in large numbers now dying of climate-induced famine, disease, and that kind of thing. “And those horrific harms are really happening all the time. And people in Britain, we’re never having our day in court to face up to – look, this is what we’re doing to our neighbours in equatorial parts of the world.” “I see these kinds of direct actions as being a very rough justice, just to make everyone stop for a minute, to look at what we’re doing to ourselves, and especially to other very vulnerable people. Which otherwise we really just don’t.” As he readjusts to life on the outside, philosophical and ethical reflections aside, Trowland is happy to be a free man again: “It’s really nice to be home; it’s delightful to just be relaxing at home. I want to see if I can recover that very relaxing mind state that I had in prison. I want to see if I can get relaxed enough to write a poem in the outside world.” Explore more on these topics Just Stop Oil Climate crisis Prisons and probation news Share Reuse this content Last year, Morgan Trowland was one of two Just Stop Oil protesters sentenced to more than two and a half years in prison for scaling the Dartford crossing. The sentences handed down to Trowland and Marcus Decker are the longest sentences yet given to non-violent protesters in the UK. Now, after his release on licence last month, Trowland says the 13 months he spent behind bars hardly felt like punishment at all. In October 2022, Trowland and Decker were dropped off at night on the Queen Elizabeth II bridge, hopped over a barrier and shimmied up the thick steel cables that suspend it above the Thames estuary. For almost two days, they hung suspended in hammocks from the top of the bridge, displaying a giant “Just Stop Oil” banner. Police closed the crossing for 40 hours, causing huge delays for the hundreds of thousands of motorists who use it each day to travel between Essex and Kent. Passing sentence, Judge Shane Collery KC told them: “You have to be punished for the chaos you caused and to deter others from copying you.” Decker remains behind bars and faces deportation to Germany on his release, but Trowland, originally from New Zealand, speaks fondly of his incarceration. “I’m personally not that bothered,” Trowland told the Guardian in a phone interview from his home in London. “It was a lot of quiet time to do lots of reading philosophy and poetry. “It’s not good, but personally I don’t think it’s very scary. It just seems really absurd. It feels really absurd to me because, like, that is supposed to scare us into accepting climate and ecological collapse, and accept living in a self-destructive societal system? It’s a nonsense.” Trowland served his sentence across three prisons. As soon as he and Decker were removed from the bridge, they were taken to Chelmsford prison, Essex, where many people are sent on remand. From there, Trowland spent a month in Pentonville, in London – the worst, he said, “because they don’t seem to have the resources or the staff to run any normal, reasonable regime, so they just lock everyone up most of the time”. “But it did have very good vegan food,” he added, speculating that it could be the result of its location in Islington.. After another spell in Chelmsford, Trowland finished the remainder of his sentence at Highpoint, a category C jail in Suffolk. That was much nicer, with “loads of grass and trees” and a gardens block, where Trowland was able to get a prison job. “It’s even got ponds and a wilderness corner and, in summer time, there’s this area that I called the dell with all these beautiful, tall wild flowers, and plants growing up in ponds, and foxgloves, and just all these beautiful things,” Trowland said. “So you see why it just felt really absurd? Like, do they know that environmentalist people like being in the countryside with trees and flowers?” It would be wrong to say prison had not changed Trowland. It was just that it was perhaps not in the way the authorities would have liked. A philosophy course he took at Highpoint gave him a renewed theoretical framework to justify his offending. He explained: “You form a society voluntarily because it’s for everyone’s collective welfare, and so that government that you form together should only be used to do things that are good for everyone. And if it’s doing something like cooking the climate and destroying the ecosystem, that is absolutely contrary to the purpose of forming a society. “It fits the scenario that John Locke laid out because in [Two] Treatises of Government, he lays out scenarios where it’s right and just to rebel against people that have misused government.” The relative deprivation of prison life also provided Trowland with a lesson in practical philosophy. “The biggest thing that hits you is possessions, and the superfluous nature of so many of them – after having hardly anything for a year, just some books and writing pads and diaries. I thought that was fine, that was a good amount of possessions actually – a few treasured books. “And then coming back to an apartment and going and getting stuff of mine from storage, it overwhelms on an emotional level, and on a philosophical level. What is all this for? Oh my God, why? Why spend life managing all these things? It all just seems utterly meaningless, and really overwhelming.” But perhaps Trowland’s most surprising lesson from life behind bars was about happiness. “It was quite easy to be happy in prison, because you can always come up with some mental pursuits … And that felt really good just because, you’re sent there to be punished, right? It’s supposed to be bad, you’re supposed to feel miserable, downcast all the time … So that was a good lesson, that you can be really happy with just some books of poetry and just going to a garden each day.” He does have regrets, not least about the people who were affected by the disruption his protest caused. His trial heard how small businesses lost thousands of pounds in revenue, sick patients missed hospital appointments; a witness at his trial who missed his friend’s funeral refused a note of apology Trowland wrote from the dock. The knowledge of those effects had been his real punishment, Trowland said. “What it raised for me is that that is exactly the kind of process that we don’t do collectively as British people, [which] is face up to the consequences of our actions on people elsewhere,” he said. “And that’s ultimately the reason I was climbing up the bridge, because I’ve met people, like in India, people who have really no resources to deal with climate breakdown, the kinds of people that are in large numbers now dying of climate-induced famine, disease, and that kind of thing. “And those horrific harms are really happening all the time. And people in Britain, we’re never having our day in court to face up to – look, this is what we’re doing to our neighbours in equatorial parts of the world.” “I see these kinds of direct actions as being a very rough justice, just to make everyone stop for a minute, to look at what we’re doing to ourselves, and especially to other very vulnerable people. Which otherwise we really just don’t.” As he readjusts to life on the outside, philosophical and ethical reflections aside, Trowland is happy to be a free man again: “It’s really nice to be home; it’s delightful to just be relaxing at home. I want to see if I can recover that very relaxing mind state that I had in prison. I want to see if I can get relaxed enough to write a poem in the outside world.” Explore more on these topics Just Stop Oil Climate crisis Prisons and probation news Share Reuse this content Last year, Morgan Trowland was one of two Just Stop Oil protesters sentenced to more than two and a half years in prison for scaling the Dartford crossing. The sentences handed down to Trowland and Marcus Decker are the longest sentences yet given to non-violent protesters in the UK. Now, after his release on licence last month, Trowland says the 13 months he spent behind bars hardly felt like punishment at all. In October 2022, Trowland and Decker were dropped off at night on the Queen Elizabeth II bridge, hopped over a barrier and shimmied up the thick steel cables that suspend it above the Thames estuary. For almost two days, they hung suspended in hammocks from the top of the bridge, displaying a giant “Just Stop Oil” banner. Police closed the crossing for 40 hours, causing huge delays for the hundreds of thousands of motorists who use it each day to travel between Essex and Kent. Passing sentence, Judge Shane Collery KC told them: “You have to be punished for the chaos you caused and to deter others from copying you.” Decker remains behind bars and faces deportation to Germany on his release, but Trowland, originally from New Zealand, speaks fondly of his incarceration. “I’m personally not that bothered,” Trowland told the Guardian in a phone interview from his home in London. “It was a lot of quiet time to do lots of reading philosophy and poetry. “It’s not good, but personally I don’t think it’s very scary. It just seems really absurd. It feels really absurd to me because, like, that is supposed to scare us into accepting climate and ecological collapse, and accept living in a self-destructive societal system? It’s a nonsense.” Trowland served his sentence across three prisons. As soon as he and Decker were removed from the bridge, they were taken to Chelmsford prison, Essex, where many people are sent on remand. From there, Trowland spent a month in Pentonville, in London – the worst, he said, “because they don’t seem to have the resources or the staff to run any normal, reasonable regime, so they just lock everyone up most of the time”. “But it did have very good vegan food,” he added, speculating that it could be the result of its location in Islington.. After another spell in Chelmsford, Trowland finished the remainder of his sentence at Highpoint, a category C jail in Suffolk. That was much nicer, with “loads of grass and trees” and a gardens block, where Trowland was able to get a prison job. “It’s even got ponds and a wilderness corner and, in summer time, there’s this area that I called the dell with all these beautiful, tall wild flowers, and plants growing up in ponds, and foxgloves, and just all these beautiful things,” Trowland said. “So you see why it just felt really absurd? Like, do they know that environmentalist people like being in the countryside with trees and flowers?” It would be wrong to say prison had not changed Trowland. It was just that it was perhaps not in the way the authorities would have liked. A philosophy course he took at Highpoint gave him a renewed theoretical framework to justify his offending. He explained: “You form a society voluntarily because it’s for everyone’s collective welfare, and so that government that you form together should only be used to do things that are good for everyone. And if it’s doing something like cooking the climate and destroying the ecosystem, that is absolutely contrary to the purpose of forming a society. “It fits the scenario that John Locke laid out because in [Two] Treatises of Government, he lays out scenarios where it’s right and just to rebel against people that have misused government.” The relative deprivation of prison life also provided Trowland with a lesson in practical philosophy. “The biggest thing that hits you is possessions, and the superfluous nature of so many of them – after having hardly anything for a year, just some books and writing pads and diaries. I thought that was fine, that was a good amount of possessions actually – a few treasured books. “And then coming back to an apartment and going and getting stuff of mine from storage, it overwhelms on an emotional level, and on a philosophical level. What is all this for? Oh my God, why? Why spend life managing all these things? It all just seems utterly meaningless, and really overwhelming.” But perhaps Trowland’s most surprising lesson from life behind bars was about happiness. “It was quite easy to be happy in prison, because you can always come up with some mental pursuits … And that felt really good just because, you’re sent there to be punished, right? It’s supposed to be bad, you’re supposed to feel miserable, downcast all the time … So that was a good lesson, that you can be really happy with just some books of poetry and just going to a garden each day.” He does have regrets, not least about the people who were affected by the disruption his protest caused. His trial heard how small businesses lost thousands of pounds in revenue, sick patients missed hospital appointments; a witness at his trial who missed his friend’s funeral refused a note of apology Trowland wrote from the dock. The knowledge of those effects had been his real punishment, Trowland said. “What it raised for me is that that is exactly the kind of process that we don’t do collectively as British people, [which] is face up to the consequences of our actions on people elsewhere,” he said. “And that’s ultimately the reason I was climbing up the bridge, because I’ve met people, like in India, people who have really no resources to deal with climate breakdown, the kinds of people that are in large numbers now dying of climate-induced famine, disease, and that kind of thing. “And those horrific harms are really happening all the time. And people in Britain, we’re never having our day in court to face up to – look, this is what we’re doing to our neighbours in equatorial parts of the world.” “I see these kinds of direct actions as being a very rough justice, just to make everyone stop for a minute, to look at what we’re doing to ourselves, and especially to other very vulnerable people. Which otherwise we really just don’t.” As he readjusts to life on the outside, philosophical and ethical reflections aside, Trowland is happy to be a free man again: “It’s really nice to be home; it’s delightful to just be relaxing at home. I want to see if I can recover that very relaxing mind state that I had in prison. I want to see if I can get relaxed enough to write a poem in the outside world.” Last year, Morgan Trowland was one of two Just Stop Oil protesters sentenced to more than two and a half years in prison for scaling the Dartford crossing. The sentences handed down to Trowland and Marcus Decker are the longest sentences yet given to non-violent protesters in the UK. Now, after his release on licence last month, Trowland says the 13 months he spent behind bars hardly felt like punishment at all. In October 2022, Trowland and Decker were dropped off at night on the Queen Elizabeth II bridge, hopped over a barrier and shimmied up the thick steel cables that suspend it above the Thames estuary. For almost two days, they hung suspended in hammocks from the top of the bridge, displaying a giant “Just Stop Oil” banner. Police closed the crossing for 40 hours, causing huge delays for the hundreds of thousands of motorists who use it each day to travel between Essex and Kent. Passing sentence, Judge Shane Collery KC told them: “You have to be punished for the chaos you caused and to deter others from copying you.” Decker remains behind bars and faces deportation to Germany on his release, but Trowland, originally from New Zealand, speaks fondly of his incarceration. “I’m personally not that bothered,” Trowland told the Guardian in a phone interview from his home in London. “It was a lot of quiet time to do lots of reading philosophy and poetry. “It’s not good, but personally I don’t think it’s very scary. It just seems really absurd. It feels really absurd to me because, like, that is supposed to scare us into accepting climate and ecological collapse, and accept living in a self-destructive societal system? It’s a nonsense.” Trowland served his sentence across three prisons. As soon as he and Decker were removed from the bridge, they were taken to Chelmsford prison, Essex, where many people are sent on remand. From there, Trowland spent a month in Pentonville, in London – the worst, he said, “because they don’t seem to have the resources or the staff to run any normal, reasonable regime, so they just lock everyone up most of the time”. “But it did have very good vegan food,” he added, speculating that it could be the result of its location in Islington.. After another spell in Chelmsford, Trowland finished the remainder of his sentence at Highpoint, a category C jail in Suffolk. That was much nicer, with “loads of grass and trees” and a gardens block, where Trowland was able to get a prison job. “It’s even got ponds and a wilderness corner and, in summer time, there’s this area that I called the dell with all these beautiful, tall wild flowers, and plants growing up in ponds, and foxgloves, and just all these beautiful things,” Trowland said. “So you see why it just felt really absurd? Like, do they know that environmentalist people like being in the countryside with trees and flowers?” It would be wrong to say prison had not changed Trowland. It was just that it was perhaps not in the way the authorities would have liked. A philosophy course he took at Highpoint gave him a renewed theoretical framework to justify his offending. He explained: “You form a society voluntarily because it’s for everyone’s collective welfare, and so that government that you form together should only be used to do things that are good for everyone. And if it’s doing something like cooking the climate and destroying the ecosystem, that is absolutely contrary to the purpose of forming a society. “It fits the scenario that John Locke laid out because in [Two] Treatises of Government, he lays out scenarios where it’s right and just to rebel against people that have misused government.” The relative deprivation of prison life also provided Trowland with a lesson in practical philosophy. “The biggest thing that hits you is possessions, and the superfluous nature of so many of them – after having hardly anything for a year, just some books and writing pads and diaries. I thought that was fine, that was a good amount of possessions actually – a few treasured books. “And then coming back to an apartment and going and getting stuff of mine from storage, it overwhelms on an emotional level, and on a philosophical level. What is all this for? Oh my God, why? Why spend life managing all these things? It all just seems utterly meaningless, and really overwhelming.” But perhaps Trowland’s most surprising lesson from life behind bars was about happiness. “It was quite easy to be happy in prison, because you can always come up with some mental pursuits … And that felt really good just because, you’re sent there to be punished, right? It’s supposed to be bad, you’re supposed to feel miserable, downcast all the time … So that was a good lesson, that you can be really happy with just some books of poetry and just going to a garden each day.” He does have regrets, not least about the people who were affected by the disruption his protest caused. His trial heard how small businesses lost thousands of pounds in revenue, sick patients missed hospital appointments; a witness at his trial who missed his friend’s funeral refused a note of apology Trowland wrote from the dock. The knowledge of those effects had been his real punishment, Trowland said. “What it raised for me is that that is exactly the kind of process that we don’t do collectively as British people, [which] is face up to the consequences of our actions on people elsewhere,” he said. “And that’s ultimately the reason I was climbing up the bridge, because I’ve met people, like in India, people who have really no resources to deal with climate breakdown, the kinds of people that are in large numbers now dying of climate-induced famine, disease, and that kind of thing. “And those horrific harms are really happening all the time. And people in Britain, we’re never having our day in court to face up to – look, this is what we’re doing to our neighbours in equatorial parts of the world.” “I see these kinds of direct actions as being a very rough justice, just to make everyone stop for a minute, to look at what we’re doing to ourselves, and especially to other very vulnerable people. Which otherwise we really just don’t.” As he readjusts to life on the outside, philosophical and ethical reflections aside, Trowland is happy to be a free man again: “It’s really nice to be home; it’s delightful to just be relaxing at home. I want to see if I can recover that very relaxing mind state that I had in prison. I want to see if I can get relaxed enough to write a poem in the outside world.” Last year, Morgan Trowland was one of two Just Stop Oil protesters sentenced to more than two and a half years in prison for scaling the Dartford crossing. The sentences handed down to Trowland and Marcus Decker are the longest sentences yet given to non-violent protesters in the UK. Now, after his release on licence last month, Trowland says the 13 months he spent behind bars hardly felt like punishment at all. In October 2022, Trowland and Decker were dropped off at night on the Queen Elizabeth II bridge, hopped over a barrier and shimmied up the thick steel cables that suspend it above the Thames estuary. For almost two days, they hung suspended in hammocks from the top of the bridge, displaying a giant “Just Stop Oil” banner. Police closed the crossing for 40 hours, causing huge delays for the hundreds of thousands of motorists who use it each day to travel between Essex and Kent. Passing sentence, Judge Shane Collery KC told them: “You have to be punished for the chaos you caused and to deter others from copying you.” Decker remains behind bars and faces deportation to Germany on his release, but Trowland, originally from New Zealand, speaks fondly of his incarceration. “I’m personally not that bothered,” Trowland told the Guardian in a phone interview from his home in London. “It was a lot of quiet time to do lots of reading philosophy and poetry. “It’s not good, but personally I don’t think it’s very scary. It just seems really absurd. It feels really absurd to me because, like, that is supposed to scare us into accepting climate and ecological collapse, and accept living in a self-destructive societal system? It’s a nonsense.” Trowland served his sentence across three prisons. As soon as he and Decker were removed from the bridge, they were taken to Chelmsford prison, Essex, where many people are sent on remand. From there, Trowland spent a month in Pentonville, in London – the worst, he said, “because they don’t seem to have the resources or the staff to run any normal, reasonable regime, so they just lock everyone up most of the time”. “But it did have very good vegan food,” he added, speculating that it could be the result of its location in Islington.. After another spell in Chelmsford, Trowland finished the remainder of his sentence at Highpoint, a category C jail in Suffolk. That was much nicer, with “loads of grass and trees” and a gardens block, where Trowland was able to get a prison job. “It’s even got ponds and a wilderness corner and, in summer time, there’s this area that I called the dell with all these beautiful, tall wild flowers, and plants growing up in ponds, and foxgloves, and just all these beautiful things,” Trowland said. “So you see why it just felt really absurd? Like, do they know that environmentalist people like being in the countryside with trees and flowers?” It would be wrong to say prison had not changed Trowland. It was just that it was perhaps not in the way the authorities would have liked. A philosophy course he took at Highpoint gave him a renewed theoretical framework to justify his offending. He explained: “You form a society voluntarily because it’s for everyone’s collective welfare, and so that government that you form together should only be used to do things that are good for everyone. And if it’s doing something like cooking the climate and destroying the ecosystem, that is absolutely contrary to the purpose of forming a society. “It fits the scenario that John Locke laid out because in [Two] Treatises of Government, he lays out scenarios where it’s right and just to rebel against people that have misused government.” The relative deprivation of prison life also provided Trowland with a lesson in practical philosophy. “The biggest thing that hits you is possessions, and the superfluous nature of so many of them – after having hardly anything for a year, just some books and writing pads and diaries. I thought that was fine, that was a good amount of possessions actually – a few treasured books. “And then coming back to an apartment and going and getting stuff of mine from storage, it overwhelms on an emotional level, and on a philosophical level. What is all this for? Oh my God, why? Why spend life managing all these things? It all just seems utterly meaningless, and really overwhelming.” But perhaps Trowland’s most surprising lesson from life behind bars was about happiness. “It was quite easy to be happy in prison, because you can always come up with some mental pursuits … And that felt really good just because, you’re sent there to be punished, right? It’s supposed to be bad, you’re supposed to feel miserable, downcast all the time … So that was a good lesson, that you can be really happy with just some books of poetry and just going to a garden each day.” He does have regrets, not least about the people who were affected by the disruption his protest caused. His trial heard how small businesses lost thousands of pounds in revenue, sick patients missed hospital appointments; a witness at his trial who missed his friend’s funeral refused a note of apology Trowland wrote from the dock. The knowledge of those effects had been his real punishment, Trowland said. “What it raised for me is that that is exactly the kind of process that we don’t do collectively as British people, [which] is face up to the consequences of our actions on people elsewhere,” he said. “And that’s ultimately th
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
Woodside cuts all ties with Perth’s Fringe World festival after years of environmental protests
Three artists protest at Fringe World’s launch event in Perth in January 2019, calling for the organisation to end its sponsorship deal with fossil fuel firms. Photograph: Miles Tweedie/Supplied View image in fullscreen Three artists protest at Fringe World’s launch event in Perth in January 2019, calling for the organisation to end its sponsorship deal with fossil fuel firms. Photograph: Miles Tweedie/Supplied This article is more than 1 year old Woodside cuts all ties with Perth’s Fringe World festival after years of environmental protests This article is more than 1 year old Festival will be free of fossil fuel sponsorship for the first time in decades after the departure of Chevron as a sponsor last year Fossil fuel company Woodside has now severed all ties with the arts company behind one of the largest fringe festivals in the world, after sustained complaints and protests over several years from performers, producers and audiences. A Woodside spokesperson confirmed on Wednesday a philanthropic agreement with Artrage, one of Western Australia’s largest arts companies which produces the annual Fringe World festival, had been discontinued. The spokesperson said it was Woodside’s decision not to renew the partnership late last year, 18 months after public pressure forced Artrage to withdraw Woodside’s naming rights for key Fringe World events. The sponsorship was quietly converted into a private philanthropic agreement with the arts company, at arm’s length from the festival, three weeks later. Perth’s Fringe World festival parts way with mining giant Woodside Read more This year’s Fringe World, which opens on 19 January, and last year staged more the 550 events across more than 100 venues, will be the first time the festival will be free of fossil fuel sponsorship in more than a decade. The environmental activist group Fossil Free Arts said the split between Artrage and Woodside was a victory, and it would now set its sights on other major performing arts companies in Western Australia still reliant on sponsorships from oil and gas companies, including the state’s flagship ballet company and symphony orchestra. Fossil Free Arts’ spokesperson, Anthony Collins, said the Fringe World victory had been won after a sustained five-year campaign. “It is a credit to the WA arts scene that festival season is no longer promoting the destruction being caused by the state’s two biggest polluters,” Collins said in a statement. “It is now a matter of time before other institutions either cut ties with big polluters or face negative consequences due to their support of an LNG industry which is betting against a livable climate.” A spokesperson for Artrage said the company acknowledged the positive contributions obtained through Woodside’s 18 month philanthropic collaboration. “The pandemic was a major financial challenge to Fringe World, and the Artrage team has worked tirelessly to ensure the Festival can continue and increase support for artists who were also very hard hit,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “Without sponsors like Woodside, Fringe World would not be able to present an annual platform for artists to perform and for the community to enjoy.” Artrage declined to disclose how much support in cash and kind the oil and gas company had contributed over the past decade. The spokesperson said the arts company had reviewed its funding model to achieve a “more balanced income portfolio”. “Thanks to the generous contributions made by our sponsors, both past and present, as well as the wonderful people who attend and support our events, we have been able to reduce ticketing fees and double cash awards and bursaries,” the statement said. Woodside’s spokesperson said as global energy company with domestic and international operations, it was proud to be part of the diverse communities in which it works. “We recognise the importance of our role in delivering mutual and sustainable social outcomes in the communities we are part of,” the statement said. “We’ve built genuine, long-term relationships with our stakeholders and host communities over more than three decades.” Explore more on these topics Culture Australian arts in focus Western Australia news Share Reuse this content Three artists protest at Fringe World’s launch event in Perth in January 2019, calling for the organisation to end its sponsorship deal with fossil fuel firms. Photograph: Miles Tweedie/Supplied View image in fullscreen Three artists protest at Fringe World’s launch event in Perth in January 2019, calling for the organisation to end its sponsorship deal with fossil fuel firms. Photograph: Miles Tweedie/Supplied This article is more than 1 year old Woodside cuts all ties with Perth’s Fringe World festival after years of environmental protests This article is more than 1 year old Festival will be free of fossil fuel sponsorship for the first time in decades after the departure of Chevron as a sponsor last year Fossil fuel company Woodside has now severed all ties with the arts company behind one of the largest fringe festivals in the world, after sustained complaints and protests over several years from performers, producers and audiences. A Woodside spokesperson confirmed on Wednesday a philanthropic agreement with Artrage, one of Western Australia’s largest arts companies which produces the annual Fringe World festival, had been discontinued. The spokesperson said it was Woodside’s decision not to renew the partnership late last year, 18 months after public pressure forced Artrage to withdraw Woodside’s naming rights for key Fringe World events. The sponsorship was quietly converted into a private philanthropic agreement with the arts company, at arm’s length from the festival, three weeks later. Perth’s Fringe World festival parts way with mining giant Woodside Read more This year’s Fringe World, which opens on 19 January, and last year staged more the 550 events across more than 100 venues, will be the first time the festival will be free of fossil fuel sponsorship in more than a decade. The environmental activist group Fossil Free Arts said the split between Artrage and Woodside was a victory, and it would now set its sights on other major performing arts companies in Western Australia still reliant on sponsorships from oil and gas companies, including the state’s flagship ballet company and symphony orchestra. Fossil Free Arts’ spokesperson, Anthony Collins, said the Fringe World victory had been won after a sustained five-year campaign. “It is a credit to the WA arts scene that festival season is no longer promoting the destruction being caused by the state’s two biggest polluters,” Collins said in a statement. “It is now a matter of time before other institutions either cut ties with big polluters or face negative consequences due to their support of an LNG industry which is betting against a livable climate.” A spokesperson for Artrage said the company acknowledged the positive contributions obtained through Woodside’s 18 month philanthropic collaboration. “The pandemic was a major financial challenge to Fringe World, and the Artrage team has worked tirelessly to ensure the Festival can continue and increase support for artists who were also very hard hit,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “Without sponsors like Woodside, Fringe World would not be able to present an annual platform for artists to perform and for the community to enjoy.” Artrage declined to disclose how much support in cash and kind the oil and gas company had contributed over the past decade. The spokesperson said the arts company had reviewed its funding model to achieve a “more balanced income portfolio”. “Thanks to the generous contributions made by our sponsors, both past and present, as well as the wonderful people who attend and support our events, we have been able to reduce ticketing fees and double cash awards and bursaries,” the statement said. Woodside’s spokesperson said as global energy company with domestic and international operations, it was proud to be part of the diverse communities in which it works. “We recognise the importance of our role in delivering mutual and sustainable social outcomes in the communities we are part of,” the statement said. “We’ve built genuine, long-term relationships with our stakeholders and host communities over more than three decades.” Explore more on these topics Culture Australian arts in focus Western Australia news Share Reuse this content Three artists protest at Fringe World’s launch event in Perth in January 2019, calling for the organisation to end its sponsorship deal with fossil fuel firms. Photograph: Miles Tweedie/Supplied View image in fullscreen Three artists protest at Fringe World’s launch event in Perth in January 2019, calling for the organisation to end its sponsorship deal with fossil fuel firms. Photograph: Miles Tweedie/Supplied Three artists protest at Fringe World’s launch event in Perth in January 2019, calling for the organisation to end its sponsorship deal with fossil fuel firms. Photograph: Miles Tweedie/Supplied View image in fullscreen Three artists protest at Fringe World’s launch event in Perth in January 2019, calling for the organisation to end its sponsorship deal with fossil fuel firms. Photograph: Miles Tweedie/Supplied Three artists protest at Fringe World’s launch event in Perth in January 2019, calling for the organisation to end its sponsorship deal with fossil fuel firms. Photograph: Miles Tweedie/Supplied View image in fullscreen Three artists protest at Fringe World’s launch event in Perth in January 2019, calling for the organisation to end its sponsorship deal with fossil fuel firms. Photograph: Miles Tweedie/Supplied Three artists protest at Fringe World’s launch event in Perth in January 2019, calling for the organisation to end its sponsorship deal with fossil fuel firms. Photograph: Miles Tweedie/Supplied View image in fullscreen Three artists protest at Fringe World’s launch event in Perth in January 2019, calling for the organisation to end its sponsorship deal with fossil fuel firms. Photograph: Miles Tweedie/Supplied Three artists protest at Fringe World’s launch event in Perth in January 2019, calling for the organisation to end its sponsorship deal with fossil fuel firms. Photograph: Miles Tweedie/Supplied Three artists protest at Fringe World’s launch event in Perth in January 2019, calling for the organisation to end its sponsorship deal with fossil fuel firms. Photograph: Miles Tweedie/Supplied This article is more than 1 year old Woodside cuts all ties with Perth’s Fringe World festival after years of environmental protests This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Woodside cuts all ties with Perth’s Fringe World festival after years of environmental protests This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Woodside cuts all ties with Perth’s Fringe World festival after years of environmental protests 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 Festival will be free of fossil fuel sponsorship for the first time in decades after the departure of Chevron as a sponsor last year Festival will be free of fossil fuel sponsorship for the first time in decades after the departure of Chevron as a sponsor last year Festival will be free of fossil fuel sponsorship for the first time in decades after the departure of Chevron as a sponsor last year Fossil fuel company Woodside has now severed all ties with the arts company behind one of the largest fringe festivals in the world, after sustained complaints and protests over several years from performers, producers and audiences. A Woodside spokesperson confirmed on Wednesday a philanthropic agreement with Artrage, one of Western Australia’s largest arts companies which produces the annual Fringe World festival, had been discontinued. The spokesperson said it was Woodside’s decision not to renew the partnership late last year, 18 months after public pressure forced Artrage to withdraw Woodside’s naming rights for key Fringe World events. The sponsorship was quietly converted into a private philanthropic agreement with the arts company, at arm’s length from the festival, three weeks later. Perth’s Fringe World festival parts way with mining giant Woodside Read more This year’s Fringe World, which opens on 19 January, and last year staged more the 550 events across more than 100 venues, will be the first time the festival will be free of fossil fuel sponsorship in more than a decade. The environmental activist group Fossil Free Arts said the split between Artrage and Woodside was a victory, and it would now set its sights on other major performing arts companies in Western Australia still reliant on sponsorships from oil and gas companies, including the state’s flagship ballet company and symphony orchestra. Fossil Free Arts’ spokesperson, Anthony Collins, said the Fringe World victory had been won after a sustained five-year campaign. “It is a credit to the WA arts scene that festival season is no longer promoting the destruction being caused by the state’s two biggest polluters,” Collins said in a statement. “It is now a matter of time before other institutions either cut ties with big polluters or face negative consequences due to their support of an LNG industry which is betting against a livable climate.” A spokesperson for Artrage said the company acknowledged the positive contributions obtained through Woodside’s 18 month philanthropic collaboration. “The pandemic was a major financial challenge to Fringe World, and the Artrage team has worked tirelessly to ensure the Festival can continue and increase support for artists who were also very hard hit,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “Without sponsors like Woodside, Fringe World would not be able to present an annual platform for artists to perform and for the community to enjoy.” Artrage declined to disclose how much support in cash and kind the oil and gas company had contributed over the past decade. The spokesperson said the arts company had reviewed its funding model to achieve a “more balanced income portfolio”. “Thanks to the generous contributions made by our sponsors, both past and present, as well as the wonderful people who attend and support our events, we have been able to reduce ticketing fees and double cash awards and bursaries,” the statement said. Woodside’s spokesperson said as global energy company with domestic and international operations, it was proud to be part of the diverse communities in which it works. “We recognise the importance of our role in delivering mutual and sustainable social outcomes in the communities we are part of,” the statement said. “We’ve built genuine, long-term relationships with our stakeholders and host communities over more than three decades.” Explore more on these topics Culture Australian arts in focus Western Australia news Share Reuse this content Fossil fuel company Woodside has now severed all ties with the arts company behind one of the largest fringe festivals in the world, after sustained complaints and protests over several years from performers, producers and audiences. A Woodside spokesperson confirmed on Wednesday a philanthropic agreement with Artrage, one of Western Australia’s largest arts companies which produces the annual Fringe World festival, had been discontinued. The spokesperson said it was Woodside’s decision not to renew the partnership late last year, 18 months after public pressure forced Artrage to withdraw Woodside’s naming rights for key Fringe World events. The sponsorship was quietly converted into a private philanthropic agreement with the arts company, at arm’s length from the festival, three weeks later. Perth’s Fringe World festival parts way with mining giant Woodside Read more This year’s Fringe World, which opens on 19 January, and last year staged more the 550 events across more than 100 venues, will be the first time the festival will be free of fossil fuel sponsorship in more than a decade. The environmental activist group Fossil Free Arts said the split between Artrage and Woodside was a victory, and it would now set its sights on other major performing arts companies in Western Australia still reliant on sponsorships from oil and gas companies, including the state’s flagship ballet company and symphony orchestra. Fossil Free Arts’ spokesperson, Anthony Collins, said the Fringe World victory had been won after a sustained five-year campaign. “It is a credit to the WA arts scene that festival season is no longer promoting the destruction being caused by the state’s two biggest polluters,” Collins said in a statement. “It is now a matter of time before other institutions either cut ties with big polluters or face negative consequences due to their support of an LNG industry which is betting against a livable climate.” A spokesperson for Artrage said the company acknowledged the positive contributions obtained through Woodside’s 18 month philanthropic collaboration. “The pandemic was a major financial challenge to Fringe World, and the Artrage team has worked tirelessly to ensure the Festival can continue and increase support for artists who were also very hard hit,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “Without sponsors like Woodside, Fringe World would not be able to present an annual platform for artists to perform and for the community to enjoy.” Artrage declined to disclose how much support in cash and kind the oil and gas company had contributed over the past decade. The spokesperson said the arts company had reviewed its funding model to achieve a “more balanced income portfolio”. “Thanks to the generous contributions made by our sponsors, both past and present, as well as the wonderful people who attend and support our events, we have been able to reduce ticketing fees and double cash awards and bursaries,” the statement said. Woodside’s spokesperson said as global energy company with domestic and international operations, it was proud to be part of the diverse communities in which it works. “We recognise the importance of our role in delivering mutual and sustainable social outcomes in the communities we are part of,” the statement said. “We’ve built genuine, long-term relationships with our stakeholders and host communities over more than three decades.” Explore more on these topics Culture Australian arts in focus Western Australia news Share Reuse this content Fossil fuel company Woodside has now severed all ties with the arts company behind one of the largest fringe festivals in the world, after sustained complaints and protests over several years from performers, producers and audiences. A Woodside spokesperson confirmed on Wednesday a philanthropic agreement with Artrage, one of Western Australia’s largest arts companies which produces the annual Fringe World festival, had been discontinued. The spokesperson said it was Woodside’s decision not to renew the partnership late last year, 18 months after public pressure forced Artrage to withdraw Woodside’s naming rights for key Fringe World events. The sponsorship was quietly converted into a private philanthropic agreement with the arts company, at arm’s length from the festival, three weeks later. Perth’s Fringe World festival parts way with mining giant Woodside Read more This year’s Fringe World, which opens on 19 January, and last year staged more the 550 events across more than 100 venues, will be the first time the festival will be free of fossil fuel sponsorship in more than a decade. The environmental activist group Fossil Free Arts said the split between Artrage and Woodside was a victory, and it would now set its sights on other major performing arts companies in Western Australia still reliant on sponsorships from oil and gas companies, including the state’s flagship ballet company and symphony orchestra. Fossil Free Arts’ spokesperson, Anthony Collins, said the Fringe World victory had been won after a sustained five-year campaign. “It is a credit to the WA arts scene that festival season is no longer promoting the destruction being caused by the state’s two biggest polluters,” Collins said in a statement. “It is now a matter of time before other institutions either cut ties with big polluters or face negative consequences due to their support of an LNG industry which is betting against a livable climate.” A spokesperson for Artrage said the company acknowledged the positive contributions obtained through Woodside’s 18 month philanthropic collaboration. “The pandemic was a major financial challenge to Fringe World, and the Artrage team has worked tirelessly to ensure the Festival can continue and increase support for artists who were also very hard hit,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “Without sponsors like Woodside, Fringe World would not be able to present an annual platform for artists to perform and for the community to enjoy.” Artrage declined to disclose how much support in cash and kind the oil and gas company had contributed over the past decade. The spokesperson said the arts company had reviewed its funding model to achieve a “more balanced income portfolio”. “Thanks to the generous contributions made by our sponsors, both past and present, as well as the wonderful people who attend and support our events, we have been able to reduce ticketing fees and double cash awards and bursaries,” the statement said. Woodside’s spokesperson said as global energy company with domestic and international operations, it was proud to be part of the diverse communities in which it works. “We recognise the importance of our role in delivering mutual and sustainable social outcomes in the communities we are part of,” the statement said. “We’ve built genuine, long-term relationships with our stakeholders and host communities over more than three decades.” Fossil fuel company Woodside has now severed all ties with the arts company behind one of the largest fringe festivals in the world, after sustained complaints and protests over several years from performers, producers and audiences. A Woodside spokesperson confirmed on Wednesday a philanthropic agreement with Artrage, one of Western Australia’s largest arts companies which produces the annual Fringe World festival, had been discontinued. The spokesperson said it was Woodside’s decision not to renew the partnership late last year, 18 months after public pressure forced Artrage to withdraw Woodside’s naming rights for key Fringe World events. The sponsorship was quietly converted into a private philanthropic agreement with the arts company, at arm’s length from the festival, three weeks later. Perth’s Fringe World festival parts way with mining giant Woodside Read more This year’s Fringe World, which opens on 19 January, and last year staged more the 550 events across more than 100 venues, will be the first time the festival will be free of fossil fuel sponsorship in more than a decade. The environmental activist group Fossil Free Arts said the split between Artrage and Woodside was a victory, and it would now set its sights on other major performing arts companies in Western Australia still reliant on sponsorships from oil and gas companies, including the state’s flagship ballet company and symphony orchestra. Fossil Free Arts’ spokesperson, Anthony Collins, said the Fringe World victory had been won after a sustained five-year campaign. “It is a credit to the WA arts scene that festival season is no longer promoting the destruction being caused by the state’s two biggest polluters,” Collins said in a statement. “It is now a matter of time before other institutions either cut ties with big polluters or face negative consequences due to their support of an LNG industry which is betting against a livable climate.” A spokesperson for Artrage said the company acknowledged the positive contributions obtained through Woodside’s 18 month philanthropic collaboration. “The pandemic was a major financial challenge to Fringe World, and the Artrage team has worked tirelessly to ensure the Festival can continue and increase support for artists who were also very hard hit,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “Without sponsors like Woodside, Fringe World would not be able to present an annual platform for artists to perform and for the community to enjoy.” Artrage declined to disclose how much support in cash and kind the oil and gas company had contributed over the past decade. The spokesperson said the arts company had reviewed its funding model to achieve a “more balanced income portfolio”. “Thanks to the generous contributions made by our sponsors, both past and present, as well as the wonderful people who attend and support our events, we have been able to reduce ticketing fees and double cash awards and bursaries,” the statement said. Woodside’s spokesperson said as global energy company with domestic and international operations, it was proud to be part of the diverse communities in which it works. “We recognise the importance of our role in delivering mutual and sustainable social outcomes in the communities we are part of,” the statement said. “We’ve built genuine, long-term relationships with our stakeholders and host communities over more than three decades.” Fossil fuel company Woodside has now severed all ties with the arts company behind one of the largest fringe festivals in the world, after sustained complaints and protests over several years from performers, producers and audiences. A Woodside spokesperson confirmed on Wednesday a philanthropic agreement with Artrage, one of Western Australia’s largest arts companies which produces the annual Fringe World festival, had been discontinued. The spokesperson said it was Woodside’s decision not to renew the partnership late last year, 18 months after public pressure forced Artrage to withdraw Woodside’s naming rights for key Fringe World events. The sponsorship was quietly converted into a private philanthropic agreement with the arts company, at arm’s length from the festival, three weeks later. Perth’s Fringe World festival parts way with mining giant Woodside Read more Perth’s Fringe World festival parts way with mining giant Woodside Read more Perth’s Fringe World festival parts way with mining giant Woodside Read more Perth’s Fringe World festival parts way with mining giant Woodside Perth’s Fringe World festival parts way with mining giant Woodside This year’s Fringe World, which opens on 19 January, and last year staged more the 550 events across more than 100 venues, will be the first time the festival will be free of fossil fuel sponsorship in more than a decade. The environmental activist group Fossil Free Arts said the split between Artrage and Woodside was a victory, and it would now set its sights on other major performing arts companies in Western Australia still reliant on sponsorships from oil and gas companies, including the state’s flagship ballet company and symphony orchestra. Fossil Free Arts’ spokesperson, Anthony Collins, said the Fringe World victory had been won after a sustained five-year campaign. “It is a credit to the WA arts scene that festival season is no longer promoting the destruction being caused by the state’s two biggest polluters,” Collins said in a statement. “It is now a matter of time before other institutions either cut ties with big polluters or face negative consequences due to their support of an LNG industry which is betting against a livable climate.” A spokesperson for Artrage said the company acknowledged the positive contributions obtained through Woodside’s 18 month philanthropic collaboration. “The pandemic was a major financial challenge to Fringe World, and the Artrage team has worked tirelessly to ensure the Festival can continue and increase support for artists who were also very hard hit,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “Without sponsors like Woodside, Fringe World would not be able to present an annual platform for artists to perform and for the community to enjoy.” Artrage declined to disclose how much support in cash and kind the oil and gas company had contributed over the past decade. The spokesperson said the arts company had reviewed its funding model to achieve a “more balanced income portfolio”. “Thanks to the generous contributions made by our sponsors, both past and present, as well as the wonderful people who attend and support our events, we have been able to reduce ticketing fees and double cash awards and bursaries,” the statement said. Woodside’s spokesperson said as global energy company with domestic and international operations, it was proud to be part of the diverse communities in which it works. “We recognise the importance of our role in delivering mutual and sustainable social outcomes in the communities we are part of,” the statement said. “We’ve built genuine, long-term relationships with our stakeholders and host communities over more than three decades.” Explore more on these topics Culture Australian arts in focus Western Australia news Share Reuse this content Culture Australian arts in focus Western Australia news
|
Chris Skidmore resigns Conservative whip over Sunak’s oil and gas licence plan
Chris Skidmore said he could ‘no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong’. Photograph: Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament/PA View image in fullscreen Chris Skidmore said he could ‘no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong’. Photograph: Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament/PA This article is more than 1 year old Chris Skidmore resigns Conservative whip over Sunak’s oil and gas licence plan This article is more than 1 year old Former minister also resigns as an MP, which will trigger byelection in his Kingswood constituency A former Conservative minister has announced he is resigning as an MP in protest at the party’s dash for oil and gas, setting up an awkward vote for the prime minister on the issue on Monday and an even more difficult byelection within weeks. Chris Skidmore, a leading voice within the Tory party on green issues, said on Friday he would resign from parliament as soon as it returns next week over Rishi Sunak’s bill to allow new oil and gas licences to be issued. Skidmore called the bill a “tragedy”, accusing the prime minister of being committed to a course of action that is “wrong and will cause future harm”. His resignation in Kingswood will trigger at least the eighth byelection in a year, with Labour looking to chalk up another victory in a seat with an 11,000 majority. Skidmore said in his resignation statement: “This bill would in effect allow more frequent new oil and gas licences and the increased production of new fossil fuels in the North Sea.” He added: “I can also no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong and will cause future harm. To fail to act, rather than merely speak out, is to tolerate a status quo that cannot be sustained. I am therefore resigning my party whip and instead intend to be free from any party-political allegiance.” Skidmore was the energy minister who signed into law the former prime minister Theresa May’s net zero by 2050 pledge. More recently he led the government’s net zero review, which was published in September 2022. He has been critical of this government before, and previously told the Guardian the Conservative party was heading in a “very dark direction” around misinformation and climate change. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Conservative party heading in ‘very dark direction’, says former minister Read more Next week, the government is introducing the offshore petroleum licensing bill in the House of Commons, which would allow for more licences to extract fossil fuel from the North Sea. The latest IPCC report makes it clear no new fossil fuel projects can be opened, so doing so goes against the recommendations of most of the world’s leading climate scientists. Labour intends to oppose the bill in a vote on Monday, although the government is likely to win, even without Skidmore’s vote. Ed Miliband, the shadow energy secretary, said: “Well done to Chris Skidmore for standing up to this desperate Conservative government. Their irresponsible, reckless attempt to double down on fossil fuels won’t cut bills, undermines energy security and is a climate disaster. That is why Labour will vote against it on Monday.” Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative peer and environmental campaigner, said: “The party will need to regroup after Sunak has crashed it against the rocks. Those who see themselves as part of that future should think very carefully about backing this nonsense policy”. Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, said: “Memo to Rishi Sunak – this is what principled politics looks like. It has been a real pleasure working with Chris Skidmore on climate and he’ll be much missed. It’s a huge indictment of a government that is maxing out fossil fuels.” Skidmore did not plan to run as an MP in the next election, as his constituency will be abolished in the upcoming boundary changes. He has not said yet what he plans to do, but was thought to be in the running to be the chair of the climate change committee. However, as this position is selected by Sunak, his appointment is thought to be unlikely. Explore more on these topics Chris Skidmore Conservatives Fossil fuels news Share Reuse this content Chris Skidmore said he could ‘no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong’. Photograph: Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament/PA View image in fullscreen Chris Skidmore said he could ‘no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong’. Photograph: Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament/PA This article is more than 1 year old Chris Skidmore resigns Conservative whip over Sunak’s oil and gas licence plan This article is more than 1 year old Former minister also resigns as an MP, which will trigger byelection in his Kingswood constituency A former Conservative minister has announced he is resigning as an MP in protest at the party’s dash for oil and gas, setting up an awkward vote for the prime minister on the issue on Monday and an even more difficult byelection within weeks. Chris Skidmore, a leading voice within the Tory party on green issues, said on Friday he would resign from parliament as soon as it returns next week over Rishi Sunak’s bill to allow new oil and gas licences to be issued. Skidmore called the bill a “tragedy”, accusing the prime minister of being committed to a course of action that is “wrong and will cause future harm”. His resignation in Kingswood will trigger at least the eighth byelection in a year, with Labour looking to chalk up another victory in a seat with an 11,000 majority. Skidmore said in his resignation statement: “This bill would in effect allow more frequent new oil and gas licences and the increased production of new fossil fuels in the North Sea.” He added: “I can also no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong and will cause future harm. To fail to act, rather than merely speak out, is to tolerate a status quo that cannot be sustained. I am therefore resigning my party whip and instead intend to be free from any party-political allegiance.” Skidmore was the energy minister who signed into law the former prime minister Theresa May’s net zero by 2050 pledge. More recently he led the government’s net zero review, which was published in September 2022. He has been critical of this government before, and previously told the Guardian the Conservative party was heading in a “very dark direction” around misinformation and climate change. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Conservative party heading in ‘very dark direction’, says former minister Read more Next week, the government is introducing the offshore petroleum licensing bill in the House of Commons, which would allow for more licences to extract fossil fuel from the North Sea. The latest IPCC report makes it clear no new fossil fuel projects can be opened, so doing so goes against the recommendations of most of the world’s leading climate scientists. Labour intends to oppose the bill in a vote on Monday, although the government is likely to win, even without Skidmore’s vote. Ed Miliband, the shadow energy secretary, said: “Well done to Chris Skidmore for standing up to this desperate Conservative government. Their irresponsible, reckless attempt to double down on fossil fuels won’t cut bills, undermines energy security and is a climate disaster. That is why Labour will vote against it on Monday.” Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative peer and environmental campaigner, said: “The party will need to regroup after Sunak has crashed it against the rocks. Those who see themselves as part of that future should think very carefully about backing this nonsense policy”. Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, said: “Memo to Rishi Sunak – this is what principled politics looks like. It has been a real pleasure working with Chris Skidmore on climate and he’ll be much missed. It’s a huge indictment of a government that is maxing out fossil fuels.” Skidmore did not plan to run as an MP in the next election, as his constituency will be abolished in the upcoming boundary changes. He has not said yet what he plans to do, but was thought to be in the running to be the chair of the climate change committee. However, as this position is selected by Sunak, his appointment is thought to be unlikely. Explore more on these topics Chris Skidmore Conservatives Fossil fuels news Share Reuse this content Chris Skidmore said he could ‘no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong’. Photograph: Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament/PA View image in fullscreen Chris Skidmore said he could ‘no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong’. Photograph: Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament/PA Chris Skidmore said he could ‘no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong’. Photograph: Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament/PA View image in fullscreen Chris Skidmore said he could ‘no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong’. Photograph: Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament/PA Chris Skidmore said he could ‘no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong’. Photograph: Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament/PA View image in fullscreen Chris Skidmore said he could ‘no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong’. Photograph: Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament/PA Chris Skidmore said he could ‘no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong’. Photograph: Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament/PA View image in fullscreen Chris Skidmore said he could ‘no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong’. Photograph: Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament/PA Chris Skidmore said he could ‘no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong’. Photograph: Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament/PA Chris Skidmore said he could ‘no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong’. Photograph: Chris McAndrew/UK Parliament/PA This article is more than 1 year old Chris Skidmore resigns Conservative whip over Sunak’s oil and gas licence plan This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Chris Skidmore resigns Conservative whip over Sunak’s oil and gas licence plan This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Chris Skidmore resigns Conservative whip over Sunak’s oil and gas licence plan 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 minister also resigns as an MP, which will trigger byelection in his Kingswood constituency Former minister also resigns as an MP, which will trigger byelection in his Kingswood constituency Former minister also resigns as an MP, which will trigger byelection in his Kingswood constituency A former Conservative minister has announced he is resigning as an MP in protest at the party’s dash for oil and gas, setting up an awkward vote for the prime minister on the issue on Monday and an even more difficult byelection within weeks. Chris Skidmore, a leading voice within the Tory party on green issues, said on Friday he would resign from parliament as soon as it returns next week over Rishi Sunak’s bill to allow new oil and gas licences to be issued. Skidmore called the bill a “tragedy”, accusing the prime minister of being committed to a course of action that is “wrong and will cause future harm”. His resignation in Kingswood will trigger at least the eighth byelection in a year, with Labour looking to chalk up another victory in a seat with an 11,000 majority. Skidmore said in his resignation statement: “This bill would in effect allow more frequent new oil and gas licences and the increased production of new fossil fuels in the North Sea.” He added: “I can also no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong and will cause future harm. To fail to act, rather than merely speak out, is to tolerate a status quo that cannot be sustained. I am therefore resigning my party whip and instead intend to be free from any party-political allegiance.” Skidmore was the energy minister who signed into law the former prime minister Theresa May’s net zero by 2050 pledge. More recently he led the government’s net zero review, which was published in September 2022. He has been critical of this government before, and previously told the Guardian the Conservative party was heading in a “very dark direction” around misinformation and climate change. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Conservative party heading in ‘very dark direction’, says former minister Read more Next week, the government is introducing the offshore petroleum licensing bill in the House of Commons, which would allow for more licences to extract fossil fuel from the North Sea. The latest IPCC report makes it clear no new fossil fuel projects can be opened, so doing so goes against the recommendations of most of the world’s leading climate scientists. Labour intends to oppose the bill in a vote on Monday, although the government is likely to win, even without Skidmore’s vote. Ed Miliband, the shadow energy secretary, said: “Well done to Chris Skidmore for standing up to this desperate Conservative government. Their irresponsible, reckless attempt to double down on fossil fuels won’t cut bills, undermines energy security and is a climate disaster. That is why Labour will vote against it on Monday.” Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative peer and environmental campaigner, said: “The party will need to regroup after Sunak has crashed it against the rocks. Those who see themselves as part of that future should think very carefully about backing this nonsense policy”. Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, said: “Memo to Rishi Sunak – this is what principled politics looks like. It has been a real pleasure working with Chris Skidmore on climate and he’ll be much missed. It’s a huge indictment of a government that is maxing out fossil fuels.” Skidmore did not plan to run as an MP in the next election, as his constituency will be abolished in the upcoming boundary changes. He has not said yet what he plans to do, but was thought to be in the running to be the chair of the climate change committee. However, as this position is selected by Sunak, his appointment is thought to be unlikely. Explore more on these topics Chris Skidmore Conservatives Fossil fuels news Share Reuse this content A former Conservative minister has announced he is resigning as an MP in protest at the party’s dash for oil and gas, setting up an awkward vote for the prime minister on the issue on Monday and an even more difficult byelection within weeks. Chris Skidmore, a leading voice within the Tory party on green issues, said on Friday he would resign from parliament as soon as it returns next week over Rishi Sunak’s bill to allow new oil and gas licences to be issued. Skidmore called the bill a “tragedy”, accusing the prime minister of being committed to a course of action that is “wrong and will cause future harm”. His resignation in Kingswood will trigger at least the eighth byelection in a year, with Labour looking to chalk up another victory in a seat with an 11,000 majority. Skidmore said in his resignation statement: “This bill would in effect allow more frequent new oil and gas licences and the increased production of new fossil fuels in the North Sea.” He added: “I can also no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong and will cause future harm. To fail to act, rather than merely speak out, is to tolerate a status quo that cannot be sustained. I am therefore resigning my party whip and instead intend to be free from any party-political allegiance.” Skidmore was the energy minister who signed into law the former prime minister Theresa May’s net zero by 2050 pledge. More recently he led the government’s net zero review, which was published in September 2022. He has been critical of this government before, and previously told the Guardian the Conservative party was heading in a “very dark direction” around misinformation and climate change. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Conservative party heading in ‘very dark direction’, says former minister Read more Next week, the government is introducing the offshore petroleum licensing bill in the House of Commons, which would allow for more licences to extract fossil fuel from the North Sea. The latest IPCC report makes it clear no new fossil fuel projects can be opened, so doing so goes against the recommendations of most of the world’s leading climate scientists. Labour intends to oppose the bill in a vote on Monday, although the government is likely to win, even without Skidmore’s vote. Ed Miliband, the shadow energy secretary, said: “Well done to Chris Skidmore for standing up to this desperate Conservative government. Their irresponsible, reckless attempt to double down on fossil fuels won’t cut bills, undermines energy security and is a climate disaster. That is why Labour will vote against it on Monday.” Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative peer and environmental campaigner, said: “The party will need to regroup after Sunak has crashed it against the rocks. Those who see themselves as part of that future should think very carefully about backing this nonsense policy”. Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, said: “Memo to Rishi Sunak – this is what principled politics looks like. It has been a real pleasure working with Chris Skidmore on climate and he’ll be much missed. It’s a huge indictment of a government that is maxing out fossil fuels.” Skidmore did not plan to run as an MP in the next election, as his constituency will be abolished in the upcoming boundary changes. He has not said yet what he plans to do, but was thought to be in the running to be the chair of the climate change committee. However, as this position is selected by Sunak, his appointment is thought to be unlikely. Explore more on these topics Chris Skidmore Conservatives Fossil fuels news Share Reuse this content A former Conservative minister has announced he is resigning as an MP in protest at the party’s dash for oil and gas, setting up an awkward vote for the prime minister on the issue on Monday and an even more difficult byelection within weeks. Chris Skidmore, a leading voice within the Tory party on green issues, said on Friday he would resign from parliament as soon as it returns next week over Rishi Sunak’s bill to allow new oil and gas licences to be issued. Skidmore called the bill a “tragedy”, accusing the prime minister of being committed to a course of action that is “wrong and will cause future harm”. His resignation in Kingswood will trigger at least the eighth byelection in a year, with Labour looking to chalk up another victory in a seat with an 11,000 majority. Skidmore said in his resignation statement: “This bill would in effect allow more frequent new oil and gas licences and the increased production of new fossil fuels in the North Sea.” He added: “I can also no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong and will cause future harm. To fail to act, rather than merely speak out, is to tolerate a status quo that cannot be sustained. I am therefore resigning my party whip and instead intend to be free from any party-political allegiance.” Skidmore was the energy minister who signed into law the former prime minister Theresa May’s net zero by 2050 pledge. More recently he led the government’s net zero review, which was published in September 2022. He has been critical of this government before, and previously told the Guardian the Conservative party was heading in a “very dark direction” around misinformation and climate change. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Conservative party heading in ‘very dark direction’, says former minister Read more Next week, the government is introducing the offshore petroleum licensing bill in the House of Commons, which would allow for more licences to extract fossil fuel from the North Sea. The latest IPCC report makes it clear no new fossil fuel projects can be opened, so doing so goes against the recommendations of most of the world’s leading climate scientists. Labour intends to oppose the bill in a vote on Monday, although the government is likely to win, even without Skidmore’s vote. Ed Miliband, the shadow energy secretary, said: “Well done to Chris Skidmore for standing up to this desperate Conservative government. Their irresponsible, reckless attempt to double down on fossil fuels won’t cut bills, undermines energy security and is a climate disaster. That is why Labour will vote against it on Monday.” Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative peer and environmental campaigner, said: “The party will need to regroup after Sunak has crashed it against the rocks. Those who see themselves as part of that future should think very carefully about backing this nonsense policy”. Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, said: “Memo to Rishi Sunak – this is what principled politics looks like. It has been a real pleasure working with Chris Skidmore on climate and he’ll be much missed. It’s a huge indictment of a government that is maxing out fossil fuels.” Skidmore did not plan to run as an MP in the next election, as his constituency will be abolished in the upcoming boundary changes. He has not said yet what he plans to do, but was thought to be in the running to be the chair of the climate change committee. However, as this position is selected by Sunak, his appointment is thought to be unlikely. A former Conservative minister has announced he is resigning as an MP in protest at the party’s dash for oil and gas, setting up an awkward vote for the prime minister on the issue on Monday and an even more difficult byelection within weeks. Chris Skidmore, a leading voice within the Tory party on green issues, said on Friday he would resign from parliament as soon as it returns next week over Rishi Sunak’s bill to allow new oil and gas licences to be issued. Skidmore called the bill a “tragedy”, accusing the prime minister of being committed to a course of action that is “wrong and will cause future harm”. His resignation in Kingswood will trigger at least the eighth byelection in a year, with Labour looking to chalk up another victory in a seat with an 11,000 majority. Skidmore said in his resignation statement: “This bill would in effect allow more frequent new oil and gas licences and the increased production of new fossil fuels in the North Sea.” He added: “I can also no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong and will cause future harm. To fail to act, rather than merely speak out, is to tolerate a status quo that cannot be sustained. I am therefore resigning my party whip and instead intend to be free from any party-political allegiance.” Skidmore was the energy minister who signed into law the former prime minister Theresa May’s net zero by 2050 pledge. More recently he led the government’s net zero review, which was published in September 2022. He has been critical of this government before, and previously told the Guardian the Conservative party was heading in a “very dark direction” around misinformation and climate change. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Conservative party heading in ‘very dark direction’, says former minister Read more Next week, the government is introducing the offshore petroleum licensing bill in the House of Commons, which would allow for more licences to extract fossil fuel from the North Sea. The latest IPCC report makes it clear no new fossil fuel projects can be opened, so doing so goes against the recommendations of most of the world’s leading climate scientists. Labour intends to oppose the bill in a vote on Monday, although the government is likely to win, even without Skidmore’s vote. Ed Miliband, the shadow energy secretary, said: “Well done to Chris Skidmore for standing up to this desperate Conservative government. Their irresponsible, reckless attempt to double down on fossil fuels won’t cut bills, undermines energy security and is a climate disaster. That is why Labour will vote against it on Monday.” Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative peer and environmental campaigner, said: “The party will need to regroup after Sunak has crashed it against the rocks. Those who see themselves as part of that future should think very carefully about backing this nonsense policy”. Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, said: “Memo to Rishi Sunak – this is what principled politics looks like. It has been a real pleasure working with Chris Skidmore on climate and he’ll be much missed. It’s a huge indictment of a government that is maxing out fossil fuels.” Skidmore did not plan to run as an MP in the next election, as his constituency will be abolished in the upcoming boundary changes. He has not said yet what he plans to do, but was thought to be in the running to be the chair of the climate change committee. However, as this position is selected by Sunak, his appointment is thought to be unlikely. A former Conservative minister has announced he is resigning as an MP in protest at the party’s dash for oil and gas, setting up an awkward vote for the prime minister on the issue on Monday and an even more difficult byelection within weeks. Chris Skidmore, a leading voice within the Tory party on green issues, said on Friday he would resign from parliament as soon as it returns next week over Rishi Sunak’s bill to allow new oil and gas licences to be issued. Skidmore called the bill a “tragedy”, accusing the prime minister of being committed to a course of action that is “wrong and will cause future harm”. His resignation in Kingswood will trigger at least the eighth byelection in a year, with Labour looking to chalk up another victory in a seat with an 11,000 majority. Skidmore said in his resignation statement: “This bill would in effect allow more frequent new oil and gas licences and the increased production of new fossil fuels in the North Sea.” He added: “I can also no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong and will cause future harm. To fail to act, rather than merely speak out, is to tolerate a status quo that cannot be sustained. I am therefore resigning my party whip and instead intend to be free from any party-political allegiance.” Skidmore was the energy minister who signed into law the former prime minister Theresa May’s net zero by 2050 pledge. More recently he led the government’s net zero review, which was published in September 2022. He has been critical of this government before, and previously told the Guardian the Conservative party was heading in a “very dark direction” around misinformation and climate change. Conservative party heading in ‘very dark direction’, says former minister Read more Conservative party heading in ‘very dark direction’, says former minister Read more Conservative party heading in ‘very dark direction’, says former minister Read more Conservative party heading in ‘very dark direction’, says former minister Conservative party heading in ‘very dark direction’, says former minister Next week, the government is introducing the offshore petroleum licensing bill in the House of Commons, which would allow for more licences to extract fossil fuel from the North Sea. The latest IPCC report makes it clear no new fossil fuel projects can be opened, so doing so goes against the recommendations of most of the world’s leading climate scientists. Labour intends to oppose the bill in a vote on Monday, although the government is likely to win, even without Skidmore’s vote. Ed Miliband, the shadow energy secretary, said: “Well done to Chris Skidmore for standing up to this desperate Conservative government. Their irresponsible, reckless attempt to double down on fossil fuels won’t cut bills, undermines energy security and is a climate disaster. That is why Labour will vote against it on Monday.” Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative peer and environmental campaigner, said: “The party will need to regroup after Sunak has crashed it against the rocks. Those who see themselves as part of that future should think very carefully about backing this nonsense policy”. Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, said: “Memo to Rishi Sunak – this is what principled politics looks like. It has been a real pleasure working with Chris Skidmore on climate and he’ll be much missed. It’s a huge indictment of a government that is maxing out fossil fuels.” Skidmore did not plan to run as an MP in the next election, as his constituency will be abolished in the upcoming boundary changes. He has not said yet what he plans to do, but was thought to be in the running to be the chair of the climate change committee. However, as this position is selected by Sunak, his appointment is thought to be unlikely. Explore more on these topics Chris Skidmore Conservatives Fossil fuels news Share Reuse this content Chris Skidmore Conservatives Fossil fuels news
|
Rishi Sunak refuses to criticise Tory MP who said struggling children in his town were ‘products of crap parents’ – UK politics as it happened
Rishi Sunak has declined an invitation to criticise the Conservative MP who said most of the children struggling in his town were “products of crap parents”. James Daly, the MP for Bury North, made the comment in a newspaper interview published last week. Today, asked if he agreed with Daly while he was on a visit to Stockport, Sunak ignored the question and said: No one wants to see any child grow up in poverty. I certainly don’t. The best way we can help families is to make sure that those parents are in great jobs and are well-paid and that we are cutting their taxes. That is exactly what we are doing, starting from tomorrow. Asked what explanation he had for almost a quarter of children in Bury growing up in poverty, if it was not “crap” parenting, Sunak replied: All the evidence and the research shows that the best way to ensure that children don’t grow up in poverty is to make sure that they are not growing up in a household where no one is working. A child where neither of their parents are working are five times more likely to grow up in poverty. No one wants to see that. And that is why it is important that we create fantastic jobs for parents everywhere, that we make it easier for those parents to get those jobs, which is why we are investing in childcare and in particular the largest expansion of childcare that we have ever seen, and also to make sure that those jobs are well-paid. The national living wage is going up an almost record amount in the spring, it has already gone up a record amount in the past year, and we are now cutting people’s taxes, a £450 tax cut for an average person in work, kicking in tomorrow.
|
Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics
People rally in support of Palestinians in Washington DC on 2 December. Photograph: Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images View image in fullscreen People rally in support of Palestinians in Washington DC on 2 December. Photograph: Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics This article is more than 1 year old ADL has only doubled down on initiatives defending Israel and the policies of the Israeli government amid criticism and staff resignations The Anti-Defamation League CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, sparked controversy in 2022 when he placed opposition to Israel on a par with white supremacy as a source of antisemitism. “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism,” Greenblatt said in a speech to ADL leaders. He singled out Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace as groups that “epitomize the Radical Left, the photo inverse of the Extreme Right that ADL long has tracked”. His remarks didn’t only upset grassroots activists and Jewish groups critical of Israeli policy. It also set off a firestorm within the Jewish advocacy group. Some members of ADL’s staff were outraged by the dissonance between Greenblatt’s comments and the organization’s own research, as evidenced by internal messages viewed by the Guardian. “There is no comparison between white supremacists and insurrectionists and those who espouse anti-Israel rhetoric, and to suggest otherwise is both intellectually dishonest and damaging to our reputation as experts in extremism,” a senior manager at ADL’s Center on Extremism wrote in a Slack channel to over 550 colleagues. Others chimed in, agreeing. “The aforementioned false equivalencies and the both-sides-ism are incompatible with the data I have seen,” a longtime extremism researcher said. “[T]he stated concerns about reputational repercussions and societal impacts have already proved to be prescient.” View image in fullscreen Members of Jewish Voice for Peace call for a ceasefire in the capitol rotunda in Washington DC on 18 October. Photograph: Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images Even before the latest Israel-Hamas war, the conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism has increasingly inflected the debate around the bounds of legitimate protest, with the ADL playing a vocal role. Now, news reports show a troubling surge of antisemitism, with bomb threats against synagogues and antisemitic graffiti. The ADL has said antisemitic incidents in the US have risen 388% since 7 October. But its data is difficult to make sense of, precisely because of questions around how the ADL defines antisemitism. And tensions continue to ignite between Greenblatt and ADL staff. At least two employees who spoke to the Guardian have quit in response to its overt emphasis on pro-Israel advocacy since the Israeli offensive on Gaza began, building on a pattern of departures from the organization. But the ADL has only doubled down on initiatives defending Israel and the policies of the Israeli government. It has welcomed a controversial congressional resolution that defined anti-Zionism as antisemitism, and it has called on law enforcement to investigate student activist groups for providing “material support” to Hamas , which the US government has designated as a terrorist organization. Critics of the group argue that these and other actions risk undermining the civil rights organization’s counter-extremism work and say the group has foregone much of its historical mission to fight antisemitism in favor of doing advocacy for Israel. View image in fullscreen Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP The ADL said it could not make a representative available for an interview but over email a spokesperson said the organization “will continue to work tirelessly against efforts that delegitimize Israel and vilify Jews”. A current employee of ADL, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told the Guardian that the organization’s conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism is damaging its efforts to counter hate. “The ADL has a pro-Israel bias and an agenda to suppress pro-Palestinian activism.” T he Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 to fight antisemitism. It is an influential player in policy and media circles, and is often called upon to opine and propose solutions to antisemitism in the US. Greenblatt joined as CEO and national director in 2015, taking the helm of its offices throughout the US, multiple research centers, education programs, community organizers and lobbyists. The ADL earned about $76m annually from contributions, according to its latest filing . Though the rise of Donald Trump and growing white nationalism shocked the American mainstream, the ADL was prepared, having built out teams of researchers capable of plumbing the depths of the far right. In response to Trump’s call for a database to track Muslims, Greenblatt said : “This proud Jew would register as a Muslim.” But many civil society groups are increasingly reluctant to partner with the non-profit. The ADL has facilitated trainings between US and Israeli law enforcement officers and allegedly spied on progressive and Arab American groups. (The ADL settled a lawsuit stemming from the spying allegations but denied wrongdoing.) In 2021, about 100 social justice and civil rights groups signed an open letter urging other organizations not to work with the ADL. Since the 7 October attacks, the ADL has been working with law enforcement to crack down on college campus activism that it sees as antisemitic. They developed a legal strategy to go after branches of Students for Justice in Palestine, and reached out to 200 university leaders calling on them to investigate the group for allegedly providing support to Hamas , which the group vehemently denies . ADL has described grassroots calls for protests of Israel’s military campaign as “pro-Hamas activism”. View image in fullscreen People protest the banning of Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace at Columbia University on New York on 20 November. Photograph: Michael M Santiago/Getty Images This and other recent activities have upset some of the ADL’s rank and file. “I resigned because I felt that Jonathan Greenblatt’s comments were undermining my ability as a researcher to fight online hate and harassment,” Stephen Rea, a researcher at ADL’s Center for Technology & Society who quit the group in October, told the Guardian. As protesters led by the anti-occupation groups IfNotNow and Jewish Voice for Peace took over the US Capitol in October to put pressure on Congress and President Joe Biden to call for a ceasefire, Greenblatt called them “radical far-left groups” that “represent the ugly core of anti-Zionism”. In response, another ADL staffer left the organization. “Those were Jewish people who we [as the ADL] were defaming, so that felt extremely, extremely confusing, and frustrating to me,” they told the Guardian. “And it makes it harder to talk about that when any criticism of Israel, or anyone who criticizes Israel, just becomes a terrorist.” T he precise contours of antisemitism and anti-Zionism are intensely debated. The ADL and many other Jewish establishment organizations have been pushing for years for governments to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, which defines some criticisms of Israel, and anti-Zionism in particular, as antisemitic. When the Biden White House released its strategy to counter antisemitism in May 2023, it mentioned several definitions in its document rather than enshrining a single one. At the time, the ADL said it shaped the strategy, claiming that the White House had adopted the IHRA definition outright and described that as a victory. View image in fullscreen Activists from Jewish Voice for Peace occupy the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty in New York on 6 November. Photograph: Stephanie Keith/Getty Images The ADL said in its statement that it does not conflate criticism of Israel, which is not inherently antisemitic, with actual antisemitism. But experts question whether its widely cited annual audit of antisemitic incidents does just that. Some fraction of those incidents, for example, are probably actions by anti-Zionist activists who are themselves Jewish, such as Jewish Voice for Peace . “It contributes to a distorted view,” said Ben Lorber, an analyst of trends in white nationalism at Political Research Associates. “Parts of the ADL continue to do valuable work in monitoring and warning against the danger of the rising far right, but increasingly, that work is compromised by their reactionary approach on Israel.” The ADL and progressive groups have previously clashed over its support of anti-BDS measures and the Trump administration’s investigations into Palestinian rights groups. Sophie Ellman-Golan, spokesperson for Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, believes that the ADL is responding to the rise of a progressive Jewish left that cuts into space the group has historically occupied. View image in fullscreen Sophie Ellman-Golan. Photograph: Lucy Nicholson/Reuters “It is very threatening for institutions that have long been able to speak as the representative voice of the Jewish community to now be faced with such an undeniable set of loud, persistent and consistent Jewish voices that are directly counter to what they’re saying,” she said. The group’s spokesperson wrote by email that Greenblatt “ has long said that antisemitism from the far right is like the hurricane bearing down on you right now, and antisemitism from the left is like climate change where the temperature is slowly increasing; After Oct. 7, we’re at the point where that global warming is turning into a storm is now hitting us too.” At the same time, Greenblatt has sought to win over or appease certain voices on the far right. In late November, Elon Musk endorsed an antisemitic conspiracy theory on X . Major companies pulled advertising, and the White House condemned it as an “abhorrent promotion of antisemitic and racist hate”. Greenblatt criticized it on a podcast, but the next day, he praised Musk, after the tech CEO said that tweeting the controversial protest chant “ from the river to the sea ” would be deemed a violation of X’s terms of service. Several dismayed ADL advisory board members threatened to quit their posts, and this week, according to reporting in Jewish Currents, an executive resigned over Greenblatt’s praise of Musk. The flirtations with Musk might seem particularly bizarre, especially given the two men have a history of feuds . But it’s actually in line with ADL’s “general approach” which is “to try and stay at the table with people in positions of power to try to coax them into a better place”, according to an internal email from senior vice-president Adam Neufeld viewed by the Guardian. View image in fullscreen People rally in support of Israel and call for the release of Israeli hostages in Washington DC on 14 November. Photograph: Stefani Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images “Jonathan was encouraged by Elon’s tweet saying that clear calls for extreme violence against the Jewish state, such as those calling for ‘decolonization’ of Israel or saying ‘from the river to the sea’ are a violation of the platform’s terms of service and will result in suspension,” the ADL spokesperson said. “This is the right approach – and Elon has laid down a gauntlet that other social media companies should follow.” One major concern is that the ADL is looking at the threats facing Jewish communities and Jewish students in a vacuum, separate from other forms of hate. “We see antisemitism as sort of the connective tissue or the entry point into other hard-right ideologies,” Susan Corke, who directs the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said. “It’s woven within these other hate groups and extremists that we cover.” When there have been surges of violence in Israel and Palestine, Corke explained, “There has been a similar uptick in antisemitic and anti-Muslim incidents and violence and hate crimes.” Greenblatt said that recent hate crimes against Muslim, Palestinian and Arab Americans “must be unequivocally condemned” and the spokesperson said the organization has regularly advocated against anti-Muslim hate in recent months. But the ADL’s renewed emphasis on Israel advocacy in its work against hatred may preclude it from partnering with civil rights groups to address growing Islamophobia. The watchdog, according to Lorber, is “using the crisis moment to advance its longstanding agenda”. Explore more on these topics Antisemitism Israel features Share Reuse this content People rally in support of Palestinians in Washington DC on 2 December. Photograph: Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images View image in fullscreen People rally in support of Palestinians in Washington DC on 2 December. Photograph: Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics This article is more than 1 year old ADL has only doubled down on initiatives defending Israel and the policies of the Israeli government amid criticism and staff resignations The Anti-Defamation League CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, sparked controversy in 2022 when he placed opposition to Israel on a par with white supremacy as a source of antisemitism. “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism,” Greenblatt said in a speech to ADL leaders. He singled out Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace as groups that “epitomize the Radical Left, the photo inverse of the Extreme Right that ADL long has tracked”. His remarks didn’t only upset grassroots activists and Jewish groups critical of Israeli policy. It also set off a firestorm within the Jewish advocacy group. Some members of ADL’s staff were outraged by the dissonance between Greenblatt’s comments and the organization’s own research, as evidenced by internal messages viewed by the Guardian. “There is no comparison between white supremacists and insurrectionists and those who espouse anti-Israel rhetoric, and to suggest otherwise is both intellectually dishonest and damaging to our reputation as experts in extremism,” a senior manager at ADL’s Center on Extremism wrote in a Slack channel to over 550 colleagues. Others chimed in, agreeing. “The aforementioned false equivalencies and the both-sides-ism are incompatible with the data I have seen,” a longtime extremism researcher said. “[T]he stated concerns about reputational repercussions and societal impacts have already proved to be prescient.” View image in fullscreen Members of Jewish Voice for Peace call for a ceasefire in the capitol rotunda in Washington DC on 18 October. Photograph: Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images Even before the latest Israel-Hamas war, the conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism has increasingly inflected the debate around the bounds of legitimate protest, with the ADL playing a vocal role. Now, news reports show a troubling surge of antisemitism, with bomb threats against synagogues and antisemitic graffiti. The ADL has said antisemitic incidents in the US have risen 388% since 7 October. But its data is difficult to make sense of, precisely because of questions around how the ADL defines antisemitism. And tensions continue to ignite between Greenblatt and ADL staff. At least two employees who spoke to the Guardian have quit in response to its overt emphasis on pro-Israel advocacy since the Israeli offensive on Gaza began, building on a pattern of departures from the organization. But the ADL has only doubled down on initiatives defending Israel and the policies of the Israeli government. It has welcomed a controversial congressional resolution that defined anti-Zionism as antisemitism, and it has called on law enforcement to investigate student activist groups for providing “material support” to Hamas , which the US government has designated as a terrorist organization. Critics of the group argue that these and other actions risk undermining the civil rights organization’s counter-extremism work and say the group has foregone much of its historical mission to fight antisemitism in favor of doing advocacy for Israel. View image in fullscreen Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP The ADL said it could not make a representative available for an interview but over email a spokesperson said the organization “will continue to work tirelessly against efforts that delegitimize Israel and vilify Jews”. A current employee of ADL, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told the Guardian that the organization’s conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism is damaging its efforts to counter hate. “The ADL has a pro-Israel bias and an agenda to suppress pro-Palestinian activism.” T he Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 to fight antisemitism. It is an influential player in policy and media circles, and is often called upon to opine and propose solutions to antisemitism in the US. Greenblatt joined as CEO and national director in 2015, taking the helm of its offices throughout the US, multiple research centers, education programs, community organizers and lobbyists. The ADL earned about $76m annually from contributions, according to its latest filing . Though the rise of Donald Trump and growing white nationalism shocked the American mainstream, the ADL was prepared, having built out teams of researchers capable of plumbing the depths of the far right. In response to Trump’s call for a database to track Muslims, Greenblatt said : “This proud Jew would register as a Muslim.” But many civil society groups are increasingly reluctant to partner with the non-profit. The ADL has facilitated trainings between US and Israeli law enforcement officers and allegedly spied on progressive and Arab American groups. (The ADL settled a lawsuit stemming from the spying allegations but denied wrongdoing.) In 2021, about 100 social justice and civil rights groups signed an open letter urging other organizations not to work with the ADL. Since the 7 October attacks, the ADL has been working with law enforcement to crack down on college campus activism that it sees as antisemitic. They developed a legal strategy to go after branches of Students for Justice in Palestine, and reached out to 200 university leaders calling on them to investigate the group for allegedly providing support to Hamas , which the group vehemently denies . ADL has described grassroots calls for protests of Israel’s military campaign as “pro-Hamas activism”. View image in fullscreen People protest the banning of Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace at Columbia University on New York on 20 November. Photograph: Michael M Santiago/Getty Images This and other recent activities have upset some of the ADL’s rank and file. “I resigned because I felt that Jonathan Greenblatt’s comments were undermining my ability as a researcher to fight online hate and harassment,” Stephen Rea, a researcher at ADL’s Center for Technology & Society who quit the group in October, told the Guardian. As protesters led by the anti-occupation groups IfNotNow and Jewish Voice for Peace took over the US Capitol in October to put pressure on Congress and President Joe Biden to call for a ceasefire, Greenblatt called them “radical far-left groups” that “represent the ugly core of anti-Zionism”. In response, another ADL staffer left the organization. “Those were Jewish people who we [as the ADL] were defaming, so that felt extremely, extremely confusing, and frustrating to me,” they told the Guardian. “And it makes it harder to talk about that when any criticism of Israel, or anyone who criticizes Israel, just becomes a terrorist.” T he precise contours of antisemitism and anti-Zionism are intensely debated. The ADL and many other Jewish establishment organizations have been pushing for years for governments to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, which defines some criticisms of Israel, and anti-Zionism in particular, as antisemitic. When the Biden White House released its strategy to counter antisemitism in May 2023, it mentioned several definitions in its document rather than enshrining a single one. At the time, the ADL said it shaped the strategy, claiming that the White House had adopted the IHRA definition outright and described that as a victory. View image in fullscreen Activists from Jewish Voice for Peace occupy the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty in New York on 6 November. Photograph: Stephanie Keith/Getty Images The ADL said in its statement that it does not conflate criticism of Israel, which is not inherently antisemitic, with actual antisemitism. But experts question whether its widely cited annual audit of antisemitic incidents does just that. Some fraction of those incidents, for example, are probably actions by anti-Zionist activists who are themselves Jewish, such as Jewish Voice for Peace . “It contributes to a distorted view,” said Ben Lorber, an analyst of trends in white nationalism at Political Research Associates. “Parts of the ADL continue to do valuable work in monitoring and warning against the danger of the rising far right, but increasingly, that work is compromised by their reactionary approach on Israel.” The ADL and progressive groups have previously clashed over its support of anti-BDS measures and the Trump administration’s investigations into Palestinian rights groups. Sophie Ellman-Golan, spokesperson for Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, believes that the ADL is responding to the rise of a progressive Jewish left that cuts into space the group has historically occupied. View image in fullscreen Sophie Ellman-Golan. Photograph: Lucy Nicholson/Reuters “It is very threatening for institutions that have long been able to speak as the representative voice of the Jewish community to now be faced with such an undeniable set of loud, persistent and consistent Jewish voices that are directly counter to what they’re saying,” she said. The group’s spokesperson wrote by email that Greenblatt “ has long said that antisemitism from the far right is like the hurricane bearing down on you right now, and antisemitism from the left is like climate change where the temperature is slowly increasing; After Oct. 7, we’re at the point where that global warming is turning into a storm is now hitting us too.” At the same time, Greenblatt has sought to win over or appease certain voices on the far right. In late November, Elon Musk endorsed an antisemitic conspiracy theory on X . Major companies pulled advertising, and the White House condemned it as an “abhorrent promotion of antisemitic and racist hate”. Greenblatt criticized it on a podcast, but the next day, he praised Musk, after the tech CEO said that tweeting the controversial protest chant “ from the river to the sea ” would be deemed a violation of X’s terms of service. Several dismayed ADL advisory board members threatened to quit their posts, and this week, according to reporting in Jewish Currents, an executive resigned over Greenblatt’s praise of Musk. The flirtations with Musk might seem particularly bizarre, especially given the two men have a history of feuds . But it’s actually in line with ADL’s “general approach” which is “to try and stay at the table with people in positions of power to try to coax them into a better place”, according to an internal email from senior vice-president Adam Neufeld viewed by the Guardian. View image in fullscreen People rally in support of Israel and call for the release of Israeli hostages in Washington DC on 14 November. Photograph: Stefani Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images “Jonathan was encouraged by Elon’s tweet saying that clear calls for extreme violence against the Jewish state, such as those calling for ‘decolonization’ of Israel or saying ‘from the river to the sea’ are a violation of the platform’s terms of service and will result in suspension,” the ADL spokesperson said. “This is the right approach – and Elon has laid down a gauntlet that other social media companies should follow.” One major concern is that the ADL is looking at the threats facing Jewish communities and Jewish students in a vacuum, separate from other forms of hate. “We see antisemitism as sort of the connective tissue or the entry point into other hard-right ideologies,” Susan Corke, who directs the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said. “It’s woven within these other hate groups and extremists that we cover.” When there have been surges of violence in Israel and Palestine, Corke explained, “There has been a similar uptick in antisemitic and anti-Muslim incidents and violence and hate crimes.” Greenblatt said that recent hate crimes against Muslim, Palestinian and Arab Americans “must be unequivocally condemned” and the spokesperson said the organization has regularly advocated against anti-Muslim hate in recent months. But the ADL’s renewed emphasis on Israel advocacy in its work against hatred may preclude it from partnering with civil rights groups to address growing Islamophobia. The watchdog, according to Lorber, is “using the crisis moment to advance its longstanding agenda”. Explore more on these topics Antisemitism Israel features Share Reuse this content People rally in support of Palestinians in Washington DC on 2 December. Photograph: Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images View image in fullscreen People rally in support of Palestinians in Washington DC on 2 December. Photograph: Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images People rally in support of Palestinians in Washington DC on 2 December. Photograph: Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images View image in fullscreen People rally in support of Palestinians in Washington DC on 2 December. Photograph: Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images People rally in support of Palestinians in Washington DC on 2 December. Photograph: Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images View image in fullscreen People rally in support of Palestinians in Washington DC on 2 December. Photograph: Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images People rally in support of Palestinians in Washington DC on 2 December. Photograph: Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images View image in fullscreen People rally in support of Palestinians in Washington DC on 2 December. Photograph: Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images People rally in support of Palestinians in Washington DC on 2 December. Photograph: Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images People rally in support of Palestinians in Washington DC on 2 December. Photograph: Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics 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 ADL has only doubled down on initiatives defending Israel and the policies of the Israeli government amid criticism and staff resignations ADL has only doubled down on initiatives defending Israel and the policies of the Israeli government amid criticism and staff resignations ADL has only doubled down on initiatives defending Israel and the policies of the Israeli government amid criticism and staff resignations The Anti-Defamation League CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, sparked controversy in 2022 when he placed opposition to Israel on a par with white supremacy as a source of antisemitism. “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism,” Greenblatt said in a speech to ADL leaders. He singled out Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace as groups that “epitomize the Radical Left, the photo inverse of the Extreme Right that ADL long has tracked”. His remarks didn’t only upset grassroots activists and Jewish groups critical of Israeli policy. It also set off a firestorm within the Jewish advocacy group. Some members of ADL’s staff were outraged by the dissonance between Greenblatt’s comments and the organization’s own research, as evidenced by internal messages viewed by the Guardian. “There is no comparison between white supremacists and insurrectionists and those who espouse anti-Israel rhetoric, and to suggest otherwise is both intellectually dishonest and damaging to our reputation as experts in extremism,” a senior manager at ADL’s Center on Extremism wrote in a Slack channel to over 550 colleagues. Others chimed in, agreeing. “The aforementioned false equivalencies and the both-sides-ism are incompatible with the data I have seen,” a longtime extremism researcher said. “[T]he stated concerns about reputational repercussions and societal impacts have already proved to be prescient.” View image in fullscreen Members of Jewish Voice for Peace call for a ceasefire in the capitol rotunda in Washington DC on 18 October. Photograph: Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images Even before the latest Israel-Hamas war, the conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism has increasingly inflected the debate around the bounds of legitimate protest, with the ADL playing a vocal role. Now, news reports show a troubling surge of antisemitism, with bomb threats against synagogues and antisemitic graffiti. The ADL has said antisemitic incidents in the US have risen 388% since 7 October. But its data is difficult to make sense of, precisely because of questions around how the ADL defines antisemitism. And tensions continue to ignite between Greenblatt and ADL staff. At least two employees who spoke to the Guardian have quit in response to its overt emphasis on pro-Israel advocacy since the Israeli offensive on Gaza began, building on a pattern of departures from the organization. But the ADL has only doubled down on initiatives defending Israel and the policies of the Israeli government. It has welcomed a controversial congressional resolution that defined anti-Zionism as antisemitism, and it has called on law enforcement to investigate student activist groups for providing “material support” to Hamas , which the US government has designated as a terrorist organization. Critics of the group argue that these and other actions risk undermining the civil rights organization’s counter-extremism work and say the group has foregone much of its historical mission to fight antisemitism in favor of doing advocacy for Israel. View image in fullscreen Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP The ADL said it could not make a representative available for an interview but over email a spokesperson said the organization “will continue to work tirelessly against efforts that delegitimize Israel and vilify Jews”. A current employee of ADL, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told the Guardian that the organization’s conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism is damaging its efforts to counter hate. “The ADL has a pro-Israel bias and an agenda to suppress pro-Palestinian activism.” T he Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 to fight antisemitism. It is an influential player in policy and media circles, and is often called upon to opine and propose solutions to antisemitism in the US. Greenblatt joined as CEO and national director in 2015, taking the helm of its offices throughout the US, multiple research centers, education programs, community organizers and lobbyists. The ADL earned about $76m annually from contributions, according to its latest filing . Though the rise of Donald Trump and growing white nationalism shocked the American mainstream, the ADL was prepared, having built out teams of researchers capable of plumbing the depths of the far right. In response to Trump’s call for a database to track Muslims, Greenblatt said : “This proud Jew would register as a Muslim.” But many civil society groups are increasingly reluctant to partner with the non-profit. The ADL has facilitated trainings between US and Israeli law enforcement officers and allegedly spied on progressive and Arab American groups. (The ADL settled a lawsuit stemming from the spying allegations but denied wrongdoing.) In 2021, about 100 social justice and civil rights groups signed an open letter urging other organizations not to work with the ADL. Since the 7 October attacks, the ADL has been working with law enforcement to crack down on college campus activism that it sees as antisemitic. They developed a legal strategy to go after branches of Students for Justice in Palestine, and reached out to 200 university leaders calling on them to investigate the group for allegedly providing support to Hamas , which the group vehemently denies . ADL has described grassroots calls for protests of Israel’s military campaign as “pro-Hamas activism”. View image in fullscreen People protest the banning of Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace at Columbia University on New York on 20 November. Photograph: Michael M Santiago/Getty Images This and other recent activities have upset some of the ADL’s rank and file. “I resigned because I felt that Jonathan Greenblatt’s comments were undermining my ability as a researcher to fight online hate and harassment,” Stephen Rea, a researcher at ADL’s Center for Technology & Society who quit the group in October, told the Guardian. As protesters led by the anti-occupation groups IfNotNow and Jewish Voice for Peace took over the US Capitol in October to put pressure on Congress and President Joe Biden to call for a ceasefire, Greenblatt called them “radical far-left groups” that “represent the ugly core of anti-Zionism”. In response, another ADL staffer left the organization. “Those were Jewish people who we [as the ADL] were defaming, so that felt extremely, extremely confusing, and frustrating to me,” they told the Guardian. “And it makes it harder to talk about that when any criticism of Israel, or anyone who criticizes Israel, just becomes a terrorist.” T he precise contours of antisemitism and anti-Zionism are intensely debated. The ADL and many other Jewish establishment organizations have been pushing for years for governments to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, which defines some criticisms of Israel, and anti-Zionism in particular, as antisemitic. When the Biden White House released its strategy to counter antisemitism in May 2023, it mentioned several definitions in its document rather than enshrining a single one. At the time, the ADL said it shaped the strategy, claiming that the White House had adopted the IHRA definition outright and described that as a victory. View image in fullscreen Activists from Jewish Voice for Peace occupy the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty in New York on 6 November. Photograph: Stephanie Keith/Getty Images The ADL said in its statement that it does not conflate criticism of Israel, which is not inherently antisemitic, with actual antisemitism. But experts question whether its widely cited annual audit of antisemitic incidents does just that. Some fraction of those incidents, for example, are probably actions by anti-Zionist activists who are themselves Jewish, such as Jewish Voice for Peace . “It contributes to a distorted view,” said Ben Lorber, an analyst of trends in white nationalism at Political Research Associates. “Parts of the ADL continue to do valuable work in monitoring and warning against the danger of the rising far right, but increasingly, that work is compromised by their reactionary approach on Israel.” The ADL and progressive groups have previously clashed over its support of anti-BDS measures and the Trump administration’s investigations into Palestinian rights groups. Sophie Ellman-Golan, spokesperson for Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, believes that the ADL is responding to the rise of a progressive Jewish left that cuts into space the group has historically occupied. View image in fullscreen Sophie Ellman-Golan. Photograph: Lucy Nicholson/Reuters “It is very threatening for institutions that have long been able to speak as the representative voice of the Jewish community to now be faced with such an undeniable set of loud, persistent and consistent Jewish voices that are directly counter to what they’re saying,” she said. The group’s spokesperson wrote by email that Greenblatt “ has long said that antisemitism from the far right is like the hurricane bearing down on you right now, and antisemitism from the left is like climate change where the temperature is slowly increasing; After Oct. 7, we’re at the point where that global warming is turning into a storm is now hitting us too.” At the same time, Greenblatt has sought to win over or appease certain voices on the far right. In late November, Elon Musk endorsed an antisemitic conspiracy theory on X . Major companies pulled advertising, and the White House condemned it as an “abhorrent promotion of antisemitic and racist hate”. Greenblatt criticized it on a podcast, but the next day, he praised Musk, after the tech CEO said that tweeting the controversial protest chant “ from the river to the sea ” would be deemed a violation of X’s terms of service. Several dismayed ADL advisory board members threatened to quit their posts, and this week, according to reporting in Jewish Currents, an executive resigned over Greenblatt’s praise of Musk. The flirtations with Musk might seem particularly bizarre, especially given the two men have a history of feuds . But it’s actually in line with ADL’s “general approach” which is “to try and stay at the table with people in positions of power to try to coax them into a better place”, according to an internal email from senior vice-president Adam Neufeld viewed by the Guardian. View image in fullscreen People rally in support of Israel and call for the release of Israeli hostages in Washington DC on 14 November. Photograph: Stefani Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images “Jonathan was encouraged by Elon’s tweet saying that clear calls for extreme violence against the Jewish state, such as those calling for ‘decolonization’ of Israel or saying ‘from the river to the sea’ are a violation of the platform’s terms of service and will result in suspension,” the ADL spokesperson said. “This is the right approach – and Elon has laid down a gauntlet that other social media companies should follow.” One major concern is that the ADL is looking at the threats facing Jewish communities and Jewish students in a vacuum, separate from other forms of hate. “We see antisemitism as sort of the connective tissue or the entry point into other hard-right ideologies,” Susan Corke, who directs the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said. “It’s woven within these other hate groups and extremists that we cover.” When there have been surges of violence in Israel and Palestine, Corke explained, “There has been a similar uptick in antisemitic and anti-Muslim incidents and violence and hate crimes.” Greenblatt said that recent hate crimes against Muslim, Palestinian and Arab Americans “must be unequivocally condemned” and the spokesperson said the organization has regularly advocated against anti-Muslim hate in recent months. But the ADL’s renewed emphasis on Israel advocacy in its work against hatred may preclude it from partnering with civil rights groups to address growing Islamophobia. The watchdog, according to Lorber, is “using the crisis moment to advance its longstanding agenda”. Explore more on these topics Antisemitism Israel features Share Reuse this content The Anti-Defamation League CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, sparked controversy in 2022 when he placed opposition to Israel on a par with white supremacy as a source of antisemitism. “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism,” Greenblatt said in a speech to ADL leaders. He singled out Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace as groups that “epitomize the Radical Left, the photo inverse of the Extreme Right that ADL long has tracked”. His remarks didn’t only upset grassroots activists and Jewish groups critical of Israeli policy. It also set off a firestorm within the Jewish advocacy group. Some members of ADL’s staff were outraged by the dissonance between Greenblatt’s comments and the organization’s own research, as evidenced by internal messages viewed by the Guardian. “There is no comparison between white supremacists and insurrectionists and those who espouse anti-Israel rhetoric, and to suggest otherwise is both intellectually dishonest and damaging to our reputation as experts in extremism,” a senior manager at ADL’s Center on Extremism wrote in a Slack channel to over 550 colleagues. Others chimed in, agreeing. “The aforementioned false equivalencies and the both-sides-ism are incompatible with the data I have seen,” a longtime extremism researcher said. “[T]he stated concerns about reputational repercussions and societal impacts have already proved to be prescient.” View image in fullscreen Members of Jewish Voice for Peace call for a ceasefire in the capitol rotunda in Washington DC on 18 October. Photograph: Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images Even before the latest Israel-Hamas war, the conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism has increasingly inflected the debate around the bounds of legitimate protest, with the ADL playing a vocal role. Now, news reports show a troubling surge of antisemitism, with bomb threats against synagogues and antisemitic graffiti. The ADL has said antisemitic incidents in the US have risen 388% since 7 October. But its data is difficult to make sense of, precisely because of questions around how the ADL defines antisemitism. And tensions continue to ignite between Greenblatt and ADL staff. At least two employees who spoke to the Guardian have quit in response to its overt emphasis on pro-Israel advocacy since the Israeli offensive on Gaza began, building on a pattern of departures from the organization. But the ADL has only doubled down on initiatives defending Israel and the policies of the Israeli government. It has welcomed a controversial congressional resolution that defined anti-Zionism as antisemitism, and it has called on law enforcement to investigate student activist groups for providing “material support” to Hamas , which the US government has designated as a terrorist organization. Critics of the group argue that these and other actions risk undermining the civil rights organization’s counter-extremism work and say the group has foregone much of its historical mission to fight antisemitism in favor of doing advocacy for Israel. View image in fullscreen Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP The ADL said it could not make a representative available for an interview but over email a spokesperson said the organization “will continue to work tirelessly against efforts that delegitimize Israel and vilify Jews”. A current employee of ADL, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told the Guardian that the organization’s conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism is damaging its efforts to counter hate. “The ADL has a pro-Israel bias and an agenda to suppress pro-Palestinian activism.” T he Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 to fight antisemitism. It is an influential player in policy and media circles, and is often called upon to opine and propose solutions to antisemitism in the US. Greenblatt joined as CEO and national director in 2015, taking the helm of its offices throughout the US, multiple research centers, education programs, community organizers and lobbyists. The ADL earned about $76m annually from contributions, according to its latest filing . Though the rise of Donald Trump and growing white nationalism shocked the American mainstream, the ADL was prepared, having built out teams of researchers capable of plumbing the depths of the far right. In response to Trump’s call for a database to track Muslims, Greenblatt said : “This proud Jew would register as a Muslim.” But many civil society groups are increasingly reluctant to partner with the non-profit. The ADL has facilitated trainings between US and Israeli law enforcement officers and allegedly spied on progressive and Arab American groups. (The ADL settled a lawsuit stemming from the spying allegations but denied wrongdoing.) In 2021, about 100 social justice and civil rights groups signed an open letter urging other organizations not to work with the ADL. Since the 7 October attacks, the ADL has been working with law enforcement to crack down on college campus activism that it sees as antisemitic. They developed a legal strategy to go after branches of Students for Justice in Palestine, and reached out to 200 university leaders calling on them to investigate the group for allegedly providing support to Hamas , which the group vehemently denies . ADL has described grassroots calls for protests of Israel’s military campaign as “pro-Hamas activism”. View image in fullscreen People protest the banning of Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace at Columbia University on New York on 20 November. Photograph: Michael M Santiago/Getty Images This and other recent activities have upset some of the ADL’s rank and file. “I resigned because I felt that Jonathan Greenblatt’s comments were undermining my ability as a researcher to fight online hate and harassment,” Stephen Rea, a researcher at ADL’s Center for Technology & Society who quit the group in October, told the Guardian. As protesters led by the anti-occupation groups IfNotNow and Jewish Voice for Peace took over the US Capitol in October to put pressure on Congress and President Joe Biden to call for a ceasefire, Greenblatt called them “radical far-left groups” that “represent the ugly core of anti-Zionism”. In response, another ADL staffer left the organization. “Those were Jewish people who we [as the ADL] were defaming, so that felt extremely, extremely confusing, and frustrating to me,” they told the Guardian. “And it makes it harder to talk about that when any criticism of Israel, or anyone who criticizes Israel, just becomes a terrorist.” T he precise contours of antisemitism and anti-Zionism are intensely debated. The ADL and many other Jewish establishment organizations have been pushing for years for governments to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, which defines some criticisms of Israel, and anti-Zionism in particular, as antisemitic. When the Biden White House released its strategy to counter antisemitism in May 2023, it mentioned several definitions in its document rather than enshrining a single one. At the time, the ADL said it shaped the strategy, claiming that the White House had adopted the IHRA definition outright and described that as a victory. View image in fullscreen Activists from Jewish Voice for Peace occupy the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty in New York on 6 November. Photograph: Stephanie Keith/Getty Images The ADL said in its statement that it does not conflate criticism of Israel, which is not inherently antisemitic, with actual antisemitism. But experts question whether its widely cited annual audit of antisemitic incidents does just that. Some fraction of those incidents, for example, are probably actions by anti-Zionist activists who are themselves Jewish, such as Jewish Voice for Peace . “It contributes to a distorted view,” said Ben Lorber, an analyst of trends in white nationalism at Political Research Associates. “Parts of the ADL continue to do valuable work in monitoring and warning against the danger of the rising far right, but increasingly, that work is compromised by their reactionary approach on Israel.” The ADL and progressive groups have previously clashed over its support of anti-BDS measures and the Trump administration’s investigations into Palestinian rights groups. Sophie Ellman-Golan, spokesperson for Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, believes that the ADL is responding to the rise of a progressive Jewish left that cuts into space the group has historically occupied. View image in fullscreen Sophie Ellman-Golan. Photograph: Lucy Nicholson/Reuters “It is very threatening for institutions that have long been able to speak as the representative voice of the Jewish community to now be faced with such an undeniable set of loud, persistent and consistent Jewish voices that a
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
Head of Britain’s police chiefs says force ‘institutionally racist’
Gavin Stephens: ‘The way our policies, procedures and training have been designed for many years have not had the voices of black people involved.’ View image in fullscreen Gavin Stephens: ‘The way our policies, procedures and training have been designed for many years have not had the voices of black people involved.’ This article is more than 1 year old Head of Britain’s police chiefs says force ‘institutionally racist’ This article is more than 1 year old Exclusive: Gavin Stephens becomes most senior serving officer to accept discrimination in policing operates at a ‘fundamental level’ The leader of Britain’s police chiefs’ organisation has become the most senior serving leader to say that policing is institutionally racist , as he called for a fundamental redesign of national policies and practices to eliminate discrimination. Gavin Stephens, the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), said black people should no longer experience disproportionate use of force, and that too little progress had been made to reform policing, with some leaders slow to accept the size of the challenge. Stephens – elected by his fellow chief constables to lead their representative body – emphasised it was his personal view that discrimination in policing operated at an “institutional level”. In an interview with the Guardian, he said: “It’s a leadership responsibility for us to describe to them what it [institutional racism] means and what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean that all police officers are racist. “The way our policies, procedures [and] training have been designed and implemented for many years have not had the voices of black people involved in the design, the implementation, of those practices. And as a consequence of that, we get disproportionate outcomes in places where there shouldn’t be disproportionate outcomes. “The most helpful discussion for policing to have in the future is how we redesign the policies, the practices, the implementation, of policing to remove that discrimination.” Stephens’ remarks come as policing continues to wrestle with the issue of whether it should accept it suffers from institutional discrimination, a debate dating back more than 30 years. His intervention will add to pressure on the heads of England’s biggest forces to adopt the idea – including the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley. Rowley refused to accept the terms “institutionally racist” and “institutionally misogynistic” after a damning report last year, with the Met commissioner claiming their meanings were unclear. View image in fullscreen Louise Casey’s review was the second major report to find that British policing is institutionally racist, after the Macpherson report in 1999. Photograph: James Manning/PA Those findings, by Louise Casey in March after the murder of Sarah Everard in 2021, were contained in the second report to find police to be institutionally racist. The first, by Sir William Macpherson in 1999, followed an inquiry into failings that allowed the racist killers of Stephen Lawrence to escape justice. Police leaders accepted the findings, then later claimed to have reformed the service to the extent that it no longer applied. Stephens said his personal view was that the reports were correct. He said: “The problems that we need to solve across policing are at the institutional level and they need institutional changes. Whether you look at the Macpherson definition in the Stephen Lawrence report, or whether you look at Louise Casey’s definition, my personal view is that they apply to policing.” Asked for clarity on whether his personal view was that “police are institutionally racist”, Stephens replied “yes”, while emphasising that his reasoning for reaching that conclusion was important. Police chiefs debated whether to admit to institutional racism in 2022, with most being against making the admission. Police Scotland, the second biggest force in the UK, as well as Avon and Somerset police and the British Transport Police, have accepted that the term applies to them. But the biggest three forces in England – the Met, West Midlands police and Greater Manchester police – all disagree. Stephens said: “Colleagues have valid reasons why they don’t want to go down that route.” After the murder of George Floyd in the US and the subsequent Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, the NPCC promised reform and launched a race action plan – which critics say has done little or nothing after three years. Stephens said progress had been made, but that some of his fellow chiefs had been slow to accept the scale of the problems. “We have got some tangibles. I’d be the first to accept that we haven’t made progress at the rate that we would want to,” he said. “To get acceptance of the scale of that challenge took longer than we’d anticipated.” The NPCC chair said he personally supported the idea of police officers being licensed, in the same way nurses or doctors were. He believed it would help professionalise the service and hoped for an “active” debate on it among his fellow chiefs. Stephens became NPCC chair in March 2023, having previously been the chief constable of Surrey police. View image in fullscreen A mural of George Floyd, who died at the hands of US police in 2020, in Manchester. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian The scale of the racial disparity in the use of force in England and Wales was laid out by police leaders in 2022, when they launched the first written version of their race plan. They wrote: “Black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people and five times more likely to be subjected to the use of force … 10% of our recorded searches, 27% of use-of-force incidents and 35% of Taser incidents involved someone from a Black ethnic group. The latest estimates suggest that only 3.5% of the population is Black.” Some have said that police stereotype black men as being more dangerous. Stephens, who grew up in Hartlepool, said this was wrong: “This myth that sometimes exists in popular culture that young black men are dangerous. It’s a myth. Yes, young black men get involved in crime – yes, they’re at risk of victimisation – but so do white men if you go to my neck of the woods.” He added: “If you’ve got that cultural connection, if you’ve got something in common with the person that you’re dealing with on the street, there’s a higher likelihood that you’re going to be able to resolve that issue without resorting to use of force.” Explore more on these topics Police Race news Share Reuse this content Gavin Stephens: ‘The way our policies, procedures and training have been designed for many years have not had the voices of black people involved.’ View image in fullscreen Gavin Stephens: ‘The way our policies, procedures and training have been designed for many years have not had the voices of black people involved.’ This article is more than 1 year old Head of Britain’s police chiefs says force ‘institutionally racist’ This article is more than 1 year old Exclusive: Gavin Stephens becomes most senior serving officer to accept discrimination in policing operates at a ‘fundamental level’ The leader of Britain’s police chiefs’ organisation has become the most senior serving leader to say that policing is institutionally racist , as he called for a fundamental redesign of national policies and practices to eliminate discrimination. Gavin Stephens, the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), said black people should no longer experience disproportionate use of force, and that too little progress had been made to reform policing, with some leaders slow to accept the size of the challenge. Stephens – elected by his fellow chief constables to lead their representative body – emphasised it was his personal view that discrimination in policing operated at an “institutional level”. In an interview with the Guardian, he said: “It’s a leadership responsibility for us to describe to them what it [institutional racism] means and what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean that all police officers are racist. “The way our policies, procedures [and] training have been designed and implemented for many years have not had the voices of black people involved in the design, the implementation, of those practices. And as a consequence of that, we get disproportionate outcomes in places where there shouldn’t be disproportionate outcomes. “The most helpful discussion for policing to have in the future is how we redesign the policies, the practices, the implementation, of policing to remove that discrimination.” Stephens’ remarks come as policing continues to wrestle with the issue of whether it should accept it suffers from institutional discrimination, a debate dating back more than 30 years. His intervention will add to pressure on the heads of England’s biggest forces to adopt the idea – including the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley. Rowley refused to accept the terms “institutionally racist” and “institutionally misogynistic” after a damning report last year, with the Met commissioner claiming their meanings were unclear. View image in fullscreen Louise Casey’s review was the second major report to find that British policing is institutionally racist, after the Macpherson report in 1999. Photograph: James Manning/PA Those findings, by Louise Casey in March after the murder of Sarah Everard in 2021, were contained in the second report to find police to be institutionally racist. The first, by Sir William Macpherson in 1999, followed an inquiry into failings that allowed the racist killers of Stephen Lawrence to escape justice. Police leaders accepted the findings, then later claimed to have reformed the service to the extent that it no longer applied. Stephens said his personal view was that the reports were correct. He said: “The problems that we need to solve across policing are at the institutional level and they need institutional changes. Whether you look at the Macpherson definition in the Stephen Lawrence report, or whether you look at Louise Casey’s definition, my personal view is that they apply to policing.” Asked for clarity on whether his personal view was that “police are institutionally racist”, Stephens replied “yes”, while emphasising that his reasoning for reaching that conclusion was important. Police chiefs debated whether to admit to institutional racism in 2022, with most being against making the admission. Police Scotland, the second biggest force in the UK, as well as Avon and Somerset police and the British Transport Police, have accepted that the term applies to them. But the biggest three forces in England – the Met, West Midlands police and Greater Manchester police – all disagree. Stephens said: “Colleagues have valid reasons why they don’t want to go down that route.” After the murder of George Floyd in the US and the subsequent Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, the NPCC promised reform and launched a race action plan – which critics say has done little or nothing after three years. Stephens said progress had been made, but that some of his fellow chiefs had been slow to accept the scale of the problems. “We have got some tangibles. I’d be the first to accept that we haven’t made progress at the rate that we would want to,” he said. “To get acceptance of the scale of that challenge took longer than we’d anticipated.” The NPCC chair said he personally supported the idea of police officers being licensed, in the same way nurses or doctors were. He believed it would help professionalise the service and hoped for an “active” debate on it among his fellow chiefs. Stephens became NPCC chair in March 2023, having previously been the chief constable of Surrey police. View image in fullscreen A mural of George Floyd, who died at the hands of US police in 2020, in Manchester. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian The scale of the racial disparity in the use of force in England and Wales was laid out by police leaders in 2022, when they launched the first written version of their race plan. They wrote: “Black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people and five times more likely to be subjected to the use of force … 10% of our recorded searches, 27% of use-of-force incidents and 35% of Taser incidents involved someone from a Black ethnic group. The latest estimates suggest that only 3.5% of the population is Black.” Some have said that police stereotype black men as being more dangerous. Stephens, who grew up in Hartlepool, said this was wrong: “This myth that sometimes exists in popular culture that young black men are dangerous. It’s a myth. Yes, young black men get involved in crime – yes, they’re at risk of victimisation – but so do white men if you go to my neck of the woods.” He added: “If you’ve got that cultural connection, if you’ve got something in common with the person that you’re dealing with on the street, there’s a higher likelihood that you’re going to be able to resolve that issue without resorting to use of force.” Explore more on these topics Police Race news Share Reuse this content Gavin Stephens: ‘The way our policies, procedures and training have been designed for many years have not had the voices of black people involved.’ View image in fullscreen Gavin Stephens: ‘The way our policies, procedures and training have been designed for many years have not had the voices of black people involved.’ Gavin Stephens: ‘The way our policies, procedures and training have been designed for many years have not had the voices of black people involved.’ View image in fullscreen Gavin Stephens: ‘The way our policies, procedures and training have been designed for many years have not had the voices of black people involved.’ Gavin Stephens: ‘The way our policies, procedures and training have been designed for many years have not had the voices of black people involved.’ View image in fullscreen Gavin Stephens: ‘The way our policies, procedures and training have been designed for many years have not had the voices of black people involved.’ Gavin Stephens: ‘The way our policies, procedures and training have been designed for many years have not had the voices of black people involved.’ View image in fullscreen Gavin Stephens: ‘The way our policies, procedures and training have been designed for many years have not had the voices of black people involved.’ Gavin Stephens: ‘The way our policies, procedures and training have been designed for many years have not had the voices of black people involved.’ Gavin Stephens: ‘The way our policies, procedures and training have been designed for many years have not had the voices of black people involved.’ This article is more than 1 year old Head of Britain’s police chiefs says force ‘institutionally racist’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Head of Britain’s police chiefs says force ‘institutionally racist’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Head of Britain’s police chiefs says force ‘institutionally racist’ 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: Gavin Stephens becomes most senior serving officer to accept discrimination in policing operates at a ‘fundamental level’ Exclusive: Gavin Stephens becomes most senior serving officer to accept discrimination in policing operates at a ‘fundamental level’ Exclusive: Gavin Stephens becomes most senior serving officer to accept discrimination in policing operates at a ‘fundamental level’ The leader of Britain’s police chiefs’ organisation has become the most senior serving leader to say that policing is institutionally racist , as he called for a fundamental redesign of national policies and practices to eliminate discrimination. Gavin Stephens, the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), said black people should no longer experience disproportionate use of force, and that too little progress had been made to reform policing, with some leaders slow to accept the size of the challenge. Stephens – elected by his fellow chief constables to lead their representative body – emphasised it was his personal view that discrimination in policing operated at an “institutional level”. In an interview with the Guardian, he said: “It’s a leadership responsibility for us to describe to them what it [institutional racism] means and what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean that all police officers are racist. “The way our policies, procedures [and] training have been designed and implemented for many years have not had the voices of black people involved in the design, the implementation, of those practices. And as a consequence of that, we get disproportionate outcomes in places where there shouldn’t be disproportionate outcomes. “The most helpful discussion for policing to have in the future is how we redesign the policies, the practices, the implementation, of policing to remove that discrimination.” Stephens’ remarks come as policing continues to wrestle with the issue of whether it should accept it suffers from institutional discrimination, a debate dating back more than 30 years. His intervention will add to pressure on the heads of England’s biggest forces to adopt the idea – including the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley. Rowley refused to accept the terms “institutionally racist” and “institutionally misogynistic” after a damning report last year, with the Met commissioner claiming their meanings were unclear. View image in fullscreen Louise Casey’s review was the second major report to find that British policing is institutionally racist, after the Macpherson report in 1999. Photograph: James Manning/PA Those findings, by Louise Casey in March after the murder of Sarah Everard in 2021, were contained in the second report to find police to be institutionally racist. The first, by Sir William Macpherson in 1999, followed an inquiry into failings that allowed the racist killers of Stephen Lawrence to escape justice. Police leaders accepted the findings, then later claimed to have reformed the service to the extent that it no longer applied. Stephens said his personal view was that the reports were correct. He said: “The problems that we need to solve across policing are at the institutional level and they need institutional changes. Whether you look at the Macpherson definition in the Stephen Lawrence report, or whether you look at Louise Casey’s definition, my personal view is that they apply to policing.” Asked for clarity on whether his personal view was that “police are institutionally racist”, Stephens replied “yes”, while emphasising that his reasoning for reaching that conclusion was important. Police chiefs debated whether to admit to institutional racism in 2022, with most being against making the admission. Police Scotland, the second biggest force in the UK, as well as Avon and Somerset police and the British Transport Police, have accepted that the term applies to them. But the biggest three forces in England – the Met, West Midlands police and Greater Manchester police – all disagree. Stephens said: “Colleagues have valid reasons why they don’t want to go down that route.” After the murder of George Floyd in the US and the subsequent Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, the NPCC promised reform and launched a race action plan – which critics say has done little or nothing after three years. Stephens said progress had been made, but that some of his fellow chiefs had been slow to accept the scale of the problems. “We have got some tangibles. I’d be the first to accept that we haven’t made progress at the rate that we would want to,” he said. “To get acceptance of the scale of that challenge took longer than we’d anticipated.” The NPCC chair said he personally supported the idea of police officers being licensed, in the same way nurses or doctors were. He believed it would help professionalise the service and hoped for an “active” debate on it among his fellow chiefs. Stephens became NPCC chair in March 2023, having previously been the chief constable of Surrey police. View image in fullscreen A mural of George Floyd, who died at the hands of US police in 2020, in Manchester. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian The scale of the racial disparity in the use of force in England and Wales was laid out by police leaders in 2022, when they launched the first written version of their race plan. They wrote: “Black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people and five times more likely to be subjected to the use of force … 10% of our recorded searches, 27% of use-of-force incidents and 35% of Taser incidents involved someone from a Black ethnic group. The latest estimates suggest that only 3.5% of the population is Black.” Some have said that police stereotype black men as being more dangerous. Stephens, who grew up in Hartlepool, said this was wrong: “This myth that sometimes exists in popular culture that young black men are dangerous. It’s a myth. Yes, young black men get involved in crime – yes, they’re at risk of victimisation – but so do white men if you go to my neck of the woods.” He added: “If you’ve got that cultural connection, if you’ve got something in common with the person that you’re dealing with on the street, there’s a higher likelihood that you’re going to be able to resolve that issue without resorting to use of force.” Explore more on these topics Police Race news Share Reuse this content The leader of Britain’s police chiefs’ organisation has become the most senior serving leader to say that policing is institutionally racist , as he called for a fundamental redesign of national policies and practices to eliminate discrimination. Gavin Stephens, the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), said black people should no longer experience disproportionate use of force, and that too little progress had been made to reform policing, with some leaders slow to accept the size of the challenge. Stephens – elected by his fellow chief constables to lead their representative body – emphasised it was his personal view that discrimination in policing operated at an “institutional level”. In an interview with the Guardian, he said: “It’s a leadership responsibility for us to describe to them what it [institutional racism] means and what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean that all police officers are racist. “The way our policies, procedures [and] training have been designed and implemented for many years have not had the voices of black people involved in the design, the implementation, of those practices. And as a consequence of that, we get disproportionate outcomes in places where there shouldn’t be disproportionate outcomes. “The most helpful discussion for policing to have in the future is how we redesign the policies, the practices, the implementation, of policing to remove that discrimination.” Stephens’ remarks come as policing continues to wrestle with the issue of whether it should accept it suffers from institutional discrimination, a debate dating back more than 30 years. His intervention will add to pressure on the heads of England’s biggest forces to adopt the idea – including the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley. Rowley refused to accept the terms “institutionally racist” and “institutionally misogynistic” after a damning report last year, with the Met commissioner claiming their meanings were unclear. View image in fullscreen Louise Casey’s review was the second major report to find that British policing is institutionally racist, after the Macpherson report in 1999. Photograph: James Manning/PA Those findings, by Louise Casey in March after the murder of Sarah Everard in 2021, were contained in the second report to find police to be institutionally racist. The first, by Sir William Macpherson in 1999, followed an inquiry into failings that allowed the racist killers of Stephen Lawrence to escape justice. Police leaders accepted the findings, then later claimed to have reformed the service to the extent that it no longer applied. Stephens said his personal view was that the reports were correct. He said: “The problems that we need to solve across policing are at the institutional level and they need institutional changes. Whether you look at the Macpherson definition in the Stephen Lawrence report, or whether you look at Louise Casey’s definition, my personal view is that they apply to policing.” Asked for clarity on whether his personal view was that “police are institutionally racist”, Stephens replied “yes”, while emphasising that his reasoning for reaching that conclusion was important. Police chiefs debated whether to admit to institutional racism in 2022, with most being against making the admission. Police Scotland, the second biggest force in the UK, as well as Avon and Somerset police and the British Transport Police, have accepted that the term applies to them. But the biggest three forces in England – the Met, West Midlands police and Greater Manchester police – all disagree. Stephens said: “Colleagues have valid reasons why they don’t want to go down that route.” After the murder of George Floyd in the US and the subsequent Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, the NPCC promised reform and launched a race action plan – which critics say has done little or nothing after three years. Stephens said progress had been made, but that some of his fellow chiefs had been slow to accept the scale of the problems. “We have got some tangibles. I’d be the first to accept that we haven’t made progress at the rate that we would want to,” he said. “To get acceptance of the scale of that challenge took longer than we’d anticipated.” The NPCC chair said he personally supported the idea of police officers being licensed, in the same way nurses or doctors were. He believed it would help professionalise the service and hoped for an “active” debate on it among his fellow chiefs. Stephens became NPCC chair in March 2023, having previously been the chief constable of Surrey police. View image in fullscreen A mural of George Floyd, who died at the hands of US police in 2020, in Manchester. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian The scale of the racial disparity in the use of force in England and Wales was laid out by police leaders in 2022, when they launched the first written version of their race plan. They wrote: “Black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people and five times more likely to be subjected to the use of force … 10% of our recorded searches, 27% of use-of-force incidents and 35% of Taser incidents involved someone from a Black ethnic group. The latest estimates suggest that only 3.5% of the population is Black.” Some have said that police stereotype black men as being more dangerous. Stephens, who grew up in Hartlepool, said this was wrong: “This myth that sometimes exists in popular culture that young black men are dangerous. It’s a myth. Yes, young black men get involved in crime – yes, they’re at risk of victimisation – but so do white men if you go to my neck of the woods.” He added: “If you’ve got that cultural connection, if you’ve got something in common with the person that you’re dealing with on the street, there’s a higher likelihood that you’re going to be able to resolve that issue without resorting to use of force.” Explore more on these topics Police Race news Share Reuse this content The leader of Britain’s police chiefs’ organisation has become the most senior serving leader to say that policing is institutionally racist , as he called for a fundamental redesign of national policies and practices to eliminate discrimination. Gavin Stephens, the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), said black people should no longer experience disproportionate use of force, and that too little progress had been made to reform policing, with some leaders slow to accept the size of the challenge. Stephens – elected by his fellow chief constables to lead their representative body – emphasised it was his personal view that discrimination in policing operated at an “institutional level”. In an interview with the Guardian, he said: “It’s a leadership responsibility for us to describe to them what it [institutional racism] means and what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean that all police officers are racist. “The way our policies, procedures [and] training have been designed and implemented for many years have not had the voices of black people involved in the design, the implementation, of those practices. And as a consequence of that, we get disproportionate outcomes in places where there shouldn’t be disproportionate outcomes. “The most helpful discussion for policing to have in the future is how we redesign the policies, the practices, the implementation, of policing to remove that discrimination.” Stephens’ remarks come as policing continues to wrestle with the issue of whether it should accept it suffers from institutional discrimination, a debate dating back more than 30 years. His intervention will add to pressure on the heads of England’s biggest forces to adopt the idea – including the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley. Rowley refused to accept the terms “institutionally racist” and “institutionally misogynistic” after a damning report last year, with the Met commissioner claiming their meanings were unclear. View image in fullscreen Louise Casey’s review was the second major report to find that British policing is institutionally racist, after the Macpherson report in 1999. Photograph: James Manning/PA Those findings, by Louise Casey in March after the murder of Sarah Everard in 2021, were contained in the second report to find police to be institutionally racist. The first, by Sir William Macpherson in 1999, followed an inquiry into failings that allowed the racist killers of Stephen Lawrence to escape justice. Police leaders accepted the findings, then later claimed to have reformed the service to the extent that it no longer applied. Stephens said his personal view was that the reports were correct. He said: “The problems that we need to solve across policing are at the institutional level and they need institutional changes. Whether you look at the Macpherson definition in the Stephen Lawrence report, or whether you look at Louise Casey’s definition, my personal view is that they apply to policing.” Asked for clarity on whether his personal view was that “police are institutionally racist”, Stephens replied “yes”, while emphasising that his reasoning for reaching that conclusion was important. Police chiefs debated whether to admit to institutional racism in 2022, with most being against making the admission. Police Scotland, the second biggest force in the UK, as well as Avon and Somerset police and the British Transport Police, have accepted that the term applies to them. But the biggest three forces in England – the Met, West Midlands police and Greater Manchester police – all disagree. Stephens said: “Colleagues have valid reasons why they don’t want to go down that route.” After the murder of George Floyd in the US and the subsequent Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, the NPCC promised reform and launched a race action plan – which critics say has done little or nothing after three years. Stephens said progress had been made, but that some of his fellow chiefs had been slow to accept the scale of the problems. “We have got some tangibles. I’d be the first to accept that we haven’t made progress at the rate that we would want to,” he said. “To get acceptance of the scale of that challenge took longer than we’d anticipated.” The NPCC chair said he personally supported the idea of police officers being licensed, in the same way nurses or doctors were. He believed it would help professionalise the service and hoped for an “active” debate on it among his fellow chiefs. Stephens became NPCC chair in March 2023, having previously been the chief constable of Surrey police. View image in fullscreen A mural of George Floyd, who died at the hands of US police in 2020, in Manchester. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian The scale of the racial disparity in the use of force in England and Wales was laid out by police leaders in 2022, when they launched the first written version of their race plan. They wrote: “Black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people and five times more likely to be subjected to the use of force … 10% of our recorded searches, 27% of use-of-force incidents and 35% of Taser incidents involved someone from a Black ethnic group. The latest estimates suggest that only 3.5% of the population is Black.” Some have said that police stereotype black men as being more dangerous. Stephens, who grew up in Hartlepool, said this was wrong: “This myth that sometimes exists in popular culture that young black men are dangerous. It’s a myth. Yes, young black men get involved in crime – yes, they’re at risk of victimisation – but so do white men if you go to my neck of the woods.” He added: “If you’ve got that cultural connection, if you’ve got something in common with the person that you’re dealing with on the street, there’s a higher likelihood that you’re going to be able to resolve that issue without resorting to use of force.” The leader of Britain’s police chiefs’ organisation has become the most senior serving leader to say that policing is institutionally racist , as he called for a fundamental redesign of national policies and practices to eliminate discrimination. Gavin Stephens, the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), said black people should no longer experience disproportionate use of force, and that too little progress had been made to reform policing, with some leaders slow to accept the size of the challenge. Stephens – elected by his fellow chief constables to lead their representative body – emphasised it was his personal view that discrimination in policing operated at an “institutional level”. In an interview with the Guardian, he said: “It’s a leadership responsibility for us to describe to them what it [institutional racism] means and what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean that all police officers are racist. “The way our policies, procedures [and] training have been designed and implemented for many years have not had the voices of black people involved in the design, the implementation, of those practices. And as a consequence of that, we get disproportionate outcomes in places where there shouldn’t be disproportionate outcomes. “The most helpful discussion for policing to have in the future is how we redesign the policies, the practices, the implementation, of policing to remove that discrimination.” Stephens’ remarks come as policing continues to wrestle with the issue of whether it should accept it suffers from institutional discrimination, a debate dating back more than 30 years. His intervention will add to pressure on the heads of England’s biggest forces to adopt the idea – including the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley. Rowley refused to accept the terms “institutionally racist” and “institutionally misogynistic” after a damning report last year, with the Met commissioner claiming their meanings were unclear. View image in fullscreen Louise Casey’s review was the second major report to find that British policing is institutionally racist, after the Macpherson report in 1999. Photograph: James Manning/PA Those findings, by Louise Casey in March after the murder of Sarah Everard in 2021, were contained in the second report to find police to be institutionally racist. The first, by Sir William Macpherson in 1999, followed an inquiry into failings that allowed the racist killers of Stephen Lawrence to escape justice. Police leaders accepted the findings, then later claimed to have reformed the service to the extent that it no longer applied. Stephens said his personal view was that the reports were correct. He said: “The problems that we need to solve across policing are at the institutional level and they need institutional changes. Whether you look at the Macpherson definition in the Stephen Lawrence report, or whether you look at Louise Casey’s definition, my personal view is that they apply to policing.” Asked for clarity on whether his personal view was that “police are institutionally racist”, Stephens replied “yes”, while emphasising that his reasoning for reaching that conclusion was important. Police chiefs debated whether to admit to institutional racism in 2022, with most being against making the admission. Police Scotland, the second biggest force in the UK, as well as Avon and Somerset police and the British Transport Police, have accepted that the term applies to them. But the biggest three forces in England – the Met, West Midlands police and Greater Manchester police – all disagree. Stephens said: “Colleagues have valid reasons why they don’t want to go down that route.” After the murder of George Floyd in the US and the subsequent Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, the NPCC promised reform and launched a race action plan – which critics say has done little or nothing after three years. Stephens said progress had been made, but that some of his fellow chiefs had been slow to accept the scale of the problems. “We have got some tangibles. I’d be the first to accept that we haven’t made progress at the rate that we would want to,” he said. “To get acceptance of the scale of that challenge took longer than we’d anticipated.” The NPCC chair said he personally supported the idea of police officers being licensed, in the same way nurses or doctors were. He believed it would help professionalise the service and hoped for an “active” debate on it among his fellow chiefs. Stephens became NPCC chair in March 2023, having previously been the chief constable of Surrey police. View image in fullscreen A mural of George Floyd, who died at the hands of US police in 2020, in Manchester. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian The scale of the racial disparity in the use of force in England and Wales was laid out by police leaders in 2022, when they launched the first written version of their race plan. They wrote: “Black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people and five times more likely to be subjected to the use of force … 10% of our recorded searches, 27% of use-of-force incidents and 35% of Taser incidents involved someone from a Black ethnic group. The latest estimates suggest that only 3.5% of the population is Black.” Some have said that police stereotype black men as being more dangerous. Stephens, who grew up in Hartlepool, said this was wrong: “This myth that sometimes exists in popular culture that young black men are dangerous. It’s a myth. Yes, young black men get involved in crime – yes, they’re at risk of victimisation – but so do white men if you go to my neck of the woods.” He added: “If you’ve got that cultural connection, if you’ve got something in common with the person that you’re dealing with on the street, there’s a higher likelihood that you’re going to be able to resolve that issue without resorting to use of force.” The leader of Britain’s police chiefs’ organisation has become the most senior serving leader to say that policing is institutionally racist , as he called for a fundamental redesign of national policies and practices to eliminate discrimination. Gavin Stephens, the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), said black people should no longer experience disproportionate use of force, and that too little progress had been made to reform policing, with some leaders slow to accept the size of the challenge. Stephens – elected by his fellow chief constables to lead their representative body – emphasised it was his personal view that discrimination in policing operated at an “institutional level”. In an interview with the Guardian, he said: “It’s a leadership responsibility for us to describe to them what it [institutional racism] means and what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean that all police officers are racist. “The way our policies, procedures [and] training have been designed and implemented for many years have not had the voices of black people involved in the design, the implementation, of those practices. And as a consequence of that, we get disproportionate outcomes in places where there shouldn’t be disproportionate outcomes. “The most helpful discussion for policing to have in the future is how we redesign the policies, the practices, the implementation, of policing to remove that discrimination.” Stephens’ remarks come as policing continues to wrestle with the issue of whether it should accept it suffers from institutional discrimination, a debate dating back more than 30 years. His intervention will add to pressure on the heads of England’s biggest forces to adopt the idea – including the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley. Rowley refused to accept the terms “institutionally racist” and “institutionally misogynistic” after a damning report last year, with the Met commissioner claiming their meanings were unclear. Those findings, by Louise Casey in March after the murder of Sarah Everard in 2021, were contained in the second report to find police to be institutionally racist. The first, by Sir William Macpherson in 1999, followed an inquiry into failings that allowed the racist killers of Stephen Lawrence to escape justice. Police leaders accepted the findings, then later claimed to have reformed the service to the extent that it no longer applied. Stephens said his personal view was that the reports were correct. He said: “The problems that we need to solve across policing are at the institutional level and they need institutional changes. Whether you look at the Macpherson definition in the Stephen Lawrence report, or whether you look at Louise Casey’s definition, my personal view is that they apply to policing.” Asked for clarity on whether his personal view was that “police are institutionally racist”, Stephens replied “yes”, while emphasising that his reasoning for reaching that conclusion was important. Police chiefs debated whether to admit to institutional racism in 2022, with most being against making the admission. Police Scotland, the second biggest force in the UK, as well as Avon and Somerset police and the British Transport Police, have accepted that the term applies to them. But the biggest three forces in England – the Met, West Midlands police and Greater Manchester police – all disagree. Stephens said: “Colleagues have valid reasons why they don’t want to go down that route.” After the murder of George Floyd in the US and the subsequent Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, the NPCC promised reform and launched a race action plan – which critics say has done little or nothing after three years. Stephens said progress had been made, but that some of his fellow chiefs had been slow to accept the scale of the problems. “We have got some tangibles. I’d be the first to accept that we haven’t made progress at the rate that we would want to,” he said. “To get acceptance of the scale of that challenge took longer than we’d anticipated.” The NPCC chair said he personally supported the idea of police officers being licensed, in the same way nurses or doctors were. He believed it would help professionalise the service and hoped for an “active” debate on it among his fellow chiefs. Stephens became NPCC chair in March 2023, having previously been the chief constable of Surrey police. The scale of the racial disparity in the use of force in England and Wales was laid out by police leaders in 2022, when they launched the first written version of their race plan. They wrote: “Black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people and five times more likely to be subjected to the use of force … 10% of our recorded searches, 27% of use-of-force incidents and 35% of Taser incidents involved someone from a Black ethnic group. The latest estimates suggest that only 3.5% of the population is Black.” Some have said that police stereotype black men as being more dangerous. Stephens, who grew up in Hartlepool, said this was wrong: “This myth that sometimes exists in popular culture that young black men are dangerous. It’s a myth. Yes, young black men get involved in crime – yes, they’re at risk of victimisation – but so do white men if you go to my neck of the woods.” He added: “If you’ve got that cultural connection, if you’ve got something in common with the person that you’re dealing with on the street, there’s a higher likelihood that you’re going to be able to resolve that issue without resorting to use of force.” Explore more on these topics Police Race news Share Reuse this content
|
Tories choose Peter Bone’s partner as candidate to replace him
Helen Harrison out canvassing with Peter Bone in 2017. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Helen Harrison out canvassing with Peter Bone in 2017. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old Tories choose Peter Bone’s partner as candidate to replace him This article is more than 1 year old Helen Harrison will stand in Wellingborough byelection called after bullying and harassment revelations against Bone The Conservatives have chosen Peter Bone’s partner as their candidate to replace him as the MP for Wellingborough after he was found to have bullied and harassed a member of his staff. Helen Harrison will be the Tory candidate for the Northamptonshire seat, the party chair announced on Sunday, after a meeting of local Conservative members. A date has not been set yet for the byelection, which was triggered after more than 10% of local voters signed a petition to recall him in the aftermath of the revelations about his behaviour. It is one of at least two difficult forthcoming byelections for the Tories after the announcement by Chris Skidmore on Friday that he intends to stand down as an MP for Kingswood near Bristol in protest over the government’s energy policy. Richard Holden, the Conservative party chair, tweeted on Sunday: “Congratulations to Cllr @helenharrisonuk on being selected for #Wellingborough at a packed meeting of @Conservatives members this afternoon.” 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 that report, but said it would be “entirely unsurprising” if Harrison, who serves as a councillor on North Northamptonshire council, were selected. Jonathan Ashworth, a shadow Cabinet Office minister, said: “Rishi Sunak caving to Peter Bone’s demand to select his partner so he doesn’t run as an independent shows just how weak the prime minister is. Rishi Sunak is too weak to lead his own party, let alone the country. “The people of Wellingborough deserve the best possible candidate to represent them, not the product of a quick political fix. Only Labour can deliver the change the voters want to see and give Britain its future back.” Bone had a majority of nearly 20,000, but Labour held the seat from 1997 to 2005. Bone was recalled after 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. Explore more on these topics Conservatives Byelections news Share Reuse this content Helen Harrison out canvassing with Peter Bone in 2017. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Helen Harrison out canvassing with Peter Bone in 2017. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old Tories choose Peter Bone’s partner as candidate to replace him This article is more than 1 year old Helen Harrison will stand in Wellingborough byelection called after bullying and harassment revelations against Bone The Conservatives have chosen Peter Bone’s partner as their candidate to replace him as the MP for Wellingborough after he was found to have bullied and harassed a member of his staff. Helen Harrison will be the Tory candidate for the Northamptonshire seat, the party chair announced on Sunday, after a meeting of local Conservative members. A date has not been set yet for the byelection, which was triggered after more than 10% of local voters signed a petition to recall him in the aftermath of the revelations about his behaviour. It is one of at least two difficult forthcoming byelections for the Tories after the announcement by Chris Skidmore on Friday that he intends to stand down as an MP for Kingswood near Bristol in protest over the government’s energy policy. Richard Holden, the Conservative party chair, tweeted on Sunday: “Congratulations to Cllr @helenharrisonuk on being selected for #Wellingborough at a packed meeting of @Conservatives members this afternoon.” 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 that report, but said it would be “entirely unsurprising” if Harrison, who serves as a councillor on North Northamptonshire council, were selected. Jonathan Ashworth, a shadow Cabinet Office minister, said: “Rishi Sunak caving to Peter Bone’s demand to select his partner so he doesn’t run as an independent shows just how weak the prime minister is. Rishi Sunak is too weak to lead his own party, let alone the country. “The people of Wellingborough deserve the best possible candidate to represent them, not the product of a quick political fix. Only Labour can deliver the change the voters want to see and give Britain its future back.” Bone had a majority of nearly 20,000, but Labour held the seat from 1997 to 2005. Bone was recalled after 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. Explore more on these topics Conservatives Byelections news Share Reuse this content Helen Harrison out canvassing with Peter Bone in 2017. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Helen Harrison out canvassing with Peter Bone in 2017. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/Shutterstock Helen Harrison out canvassing with Peter Bone in 2017. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Helen Harrison out canvassing with Peter Bone in 2017. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/Shutterstock Helen Harrison out canvassing with Peter Bone in 2017. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Helen Harrison out canvassing with Peter Bone in 2017. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/Shutterstock Helen Harrison out canvassing with Peter Bone in 2017. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Helen Harrison out canvassing with Peter Bone in 2017. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/Shutterstock Helen Harrison out canvassing with Peter Bone in 2017. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/Shutterstock Helen Harrison out canvassing with Peter Bone in 2017. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old Tories choose Peter Bone’s partner as candidate to replace him This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Tories choose Peter Bone’s partner as candidate to replace him This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Tories choose Peter Bone’s partner as candidate to replace him 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 Helen Harrison will stand in Wellingborough byelection called after bullying and harassment revelations against Bone Helen Harrison will stand in Wellingborough byelection called after bullying and harassment revelations against Bone Helen Harrison will stand in Wellingborough byelection called after bullying and harassment revelations against Bone The Conservatives have chosen Peter Bone’s partner as their candidate to replace him as the MP for Wellingborough after he was found to have bullied and harassed a member of his staff. Helen Harrison will be the Tory candidate for the Northamptonshire seat, the party chair announced on Sunday, after a meeting of local Conservative members. A date has not been set yet for the byelection, which was triggered after more than 10% of local voters signed a petition to recall him in the aftermath of the revelations about his behaviour. It is one of at least two difficult forthcoming byelections for the Tories after the announcement by Chris Skidmore on Friday that he intends to stand down as an MP for Kingswood near Bristol in protest over the government’s energy policy. Richard Holden, the Conservative party chair, tweeted on Sunday: “Congratulations to Cllr @helenharrisonuk on being selected for #Wellingborough at a packed meeting of @Conservatives members this afternoon.” 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 that report, but said it would be “entirely unsurprising” if Harrison, who serves as a councillor on North Northamptonshire council, were selected. Jonathan Ashworth, a shadow Cabinet Office minister, said: “Rishi Sunak caving to Peter Bone’s demand to select his partner so he doesn’t run as an independent shows just how weak the prime minister is. Rishi Sunak is too weak to lead his own party, let alone the country. “The people of Wellingborough deserve the best possible candidate to represent them, not the product of a quick political fix. Only Labour can deliver the change the voters want to see and give Britain its future back.” Bone had a majority of nearly 20,000, but Labour held the seat from 1997 to 2005. Bone was recalled after 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. Explore more on these topics Conservatives Byelections news Share Reuse this content The Conservatives have chosen Peter Bone’s partner as their candidate to replace him as the MP for Wellingborough after he was found to have bullied and harassed a member of his staff. Helen Harrison will be the Tory candidate for the Northamptonshire seat, the party chair announced on Sunday, after a meeting of local Conservative members. A date has not been set yet for the byelection, which was triggered after more than 10% of local voters signed a petition to recall him in the aftermath of the revelations about his behaviour. It is one of at least two difficult forthcoming byelections for the Tories after the announcement by Chris Skidmore on Friday that he intends to stand down as an MP for Kingswood near Bristol in protest over the government’s energy policy. Richard Holden, the Conservative party chair, tweeted on Sunday: “Congratulations to Cllr @helenharrisonuk on being selected for #Wellingborough at a packed meeting of @Conservatives members this afternoon.” 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 that report, but said it would be “entirely unsurprising” if Harrison, who serves as a councillor on North Northamptonshire council, were selected. Jonathan Ashworth, a shadow Cabinet Office minister, said: “Rishi Sunak caving to Peter Bone’s demand to select his partner so he doesn’t run as an independent shows just how weak the prime minister is. Rishi Sunak is too weak to lead his own party, let alone the country. “The people of Wellingborough deserve the best possible candidate to represent them, not the product of a quick political fix. Only Labour can deliver the change the voters want to see and give Britain its future back.” Bone had a majority of nearly 20,000, but Labour held the seat from 1997 to 2005. Bone was recalled after 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. Explore more on these topics Conservatives Byelections news Share Reuse this content The Conservatives have chosen Peter Bone’s partner as their candidate to replace him as the MP for Wellingborough after he was found to have bullied and harassed a member of his staff. Helen Harrison will be the Tory candidate for the Northamptonshire seat, the party chair announced on Sunday, after a meeting of local Conservative members. A date has not been set yet for the byelection, which was triggered after more than 10% of local voters signed a petition to recall him in the aftermath of the revelations about his behaviour. It is one of at least two difficult forthcoming byelections for the Tories after the announcement by Chris Skidmore on Friday that he intends to stand down as an MP for Kingswood near Bristol in protest over the government’s energy policy. Richard Holden, the Conservative party chair, tweeted on Sunday: “Congratulations to Cllr @helenharrisonuk on being selected for #Wellingborough at a packed meeting of @Conservatives members this afternoon.” 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 that report, but said it would be “entirely unsurprising” if Harrison, who serves as a councillor on North Northamptonshire council, were selected. Jonathan Ashworth, a shadow Cabinet Office minister, said: “Rishi Sunak caving to Peter Bone’s demand to select his partner so he doesn’t run as an independent shows just how weak the prime minister is. Rishi Sunak is too weak to lead his own party, let alone the country. “The people of Wellingborough deserve the best possible candidate to represent them, not the product of a quick political fix. Only Labour can deliver the change the voters want to see and give Britain its future back.” Bone had a majority of nearly 20,000, but Labour held the seat from 1997 to 2005. Bone was recalled after 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. The Conservatives have chosen Peter Bone’s partner as their candidate to replace him as the MP for Wellingborough after he was found to have bullied and harassed a member of his staff. Helen Harrison will be the Tory candidate for the Northamptonshire seat, the party chair announced on Sunday, after a meeting of local Conservative members. A date has not been set yet for the byelection, which was triggered after more than 10% of local voters signed a petition to recall him in the aftermath of the revelations about his behaviour. It is one of at least two difficult forthcoming byelections for the Tories after the announcement by Chris Skidmore on Friday that he intends to stand down as an MP for Kingswood near Bristol in protest over the government’s energy policy. Richard Holden, the Conservative party chair, tweeted on Sunday: “Congratulations to Cllr @helenharrisonuk on being selected for #Wellingborough at a packed meeting of @Conservatives members this afternoon.” 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 that report, but said it would be “entirely unsurprising” if Harrison, who serves as a councillor on North Northamptonshire council, were selected. Jonathan Ashworth, a shadow Cabinet Office minister, said: “Rishi Sunak caving to Peter Bone’s demand to select his partner so he doesn’t run as an independent shows just how weak the prime minister is. Rishi Sunak is too weak to lead his own party, let alone the country. “The people of Wellingborough deserve the best possible candidate to represent them, not the product of a quick political fix. Only Labour can deliver the change the voters want to see and give Britain its future back.” Bone had a majority of nearly 20,000, but Labour held the seat from 1997 to 2005. Bone was recalled after 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. The Conservatives have chosen Peter Bone’s partner as their candidate to replace him as the MP for Wellingborough after he was found to have bullied and harassed a member of his staff. Helen Harrison will be the Tory candidate for the Northamptonshire seat, the party chair announced on Sunday, after a meeting of local Conservative members. A date has not been set yet for the byelection, which was triggered after more than 10% of local voters signed a petition to recall him in the aftermath of the revelations about his behaviour. It is one of at least two difficult forthcoming byelections for the Tories after the announcement by Chris Skidmore on Friday that he intends to stand down as an MP for Kingswood near Bristol in protest over the government’s energy policy. Richard Holden, the Conservative party chair, tweeted on Sunday: “Congratulations to Cllr @helenharrisonuk on being selected for #Wellingborough at a packed meeting of @Conservatives members this afternoon.” 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 that report, but said it would be “entirely unsurprising” if Harrison, who serves as a councillor on North Northamptonshire council, were selected. Jonathan Ashworth, a shadow Cabinet Office minister, said: “Rishi Sunak caving to Peter Bone’s demand to select his partner so he doesn’t run as an independent shows just how weak the prime minister is. Rishi Sunak is too weak to lead his own party, let alone the country. “The people of Wellingborough deserve the best possible candidate to represent them, not the product of a quick political fix. Only Labour can deliver the change the voters want to see and give Britain its future back.” Bone had a majority of nearly 20,000, but Labour held the seat from 1997 to 2005. Bone was recalled after 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. Explore more on these topics Conservatives Byelections news Share Reuse this content
|
Sunak says he wants to reduce workers’ taxes this year and may cut benefits
Rishi Sunak was talking to Laura Kuenssberg on BBC One. Photograph: Jeff Overs/BBC/Reuters View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak was talking to Laura Kuenssberg on BBC One. Photograph: Jeff Overs/BBC/Reuters This article is more than 1 year old Sunak says he wants to reduce workers’ taxes this year and may cut benefits This article is more than 1 year old PM sets up possibility of income tax coming down in March and says control of welfare is a priority Labour’s ‘tax bombshell’? It’s Tory policy that needs a watchful eye Rishi Sunak has said he wants to cut taxes for working people further this year, possibly cutting welfare payments to fund it. The prime minister said on Sunday his priority before the budget in March would be further tax cuts, which he said would entail stricter controls on public spending and benefits. His comments set up the possibility of an income tax cut in March, what is likely to be the last major tax decision by the chancellor before the general election. Sunak told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg: “My priority going forward – which the chancellor also reiterated at the weekend – our joint priority for the country is to make sure that we control spending, control welfare so that we can cut people’s taxes.” He said he wanted to oversee “discipline” in both public sector pay and benefits payments, singling out long-term disability payments as one area for savings. “It’s about making sure that everybody who can work does work,” he said. “And for everyone who was working hard, we reward that hard work with tax cuts. That is a Conservative approach, is one that I think is right for our country.” Separately, he told the Sunday Telegraph : “When I say that I want to keep cutting taxes, that’s what we’re going to deliver. We’re going to do that responsibly. That requires difficult decisions on public spending. It requires difficult decisions to control welfare.” His comments will delight some Conservative backbenchers who have been clamouring for pre-election tax cuts as a way to close the significant poll gap with Labour. However, the prime minister’s focus on pay for working people may disappoint those who have been calling for him to use any spare money to cut inheritance tax instead. They also contrast with the message given on Saturday by his chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, that he “did not know” whether he would be able to afford further tax cuts this year. Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, also said he would want to reduce taxes on working people as soon as possible, but accused the prime minister of prioritising immediate cuts over economic growth. “It’s not part of a strategy for growing the economy,” he told Sky News. “It’s simply picking tax cuts that the prime minister thinks might create a dividing line going into the election.” Sunak talked in particular of his desire to have fewer people claiming benefits for being unable to work because of long-term sickness or disability. Hunt announced at his autumn statement in November that hundreds of thousands of people would have to look for work they could do from home or face having their benefits cut by nearly £5,000 a year. That prompted accusations from disability charities that the government was punishing disabled people and adding anxiety to households that were already struggling. But on Sunday the prime minister defended the cuts, saying they were part of a wider plan to significantly reduce the number of people claiming those benefits. “You’ve seen the number of people who are signed off has tripled,” he said. “So do I think our country is three times sicker than it was a decade ago? The answer is no. That the system is not working as it was designed to work.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion MPs return to Westminster on Monday with the prime minister facing criticism on several fronts and a series of potentially damaging byelections within weeks. On Friday the former Tory minister Chris Skidmore said he would quit as an MP in protest at the government’s plans to issue more oil and gas licences in the North Sea, triggering a byelection in his Kingswood seat. There will be another in Wellingborough after voters recalled the sitting Tory MP, who was found to have bullied and harassed a member of staff. Rishi Sunak’s woes mount with oil bill rebellion, byelections and asylum row Read more A third could take place in Blackpool South, where the Conservative MP Scott Benton is fighting a lengthy suspension from parliament after being found to have breached lobbying rules. Some Tory MPs want the prime minister to take a more aggressive stance on a range of issues before what he said last week would be an election in the second half of the year. As well as significant tax cuts, many in his party want to toughen up his bill to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda before it comes back to the Commons for another vote. Sunak urged his colleagues and voters on Sunday to stay the course, however. “The choice now is to stick to the plan, and that’s what I’m going to do because the plan will deliver the long-term change that our country needs,” he said. He added: “I feel upbeat because of the progress we’ve made. And the fact that I know we’re now pointing in the right direction.” Explore more on these topics Rishi Sunak Tax and spending Tax Income tax Economic policy Conservatives Benefits news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak was talking to Laura Kuenssberg on BBC One. Photograph: Jeff Overs/BBC/Reuters View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak was talking to Laura Kuenssberg on BBC One. Photograph: Jeff Overs/BBC/Reuters This article is more than 1 year old Sunak says he wants to reduce workers’ taxes this year and may cut benefits This article is more than 1 year old PM sets up possibility of income tax coming down in March and says control of welfare is a priority Labour’s ‘tax bombshell’? It’s Tory policy that needs a watchful eye Rishi Sunak has said he wants to cut taxes for working people further this year, possibly cutting welfare payments to fund it. The prime minister said on Sunday his priority before the budget in March would be further tax cuts, which he said would entail stricter controls on public spending and benefits. His comments set up the possibility of an income tax cut in March, what is likely to be the last major tax decision by the chancellor before the general election. Sunak told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg: “My priority going forward – which the chancellor also reiterated at the weekend – our joint priority for the country is to make sure that we control spending, control welfare so that we can cut people’s taxes.” He said he wanted to oversee “discipline” in both public sector pay and benefits payments, singling out long-term disability payments as one area for savings. “It’s about making sure that everybody who can work does work,” he said. “And for everyone who was working hard, we reward that hard work with tax cuts. That is a Conservative approach, is one that I think is right for our country.” Separately, he told the Sunday Telegraph : “When I say that I want to keep cutting taxes, that’s what we’re going to deliver. We’re going to do that responsibly. That requires difficult decisions on public spending. It requires difficult decisions to control welfare.” His comments will delight some Conservative backbenchers who have been clamouring for pre-election tax cuts as a way to close the significant poll gap with Labour. However, the prime minister’s focus on pay for working people may disappoint those who have been calling for him to use any spare money to cut inheritance tax instead. They also contrast with the message given on Saturday by his chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, that he “did not know” whether he would be able to afford further tax cuts this year. Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, also said he would want to reduce taxes on working people as soon as possible, but accused the prime minister of prioritising immediate cuts over economic growth. “It’s not part of a strategy for growing the economy,” he told Sky News. “It’s simply picking tax cuts that the prime minister thinks might create a dividing line going into the election.” Sunak talked in particular of his desire to have fewer people claiming benefits for being unable to work because of long-term sickness or disability. Hunt announced at his autumn statement in November that hundreds of thousands of people would have to look for work they could do from home or face having their benefits cut by nearly £5,000 a year. That prompted accusations from disability charities that the government was punishing disabled people and adding anxiety to households that were already struggling. But on Sunday the prime minister defended the cuts, saying they were part of a wider plan to significantly reduce the number of people claiming those benefits. “You’ve seen the number of people who are signed off has tripled,” he said. “So do I think our country is three times sicker than it was a decade ago? The answer is no. That the system is not working as it was designed to work.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion MPs return to Westminster on Monday with the prime minister facing criticism on several fronts and a series of potentially damaging byelections within weeks. On Friday the former Tory minister Chris Skidmore said he would quit as an MP in protest at the government’s plans to issue more oil and gas licences in the North Sea, triggering a byelection in his Kingswood seat. There will be another in Wellingborough after voters recalled the sitting Tory MP, who was found to have bullied and harassed a member of staff. Rishi Sunak’s woes mount with oil bill rebellion, byelections and asylum row Read more A third could take place in Blackpool South, where the Conservative MP Scott Benton is fighting a lengthy suspension from parliament after being found to have breached lobbying rules. Some Tory MPs want the prime minister to take a more aggressive stance on a range of issues before what he said last week would be an election in the second half of the year. As well as significant tax cuts, many in his party want to toughen up his bill to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda before it comes back to the Commons for another vote. Sunak urged his colleagues and voters on Sunday to stay the course, however. “The choice now is to stick to the plan, and that’s what I’m going to do because the plan will deliver the long-term change that our country needs,” he said. He added: “I feel upbeat because of the progress we’ve made. And the fact that I know we’re now pointing in the right direction.” Explore more on these topics Rishi Sunak Tax and spending Tax Income tax Economic policy Conservatives Benefits news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak was talking to Laura Kuenssberg on BBC One. Photograph: Jeff Overs/BBC/Reuters View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak was talking to Laura Kuenssberg on BBC One. Photograph: Jeff Overs/BBC/Reuters Rishi Sunak was talking to Laura Kuenssberg on BBC One. Photograph: Jeff Overs/BBC/Reuters View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak was talking to Laura Kuenssberg on BBC One. Photograph: Jeff Overs/BBC/Reuters Rishi Sunak was talking to Laura Kuenssberg on BBC One. Photograph: Jeff Overs/BBC/Reuters View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak was talking to Laura Kuenssberg on BBC One. Photograph: Jeff Overs/BBC/Reuters Rishi Sunak was talking to Laura Kuenssberg on BBC One. Photograph: Jeff Overs/BBC/Reuters View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak was talking to Laura Kuenssberg on BBC One. Photograph: Jeff Overs/BBC/Reuters Rishi Sunak was talking to Laura Kuenssberg on BBC One. Photograph: Jeff Overs/BBC/Reuters Rishi Sunak was talking to Laura Kuenssberg on BBC One. Photograph: Jeff Overs/BBC/Reuters This article is more than 1 year old Sunak says he wants to reduce workers’ taxes this year and may cut benefits This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Sunak says he wants to reduce workers’ taxes this year and may cut benefits This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Sunak says he wants to reduce workers’ taxes this year and may cut benefits 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 sets up possibility of income tax coming down in March and says control of welfare is a priority Labour’s ‘tax bombshell’? It’s Tory policy that needs a watchful eye PM sets up possibility of income tax coming down in March and says control of welfare is a priority Labour’s ‘tax bombshell’? It’s Tory policy that needs a watchful eye PM sets up possibility of income tax coming down in March and says control of welfare is a priority Rishi Sunak has said he wants to cut taxes for working people further this year, possibly cutting welfare payments to fund it. The prime minister said on Sunday his priority before the budget in March would be further tax cuts, which he said would entail stricter controls on public spending and benefits. His comments set up the possibility of an income tax cut in March, what is likely to be the last major tax decision by the chancellor before the general election. Sunak told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg: “My priority going forward – which the chancellor also reiterated at the weekend – our joint priority for the country is to make sure that we control spending, control welfare so that we can cut people’s taxes.” He said he wanted to oversee “discipline” in both public sector pay and benefits payments, singling out long-term disability payments as one area for savings. “It’s about making sure that everybody who can work does work,” he said. “And for everyone who was working hard, we reward that hard work with tax cuts. That is a Conservative approach, is one that I think is right for our country.” Separately, he told the Sunday Telegraph : “When I say that I want to keep cutting taxes, that’s what we’re going to deliver. We’re going to do that responsibly. That requires difficult decisions on public spending. It requires difficult decisions to control welfare.” His comments will delight some Conservative backbenchers who have been clamouring for pre-election tax cuts as a way to close the significant poll gap with Labour. However, the prime minister’s focus on pay for working people may disappoint those who have been calling for him to use any spare money to cut inheritance tax instead. They also contrast with the message given on Saturday by his chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, that he “did not know” whether he would be able to afford further tax cuts this year. Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, also said he would want to reduce taxes on working people as soon as possible, but accused the prime minister of prioritising immediate cuts over economic growth. “It’s not part of a strategy for growing the economy,” he told Sky News. “It’s simply picking tax cuts that the prime minister thinks might create a dividing line going into the election.” Sunak talked in particular of his desire to have fewer people claiming benefits for being unable to work because of long-term sickness or disability. Hunt announced at his autumn statement in November that hundreds of thousands of people would have to look for work they could do from home or face having their benefits cut by nearly £5,000 a year. That prompted accusations from disability charities that the government was punishing disabled people and adding anxiety to households that were already struggling. But on Sunday the prime minister defended the cuts, saying they were part of a wider plan to significantly reduce the number of people claiming those benefits. “You’ve seen the number of people who are signed off has tripled,” he said. “So do I think our country is three times sicker than it was a decade ago? The answer is no. That the system is not working as it was designed to work.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion MPs return to Westminster on Monday with the prime minister facing criticism on several fronts and a series of potentially damaging byelections within weeks. On Friday the former Tory minister Chris Skidmore said he would quit as an MP in protest at the government’s plans to issue more oil and gas licences in the North Sea, triggering a byelection in his Kingswood seat. There will be another in Wellingborough after voters recalled the sitting Tory MP, who was found to have bullied and harassed a member of staff. Rishi Sunak’s woes mount with oil bill rebellion, byelections and asylum row Read more A third could take place in Blackpool South, where the Conservative MP Scott Benton is fighting a lengthy suspension from parliament after being found to have breached lobbying rules. Some Tory MPs want the prime minister to take a more aggressive stance on a range of issues before what he said last week would be an election in the second half of the year. As well as significant tax cuts, many in his party want to toughen up his bill to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda before it comes back to the Commons for another vote. Sunak urged his colleagues and voters on Sunday to stay the course, however. “The choice now is to stick to the plan, and that’s what I’m going to do because the plan will deliver the long-term change that our country needs,” he said. He added: “I feel upbeat because of the progress we’ve made. And the fact that I know we’re now pointing in the right direction.” Explore more on these topics Rishi Sunak Tax and spending Tax Income tax Economic policy Conservatives Benefits news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak has said he wants to cut taxes for working people further this year, possibly cutting welfare payments to fund it. The prime minister said on Sunday his priority before the budget in March would be further tax cuts, which he said would entail stricter controls on public spending and benefits. His comments set up the possibility of an income tax cut in March, what is likely to be the last major tax decision by the chancellor before the general election. Sunak told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg: “My priority going forward – which the chancellor also reiterated at the weekend – our joint priority for the country is to make sure that we control spending, control welfare so that we can cut people’s taxes.” He said he wanted to oversee “discipline” in both public sector pay and benefits payments, singling out long-term disability payments as one area for savings. “It’s about making sure that everybody who can work does work,” he said. “And for everyone who was working hard, we reward that hard work with tax cuts. That is a Conservative approach, is one that I think is right for our country.” Separately, he told the Sunday Telegraph : “When I say that I want to keep cutting taxes, that’s what we’re going to deliver. We’re going to do that responsibly. That requires difficult decisions on public spending. It requires difficult decisions to control welfare.” His comments will delight some Conservative backbenchers who have been clamouring for pre-election tax cuts as a way to close the significant poll gap with Labour. However, the prime minister’s focus on pay for working people may disappoint those who have been calling for him to use any spare money to cut inheritance tax instead. They also contrast with the message given on Saturday by his chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, that he “did not know” whether he would be able to afford further tax cuts this year. Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, also said he would want to reduce taxes on working people as soon as possible, but accused the prime minister of prioritising immediate cuts over economic growth. “It’s not part of a strategy for growing the economy,” he told Sky News. “It’s simply picking tax cuts that the prime minister thinks might create a dividing line going into the election.” Sunak talked in particular of his desire to have fewer people claiming benefits for being unable to work because of long-term sickness or disability. Hunt announced at his autumn statement in November that hundreds of thousands of people would have to look for work they could do from home or face having their benefits cut by nearly £5,000 a year. That prompted accusations from disability charities that the government was punishing disabled people and adding anxiety to households that were already struggling. But on Sunday the prime minister defended the cuts, saying they were part of a wider plan to significantly reduce the number of people claiming those benefits. “You’ve seen the number of people who are signed off has tripled,” he said. “So do I think our country is three times sicker than it was a decade ago? The answer is no. That the system is not working as it was designed to work.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion MPs return to Westminster on Monday with the prime minister facing criticism on several fronts and a series of potentially damaging byelections within weeks. On Friday the former Tory minister Chris Skidmore said he would quit as an MP in protest at the government’s plans to issue more oil and gas licences in the North Sea, triggering a byelection in his Kingswood seat. There will be another in Wellingborough after voters recalled the sitting Tory MP, who was found to have bullied and harassed a member of staff. Rishi Sunak’s woes mount with oil bill rebellion, byelections and asylum row Read more A third could take place in Blackpool South, where the Conservative MP Scott Benton is fighting a lengthy suspension from parliament after being found to have breached lobbying rules. Some Tory MPs want the prime minister to take a more aggressive stance on a range of issues before what he said last week would be an election in the second half of the year. As well as significant tax cuts, many in his party want to toughen up his bill to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda before it comes back to the Commons for another vote. Sunak urged his colleagues and voters on Sunday to stay the course, however. “The choice now is to stick to the plan, and that’s what I’m going to do because the plan will deliver the long-term change that our country needs,” he said. He added: “I feel upbeat because of the progress we’ve made. And the fact that I know we’re now pointing in the right direction.” Explore more on these topics Rishi Sunak Tax and spending Tax Income tax Economic policy Conservatives Benefits news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak has said he wants to cut taxes for working people further this year, possibly cutting welfare payments to fund it. The prime minister said on Sunday his priority before the budget in March would be further tax cuts, which he said would entail stricter controls on public spending and benefits. His comments set up the possibility of an income tax cut in March, what is likely to be the last major tax decision by the chancellor before the general election. Sunak told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg: “My priority going forward – which the chancellor also reiterated at the weekend – our joint priority for the country is to make sure that we control spending, control welfare so that we can cut people’s taxes.” He said he wanted to oversee “discipline” in both public sector pay and benefits payments, singling out long-term disability payments as one area for savings. “It’s about making sure that everybody who can work does work,” he said. “And for everyone who was working hard, we reward that hard work with tax cuts. That is a Conservative approach, is one that I think is right for our country.” Separately, he told the Sunday Telegraph : “When I say that I want to keep cutting taxes, that’s what we’re going to deliver. We’re going to do that responsibly. That requires difficult decisions on public spending. It requires difficult decisions to control welfare.” His comments will delight some Conservative backbenchers who have been clamouring for pre-election tax cuts as a way to close the significant poll gap with Labour. However, the prime minister’s focus on pay for working people may disappoint those who have been calling for him to use any spare money to cut inheritance tax instead. They also contrast with the message given on Saturday by his chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, that he “did not know” whether he would be able to afford further tax cuts this year. Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, also said he would want to reduce taxes on working people as soon as possible, but accused the prime minister of prioritising immediate cuts over economic growth. “It’s not part of a strategy for growing the economy,” he told Sky News. “It’s simply picking tax cuts that the prime minister thinks might create a dividing line going into the election.” Sunak talked in particular of his desire to have fewer people claiming benefits for being unable to work because of long-term sickness or disability. Hunt announced at his autumn statement in November that hundreds of thousands of people would have to look for work they could do from home or face having their benefits cut by nearly £5,000 a year. That prompted accusations from disability charities that the government was punishing disabled people and adding anxiety to households that were already struggling. But on Sunday the prime minister defended the cuts, saying they were part of a wider plan to significantly reduce the number of people claiming those benefits. “You’ve seen the number of people who are signed off has tripled,” he said. “So do I think our country is three times sicker than it was a decade ago? The answer is no. That the system is not working as it was designed to work.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion MPs return to Westminster on Monday with the prime minister facing criticism on several fronts and a series of potentially damaging byelections within weeks. On Friday the former Tory minister Chris Skidmore said he would quit as an MP in protest at the government’s plans to issue more oil and gas licences in the North Sea, triggering a byelection in his Kingswood seat. There will be another in Wellingborough after voters recalled the sitting Tory MP, who was found to have bullied and harassed a member of staff. Rishi Sunak’s woes mount with oil bill rebellion, byelections and asylum row Read more A third could take place in Blackpool South, where the Conservative MP Scott Benton is fighting a lengthy suspension from parliament after being found to have breached lobbying rules. Some Tory MPs want the prime minister to take a more aggressive stance on a range of issues before what he said last week would be an election in the second half of the year. As well as significant tax cuts, many in his party want to toughen up his bill to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda before it comes back to the Commons for another vote. Sunak urged his colleagues and voters on Sunday to stay the course, however. “The choice now is to stick to the plan, and that’s what I’m going to do because the plan will deliver the long-term change that our country needs,” he said. He added: “I feel upbeat because of the progress we’ve made. And the fact that I know we’re now pointing in the right direction.” Rishi Sunak has said he wants to cut taxes for working people further this year, possibly cutting welfare payments to fund it. The prime minister said on Sunday his priority before the budget in March would be further tax cuts, which he said would entail stricter controls on public spending and benefits. His comments set up the possibility of an income tax cut in March, what is likely to be the last major tax decision by the chancellor before the general election. Sunak told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg: “My priority going forward – which the chancellor also reiterated at the weekend – our joint priority for the country is to make sure that we control spending, control welfare so that we can cut people’s taxes.” He said he wanted to oversee “discipline” in both public sector pay and benefits payments, singling out long-term disability payments as one area for savings. “It’s about making sure that everybody who can work does work,” he said. “And for everyone who was working hard, we reward that hard work with tax cuts. That is a Conservative approach, is one that I think is right for our country.” Separately, he told the Sunday Telegraph : “When I say that I want to keep cutting taxes, that’s what we’re going to deliver. We’re going to do that responsibly. That requires difficult decisions on public spending. It requires difficult decisions to control welfare.” His comments will delight some Conservative backbenchers who have been clamouring for pre-election tax cuts as a way to close the significant poll gap with Labour. However, the prime minister’s focus on pay for working people may disappoint those who have been calling for him to use any spare money to cut inheritance tax instead. They also contrast with the message given on Saturday by his chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, that he “did not know” whether he would be able to afford further tax cuts this year. Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, also said he would want to reduce taxes on working people as soon as possible, but accused the prime minister of prioritising immediate cuts over economic growth. “It’s not part of a strategy for growing the economy,” he told Sky News. “It’s simply picking tax cuts that the prime minister thinks might create a dividing line going into the election.” Sunak talked in particular of his desire to have fewer people claiming benefits for being unable to work because of long-term sickness or disability. Hunt announced at his autumn statement in November that hundreds of thousands of people would have to look for work they could do from home or face having their benefits cut by nearly £5,000 a year. That prompted accusations from disability charities that the government was punishing disabled people and adding anxiety to households that were already struggling. But on Sunday the prime minister defended the cuts, saying they were part of a wider plan to significantly reduce the number of people claiming those benefits. “You’ve seen the number of people who are signed off has tripled,” he said. “So do I think our country is three times sicker than it was a decade ago? The answer is no. That the system is not working as it was designed to work.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion MPs return to Westminster on Monday with the prime minister facing criticism on several fronts and a series of potentially damaging byelections within weeks. On Friday the former Tory minister Chris Skidmore said he would quit as an MP in protest at the government’s plans to issue more oil and gas licences in the North Sea, triggering a byelection in his Kingswood seat. There will be another in Wellingborough after voters recalled the sitting Tory MP, who was found to have bullied and harassed a member of staff. Rishi Sunak’s woes mount with oil bill rebellion, byelections and asylum row Read more A third could take place in Blackpool South, where the Conservative MP Scott Benton is fighting a lengthy suspension from parliament after being found to have breached lobbying rules. Some Tory MPs want the prime minister to take a more aggressive stance on a range of issues before what he said last week would be an election in the second half of the year. As well as significant tax cuts, many in his party want to toughen up his bill to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda before it comes back to the Commons for another vote. Sunak urged his colleagues and voters on Sunday to stay the course, however. “The choice now is to stick to the plan, and that’s what I’m going to do because the plan will deliver the long-term change that our country needs,” he said. He added: “I feel upbeat because of the progress we’ve made. And the fact that I know we’re now pointing in the right direction.” Rishi Sunak has said he wants to cut taxes for working people further this year, possibly cutting welfare payments to fund it. The prime minister said on Sunday his priority before the budget in March would be further tax cuts, which he said would entail stricter controls on public spending and benefits. His comments set up the possibility of an income tax cut in March, what is likely to be the last major tax decision by the chancellor before the general election. Sunak told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg: “My priority going forward – which the chancellor also reiterated at the weekend – our joint priority for the country is to make sure that we control spending, control welfare so that we can cut people’s taxes.” He said he wanted to oversee “discipline” in both public sector pay and benefits payments, singling out long-term disability payments as one area for savings. “It’s about making sure that everybody who can work does work,” he said. “And for everyone who was working hard, we reward that hard work with tax cuts. That is a Conservative approach, is one that I think is right for our country.” Separately, he told the Sunday Telegraph : “When I say that I want to keep cutting taxes, that’s what we’re going to deliver. We’re going to do that responsibly. That requires difficult decisions on public spending. It requires difficult decisions to control welfare.” His comments will delight some Conservative backbenchers who have been clamouring for pre-election tax cuts as a way to close the significant poll gap with Labour. However, the prime minister’s focus on pay for working people may disappoint those who have been calling for him to use any spare money to cut inheritance tax instead. They also contrast with the message given on Saturday by his chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, that he “did not know” whether he would be able to afford further tax cuts this year. Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, also said he would want to reduce taxes on working people as soon as possible, but accused the prime minister of prioritising immediate cuts over economic growth. “It’s not part of a strategy for growing the economy,” he told Sky News. “It’s simply picking tax cuts that the prime minister thinks might create a dividing line going into the election.” Sunak talked in particular of his desire to have fewer people claiming benefits for being unable to work because of long-term sickness or disability. Hunt announced at his autumn statement in November that hundreds of thousands of people would have to look for work they could do from home or face having their benefits cut by nearly £5,000 a year. That prompted accusations from disability charities that the government was punishing disabled people and adding anxiety to households that were already struggling. But on Sunday the prime minister defended the cuts, saying they were part of a wider plan to significantly reduce the number of people claiming those benefits. “You’ve seen the number of people who are signed off has tripled,” he said. “So do I think our country is three times sicker than it was a decade ago? The answer is no. That the system is not working as it was designed to work.” MPs return to Westminster on Monday with the prime minister facing criticism on several fronts and a series of potentially damaging byelections within weeks. On Friday the former Tory minister Chris Skidmore said he would quit as an MP in protest at the government’s plans to issue more oil and gas licences in the North Sea, triggering a byelection in his Kingswood seat. There will be another in Wellingborough after voters recalled the sitting Tory MP, who was found to have bullied and harassed a member of staff. Rishi Sunak’s woes mount with oil bill rebellion, byelections and asylum row Read more Rishi Sunak’s woes mount with oil bill rebellion, byelections and asylum row Read more Rishi Sunak’s woes mount with oil bill rebellion, byelections and asylum row Read more Rishi Sunak’s woes mount with oil bill rebellion, byelections and asylum row Rishi Sunak’s woes mount with oil bill rebellion, byelections and asylum row A third could take place in Blackpool South, where the Conservative MP Scott Benton is fighting a lengthy suspension from parliament after being found to have breached lobbying rules. Some Tory MPs want the prime minister to take a more aggressive stance on a range of issues before what he said last week would be an election in the second half of the year. As well as significant tax cuts, many in his party want to toughen up his bill to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda before it comes back to the Commons for another vote. Sunak urged his colleagues and voters on Sunday to stay the course, however. “The choice now is to stick to the plan, and that’s what I’m going to do because the plan will deliver the long-term change that our country needs,” he said. He added: “I feel upbeat because of the progress we’ve made. And the fact that I know we’re now pointing in the right direction.” Explore more on these topics Rishi Sunak Tax and spending Tax Income tax Economic policy Conservatives Benefits news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak Tax and spending Tax Income tax Economic policy Conservatives Benefits news
|
Rishi Sunak’s woes mount with oil bill rebellion, byelections and asylum row
Plans to increase the amount of oil and gas extracted from the North Sea have prompted a backlash from moderate Tory MPs. Photograph: Reuters View image in fullscreen Plans to increase the amount of oil and gas extracted from the North Sea have prompted a backlash from moderate Tory MPs. Photograph: Reuters This article is more than 1 year old Rishi Sunak’s woes mount with oil bill rebellion, byelections and asylum row This article is more than 1 year old Parliament returns for election year with a resignation over North Sea drilling and a fight over the Tories’ Rwanda plan Rishi Sunak is facing a backlash in parliament this week over plans to allow more oil and gas exploration in the North Sea, as Tory troubles pile up on multiple fronts in the run-up to a general election expected this year. MPs return to Westminster on Monday after the Christmas break with all parties gearing up for what will inevitably be a bitter election battle that could end the Conservatives’ 13 and a half years in power. Sunak’s hopes of a trouble-free start to 2024 were dashed on Friday when Chris Skidmore, a former Conservative energy minister, resigned as an MP in protest at the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, which will be debated in the Commons on Monday. The bill will establish a new system under which licences for oil and gas projects in the North Sea will be awarded annually – a plan that has enraged green MPs of all parties and caused consternation across the world. View image in fullscreen Chris Skidmore, a former energy minister, says the government is rowing away from its climate commitments. Photograph: Ian Davidson/Alamy Skidmore, who said he could not vote for legislation that “clearly promotes the production of new oil and gas” and would show that the UK is “rowing ever further back from its climate commitments” is expected to make his last speech in the Commons during the debate and will refuse to vote for the bill. Other Tories, including Alok Sharma , a former cabinet minister and chair of the Cop26 international climate summit, are expected to speak against the bill as a green backlash to the government’s stance on climate policy grows. Theresa May, a former prime minister, has also previously raised objections to the licensing plan. Amid signs of increasing coordination on green policy issues among MPs of different political persuasions, Skidmore and another former Tory minister Lord Goldsmith have signed an all-party letter to Claire Coutinho, the energy secretary, calling for the bill to be dropped. The letter from the all-party parliamentary group for climate change says: “Just last month, as the UK’s second warmest year on record concluded, the UK joined other countries in signing the UAE consensus at Cop28 and thus pledged to transition way from fossil fuels. But this bill, and the government’s commitment to ‘max out’ the North Sea’s declining oil and gas reserves, is diametrically opposed to that agreement. “Instead of honouring the promises we’ve made to our allies and partners at Cop28 this bill further weakens any claim the UK makes to be a world leader in tackling climate change.” The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes it clear that no new fossil fuel projects should be licensed, as doing so goes against the recommendations of the world’s leading climate scientists. View image in fullscreen Labour party leader Keir Starmer and shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson campaigning before council elections last May, alongside Chris Webb, the party’s parliamentary candidate in Blackpool South. The seat is likely to be up for a byelection this year. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Skidmore’s decision to quit parliament leaves the prime minister facing the possibility of three difficult byelections early this year. Skidmore retained his Kingswood seat, near Bristol, at the 2019 general election with an 11,220 majority over second-placed Labour. His seat now looks a likely gain for Labour. Defeat risks arresting any political momentum that is vital for Sunak if he is to make his party competitive again before the general election, now widely expected to be held in the autumn . He also risks the loss of Blackpool South, where a byelection is likely with the sitting MP Scott Benton facing a Commons suspension for a “very serious breach” of standards rules. Labour will easily reclaim a seat that has a majority of less than 4,000 votes. A third byelection also hands Keir Starmer another chance to win a seat that would have been beyond his party’s reach until recently. Should Labour win Wellingborough , where Peter Bone had a majority of 18,540 majority at the last election, it will boost Starmer’s argument that he is now cutting deep into Tory territory. Bone was the subject of a recall petition when he was suspended from parliament after he was found to have bullied and harassed a member of staff and exposed his genitals. Yet even before those byelections are held, Sunak will be plunged back into a row over immigration. Talks between ministers and rival groups of Tory MPs over Sunak’s controversial Rwanda bill, designed to ensure he can deport asylum-seekers to the east African country, will take place this week. Votes and amendments will take place later this month. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Liberal Tories within the “one nation” wing of the party are already warning that attempting to appease the right by making the bill any more severe could trigger government resignations, given the number of moderate MPs on the frontbench. “If you are worried about the state of the party, you can’t afford to lose more ministers,” said one Tory MP. “The government is packed full of sensible one nation centrists.” View image in fullscreen Migrants are brought in to Dungeness, Kent, onboard an RNLI lifeboat after they were rescued from a small boat. Efforts to stop migrants are proving a headache for the prime minister. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA The legislation attempts to limit legal challenges to sending asylum-seekers in Britain to Rwanda . Not a single Tory MP voted against it during the first vote on the measures. However, the right are angry that it still allows individual appeals and does not explicitly override the European Convention on Human Rights. Some on the right are now pessimistic that they have enough support to defeat the government and strengthen the bill, but they are also prepared to fight back against any changes made in the Lords, where the bill is expected to be weakened. It signals weeks of battling over a topic that has already dogged Sunak’s premiership for months. While there is no prospect of the government losing Monday’s vote on oil and gas licensing, ministers believe it will run into more problems at later parliamentary stages as MPs highlight inconsistencies in the government’s approach. Ministers, who maintained that more licences would enhance the UK’s energy security, have admitted that most of the oil from the new Rosebank field in the North Sea will be sold on the international market, rather than to UK consumers. There are powerful internal opponents. May has said: “Obviously, energy security for us is important but … new oil and gas licences only provide for energy security if all that energy is sold into the UK and, actually, it will be sold on the world market, so I think there are some questions around that.” View image in fullscreen The chancellor Jeremy Hunt visits the Airbus Broughton plant, in Chester. He has attacked Chris Skidmore for quitting over plans to drill for oil. Photograph: Reuters Senior Tories also expect trouble in the House of Lords. Labour has tabled an amendment saying it “is entirely incompatible with the UK’s international climate change commitments and is a totally unnecessary piece of legislation which will do nothing to serve the UK’s national interest”. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, has hit back at Skidmore over his decision. While praising his work for the government as climate change adviser, Hunt said: “I do profoundly disagree with the reasons that he gave for resigning. “The independent panel for climate change [the Climate Change Committee] that we have in this country are very clear that even when we reach net zero in 2050, we will still get a significant proportion of our energy from fossil fuels … and domestic oil and gas is four times cleaner than imported oil and gas.” 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 Conservatives Rishi Sunak Oil Fossil fuels Energy Chris Skidmore news Share Reuse this content Plans to increase the amount of oil and gas extracted from the North Sea have prompted a backlash from moderate Tory MPs. Photograph: Reuters View image in fullscreen Plans to increase the amount of oil and gas extracted from the North Sea have prompted a backlash from moderate Tory MPs. Photograph: Reuters This article is more than 1 year old Rishi Sunak’s woes mount with oil bill rebellion, byelections and asylum row This article is more than 1 year old Parliament returns for election year with a resignation over North Sea drilling and a fight over the Tories’ Rwanda plan Rishi Sunak is facing a backlash in parliament this week over plans to allow more oil and gas exploration in the North Sea, as Tory troubles pile up on multiple fronts in the run-up to a general election expected this year. MPs return to Westminster on Monday after the Christmas break with all parties gearing up for what will inevitably be a bitter election battle that could end the Conservatives’ 13 and a half years in power. Sunak’s hopes of a trouble-free start to 2024 were dashed on Friday when Chris Skidmore, a former Conservative energy minister, resigned as an MP in protest at the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, which will be debated in the Commons on Monday. The bill will establish a new system under which licences for oil and gas projects in the North Sea will be awarded annually – a plan that has enraged green MPs of all parties and caused consternation across the world. View image in fullscreen Chris Skidmore, a former energy minister, says the government is rowing away from its climate commitments. Photograph: Ian Davidson/Alamy Skidmore, who said he could not vote for legislation that “clearly promotes the production of new oil and gas” and would show that the UK is “rowing ever further back from its climate commitments” is expected to make his last speech in the Commons during the debate and will refuse to vote for the bill. Other Tories, including Alok Sharma , a former cabinet minister and chair of the Cop26 international climate summit, are expected to speak against the bill as a green backlash to the government’s stance on climate policy grows. Theresa May, a former prime minister, has also previously raised objections to the licensing plan. Amid signs of increasing coordination on green policy issues among MPs of different political persuasions, Skidmore and another former Tory minister Lord Goldsmith have signed an all-party letter to Claire Coutinho, the energy secretary, calling for the bill to be dropped. The letter from the all-party parliamentary group for climate change says: “Just last month, as the UK’s second warmest year on record concluded, the UK joined other countries in signing the UAE consensus at Cop28 and thus pledged to transition way from fossil fuels. But this bill, and the government’s commitment to ‘max out’ the North Sea’s declining oil and gas reserves, is diametrically opposed to that agreement. “Instead of honouring the promises we’ve made to our allies and partners at Cop28 this bill further weakens any claim the UK makes to be a world leader in tackling climate change.” The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes it clear that no new fossil fuel projects should be licensed, as doing so goes against the recommendations of the world’s leading climate scientists. View image in fullscreen Labour party leader Keir Starmer and shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson campaigning before council elections last May, alongside Chris Webb, the party’s parliamentary candidate in Blackpool South. The seat is likely to be up for a byelection this year. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Skidmore’s decision to quit parliament leaves the prime minister facing the possibility of three difficult byelections early this year. Skidmore retained his Kingswood seat, near Bristol, at the 2019 general election with an 11,220 majority over second-placed Labour. His seat now looks a likely gain for Labour. Defeat risks arresting any political momentum that is vital for Sunak if he is to make his party competitive again before the general election, now widely expected to be held in the autumn . He also risks the loss of Blackpool South, where a byelection is likely with the sitting MP Scott Benton facing a Commons suspension for a “very serious breach” of standards rules. Labour will easily reclaim a seat that has a majority of less than 4,000 votes. A third byelection also hands Keir Starmer another chance to win a seat that would have been beyond his party’s reach until recently. Should Labour win Wellingborough , where Peter Bone had a majority of 18,540 majority at the last election, it will boost Starmer’s argument that he is now cutting deep into Tory territory. Bone was the subject of a recall petition when he was suspended from parliament after he was found to have bullied and harassed a member of staff and exposed his genitals. Yet even before those byelections are held, Sunak will be plunged back into a row over immigration. Talks between ministers and rival groups of Tory MPs over Sunak’s controversial Rwanda bill, designed to ensure he can deport asylum-seekers to the east African country, will take place this week. Votes and amendments will take place later this month. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Liberal Tories within the “one nation” wing of the party are already warning that attempting to appease the right by making the bill any more severe could trigger government resignations, given the number of moderate MPs on the frontbench. “If you are worried about the state of the party, you can’t afford to lose more ministers,” said one Tory MP. “The government is packed full of sensible one nation centrists.” View image in fullscreen Migrants are brought in to Dungeness, Kent, onboard an RNLI lifeboat after they were rescued from a small boat. Efforts to stop migrants are proving a headache for the prime minister. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA The legislation attempts to limit legal challenges to sending asylum-seekers in Britain to Rwanda . Not a single Tory MP voted against it during the first vote on the measures. However, the right are angry that it still allows individual appeals and does not explicitly override the European Convention on Human Rights. Some on the right are now pessimistic that they have enough support to defeat the government and strengthen the bill, but they are also prepared to fight back against any changes made in the Lords, where the bill is expected to be weakened. It signals weeks of battling over a topic that has already dogged Sunak’s premiership for months. While there is no prospect of the government losing Monday’s vote on oil and gas licensing, ministers believe it will run into more problems at later parliamentary stages as MPs highlight inconsistencies in the government’s approach. Ministers, who maintained that more licences would enhance the UK’s energy security, have admitted that most of the oil from the new Rosebank field in the North Sea will be sold on the international market, rather than to UK consumers. There are powerful internal opponents. May has said: “Obviously, energy security for us is important but … new oil and gas licences only provide for energy security if all that energy is sold into the UK and, actually, it will be sold on the world market, so I think there are some questions around that.” View image in fullscreen The chancellor Jeremy Hunt visits the Airbus Broughton plant, in Chester. He has attacked Chris Skidmore for quitting over plans to drill for oil. Photograph: Reuters Senior Tories also expect trouble in the House of Lords. Labour has tabled an amendment saying it “is entirely incompatible with the UK’s international climate change commitments and is a totally unnecessary piece of legislation which will do nothing to serve the UK’s national interest”. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, has hit back at Skidmore over his decision. While praising his work for the government as climate change adviser, Hunt said: “I do profoundly disagree with the reasons that he gave for resigning. “The independent panel for climate change [the Climate Change Committee] that we have in this country are very clear that even when we reach net zero in 2050, we will still get a significant proportion of our energy from fossil fuels … and domestic oil and gas is four times cleaner than imported oil and gas.” 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 Conservatives Rishi Sunak Oil Fossil fuels Energy Chris Skidmore news Share Reuse this content Plans to increase the amount of oil and gas extracted from the North Sea have prompted a backlash from moderate Tory MPs. Photograph: Reuters View image in fullscreen Plans to increase the amount of oil and gas extracted from the North Sea have prompted a backlash from moderate Tory MPs. Photograph: Reuters Plans to increase the amount of oil and gas extracted from the North Sea have prompted a backlash from moderate Tory MPs. Photograph: Reuters View image in fullscreen Plans to increase the amount of oil and gas extracted from the North Sea have prompted a backlash from moderate Tory MPs. Photograph: Reuters Plans to increase the amount of oil and gas extracted from the North Sea have prompted a backlash from moderate Tory MPs. Photograph: Reuters View image in fullscreen Plans to increase the amount of oil and gas extracted from the North Sea have prompted a backlash from moderate Tory MPs. Photograph: Reuters Plans to increase the amount of oil and gas extracted from the North Sea have prompted a backlash from moderate Tory MPs. Photograph: Reuters View image in fullscreen Plans to increase the amount of oil and gas extracted from the North Sea have prompted a backlash from moderate Tory MPs. Photograph: Reuters Plans to increase the amount of oil and gas extracted from the North Sea have prompted a backlash from moderate Tory MPs. Photograph: Reuters Plans to increase the amount of oil and gas extracted from the North Sea have prompted a backlash from moderate Tory MPs. Photograph: Reuters This article is more than 1 year old Rishi Sunak’s woes mount with oil bill rebellion, byelections and asylum row This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Rishi Sunak’s woes mount with oil bill rebellion, byelections and asylum row This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Rishi Sunak’s woes mount with oil bill rebellion, byelections and asylum 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 Parliament returns for election year with a resignation over North Sea drilling and a fight over the Tories’ Rwanda plan Parliament returns for election year with a resignation over North Sea drilling and a fight over the Tories’ Rwanda plan Parliament returns for election year with a resignation over North Sea drilling and a fight over the Tories’ Rwanda plan Rishi Sunak is facing a backlash in parliament this week over plans to allow more oil and gas exploration in the North Sea, as Tory troubles pile up on multiple fronts in the run-up to a general election expected this year. MPs return to Westminster on Monday after the Christmas break with all parties gearing up for what will inevitably be a bitter election battle that could end the Conservatives’ 13 and a half years in power. Sunak’s hopes of a trouble-free start to 2024 were dashed on Friday when Chris Skidmore, a former Conservative energy minister, resigned as an MP in protest at the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, which will be debated in the Commons on Monday. The bill will establish a new system under which licences for oil and gas projects in the North Sea will be awarded annually – a plan that has enraged green MPs of all parties and caused consternation across the world. View image in fullscreen Chris Skidmore, a former energy minister, says the government is rowing away from its climate commitments. Photograph: Ian Davidson/Alamy Skidmore, who said he could not vote for legislation that “clearly promotes the production of new oil and gas” and would show that the UK is “rowing ever further back from its climate commitments” is expected to make his last speech in the Commons during the debate and will refuse to vote for the bill. Other Tories, including Alok Sharma , a former cabinet minister and chair of the Cop26 international climate summit, are expected to speak against the bill as a green backlash to the government’s stance on climate policy grows. Theresa May, a former prime minister, has also previously raised objections to the licensing plan. Amid signs of increasing coordination on green policy issues among MPs of different political persuasions, Skidmore and another former Tory minister Lord Goldsmith have signed an all-party letter to Claire Coutinho, the energy secretary, calling for the bill to be dropped. The letter from the all-party parliamentary group for climate change says: “Just last month, as the UK’s second warmest year on record concluded, the UK joined other countries in signing the UAE consensus at Cop28 and thus pledged to transition way from fossil fuels. But this bill, and the government’s commitment to ‘max out’ the North Sea’s declining oil and gas reserves, is diametrically opposed to that agreement. “Instead of honouring the promises we’ve made to our allies and partners at Cop28 this bill further weakens any claim the UK makes to be a world leader in tackling climate change.” The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes it clear that no new fossil fuel projects should be licensed, as doing so goes against the recommendations of the world’s leading climate scientists. View image in fullscreen Labour party leader Keir Starmer and shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson campaigning before council elections last May, alongside Chris Webb, the party’s parliamentary candidate in Blackpool South. The seat is likely to be up for a byelection this year. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Skidmore’s decision to quit parliament leaves the prime minister facing the possibility of three difficult byelections early this year. Skidmore retained his Kingswood seat, near Bristol, at the 2019 general election with an 11,220 majority over second-placed Labour. His seat now looks a likely gain for Labour. Defeat risks arresting any political momentum that is vital for Sunak if he is to make his party competitive again before the general election, now widely expected to be held in the autumn . He also risks the loss of Blackpool South, where a byelection is likely with the sitting MP Scott Benton facing a Commons suspension for a “very serious breach” of standards rules. Labour will easily reclaim a seat that has a majority of less than 4,000 votes. A third byelection also hands Keir Starmer another chance to win a seat that would have been beyond his party’s reach until recently. Should Labour win Wellingborough , where Peter Bone had a majority of 18,540 majority at the last election, it will boost Starmer’s argument that he is now cutting deep into Tory territory. Bone was the subject of a recall petition when he was suspended from parliament after he was found to have bullied and harassed a member of staff and exposed his genitals. Yet even before those byelections are held, Sunak will be plunged back into a row over immigration. Talks between ministers and rival groups of Tory MPs over Sunak’s controversial Rwanda bill, designed to ensure he can deport asylum-seekers to the east African country, will take place this week. Votes and amendments will take place later this month. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Liberal Tories within the “one nation” wing of the party are already warning that attempting to appease the right by making the bill any more severe could trigger government resignations, given the number of moderate MPs on the frontbench. “If you are worried about the state of the party, you can’t afford to lose more ministers,” said one Tory MP. “The government is packed full of sensible one nation centrists.” View image in fullscreen Migrants are brought in to Dungeness, Kent, onboard an RNLI lifeboat after they were rescued from a small boat. Efforts to stop migrants are proving a headache for the prime minister. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA The legislation attempts to limit legal challenges to sending asylum-seekers in Britain to Rwanda . Not a single Tory MP voted against it during the first vote on the measures. However, the right are angry that it still allows individual appeals and does not explicitly override the European Convention on Human Rights. Some on the right are now pessimistic that they have enough support to defeat the government and strengthen the bill, but they are also prepared to fight back against any changes made in the Lords, where the bill is expected to be weakened. It signals weeks of battling over a topic that has already dogged Sunak’s premiership for months. While there is no prospect of the government losing Monday’s vote on oil and gas licensing, ministers believe it will run into more problems at later parliamentary stages as MPs highlight inconsistencies in the government’s approach. Ministers, who maintained that more licences would enhance the UK’s energy security, have admitted that most of the oil from the new Rosebank field in the North Sea will be sold on the international market, rather than to UK consumers. There are powerful internal opponents. May has said: “Obviously, energy security for us is important but … new oil and gas licences only provide for energy security if all that energy is sold into the UK and, actually, it will be sold on the world market, so I think there are some questions around that.” View image in fullscreen The chancellor Jeremy Hunt visits the Airbus Broughton plant, in Chester. He has attacked Chris Skidmore for quitting over plans to drill for oil. Photograph: Reuters Senior Tories also expect trouble in the House of Lords. Labour has tabled an amendment saying it “is entirely incompatible with the UK’s international climate change commitments and is a totally unnecessary piece of legislation which will do nothing to serve the UK’s national interest”. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, has hit back at Skidmore over his decision. While praising his work for the government as climate change adviser, Hunt said: “I do profoundly disagree with the reasons that he gave for resigning. “The independent panel for climate change [the Climate Change Committee] that we have in this country are very clear that even when we reach net zero in 2050, we will still get a significant proportion of our energy from fossil fuels … and domestic oil and gas is four times cleaner than imported oil and gas.” 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 Conservatives Rishi Sunak Oil Fossil fuels Energy Chris Skidmore news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak is facing a backlash in parliament this week over plans to allow more oil and gas exploration in the North Sea, as Tory troubles pile up on multiple fronts in the run-up to a general election expected this year. MPs return to Westminster on Monday after the Christmas break with all parties gearing up for what will inevitably be a bitter election battle that could end the Conservatives’ 13 and a half years in power. Sunak’s hopes of a trouble-free start to 2024 were dashed on Friday when Chris Skidmore, a former Conservative energy minister, resigned as an MP in protest at the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, which will be debated in the Commons on Monday. The bill will establish a new system under which licences for oil and gas projects in the North Sea will be awarded annually – a plan that has enraged green MPs of all parties and caused consternation across the world. View image in fullscreen Chris Skidmore, a former energy minister, says the government is rowing away from its climate commitments. Photograph: Ian Davidson/Alamy Skidmore, who said he could not vote for legislation that “clearly promotes the production of new oil and gas” and would show that the UK is “rowing ever further back from its climate commitments” is expected to make his last speech in the Commons during the debate and will refuse to vote for the bill. Other Tories, including Alok Sharma , a former cabinet minister and chair of the Cop26 international climate summit, are expected to speak against the bill as a green backlash to the government’s stance on climate policy grows. Theresa May, a former prime minister, has also previously raised objections to the licensing plan. Amid signs of increasing coordination on green policy issues among MPs of different political persuasions, Skidmore and another former Tory minister Lord Goldsmith have signed an all-party letter to Claire Coutinho, the energy secretary, calling for the bill to be dropped. The letter from the all-party parliamentary group for climate change says: “Just last month, as the UK’s second warmest year on record concluded, the UK joined other countries in signing the UAE consensus at Cop28 and thus pledged to transition way from fossil fuels. But this bill, and the government’s commitment to ‘max out’ the North Sea’s declining oil and gas reserves, is diametrically opposed to that agreement. “Instead of honouring the promises we’ve made to our allies and partners at Cop28 this bill further weakens any claim the UK makes to be a world leader in tackling climate change.” The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes it clear that no new fossil fuel projects should be licensed, as doing so goes against the recommendations of the world’s leading climate scientists. View image in fullscreen Labour party leader Keir Starmer and shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson campaigning before council elections last May, alongside Chris Webb, the party’s parliamentary candidate in Blackpool South. The seat is likely to be up for a byelection this year. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Skidmore’s decision to quit parliament leaves the prime minister facing the possibility of three difficult byelections early this year. Skidmore retained his Kingswood seat, near Bristol, at the 2019 general election with an 11,220 majority over second-placed Labour. His seat now looks a likely gain for Labour. Defeat risks arresting any political momentum that is vital for Sunak if he is to make his party competitive again before the general election, now widely expected to be held in the autumn . He also risks the loss of Blackpool South, where a byelection is likely with the sitting MP Scott Benton facing a Commons suspension for a “very serious breach” of standards rules. Labour will easily reclaim a seat that has a majority of less than 4,000 votes. A third byelection also hands Keir Starmer another chance to win a seat that would have been beyond his party’s reach until recently. Should Labour win Wellingborough , where Peter Bone had a majority of 18,540 majority at the last election, it will boost Starmer’s argument that he is now cutting deep into Tory territory. Bone was the subject of a recall petition when he was suspended from parliament after he was found to have bullied and harassed a member of staff and exposed his genitals. Yet even before those byelections are held, Sunak will be plunged back into a row over immigration. Talks between ministers and rival groups of Tory MPs over Sunak’s controversial Rwanda bill, designed to ensure he can deport asylum-seekers to the east African country, will take place this week. Votes and amendments will take place later this month. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Liberal Tories within the “one nation” wing of the party are already warning that attempting to appease the right by making the bill any more severe could trigger government resignations, given the number of moderate MPs on the frontbench. “If you are worried about the state of the party, you can’t afford to lose more ministers,” said one Tory MP. “The government is packed full of sensible one nation centrists.” View image in fullscreen Migrants are brought in to Dungeness, Kent, onboard an RNLI lifeboat after they were rescued from a small boat. Efforts to stop migrants are proving a headache for the prime minister. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA The legislation attempts to limit legal challenges to sending asylum-seekers in Britain to Rwanda . Not a single Tory MP voted against it during the first vote on the measures. However, the right are angry that it still allows individual appeals and does not explicitly override the European Convention on Human Rights. Some on the right are now pessimistic that they have enough support to defeat the government and strengthen the bill, but they are also prepared to fight back against any changes made in the Lords, where the bill is expected to be weakened. It signals weeks of battling over a topic that has already dogged Sunak’s premiership for months. While there is no prospect of the government losing Monday’s vote on oil and gas licensing, ministers believe it will run into more problems at later parliamentary stages as MPs highlight inconsistencies in the government’s approach. Ministers, who maintained that more licences would enhance the UK’s energy security, have admitted that most of the oil from the new Rosebank field in the North Sea will be sold on the international market, rather than to UK consumers. There are powerful internal opponents. May has said: “Obviously, energy security for us is important but … new oil and gas licences only provide for energy security if all that energy is sold into the UK and, actually, it will be sold on the world market, so I think there are some questions around that.” View image in fullscreen The chancellor Jeremy Hunt visits the Airbus Broughton plant, in Chester. He has attacked Chris Skidmore for quitting over plans to drill for oil. Photograph: Reuters Senior Tories also expect trouble in the House of Lords. Labour has tabled an amendment saying it “is entirely incompatible with the UK’s international climate change commitments and is a totally unnecessary piece of legislation which will do nothing to serve the UK’s national interest”. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, has hit back at Skidmore over his decision. While praising his work for the government as climate change adviser, Hunt said: “I do profoundly disagree with the reasons that he gave for resigning. “The independent panel for climate change [the Climate Change Committee] that we have in this country are very clear that even when we reach net zero in 2050, we will still get a significant proportion of our energy from fossil fuels … and domestic oil and gas is four times cleaner than imported oil and gas.” 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 Conservatives Rishi Sunak Oil Fossil fuels Energy Chris Skidmore news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak is facing a backlash in parliament this week over plans to allow more oil and gas exploration in the North Sea, as Tory troubles pile up on multiple fronts in the run-up to a general election expected this year. MPs return to Westminster on Monday after the Christmas break with all parties gearing up for what will inevitably be a bitter election battle that could end the Conservatives’ 13 and a half years in power. Sunak’s hopes of a trouble-free start to 2024 were dashed on Friday when Chris Skidmore, a former Conservative energy minister, resigned as an MP in protest at the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, which will be debated in the Commons on Monday. The bill will establish a new system under which licences for oil and gas projects in the North Sea will be awarded annually – a plan that has enraged green MPs of all parties and caused consternation across the world. View image in fullscreen Chris Skidmore, a former energy minister, says the government is rowing away from its climate commitments. Photograph: Ian Davidson/Alamy Skidmore, who said he could not vote for legislation that “clearly promotes the production of new oil and gas” and would show that the UK is “rowing ever further back from its climate commitments” is expected to make his last speech in the Commons during the debate and will refuse to vote for the bill. Other Tories, including Alok Sharma , a former cabinet minister and chair of the Cop26 international climate summit, are expected to speak against the bill as a green backlash to the government’s stance on climate policy grows. Theresa May, a former prime minister, has also previously raised objections to the licensing plan. Amid signs of increasing coordination on green policy issues among MPs of different political persuasions, Skidmore and another former Tory minister Lord Goldsmith have signed an all-party letter to Claire Coutinho, the energy secretary, calling for the bill to be dropped. The letter from the all-party parliamentary group for climate change says: “Just last month, as the UK’s second warmest year on record concluded, the UK joined other countries in signing the UAE consensus at Cop28 and thus pledged to transition way from fossil fuels. But this bill, and the government’s commitment to ‘max out’ the North Sea’s declining oil and gas reserves, is diametrically opposed to that agreement. “Instead of honouring the promises we’ve made to our allies and partners at Cop28 this bill further weakens any claim the UK makes to be a world leader in tackling climate change.” The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes it clear that no new fossil fuel projects should be licensed, as doing so goes against the recommendations of the world’s leading climate scientists. View image in fullscreen Labour party leader Keir Starmer and shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson campaigning before council elections last May, alongside Chris Webb, the party’s parliamentary candidate in Blackpool South. The seat is likely to be up for a byelection this year. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Skidmore’s decision to quit parliament leaves the prime minister facing the possibility of three difficult byelections early this year. Skidmore retained his Kingswood seat, near Bristol, at the 2019 general election with an 11,220 majority over second-placed Labour. His seat now looks a likely gain for Labour. Defeat risks arresting any political momentum that is vital for Sunak if he is to make his party competitive again before the general election, now widely expected to be held in the autumn . He also risks the loss of Blackpool South, where a byelection is likely with the sitting MP Scott Benton facing a Commons suspension for a “very serious breach” of standards rules. Labour will easily reclaim a seat that has a majority of less than 4,000 votes. A third byelection also hands Keir Starmer another chance to win a seat that would have been beyond his party’s reach until recently. Should Labour win Wellingborough , where Peter Bone had a majority of 18,540 majority at the last election, it will boost Starmer’s argument that he is now cutting deep into Tory territory. Bone was the subject of a recall petition when he was suspended from parliament after he was found to have bullied and harassed a member of staff and exposed his genitals. Yet even before those byelections are held, Sunak will be plunged back into a row over immigration. Talks between ministers and rival groups of Tory MPs over Sunak’s controversial Rwanda bill, designed to ensure he can deport asylum-seekers to the east African country, will take place this week. Votes and amendments will take place later this month. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Liberal Tories within the “one nation” wing of the party are already warning that attempting to appease the right by making the bill any more severe could trigger government resignations, given the number of moderate MPs on the frontbench. “If you are worried about the state of the party, you can’t afford to lose more ministers,” said one Tory MP. “The government is packed full of sensible one nation centrists.” View image in fullscreen Migrants are brought in to Dungeness, Kent, onboard an RNLI lifeboat after they were rescued from a small boat. Efforts to stop migrants are proving a headache for the prime minister. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA The legislation attempts to limit legal challenges to sending asylum-seekers in Britain to Rwanda . Not a single Tory MP voted against it during the first vote on the measures. However, the right are angry that it still allows individual appeals and does not explicitly override the European Convention on Human Rights. Some on the right are now pessimistic that they have enough support to defeat the government and strengthen the bill, but they are also prepared to fight back against any changes made in the Lords, where the bill is expected to be weakened. It signals weeks of battling over a topic that has already dogged Sunak’s premiership for months. While there is no prospect of the government losing Monday’s vote on oil and gas licensing, ministers believe it will run into more problems at later parliamentary stages as MPs highlight inconsistencies in the government’s approach. Ministers, who maintained that more licences would enhance the UK’s energy security, have admitted that most of the oil from the new Rosebank field in the North Sea will be sold on the international market, rather than to UK consumers. There are powerful internal opponents. May has said: “Obviously, energy security for us is important but … new oil and gas licences only provide for energy security if all that energy is sold into the UK and, actually, it will be sold on the world market, so I think there are some questions around that.” View image in fullscreen The chancellor Jeremy Hunt visits the Airbus Broughton plant, in Chester. He has attacked Chris Skidmore for quitting over plans to drill for oil. Photograph: Reuters Senior Tories also expect trouble in the House of Lords. Labour has tabled an amendment saying it “is entirely incompatible with the UK’s international climate change commitments and is a totally unnecessary piece of legislation which will do nothing to serve the UK’s national interest”. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, has hit back at Skidmore over his decision. While praising his work for the government as climate change adviser, Hunt said: “I do profoundly disagree with the reasons that he gave for resigning. “The independent panel for climate change [the Climate Change Committee] that we have in this country are very clear that even when we reach net zero in 2050, we will still get a significant proportion of our energy from fossil fuels … and domestic oil and gas is four times cleaner than imported oil and gas.” Rishi Sunak is facing a backlash in parliament this week over plans to allow more oil and gas exploration in the North Sea, as Tory troubles pile up on multiple fronts in the run-up to a general election expected this year. MPs return to Westminster on Monday after the Christmas break with all parties gearing up for what will inevitably be a bitter election battle that could end the Conservatives’ 13 and a half years in power. Sunak’s hopes of a trouble-free start to 2024 were dashed on Friday when Chris Skidmore, a former Conservative energy minister, resigned as an MP in protest at the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, which will be debated in the Commons on Monday. The bill will establish a new system under which licences for oil and gas projects in the North Sea will be awarded annually – a plan that has enraged green MPs of all parties and caused consternation across the world. View image in fullscreen Chris Skidmore, a former energy minister, says the government is rowing away from its climate commitments. Photograph: Ian Davidson/Alamy Skidmore, who said he could not vote for legislation that “clearly promotes the production of new oil and gas” and would show that the UK is “rowing ever further back from its climate commitments” is expected to make his last speech in the Commons during the debate and will refuse to vote for the bill. Other Tories, including Alok Sharma , a former cabinet minister and chair of the Cop26 international climate summit, are expected to speak against the bill as a green backlash to the government’s stance on climate policy grows. Theresa May, a former prime minister, has also previously raised objections to the licensing plan. Amid signs of increasing coordination on green policy issues among MPs of different political persuasions, Skidmore and another former Tory minister Lord Goldsmith have signed an all-party letter to Claire Coutinho, the energy secretary, calling for the bill to be dropped. The letter from the all-party parliamentary group for climate change says: “Just last month, as the UK’s second warmest year on record concluded, the UK joined other countries in signing the UAE consensus at Cop28 and thus pledged to transition way from fossil fuels. But this bill, and the government’s commitment to ‘max out’ the North Sea’s declining oil and gas reserves, is diametrically opposed to that agreement. “Instead of honouring the promises we’ve made to our allies and partners at Cop28 this bill further weakens any claim the UK makes to be a world leader in tackling climate change.” The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes it clear that no new fossil fuel projects should be licensed, as doing so goes against the recommendations of the world’s leading climate scientists. View image in fullscreen Labour party leader Keir Starmer and shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson campaigning before council elections last May, alongside Chris Webb, the party’s parliamentary candidate in Blackpool South. The seat is likely to be up for a byelection this year. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Skidmore’s decision to quit parliament leaves the prime minister facing the possibility of three difficult byelections early this year. Skidmore retained his Kingswood seat, near Bristol, at the 2019 general election with an 11,220 majority over second-placed Labour. His seat now looks a likely gain for Labour. Defeat risks arresting any political momentum that is vital for Sunak if he is to make his party competitive again before the general election, now widely expected to be held in the autumn . He also risks the loss of Blackpool South, where a byelection is likely with the sitting MP Scott Benton facing a Commons suspension for a “very serious breach” of standards rules. Labour will easily reclaim a seat that has a majority of less than 4,000 votes. A third byelection also hands Keir Starmer another chance to win a seat that would have been beyond his party’s reach until recently. Should Labour win Wellingborough , where Peter Bone had a majority of 18,540 majority at the last election, it will boost Starmer’s argument that he is now cutting deep into Tory territory. Bone was the subject of a recall petition when he was suspended from parliament after he was found to have bullied and harassed a member of staff and exposed his genitals. Yet even before those byelections are held, Sunak will be plunged back into a row over immigration. Talks between ministers and rival groups of Tory MPs over Sunak’s controversial Rwanda bill, designed to ensure he can deport asylum-seekers to the east African country, will take place this week. Votes and amendments will take place later this month. skip past newsletter promotion after news
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
Power companies paid civil rights leaders in the US south. They became loyal industry advocates
Solar panels on the roof of Faith Community church in Greensboro, North Carolina in 2015. Photograph: Courtesy of NC Warn View image in fullscreen Solar panels on the roof of Faith Community church in Greensboro, North Carolina in 2015. Photograph: Courtesy of NC Warn This article is more than 1 year old Power companies paid civil rights leaders in the US south. They became loyal industry advocates This article is more than 1 year old A joint investigation by Floodlight and Capital B shows millions of dollars flowed from utilities to Black leaders and their groups since at least 2009 Former Florida state representative Joe Gibbons sat in the library of the Faith Community church in Greensboro, North Carolina, trying to convince its pastor to quit promoting rooftop solar. With a lobbyist’s charms Gibbons told the Rev Nelson Johnson that rooftop solar, which allows customers to generate their own renewable electricity, was bad for people of color . Gibbons argued that it created an imbalance in which those without solar panels end up subsidizing those who have them, Johnson recalled in an interview with Floodlight. Johnson, a civil rights stalwart who was stabbed by a member of the Ku Klux Klan in 1979, had trouble believing him. Floodlight is a non-profit news organization that partners with local outlets and the Guardian to investigate the corporate and ideological interests holding back climate action “It felt like he was an employee of Duke,” Johnson said of Gibbons, referencing his state’s power company. At the time Gibbons met Johnson in 2015, Duke Energy was opposing a state bill that would have allowed anyone to install solar panels and sell electricity directly to consumers. Johnson was at the center of a legal battle over just such a third-party solar project planned for his church. Gibbons wasn’t a Duke employee – not directly anyway. He founded a tax-exempt group called the Energy Equity Alliance; little information about its finances are available. But it was closely aligned – through two board members and Gibbons’s wife, Ava Parker – with NetCommunications, a Black-owned consulting firm. That year, NetCommunications was paid $750,000 by the Edison Electric Institute ( EEI ), a powerful utility trade group to which Duke belongs , for “consulting”. Duke did not respond to requests for comment. Gibbons denied receiving funding from any utility in an interview with Floodlight and Capital B. But tax records and leaked internal documents confirm that a separate tax-exempt group he founded in 2018 received $2.8m from a network of tax-exempt groups controlled by power company consultants. He later declined to answer specific questions about his industry ties. Johnson wasn’t the only Black leader Gibbons pitched, according to recordings of his public statements. More than two dozen Black civil rights leaders in the south-east have been high-value targets in power companies’ battle for market dominance, courted and at times even co-opted by the industry, according to an investigation by Floodlight and Capital B. The multibillion-dollar power companies use Black support to divert attention from the environmental harms that spew from their fossil fuel plants, the investigation found, harms which disproportionately fall on Black communities. One civil rights leader received power company cash as he built support for its attempted takeover of a smaller municipal utility in Florida. Another fought state oversight in Alabama that could have lowered electric bills and federal oversight that could have restricted emissions and pollution from coal-burning power plants. Some civil rights and faith leaders “will sell you out because they’ll sell anything – they’ll sell seawater,” said the Rev Michael Malcom, executive director of the environmental justice organization Alabama Interfaith Power & Light, in Birmingham. View image in fullscreen Emissions rise from Duke’s coal-fired Asheville power plant in Arden, North Carolina, on 13 September 2018. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images “But there are others who are earnest and trying to survive … and it causes them to make some bad decisions. And there is a whole ’nother group that is just ignorant to the idea [of environmental justice] and will sell you out due to that ignorance.” How valuable was this tie between southern utility companies and civil rights groups? In 2018, Alabama Power was paying a contractor nearly $1.5m a year to, among other things, “provide ongoing direct relations” with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a civil rights group founded by the Rev Martin Luther King Jr, according to a leaked copy of the contract . Stealth effort targets renewable energy Gibbons’s 2015 conversation with Johnson was part of a broader campaign implemented by the trade group EEI to slow technologies such as rooftop solar. An Edison Electric Institute spokesperson, Brian Reil, defended his organization’s actions, saying they are aimed at protecting low-income ratepayers. “EEI has no issue with rooftop solar,” Reil said in a written statement. “EEI has an issue with poorly designed … policies that overcompensate private rooftop solar system owners at the expense of other customers.” He cited a new study by the National Academy of Sciences which found that the price of electricity remains relatively stable when the adoption of rooftop solar panels is low – currently just 1% nationwide and below 5% in all but four states – but it may rise as participation rates grow. Consultants working for the powerful industry trade group were behind the formation of Gibbons’s organization. On a leaked 2014 EEI conference call, an employee of the consulting firm NetCommunications teased a forthcoming report to be published by the Energy Equity Alliance, a tax-exempt group that appears to not have been incorporated yet . The group was formed a month later in Florida with Gibbons as its director. During his four years at its helm, Gibbons lobbied for restrictions on rooftop solar in South Carolina, rallied Black federal legislators against the technology, and traveled the country “educating” ministers and civil rights leaders about rooftop solar. And in 2018, Gibbons was working with Floridians for Affordable Reliable Energy , the tax-exempt group that got $2.8m from groups operated by Alabama-based power company consultants Matrix LLC. In that effort, Gibbons whipped up opposition among Florida civil rights groups to a ballot initiative that would have introduced competition into Florida’s monopoly energy markets. Floridians for Affordable Reliable Energy filed a friend of the court brief with the Florida supreme court, arguing the measure would “significantly increase electricity costs for seniors, low income households, minority communities, average citizens and small businesses in Florida”. Several chapters of The Urban League, a civil rights group, also signed on with Gibbons. Richard Danford, the president of Jacksonville’s Urban League chapter, says Gibbons was instrumental in securing funding for the chapter when it was struggling in 2019. The court ultimately struck the amendment down, finding its language confusing. In a terse interview, Gibbons confirmed he “did some energy stuff” and “got involved with different advocacy groups”. And he says he still stands by the utility-aligned policies he advocated. Utilities tap consulting companies The joint investigation found that since at least 2009, consulting companies have worked on behalf of major power companies seeking to influence Black leaders and their organizations. They worked primarily through 501(c) 4 organizations, tax-exempt groups that are allowed to engage in political activity. Two of the nation’s largest power companies, NextEra Energy and Southern Company, employed Matrix LLC, whose tactics included secretly funneling money to news sites that attacked clean energy proponents, surveilling a journalist who wrote critically about FPL and employing a corporate operative posing as a reporter to rattle political opponents. Matrix’s founder, Joe Perkins, has maintained that its former CEO, Jeff Pitts, was a “rogue employee” who performed much of the work without Perkins’s knowledge . In court filings , Pitts has alleged that his boss was aware and has accused Perkins of wrongdoing. Neither responded to multiple requests for comment. Entities controlled by Matrix paid $115,000 to Charles Steele Jr , the head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) , and about $170,000 to the Rev Deves Toon, national field director for the National Action Network (Nan), according to verified internal Matrix documents and tax records. The SCLC was a desegregation pioneer in the south and active in the first protests against environmental racism. Nan, founded by the Rev Al Sharpton , spotlights violence faced by people of color. In 2023, Joe Biden , Kamala Harris , and the leader of the Environmental Protection Agency spoke at Nan events. In an interview last year, Steele confirmed one payment from Matrix but categorized it as a contribution for civil rights work. Neither he nor his organization responded to additional questions. Toon did not respond to multiple requests for comment. As he received the payments, Nan’s Toon built support for NextEra subsidiary Florida Power & Light’s attempted takeover of a smaller public utility in Florida. His actions on behalf of Matrix have prompted questions from the FBI, according to two people interviewed by investigators, the news outlets’ joint investigation found. NextEra Energy did not respond to requests for comment. Steele, the SCLC head, fought state utility oversight in Alabama. And he advocated for less federal oversight that could have restricted emissions from Alabama Power’s coal-burning power plants and pollution from its toxic coal-ash ponds . ‘We spread money all over the south-east’ The former Southern Company CEO Tom Fanning, who stepped down from the role last spring, confirmed in a May interview with Floodlight that the company at the time was still working with Matrix and with civil rights groups including the SCLC. The company did not respond to later requests for comment. “There’s a real business reason why we do this,” he said, claiming a mutual benefit for the company and the civil rights groups. In an earlier interview with Floodlight, Fanning said the company’s related charitable foundations used their $600m in assets to “spread money all over the south-east … we make it a point to be invested in the communities”. At least one venerable civil rights organization – the NAACP – urged its local chapters to stop taking power company money in 2020 after an internal struggle sparked by donations from Florida Power & Light. But big-dollar corporate sponsorship can be hard to resist as such donations are hard to come by for social justice non-profits, according to an analysis by CauseIQ, which provides information to companies that fund the non-profit sector . Power company money and attention helps to fill the financial void many civil rights groups experience, and in turn, gives utilities a trusted community leader to advocate for them on lucrative policy positions, according to interviews with a dozen Black political operatives, community organizers and consultants. View image in fullscreen Eric Silagy, the president and CEO of Florida Power & Light, along with Gera Peoples, the vice-president and chief litigation council for NextEra Energy and David Reuter, the spokesperson for FPL, during an interview on 9 June 2022. Photograph: Bob Self/Florida Times-Union David Pellow, director of the Global Environmental Justice Project at the University of California at Santa Barbara, says the payments represent “the cold, hard, brutal” facts that power companies “need to maintain [public] was support for what they’re doing”. A “really effective way” of controlling the narrative in favor of utilities, Pellow said, has been “buying off people in communities who have a vested interest in fighting those companies”. Jasmen Rogers, a Black political strategist in Florida, says the money exchange lays bare the sometimes difficult concessions Black leaders make to help fund their work. “If Black folks are finding that they can’t get funding from other, better places as easily as other people, how do we reconcile that?” she said. Esther Calhoun of Uniontown, Alabama, says she is leery of civil rights groups and leaders who take money from utility companies. Calhoun says she often has to choose between her electric bill, medicine or food. Alabama residents spend more on electric bills than any other state. “It’s gotten to be where if you’re on a fixed income, there ain’t no way you can pay,” said the 60-year-old, whose monthly utility bill for her small mobile home is $220. For a time, Calhoun also had to battle a defamation lawsuit filed by the operators of a toxic coal ash dump at a local landfill. The parties settled in 2017 , with the landfill operators agreeing to enact better pollution controls. When civil rights groups take money from industry, she said in an interview, “They don’t speak out, and they end up being on the other side of what they originally said – that’s what corruption gets you.” Opposition fades as utility support grows In the past, the SCLC pushed back against Alabama Power, boycotting it for supporting apartheid-era South Africa in 1965. In the early 1980s, the group led the nation’s burgeoning environmental justice movement . But by the early 2000s, SCLC was in turmoil, facing bankruptcy and internal discord . Steele assumed the presidency 20 years ago, attracting corporate donors. Among them was Georgia Power – Alabama Power’s affiliate – which helped raise $2m for a new SCLC office. Five years later, Steele left to become a consultant. He co-founded Working People for Fair Energy, a tax-exempt group, alongside a Matrix employee , according to tax and divorce records. The group fought regulations on toxic coal ash, a waste product caused by coal-burning power plants. In 2010, Steele received $105,000 from the Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy (Pace), a Matrix-controlled tax-exempt group that helped power companies fight rooftop solar. In 2012, Steele returned as SCLC president. Over the next five years, he opposed rooftop solar expansion in Arizona , resisted lowering Alabama utility bills, and criticized a federal plan to reduce power plant greenhouse gas emissions . “My job was to make money for the organization [SCLC],” Steele said in an interview with Floodlight in July 2022. Perkins, the Matrix founder, told Floodlight in a July 2022 written statement that the assertion that Matrix had “deployed” groups to advocate for certain positions or that these were “front groups” for Matrix was “untrue and offensive”. But it was Perkins himself who, as of 2018, was earning nearly $1.5m a year from Alabama Power to maintain the company’s relationship with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and for other services. As of 2022, Alabama Power continued to financially support the SCLC. A corporate relations officer for the company spoke at the SCLC annual gala that year. “I want to say thank you, thank you to Dr Steele for allowing us to be partners,” she said. Takeover bid sparks federal inquiry Angie Nixon remembers the December evening in 2017 when about 20 residents from Jacksonville, Florida’s Black neighborhoods convened at a community center to express frustration over rates charged by the Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA), their municipal utility. View image in fullscreen The logo of Florida Power & Light at its solar farm in Babcock Ranch, Florida, on 5 December 2023. Photograph: Marco Bello/AFP/Getty Images The meeting was organized by a group called Fix JEA Now, where she was a director. Toon, national field director for Sharpton’s Nan, was its leader . Fix JEA Now blamed the municipal utility for buying a stake in a nearby nuclear power station, “resulting in higher prices for customers and valuable dollars flushed down the drain”, according to its defunct website . But Nixon says she was unaware of Toon’s agenda. By February 2018, he was calling for the sale of the municipal utility to Florida Power & Light, according to email messages shared by Nixon. Nixon, who is now a state representative, was for fixing the municipal power company – but not privatizing it, which could have raised rates. She says she felt duped and quit. While running Fix JEA now, Toon received about $170,000 from Matrix. He also offered a sitting Jacksonville City commissioner who was a likely no vote on the utility sale a $250,000 job with a tax-exempt group run by Matrix, according to reporting from the Orlando Sentinel . Garret Dennis, the commissioner, said Toon made the job offer through Dwight Brisbane, who worked for Fix JEA Now. Dennis remembers becoming suspicious after researching the tax-exempt group, named Grow United, and finding little information available. The episode prompted inquiries from the FBI, which interviewed both men in 2022, specifically asking Brisbane about his connections to Matrix. The FBI declined to comment . The sale of JEA was ultimately voted down by Jacksonville’s commissioners . Brisbane says his motives for working at the organization were driven by concern for the community. In February of this year, the utility passed a 175% increase to its basic monthly charge and recently proposed another to pay for service improvements and stabilize its debt. “It falls on deaf ears, man, nobody cares,” said Brisbane. “Those who have to pay for it are like my mom, who’s 75 years old … and on a fixed income, or disabled people.” Floodlight is a non-profit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action. Capital B is a local-national non-profit news organization that centers Black voices, audience needs and experiences, and partners with the communities it serves. Explore more on these topics Environment Floodlight Renewable energy features Share Reuse this content Solar panels on the roof of Faith Community church in Greensboro, North Carolina in 2015. Photograph: Courtesy of NC Warn View image in fullscreen Solar panels on the roof of Faith Community church in Greensboro, North Carolina in 2015. Photograph: Courtesy of NC Warn This article is more than 1 year old Power companies paid civil rights leaders in the US south. They became loyal industry advocates This article is more than 1 year old A joint investigation by Floodlight and Capital B shows millions of dollars flowed from utilities to Black leaders and their groups since at least 2009 Former Florida state representative Joe Gibbons sat in the library of the Faith Community church in Greensboro, North Carolina, trying to convince its pastor to quit promoting rooftop solar. With a lobbyist’s charms Gibbons told the Rev Nelson Johnson that rooftop solar, which allows customers to generate their own renewable electricity, was bad for people of color . Gibbons argued that it created an imbalance in which those without solar panels end up subsidizing those who have them, Johnson recalled in an interview with Floodlight. Johnson, a civil rights stalwart who was stabbed by a member of the Ku Klux Klan in 1979, had trouble believing him. Floodlight is a non-profit news organization that partners with local outlets and the Guardian to investigate the corporate and ideological interests holding back climate action “It felt like he was an employee of Duke,” Johnson said of Gibbons, referencing his state’s power company. At the time Gibbons met Johnson in 2015, Duke Energy was opposing a state bill that would have allowed anyone to install solar panels and sell electricity directly to consumers. Johnson was at the center of a legal battle over just such a third-party solar project planned for his church. Gibbons wasn’t a Duke employee – not directly anyway. He founded a tax-exempt group called the Energy Equity Alliance; little information about its finances are available. But it was closely aligned – through two board members and Gibbons’s wife, Ava Parker – with NetCommunications, a Black-owned consulting firm. That year, NetCommunications was paid $750,000 by the Edison Electric Institute ( EEI ), a powerful utility trade group to which Duke belongs , for “consulting”. Duke did not respond to requests for comment. Gibbons denied receiving funding from any utility in an interview with Floodlight and Capital B. But tax records and leaked internal documents confirm that a separate tax-exempt group he founded in 2018 received $2.8m from a network of tax-exempt groups controlled by power company consultants. He later declined to answer specific questions about his industry ties. Johnson wasn’t the only Black leader Gibbons pitched, according to recordings of his public statements. More than two dozen Black civil rights leaders in the south-east have been high-value targets in power companies’ battle for market dominance, courted and at times even co-opted by the industry, according to an investigation by Floodlight and Capital B. The multibillion-dollar power companies use Black support to divert attention from the environmental harms that spew from their fossil fuel plants, the investigation found, harms which disproportionately fall on Black communities. One civil rights leader received power company cash as he built support for its attempted takeover of a smaller municipal utility in Florida. Another fought state oversight in Alabama that could have lowered electric bills and federal oversight that could have restricted emissions and pollution from coal-burning power plants. Some civil rights and faith leaders “will sell you out because they’ll sell anything – they’ll sell seawater,” said the Rev Michael Malcom, executive director of the environmental justice organization Alabama Interfaith Power & Light, in Birmingham. View image in fullscreen Emissions rise from Duke’s coal-fired Asheville power plant in Arden, North Carolina, on 13 September 2018. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images “But there are others who are earnest and trying to survive … and it causes them to make some bad decisions. And there is a whole ’nother group that is just ignorant to the idea [of environmental justice] and will sell you out due to that ignorance.” How valuable was this tie between southern utility companies and civil rights groups? In 2018, Alabama Power was paying a contractor nearly $1.5m a year to, among other things, “provide ongoing direct relations” with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a civil rights group founded by the Rev Martin Luther King Jr, according to a leaked copy of the contract . Stealth effort targets renewable energy Gibbons’s 2015 conversation with Johnson was part of a broader campaign implemented by the trade group EEI to slow technologies such as rooftop solar. An Edison Electric Institute spokesperson, Brian Reil, defended his organization’s actions, saying they are aimed at protecting low-income ratepayers. “EEI has no issue with rooftop solar,” Reil said in a written statement. “EEI has an issue with poorly designed … policies that overcompensate private rooftop solar system owners at the expense of other customers.” He cited a new study by the National Academy of Sciences which found that the price of electricity remains relatively stable when the adoption of rooftop solar panels is low – currently just 1% nationwide and below 5% in all but four states – but it may rise as participation rates grow. Consultants working for the powerful industry trade group were behind the formation of Gibbons’s organization. On a leaked 2014 EEI conference call, an employee of the consulting firm NetCommunications teased a forthcoming report to be published by the Energy Equity Alliance, a tax-exempt group that appears to not have been incorporated yet . The group was formed a month later in Florida with Gibbons as its director. During his four years at its helm, Gibbons lobbied for restrictions on rooftop solar in South Carolina, rallied Black federal legislators against the technology, and traveled the country “educating” ministers and civil rights leaders about rooftop solar. And in 2018, Gibbons was working with Floridians for Affordable Reliable Energy , the tax-exempt group that got $2.8m from groups operated by Alabama-based power company consultants Matrix LLC. In that effort, Gibbons whipped up opposition among Florida civil rights groups to a ballot initiative that would have introduced competition into Florida’s monopoly energy markets. Floridians for Affordable Reliable Energy filed a friend of the court brief with the Florida supreme court, arguing the measure would “significantly increase electricity costs for seniors, low income households, minority communities, average citizens and small businesses in Florida”. Several chapters of The Urban League, a civil rights group, also signed on with Gibbons. Richard Danford, the president of Jacksonville’s Urban League chapter, says Gibbons was instrumental in securing funding for the chapter when it was struggling in 2019. The court ultimately struck the amendment down, finding its language confusing. In a terse interview, Gibbons confirmed he “did some energy stuff” and “got involved with different advocacy groups”. And he says he still stands by the utility-aligned policies he advocated. Utilities tap consulting companies The joint investigation found that since at least 2009, consulting companies have worked on behalf of major power companies seeking to influence Black leaders and their organizations. They worked primarily through 501(c) 4 organizations, tax-exempt groups that are allowed to engage in political activity. Two of the nation’s largest power companies, NextEra Energy and Southern Company, employed Matrix LLC, whose tactics included secretly funneling money to news sites that attacked clean energy proponents, surveilling a journalist who wrote critically about FPL and employing a corporate operative posing as a reporter to rattle political opponents. Matrix’s founder, Joe Perkins, has maintained that its former CEO, Jeff Pitts, was a “rogue employee” who performed much of the work without Perkins’s knowledge . In court filings , Pitts has alleged that his boss was aware and has accused Perkins of wrongdoing. Neither responded to multiple requests for comment. Entities controlled by Matrix paid $115,000 to Charles Steele Jr , the head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) , and about $170,000 to the Rev Deves Toon, national field director for the National Action Network (Nan), according to verified internal Matrix documents and tax records. The SCLC was a desegregation pioneer in the south and active in the first protests against environmental racism. Nan, founded by the Rev Al Sharpton , spotlights violence faced by people of color. In 2023, Joe Biden , Kamala Harris , and the leader of the Environmental Protection Agency spoke at Nan events. In an interview last year, Steele confirmed one payment from Matrix but categorized it as a contribution for civil rights work. Neither he nor his organization responded to additional questions. Toon did not respond to multiple requests for comment. As he received the payments, Nan’s Toon built support for NextEra subsidiary Florida Power & Light’s attempted takeover of a smaller public utility in Florida. His actions on behalf of Matrix have prompted questions from the FBI, according to two people interviewed by investigators, the news outlets’ joint investigation found. NextEra Energy did not respond to requests for comment. Steele, the SCLC head, fought state utility oversight in Alabama. And he advocated for less federal oversight that could have restricted emissions from Alabama Power’s coal-burning power plants and pollution from its toxic coal-ash ponds . ‘We spread money all over the south-east’ The former Southern Company CEO Tom Fanning, who stepped down from the role last spring, confirmed in a May interview with Floodlight that the company at the time was still working with Matrix and with civil rights groups including the SCLC. The company did not respond to later requests for comment. “There’s a real business reason why we do this,” he said, claiming a mutual benefit for the company and the civil rights groups. In an earlier interview with Floodlight, Fanning said the company’s related charitable foundations used their $600m in assets to “spread money all over the south-east … we make it a point to be invested in the communities”. At least one venerable civil rights organization – the NAACP – urged its local chapters to stop taking power company money in 2020 after an internal struggle sparked by donations from Florida Power & Light. But big-dollar corporate sponsorship can be hard to resist as such donations are hard to come by for social justice non-profits, according to an analysis by CauseIQ, which provides information to companies that fund the non-profit sector . Power company money and attention helps to fill the financial void many civil rights groups experience, and in turn, gives utilities a trusted community leader to advocate for them on lucrative policy positions, according to interviews with a dozen Black political operatives, community organizers and consultants. View image in fullscreen Eric Silagy, the president and CEO of Florida Power & Light, along with Gera Peoples, the vice-president and chief litigation council for NextEra Energy and David Reuter, the spokesperson for FPL, during an interview on 9 June 2022. Photograph: Bob Self/Florida Times-Union David Pellow, director of the Global Environmental Justice Project at the University of California at Santa Barbara, says the payments represent “the cold, hard, brutal” facts that power companies “need to maintain [public] was support for what they’re doing”. A “really effective way” of controlling the narrative in favor of utilities, Pellow said, has been “buying off people in communities who have a vested interest in fighting those companies”. Jasmen Rogers, a Black political strategist in Florida, says the money exchange lays bare the sometimes difficult concessions Black leaders make to help fund their work. “If Black folks are finding that they can’t get funding from other, better places as easily as other people, how do we reconcile that?” she said. Esther Calhoun of Uniontown, Alabama, says she is leery of civil rights groups and leaders who take money from utility companies. Calhoun says she often has to choose between her electric bill, medicine or food. Alabama residents spend more on electric bills than any other state. “It’s gotten to be where if you’re on a fixed income, there ain’t no way you can pay,” said the 60-year-old, whose monthly utility bill for her small mobile home is $220. For a time, Calhoun also had to battle a defamation lawsuit filed by the operators of a toxic coal ash dump at a local landfill. The parties settled in 2017 , with the landfill operators agreeing to enact better pollution controls. When civil rights groups take money from industry, she said in an interview, “They don’t speak out, and they end up being on the other side of what they originally said – that’s what corruption gets you.” Opposition fades as utility support grows In the past, the SCLC pushed back against Alabama Power, boycotting it for supporting apartheid-era South Africa in 1965. In the early 1980s, the group led the nation’s burgeoning environmental justice movement . But by the early 2000s, SCLC was in turmoil, facing bankruptcy and internal discord . Steele assumed the presidency 20 years ago, attracting corporate donors. Among them was Georgia Power – Alabama Power’s affiliate – which helped raise $2m for a new SCLC office. Five years later, Steele left to become a consultant. He co-founded Working People for Fair Energy, a tax-exempt group, alongside a Matrix employee , according to tax and divorce records. The group fought regulations on toxic coal ash, a waste product caused by coal-burning power plants. In 2010, Steele received $105,000 from the Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy (Pace), a Matrix-controlled tax-exempt group that helped power companies fight rooftop solar. In 2012, Steele returned as SCLC president. Over the next five years, he opposed rooftop solar expansion in Arizona , resisted lowering Alabama utility bills, and criticized a federal plan to reduce power plant greenhouse gas emissions . “My job was to make money for the organization [SCLC],” Steele said in an interview with Floodlight in July 2022. Perkins, the Matrix founder, told Floodlight in a July 2022 written statement that the assertion that Matrix had “deployed” groups to advocate for certain positions or that these were “front groups” for Matrix was “untrue and offensive”. But it was Perkins himself who, as of 2018, was earning nearly $1.5m a year from Alabama Power to maintain the company’s relationship with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and for other services. As of 2022, Alabama Power continued to financially support the SCLC. A corporate relations officer for the company spoke at the SCLC annual gala that year. “I want to say thank you, thank you to Dr Steele for allowing us to be partners,” she said. Takeover bid sparks federal inquiry Angie Nixon remembers the December evening in 2017 when about 20 residents from Jacksonville, Florida’s Black neighborhoods convened at a community center to express frustration over rates charged by the Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA), their municipal utility. View image in fullscreen The logo of Florida Power & Light at its solar farm in Babcock Ranch, Florida, on 5 December 2023. Photograph: Marco Bello/AFP/Getty Images The meeting was organized by a group called Fix JEA Now, where she was a director. Toon, national field director for Sharpton’s Nan, was its leader . Fix JEA Now blamed the municipal utility for buying a stake in a nearby nuclear power station, “resulting in higher prices for customers and valuable dollars flushed down the drain”, according to its defunct website . But Nixon says she was unaware of Toon’s agenda. By February 2018, he was calling for the sale of the municipal utility to Florida Power & Light, according to email messages shared by Nixon. Nixon, who is now a state representative, was for fixing the municipal power company – but not privatizing it, which could have raised rates. She says she felt duped and quit. While running Fix JEA now, Toon received about $170,000 from Matrix. He also offered a sitting Jacksonville City commissioner who was a likely no vote on the utility sale a $250,000 job with a tax-exempt group run by Matrix, according to reporting from the Orlando Sentinel . Garret Dennis, the commissioner, said Toon made the job offer through Dwight Brisbane, who worked for Fix JEA Now. Dennis remembers becoming suspicious after researching the tax-exempt group, named Grow United, and finding little information available. The episode prompted inquiries from the FBI, which interviewed both men in 2022, specifically asking Brisbane about his connections to Matrix. The FBI declined to comment . The sale of JEA was ultimately voted down by Jacksonville’s commissioners . Brisbane says his motives for working at the organization were driven by concern for the community. In February of this year, the utility passed a 175% increase to its basic monthly charge and recently proposed another to pay for service improvements and stabilize its debt. “It falls on deaf ears, man, nobody cares,” said Brisbane. “Those who have to pay for it are like my mom, who’s 75 years old … and on a fixed income, or disabled people.” Floodlight is a non-profit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action. Capital B is a local-national non-profit news organization that centers Black voices, audience needs and experiences, and partners with the communities it serves. Explore more on these topics Environment Floodlight Renewable energy features Share Reuse this content Solar panels on the roof of Faith Community church in Greensboro, North Carolina in 2015. Photograph: Courtesy of NC Warn View image in fullscreen Solar panels on the roof of Faith Community church in Greensboro, North Carolina in 2015. Photograph: Courtesy of NC Warn Solar panels on the roof of Faith Community church in Greensboro, North Carolina in 2015. Photograph: Courtesy of NC Warn View image in fullscreen Solar panels on the roof of Faith Community church in Greensboro, North Carolina in 2015. Photograph: Courtesy of NC Warn Solar panels on the roof of Faith Community church in Greensboro, North Carolina in 2015. Photograph: Courtesy of NC Warn View image in fullscreen Solar panels on the roof of Faith Community church in Greensboro, North Carolina in 2015. Photograph: Courtesy of NC Warn Solar panels on the roof of Faith Community church in Greensboro, North Carolina in 2015. Photograph: Courtesy of NC Warn View image in fullscreen Solar panels on the roof of Faith Community church in Greensboro, North Carolina in 2015. Photograph: Courtesy of NC Warn Solar panels on the roof of Faith Community church in Greensboro, North Carolina in 2015. Photograph: Courtesy of NC Warn Solar panels on the roof of Faith Community church in Greensboro, North Carolina in 2015. Photograph: Courtesy of NC Warn This article is more than 1 year old Power companies paid civil rights leaders in the US south. They became loyal industry advocates This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Power companies paid civil rights leaders in the US south. They became loyal industry advocates This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Power companies paid civil rights leaders in the US south. They became loyal industry advocates 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 A joint investigation by Floodlight and Capital B shows millions of dollars flowed from utilities to Black leaders and their groups since at least 2009 A joint investigation by Floodlight and Capital B shows millions of dollars flowed from utilities to Black leaders and their groups since at least 2009 A joint investigation by Floodlight and Capital B shows millions of dollars flowed from utilities to Black leaders and their groups since at least 2009 Former Florida state representative Joe Gibbons sat in the library of the Faith Community church in Greensboro, North Carolina, trying to convince its pastor to quit promoting rooftop solar. With a lobbyist’s charms Gibbons told the Rev Nelson Johnson that rooftop solar, which allows customers to generate their own renewable electricity, was bad for people of color . Gibbons argued that it created an imbalance in which those without solar panels end up subsidizing those who have them, Johnson recalled in an interview with Floodlight. Johnson, a civil rights stalwart who was stabbed by a member of the Ku Klux Klan in 1979, had trouble believing him. Floodlight is a non-profit news organization that partners with local outlets and the Guardian to investigate the corporate and ideological interests holding back climate action “It felt like he was an employee of Duke,” Johnson said of Gibbons, referencing his state’s power company. At the time Gibbons met Johnson in 2015, Duke Energy was opposing a state bill that would have allowed anyone to install solar panels and sell electricity directly to consumers. Johnson was at the center of a legal battle over just such a third-party solar project planned for his church. Gibbons wasn’t a Duke employee – not directly anyway. He founded a tax-exempt group called the Energy Equity Alliance; little information about its finances are available. But it was closely aligned – through two board members and Gibbons’s wife, Ava Parker – with NetCommunications, a Black-owned consulting firm. That year, NetCommunications was paid $750,000 by the Edison Electric Institute ( EEI ), a powerful utility trade group to which Duke belongs , for “consulting”. Duke did not respond to requests for comment. Gibbons denied receiving funding from any utility in an interview with Floodlight and Capital B. But tax records and leaked internal documents confirm that a separate tax-exempt group he founded in 2018 received $2.8m from a network of tax-exempt groups controlled by power company consultants. He later declined to answer specific questions about his industry ties. Johnson wasn’t the only Black leader Gibbons pitched, according to recordings of his public statements. More than two dozen Black civil rights leaders in the south-east have been high-value targets in power companies’ battle for market dominance, courted and at times even co-opted by the industry, according to an investigation by Floodlight and Capital B. The multibillion-dollar power companies use Black support to divert attention from the environmental harms that spew from their fossil fuel plants, the investigation found, harms which disproportionately fall on Black communities. One civil rights leader received power company cash as he built support for its attempted takeover of a smaller municipal utility in Florida. Another fought state oversight in Alabama that could have lowered electric bills and federal oversight that could have restricted emissions and pollution from coal-burning power plants. Some civil rights and faith leaders “will sell you out because they’ll sell anything – they’ll sell seawater,” said the Rev Michael Malcom, executive director of the environmental justice organization Alabama Interfaith Power & Light, in Birmingham. View image in fullscreen Emissions rise from Duke’s coal-fired Asheville power plant in Arden, North Carolina, on 13 September 2018. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images “But there are others who are earnest and trying to survive … and it causes them to make some bad decisions. And there is a whole ’nother group that is just ignorant to the idea [of environmental justice] and will sell you out due to that ignorance.” How valuable was this tie between southern utility companies and civil rights groups? In 2018, Alabama Power was paying a contractor nearly $1.5m a year to, among other things, “provide ongoing direct relations” with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a civil rights group founded by the Rev Martin Luther King Jr, according to a leaked copy of the contract . Stealth effort targets renewable energy Gibbons’s 2015 conversation with Johnson was part of a broader campaign implemented by the trade group EEI to slow technologies such as rooftop solar. An Edison Electric Institute spokesperson, Brian Reil, defended his organization’s actions, saying they are aimed at protecting low-income ratepayers. “EEI has no issue with rooftop solar,” Reil said in a written statement. “EEI has an issue with poorly designed … policies that overcompensate private rooftop solar system owners at the expense of other customers.” He cited a new study by the National Academy of Sciences which found that the price of electricity remains relatively stable when the adoption of rooftop solar panels is low – currently just 1% nationwide and below 5% in all but four states – but it may rise as participation rates grow. Consultants working for the powerful industry trade group were behind the formation of Gibbons’s organization. On a leaked 2014 EEI conference call, an employee of the consulting firm NetCommunications teased a forthcoming report to be published by the Energy Equity Alliance, a tax-exempt group that appears to not have been incorporated yet . The group was formed a month later in Florida with Gibbons as its director. During his four years at its helm, Gibbons lobbied for restrictions on rooftop solar in South Carolina, rallied Black federal legislators against the technology, and traveled the country “educating” ministers and civil rights leaders about rooftop solar. And in 2018, Gibbons was working with Floridians for Affordable Reliable Energy , the tax-exempt group that got $2.8m from groups operated by Alabama-based power company consultants Matrix LLC. In that effort, Gibbons whipped up opposition among Florida civil rights groups to a ballot initiative that would have introduced competition into Florida’s monopoly energy markets. Floridians for Affordable Reliable Energy filed a friend of the court brief with the Florida supreme court, arguing the measure would “significantly increase electricity costs for seniors, low income households, minority communities, average citizens and small businesses in Florida”. Several chapters of The Urban League, a civil rights group, also signed on with Gibbons. Richard Danford, the president of Jacksonville’s Urban League chapter, says Gibbons was instrumental in securing funding for the chapter when it was struggling in 2019. The court ultimately struck the amendment down, finding its language confusing. In a terse interview, Gibbons confirmed he “did some energy stuff” and “got involved with different advocacy groups”. And he says he still stands by the utility-aligned policies he advocated. Utilities tap consulting companies The joint investigation found that since at least 2009, consulting companies have worked on behalf of major power companies seeking to influence Black leaders and their organizations. They worked primarily through 501(c) 4 organizations, tax-exempt groups that are allowed to engage in political activity. Two of the nation’s largest power companies, NextEra Energy and Southern Company, employed Matrix LLC, whose tactics included secretly funneling money to news sites that attacked clean energy proponents, surveilling a journalist who wrote critically about FPL and employing a corporate operative posing as a reporter to rattle political opponents. Matrix’s founder, Joe Perkins, has maintained that its former CEO, Jeff Pitts, was a “rogue employee” who performed much of the work without Perkins’s knowledge . In court filings , Pitts has alleged that his boss was aware and has accused Perkins of wrongdoing. Neither responded to multiple requests for comment. Entities controlled by Matrix paid $115,000 to Charles Steele Jr , the head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) , and about $170,000 to the Rev Deves Toon, national field director for the National Action Network (Nan), according to verified internal Matrix documents and tax records. The SCLC was a desegregation pioneer in the south and active in the first protests against environmental racism. Nan, founded by the Rev Al Sharpton , spotlights violence faced by people of color. In 2023, Joe Biden , Kamala Harris , and the leader of the Environmental Protection Agency spoke at Nan events. In an interview last year, Steele confirmed one payment from Matrix but categorized it as a contribution for civil rights work. Neither he nor his organization responded to additional questions. Toon did not respond to multiple requests for comment. As he received the payments, Nan’s Toon built support for NextEra subsidiary Florida Power & Light’s attempted takeover of a smaller public utility in Florida. His actions on behalf of Matrix have prompted questions from the FBI, according to two people interviewed by investigators, the news outlets’ joint investigation found. NextEra Energy did not respond to requests for comment. Steele, the SCLC head, fought state utility oversight in Alabama. And he advocated for less federal oversight that could have restricted emissions from Alabama Power’s coal-burning power plants and pollution from its toxic coal-ash ponds . ‘We spread money all over the south-east’ The former Southern Company CEO Tom Fanning, who stepped down from the role last spring, confirmed in a May interview with Floodlight that the company at the time was still working with Matrix and with civil rights groups including the SCLC. The company did not respond to later requests for comment. “There’s a real business reason why we do this,” he said, claiming a mutual benefit for the company and the civil rights groups. In an earlier interview with Floodlight, Fanning said the company’s related charitable foundations used their $600m in assets to “spread money all over the south-east … we make it a point to be invested in the communities”. At least one venerable civil rights organization – the NAACP – urged its local chapters to stop taking power company money in 2020 after an internal struggle sparked by donations from Florida Power & Light. But big-dollar corporate sponsorship can be hard to resist as such donations are hard to come by for social justice non-profits, according to an analysis by CauseIQ, which provides information to
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
Protesters shouted ‘get them out’ at Merseyside asylum seeker hotel, court told
Police officers at the scene of a protest outside the Suites Hotel, Knowsley, on 10 February last year. Photograph: none View image in fullscreen Police officers at the scene of a protest outside the Suites Hotel, Knowsley, on 10 February last year. Photograph: none This article is more than 1 year old Protesters shouted ‘get them out’ at Merseyside asylum seeker hotel, court told This article is more than 1 year old Police vehicles torched and officers injured in far-right protest outside hotel housing asylum seekers Protesters surrounded a hotel in Merseyside housing asylum seekers, shouting “get them out” as police vehicles were set on fire and officers injured, a court has heard. A video on social media purporting to show a male asylum seeker asking a 15-year-old local girl for a kiss had created “ill feeling” in Kirkby, Knowsley, in the run-up to the demonstration on 10 February last year, Liverpool crown court heard on Tuesday. Police investigated the incident but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided there was not enough evidence to charge the man with a criminal offence, the jury was told. The far-right group English Defence League (EDL) called a protest outside the Suites Hotel, where the asylum seeker had been staying, the prosecution said. Merseyside police were tipped off about the planned protest the day before, and was told there was also going to be a counter-protest from leftwing demonstrators, the detective in charge of the investigation said. Five men and three women, all from Merseyside, have gone on trial accused of violent disorder in what the prosecutor, Martyn Walsh, called “very clearly and obviously a serious incident of public disorder”. Each admits being at the scene but denies “using or threatening unlawful violence”, said Walsh. Three police officers were injured as items including rocks, fireworks and paving slabs were thrown, with one needing hospital treatment for concussion and “whiplash-like injures”, the court heard. A police carrier was “totally destroyed” in a fire and a number of other vehicles were smashed, causing £83,686-worth of damage, the jury was told. One defendant, Cheryl Nicholls, 44, from Kirby, was captured on police video footage outside the hotel shouting “you’ve got 500 dirty bastard nonces in there. I hope your kids are proud of you.” Nicholls hung her head in the dock as further comments were read to the jury, in which she allegedly shouted: “No one out of that hotel will be going where our kids go” and “no one is allowed at our shops, so you better tell them”. Wash told the jury that when she was interviewed by police, she insisted she “went for a peaceful protest as she had concerns about a social media video she had seen”. Detective constable David Williams, the officer in charge of the investigation, told the jury that in the run-up to the incident, “a 15-year-old schoolgirl was on her way home from school and she spoke with a person who was an asylum seeker from the hotel. There was allegations made to the police that this person, this asylum seeker, had acted inappropriately with her and had asked her for her phone number and asked for a kiss.” He added: “It was investigated and unfortunately a decision was made via the CPS that no crime had been committed at that point.” A video filmed by the girl was posted on social media, he told the jury. Judge Dennis Watson asked the officer: “Are we to understand that there was ill feeling in the locality, the video having been posted?” The officer agreed. In a transcript, the jury was told that another woman, Nicola Elliott, 52, could be heard shouting: “Are ya happy that they’re raping our children, are ya? … The dirty perverts in there.” According to the transcript, another defendant, Brian McPadden, 61, could be seen on bodyworn camera footage pointing towards the hotel and heard saying: “We protect our own, youse are not from Kirkby, we are. These are twats, the lot of them.” Footage filmed through an officer’s riot shield showed McPadden, wearing black shorts and a black coat, standing in front of the burning police van. Walsh said he could be heard saying: “They better not leave that place in the next few days cause they’ll be dead … every Friday we’ll be here, them bastards won’t be… No disrespect, I’ve got five grandkids and I don’t want that, sorry.” The court was told that Thomas Mills, 47, of Kirkby, was seen standing on top of a police van holding a banner that said: “Let’s shout, get them out.” Paul Lafferty, 42, of Kirkby, was seen pointing towards police and shouting “you fucking bullies”, the court heard. Jonjo O’Donoghue, 21, of Liverpool city centre, was said to have been seen on footage lighting fireworks and firing them at officers. Daniel Fulham, 39, of Kirkby, made his way through a police cordon with his Jack Russell dog, the court heard, and was caught on camera waving the dog at police while shouting “get them out”. Jennifer Knox, 41, of Kirkby, was said to be part of a group seen confronting police. The trial continues. Explore more on these topics UK news news Share Reuse this content Police officers at the scene of a protest outside the Suites Hotel, Knowsley, on 10 February last year. Photograph: none View image in fullscreen Police officers at the scene of a protest outside the Suites Hotel, Knowsley, on 10 February last year. Photograph: none This article is more than 1 year old Protesters shouted ‘get them out’ at Merseyside asylum seeker hotel, court told This article is more than 1 year old Police vehicles torched and officers injured in far-right protest outside hotel housing asylum seekers Protesters surrounded a hotel in Merseyside housing asylum seekers, shouting “get them out” as police vehicles were set on fire and officers injured, a court has heard. A video on social media purporting to show a male asylum seeker asking a 15-year-old local girl for a kiss had created “ill feeling” in Kirkby, Knowsley, in the run-up to the demonstration on 10 February last year, Liverpool crown court heard on Tuesday. Police investigated the incident but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided there was not enough evidence to charge the man with a criminal offence, the jury was told. The far-right group English Defence League (EDL) called a protest outside the Suites Hotel, where the asylum seeker had been staying, the prosecution said. Merseyside police were tipped off about the planned protest the day before, and was told there was also going to be a counter-protest from leftwing demonstrators, the detective in charge of the investigation said. Five men and three women, all from Merseyside, have gone on trial accused of violent disorder in what the prosecutor, Martyn Walsh, called “very clearly and obviously a serious incident of public disorder”. Each admits being at the scene but denies “using or threatening unlawful violence”, said Walsh. Three police officers were injured as items including rocks, fireworks and paving slabs were thrown, with one needing hospital treatment for concussion and “whiplash-like injures”, the court heard. A police carrier was “totally destroyed” in a fire and a number of other vehicles were smashed, causing £83,686-worth of damage, the jury was told. One defendant, Cheryl Nicholls, 44, from Kirby, was captured on police video footage outside the hotel shouting “you’ve got 500 dirty bastard nonces in there. I hope your kids are proud of you.” Nicholls hung her head in the dock as further comments were read to the jury, in which she allegedly shouted: “No one out of that hotel will be going where our kids go” and “no one is allowed at our shops, so you better tell them”. Wash told the jury that when she was interviewed by police, she insisted she “went for a peaceful protest as she had concerns about a social media video she had seen”. Detective constable David Williams, the officer in charge of the investigation, told the jury that in the run-up to the incident, “a 15-year-old schoolgirl was on her way home from school and she spoke with a person who was an asylum seeker from the hotel. There was allegations made to the police that this person, this asylum seeker, had acted inappropriately with her and had asked her for her phone number and asked for a kiss.” He added: “It was investigated and unfortunately a decision was made via the CPS that no crime had been committed at that point.” A video filmed by the girl was posted on social media, he told the jury. Judge Dennis Watson asked the officer: “Are we to understand that there was ill feeling in the locality, the video having been posted?” The officer agreed. In a transcript, the jury was told that another woman, Nicola Elliott, 52, could be heard shouting: “Are ya happy that they’re raping our children, are ya? … The dirty perverts in there.” According to the transcript, another defendant, Brian McPadden, 61, could be seen on bodyworn camera footage pointing towards the hotel and heard saying: “We protect our own, youse are not from Kirkby, we are. These are twats, the lot of them.” Footage filmed through an officer’s riot shield showed McPadden, wearing black shorts and a black coat, standing in front of the burning police van. Walsh said he could be heard saying: “They better not leave that place in the next few days cause they’ll be dead … every Friday we’ll be here, them bastards won’t be… No disrespect, I’ve got five grandkids and I don’t want that, sorry.” The court was told that Thomas Mills, 47, of Kirkby, was seen standing on top of a police van holding a banner that said: “Let’s shout, get them out.” Paul Lafferty, 42, of Kirkby, was seen pointing towards police and shouting “you fucking bullies”, the court heard. Jonjo O’Donoghue, 21, of Liverpool city centre, was said to have been seen on footage lighting fireworks and firing them at officers. Daniel Fulham, 39, of Kirkby, made his way through a police cordon with his Jack Russell dog, the court heard, and was caught on camera waving the dog at police while shouting “get them out”. Jennifer Knox, 41, of Kirkby, was said to be part of a group seen confronting police. The trial continues. Explore more on these topics UK news news Share Reuse this content Police officers at the scene of a protest outside the Suites Hotel, Knowsley, on 10 February last year. Photograph: none View image in fullscreen Police officers at the scene of a protest outside the Suites Hotel, Knowsley, on 10 February last year. Photograph: none Police officers at the scene of a protest outside the Suites Hotel, Knowsley, on 10 February last year. Photograph: none View image in fullscreen Police officers at the scene of a protest outside the Suites Hotel, Knowsley, on 10 February last year. Photograph: none Police officers at the scene of a protest outside the Suites Hotel, Knowsley, on 10 February last year. Photograph: none View image in fullscreen Police officers at the scene of a protest outside the Suites Hotel, Knowsley, on 10 February last year. Photograph: none Police officers at the scene of a protest outside the Suites Hotel, Knowsley, on 10 February last year. Photograph: none View image in fullscreen Police officers at the scene of a protest outside the Suites Hotel, Knowsley, on 10 February last year. Photograph: none Police officers at the scene of a protest outside the Suites Hotel, Knowsley, on 10 February last year. Photograph: none Police officers at the scene of a protest outside the Suites Hotel, Knowsley, on 10 February last year. Photograph: none This article is more than 1 year old Protesters shouted ‘get them out’ at Merseyside asylum seeker hotel, court told This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Protesters shouted ‘get them out’ at Merseyside asylum seeker hotel, court told This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Protesters shouted ‘get them out’ at Merseyside asylum seeker hotel, court told 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 Police vehicles torched and officers injured in far-right protest outside hotel housing asylum seekers Police vehicles torched and officers injured in far-right protest outside hotel housing asylum seekers Police vehicles torched and officers injured in far-right protest outside hotel housing asylum seekers Protesters surrounded a hotel in Merseyside housing asylum seekers, shouting “get them out” as police vehicles were set on fire and officers injured, a court has heard. A video on social media purporting to show a male asylum seeker asking a 15-year-old local girl for a kiss had created “ill feeling” in Kirkby, Knowsley, in the run-up to the demonstration on 10 February last year, Liverpool crown court heard on Tuesday. Police investigated the incident but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided there was not enough evidence to charge the man with a criminal offence, the jury was told. The far-right group English Defence League (EDL) called a protest outside the Suites Hotel, where the asylum seeker had been staying, the prosecution said. Merseyside police were tipped off about the planned protest the day before, and was told there was also going to be a counter-protest from leftwing demonstrators, the detective in charge of the investigation said. Five men and three women, all from Merseyside, have gone on trial accused of violent disorder in what the prosecutor, Martyn Walsh, called “very clearly and obviously a serious incident of public disorder”. Each admits being at the scene but denies “using or threatening unlawful violence”, said Walsh. Three police officers were injured as items including rocks, fireworks and paving slabs were thrown, with one needing hospital treatment for concussion and “whiplash-like injures”, the court heard. A police carrier was “totally destroyed” in a fire and a number of other vehicles were smashed, causing £83,686-worth of damage, the jury was told. One defendant, Cheryl Nicholls, 44, from Kirby, was captured on police video footage outside the hotel shouting “you’ve got 500 dirty bastard nonces in there. I hope your kids are proud of you.” Nicholls hung her head in the dock as further comments were read to the jury, in which she allegedly shouted: “No one out of that hotel will be going where our kids go” and “no one is allowed at our shops, so you better tell them”. Wash told the jury that when she was interviewed by police, she insisted she “went for a peaceful protest as she had concerns about a social media video she had seen”. Detective constable David Williams, the officer in charge of the investigation, told the jury that in the run-up to the incident, “a 15-year-old schoolgirl was on her way home from school and she spoke with a person who was an asylum seeker from the hotel. There was allegations made to the police that this person, this asylum seeker, had acted inappropriately with her and had asked her for her phone number and asked for a kiss.” He added: “It was investigated and unfortunately a decision was made via the CPS that no crime had been committed at that point.” A video filmed by the girl was posted on social media, he told the jury. Judge Dennis Watson asked the officer: “Are we to understand that there was ill feeling in the locality, the video having been posted?” The officer agreed. In a transcript, the jury was told that another woman, Nicola Elliott, 52, could be heard shouting: “Are ya happy that they’re raping our children, are ya? … The dirty perverts in there.” According to the transcript, another defendant, Brian McPadden, 61, could be seen on bodyworn camera footage pointing towards the hotel and heard saying: “We protect our own, youse are not from Kirkby, we are. These are twats, the lot of them.” Footage filmed through an officer’s riot shield showed McPadden, wearing black shorts and a black coat, standing in front of the burning police van. Walsh said he could be heard saying: “They better not leave that place in the next few days cause they’ll be dead … every Friday we’ll be here, them bastards won’t be… No disrespect, I’ve got five grandkids and I don’t want that, sorry.” The court was told that Thomas Mills, 47, of Kirkby, was seen standing on top of a police van holding a banner that said: “Let’s shout, get them out.” Paul Lafferty, 42, of Kirkby, was seen pointing towards police and shouting “you fucking bullies”, the court heard. Jonjo O’Donoghue, 21, of Liverpool city centre, was said to have been seen on footage lighting fireworks and firing them at officers. Daniel Fulham, 39, of Kirkby, made his way through a police cordon with his Jack Russell dog, the court heard, and was caught on camera waving the dog at police while shouting “get them out”. Jennifer Knox, 41, of Kirkby, was said to be part of a group seen confronting police. The trial continues. Explore more on these topics UK news news Share Reuse this content Protesters surrounded a hotel in Merseyside housing asylum seekers, shouting “get them out” as police vehicles were set on fire and officers injured, a court has heard. A video on social media purporting to show a male asylum seeker asking a 15-year-old local girl for a kiss had created “ill feeling” in Kirkby, Knowsley, in the run-up to the demonstration on 10 February last year, Liverpool crown court heard on Tuesday. Police investigated the incident but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided there was not enough evidence to charge the man with a criminal offence, the jury was told. The far-right group English Defence League (EDL) called a protest outside the Suites Hotel, where the asylum seeker had been staying, the prosecution said. Merseyside police were tipped off about the planned protest the day before, and was told there was also going to be a counter-protest from leftwing demonstrators, the detective in charge of the investigation said. Five men and three women, all from Merseyside, have gone on trial accused of violent disorder in what the prosecutor, Martyn Walsh, called “very clearly and obviously a serious incident of public disorder”. Each admits being at the scene but denies “using or threatening unlawful violence”, said Walsh. Three police officers were injured as items including rocks, fireworks and paving slabs were thrown, with one needing hospital treatment for concussion and “whiplash-like injures”, the court heard. A police carrier was “totally destroyed” in a fire and a number of other vehicles were smashed, causing £83,686-worth of damage, the jury was told. One defendant, Cheryl Nicholls, 44, from Kirby, was captured on police video footage outside the hotel shouting “you’ve got 500 dirty bastard nonces in there. I hope your kids are proud of you.” Nicholls hung her head in the dock as further comments were read to the jury, in which she allegedly shouted: “No one out of that hotel will be going where our kids go” and “no one is allowed at our shops, so you better tell them”. Wash told the jury that when she was interviewed by police, she insisted she “went for a peaceful protest as she had concerns about a social media video she had seen”. Detective constable David Williams, the officer in charge of the investigation, told the jury that in the run-up to the incident, “a 15-year-old schoolgirl was on her way home from school and she spoke with a person who was an asylum seeker from the hotel. There was allegations made to the police that this person, this asylum seeker, had acted inappropriately with her and had asked her for her phone number and asked for a kiss.” He added: “It was investigated and unfortunately a decision was made via the CPS that no crime had been committed at that point.” A video filmed by the girl was posted on social media, he told the jury. Judge Dennis Watson asked the officer: “Are we to understand that there was ill feeling in the locality, the video having been posted?” The officer agreed. In a transcript, the jury was told that another woman, Nicola Elliott, 52, could be heard shouting: “Are ya happy that they’re raping our children, are ya? … The dirty perverts in there.” According to the transcript, another defendant, Brian McPadden, 61, could be seen on bodyworn camera footage pointing towards the hotel and heard saying: “We protect our own, youse are not from Kirkby, we are. These are twats, the lot of them.” Footage filmed through an officer’s riot shield showed McPadden, wearing black shorts and a black coat, standing in front of the burning police van. Walsh said he could be heard saying: “They better not leave that place in the next few days cause they’ll be dead … every Friday we’ll be here, them bastards won’t be… No disrespect, I’ve got five grandkids and I don’t want that, sorry.” The court was told that Thomas Mills, 47, of Kirkby, was seen standing on top of a police van holding a banner that said: “Let’s shout, get them out.” Paul Lafferty, 42, of Kirkby, was seen pointing towards police and shouting “you fucking bullies”, the court heard. Jonjo O’Donoghue, 21, of Liverpool city centre, was said to have been seen on footage lighting fireworks and firing them at officers. Daniel Fulham, 39, of Kirkby, made his way through a police cordon with his Jack Russell dog, the court heard, and was caught on camera waving the dog at police while shouting “get them out”. Jennifer Knox, 41, of Kirkby, was said to be part of a group seen confronting police. The trial continues. Explore more on these topics UK news news Share Reuse this content Protesters surrounded a hotel in Merseyside housing asylum seekers, shouting “get them out” as police vehicles were set on fire and officers injured, a court has heard. A video on social media purporting to show a male asylum seeker asking a 15-year-old local girl for a kiss had created “ill feeling” in Kirkby, Knowsley, in the run-up to the demonstration on 10 February last year, Liverpool crown court heard on Tuesday. Police investigated the incident but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided there was not enough evidence to charge the man with a criminal offence, the jury was told. The far-right group English Defence League (EDL) called a protest outside the Suites Hotel, where the asylum seeker had been staying, the prosecution said. Merseyside police were tipped off about the planned protest the day before, and was told there was also going to be a counter-protest from leftwing demonstrators, the detective in charge of the investigation said. Five men and three women, all from Merseyside, have gone on trial accused of violent disorder in what the prosecutor, Martyn Walsh, called “very clearly and obviously a serious incident of public disorder”. Each admits being at the scene but denies “using or threatening unlawful violence”, said Walsh. Three police officers were injured as items including rocks, fireworks and paving slabs were thrown, with one needing hospital treatment for concussion and “whiplash-like injures”, the court heard. A police carrier was “totally destroyed” in a fire and a number of other vehicles were smashed, causing £83,686-worth of damage, the jury was told. One defendant, Cheryl Nicholls, 44, from Kirby, was captured on police video footage outside the hotel shouting “you’ve got 500 dirty bastard nonces in there. I hope your kids are proud of you.” Nicholls hung her head in the dock as further comments were read to the jury, in which she allegedly shouted: “No one out of that hotel will be going where our kids go” and “no one is allowed at our shops, so you better tell them”. Wash told the jury that when she was interviewed by police, she insisted she “went for a peaceful protest as she had concerns about a social media video she had seen”. Detective constable David Williams, the officer in charge of the investigation, told the jury that in the run-up to the incident, “a 15-year-old schoolgirl was on her way home from school and she spoke with a person who was an asylum seeker from the hotel. There was allegations made to the police that this person, this asylum seeker, had acted inappropriately with her and had asked her for her phone number and asked for a kiss.” He added: “It was investigated and unfortunately a decision was made via the CPS that no crime had been committed at that point.” A video filmed by the girl was posted on social media, he told the jury. Judge Dennis Watson asked the officer: “Are we to understand that there was ill feeling in the locality, the video having been posted?” The officer agreed. In a transcript, the jury was told that another woman, Nicola Elliott, 52, could be heard shouting: “Are ya happy that they’re raping our children, are ya? … The dirty perverts in there.” According to the transcript, another defendant, Brian McPadden, 61, could be seen on bodyworn camera footage pointing towards the hotel and heard saying: “We protect our own, youse are not from Kirkby, we are. These are twats, the lot of them.” Footage filmed through an officer’s riot shield showed McPadden, wearing black shorts and a black coat, standing in front of the burning police van. Walsh said he could be heard saying: “They better not leave that place in the next few days cause they’ll be dead … every Friday we’ll be here, them bastards won’t be… No disrespect, I’ve got five grandkids and I don’t want that, sorry.” The court was told that Thomas Mills, 47, of Kirkby, was seen standing on top of a police van holding a banner that said: “Let’s shout, get them out.” Paul Lafferty, 42, of Kirkby, was seen pointing towards police and shouting “you fucking bullies”, the court heard. Jonjo O’Donoghue, 21, of Liverpool city centre, was said to have been seen on footage lighting fireworks and firing them at officers. Daniel Fulham, 39, of Kirkby, made his way through a police cordon with his Jack Russell dog, the court heard, and was caught on camera waving the dog at police while shouting “get them out”. Jennifer Knox, 41, of Kirkby, was said to be part of a group seen confronting police. The trial continues. Protesters surrounded a hotel in Merseyside housing asylum seekers, shouting “get them out” as police vehicles were set on fire and officers injured, a court has heard. A video on social media purporting to show a male asylum seeker asking a 15-year-old local girl for a kiss had created “ill feeling” in Kirkby, Knowsley, in the run-up to the demonstration on 10 February last year, Liverpool crown court heard on Tuesday. Police investigated the incident but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided there was not enough evidence to charge the man with a criminal offence, the jury was told. The far-right group English Defence League (EDL) called a protest outside the Suites Hotel, where the asylum seeker had been staying, the prosecution said. Merseyside police were tipped off about the planned protest the day before, and was told there was also going to be a counter-protest from leftwing demonstrators, the detective in charge of the investigation said. Five men and three women, all from Merseyside, have gone on trial accused of violent disorder in what the prosecutor, Martyn Walsh, called “very clearly and obviously a serious incident of public disorder”. Each admits being at the scene but denies “using or threatening unlawful violence”, said Walsh. Three police officers were injured as items including rocks, fireworks and paving slabs were thrown, with one needing hospital treatment for concussion and “whiplash-like injures”, the court heard. A police carrier was “totally destroyed” in a fire and a number of other vehicles were smashed, causing £83,686-worth of damage, the jury was told. One defendant, Cheryl Nicholls, 44, from Kirby, was captured on police video footage outside the hotel shouting “you’ve got 500 dirty bastard nonces in there. I hope your kids are proud of you.” Nicholls hung her head in the dock as further comments were read to the jury, in which she allegedly shouted: “No one out of that hotel will be going where our kids go” and “no one is allowed at our shops, so you better tell them”. Wash told the jury that when she was interviewed by police, she insisted she “went for a peaceful protest as she had concerns about a social media video she had seen”. Detective constable David Williams, the officer in charge of the investigation, told the jury that in the run-up to the incident, “a 15-year-old schoolgirl was on her way home from school and she spoke with a person who was an asylum seeker from the hotel. There was allegations made to the police that this person, this asylum seeker, had acted inappropriately with her and had asked her for her phone number and asked for a kiss.” He added: “It was investigated and unfortunately a decision was made via the CPS that no crime had been committed at that point.” A video filmed by the girl was posted on social media, he told the jury. Judge Dennis Watson asked the officer: “Are we to understand that there was ill feeling in the locality, the video having been posted?” The officer agreed. In a transcript, the jury was told that another woman, Nicola Elliott, 52, could be heard shouting: “Are ya happy that they’re raping our children, are ya? … The dirty perverts in there.” According to the transcript, another defendant, Brian McPadden, 61, could be seen on bodyworn camera footage pointing towards the hotel and heard saying: “We protect our own, youse are not from Kirkby, we are. These are twats, the lot of them.” Footage filmed through an officer’s riot shield showed McPadden, wearing black shorts and a black coat, standing in front of the burning police van. Walsh said he could be heard saying: “They better not leave that place in the next few days cause they’ll be dead … every Friday we’ll be here, them bastards won’t be… No disrespect, I’ve got five grandkids and I don’t want that, sorry.” The court was told that Thomas Mills, 47, of Kirkby, was seen standing on top of a police van holding a banner that said: “Let’s shout, get them out.” Paul Lafferty, 42, of Kirkby, was seen pointing towards police and shouting “you fucking bullies”, the court heard. Jonjo O’Donoghue, 21, of Liverpool city centre, was said to have been seen on footage lighting fireworks and firing them at officers. Daniel Fulham, 39, of Kirkby, made his way through a police cordon with his Jack Russell dog, the court heard, and was caught on camera waving the dog at police while shouting “get them out”. Jennifer Knox, 41, of Kirkby, was said to be part of a group seen confronting police. The trial continues. Protesters surrounded a hotel in Merseyside housing asylum seekers, shouting “get them out” as police vehicles were set on fire and officers injured, a court has heard. A video on social media purporting to show a male asylum seeker asking a 15-year-old local girl for a kiss had created “ill feeling” in Kirkby, Knowsley, in the run-up to the demonstration on 10 February last year, Liverpool crown court heard on Tuesday. Police investigated the incident but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided there was not enough evidence to charge the man with a criminal offence, the jury was told. The far-right group English Defence League (EDL) called a protest outside the Suites Hotel, where the asylum seeker had been staying, the prosecution said. Merseyside police were tipped off about the planned protest the day before, and was told there was also going to be a counter-protest from leftwing demonstrators, the detective in charge of the investigation said. Five men and three women, all from Merseyside, have gone on trial accused of violent disorder in what the prosecutor, Martyn Walsh, called “very clearly and obviously a serious incident of public disorder”. Each admits being at the scene but denies “using or threatening unlawful violence”, said Walsh. Three police officers were injured as items including rocks, fireworks and paving slabs were thrown, with one needing hospital treatment for concussion and “whiplash-like injures”, the court heard. A police carrier was “totally destroyed” in a fire and a number of other vehicles were smashed, causing £83,686-worth of damage, the jury was told. One defendant, Cheryl Nicholls, 44, from Kirby, was captured on police video footage outside the hotel shouting “you’ve got 500 dirty bastard nonces in there. I hope your kids are proud of you.” Nicholls hung her head in the dock as further comments were read to the jury, in which she allegedly shouted: “No one out of that hotel will be going where our kids go” and “no one is allowed at our shops, so you better tell them”. Wash told the jury that when she was interviewed by police, she insisted she “went for a peaceful protest as she had concerns about a social media video she had seen”. Detective constable David Williams, the officer in charge of the investigation, told the jury that in the run-up to the incident, “a 15-year-old schoolgirl was on her way home from school and she spoke with a person who was an asylum seeker from the hotel. There was allegations made to the police that this person, this asylum seeker, had acted inappropriately with her and had asked her for her phone number and asked for a kiss.” He added: “It was investigated and unfortunately a decision was made via the CPS that no crime had been committed at that point.” A video filmed by the girl was posted on social media, he told the jury. Judge Dennis Watson asked the officer: “Are we to understand that there was ill feeling in the locality, the video having been posted?” The officer agreed. In a transcript, the jury was told that another woman, Nicola Elliott, 52, could be heard shouting: “Are ya happy that they’re raping our children, are ya? … The dirty perverts in there.” According to the transcript, another defendant, Brian McPadden, 61, could be seen on bodyworn camera footage pointing towards the hotel and heard saying: “We protect our own, youse are not from Kirkby, we are. These are twats, the lot of them.” Footage filmed through an officer’s riot shield showed McPadden, wearing black shorts and a black coat, standing in front of the burning police van. Walsh said he could be heard saying: “They better not leave that place in the next few days cause they’ll be dead … every Friday we’ll be here, them bastards won’t be… No disrespect, I’ve got five grandkids and I don’t want that, sorry.” The court was told that Thomas Mills, 47, of Kirkby, was seen standing on top of a police van holding a banner that said: “Let’s shout, get them out.” Paul Lafferty, 42, of Kirkby, was seen pointing towards police and shouting “you fucking bullies”, the court heard. Jonjo O’Donoghue, 21, of Liverpool city centre, was said to have been seen on footage lighting fireworks and firing them at officers. Daniel Fulham, 39, of Kirkby, made his way through a police cordon with his Jack Russell dog, the court heard, and was caught on camera waving the dog at police while shouting “get them out”. Jennifer Knox, 41, of Kirkby, was said to be part of a group seen confronting police. Explore more on these topics UK news news Share Reuse this content
|
Senior Tory launches scathing attack on bill banning boycotts of Israel
Alicia Kearns, the chair of the foreign affairs select committee, says the bill ‘undermines freedom of speech, goes against international law’ and isolates UK on global stage. Photograph: NurPhoto/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Alicia Kearns, the chair of the foreign affairs select committee, says the bill ‘undermines freedom of speech, goes against international law’ and isolates UK on global stage. Photograph: NurPhoto/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Senior Tory launches scathing attack on bill banning boycotts of Israel This article is more than 1 year old Alicia Kearns’ remarks come as up to 10 Tories prepare to join Labour in voting against bill affecting public bodies A senior Conservative MP launched a scathing attack on a controversial bill banning local councils from boycotting Israel, as eight Tories voted against the proposed legislation. Alicia Kearns, the Conservative chair of the foreign affairs select committee, told the Guardian that the bill undermined free speech, went against international law and risked leaving the UK isolated on the global stage. While the bill passed by 282 votes to 235, eight Conservative MPs voted against the legislation, which will cause some embarrassment to its chief supporter, Michael Gove . Kearns said: “This bill is flawed in four key areas: it breaks with our foreign policy; undermines freedom of speech; goes against international law; and promotes an odd exceptionalism in UK primary legislation. “We rely on the rules-based system to protect ourselves and to protect our allies and yet we are at risk of breaching UN security council resolution 2334, a resolution the UK was instrumental in drafting. “Legislation created by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities must not depart from our foreign policy, let alone undermine it or leave us ostracised internationally.” A spokesperson for Gove’s department said: “Public bodies imposing boycotts on foreign countries not only undermine the UK’s foreign policy but can also fuel division across our communities. This change delivers on the government’s manifesto, stopping public bodies from wasting taxpayers’ money pursuing their own foreign policy agendas and ensuring that the UK speaks with one voice internationally.” Kearns is one of the most prominent centrists within the Tory party. Kit Malthouse, a long-time ally of Boris Johnson, is also planning to rebel. But concern about ithe proposed legislation’s contents is also present on the right of the party. David Jones, the deputy chair of the European Research Group, is also planning to vote against the bill because of the status it grants to Israel . The bill is aimed at stopping public bodies across the UK from levying any kind of sanction regime against a government that is not also being placed under sanctions by the UK government. Two Labour-led councils said they would boycott goods from Israel in protest at the country’s policies towards the occupied Palestinian territories. However, several Conservative MPs have said they are opposed to the bill because of the way it explicitly names Israel as worthy of special protection, and appears to include the occupied territories as part of its definition of Israel. Crispin Blunt and William Wragg voted against the bill at second reading. A much bigger rebellion at the third reading would indicate that Tory whips have lost influence since then. Senior Conservatives had hoped the bill would help divide Labour over the sensitive issue of Israel and Palestine, torn between the natural support of many Labour MPs for the Palestinian cause and the party leader Keir Starmer’s desire not to allow any appearance of antisemitism. The bill’s report stage was held last October , just weeks after the Hamas attack on southern Israel, in what critics of the proposed legislation said was a political move designed to capitalise on the attack. Labour, however, confirmed on Wednesday morning it would whip MPs to vote against the bill. Wayne David, a shadow foreign office minister, wrote on the Labour List website : “The most damaging part of the bill is that it treats the occupied Palestinian territories as though they were in effect the same as the State of Israel. “This runs directly counter to decades of British diplomacy by Conservative and Labour governments alike, and it could not come at a worse time.” Explore more on these topics Conservatives Foreign policy Israel Michael Gove Local government news Share Reuse this content Alicia Kearns, the chair of the foreign affairs select committee, says the bill ‘undermines freedom of speech, goes against international law’ and isolates UK on global stage. Photograph: NurPhoto/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Alicia Kearns, the chair of the foreign affairs select committee, says the bill ‘undermines freedom of speech, goes against international law’ and isolates UK on global stage. Photograph: NurPhoto/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Senior Tory launches scathing attack on bill banning boycotts of Israel This article is more than 1 year old Alicia Kearns’ remarks come as up to 10 Tories prepare to join Labour in voting against bill affecting public bodies A senior Conservative MP launched a scathing attack on a controversial bill banning local councils from boycotting Israel, as eight Tories voted against the proposed legislation. Alicia Kearns, the Conservative chair of the foreign affairs select committee, told the Guardian that the bill undermined free speech, went against international law and risked leaving the UK isolated on the global stage. While the bill passed by 282 votes to 235, eight Conservative MPs voted against the legislation, which will cause some embarrassment to its chief supporter, Michael Gove . Kearns said: “This bill is flawed in four key areas: it breaks with our foreign policy; undermines freedom of speech; goes against international law; and promotes an odd exceptionalism in UK primary legislation. “We rely on the rules-based system to protect ourselves and to protect our allies and yet we are at risk of breaching UN security council resolution 2334, a resolution the UK was instrumental in drafting. “Legislation created by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities must not depart from our foreign policy, let alone undermine it or leave us ostracised internationally.” A spokesperson for Gove’s department said: “Public bodies imposing boycotts on foreign countries not only undermine the UK’s foreign policy but can also fuel division across our communities. This change delivers on the government’s manifesto, stopping public bodies from wasting taxpayers’ money pursuing their own foreign policy agendas and ensuring that the UK speaks with one voice internationally.” Kearns is one of the most prominent centrists within the Tory party. Kit Malthouse, a long-time ally of Boris Johnson, is also planning to rebel. But concern about ithe proposed legislation’s contents is also present on the right of the party. David Jones, the deputy chair of the European Research Group, is also planning to vote against the bill because of the status it grants to Israel . The bill is aimed at stopping public bodies across the UK from levying any kind of sanction regime against a government that is not also being placed under sanctions by the UK government. Two Labour-led councils said they would boycott goods from Israel in protest at the country’s policies towards the occupied Palestinian territories. However, several Conservative MPs have said they are opposed to the bill because of the way it explicitly names Israel as worthy of special protection, and appears to include the occupied territories as part of its definition of Israel. Crispin Blunt and William Wragg voted against the bill at second reading. A much bigger rebellion at the third reading would indicate that Tory whips have lost influence since then. Senior Conservatives had hoped the bill would help divide Labour over the sensitive issue of Israel and Palestine, torn between the natural support of many Labour MPs for the Palestinian cause and the party leader Keir Starmer’s desire not to allow any appearance of antisemitism. The bill’s report stage was held last October , just weeks after the Hamas attack on southern Israel, in what critics of the proposed legislation said was a political move designed to capitalise on the attack. Labour, however, confirmed on Wednesday morning it would whip MPs to vote against the bill. Wayne David, a shadow foreign office minister, wrote on the Labour List website : “The most damaging part of the bill is that it treats the occupied Palestinian territories as though they were in effect the same as the State of Israel. “This runs directly counter to decades of British diplomacy by Conservative and Labour governments alike, and it could not come at a worse time.” Explore more on these topics Conservatives Foreign policy Israel Michael Gove Local government news Share Reuse this content Alicia Kearns, the chair of the foreign affairs select committee, says the bill ‘undermines freedom of speech, goes against international law’ and isolates UK on global stage. Photograph: NurPhoto/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Alicia Kearns, the chair of the foreign affairs select committee, says the bill ‘undermines freedom of speech, goes against international law’ and isolates UK on global stage. Photograph: NurPhoto/Getty Images Alicia Kearns, the chair of the foreign affairs select committee, says the bill ‘undermines freedom of speech, goes against international law’ and isolates UK on global stage. Photograph: NurPhoto/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Alicia Kearns, the chair of the foreign affairs select committee, says the bill ‘undermines freedom of speech, goes against international law’ and isolates UK on global stage. Photograph: NurPhoto/Getty Images Alicia Kearns, the chair of the foreign affairs select committee, says the bill ‘undermines freedom of speech, goes against international law’ and isolates UK on global stage. Photograph: NurPhoto/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Alicia Kearns, the chair of the foreign affairs select committee, says the bill ‘undermines freedom of speech, goes against international law’ and isolates UK on global stage. Photograph: NurPhoto/Getty Images Alicia Kearns, the chair of the foreign affairs select committee, says the bill ‘undermines freedom of speech, goes against international law’ and isolates UK on global stage. Photograph: NurPhoto/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Alicia Kearns, the chair of the foreign affairs select committee, says the bill ‘undermines freedom of speech, goes against international law’ and isolates UK on global stage. Photograph: NurPhoto/Getty Images Alicia Kearns, the chair of the foreign affairs select committee, says the bill ‘undermines freedom of speech, goes against international law’ and isolates UK on global stage. Photograph: NurPhoto/Getty Images Alicia Kearns, the chair of the foreign affairs select committee, says the bill ‘undermines freedom of speech, goes against international law’ and isolates UK on global stage. Photograph: NurPhoto/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Senior Tory launches scathing attack on bill banning boycotts of Israel This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Senior Tory launches scathing attack on bill banning boycotts of Israel This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Senior Tory launches scathing attack on bill banning boycotts of Israel 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 Alicia Kearns’ remarks come as up to 10 Tories prepare to join Labour in voting against bill affecting public bodies Alicia Kearns’ remarks come as up to 10 Tories prepare to join Labour in voting against bill affecting public bodies Alicia Kearns’ remarks come as up to 10 Tories prepare to join Labour in voting against bill affecting public bodies A senior Conservative MP launched a scathing attack on a controversial bill banning local councils from boycotting Israel, as eight Tories voted against the proposed legislation. Alicia Kearns, the Conservative chair of the foreign affairs select committee, told the Guardian that the bill undermined free speech, went against international law and risked leaving the UK isolated on the global stage. While the bill passed by 282 votes to 235, eight Conservative MPs voted against the legislation, which will cause some embarrassment to its chief supporter, Michael Gove . Kearns said: “This bill is flawed in four key areas: it breaks with our foreign policy; undermines freedom of speech; goes against international law; and promotes an odd exceptionalism in UK primary legislation. “We rely on the rules-based system to protect ourselves and to protect our allies and yet we are at risk of breaching UN security council resolution 2334, a resolution the UK was instrumental in drafting. “Legislation created by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities must not depart from our foreign policy, let alone undermine it or leave us ostracised internationally.” A spokesperson for Gove’s department said: “Public bodies imposing boycotts on foreign countries not only undermine the UK’s foreign policy but can also fuel division across our communities. This change delivers on the government’s manifesto, stopping public bodies from wasting taxpayers’ money pursuing their own foreign policy agendas and ensuring that the UK speaks with one voice internationally.” Kearns is one of the most prominent centrists within the Tory party. Kit Malthouse, a long-time ally of Boris Johnson, is also planning to rebel. But concern about ithe proposed legislation’s contents is also present on the right of the party. David Jones, the deputy chair of the European Research Group, is also planning to vote against the bill because of the status it grants to Israel . The bill is aimed at stopping public bodies across the UK from levying any kind of sanction regime against a government that is not also being placed under sanctions by the UK government. Two Labour-led councils said they would boycott goods from Israel in protest at the country’s policies towards the occupied Palestinian territories. However, several Conservative MPs have said they are opposed to the bill because of the way it explicitly names Israel as worthy of special protection, and appears to include the occupied territories as part of its definition of Israel. Crispin Blunt and William Wragg voted against the bill at second reading. A much bigger rebellion at the third reading would indicate that Tory whips have lost influence since then. Senior Conservatives had hoped the bill would help divide Labour over the sensitive issue of Israel and Palestine, torn between the natural support of many Labour MPs for the Palestinian cause and the party leader Keir Starmer’s desire not to allow any appearance of antisemitism. The bill’s report stage was held last October , just weeks after the Hamas attack on southern Israel, in what critics of the proposed legislation said was a political move designed to capitalise on the attack. Labour, however, confirmed on Wednesday morning it would whip MPs to vote against the bill. Wayne David, a shadow foreign office minister, wrote on the Labour List website : “The most damaging part of the bill is that it treats the occupied Palestinian territories as though they were in effect the same as the State of Israel. “This runs directly counter to decades of British diplomacy by Conservative and Labour governments alike, and it could not come at a worse time.” Explore more on these topics Conservatives Foreign policy Israel Michael Gove Local government news Share Reuse this content A senior Conservative MP launched a scathing attack on a controversial bill banning local councils from boycotting Israel, as eight Tories voted against the proposed legislation. Alicia Kearns, the Conservative chair of the foreign affairs select committee, told the Guardian that the bill undermined free speech, went against international law and risked leaving the UK isolated on the global stage. While the bill passed by 282 votes to 235, eight Conservative MPs voted against the legislation, which will cause some embarrassment to its chief supporter, Michael Gove . Kearns said: “This bill is flawed in four key areas: it breaks with our foreign policy; undermines freedom of speech; goes against international law; and promotes an odd exceptionalism in UK primary legislation. “We rely on the rules-based system to protect ourselves and to protect our allies and yet we are at risk of breaching UN security council resolution 2334, a resolution the UK was instrumental in drafting. “Legislation created by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities must not depart from our foreign policy, let alone undermine it or leave us ostracised internationally.” A spokesperson for Gove’s department said: “Public bodies imposing boycotts on foreign countries not only undermine the UK’s foreign policy but can also fuel division across our communities. This change delivers on the government’s manifesto, stopping public bodies from wasting taxpayers’ money pursuing their own foreign policy agendas and ensuring that the UK speaks with one voice internationally.” Kearns is one of the most prominent centrists within the Tory party. Kit Malthouse, a long-time ally of Boris Johnson, is also planning to rebel. But concern about ithe proposed legislation’s contents is also present on the right of the party. David Jones, the deputy chair of the European Research Group, is also planning to vote against the bill because of the status it grants to Israel . The bill is aimed at stopping public bodies across the UK from levying any kind of sanction regime against a government that is not also being placed under sanctions by the UK government. Two Labour-led councils said they would boycott goods from Israel in protest at the country’s policies towards the occupied Palestinian territories. However, several Conservative MPs have said they are opposed to the bill because of the way it explicitly names Israel as worthy of special protection, and appears to include the occupied territories as part of its definition of Israel. Crispin Blunt and William Wragg voted against the bill at second reading. A much bigger rebellion at the third reading would indicate that Tory whips have lost influence since then. Senior Conservatives had hoped the bill would help divide Labour over the sensitive issue of Israel and Palestine, torn between the natural support of many Labour MPs for the Palestinian cause and the party leader Keir Starmer’s desire not to allow any appearance of antisemitism. The bill’s report stage was held last October , just weeks after the Hamas attack on southern Israel, in what critics of the proposed legislation said was a political move designed to capitalise on the attack. Labour, however, confirmed on Wednesday morning it would whip MPs to vote against the bill. Wayne David, a shadow foreign office minister, wrote on the Labour List website : “The most damaging part of the bill is that it treats the occupied Palestinian territories as though they were in effect the same as the State of Israel. “This runs directly counter to decades of British diplomacy by Conservative and Labour governments alike, and it could not come at a worse time.” Explore more on these topics Conservatives Foreign policy Israel Michael Gove Local government news Share Reuse this content A senior Conservative MP launched a scathing attack on a controversial bill banning local councils from boycotting Israel, as eight Tories voted against the proposed legislation. Alicia Kearns, the Conservative chair of the foreign affairs select committee, told the Guardian that the bill undermined free speech, went against international law and risked leaving the UK isolated on the global stage. While the bill passed by 282 votes to 235, eight Conservative MPs voted against the legislation, which will cause some embarrassment to its chief supporter, Michael Gove . Kearns said: “This bill is flawed in four key areas: it breaks with our foreign policy; undermines freedom of speech; goes against international law; and promotes an odd exceptionalism in UK primary legislation. “We rely on the rules-based system to protect ourselves and to protect our allies and yet we are at risk of breaching UN security council resolution 2334, a resolution the UK was instrumental in drafting. “Legislation created by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities must not depart from our foreign policy, let alone undermine it or leave us ostracised internationally.” A spokesperson for Gove’s department said: “Public bodies imposing boycotts on foreign countries not only undermine the UK’s foreign policy but can also fuel division across our communities. This change delivers on the government’s manifesto, stopping public bodies from wasting taxpayers’ money pursuing their own foreign policy agendas and ensuring that the UK speaks with one voice internationally.” Kearns is one of the most prominent centrists within the Tory party. Kit Malthouse, a long-time ally of Boris Johnson, is also planning to rebel. But concern about ithe proposed legislation’s contents is also present on the right of the party. David Jones, the deputy chair of the European Research Group, is also planning to vote against the bill because of the status it grants to Israel . The bill is aimed at stopping public bodies across the UK from levying any kind of sanction regime against a government that is not also being placed under sanctions by the UK government. Two Labour-led councils said they would boycott goods from Israel in protest at the country’s policies towards the occupied Palestinian territories. However, several Conservative MPs have said they are opposed to the bill because of the way it explicitly names Israel as worthy of special protection, and appears to include the occupied territories as part of its definition of Israel. Crispin Blunt and William Wragg voted against the bill at second reading. A much bigger rebellion at the third reading would indicate that Tory whips have lost influence since then. Senior Conservatives had hoped the bill would help divide Labour over the sensitive issue of Israel and Palestine, torn between the natural support of many Labour MPs for the Palestinian cause and the party leader Keir Starmer’s desire not to allow any appearance of antisemitism. The bill’s report stage was held last October , just weeks after the Hamas attack on southern Israel, in what critics of the proposed legislation said was a political move designed to capitalise on the attack. Labour, however, confirmed on Wednesday morning it would whip MPs to vote against the bill. Wayne David, a shadow foreign office minister, wrote on the Labour List website : “The most damaging part of the bill is that it treats the occupied Palestinian territories as though they were in effect the same as the State of Israel. “This runs directly counter to decades of British diplomacy by Conservative and Labour governments alike, and it could not come at a worse time.” A senior Conservative MP launched a scathing attack on a controversial bill banning local councils from boycotting Israel, as eight Tories voted against the proposed legislation. Alicia Kearns, the Conservative chair of the foreign affairs select committee, told the Guardian that the bill undermined free speech, went against international law and risked leaving the UK isolated on the global stage. While the bill passed by 282 votes to 235, eight Conservative MPs voted against the legislation, which will cause some embarrassment to its chief supporter, Michael Gove . Kearns said: “This bill is flawed in four key areas: it breaks with our foreign policy; undermines freedom of speech; goes against international law; and promotes an odd exceptionalism in UK primary legislation. “We rely on the rules-based system to protect ourselves and to protect our allies and yet we are at risk of breaching UN security council resolution 2334, a resolution the UK was instrumental in drafting. “Legislation created by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities must not depart from our foreign policy, let alone undermine it or leave us ostracised internationally.” A spokesperson for Gove’s department said: “Public bodies imposing boycotts on foreign countries not only undermine the UK’s foreign policy but can also fuel division across our communities. This change delivers on the government’s manifesto, stopping public bodies from wasting taxpayers’ money pursuing their own foreign policy agendas and ensuring that the UK speaks with one voice internationally.” Kearns is one of the most prominent centrists within the Tory party. Kit Malthouse, a long-time ally of Boris Johnson, is also planning to rebel. But concern about ithe proposed legislation’s contents is also present on the right of the party. David Jones, the deputy chair of the European Research Group, is also planning to vote against the bill because of the status it grants to Israel . The bill is aimed at stopping public bodies across the UK from levying any kind of sanction regime against a government that is not also being placed under sanctions by the UK government. Two Labour-led councils said they would boycott goods from Israel in protest at the country’s policies towards the occupied Palestinian territories. However, several Conservative MPs have said they are opposed to the bill because of the way it explicitly names Israel as worthy of special protection, and appears to include the occupied territories as part of its definition of Israel. Crispin Blunt and William Wragg voted against the bill at second reading. A much bigger rebellion at the third reading would indicate that Tory whips have lost influence since then. Senior Conservatives had hoped the bill would help divide Labour over the sensitive issue of Israel and Palestine, torn between the natural support of many Labour MPs for the Palestinian cause and the party leader Keir Starmer’s desire not to allow any appearance of antisemitism. The bill’s report stage was held last October , just weeks after the Hamas attack on southern Israel, in what critics of the proposed legislation said was a political move designed to capitalise on the attack. Labour, however, confirmed on Wednesday morning it would whip MPs to vote against the bill. Wayne David, a shadow foreign office minister, wrote on the Labour List website : “The most damaging part of the bill is that it treats the occupied Palestinian territories as though they were in effect the same as the State of Israel. “This runs directly counter to decades of British diplomacy by Conservative and Labour governments alike, and it could not come at a worse time.” A senior Conservative MP launched a scathing attack on a controversial bill banning local councils from boycotting Israel, as eight Tories voted against the proposed legislation. Alicia Kearns, the Conservative chair of the foreign affairs select committee, told the Guardian that the bill undermined free speech, went against international law and risked leaving the UK isolated on the global stage. While the bill passed by 282 votes to 235, eight Conservative MPs voted against the legislation, which will cause some embarrassment to its chief supporter, Michael Gove . Kearns said: “This bill is flawed in four key areas: it breaks with our foreign policy; undermines freedom of speech; goes against international law; and promotes an odd exceptionalism in UK primary legislation. “We rely on the rules-based system to protect ourselves and to protect our allies and yet we are at risk of breaching UN security council resolution 2334, a resolution the UK was instrumental in drafting. “Legislation created by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities must not depart from our foreign policy, let alone undermine it or leave us ostracised internationally.” A spokesperson for Gove’s department said: “Public bodies imposing boycotts on foreign countries not only undermine the UK’s foreign policy but can also fuel division across our communities. This change delivers on the government’s manifesto, stopping public bodies from wasting taxpayers’ money pursuing their own foreign policy agendas and ensuring that the UK speaks with one voice internationally.” Kearns is one of the most prominent centrists within the Tory party. Kit Malthouse, a long-time ally of Boris Johnson, is also planning to rebel. But concern about ithe proposed legislation’s contents is also present on the right of the party. David Jones, the deputy chair of the European Research Group, is also planning to vote against the bill because of the status it grants to Israel . The bill is aimed at stopping public bodies across the UK from levying any kind of sanction regime against a government that is not also being placed under sanctions by the UK government. Two Labour-led councils said they would boycott goods from Israel in protest at the country’s policies towards the occupied Palestinian territories. However, several Conservative MPs have said they are opposed to the bill because of the way it explicitly names Israel as worthy of special protection, and appears to include the occupied territories as part of its definition of Israel. Crispin Blunt and William Wragg voted against the bill at second reading. A much bigger rebellion at the third reading would indicate that Tory whips have lost influence since then. Senior Conservatives had hoped the bill would help divide Labour over the sensitive issue of Israel and Palestine, torn between the natural support of many Labour MPs for the Palestinian cause and the party leader Keir Starmer’s desire not to allow any appearance of antisemitism. The bill’s report stage was held last October , just weeks after the Hamas attack on southern Israel, in what critics of the proposed legislation said was a political move designed to capitalise on the attack. Labour, however, confirmed on Wednesday morning it would whip MPs to vote against the bill. Wayne David, a shadow foreign office minister, wrote on the Labour List website : “The most damaging part of the bill is that it treats the occupied Palestinian territories as though they were in effect the same as the State of Israel. “This runs directly counter to decades of British diplomacy by Conservative and Labour governments alike, and it could not come at a worse time.” Explore more on these topics Conservatives Foreign policy Israel Michael Gove Local government news Share Reuse this content Conservatives Foreign policy Israel Michael Gove Local government news
|
Landowner’s supreme court case threatens Dartmoor wild camping victory
Camping had been assumed to be allowed under the Dartmoor Commons Act since 1985, until a judge ruled otherwise last January. Photograph: Stephen Bell/Alamy View image in fullscreen Camping had been assumed to be allowed under the Dartmoor Commons Act since 1985, until a judge ruled otherwise last January. Photograph: Stephen Bell/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old Landowner’s supreme court case threatens Dartmoor wild camping victory This article is more than 1 year old Alexander Darwall is challenging decision last year to overturn ban on wild camping on the moors The right to wild camp on Dartmoor could be under threat again after the supreme court granted permission for a wealthy landowner to bring a case against it. Last year, the Dartmoor National Park Authority won an appeal against a decision to ban wild camping on the moors. Camping had been assumed to be allowed under the Dartmoor Commons Act since 1985, until a judge ruled otherwise last January. It was the only place in England that such an activity was allowed without requiring permission from a landowner. The case hinged on whether wild camping counted as open-air recreation, leading to a long debate in the court of appeal. Lawyers acting for Alexander Darwall, the landowner, argued it was not, because when camping one was only sleeping rather than enjoying a particular activity. After the court of appeal decision, lawyers acting for Darwall, a hedge funder and Dartmoor’s sixth-largest landowner, asked the supreme court to hear the case. Darwall bought the 1,619-hectare (4,000-acre) Blachford estate on southern Dartmoor in 2013. He offers pheasant shoots, deerstalking and holiday rentals on his land. His attempts to ban wild campers from using his estate without his permission sparked a large protest movement, with thousands going to Dartmoor to assert their right to camp. It awakened a land rights debate in the UK, with the Labour party weighing in. The party previously said it would legislate for a right to wild camp in all national parks. However, it since appears to have U-turned on its land rights policy . Lewis Winks, from the Stars Are For Everyone campaign, said: “The loss of our cherished right to sleep under the stars on Dartmoor ignited a passionate and broad movement for greater land rights in England . This news is confirmation that reform is both needed and inevitable, and will act as a clarion call to all those who wish for generations to come to enjoy these fundamental freedoms. “As ever, the right to wild camp is emblematic of the fragility of our wider rights in the English countryside, and Darwall’s latest egregious move illustrates the need for greater legal protections for access to nature. “We hope that the court sees sense and returns a favourable verdict, enabling wild camping to continue on the commons of Dartmoor.” Darwall’s legal team at Landmark Chambers said that the high court held that the words in the act “unambiguously excluded a right to camp on Dartmoor” and found in favour of the landowners. The court of appeal held that it “unambiguously included a right to camp” and allowed the Dartmoor National Park Authority’s appeal. “The appeal to the supreme court will determine once and for all this important issue, namely whether members of the public enjoy a right to camp on the Dartmoor commons,” it said. “The supreme court will be asked to consider a number of principles applicable to statutory interpretation which will be of interest to practitioners. In particular, it will be invited to consider whether the court of appeal took sufficient account of admissible ‘background’ materials (i) in identifying the ‘mischief’ at which the legislation was aimed and (ii) in considering whether the statutory language was ambiguous.” Explore more on these topics Access to green space Devon Land rights Rural affairs Walking Protest England news Share Reuse this content Camping had been assumed to be allowed under the Dartmoor Commons Act since 1985, until a judge ruled otherwise last January. Photograph: Stephen Bell/Alamy View image in fullscreen Camping had been assumed to be allowed under the Dartmoor Commons Act since 1985, until a judge ruled otherwise last January. Photograph: Stephen Bell/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old Landowner’s supreme court case threatens Dartmoor wild camping victory This article is more than 1 year old Alexander Darwall is challenging decision last year to overturn ban on wild camping on the moors The right to wild camp on Dartmoor could be under threat again after the supreme court granted permission for a wealthy landowner to bring a case against it. Last year, the Dartmoor National Park Authority won an appeal against a decision to ban wild camping on the moors. Camping had been assumed to be allowed under the Dartmoor Commons Act since 1985, until a judge ruled otherwise last January. It was the only place in England that such an activity was allowed without requiring permission from a landowner. The case hinged on whether wild camping counted as open-air recreation, leading to a long debate in the court of appeal. Lawyers acting for Alexander Darwall, the landowner, argued it was not, because when camping one was only sleeping rather than enjoying a particular activity. After the court of appeal decision, lawyers acting for Darwall, a hedge funder and Dartmoor’s sixth-largest landowner, asked the supreme court to hear the case. Darwall bought the 1,619-hectare (4,000-acre) Blachford estate on southern Dartmoor in 2013. He offers pheasant shoots, deerstalking and holiday rentals on his land. His attempts to ban wild campers from using his estate without his permission sparked a large protest movement, with thousands going to Dartmoor to assert their right to camp. It awakened a land rights debate in the UK, with the Labour party weighing in. The party previously said it would legislate for a right to wild camp in all national parks. However, it since appears to have U-turned on its land rights policy . Lewis Winks, from the Stars Are For Everyone campaign, said: “The loss of our cherished right to sleep under the stars on Dartmoor ignited a passionate and broad movement for greater land rights in England . This news is confirmation that reform is both needed and inevitable, and will act as a clarion call to all those who wish for generations to come to enjoy these fundamental freedoms. “As ever, the right to wild camp is emblematic of the fragility of our wider rights in the English countryside, and Darwall’s latest egregious move illustrates the need for greater legal protections for access to nature. “We hope that the court sees sense and returns a favourable verdict, enabling wild camping to continue on the commons of Dartmoor.” Darwall’s legal team at Landmark Chambers said that the high court held that the words in the act “unambiguously excluded a right to camp on Dartmoor” and found in favour of the landowners. The court of appeal held that it “unambiguously included a right to camp” and allowed the Dartmoor National Park Authority’s appeal. “The appeal to the supreme court will determine once and for all this important issue, namely whether members of the public enjoy a right to camp on the Dartmoor commons,” it said. “The supreme court will be asked to consider a number of principles applicable to statutory interpretation which will be of interest to practitioners. In particular, it will be invited to consider whether the court of appeal took sufficient account of admissible ‘background’ materials (i) in identifying the ‘mischief’ at which the legislation was aimed and (ii) in considering whether the statutory language was ambiguous.” Explore more on these topics Access to green space Devon Land rights Rural affairs Walking Protest England news Share Reuse this content Camping had been assumed to be allowed under the Dartmoor Commons Act since 1985, until a judge ruled otherwise last January. Photograph: Stephen Bell/Alamy View image in fullscreen Camping had been assumed to be allowed under the Dartmoor Commons Act since 1985, until a judge ruled otherwise last January. Photograph: Stephen Bell/Alamy Camping had been assumed to be allowed under the Dartmoor Commons Act since 1985, until a judge ruled otherwise last January. Photograph: Stephen Bell/Alamy View image in fullscreen Camping had been assumed to be allowed under the Dartmoor Commons Act since 1985, until a judge ruled otherwise last January. Photograph: Stephen Bell/Alamy Camping had been assumed to be allowed under the Dartmoor Commons Act since 1985, until a judge ruled otherwise last January. Photograph: Stephen Bell/Alamy View image in fullscreen Camping had been assumed to be allowed under the Dartmoor Commons Act since 1985, until a judge ruled otherwise last January. Photograph: Stephen Bell/Alamy Camping had been assumed to be allowed under the Dartmoor Commons Act since 1985, until a judge ruled otherwise last January. Photograph: Stephen Bell/Alamy View image in fullscreen Camping had been assumed to be allowed under the Dartmoor Commons Act since 1985, until a judge ruled otherwise last January. Photograph: Stephen Bell/Alamy Camping had been assumed to be allowed under the Dartmoor Commons Act since 1985, until a judge ruled otherwise last January. Photograph: Stephen Bell/Alamy Camping had been assumed to be allowed under the Dartmoor Commons Act since 1985, until a judge ruled otherwise last January. Photograph: Stephen Bell/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old Landowner’s supreme court case threatens Dartmoor wild camping victory This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Landowner’s supreme court case threatens Dartmoor wild camping victory This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Landowner’s supreme court case threatens Dartmoor wild camping victory 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 Alexander Darwall is challenging decision last year to overturn ban on wild camping on the moors Alexander Darwall is challenging decision last year to overturn ban on wild camping on the moors Alexander Darwall is challenging decision last year to overturn ban on wild camping on the moors The right to wild camp on Dartmoor could be under threat again after the supreme court granted permission for a wealthy landowner to bring a case against it. Last year, the Dartmoor National Park Authority won an appeal against a decision to ban wild camping on the moors. Camping had been assumed to be allowed under the Dartmoor Commons Act since 1985, until a judge ruled otherwise last January. It was the only place in England that such an activity was allowed without requiring permission from a landowner. The case hinged on whether wild camping counted as open-air recreation, leading to a long debate in the court of appeal. Lawyers acting for Alexander Darwall, the landowner, argued it was not, because when camping one was only sleeping rather than enjoying a particular activity. After the court of appeal decision, lawyers acting for Darwall, a hedge funder and Dartmoor’s sixth-largest landowner, asked the supreme court to hear the case. Darwall bought the 1,619-hectare (4,000-acre) Blachford estate on southern Dartmoor in 2013. He offers pheasant shoots, deerstalking and holiday rentals on his land. His attempts to ban wild campers from using his estate without his permission sparked a large protest movement, with thousands going to Dartmoor to assert their right to camp. It awakened a land rights debate in the UK, with the Labour party weighing in. The party previously said it would legislate for a right to wild camp in all national parks. However, it since appears to have U-turned on its land rights policy . Lewis Winks, from the Stars Are For Everyone campaign, said: “The loss of our cherished right to sleep under the stars on Dartmoor ignited a passionate and broad movement for greater land rights in England . This news is confirmation that reform is both needed and inevitable, and will act as a clarion call to all those who wish for generations to come to enjoy these fundamental freedoms. “As ever, the right to wild camp is emblematic of the fragility of our wider rights in the English countryside, and Darwall’s latest egregious move illustrates the need for greater legal protections for access to nature. “We hope that the court sees sense and returns a favourable verdict, enabling wild camping to continue on the commons of Dartmoor.” Darwall’s legal team at Landmark Chambers said that the high court held that the words in the act “unambiguously excluded a right to camp on Dartmoor” and found in favour of the landowners. The court of appeal held that it “unambiguously included a right to camp” and allowed the Dartmoor National Park Authority’s appeal. “The appeal to the supreme court will determine once and for all this important issue, namely whether members of the public enjoy a right to camp on the Dartmoor commons,” it said. “The supreme court will be asked to consider a number of principles applicable to statutory interpretation which will be of interest to practitioners. In particular, it will be invited to consider whether the court of appeal took sufficient account of admissible ‘background’ materials (i) in identifying the ‘mischief’ at which the legislation was aimed and (ii) in considering whether the statutory language was ambiguous.” Explore more on these topics Access to green space Devon Land rights Rural affairs Walking Protest England news Share Reuse this content The right to wild camp on Dartmoor could be under threat again after the supreme court granted permission for a wealthy landowner to bring a case against it. Last year, the Dartmoor National Park Authority won an appeal against a decision to ban wild camping on the moors. Camping had been assumed to be allowed under the Dartmoor Commons Act since 1985, until a judge ruled otherwise last January. It was the only place in England that such an activity was allowed without requiring permission from a landowner. The case hinged on whether wild camping counted as open-air recreation, leading to a long debate in the court of appeal. Lawyers acting for Alexander Darwall, the landowner, argued it was not, because when camping one was only sleeping rather than enjoying a particular activity. After the court of appeal decision, lawyers acting for Darwall, a hedge funder and Dartmoor’s sixth-largest landowner, asked the supreme court to hear the case. Darwall bought the 1,619-hectare (4,000-acre) Blachford estate on southern Dartmoor in 2013. He offers pheasant shoots, deerstalking and holiday rentals on his land. His attempts to ban wild campers from using his estate without his permission sparked a large protest movement, with thousands going to Dartmoor to assert their right to camp. It awakened a land rights debate in the UK, with the Labour party weighing in. The party previously said it would legislate for a right to wild camp in all national parks. However, it since appears to have U-turned on its land rights policy . Lewis Winks, from the Stars Are For Everyone campaign, said: “The loss of our cherished right to sleep under the stars on Dartmoor ignited a passionate and broad movement for greater land rights in England . This news is confirmation that reform is both needed and inevitable, and will act as a clarion call to all those who wish for generations to come to enjoy these fundamental freedoms. “As ever, the right to wild camp is emblematic of the fragility of our wider rights in the English countryside, and Darwall’s latest egregious move illustrates the need for greater legal protections for access to nature. “We hope that the court sees sense and returns a favourable verdict, enabling wild camping to continue on the commons of Dartmoor.” Darwall’s legal team at Landmark Chambers said that the high court held that the words in the act “unambiguously excluded a right to camp on Dartmoor” and found in favour of the landowners. The court of appeal held that it “unambiguously included a right to camp” and allowed the Dartmoor National Park Authority’s appeal. “The appeal to the supreme court will determine once and for all this important issue, namely whether members of the public enjoy a right to camp on the Dartmoor commons,” it said. “The supreme court will be asked to consider a number of principles applicable to statutory interpretation which will be of interest to practitioners. In particular, it will be invited to consider whether the court of appeal took sufficient account of admissible ‘background’ materials (i) in identifying the ‘mischief’ at which the legislation was aimed and (ii) in considering whether the statutory language was ambiguous.” Explore more on these topics Access to green space Devon Land rights Rural affairs Walking Protest England news Share Reuse this content The right to wild camp on Dartmoor could be under threat again after the supreme court granted permission for a wealthy landowner to bring a case against it. Last year, the Dartmoor National Park Authority won an appeal against a decision to ban wild camping on the moors. Camping had been assumed to be allowed under the Dartmoor Commons Act since 1985, until a judge ruled otherwise last January. It was the only place in England that such an activity was allowed without requiring permission from a landowner. The case hinged on whether wild camping counted as open-air recreation, leading to a long debate in the court of appeal. Lawyers acting for Alexander Darwall, the landowner, argued it was not, because when camping one was only sleeping rather than enjoying a particular activity. After the court of appeal decision, lawyers acting for Darwall, a hedge funder and Dartmoor’s sixth-largest landowner, asked the supreme court to hear the case. Darwall bought the 1,619-hectare (4,000-acre) Blachford estate on southern Dartmoor in 2013. He offers pheasant shoots, deerstalking and holiday rentals on his land. His attempts to ban wild campers from using his estate without his permission sparked a large protest movement, with thousands going to Dartmoor to assert their right to camp. It awakened a land rights debate in the UK, with the Labour party weighing in. The party previously said it would legislate for a right to wild camp in all national parks. However, it since appears to have U-turned on its land rights policy . Lewis Winks, from the Stars Are For Everyone campaign, said: “The loss of our cherished right to sleep under the stars on Dartmoor ignited a passionate and broad movement for greater land rights in England . This news is confirmation that reform is both needed and inevitable, and will act as a clarion call to all those who wish for generations to come to enjoy these fundamental freedoms. “As ever, the right to wild camp is emblematic of the fragility of our wider rights in the English countryside, and Darwall’s latest egregious move illustrates the need for greater legal protections for access to nature. “We hope that the court sees sense and returns a favourable verdict, enabling wild camping to continue on the commons of Dartmoor.” Darwall’s legal team at Landmark Chambers said that the high court held that the words in the act “unambiguously excluded a right to camp on Dartmoor” and found in favour of the landowners. The court of appeal held that it “unambiguously included a right to camp” and allowed the Dartmoor National Park Authority’s appeal. “The appeal to the supreme court will determine once and for all this important issue, namely whether members of the public enjoy a right to camp on the Dartmoor commons,” it said. “The supreme court will be asked to consider a number of principles applicable to statutory interpretation which will be of interest to practitioners. In particular, it will be invited to consider whether the court of appeal took sufficient account of admissible ‘background’ materials (i) in identifying the ‘mischief’ at which the legislation was aimed and (ii) in considering whether the statutory language was ambiguous.” The right to wild camp on Dartmoor could be under threat again after the supreme court granted permission for a wealthy landowner to bring a case against it. Last year, the Dartmoor National Park Authority won an appeal against a decision to ban wild camping on the moors. Camping had been assumed to be allowed under the Dartmoor Commons Act since 1985, until a judge ruled otherwise last January. It was the only place in England that such an activity was allowed without requiring permission from a landowner. The case hinged on whether wild camping counted as open-air recreation, leading to a long debate in the court of appeal. Lawyers acting for Alexander Darwall, the landowner, argued it was not, because when camping one was only sleeping rather than enjoying a particular activity. After the court of appeal decision, lawyers acting for Darwall, a hedge funder and Dartmoor’s sixth-largest landowner, asked the supreme court to hear the case. Darwall bought the 1,619-hectare (4,000-acre) Blachford estate on southern Dartmoor in 2013. He offers pheasant shoots, deerstalking and holiday rentals on his land. His attempts to ban wild campers from using his estate without his permission sparked a large protest movement, with thousands going to Dartmoor to assert their right to camp. It awakened a land rights debate in the UK, with the Labour party weighing in. The party previously said it would legislate for a right to wild camp in all national parks. However, it since appears to have U-turned on its land rights policy . Lewis Winks, from the Stars Are For Everyone campaign, said: “The loss of our cherished right to sleep under the stars on Dartmoor ignited a passionate and broad movement for greater land rights in England . This news is confirmation that reform is both needed and inevitable, and will act as a clarion call to all those who wish for generations to come to enjoy these fundamental freedoms. “As ever, the right to wild camp is emblematic of the fragility of our wider rights in the English countryside, and Darwall’s latest egregious move illustrates the need for greater legal protections for access to nature. “We hope that the court sees sense and returns a favourable verdict, enabling wild camping to continue on the commons of Dartmoor.” Darwall’s legal team at Landmark Chambers said that the high court held that the words in the act “unambiguously excluded a right to camp on Dartmoor” and found in favour of the landowners. The court of appeal held that it “unambiguously included a right to camp” and allowed the Dartmoor National Park Authority’s appeal. “The appeal to the supreme court will determine once and for all this important issue, namely whether members of the public enjoy a right to camp on the Dartmoor commons,” it said. “The supreme court will be asked to consider a number of principles applicable to statutory interpretation which will be of interest to practitioners. In particular, it will be invited to consider whether the court of appeal took sufficient account of admissible ‘background’ materials (i) in identifying the ‘mischief’ at which the legislation was aimed and (ii) in considering whether the statutory language was ambiguous.” The right to wild camp on Dartmoor could be under threat again after the supreme court granted permission for a wealthy landowner to bring a case against it. Last year, the Dartmoor National Park Authority won an appeal against a decision to ban wild camping on the moors. Camping had been assumed to be allowed under the Dartmoor Commons Act since 1985, until a judge ruled otherwise last January. It was the only place in England that such an activity was allowed without requiring permission from a landowner. The case hinged on whether wild camping counted as open-air recreation, leading to a long debate in the court of appeal. Lawyers acting for Alexander Darwall, the landowner, argued it was not, because when camping one was only sleeping rather than enjoying a particular activity. After the court of appeal decision, lawyers acting for Darwall, a hedge funder and Dartmoor’s sixth-largest landowner, asked the supreme court to hear the case. Darwall bought the 1,619-hectare (4,000-acre) Blachford estate on southern Dartmoor in 2013. He offers pheasant shoots, deerstalking and holiday rentals on his land. His attempts to ban wild campers from using his estate without his permission sparked a large protest movement, with thousands going to Dartmoor to assert their right to camp. It awakened a land rights debate in the UK, with the Labour party weighing in. The party previously said it would legislate for a right to wild camp in all national parks. However, it since appears to have U-turned on its land rights policy . Lewis Winks, from the Stars Are For Everyone campaign, said: “The loss of our cherished right to sleep under the stars on Dartmoor ignited a passionate and broad movement for greater land rights in England . This news is confirmation that reform is both needed and inevitable, and will act as a clarion call to all those who wish for generations to come to enjoy these fundamental freedoms. “As ever, the right to wild camp is emblematic of the fragility of our wider rights in the English countryside, and Darwall’s latest egregious move illustrates the need for greater legal protections for access to nature. “We hope that the court sees sense and returns a favourable verdict, enabling wild camping to continue on the commons of Dartmoor.” Darwall’s legal team at Landmark Chambers said that the high court held that the words in the act “unambiguously excluded a right to camp on Dartmoor” and found in favour of the landowners. The court of appeal held that it “unambiguously included a right to camp” and allowed the Dartmoor National Park Authority’s appeal. “The appeal to the supreme court will determine once and for all this important issue, namely whether members of the public enjoy a right to camp on the Dartmoor commons,” it said. “The supreme court will be asked to consider a number of principles applicable to statutory interpretation which will be of interest to practitioners. In particular, it will be invited to consider whether the court of appeal took sufficient account of admissible ‘background’ materials (i) in identifying the ‘mischief’ at which the legislation was aimed and (ii) in considering whether the statutory language was ambiguous.” Explore more on these topics Access to green space Devon Land rights Rural affairs Walking Protest England news Share Reuse this content Access to green space Devon Land rights Rural affairs Walking Protest England news
|
Israel shows ‘chilling’ intent to commit genocide in Gaza, South Africa tells UN court
2:01 World has failed Gaza in 'livestreamed genocide', South Africa's delegation says at ICJ – video This article is more than 1 year old Israel shows ‘chilling’ intent to commit genocide in Gaza, South Africa tells UN court This article is more than 1 year old Case opens in The Hague with judges shown pictures and video as evidence of alleged genocide Middle East crisis – latest news updates Israel has shown “chilling” and “incontrovertible” intent to commit genocide in Gaza, with full knowledge of how many civilians it is killing, the UN international court of justice in The Hague has heard, at the opening of a case Israel has described as baseless. South Africa, which has brought the case , alleged “grave violence and genocidal acts” by Israel, on the first morning of the two-day hearing amid a febrile atmosphere outside the court in The Hague. It called on the judges to order an immediate ceasefire. It said evidence of genocide was present in the number of civilians killed by Israel and also in statements made by its political and military leaders, including the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. In support of its case, it showed photos of Palestinian mass graves, Israeli flags adorning wreckage in Gaza and what it claimed were videos of Netanyahu expressing support for genocide, as well as troops – taking his cue, it alleged – chanting “no uninvolved citizens”. Stakes high as South Africa brings claim of genocidal intent against Israel Read more “Genocides are never declared in advance but this court has the benefit of the past 13 weeks of evidence that shows incontrovertibly, a pattern of conduct and related intention that justifies a plausible claim of genocidal acts,” the South African lawyer Adila Hassim told the court. Her colleague Tembeka Ngcukaitobi said there had been “reiteration and repetition of genocidal speech throughout every sphere of state in Israel” such that “the evidence of genocidal intent is not only chilling, it is also overwhelming and incontrovertible”. Israel, which has denied the allegations, will give its response on Friday. It has said it is waging war against Palestinian militants, not the Palestinian people. In a statement, Israel’s foreign ministry accused South Africa of rank hypocrisy, saying it had ignored “the fact that Hamas terrorists infiltrated Israel, murdered, executed, massacred, raped and kidnapped Israeli citizens, just because they were Israelis, in an attempt to carry out genocide”. A march including relatives of hostages held since Hamas’s 7 October attack on southern Israel, in which people, mainly Israeli civilians, were killed and 250 people taken hostage, arrived at the court just before proceedings began. Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel protesters were in separate areas but briefly came face-to-face and tried to drown out each other’s chants. Hassim said Israel had dropped 6,000 bombs a week in the first three weeks after 7 October, and had used 900kg (2,000lb) bombs – “some of the biggest and most destructive bombs available” – 200 times in southern areas of Gaza it had designated as safe. “Israel has killed an unparalleled and unprecedented number of civilians,” she said. “With the full knowledge of how many civilian lives each bomb will take. More than 1,800 Palestinian families in Gaza have lost multiple family members and hundreds of multi-generational families have been wiped out with no remaining survivors … This killing is nothing short of destruction of Palestinian life.” In addition to at least 23,570 people, mostly women and children, being killed during Israel’s offensive in Gaza, according to its health ministry, Hassim said the bodily and mental harm inflicted on Palestinians and the imposition of conditions intended to bring about destruction, were also evidence of genocide. She alleged the displacement of Palestinians, widespread dehydration and starvation and an assault on the healthcare system. ICJ case against Israel could finally empower the genocide convention Read more The Arab League voiced its support for the South African case on the eve of the hearing, following in the footsteps of the 57-member state Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Among the individuals in court to back South Africa were the three-time French presidential candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and the former leader of the UK Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn. They were cheered as they joined the South African justice minister, Ronald Lamola, who was greeted by cries of “Thank you, South Africa” when he addressed the pro-Palestinian crowd outside the court after the hearing. Vaughan Lowe KC, part of the South African legal team, said: “Nothing can ever justify genocide no matter what some individuals within the group of Palestinians in Gaza may have done, no matter how great a threat to Israeli citizens might be, genocidal attacks on the whole of Gaza and the whole of its population with the intent of destroying them cannot be justified.” Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC said the international community had “repeatedly failed” people in Rwanda and Bosnia and Rohingya people in Myanmar. Ní Ghrálaigh told the court the world should be horrified, adding: “Some might say that the very reputation of international law, its ability and willingness to bind and to protect all people equally, hangs in the balance.” In a furious response hours after the close of the first day’s proceedings, Netanyahu said: “We are fighting terrorists, we are fighting lies. Today we saw an upside down world. Israel is accused of genocide while it is fighting against genocide.” He vowed Israel would maintain the right to defend itself until it had achieved “total victory”. If South Africa is successful, it wants Israel to report to the court within a week how it will comply with the provisional measures and then regularly thereafter. It is entitled to take Israel to the ICJ by virtue of being a fellow signatory to the genocide convention. Unlike the international criminal court, which is also investigating alleged war crimes by Hamas and Israel, the ICJ only tries states, not individuals. Its cases can take years to resolve but South Africa’s request for provisional – or interim – measures means the 17 judges, including one from each side, will seek to reach a decision as soon as possible. Additionally, they need only decide whether at least some of the alleged acts are capable of falling within the provisions of the 1948 genocide convention – enacted in the wake of the mass murder of Jews in the Holocaust – not that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide. The convention defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. The court’s rulings are final and cannot be appealed, but it has no enforcement powers and countries do not always follow the court’s verdicts; the ICJ has ordered Russia to stop its invasion of Ukraine, for example. An adverse ruling for Israel would nevertheless increase political pressure on the country, with many speculating it could serve as a rationale for sanctions. Explore more on these topics Israel-Gaza war International court of justice Israel Hamas Palestine Middle East and north Africa news Share Reuse this content 2:01 World has failed Gaza in 'livestreamed genocide', South Africa's delegation says at ICJ – video This article is more than 1 year old Israel shows ‘chilling’ intent to commit genocide in Gaza, South Africa tells UN court This article is more than 1 year old Case opens in The Hague with judges shown pictures and video as evidence of alleged genocide Middle East crisis – latest news updates Israel has shown “chilling” and “incontrovertible” intent to commit genocide in Gaza, with full knowledge of how many civilians it is killing, the UN international court of justice in The Hague has heard, at the opening of a case Israel has described as baseless. South Africa, which has brought the case , alleged “grave violence and genocidal acts” by Israel, on the first morning of the two-day hearing amid a febrile atmosphere outside the court in The Hague. It called on the judges to order an immediate ceasefire. It said evidence of genocide was present in the number of civilians killed by Israel and also in statements made by its political and military leaders, including the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. In support of its case, it showed photos of Palestinian mass graves, Israeli flags adorning wreckage in Gaza and what it claimed were videos of Netanyahu expressing support for genocide, as well as troops – taking his cue, it alleged – chanting “no uninvolved citizens”. Stakes high as South Africa brings claim of genocidal intent against Israel Read more “Genocides are never declared in advance but this court has the benefit of the past 13 weeks of evidence that shows incontrovertibly, a pattern of conduct and related intention that justifies a plausible claim of genocidal acts,” the South African lawyer Adila Hassim told the court. Her colleague Tembeka Ngcukaitobi said there had been “reiteration and repetition of genocidal speech throughout every sphere of state in Israel” such that “the evidence of genocidal intent is not only chilling, it is also overwhelming and incontrovertible”. Israel, which has denied the allegations, will give its response on Friday. It has said it is waging war against Palestinian militants, not the Palestinian people. In a statement, Israel’s foreign ministry accused South Africa of rank hypocrisy, saying it had ignored “the fact that Hamas terrorists infiltrated Israel, murdered, executed, massacred, raped and kidnapped Israeli citizens, just because they were Israelis, in an attempt to carry out genocide”. A march including relatives of hostages held since Hamas’s 7 October attack on southern Israel, in which people, mainly Israeli civilians, were killed and 250 people taken hostage, arrived at the court just before proceedings began. Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel protesters were in separate areas but briefly came face-to-face and tried to drown out each other’s chants. Hassim said Israel had dropped 6,000 bombs a week in the first three weeks after 7 October, and had used 900kg (2,000lb) bombs – “some of the biggest and most destructive bombs available” – 200 times in southern areas of Gaza it had designated as safe. “Israel has killed an unparalleled and unprecedented number of civilians,” she said. “With the full knowledge of how many civilian lives each bomb will take. More than 1,800 Palestinian families in Gaza have lost multiple family members and hundreds of multi-generational families have been wiped out with no remaining survivors … This killing is nothing short of destruction of Palestinian life.” In addition to at least 23,570 people, mostly women and children, being killed during Israel’s offensive in Gaza, according to its health ministry, Hassim said the bodily and mental harm inflicted on Palestinians and the imposition of conditions intended to bring about destruction, were also evidence of genocide. She alleged the displacement of Palestinians, widespread dehydration and starvation and an assault on the healthcare system. ICJ case against Israel could finally empower the genocide convention Read more The Arab League voiced its support for the South African case on the eve of the hearing, following in the footsteps of the 57-member state Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Among the individuals in court to back South Africa were the three-time French presidential candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and the former leader of the UK Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn. They were cheered as they joined the South African justice minister, Ronald Lamola, who was greeted by cries of “Thank you, South Africa” when he addressed the pro-Palestinian crowd outside the court after the hearing. Vaughan Lowe KC, part of the South African legal team, said: “Nothing can ever justify genocide no matter what some individuals within the group of Palestinians in Gaza may have done, no matter how great a threat to Israeli citizens might be, genocidal attacks on the whole of Gaza and the whole of its population with the intent of destroying them cannot be justified.” Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC said the international community had “repeatedly failed” people in Rwanda and Bosnia and Rohingya people in Myanmar. Ní Ghrálaigh told the court the world should be horrified, adding: “Some might say that the very reputation of international law, its ability and willingness to bind and to protect all people equally, hangs in the balance.” In a furious response hours after the close of the first day’s proceedings, Netanyahu said: “We are fighting terrorists, we are fighting lies. Today we saw an upside down world. Israel is accused of genocide while it is fighting against genocide.” He vowed Israel would maintain the right to defend itself until it had achieved “total victory”. If South Africa is successful, it wants Israel to report to the court within a week how it will comply with the provisional measures and then regularly thereafter. It is entitled to take Israel to the ICJ by virtue of being a fellow signatory to the genocide convention. Unlike the international criminal court, which is also investigating alleged war crimes by Hamas and Israel, the ICJ only tries states, not individuals. Its cases can take years to resolve but South Africa’s request for provisional – or interim – measures means the 17 judges, including one from each side, will seek to reach a decision as soon as possible. Additionally, they need only decide whether at least some of the alleged acts are capable of falling within the provisions of the 1948 genocide convention – enacted in the wake of the mass murder of Jews in the Holocaust – not that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide. The convention defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. The court’s rulings are final and cannot be appealed, but it has no enforcement powers and countries do not always follow the court’s verdicts; the ICJ has ordered Russia to stop its invasion of Ukraine, for example. An adverse ruling for Israel would nevertheless increase political pressure on the country, with many speculating it could serve as a rationale for sanctions. Explore more on these topics Israel-Gaza war International court of justice Israel Hamas Palestine Middle East and north Africa news Share Reuse this content 2:01 World has failed Gaza in 'livestreamed genocide', South Africa's delegation says at ICJ – video 2:01 World has failed Gaza in 'livestreamed genocide', South Africa's delegation says at ICJ – video 2:01 World has failed Gaza in 'livestreamed genocide', South Africa's delegation says at ICJ – video 2:01 World has failed Gaza in 'livestreamed genocide', South Africa's delegation says at ICJ – video This article is more than 1 year old Israel shows ‘chilling’ intent to commit genocide in Gaza, South Africa tells UN court This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Israel shows ‘chilling’ intent to commit genocide in Gaza, South Africa tells UN court This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Israel shows ‘chilling’ intent to commit genocide in Gaza, South Africa tells UN court 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 Case opens in The Hague with judges shown pictures and video as evidence of alleged genocide Middle East crisis – latest news updates Case opens in The Hague with judges shown pictures and video as evidence of alleged genocide Middle East crisis – latest news updates Case opens in The Hague with judges shown pictures and video as evidence of alleged genocide Israel has shown “chilling” and “incontrovertible” intent to commit genocide in Gaza, with full knowledge of how many civilians it is killing, the UN international court of justice in The Hague has heard, at the opening of a case Israel has described as baseless. South Africa, which has brought the case , alleged “grave violence and genocidal acts” by Israel, on the first morning of the two-day hearing amid a febrile atmosphere outside the court in The Hague. It called on the judges to order an immediate ceasefire. It said evidence of genocide was present in the number of civilians killed by Israel and also in statements made by its political and military leaders, including the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. In support of its case, it showed photos of Palestinian mass graves, Israeli flags adorning wreckage in Gaza and what it claimed were videos of Netanyahu expressing support for genocide, as well as troops – taking his cue, it alleged – chanting “no uninvolved citizens”. Stakes high as South Africa brings claim of genocidal intent against Israel Read more “Genocides are never declared in advance but this court has the benefit of the past 13 weeks of evidence that shows incontrovertibly, a pattern of conduct and related intention that justifies a plausible claim of genocidal acts,” the South African lawyer Adila Hassim told the court. Her colleague Tembeka Ngcukaitobi said there had been “reiteration and repetition of genocidal speech throughout every sphere of state in Israel” such that “the evidence of genocidal intent is not only chilling, it is also overwhelming and incontrovertible”. Israel, which has denied the allegations, will give its response on Friday. It has said it is waging war against Palestinian militants, not the Palestinian people. In a statement, Israel’s foreign ministry accused South Africa of rank hypocrisy, saying it had ignored “the fact that Hamas terrorists infiltrated Israel, murdered, executed, massacred, raped and kidnapped Israeli citizens, just because they were Israelis, in an attempt to carry out genocide”. A march including relatives of hostages held since Hamas’s 7 October attack on southern Israel, in which people, mainly Israeli civilians, were killed and 250 people taken hostage, arrived at the court just before proceedings began. Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel protesters were in separate areas but briefly came face-to-face and tried to drown out each other’s chants. Hassim said Israel had dropped 6,000 bombs a week in the first three weeks after 7 October, and had used 900kg (2,000lb) bombs – “some of the biggest and most destructive bombs available” – 200 times in southern areas of Gaza it had designated as safe. “Israel has killed an unparalleled and unprecedented number of civilians,” she said. “With the full knowledge of how many civilian lives each bomb will take. More than 1,800 Palestinian families in Gaza have lost multiple family members and hundreds of multi-generational families have been wiped out with no remaining survivors … This killing is nothing short of destruction of Palestinian life.” In addition to at least 23,570 people, mostly women and children, being killed during Israel’s offensive in Gaza, according to its health ministry, Hassim said the bodily and mental harm inflicted on Palestinians and the imposition of conditions intended to bring about destruction, were also evidence of genocide. She alleged the displacement of Palestinians, widespread dehydration and starvation and an assault on the healthcare system. ICJ case against Israel could finally empower the genocide convention Read more The Arab League voiced its support for the South African case on the eve of the hearing, following in the footsteps of the 57-member state Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Among the individuals in court to back South Africa were the three-time French presidential candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and the former leader of the UK Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn. They were cheered as they joined the South African justice minister, Ronald Lamola, who was greeted by cries of “Thank you, South Africa” when he addressed the pro-Palestinian crowd outside the court after the hearing. Vaughan Lowe KC, part of the South African legal team, said: “Nothing can ever justify genocide no matter what some individuals within the group of Palestinians in Gaza may have done, no matter how great a threat to Israeli citizens might be, genocidal attacks on the whole of Gaza and the whole of its population with the intent of destroying them cannot be justified.” Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC said the international community had “repeatedly failed” people in Rwanda and Bosnia and Rohingya people in Myanmar. Ní Ghrálaigh told the court the world should be horrified, adding: “Some might say that the very reputation of international law, its ability and willingness to bind and to protect all people equally, hangs in the balance.” In a furious response hours after the close of the first day’s proceedings, Netanyahu said: “We are fighting terrorists, we are fighting lies. Today we saw an upside down world. Israel is accused of genocide while it is fighting against genocide.” He vowed Israel would maintain the right to defend itself until it had achieved “total victory”. If South Africa is successful, it wants Israel to report to the court within a week how it will comply with the provisional measures and then regularly thereafter. It is entitled to take Israel to the ICJ by virtue of being a fellow signatory to the genocide convention. Unlike the international criminal court, which is also investigating alleged war crimes by Hamas and Israel, the ICJ only tries states, not individuals. Its cases can take years to resolve but South Africa’s request for provisional – or interim – measures means the 17 judges, including one from each side, will seek to reach a decision as soon as possible. Additionally, they need only decide whether at least some of the alleged acts are capable of falling within the provisions of the 1948 genocide convention – enacted in the wake of the mass murder of Jews in the Holocaust – not that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide. The convention defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. The court’s rulings are final and cannot be appealed, but it has no enforcement powers and countries do not always follow the court’s verdicts; the ICJ has ordered Russia to stop its invasion of Ukraine, for example. An adverse ruling for Israel would nevertheless increase political pressure on the country, with many speculating it could serve as a rationale for sanctions. Explore more on these topics Israel-Gaza war International court of justice Israel Hamas Palestine Middle East and north Africa news Share Reuse this content Israel has shown “chilling” and “incontrovertible” intent to commit genocide in Gaza, with full knowledge of how many civilians it is killing, the UN international court of justice in The Hague has heard, at the opening of a case Israel has described as baseless. South Africa, which has brought the case , alleged “grave violence and genocidal acts” by Israel, on the first morning of the two-day hearing amid a febrile atmosphere outside the court in The Hague. It called on the judges to order an immediate ceasefire. It said evidence of genocide was present in the number of civilians killed by Israel and also in statements made by its political and military leaders, including the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. In support of its case, it showed photos of Palestinian mass graves, Israeli flags adorning wreckage in Gaza and what it claimed were videos of Netanyahu expressing support for genocide, as well as troops – taking his cue, it alleged – chanting “no uninvolved citizens”. Stakes high as South Africa brings claim of genocidal intent against Israel Read more “Genocides are never declared in advance but this court has the benefit of the past 13 weeks of evidence that shows incontrovertibly, a pattern of conduct and related intention that justifies a plausible claim of genocidal acts,” the South African lawyer Adila Hassim told the court. Her colleague Tembeka Ngcukaitobi said there had been “reiteration and repetition of genocidal speech throughout every sphere of state in Israel” such that “the evidence of genocidal intent is not only chilling, it is also overwhelming and incontrovertible”. Israel, which has denied the allegations, will give its response on Friday. It has said it is waging war against Palestinian militants, not the Palestinian people. In a statement, Israel’s foreign ministry accused South Africa of rank hypocrisy, saying it had ignored “the fact that Hamas terrorists infiltrated Israel, murdered, executed, massacred, raped and kidnapped Israeli citizens, just because they were Israelis, in an attempt to carry out genocide”. A march including relatives of hostages held since Hamas’s 7 October attack on southern Israel, in which people, mainly Israeli civilians, were killed and 250 people taken hostage, arrived at the court just before proceedings began. Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel protesters were in separate areas but briefly came face-to-face and tried to drown out each other’s chants. Hassim said Israel had dropped 6,000 bombs a week in the first three weeks after 7 October, and had used 900kg (2,000lb) bombs – “some of the biggest and most destructive bombs available” – 200 times in southern areas of Gaza it had designated as safe. “Israel has killed an unparalleled and unprecedented number of civilians,” she said. “With the full knowledge of how many civilian lives each bomb will take. More than 1,800 Palestinian families in Gaza have lost multiple family members and hundreds of multi-generational families have been wiped out with no remaining survivors … This killing is nothing short of destruction of Palestinian life.” In addition to at least 23,570 people, mostly women and children, being killed during Israel’s offensive in Gaza, according to its health ministry, Hassim said the bodily and mental harm inflicted on Palestinians and the imposition of conditions intended to bring about destruction, were also evidence of genocide. She alleged the displacement of Palestinians, widespread dehydration and starvation and an assault on the healthcare system. ICJ case against Israel could finally empower the genocide convention Read more The Arab League voiced its support for the South African case on the eve of the hearing, following in the footsteps of the 57-member state Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Among the individuals in court to back South Africa were the three-time French presidential candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and the former leader of the UK Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn. They were cheered as they joined the South African justice minister, Ronald Lamola, who was greeted by cries of “Thank you, South Africa” when he addressed the pro-Palestinian crowd outside the court after the hearing. Vaughan Lowe KC, part of the South African legal team, said: “Nothing can ever justify genocide no matter what some individuals within the group of Palestinians in Gaza may have done, no matter how great a threat to Israeli citizens might be, genocidal attacks on the whole of Gaza and the whole of its population with the intent of destroying them cannot be justified.” Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC said the international community had “repeatedly failed” people in Rwanda and Bosnia and Rohingya people in Myanmar. Ní Ghrálaigh told the court the world should be horrified, adding: “Some might say that the very reputation of international law, its ability and willingness to bind and to protect all people equally, hangs in the balance.” In a furious response hours after the close of the first day’s proceedings, Netanyahu said: “We are fighting terrorists, we are fighting lies. Today we saw an upside down world. Israel is accused of genocide while it is fighting against genocide.” He vowed Israel would maintain the right to defend itself until it had achieved “total victory”. If South Africa is successful, it wants Israel to report to the court within a week how it will comply with the provisional measures and then regularly thereafter. It is entitled to take Israel to the ICJ by virtue of being a fellow signatory to the genocide convention. Unlike the international criminal court, which is also investigating alleged war crimes by Hamas and Israel, the ICJ only tries states, not individuals. Its cases can take years to resolve but South Africa’s request for provisional – or interim – measures means the 17 judges, including one from each side, will seek to reach a decision as soon as possible. Additionally, they need only decide whether at least some of the alleged acts are capable of falling within the provisions of the 1948 genocide convention – enacted in the wake of the mass murder of Jews in the Holocaust – not that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide. The convention defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. The court’s rulings are final and cannot be appealed, but it has no enforcement powers and countries do not always follow the court’s verdicts; the ICJ has ordered Russia to stop its invasion of Ukraine, for example. An adverse ruling for Israel would nevertheless increase political pressure on the country, with many speculating it could serve as a rationale for sanctions. Explore more on these topics Israel-Gaza war International court of justice Israel Hamas Palestine Middle East and north Africa news Share Reuse this content Israel has shown “chilling” and “incontrovertible” intent to commit genocide in Gaza, with full knowledge of how many civilians it is killing, the UN international court of justice in The Hague has heard, at the opening of a case Israel has described as baseless. South Africa, which has brought the case , alleged “grave violence and genocidal acts” by Israel, on the first morning of the two-day hearing amid a febrile atmosphere outside the court in The Hague. It called on the judges to order an immediate ceasefire. It said evidence of genocide was present in the number of civilians killed by Israel and also in statements made by its political and military leaders, including the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. In support of its case, it showed photos of Palestinian mass graves, Israeli flags adorning wreckage in Gaza and what it claimed were videos of Netanyahu expressing support for genocide, as well as troops – taking his cue, it alleged – chanting “no uninvolved citizens”. Stakes high as South Africa brings claim of genocidal intent against Israel Read more “Genocides are never declared in advance but this court has the benefit of the past 13 weeks of evidence that shows incontrovertibly, a pattern of conduct and related intention that justifies a plausible claim of genocidal acts,” the South African lawyer Adila Hassim told the court. Her colleague Tembeka Ngcukaitobi said there had been “reiteration and repetition of genocidal speech throughout every sphere of state in Israel” such that “the evidence of genocidal intent is not only chilling, it is also overwhelming and incontrovertible”. Israel, which has denied the allegations, will give its response on Friday. It has said it is waging war against Palestinian militants, not the Palestinian people. In a statement, Israel’s foreign ministry accused South Africa of rank hypocrisy, saying it had ignored “the fact that Hamas terrorists infiltrated Israel, murdered, executed, massacred, raped and kidnapped Israeli citizens, just because they were Israelis, in an attempt to carry out genocide”. A march including relatives of hostages held since Hamas’s 7 October attack on southern Israel, in which people, mainly Israeli civilians, were killed and 250 people taken hostage, arrived at the court just before proceedings began. Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel protesters were in separate areas but briefly came face-to-face and tried to drown out each other’s chants. Hassim said Israel had dropped 6,000 bombs a week in the first three weeks after 7 October, and had used 900kg (2,000lb) bombs – “some of the biggest and most destructive bombs available” – 200 times in southern areas of Gaza it had designated as safe. “Israel has killed an unparalleled and unprecedented number of civilians,” she said. “With the full knowledge of how many civilian lives each bomb will take. More than 1,800 Palestinian families in Gaza have lost multiple family members and hundreds of multi-generational families have been wiped out with no remaining survivors … This killing is nothing short of destruction of Palestinian life.” In addition to at least 23,570 people, mostly women and children, being killed during Israel’s offensive in Gaza, according to its health ministry, Hassim said the bodily and mental harm inflicted on Palestinians and the imposition of conditions intended to bring about destruction, were also evidence of genocide. She alleged the displacement of Palestinians, widespread dehydration and starvation and an assault on the healthcare system. ICJ case against Israel could finally empower the genocide convention Read more The Arab League voiced its support for the South African case on the eve of the hearing, following in the footsteps of the 57-member state Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Among the individuals in court to back South Africa were the three-time French presidential candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and the former leader of the UK Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn. They were cheered as they joined the South African justice minister, Ronald Lamola, who was greeted by cries of “Thank you, South Africa” when he addressed the pro-Palestinian crowd outside the court after the hearing. Vaughan Lowe KC, part of the South African legal team, said: “Nothing can ever justify genocide no matter what some individuals within the group of Palestinians in Gaza may have done, no matter how great a threat to Israeli citizens might be, genocidal attacks on the whole of Gaza and the whole of its population with the intent of destroying them cannot be justified.” Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC said the international community had “repeatedly failed” people in Rwanda and Bosnia and Rohingya people in Myanmar. Ní Ghrálaigh told the court the world should be horrified, adding: “Some might say that the very reputation of international law, its ability and willingness to bind and to protect all people equally, hangs in the balance.” In a furious response hours after the close of the first day’s proceedings, Netanyahu said: “We are fighting terrorists, we are fighting lies. Today we saw an upside down world. Israel is accused of genocide while it is fighting against genocide.” He vowed Israel would maintain the right to defend itself until it had achieved “total victory”. If South Africa is successful, it wants Israel to report to the court within a week how it will comply with the provisional measures and then regularly thereafter. It is entitled to take Israel to the ICJ by virtue of being a fellow signatory to the genocide convention. Unlike the international criminal court, which is also investigating alleged war crimes by Hamas and Israel, the ICJ only tries states, not individuals. Its cases can take years to resolve but South Africa’s request for provisional – or interim – measures means the 17 judges, including one from each side, will seek to reach a decision as soon as possible. Additionally, they need only decide whether at least some of the alleged acts are capable of falling within the provisions of the 1948 genocide convention – enacted in the wake of the mass murder of Jews in the Holocaust – not that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide. The convention defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. The court’s rulings are final and cannot be appealed, but it has no enforcement powers and countries do not always follow the court’s verdicts; the ICJ has ordered Russia to stop its invasion of Ukraine, for example. An adverse ruling for Israel would nevertheless increase political pressure on the country, with many speculating it could serve as a rationale for sanctions. Israel has shown “chilling” and “incontrovertible” intent to commit genocide in Gaza, with full knowledge of how many civilians it is killing, the UN international court of justice in The Hague has heard, at the opening of a case Israel has described as baseless. South Africa, which has brought the case , alleged “grave violence and genocidal acts” by Israel, on the first morning of the two-day hearing amid a febrile atmosphere outside the court in The Hague. It called on the judges to order an immediate ceasefire. It said evidence of genocide was present in the number of civilians killed by Israel and also in statements made by its political and military leaders, including the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. In support of its case, it showed photos of Palestinian mass graves, Israeli flags adorning wreckage in Gaza and what it claimed were videos of Netanyahu expressing support for genocide, as well as troops – taking his cue, it alleged – chanting “no uninvolved citizens”. Stakes high as South Africa brings claim of genocidal intent against Israel Read more “Genocides are never declared in advance but this court has the benefit of the past 13 weeks of evidence that shows incontrovertibly, a pattern of conduct and related intention that justifies a plausible claim of genocidal acts,” the South African lawyer Adila Hassim told the court. Her colleague Tembeka Ngcukaitobi said there had been “reiteration and repetition of genocidal speech throughout every sphere of state in Israel” such that “the evidence of genocidal intent is not only chilling, it is also overwhelming and incontrovertible”. Israel, which has denied the allegations, will give its response on Friday. It has said it is waging war against Palestinian militants, not the Palestinian people. In a statement, Israel’s foreign ministry accused South Africa of rank hypocrisy, saying it had ignored “the fact that Hamas terrorists infiltrated Israel, murdered, executed, massacred, raped and kidnapped Israeli citizens, just because they were Israelis, in an attempt to carry out genocide”. A march including relatives of hostages held since Hamas’s 7 October attack on southern Israel, in which people, mainly Israeli civilians, were killed and 250 people taken hostage, arrived at the court just before proceedings began. Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel protesters were in separate areas but briefly came face-to-face and tried to drown out each other’s chants. Hassim said Israel had dropped 6,000 bombs a week in the first three weeks after 7 October, and had used 900kg (2,000lb) bombs – “some of the biggest and most destructive bombs available” – 200 times in southern areas of Gaza it had designated as safe. “Israel has killed an unparalleled and unprecedented number of civilians,” she said. “With the full knowledge of how many civilian lives each bomb will take. More than 1,800 Palestinian families in Gaza have lost multiple family members and hundreds of multi-generational families have been wiped out with no remaining survivors … This killing is nothing short of destruction of Palestinian life.” In addition to at least 23,570 people, mostly women and children, being killed during Israel’s offensive in Gaza, according to its health ministry, Hassim said the bodily and mental harm inflicted on Palestinians and the imposition of conditions intended to bring about destruction, were also evidence of genocide. She alleged the displacement of Palestinians, widespread dehydration and starvation and an assault on the healthcare system. ICJ case against Israel could finally empower the genocide convention Read more The Arab League voiced its support for the South African case on the eve of the hearing, following in the footsteps of the 57-member state Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Among the individuals in court to back South Africa were the three-time French presidential candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and the former leader of the UK Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn. They were cheered as they joined the South African justice minister, Ronald Lamola, who was greeted by cries of “Thank you, South Africa” when he addressed the pro-Palestinian crowd outside the court after the hearing. Vaughan Lowe KC, part of the South African legal team, said: “Nothing can ever justify genocide no matter what some individuals within the group of Palestinians in Gaza may have done, no matter how great a threat to Israeli citizens might be, genocidal attacks on the whole of Gaza and the whole of its population with the intent of destroying them cannot be justified.” Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC said the international community had “repeatedly failed” people in Rwanda and Bosnia and Rohingya people in Myanmar. Ní Ghrálaigh told the court the world should be horrified, adding: “Some might say that the very reputation of international law, its ability and willingness to bind and to protect all people equally, hangs in the balance.” In a furious response hours after the close of the first day’s proceedings, Netanyahu said: “We are fighting terrorists, we are fighting lies. Today we saw an upside down world. Israel is accused of genocide while it is fighting against genocide.” He vowed Israel would maintain the right to defend itself until it had achieved “total victory”. If South Africa is successful, it wants Israel to report to the court within a week how it will comply with the provisional measures and then regularly thereafter. It is entitled to take Israel to the ICJ by virtue of being a fellow signatory to the genocide convention. Unlike the international criminal court, which is also investigating alleged war crimes by Hamas and Israel, the ICJ only tries states, not individuals. Its cases can take years to resolve but South Africa’s request for provisional – or interim – measures means the 17 judges, including one from each side, will seek to reach a decision as soon as possible. Additionally, they need only decide whether at least some of the alleged acts are capable of falling within the provisions of the 1948 genocide convention – enacted in the wake of the mass murder of Jews in the Holocaust – not that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide. The convention defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. The court’s rulings are final and cannot be appealed, but it has no enforcement powers and countries do not always follow the court’s verdicts; the ICJ has ordered Russia to stop its invasion of Ukraine, for example. An adverse ruling for Israel would nevertheless increase political pressure on the country, with many speculating it could serve as a rationale for sanctions. Israel has shown “chilling” and “incontrovertible” intent to commit genocide in Gaza, with full knowledge of how many civilians it is killing, the UN international court of justice in The Hague has heard, at the opening of a case Israel has described as baseless. South Africa, which has brought the case , alleged “grave violence and genocidal acts” by Israel, on the first morning of the two-day hearing amid a febrile atmosphere outside the court in The Hague. It called on the judges to order an immediate ceasefire. It said evidence of genocide was present in the number of civilians killed by Israel and also in statements made by its political and military leaders, including the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. In support of its case, it showed photos of Palestinian mass graves, Israeli flags adorning wreckage in Gaza and what it claimed were videos of Netanyahu expressing support for genocide, as well as troops – taking his cue, it alleged – chanting “no uninvolved citizens”. Stakes high as South Africa brings claim of genocidal intent against Israel Read more Stakes high as South Africa brings claim of genocidal intent against Israel Read more Stakes high as South Africa brings claim of genocidal intent against Israel Read more Stakes high as South Africa brings claim of genocidal intent against Israel Stakes high as South Africa brings claim of genocidal intent against Israel “Genocides are never declared in advance but this court has the benefit of the past 13 weeks of evidence that shows incontrovertibly, a pattern of conduct and related intention that justifies a plausible claim of genocidal acts,” the South African lawyer Adila Hassim told the court. Her colleague Tembeka Ngcukaitobi said there had been “reiteration and repetition of genocidal speech throughout every sphere of state in Israel” such that “the evidence of genocidal intent is not only chilling, it is also overwhelming and incontrovertible”. Israel, which has denied the allegations, will give its response on Friday. It has said it is waging war against Palestinian militants, not the Palestinian people. In a statement, Israel’s foreign ministry accused South Africa of rank hypocrisy, saying it had ignored “the fact that Hamas terrorists infiltrated Israel, murdered, executed, massacred, raped and kidnapped Israeli citizens, just because they were Israelis, in an attempt to carry out genocide”. A march including relatives of hostages held since Hamas’s 7 October attack on southern Israel, in which people, mainly Israeli civilians, were killed and 250 people taken hostage, arrived at the court just before proceedings began. Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel protesters were in separate areas but briefly came face-to-face and tried to drown out each other’s chants. Hassim said Israel had dropped 6,000 bombs a week in the first three weeks after 7 October, and had used 900kg (2,000lb) bombs – “some of the biggest and most destructive bombs available” – 200 times in southern areas of Gaza it had designated as safe. “Israel has killed an unparalleled and unprecedented number of civilians,” she said. “With the full knowledge of how many civilian lives each bomb will take. More than 1,800 Palestinian families in Gaza have lost multiple family members and hundreds of multi-generational families have been wiped out with no remaining survivors … This killing is nothing short of destruction of Palestinian life.” In addition to at least 23,570 people, mostly women and children, being killed during Israel’s offensive in Gaza, according to its health ministry, Hassim said the bodily and mental harm inflicted on Palestinians and the imposition of conditions intended to bring about destruction, were also evidence of genocide. She alleged the displacement of Palestinians, widespread dehydration and starvation and an assault on the healthcare system. ICJ case against Israel could finally empower the genocide convention Read more ICJ case against Israel could finally empower the genocide convention Read more ICJ case against Israel could finally empower the genocide convention Read more ICJ case against Israel could finally empower the genocide convention ICJ case against Israel could finally empower the genocide convention The Arab League voiced its support for the South African case on the eve of the hearing, following in the footsteps of the 57-member state Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Among the individuals in court to back South Africa were the three-time French presidential candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and the former leader of the UK Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn. They were cheered as they joined the South African justice minister, Ronald Lamola, who was greeted by cries of “Thank you, South Africa” when he addressed the pro-Palestinian crowd outside the court after the hearing. Vaughan Lowe KC, part of the South African legal team, said: “Nothing can ever justify genocide no matter what some individuals within the group of Palestinians in Gaza may have done, no matter how great a threat to Israeli citizens might be, genocidal attacks on the whole of Gaza and the whole of its population with the intent of destroying them cannot be justified.” Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC said the international community had “repeatedly failed” people in Rwanda and Bosnia and Rohingya people in Myanmar. Ní Ghrálaigh told the court the world should be horrified, adding: “Some might say that the very reputation of international law, its ability and willingness to bind and to protect all people equally, hangs in the balance.” In a furious response hours after the close of the first day’s proceedings, Netanyahu said: “We are fighting terrorists, we are fighting lies. Today we saw an upside down world. Israel is accused of genocide while it is fighting against genocide.” He vowed Israel would maintain the right to defend itself until it had achieved “total victory”. If South Africa is successful, it wants Israel to report to the court wi
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
University of York to accept some overseas students with lower grades
Central Hall at the University of York. British universities increasingly rely on income from lucrative international student fees. Photograph: Andrew Briggs/Alamy View image in fullscreen Central Hall at the University of York. British universities increasingly rely on income from lucrative international student fees. Photograph: Andrew Briggs/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old University of York to accept some overseas students with lower grades This article is more than 1 year old Staff told to take ‘more flexible approach’ in move university says will bring rules into line with those for UK offer-holders The University of York has told staff to take a “more flexible approach” to admitting overseas students with lower-than-expected grades, in the latest sign that UK higher education is facing severe recruitment and financial pressures. Staff at the Russell Group university were told: “In response to the current financial challenges, the university has decided to lower its tariff for all departments and programmes for overseas applicants,” according to an email reported by the Financial Times . While York maintains that a typical offer for undergraduate applicants requires A grades at A-level, the university will now admit some international applicants as undergraduates with the equivalent of B or C at A-level, while entry to postgraduate courses would require a 2:2 award or similar, rather than a 2:1. Sustained rift with China would harm UK universities, report warns Read more A spokesperson for York said the move would bring international student admissions into line with the approach it used for UK students. British universities increasingly rely on income from lucrative international student fees, with universities in England having seen tuition fees frozen for domestic students since 2016, and those in Scotland facing cuts in national government funding. Meanwhile, the UK government is looking to reduce the number of visas issued to international students as a way of cutting immigration. This year it has removed the ability for many overseas students to be accompanied by family members. A spokesperson for the University of York said: “The university has not lowered its entry grades for international students and they remain as advertised. “The change in ‘tariff’ refers to a more flexible approach we are adopting to international offer-holders who miss their grades. We already take a flexible approach for home students after we receive their results. “This enables us to remain competitive in a global market. It also allows us to take context and individual circumstances into account. This is important for both UK and international students, as we recognise that inequalities of place and background limit opportunities to evidence ability and potential.” York said it had put extra resources, such as additional maths support, in place “for all students who are joining us with grades lower than their offer”. A number of universities said they had had difficulties recruiting more international students as a result of the government’s policies, in the face of increased competition from rivals such as Canada and Australia. Coventry University is one of the latest to protest, stating in its annual report last month: “The UK government’s response to issues around migration and the economy in recent months has had an impact on the group’s recruitment of international students.” Russell Group universities say they lose on average about £2,500 in teaching UK undergraduates for fees frozen at £9,250 a year. As a result, many have increased international student numbers, whose fees are not capped and can be £10,000 or more higher than domestic fees. English universities over-reliant on overseas students’ fees, report warns Read more In 2022-23, University College London’s tuition fee income went up by 17%, to £929m, “with the rise almost exclusively driven by growth in the full-time international student base”, according to its latest financial statements. The University of Liverpool last year accepted an extra 1,500 overseas students compared with 2021-22, boosting its international tuition fee income from £113m to £151m – close to eclipsing the £165m it made in UK and EU student fees. But the income of institutions such as the Open University, which rely more on UK students, have been hit. The Open University recorded an operating deficit of £25m last year, but claimed an underlying surplus if pensions and other long-term costs were excluded. “The cost of living crisis and student behaviours post-pandemic meant a reversal of the growth in student numbers seen in recent years,” the Open University said, adding that it expected a further decline in student numbers this year. Explore more on these topics International students University funding Tuition fees University of York Higher education policy Immigration and asylum Students news Share Reuse this content Central Hall at the University of York. British universities increasingly rely on income from lucrative international student fees. Photograph: Andrew Briggs/Alamy View image in fullscreen Central Hall at the University of York. British universities increasingly rely on income from lucrative international student fees. Photograph: Andrew Briggs/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old University of York to accept some overseas students with lower grades This article is more than 1 year old Staff told to take ‘more flexible approach’ in move university says will bring rules into line with those for UK offer-holders The University of York has told staff to take a “more flexible approach” to admitting overseas students with lower-than-expected grades, in the latest sign that UK higher education is facing severe recruitment and financial pressures. Staff at the Russell Group university were told: “In response to the current financial challenges, the university has decided to lower its tariff for all departments and programmes for overseas applicants,” according to an email reported by the Financial Times . While York maintains that a typical offer for undergraduate applicants requires A grades at A-level, the university will now admit some international applicants as undergraduates with the equivalent of B or C at A-level, while entry to postgraduate courses would require a 2:2 award or similar, rather than a 2:1. Sustained rift with China would harm UK universities, report warns Read more A spokesperson for York said the move would bring international student admissions into line with the approach it used for UK students. British universities increasingly rely on income from lucrative international student fees, with universities in England having seen tuition fees frozen for domestic students since 2016, and those in Scotland facing cuts in national government funding. Meanwhile, the UK government is looking to reduce the number of visas issued to international students as a way of cutting immigration. This year it has removed the ability for many overseas students to be accompanied by family members. A spokesperson for the University of York said: “The university has not lowered its entry grades for international students and they remain as advertised. “The change in ‘tariff’ refers to a more flexible approach we are adopting to international offer-holders who miss their grades. We already take a flexible approach for home students after we receive their results. “This enables us to remain competitive in a global market. It also allows us to take context and individual circumstances into account. This is important for both UK and international students, as we recognise that inequalities of place and background limit opportunities to evidence ability and potential.” York said it had put extra resources, such as additional maths support, in place “for all students who are joining us with grades lower than their offer”. A number of universities said they had had difficulties recruiting more international students as a result of the government’s policies, in the face of increased competition from rivals such as Canada and Australia. Coventry University is one of the latest to protest, stating in its annual report last month: “The UK government’s response to issues around migration and the economy in recent months has had an impact on the group’s recruitment of international students.” Russell Group universities say they lose on average about £2,500 in teaching UK undergraduates for fees frozen at £9,250 a year. As a result, many have increased international student numbers, whose fees are not capped and can be £10,000 or more higher than domestic fees. English universities over-reliant on overseas students’ fees, report warns Read more In 2022-23, University College London’s tuition fee income went up by 17%, to £929m, “with the rise almost exclusively driven by growth in the full-time international student base”, according to its latest financial statements. The University of Liverpool last year accepted an extra 1,500 overseas students compared with 2021-22, boosting its international tuition fee income from £113m to £151m – close to eclipsing the £165m it made in UK and EU student fees. But the income of institutions such as the Open University, which rely more on UK students, have been hit. The Open University recorded an operating deficit of £25m last year, but claimed an underlying surplus if pensions and other long-term costs were excluded. “The cost of living crisis and student behaviours post-pandemic meant a reversal of the growth in student numbers seen in recent years,” the Open University said, adding that it expected a further decline in student numbers this year. Explore more on these topics International students University funding Tuition fees University of York Higher education policy Immigration and asylum Students news Share Reuse this content Central Hall at the University of York. British universities increasingly rely on income from lucrative international student fees. Photograph: Andrew Briggs/Alamy View image in fullscreen Central Hall at the University of York. British universities increasingly rely on income from lucrative international student fees. Photograph: Andrew Briggs/Alamy Central Hall at the University of York. British universities increasingly rely on income from lucrative international student fees. Photograph: Andrew Briggs/Alamy View image in fullscreen Central Hall at the University of York. British universities increasingly rely on income from lucrative international student fees. Photograph: Andrew Briggs/Alamy Central Hall at the University of York. British universities increasingly rely on income from lucrative international student fees. Photograph: Andrew Briggs/Alamy View image in fullscreen Central Hall at the University of York. British universities increasingly rely on income from lucrative international student fees. Photograph: Andrew Briggs/Alamy Central Hall at the University of York. British universities increasingly rely on income from lucrative international student fees. Photograph: Andrew Briggs/Alamy View image in fullscreen Central Hall at the University of York. British universities increasingly rely on income from lucrative international student fees. Photograph: Andrew Briggs/Alamy Central Hall at the University of York. British universities increasingly rely on income from lucrative international student fees. Photograph: Andrew Briggs/Alamy Central Hall at the University of York. British universities increasingly rely on income from lucrative international student fees. Photograph: Andrew Briggs/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old University of York to accept some overseas students with lower grades This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old University of York to accept some overseas students with lower grades This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old University of York to accept some overseas students with lower grades 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 Staff told to take ‘more flexible approach’ in move university says will bring rules into line with those for UK offer-holders Staff told to take ‘more flexible approach’ in move university says will bring rules into line with those for UK offer-holders Staff told to take ‘more flexible approach’ in move university says will bring rules into line with those for UK offer-holders The University of York has told staff to take a “more flexible approach” to admitting overseas students with lower-than-expected grades, in the latest sign that UK higher education is facing severe recruitment and financial pressures. Staff at the Russell Group university were told: “In response to the current financial challenges, the university has decided to lower its tariff for all departments and programmes for overseas applicants,” according to an email reported by the Financial Times . While York maintains that a typical offer for undergraduate applicants requires A grades at A-level, the university will now admit some international applicants as undergraduates with the equivalent of B or C at A-level, while entry to postgraduate courses would require a 2:2 award or similar, rather than a 2:1. Sustained rift with China would harm UK universities, report warns Read more A spokesperson for York said the move would bring international student admissions into line with the approach it used for UK students. British universities increasingly rely on income from lucrative international student fees, with universities in England having seen tuition fees frozen for domestic students since 2016, and those in Scotland facing cuts in national government funding. Meanwhile, the UK government is looking to reduce the number of visas issued to international students as a way of cutting immigration. This year it has removed the ability for many overseas students to be accompanied by family members. A spokesperson for the University of York said: “The university has not lowered its entry grades for international students and they remain as advertised. “The change in ‘tariff’ refers to a more flexible approach we are adopting to international offer-holders who miss their grades. We already take a flexible approach for home students after we receive their results. “This enables us to remain competitive in a global market. It also allows us to take context and individual circumstances into account. This is important for both UK and international students, as we recognise that inequalities of place and background limit opportunities to evidence ability and potential.” York said it had put extra resources, such as additional maths support, in place “for all students who are joining us with grades lower than their offer”. A number of universities said they had had difficulties recruiting more international students as a result of the government’s policies, in the face of increased competition from rivals such as Canada and Australia. Coventry University is one of the latest to protest, stating in its annual report last month: “The UK government’s response to issues around migration and the economy in recent months has had an impact on the group’s recruitment of international students.” Russell Group universities say they lose on average about £2,500 in teaching UK undergraduates for fees frozen at £9,250 a year. As a result, many have increased international student numbers, whose fees are not capped and can be £10,000 or more higher than domestic fees. English universities over-reliant on overseas students’ fees, report warns Read more In 2022-23, University College London’s tuition fee income went up by 17%, to £929m, “with the rise almost exclusively driven by growth in the full-time international student base”, according to its latest financial statements. The University of Liverpool last year accepted an extra 1,500 overseas students compared with 2021-22, boosting its international tuition fee income from £113m to £151m – close to eclipsing the £165m it made in UK and EU student fees. But the income of institutions such as the Open University, which rely more on UK students, have been hit. The Open University recorded an operating deficit of £25m last year, but claimed an underlying surplus if pensions and other long-term costs were excluded. “The cost of living crisis and student behaviours post-pandemic meant a reversal of the growth in student numbers seen in recent years,” the Open University said, adding that it expected a further decline in student numbers this year. Explore more on these topics International students University funding Tuition fees University of York Higher education policy Immigration and asylum Students news Share Reuse this content The University of York has told staff to take a “more flexible approach” to admitting overseas students with lower-than-expected grades, in the latest sign that UK higher education is facing severe recruitment and financial pressures. Staff at the Russell Group university were told: “In response to the current financial challenges, the university has decided to lower its tariff for all departments and programmes for overseas applicants,” according to an email reported by the Financial Times . While York maintains that a typical offer for undergraduate applicants requires A grades at A-level, the university will now admit some international applicants as undergraduates with the equivalent of B or C at A-level, while entry to postgraduate courses would require a 2:2 award or similar, rather than a 2:1. Sustained rift with China would harm UK universities, report warns Read more A spokesperson for York said the move would bring international student admissions into line with the approach it used for UK students. British universities increasingly rely on income from lucrative international student fees, with universities in England having seen tuition fees frozen for domestic students since 2016, and those in Scotland facing cuts in national government funding. Meanwhile, the UK government is looking to reduce the number of visas issued to international students as a way of cutting immigration. This year it has removed the ability for many overseas students to be accompanied by family members. A spokesperson for the University of York said: “The university has not lowered its entry grades for international students and they remain as advertised. “The change in ‘tariff’ refers to a more flexible approach we are adopting to international offer-holders who miss their grades. We already take a flexible approach for home students after we receive their results. “This enables us to remain competitive in a global market. It also allows us to take context and individual circumstances into account. This is important for both UK and international students, as we recognise that inequalities of place and background limit opportunities to evidence ability and potential.” York said it had put extra resources, such as additional maths support, in place “for all students who are joining us with grades lower than their offer”. A number of universities said they had had difficulties recruiting more international students as a result of the government’s policies, in the face of increased competition from rivals such as Canada and Australia. Coventry University is one of the latest to protest, stating in its annual report last month: “The UK government’s response to issues around migration and the economy in recent months has had an impact on the group’s recruitment of international students.” Russell Group universities say they lose on average about £2,500 in teaching UK undergraduates for fees frozen at £9,250 a year. As a result, many have increased international student numbers, whose fees are not capped and can be £10,000 or more higher than domestic fees. English universities over-reliant on overseas students’ fees, report warns Read more In 2022-23, University College London’s tuition fee income went up by 17%, to £929m, “with the rise almost exclusively driven by growth in the full-time international student base”, according to its latest financial statements. The University of Liverpool last year accepted an extra 1,500 overseas students compared with 2021-22, boosting its international tuition fee income from £113m to £151m – close to eclipsing the £165m it made in UK and EU student fees. But the income of institutions such as the Open University, which rely more on UK students, have been hit. The Open University recorded an operating deficit of £25m last year, but claimed an underlying surplus if pensions and other long-term costs were excluded. “The cost of living crisis and student behaviours post-pandemic meant a reversal of the growth in student numbers seen in recent years,” the Open University said, adding that it expected a further decline in student numbers this year. Explore more on these topics International students University funding Tuition fees University of York Higher education policy Immigration and asylum Students news Share Reuse this content The University of York has told staff to take a “more flexible approach” to admitting overseas students with lower-than-expected grades, in the latest sign that UK higher education is facing severe recruitment and financial pressures. Staff at the Russell Group university were told: “In response to the current financial challenges, the university has decided to lower its tariff for all departments and programmes for overseas applicants,” according to an email reported by the Financial Times . While York maintains that a typical offer for undergraduate applicants requires A grades at A-level, the university will now admit some international applicants as undergraduates with the equivalent of B or C at A-level, while entry to postgraduate courses would require a 2:2 award or similar, rather than a 2:1. Sustained rift with China would harm UK universities, report warns Read more A spokesperson for York said the move would bring international student admissions into line with the approach it used for UK students. British universities increasingly rely on income from lucrative international student fees, with universities in England having seen tuition fees frozen for domestic students since 2016, and those in Scotland facing cuts in national government funding. Meanwhile, the UK government is looking to reduce the number of visas issued to international students as a way of cutting immigration. This year it has removed the ability for many overseas students to be accompanied by family members. A spokesperson for the University of York said: “The university has not lowered its entry grades for international students and they remain as advertised. “The change in ‘tariff’ refers to a more flexible approach we are adopting to international offer-holders who miss their grades. We already take a flexible approach for home students after we receive their results. “This enables us to remain competitive in a global market. It also allows us to take context and individual circumstances into account. This is important for both UK and international students, as we recognise that inequalities of place and background limit opportunities to evidence ability and potential.” York said it had put extra resources, such as additional maths support, in place “for all students who are joining us with grades lower than their offer”. A number of universities said they had had difficulties recruiting more international students as a result of the government’s policies, in the face of increased competition from rivals such as Canada and Australia. Coventry University is one of the latest to protest, stating in its annual report last month: “The UK government’s response to issues around migration and the economy in recent months has had an impact on the group’s recruitment of international students.” Russell Group universities say they lose on average about £2,500 in teaching UK undergraduates for fees frozen at £9,250 a year. As a result, many have increased international student numbers, whose fees are not capped and can be £10,000 or more higher than domestic fees. English universities over-reliant on overseas students’ fees, report warns Read more In 2022-23, University College London’s tuition fee income went up by 17%, to £929m, “with the rise almost exclusively driven by growth in the full-time international student base”, according to its latest financial statements. The University of Liverpool last year accepted an extra 1,500 overseas students compared with 2021-22, boosting its international tuition fee income from £113m to £151m – close to eclipsing the £165m it made in UK and EU student fees. But the income of institutions such as the Open University, which rely more on UK students, have been hit. The Open University recorded an operating deficit of £25m last year, but claimed an underlying surplus if pensions and other long-term costs were excluded. “The cost of living crisis and student behaviours post-pandemic meant a reversal of the growth in student numbers seen in recent years,” the Open University said, adding that it expected a further decline in student numbers this year. The University of York has told staff to take a “more flexible approach” to admitting overseas students with lower-than-expected grades, in the latest sign that UK higher education is facing severe recruitment and financial pressures. Staff at the Russell Group university were told: “In response to the current financial challenges, the university has decided to lower its tariff for all departments and programmes for overseas applicants,” according to an email reported by the Financial Times . While York maintains that a typical offer for undergraduate applicants requires A grades at A-level, the university will now admit some international applicants as undergraduates with the equivalent of B or C at A-level, while entry to postgraduate courses would require a 2:2 award or similar, rather than a 2:1. Sustained rift with China would harm UK universities, report warns Read more A spokesperson for York said the move would bring international student admissions into line with the approach it used for UK students. British universities increasingly rely on income from lucrative international student fees, with universities in England having seen tuition fees frozen for domestic students since 2016, and those in Scotland facing cuts in national government funding. Meanwhile, the UK government is looking to reduce the number of visas issued to international students as a way of cutting immigration. This year it has removed the ability for many overseas students to be accompanied by family members. A spokesperson for the University of York said: “The university has not lowered its entry grades for international students and they remain as advertised. “The change in ‘tariff’ refers to a more flexible approach we are adopting to international offer-holders who miss their grades. We already take a flexible approach for home students after we receive their results. “This enables us to remain competitive in a global market. It also allows us to take context and individual circumstances into account. This is important for both UK and international students, as we recognise that inequalities of place and background limit opportunities to evidence ability and potential.” York said it had put extra resources, such as additional maths support, in place “for all students who are joining us with grades lower than their offer”. A number of universities said they had had difficulties recruiting more international students as a result of the government’s policies, in the face of increased competition from rivals such as Canada and Australia. Coventry University is one of the latest to protest, stating in its annual report last month: “The UK government’s response to issues around migration and the economy in recent months has had an impact on the group’s recruitment of international students.” Russell Group universities say they lose on average about £2,500 in teaching UK undergraduates for fees frozen at £9,250 a year. As a result, many have increased international student numbers, whose fees are not capped and can be £10,000 or more higher than domestic fees. English universities over-reliant on overseas students’ fees, report warns Read more In 2022-23, University College London’s tuition fee income went up by 17%, to £929m, “with the rise almost exclusively driven by growth in the full-time international student base”, according to its latest financial statements. The University of Liverpool last year accepted an extra 1,500 overseas students compared with 2021-22, boosting its international tuition fee income from £113m to £151m – close to eclipsing the £165m it made in UK and EU student fees. But the income of institutions such as the Open University, which rely more on UK students, have been hit. The Open University recorded an operating deficit of £25m last year, but claimed an underlying surplus if pensions and other long-term costs were excluded. “The cost of living crisis and student behaviours post-pandemic meant a reversal of the growth in student numbers seen in recent years,” the Open University said, adding that it expected a further decline in student numbers this year. The University of York has told staff to take a “more flexible approach” to admitting overseas students with lower-than-expected grades, in the latest sign that UK higher education is facing severe recruitment and financial pressures. Staff at the Russell Group university were told: “In response to the current financial challenges, the university has decided to lower its tariff for all departments and programmes for overseas applicants,” according to an email reported by the Financial Times . While York maintains that a typical offer for undergraduate applicants requires A grades at A-level, the university will now admit some international applicants as undergraduates with the equivalent of B or C at A-level, while entry to postgraduate courses would require a 2:2 award or similar, rather than a 2:1. Sustained rift with China would harm UK universities, report warns Read more Sustained rift with China would harm UK universities, report warns Read more Sustained rift with China would harm UK universities, report warns Read more Sustained rift with China would harm UK universities, report warns Sustained rift with China would harm UK universities, report warns A spokesperson for York said the move would bring international student admissions into line with the approach it used for UK students. British universities increasingly rely on income from lucrative international student fees, with universities in England having seen tuition fees frozen for domestic students since 2016, and those in Scotland facing cuts in national government funding. Meanwhile, the UK government is looking to reduce the number of visas issued to international students as a way of cutting immigration. This year it has removed the ability for many overseas students to be accompanied by family members. A spokesperson for the University of York said: “The university has not lowered its entry grades for international students and they remain as advertised. “The change in ‘tariff’ refers to a more flexible approach we are adopting to international offer-holders who miss their grades. We already take a flexible approach for home students after we receive their results. “This enables us to remain competitive in a global market. It also allows us to take context and individual circumstances into account. This is important for both UK and international students, as we recognise that inequalities of place and background limit opportunities to evidence ability and potential.” York said it had put extra resources, such as additional maths support, in place “for all students who are joining us with grades lower than their offer”. A number of universities said they had had difficulties recruiting more international students as a result of the government’s policies, in the face of increased competition from rivals such as Canada and Australia. Coventry University is one of the latest to protest, stating in its annual report last month: “The UK government’s response to issues around migration and the economy in recent months has had an impact on the group’s recruitment of international students.” Russell Group universities say they lose on average about £2,500 in teaching UK undergraduates for fees frozen at £9,250 a year. As a result, many have increased international student numbers, whose fees are not capped and can be £10,000 or more higher than domestic fees. English universities over-reliant on overseas students’ fees, report warns Read more English universities over-reliant on overseas students’ fees, report warns Read more English universities over-reliant on overseas students’ fees, report warns Read more English universities over-reliant on overseas students’ fees, report warns English universities over-reliant on overseas students’ fees, report warns In 2022-23, University College London’s tuition fee income went up by 17%, to £929m, “with the rise almost exclusively driven by growth in the full-time international student base”, according to its latest financial statements. The University of Liverpool last year accepted an extra 1,500 overseas students compared with 2021-22, boosting its international tuition fee income from £113m to £151m – close to eclipsing the £165m it made in UK and EU student fees. But the income of institutions such as the Open University, which rely more on UK students, have been hit. The Open University recorded an operating deficit of £25m last year, but claimed an underlying surplus if pensions and other long-term costs were excluded. “The cost of living crisis and student behaviours post-pandemic meant a reversal of the growth in student numbers seen in recent years,” the Open University said, adding that it expected a further decline in student numbers this year. Explore more on these topics International students University funding Tuition fees University of York Higher education policy Immigration and asylum Students news Share Reuse this content International students University funding Tuition fees University of York Higher education policy Immigration and asylum Students news
|
Jewish students sue Harvard over charges of antisemitism
Harvard University on 13 December 2023. Photograph: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images View image in fullscreen Harvard University on 13 December 2023. Photograph: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Jewish students sue Harvard over charges of antisemitism This article is more than 1 year old Plaintiffs accuse the university of tolerating harassment, assault and intimidation of Jewish students Several Jewish students have filed a lawsuit against Harvard University , accusing it of becoming “a bastion of rampant anti-Jewish hatred and harassment”. Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics Read more The lawsuit filed earlier this week mirrors others submitted since the 7 October Hamas attack on southern Israel, including legal action against the Art Institute of Chicago, New York University and the University of Pennsylvania. In the Harvard lawsuit, the plaintiffs include members of the Students Against Antisemitism . They accuse Harvard of violating Jewish students’ civil rights and allege that the university tolerated Jewish students being harassed, assaulted and intimidated – behavior that has intensified since the 7 October mass killing. The Hamas attack sparked a huge military response from Israel , which continues to bombard Gaza, killing more than 24,000 Palestinians, in a bid to, as the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has pledged, “destroy Hamas”, the Iran-backed, Islamist controlling group of Gaza. “Mobs of pro-Hamas students and faculty have marched by the hundreds through Harvard’s campus, shouting vile antisemitic slogans and calling for death to Jews and Israel,” according to the lawsuit. “Those mobs have occupied buildings, classrooms, libraries, student lounges, plazas, and study halls, often for days or weeks at a time, promoting violence against Jews.” It was unclear what the mention of mobs in the lawsuit refers to, but the university has been rattled by protests since the 7 October attack. At one point, pro-Palestinian students occupied a campus building for 24 hours. Marc Kasowitz, a partner at the law firm that brought the suit, Kasowitz Benson Torres, said in a statement that the litigation was necessary because Harvard would not “correct its deep-seated antisemitism problem voluntarily”. A spokesperson for Harvard said the school does not comment on pending litigation. About a dozen students are potentially facing disciplinary charges for violations of protest rules related to pro-Palestinian activities, but the spokesperson said the school could not comment on their cases. Fallout from the Israel-Hamas war has roiled campuses across the US and reignited a debate over free speech. College leaders have struggled to define the line where political speech crosses into harassment and discrimination, with Jewish and Arab students raising concerns that their schools are doing too little to protect them. The issue took center stage in December when the presidents of Harvard, Penn and MIT testified at a congressional hearing on campus antisemitism. Asked by Republican lawmakers whether calls for the genocide of Jews would violate campus policies, the presidents offered lawyerly answers and declined to say unequivocally that it was prohibited speech. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Their answers prompted weeks of backlash from donors and alumni, leading to the resignation of Liz Magill at Penn and Claudine Gay at Harvard. The US Department of Education has repeatedly warned colleges that they are required to fight antisemitism and Islamophobia on their campuses or risk losing federal money. The Associated Press contributed reporting Explore more on these topics Harvard University Antisemitism Israel-Gaza war Massachusetts Protest news Share Reuse this content Harvard University on 13 December 2023. Photograph: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images View image in fullscreen Harvard University on 13 December 2023. Photograph: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Jewish students sue Harvard over charges of antisemitism This article is more than 1 year old Plaintiffs accuse the university of tolerating harassment, assault and intimidation of Jewish students Several Jewish students have filed a lawsuit against Harvard University , accusing it of becoming “a bastion of rampant anti-Jewish hatred and harassment”. Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics Read more The lawsuit filed earlier this week mirrors others submitted since the 7 October Hamas attack on southern Israel, including legal action against the Art Institute of Chicago, New York University and the University of Pennsylvania. In the Harvard lawsuit, the plaintiffs include members of the Students Against Antisemitism . They accuse Harvard of violating Jewish students’ civil rights and allege that the university tolerated Jewish students being harassed, assaulted and intimidated – behavior that has intensified since the 7 October mass killing. The Hamas attack sparked a huge military response from Israel , which continues to bombard Gaza, killing more than 24,000 Palestinians, in a bid to, as the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has pledged, “destroy Hamas”, the Iran-backed, Islamist controlling group of Gaza. “Mobs of pro-Hamas students and faculty have marched by the hundreds through Harvard’s campus, shouting vile antisemitic slogans and calling for death to Jews and Israel,” according to the lawsuit. “Those mobs have occupied buildings, classrooms, libraries, student lounges, plazas, and study halls, often for days or weeks at a time, promoting violence against Jews.” It was unclear what the mention of mobs in the lawsuit refers to, but the university has been rattled by protests since the 7 October attack. At one point, pro-Palestinian students occupied a campus building for 24 hours. Marc Kasowitz, a partner at the law firm that brought the suit, Kasowitz Benson Torres, said in a statement that the litigation was necessary because Harvard would not “correct its deep-seated antisemitism problem voluntarily”. A spokesperson for Harvard said the school does not comment on pending litigation. About a dozen students are potentially facing disciplinary charges for violations of protest rules related to pro-Palestinian activities, but the spokesperson said the school could not comment on their cases. Fallout from the Israel-Hamas war has roiled campuses across the US and reignited a debate over free speech. College leaders have struggled to define the line where political speech crosses into harassment and discrimination, with Jewish and Arab students raising concerns that their schools are doing too little to protect them. The issue took center stage in December when the presidents of Harvard, Penn and MIT testified at a congressional hearing on campus antisemitism. Asked by Republican lawmakers whether calls for the genocide of Jews would violate campus policies, the presidents offered lawyerly answers and declined to say unequivocally that it was prohibited speech. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Their answers prompted weeks of backlash from donors and alumni, leading to the resignation of Liz Magill at Penn and Claudine Gay at Harvard. The US Department of Education has repeatedly warned colleges that they are required to fight antisemitism and Islamophobia on their campuses or risk losing federal money. The Associated Press contributed reporting Explore more on these topics Harvard University Antisemitism Israel-Gaza war Massachusetts Protest news Share Reuse this content Harvard University on 13 December 2023. Photograph: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images View image in fullscreen Harvard University on 13 December 2023. Photograph: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images Harvard University on 13 December 2023. Photograph: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images View image in fullscreen Harvard University on 13 December 2023. Photograph: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images Harvard University on 13 December 2023. Photograph: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images View image in fullscreen Harvard University on 13 December 2023. Photograph: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images Harvard University on 13 December 2023. Photograph: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images View image in fullscreen Harvard University on 13 December 2023. Photograph: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images Harvard University on 13 December 2023. Photograph: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images Harvard University on 13 December 2023. Photograph: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Jewish students sue Harvard over charges of antisemitism This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Jewish students sue Harvard over charges of antisemitism This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Jewish students sue Harvard over charges of antisemitism 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 Plaintiffs accuse the university of tolerating harassment, assault and intimidation of Jewish students Plaintiffs accuse the university of tolerating harassment, assault and intimidation of Jewish students Plaintiffs accuse the university of tolerating harassment, assault and intimidation of Jewish students Several Jewish students have filed a lawsuit against Harvard University , accusing it of becoming “a bastion of rampant anti-Jewish hatred and harassment”. Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics Read more The lawsuit filed earlier this week mirrors others submitted since the 7 October Hamas attack on southern Israel, including legal action against the Art Institute of Chicago, New York University and the University of Pennsylvania. In the Harvard lawsuit, the plaintiffs include members of the Students Against Antisemitism . They accuse Harvard of violating Jewish students’ civil rights and allege that the university tolerated Jewish students being harassed, assaulted and intimidated – behavior that has intensified since the 7 October mass killing. The Hamas attack sparked a huge military response from Israel , which continues to bombard Gaza, killing more than 24,000 Palestinians, in a bid to, as the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has pledged, “destroy Hamas”, the Iran-backed, Islamist controlling group of Gaza. “Mobs of pro-Hamas students and faculty have marched by the hundreds through Harvard’s campus, shouting vile antisemitic slogans and calling for death to Jews and Israel,” according to the lawsuit. “Those mobs have occupied buildings, classrooms, libraries, student lounges, plazas, and study halls, often for days or weeks at a time, promoting violence against Jews.” It was unclear what the mention of mobs in the lawsuit refers to, but the university has been rattled by protests since the 7 October attack. At one point, pro-Palestinian students occupied a campus building for 24 hours. Marc Kasowitz, a partner at the law firm that brought the suit, Kasowitz Benson Torres, said in a statement that the litigation was necessary because Harvard would not “correct its deep-seated antisemitism problem voluntarily”. A spokesperson for Harvard said the school does not comment on pending litigation. About a dozen students are potentially facing disciplinary charges for violations of protest rules related to pro-Palestinian activities, but the spokesperson said the school could not comment on their cases. Fallout from the Israel-Hamas war has roiled campuses across the US and reignited a debate over free speech. College leaders have struggled to define the line where political speech crosses into harassment and discrimination, with Jewish and Arab students raising concerns that their schools are doing too little to protect them. The issue took center stage in December when the presidents of Harvard, Penn and MIT testified at a congressional hearing on campus antisemitism. Asked by Republican lawmakers whether calls for the genocide of Jews would violate campus policies, the presidents offered lawyerly answers and declined to say unequivocally that it was prohibited speech. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Their answers prompted weeks of backlash from donors and alumni, leading to the resignation of Liz Magill at Penn and Claudine Gay at Harvard. The US Department of Education has repeatedly warned colleges that they are required to fight antisemitism and Islamophobia on their campuses or risk losing federal money. The Associated Press contributed reporting Explore more on these topics Harvard University Antisemitism Israel-Gaza war Massachusetts Protest news Share Reuse this content Several Jewish students have filed a lawsuit against Harvard University , accusing it of becoming “a bastion of rampant anti-Jewish hatred and harassment”. Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics Read more The lawsuit filed earlier this week mirrors others submitted since the 7 October Hamas attack on southern Israel, including legal action against the Art Institute of Chicago, New York University and the University of Pennsylvania. In the Harvard lawsuit, the plaintiffs include members of the Students Against Antisemitism . They accuse Harvard of violating Jewish students’ civil rights and allege that the university tolerated Jewish students being harassed, assaulted and intimidated – behavior that has intensified since the 7 October mass killing. The Hamas attack sparked a huge military response from Israel , which continues to bombard Gaza, killing more than 24,000 Palestinians, in a bid to, as the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has pledged, “destroy Hamas”, the Iran-backed, Islamist controlling group of Gaza. “Mobs of pro-Hamas students and faculty have marched by the hundreds through Harvard’s campus, shouting vile antisemitic slogans and calling for death to Jews and Israel,” according to the lawsuit. “Those mobs have occupied buildings, classrooms, libraries, student lounges, plazas, and study halls, often for days or weeks at a time, promoting violence against Jews.” It was unclear what the mention of mobs in the lawsuit refers to, but the university has been rattled by protests since the 7 October attack. At one point, pro-Palestinian students occupied a campus building for 24 hours. Marc Kasowitz, a partner at the law firm that brought the suit, Kasowitz Benson Torres, said in a statement that the litigation was necessary because Harvard would not “correct its deep-seated antisemitism problem voluntarily”. A spokesperson for Harvard said the school does not comment on pending litigation. About a dozen students are potentially facing disciplinary charges for violations of protest rules related to pro-Palestinian activities, but the spokesperson said the school could not comment on their cases. Fallout from the Israel-Hamas war has roiled campuses across the US and reignited a debate over free speech. College leaders have struggled to define the line where political speech crosses into harassment and discrimination, with Jewish and Arab students raising concerns that their schools are doing too little to protect them. The issue took center stage in December when the presidents of Harvard, Penn and MIT testified at a congressional hearing on campus antisemitism. Asked by Republican lawmakers whether calls for the genocide of Jews would violate campus policies, the presidents offered lawyerly answers and declined to say unequivocally that it was prohibited speech. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Their answers prompted weeks of backlash from donors and alumni, leading to the resignation of Liz Magill at Penn and Claudine Gay at Harvard. The US Department of Education has repeatedly warned colleges that they are required to fight antisemitism and Islamophobia on their campuses or risk losing federal money. The Associated Press contributed reporting Explore more on these topics Harvard University Antisemitism Israel-Gaza war Massachusetts Protest news Share Reuse this content Several Jewish students have filed a lawsuit against Harvard University , accusing it of becoming “a bastion of rampant anti-Jewish hatred and harassment”. Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics Read more The lawsuit filed earlier this week mirrors others submitted since the 7 October Hamas attack on southern Israel, including legal action against the Art Institute of Chicago, New York University and the University of Pennsylvania. In the Harvard lawsuit, the plaintiffs include members of the Students Against Antisemitism . They accuse Harvard of violating Jewish students’ civil rights and allege that the university tolerated Jewish students being harassed, assaulted and intimidated – behavior that has intensified since the 7 October mass killing. The Hamas attack sparked a huge military response from Israel , which continues to bombard Gaza, killing more than 24,000 Palestinians, in a bid to, as the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has pledged, “destroy Hamas”, the Iran-backed, Islamist controlling group of Gaza. “Mobs of pro-Hamas students and faculty have marched by the hundreds through Harvard’s campus, shouting vile antisemitic slogans and calling for death to Jews and Israel,” according to the lawsuit. “Those mobs have occupied buildings, classrooms, libraries, student lounges, plazas, and study halls, often for days or weeks at a time, promoting violence against Jews.” It was unclear what the mention of mobs in the lawsuit refers to, but the university has been rattled by protests since the 7 October attack. At one point, pro-Palestinian students occupied a campus building for 24 hours. Marc Kasowitz, a partner at the law firm that brought the suit, Kasowitz Benson Torres, said in a statement that the litigation was necessary because Harvard would not “correct its deep-seated antisemitism problem voluntarily”. A spokesperson for Harvard said the school does not comment on pending litigation. About a dozen students are potentially facing disciplinary charges for violations of protest rules related to pro-Palestinian activities, but the spokesperson said the school could not comment on their cases. Fallout from the Israel-Hamas war has roiled campuses across the US and reignited a debate over free speech. College leaders have struggled to define the line where political speech crosses into harassment and discrimination, with Jewish and Arab students raising concerns that their schools are doing too little to protect them. The issue took center stage in December when the presidents of Harvard, Penn and MIT testified at a congressional hearing on campus antisemitism. Asked by Republican lawmakers whether calls for the genocide of Jews would violate campus policies, the presidents offered lawyerly answers and declined to say unequivocally that it was prohibited speech. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Their answers prompted weeks of backlash from donors and alumni, leading to the resignation of Liz Magill at Penn and Claudine Gay at Harvard. The US Department of Education has repeatedly warned colleges that they are required to fight antisemitism and Islamophobia on their campuses or risk losing federal money. The Associated Press contributed reporting Several Jewish students have filed a lawsuit against Harvard University , accusing it of becoming “a bastion of rampant anti-Jewish hatred and harassment”. Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics Read more The lawsuit filed earlier this week mirrors others submitted since the 7 October Hamas attack on southern Israel, including legal action against the Art Institute of Chicago, New York University and the University of Pennsylvania. In the Harvard lawsuit, the plaintiffs include members of the Students Against Antisemitism . They accuse Harvard of violating Jewish students’ civil rights and allege that the university tolerated Jewish students being harassed, assaulted and intimidated – behavior that has intensified since the 7 October mass killing. The Hamas attack sparked a huge military response from Israel , which continues to bombard Gaza, killing more than 24,000 Palestinians, in a bid to, as the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has pledged, “destroy Hamas”, the Iran-backed, Islamist controlling group of Gaza. “Mobs of pro-Hamas students and faculty have marched by the hundreds through Harvard’s campus, shouting vile antisemitic slogans and calling for death to Jews and Israel,” according to the lawsuit. “Those mobs have occupied buildings, classrooms, libraries, student lounges, plazas, and study halls, often for days or weeks at a time, promoting violence against Jews.” It was unclear what the mention of mobs in the lawsuit refers to, but the university has been rattled by protests since the 7 October attack. At one point, pro-Palestinian students occupied a campus building for 24 hours. Marc Kasowitz, a partner at the law firm that brought the suit, Kasowitz Benson Torres, said in a statement that the litigation was necessary because Harvard would not “correct its deep-seated antisemitism problem voluntarily”. A spokesperson for Harvard said the school does not comment on pending litigation. About a dozen students are potentially facing disciplinary charges for violations of protest rules related to pro-Palestinian activities, but the spokesperson said the school could not comment on their cases. Fallout from the Israel-Hamas war has roiled campuses across the US and reignited a debate over free speech. College leaders have struggled to define the line where political speech crosses into harassment and discrimination, with Jewish and Arab students raising concerns that their schools are doing too little to protect them. The issue took center stage in December when the presidents of Harvard, Penn and MIT testified at a congressional hearing on campus antisemitism. Asked by Republican lawmakers whether calls for the genocide of Jews would violate campus policies, the presidents offered lawyerly answers and declined to say unequivocally that it was prohibited speech. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Their answers prompted weeks of backlash from donors and alumni, leading to the resignation of Liz Magill at Penn and Claudine Gay at Harvard. The US Department of Education has repeatedly warned colleges that they are required to fight antisemitism and Islamophobia on their campuses or risk losing federal money. The Associated Press contributed reporting Several Jewish students have filed a lawsuit against Harvard University , accusing it of becoming “a bastion of rampant anti-Jewish hatred and harassment”. Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics Read more Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics Read more Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics Read more Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics The lawsuit filed earlier this week mirrors others submitted since the 7 October Hamas attack on southern Israel, including legal action against the Art Institute of Chicago, New York University and the University of Pennsylvania. In the Harvard lawsuit, the plaintiffs include members of the Students Against Antisemitism . They accuse Harvard of violating Jewish students’ civil rights and allege that the university tolerated Jewish students being harassed, assaulted and intimidated – behavior that has intensified since the 7 October mass killing. The Hamas attack sparked a huge military response from Israel , which continues to bombard Gaza, killing more than 24,000 Palestinians, in a bid to, as the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has pledged, “destroy Hamas”, the Iran-backed, Islamist controlling group of Gaza. “Mobs of pro-Hamas students and faculty have marched by the hundreds through Harvard’s campus, shouting vile antisemitic slogans and calling for death to Jews and Israel,” according to the lawsuit. “Those mobs have occupied buildings, classrooms, libraries, student lounges, plazas, and study halls, often for days or weeks at a time, promoting violence against Jews.” It was unclear what the mention of mobs in the lawsuit refers to, but the university has been rattled by protests since the 7 October attack. At one point, pro-Palestinian students occupied a campus building for 24 hours. Marc Kasowitz, a partner at the law firm that brought the suit, Kasowitz Benson Torres, said in a statement that the litigation was necessary because Harvard would not “correct its deep-seated antisemitism problem voluntarily”. A spokesperson for Harvard said the school does not comment on pending litigation. About a dozen students are potentially facing disciplinary charges for violations of protest rules related to pro-Palestinian activities, but the spokesperson said the school could not comment on their cases. Fallout from the Israel-Hamas war has roiled campuses across the US and reignited a debate over free speech. College leaders have struggled to define the line where political speech crosses into harassment and discrimination, with Jewish and Arab students raising concerns that their schools are doing too little to protect them. The issue took center stage in December when the presidents of Harvard, Penn and MIT testified at a congressional hearing on campus antisemitism. Asked by Republican lawmakers whether calls for the genocide of Jews would violate campus policies, the presidents offered lawyerly answers and declined to say unequivocally that it was prohibited speech. Their answers prompted weeks of backlash from donors and alumni, leading to the resignation of Liz Magill at Penn and Claudine Gay at Harvard. The US Department of Education has repeatedly warned colleges that they are required to fight antisemitism and Islamophobia on their campuses or risk losing federal money. The Associated Press contributed reporting Explore more on these topics Harvard University Antisemitism Israel-Gaza war Massachusetts Protest news Share Reuse this content Harvard University Antisemitism Israel-Gaza war Massachusetts Protest news
|
70-year-old charged after car runs into pro-Palestine demo in Edinburgh
Police and protesters around the car involved in the incident during the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration, Edinburgh. Photograph: Jim Orr/PA View image in fullscreen Police and protesters around the car involved in the incident during the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration, Edinburgh. Photograph: Jim Orr/PA This article is more than 1 year old 70-year-old charged after car runs into pro-Palestine demo in Edinburgh This article is more than 1 year old Woman charged with driving offence after witnesses said black car drove into crowd and minor injuries were reported A 70-year-old woman has been charged with a driving offence after a car collided with pro-Palestine protesters in Edinburgh. There were reports of minor injuries but no one needed medical attention. Witnesses said on social media that a black car had driven into the crowd. Richard Parker, a teacher, said on X: “Totally surreal experience, I was at the back where the car entered the crowd with a 76-year-old friend with vascular dementia. We lost her in the commotion and my heart sank when people started shouting: ‘There’s someone under the car!’ “So lucky everyone was unhurt.” The incident comes as demonstrations take place across the UK. In London, thousands gathered to call for a ceasefire . Demonstrators met on Queen Victoria Street before making their way along Fleet Street towards Parliament Square. The protest, part of a global day of action, comes after the RAF and the US military carried out airstrikes against Houthi bases in Yemen . The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which organised the event, claimed “hundreds of thousands” of people had joined the march in London. A Police Scotland spokesperson commenting on the Edinburgh incident said: “Around 2.30pm on Saturday, 13 January 2024, we were made aware of a road crash involving a car and a small number of pedestrians in Ramsay Lane. “Officers received reports of minor injuries from pedestrians, but no medical attention was required. “A 70-year-old woman has been arrested and charged in connection with a driving offence. “A report will be sent to the procurator fiscal.” Explore more on these topics Scotland Israel-Gaza war news Share Reuse this content Police and protesters around the car involved in the incident during the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration, Edinburgh. Photograph: Jim Orr/PA View image in fullscreen Police and protesters around the car involved in the incident during the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration, Edinburgh. Photograph: Jim Orr/PA This article is more than 1 year old 70-year-old charged after car runs into pro-Palestine demo in Edinburgh This article is more than 1 year old Woman charged with driving offence after witnesses said black car drove into crowd and minor injuries were reported A 70-year-old woman has been charged with a driving offence after a car collided with pro-Palestine protesters in Edinburgh. There were reports of minor injuries but no one needed medical attention. Witnesses said on social media that a black car had driven into the crowd. Richard Parker, a teacher, said on X: “Totally surreal experience, I was at the back where the car entered the crowd with a 76-year-old friend with vascular dementia. We lost her in the commotion and my heart sank when people started shouting: ‘There’s someone under the car!’ “So lucky everyone was unhurt.” The incident comes as demonstrations take place across the UK. In London, thousands gathered to call for a ceasefire . Demonstrators met on Queen Victoria Street before making their way along Fleet Street towards Parliament Square. The protest, part of a global day of action, comes after the RAF and the US military carried out airstrikes against Houthi bases in Yemen . The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which organised the event, claimed “hundreds of thousands” of people had joined the march in London. A Police Scotland spokesperson commenting on the Edinburgh incident said: “Around 2.30pm on Saturday, 13 January 2024, we were made aware of a road crash involving a car and a small number of pedestrians in Ramsay Lane. “Officers received reports of minor injuries from pedestrians, but no medical attention was required. “A 70-year-old woman has been arrested and charged in connection with a driving offence. “A report will be sent to the procurator fiscal.” Explore more on these topics Scotland Israel-Gaza war news Share Reuse this content Police and protesters around the car involved in the incident during the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration, Edinburgh. Photograph: Jim Orr/PA View image in fullscreen Police and protesters around the car involved in the incident during the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration, Edinburgh. Photograph: Jim Orr/PA Police and protesters around the car involved in the incident during the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration, Edinburgh. Photograph: Jim Orr/PA View image in fullscreen Police and protesters around the car involved in the incident during the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration, Edinburgh. Photograph: Jim Orr/PA Police and protesters around the car involved in the incident during the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration, Edinburgh. Photograph: Jim Orr/PA View image in fullscreen Police and protesters around the car involved in the incident during the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration, Edinburgh. Photograph: Jim Orr/PA Police and protesters around the car involved in the incident during the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration, Edinburgh. Photograph: Jim Orr/PA View image in fullscreen Police and protesters around the car involved in the incident during the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration, Edinburgh. Photograph: Jim Orr/PA Police and protesters around the car involved in the incident during the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration, Edinburgh. Photograph: Jim Orr/PA Police and protesters around the car involved in the incident during the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration, Edinburgh. Photograph: Jim Orr/PA This article is more than 1 year old 70-year-old charged after car runs into pro-Palestine demo in Edinburgh This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old 70-year-old charged after car runs into pro-Palestine demo in Edinburgh This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old 70-year-old charged after car runs into pro-Palestine demo in Edinburgh 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 Woman charged with driving offence after witnesses said black car drove into crowd and minor injuries were reported Woman charged with driving offence after witnesses said black car drove into crowd and minor injuries were reported Woman charged with driving offence after witnesses said black car drove into crowd and minor injuries were reported A 70-year-old woman has been charged with a driving offence after a car collided with pro-Palestine protesters in Edinburgh. There were reports of minor injuries but no one needed medical attention. Witnesses said on social media that a black car had driven into the crowd. Richard Parker, a teacher, said on X: “Totally surreal experience, I was at the back where the car entered the crowd with a 76-year-old friend with vascular dementia. We lost her in the commotion and my heart sank when people started shouting: ‘There’s someone under the car!’ “So lucky everyone was unhurt.” The incident comes as demonstrations take place across the UK. In London, thousands gathered to call for a ceasefire . Demonstrators met on Queen Victoria Street before making their way along Fleet Street towards Parliament Square. The protest, part of a global day of action, comes after the RAF and the US military carried out airstrikes against Houthi bases in Yemen . The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which organised the event, claimed “hundreds of thousands” of people had joined the march in London. A Police Scotland spokesperson commenting on the Edinburgh incident said: “Around 2.30pm on Saturday, 13 January 2024, we were made aware of a road crash involving a car and a small number of pedestrians in Ramsay Lane. “Officers received reports of minor injuries from pedestrians, but no medical attention was required. “A 70-year-old woman has been arrested and charged in connection with a driving offence. “A report will be sent to the procurator fiscal.” Explore more on these topics Scotland Israel-Gaza war news Share Reuse this content A 70-year-old woman has been charged with a driving offence after a car collided with pro-Palestine protesters in Edinburgh. There were reports of minor injuries but no one needed medical attention. Witnesses said on social media that a black car had driven into the crowd. Richard Parker, a teacher, said on X: “Totally surreal experience, I was at the back where the car entered the crowd with a 76-year-old friend with vascular dementia. We lost her in the commotion and my heart sank when people started shouting: ‘There’s someone under the car!’ “So lucky everyone was unhurt.” The incident comes as demonstrations take place across the UK. In London, thousands gathered to call for a ceasefire . Demonstrators met on Queen Victoria Street before making their way along Fleet Street towards Parliament Square. The protest, part of a global day of action, comes after the RAF and the US military carried out airstrikes against Houthi bases in Yemen . The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which organised the event, claimed “hundreds of thousands” of people had joined the march in London. A Police Scotland spokesperson commenting on the Edinburgh incident said: “Around 2.30pm on Saturday, 13 January 2024, we were made aware of a road crash involving a car and a small number of pedestrians in Ramsay Lane. “Officers received reports of minor injuries from pedestrians, but no medical attention was required. “A 70-year-old woman has been arrested and charged in connection with a driving offence. “A report will be sent to the procurator fiscal.” Explore more on these topics Scotland Israel-Gaza war news Share Reuse this content A 70-year-old woman has been charged with a driving offence after a car collided with pro-Palestine protesters in Edinburgh. There were reports of minor injuries but no one needed medical attention. Witnesses said on social media that a black car had driven into the crowd. Richard Parker, a teacher, said on X: “Totally surreal experience, I was at the back where the car entered the crowd with a 76-year-old friend with vascular dementia. We lost her in the commotion and my heart sank when people started shouting: ‘There’s someone under the car!’ “So lucky everyone was unhurt.” The incident comes as demonstrations take place across the UK. In London, thousands gathered to call for a ceasefire . Demonstrators met on Queen Victoria Street before making their way along Fleet Street towards Parliament Square. The protest, part of a global day of action, comes after the RAF and the US military carried out airstrikes against Houthi bases in Yemen . The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which organised the event, claimed “hundreds of thousands” of people had joined the march in London. A Police Scotland spokesperson commenting on the Edinburgh incident said: “Around 2.30pm on Saturday, 13 January 2024, we were made aware of a road crash involving a car and a small number of pedestrians in Ramsay Lane. “Officers received reports of minor injuries from pedestrians, but no medical attention was required. “A 70-year-old woman has been arrested and charged in connection with a driving offence. “A report will be sent to the procurator fiscal.” A 70-year-old woman has been charged with a driving offence after a car collided with pro-Palestine protesters in Edinburgh. There were reports of minor injuries but no one needed medical attention. Witnesses said on social media that a black car had driven into the crowd. Richard Parker, a teacher, said on X: “Totally surreal experience, I was at the back where the car entered the crowd with a 76-year-old friend with vascular dementia. We lost her in the commotion and my heart sank when people started shouting: ‘There’s someone under the car!’ “So lucky everyone was unhurt.” The incident comes as demonstrations take place across the UK. In London, thousands gathered to call for a ceasefire . Demonstrators met on Queen Victoria Street before making their way along Fleet Street towards Parliament Square. The protest, part of a global day of action, comes after the RAF and the US military carried out airstrikes against Houthi bases in Yemen . The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which organised the event, claimed “hundreds of thousands” of people had joined the march in London. A Police Scotland spokesperson commenting on the Edinburgh incident said: “Around 2.30pm on Saturday, 13 January 2024, we were made aware of a road crash involving a car and a small number of pedestrians in Ramsay Lane. “Officers received reports of minor injuries from pedestrians, but no medical attention was required. “A 70-year-old woman has been arrested and charged in connection with a driving offence. “A report will be sent to the procurator fiscal.” A 70-year-old woman has been charged with a driving offence after a car collided with pro-Palestine protesters in Edinburgh. There were reports of minor injuries but no one needed medical attention. Witnesses said on social media that a black car had driven into the crowd. Richard Parker, a teacher, said on X: “Totally surreal experience, I was at the back where the car entered the crowd with a 76-year-old friend with vascular dementia. We lost her in the commotion and my heart sank when people started shouting: ‘There’s someone under the car!’ “So lucky everyone was unhurt.” The incident comes as demonstrations take place across the UK. In London, thousands gathered to call for a ceasefire . Demonstrators met on Queen Victoria Street before making their way along Fleet Street towards Parliament Square. The protest, part of a global day of action, comes after the RAF and the US military carried out airstrikes against Houthi bases in Yemen . The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which organised the event, claimed “hundreds of thousands” of people had joined the march in London. A Police Scotland spokesperson commenting on the Edinburgh incident said: “Around 2.30pm on Saturday, 13 January 2024, we were made aware of a road crash involving a car and a small number of pedestrians in Ramsay Lane. “Officers received reports of minor injuries from pedestrians, but no medical attention was required. “A 70-year-old woman has been arrested and charged in connection with a driving offence. “A report will be sent to the procurator fiscal.” Explore more on these topics Scotland Israel-Gaza war news Share Reuse this content
|
Don’t kick the seats and switch off your smartwatch: Guardian critics on how to be a better audience member
No laughing matter … forcing a guffaw to put the actors at ease my not go down well with the rest of the audience. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian View image in fullscreen No laughing matter … forcing a guffaw to put the actors at ease my not go down well with the rest of the audience. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Don’t kick the seats and switch off your smartwatch: Guardian critics on how to be a better audience member This article is more than 1 year old Talking, heckling, boozing: post-pandemic, it seems that some people have forgotten how to behave at events. Fortunately, our culture writers are here to help Cinema Don’t talk during the opening credits Not talking during the film should be a given. It is OK to talk (quietly) during the ads and it is similarly OK to talk (even more quietly) during the trailers. But the microsecond the film starts then you shut up. The credits are not like two football teams warming up before kickoff. The credits are part of the film. Do not kick the seat in front of you, or even press your knees against it It’s amazing how many people don’t understand what not kicking the seat in front of you means in practice. Actually kicking the seatback, from a seated position close behind, is almost impossible. What we mean is do not jam your knees against the seatback so the person in front is shoved forwards as if in the world’s least enjoyable funfair ride. Do not do that. View image in fullscreen Shine a light … do not use your phone torch to look for your seats. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian Do not use your phone light to search for empty seats if you turn up late When we are watching the film, we don’t want to be dazzled by someone standing in front of the screen, raking the auditorium with their phone light, as if looking for escapers from Stalag Luft III. People sitting next to the aisle: don’t roll your eyes when someone wants to get past You are sitting on the aisle because you want an easy getaway at the end. But the trade-off is that you have to either get up or bunch your knees to the side, with smiling good grace, when people want to get past – and it will be a lot of people. Do not behave as if their behaviour is unreasonable. Please finish your crisps before the film starts It is OK, within reason, to eat popcorn during the film because the crunching isn’t that loud, but crisps are different. Stop the crunching and rustling the second those opening credits roll. And don’t try to “stealth eat” them with individual bites during loud sections because that is distracting, too. Also if you or anyone you’re with has gone off to get more food once the film has started, and come back with armfuls of Diet Coke and nachos in the darkness, please be considerate and don’t spill them into the laps of other people you’re climbing past to sit back down. Peter Bradshaw Theatre Stop fake laughing It might come from a place of generosity – sending out a reassuring signal to actors, making an effort to add to the atmosphere – but forced laughter is obvious, and en masse it has the ear-piercing sound of a road drill. Don’t dawdle Standing stock still in the middle of the lobby with your companions, especially after the bell has gone, obstructs others trying to get to their seats. The pre-show bustle is all part of the excitement but not when there’s a wall of bodies refusing to budge. Stop clapping so much I mean, after every song at a musical ... It’s not Pop Idol. I have seen actors freeze and wait for it to end before they can get on with the next scene. Put your smartwatch on dim It’s annoying to see them beaming around the auditorium every time someone moves a wrist. Skip the booze A tipple is all part of the ritual of theatre-going for some. But many of the rounds being bought at interval scrums are shocking – along with the rise in noise levels. Knock back your booze in the pub afterwards. It’s cheaper, and there’s no risk of partying too hard in the aisles, either. Arifa Ak bar Ballet Read the programme This isn’t etiquette exactly, but enjoyment. Ballet can be baffling, and those mute swans aren’t going to tell you what’s going on. Programmes are pricey these days, but you can do your research and read the synopsis online beforehand for free, and gen up on who the dancers are, too – it’s amazing the difference that can make. Leave the drama onstage It’s surprising, the self-righteousness that can break out in the stalls. The guy who tuts and shushes the poor person having a coughing fit and ends up causing more disruption than the cougher. Don’t be that person. Wear what you like A ballgown’s fine, jeans too, and anything in between. There are all these ideas about ballet being elitist, and it’s just not true. There is an argument you might enjoy yourself more if you make a night of it and put some gladrags on, but straight-from-work attire is fine. There’ll be no one at the door with a clipboard looking you up and down. The ballet is not Berghain. Lyndsey Winship Art View image in fullscreen Never mind the Pollocks … please don’t feel the need to vandalise the art. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian Don’t accept the audioguide Galleries and museums want you to engage with their art yet are often the worst enemies of this, offering devices that tell you what to think. There’s a huge loss in letting these infernal voices get between you and the art. Look with your own eyes. Have tolerance Kids making a noise in the gallery? It doesn’t mean they are not looking and learning. Couple talking too loud, bloke being odd, woman looking at her phone? They all have their reasons. Enjoy the gallery your way, let others enjoy it in theirs. Ignore the wall texts Intrusive over-didactic texts are all too common and can include such stupid, arrogant statements that they wreck your mood. My advice is don’t read them. If you need information beyond the artists’ names, title of the work and date, look it up later. To interact or not to interact Artworks that invite you to climb or get on a swing or, God forbid, speak to an actor can be oppressive. They started in the 1960s as artists questioned institutions but are now sometimes institutionalised themselves, making you feel you have to take part in a corporate idea of fun. Don’t participate. Just walk away. Do not attack the art As may already be clear, I don’t find public behaviour in galleries particularly poor. I love the peaceful pleasure so many of us take in looking at art. But please, please don’t vandalise art, not even for a noble cause. It’s the wrong place and the wrong way to protest. Jonathan Jones Gigs View image in fullscreen No sweat … please think about your proximity to other crowd members. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian Stop, think: how much space am I taking up? At gigs, most audience transgressions boil down to issues of space. You can forestall frustration and make the evening more comfortable for everyone by considering how you stand, the volume of your conversation, not carelessly pushing past smaller people, or unleashing elaborate dance moves. Don’t bandsplain You do not need to spend an entire song droning on to your companion about when the track was first recorded, who played third tambourine or providing a detailed analysis of the lyrics. Just listen. Freshen up You’re going to a public event in an enclosed space where you will be in proximity to others, so act accordingly: wash, wear deodorant, tone down the aftershave, brush your teeth, and – for the love of all that is holy – keep a check on bodily emissions. Set your phone considerately I’m not going to tell you not to use your phone – I don’t care if you want to take a terrible photo of Mick Fleetwood – but I am going to respectfully suggest you turn down your screen brightness (the glare jars the mood) and set devices to silent (the alerts ruin the torch songs). Go easy on the refreshments As a general rule, once your vision is blurry enough to wonder whether this band now has more than one bassist, you have gone too far. What’s more, drunkenness at gigs lends itself to space-taking, phone misuse, droning on interminably and all manner of odorous behaviours. Remember: there is no shame in ordering a pint of tap water from the bar. Laura Barton The Proms For the authentic Proms experience you need to stand Skip the sitting and join the moshpit. Hardcore Prommers queue up each day to buy tickets to stand in the arena. The sound is apparently very good there, too. Be sure to arrive in plenty of time for your concert Lavatories are few and far between at the RAH, so if you don’t want to suffer through a whole concert with an uncomfortably full bladder, leave enough time to go searching, and be prepared to queue. Join in with the shout of “Heave!” whenever the piano lid is lifted It may be one of the more inexplicable Proms rituals, but the regulars seem to enjoy it. Andrew Clements Comedy Lighten up Don’t fold your arms. Don’t look so glum. As Mr T famously (almost) advised: “pity the fool”, that poor schmuck onstage sweating dreams to make you laugh. Give them a break. Unfold your arms, unclench your jaw. Turn that frown upside down. If you sit in the front row, you’re asking for it There’s no use avoiding eye contact. That ship has sailed. You’re in Row A, you are fair game. Don’t upload jokes to social media I mean: don’t. To comedians, jokes are money, and posting their jokes online is, er, theft. And even worse, it’s people like you that make the rest of us have to seal our phones in impenetrable synthetic pouches if ever we now go to an arena comedy show. (How am I supposed to check the football scores?!) Don’t whoop I recently got married / had a baby / won an award, the comedian may tell us. Well done you. We’re British. Don’t clap. Don’t cheer. We’re not American. It’s a standup show, not a love-in. Don’t heckle – unless, er, it’s OK to heckle Heckling – the cut-and-thrust of audience-performer backchat – used to be what made standup unique. Nowadays, it’s frowned upon by acts who do not wish their art to be sullied. But not by acts – such as James Acaster, with his new show Hecklers Welcome – who do. How can we know who’s who, and what’s what? The rule: read the room, and don’t be a dick. Brian Logan Explore more on these topics Culture Theatre Ballet Art Pop and rock Classical music Comedy features Share Reuse this content No laughing matter … forcing a guffaw to put the actors at ease my not go down well with the rest of the audience. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian View image in fullscreen No laughing matter … forcing a guffaw to put the actors at ease my not go down well with the rest of the audience. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Don’t kick the seats and switch off your smartwatch: Guardian critics on how to be a better audience member This article is more than 1 year old Talking, heckling, boozing: post-pandemic, it seems that some people have forgotten how to behave at events. Fortunately, our culture writers are here to help Cinema Don’t talk during the opening credits Not talking during the film should be a given. It is OK to talk (quietly) during the ads and it is similarly OK to talk (even more quietly) during the trailers. But the microsecond the film starts then you shut up. The credits are not like two football teams warming up before kickoff. The credits are part of the film. Do not kick the seat in front of you, or even press your knees against it It’s amazing how many people don’t understand what not kicking the seat in front of you means in practice. Actually kicking the seatback, from a seated position close behind, is almost impossible. What we mean is do not jam your knees against the seatback so the person in front is shoved forwards as if in the world’s least enjoyable funfair ride. Do not do that. View image in fullscreen Shine a light … do not use your phone torch to look for your seats. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian Do not use your phone light to search for empty seats if you turn up late When we are watching the film, we don’t want to be dazzled by someone standing in front of the screen, raking the auditorium with their phone light, as if looking for escapers from Stalag Luft III. People sitting next to the aisle: don’t roll your eyes when someone wants to get past You are sitting on the aisle because you want an easy getaway at the end. But the trade-off is that you have to either get up or bunch your knees to the side, with smiling good grace, when people want to get past – and it will be a lot of people. Do not behave as if their behaviour is unreasonable. Please finish your crisps before the film starts It is OK, within reason, to eat popcorn during the film because the crunching isn’t that loud, but crisps are different. Stop the crunching and rustling the second those opening credits roll. And don’t try to “stealth eat” them with individual bites during loud sections because that is distracting, too. Also if you or anyone you’re with has gone off to get more food once the film has started, and come back with armfuls of Diet Coke and nachos in the darkness, please be considerate and don’t spill them into the laps of other people you’re climbing past to sit back down. Peter Bradshaw Theatre Stop fake laughing It might come from a place of generosity – sending out a reassuring signal to actors, making an effort to add to the atmosphere – but forced laughter is obvious, and en masse it has the ear-piercing sound of a road drill. Don’t dawdle Standing stock still in the middle of the lobby with your companions, especially after the bell has gone, obstructs others trying to get to their seats. The pre-show bustle is all part of the excitement but not when there’s a wall of bodies refusing to budge. Stop clapping so much I mean, after every song at a musical ... It’s not Pop Idol. I have seen actors freeze and wait for it to end before they can get on with the next scene. Put your smartwatch on dim It’s annoying to see them beaming around the auditorium every time someone moves a wrist. Skip the booze A tipple is all part of the ritual of theatre-going for some. But many of the rounds being bought at interval scrums are shocking – along with the rise in noise levels. Knock back your booze in the pub afterwards. It’s cheaper, and there’s no risk of partying too hard in the aisles, either. Arifa Ak bar Ballet Read the programme This isn’t etiquette exactly, but enjoyment. Ballet can be baffling, and those mute swans aren’t going to tell you what’s going on. Programmes are pricey these days, but you can do your research and read the synopsis online beforehand for free, and gen up on who the dancers are, too – it’s amazing the difference that can make. Leave the drama onstage It’s surprising, the self-righteousness that can break out in the stalls. The guy who tuts and shushes the poor person having a coughing fit and ends up causing more disruption than the cougher. Don’t be that person. Wear what you like A ballgown’s fine, jeans too, and anything in between. There are all these ideas about ballet being elitist, and it’s just not true. There is an argument you might enjoy yourself more if you make a night of it and put some gladrags on, but straight-from-work attire is fine. There’ll be no one at the door with a clipboard looking you up and down. The ballet is not Berghain. Lyndsey Winship Art View image in fullscreen Never mind the Pollocks … please don’t feel the need to vandalise the art. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian Don’t accept the audioguide Galleries and museums want you to engage with their art yet are often the worst enemies of this, offering devices that tell you what to think. There’s a huge loss in letting these infernal voices get between you and the art. Look with your own eyes. Have tolerance Kids making a noise in the gallery? It doesn’t mean they are not looking and learning. Couple talking too loud, bloke being odd, woman looking at her phone? They all have their reasons. Enjoy the gallery your way, let others enjoy it in theirs. Ignore the wall texts Intrusive over-didactic texts are all too common and can include such stupid, arrogant statements that they wreck your mood. My advice is don’t read them. If you need information beyond the artists’ names, title of the work and date, look it up later. To interact or not to interact Artworks that invite you to climb or get on a swing or, God forbid, speak to an actor can be oppressive. They started in the 1960s as artists questioned institutions but are now sometimes institutionalised themselves, making you feel you have to take part in a corporate idea of fun. Don’t participate. Just walk away. Do not attack the art As may already be clear, I don’t find public behaviour in galleries particularly poor. I love the peaceful pleasure so many of us take in looking at art. But please, please don’t vandalise art, not even for a noble cause. It’s the wrong place and the wrong way to protest. Jonathan Jones Gigs View image in fullscreen No sweat … please think about your proximity to other crowd members. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian Stop, think: how much space am I taking up? At gigs, most audience transgressions boil down to issues of space. You can forestall frustration and make the evening more comfortable for everyone by considering how you stand, the volume of your conversation, not carelessly pushing past smaller people, or unleashing elaborate dance moves. Don’t bandsplain You do not need to spend an entire song droning on to your companion about when the track was first recorded, who played third tambourine or providing a detailed analysis of the lyrics. Just listen. Freshen up You’re going to a public event in an enclosed space where you will be in proximity to others, so act accordingly: wash, wear deodorant, tone down the aftershave, brush your teeth, and – for the love of all that is holy – keep a check on bodily emissions. Set your phone considerately I’m not going to tell you not to use your phone – I don’t care if you want to take a terrible photo of Mick Fleetwood – but I am going to respectfully suggest you turn down your screen brightness (the glare jars the mood) and set devices to silent (the alerts ruin the torch songs). Go easy on the refreshments As a general rule, once your vision is blurry enough to wonder whether this band now has more than one bassist, you have gone too far. What’s more, drunkenness at gigs lends itself to space-taking, phone misuse, droning on interminably and all manner of odorous behaviours. Remember: there is no shame in ordering a pint of tap water from the bar. Laura Barton The Proms For the authentic Proms experience you need to stand Skip the sitting and join the moshpit. Hardcore Prommers queue up each day to buy tickets to stand in the arena. The sound is apparently very good there, too. Be sure to arrive in plenty of time for your concert Lavatories are few and far between at the RAH, so if you don’t want to suffer through a whole concert with an uncomfortably full bladder, leave enough time to go searching, and be prepared to queue. Join in with the shout of “Heave!” whenever the piano lid is lifted It may be one of the more inexplicable Proms rituals, but the regulars seem to enjoy it. Andrew Clements Comedy Lighten up Don’t fold your arms. Don’t look so glum. As Mr T famously (almost) advised: “pity the fool”, that poor schmuck onstage sweating dreams to make you laugh. Give them a break. Unfold your arms, unclench your jaw. Turn that frown upside down. If you sit in the front row, you’re asking for it There’s no use avoiding eye contact. That ship has sailed. You’re in Row A, you are fair game. Don’t upload jokes to social media I mean: don’t. To comedians, jokes are money, and posting their jokes online is, er, theft. And even worse, it’s people like you that make the rest of us have to seal our phones in impenetrable synthetic pouches if ever we now go to an arena comedy show. (How am I supposed to check the football scores?!) Don’t whoop I recently got married / had a baby / won an award, the comedian may tell us. Well done you. We’re British. Don’t clap. Don’t cheer. We’re not American. It’s a standup show, not a love-in. Don’t heckle – unless, er, it’s OK to heckle Heckling – the cut-and-thrust of audience-performer backchat – used to be what made standup unique. Nowadays, it’s frowned upon by acts who do not wish their art to be sullied. But not by acts – such as James Acaster, with his new show Hecklers Welcome – who do. How can we know who’s who, and what’s what? The rule: read the room, and don’t be a dick. Brian Logan Explore more on these topics Culture Theatre Ballet Art Pop and rock Classical music Comedy features Share Reuse this content No laughing matter … forcing a guffaw to put the actors at ease my not go down well with the rest of the audience. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian View image in fullscreen No laughing matter … forcing a guffaw to put the actors at ease my not go down well with the rest of the audience. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian No laughing matter … forcing a guffaw to put the actors at ease my not go down well with the rest of the audience. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian View image in fullscreen No laughing matter … forcing a guffaw to put the actors at ease my not go down well with the rest of the audience. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian No laughing matter … forcing a guffaw to put the actors at ease my not go down well with the rest of the audience. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian View image in fullscreen No laughing matter … forcing a guffaw to put the actors at ease my not go down well with the rest of the audience. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian No laughing matter … forcing a guffaw to put the actors at ease my not go down well with the rest of the audience. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian View image in fullscreen No laughing matter … forcing a guffaw to put the actors at ease my not go down well with the rest of the audience. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian No laughing matter … forcing a guffaw to put the actors at ease my not go down well with the rest of the audience. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian No laughing matter … forcing a guffaw to put the actors at ease my not go down well with the rest of the audience. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Don’t kick the seats and switch off your smartwatch: Guardian critics on how to be a better audience member This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Don’t kick the seats and switch off your smartwatch: Guardian critics on how to be a better audience member This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Don’t kick the seats and switch off your smartwatch: Guardian critics on how to be a better audience member 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 Talking, heckling, boozing: post-pandemic, it seems that some people have forgotten how to behave at events. Fortunately, our culture writers are here to help Talking, heckling, boozing: post-pandemic, it seems that some people have forgotten how to behave at events. Fortunately, our culture writers are here to help Talking, heckling, boozing: post-pandemic, it seems that some people have forgotten how to behave at events. Fortunately, our culture writers are here to help Cinema Don’t talk during the opening credits Not talking during the film should be a given. It is OK to talk (quietly) during the ads and it is similarly OK to talk (even more quietly) during the trailers. But the microsecond the film starts then you shut up. The credits are not like two football teams warming up before kickoff. The credits are part of the film. Do not kick the seat in front of you, or even press your knees against it It’s amazing how many people don’t understand what not kicking the seat in front of you means in practice. Actually kicking the seatback, from a seated position close behind, is almost impossible. What we mean is do not jam your knees against the seatback so the person in front is shoved forwards as if in the world’s least enjoyable funfair ride. Do not do that. View image in fullscreen Shine a light … do not use your phone torch to look for your seats. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian Do not use your phone light to search for empty seats if you turn up late When we are watching the film, we don’t want to be dazzled by someone standing in front of the screen, raking the auditorium with their phone light, as if looking for escapers from Stalag Luft III. People sitting next to the aisle: don’t roll your eyes when someone wants to get past You are sitting on the aisle because you want an easy getaway at the end. But the trade-off is that you have to either get up or bunch your knees to the side, with smiling good grace, when people want to get past – and it will be a lot of people. Do not behave as if their behaviour is unreasonable. Please finish your crisps before the film starts It is OK, within reason, to eat popcorn during the film because the crunching isn’t that loud, but crisps are different. Stop the crunching and rustling the second those opening credits roll. And don’t try to “stealth eat” them with individual bites during loud sections because that is distracting, too. Also if you or anyone you’re with has gone off to get more food once the film has started, and come back with armfuls of Diet Coke and nachos in the darkness, please be considerate and don’t spill them into the laps of other people you’re climbing past to sit back down. Peter Bradshaw Theatre Stop fake laughing It might come from a place of generosity – sending out a reassuring signal to actors, making an effort to add to the atmosphere – but forced laughter is obvious, and en masse it has the ear-piercing sound of a road drill. Don’t dawdle Standing stock still in the middle of the lobby with your companions, especially after the bell has gone, obstructs others trying to get to their seats. The pre-show bustle is all part of the excitement but not when there’s a wall of bodies refusing to budge. Stop clapping so much I mean, after every song at a musical ... It’s not Pop Idol. I have seen actors freeze and wait for it to end before they can get on with the next scene. Put your smartwatch on dim It’s annoying to see them beaming around the auditorium every time someone moves a wrist. Skip the booze A tipple is all part of the ritual of theatre-going for some. But many of the rounds being bought at interval scrums are shocking – along with the rise in noise levels. Knock back your booze in the pub afterwards. It’s cheaper, and there’s no risk of partying too hard in the aisles, either. Arifa Ak bar Ballet Read the programme This isn’t etiquette exactly, but enjoyment. Ballet can be baffling, and those mute swans aren’t going to tell you what’s going on. Programmes are pricey these days, but you can do your research and read the synopsis online beforehand for free, and gen up on who the dancers are, too – it’s amazing the difference that can make. Leave the drama onstage It’s surprising, the self-righteousness that can break out in the stalls. The guy who tuts and shushes the poor person having a coughing fit and ends up causing more disruption than the cougher. Don’t be that person. Wear what you like A ballgown’s fine, jeans too, and anything in between. There are all these ideas about ballet being elitist, and it’s just not true. There is an argument you might enjoy yourself more if you make a night of it and put some gladrags on, but straight-from-work attire is fine. There’ll be no one at the door with a clipboard looking you up and down. The ballet is not Berghain. Lyndsey Winship Art View image in fullscreen Never mind the Pollocks … please don’t feel the need to vandalise the art. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian Don’t accept the audioguide Galleries and museums want you to engage with their art yet are often the worst enemies of this, offering devices that tell you what to think. There’s a huge loss in letting these infernal voices get between you and the art. Look with your own eyes. Have tolerance Kids making a noise in the gallery? It doesn’t mean they are not looking and learning. Couple talking too loud, bloke being odd, woman looking at her phone? They all have their reasons. Enjoy the gallery your way, let others enjoy it in theirs. Ignore the wall texts Intrusive over-didactic texts are all too common and can include such stupid, arrogant statements that they wreck your mood. My advice is don’t read them. If you need information beyond the artists’ names, title of the work and date, look it up later. To interact or not to interact Artworks that invite you to climb or get on a swing or, God forbid, speak to an actor can be oppressive. They started in the 1960s as artists questioned institutions but are now sometimes institutionalised themselves, making you feel you have to take part in a corporate idea of fun. Don’t participate. Just walk away. Do not attack the art As may already be clear, I don’t find public behaviour in galleries particularly poor. I love the peaceful pleasure so many of us take in looking at art. But please, please don’t vandalise art, not even for a noble cause. It’s the wrong place and the wrong way to protest. Jonathan Jones Gigs View image in fullscreen No sweat … please think about your proximity to other crowd members. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian Stop, think: how much space am I taking up? At gigs, most audience transgressions boil down to issues of space. You can forestall frustration and make the evening more comfortable for everyone by considering how you stand, the volume of your conversation, not carelessly pushing past smaller people, or unleashing elaborate dance moves. Don’t bandsplain You do not need to spend an entire song droning on to your companion about when the track was first recorded, who played third tambourine or providing a detailed analysis of the lyrics. Just listen. Freshen up You’re going to a public event in an enclosed space where you will be in proximity to others, so act accordingly: wash, wear deodorant, tone down the aftershave, brush your teeth, and – for the love of all that is holy – keep a check on bodily emissions. Set your phone considerately I’m not going to tell you not to use your phone – I don’t care if you want to take a terrible photo of Mick Fleetwood – but I am going to respectfully suggest you turn down your screen brightness (the glare jars the mood) and set devices to silent (the alerts ruin the torch songs). Go easy on the refreshments As a general rule, once your vision is blurry enough to wonder whether this band now has more than one bassist, you have gone too far. What’s more, drunkenness at gigs lends itself to space-taking, phone misuse, droning on interminably and all manner of odorous behaviours. Remember: there is no shame in ordering a pint of tap water from the bar. Laura Barton The Proms For the authentic Proms experience you need to stand Skip the sitting and join the moshpit. Hardcore Prommers queue up each day to buy tickets to stand in the arena. The sound is apparently very good there, too. Be sure to arrive in plenty of time for your concert Lavatories are few and far between at the RAH, so if you don’t want to suffer through a whole concert with an uncomfortably full bladder, leave enough time to go searching, and be prepared to queue. Join in with the shout of “Heave!” whenever the piano lid is lifted It may be one of the more inexplicable Proms rituals, but the regulars seem to enjoy it. Andrew Clements Comedy Lighten up Don’t fold your arms. Don’t look so glum. As Mr T famously (almost) advised: “pity the fool”, that poor schmuck onstage sweating dreams to make you laugh. Give them a break. Unfold your arms, unclench your jaw. Turn that frown upside down. If you sit in the front row, you’re asking for it There’s no use avoiding eye contact. That ship has sailed. You’re in Row A, you are fair game. Don’t upload jokes to social media I mean: don’t. To comedians, jokes are money, and posting their jokes online is, er, theft. And even worse, it’s people like you that make the rest of us have to seal our phones in impenetrable synthetic pouches if ever we now go to an arena comedy show. (How am I supposed to check the football scores?!) Don’t whoop I recently got married / had a baby / won an award, the comedian may tell us. Well done you. We’re British. Don’t clap. Don’t cheer. We’re not American. It’s a standup show, not a love-in. Don’t heckle – unless, er, it’s OK to heckle Heckling – the cut-and-thrust of audience-performer backchat – used to be what made standup unique. Nowadays, it’s frowned upon by acts who do not wish their art to be sullied. But not by acts – such as James Acaster, with his new show Hecklers Welcome – who do. How can we know who’s who, and what’s what? The rule: read the room, and don’t be a dick. Brian Logan Explore more on these topics Culture Theatre Ballet Art Pop and rock Classical music Comedy features Share Reuse this content Cinema Don’t talk during the opening credits Not talking during the film should be a given. It is OK to talk (quietly) during the ads and it is similarly OK to talk (even more quietly) during the trailers. But the microsecond the film starts then you shut up. The credits are not like two football teams warming up before kickoff. The credits are part of the film. Do not kick the seat in front of you, or even press your knees against it It’s amazing how many people don’t understand what not kicking the seat in front of you means in practice. Actually kicking the seatback, from a seated position close behind, is almost impossible. What we mean is do not jam your knees against the seatback so the person in front is shoved forwards as if in the world’s least enjoyable funfair ride. Do not do that. View image in fullscreen Shine a light … do not use your phone torch to look for your seats. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian Do not use your phone light to search for empty seats if you turn up late When we are watching the film, we don’t want to be dazzled by someone standing in front of the screen, raking the auditorium with their phone light, as if looking for escapers from Stalag Luft III. People sitting next to the aisle: don’t roll your eyes when someone wants to get past You are sitting on the aisle because you want an easy getaway at the end. But the trade-off is that you have to either get up or bunch your knees to the side, with smiling good grace, when people want to get past – and it will be a lot of people. Do not behave as if their behaviour is unreasonable. Please finish your crisps before the film starts It is OK, within reason, to eat popcorn during the film because the crunching isn’t that loud, but crisps are different. Stop the crunching and rustling the second those opening credits roll. And don’t try to “stealth eat” them with individual bites during loud sections because that is distracting, too. Also if you or anyone you’re with has gone off to get more food once the film has started, and come back with armfuls of Diet Coke and nachos in the darkness, please be considerate and don’t spill them into the laps of other people you’re climbing past to sit back down. Peter Bradshaw Theatre Stop fake laughing It might come from a place of generosity – sending out a reassuring signal to actors, making an effort to add to the atmosphere – but forced laughter is obvious, and en masse it has the ear-piercing sound of a road drill. Don’t dawdle Standing stock still in the middle of the lobby with your companions, especially after the bell has gone, obstructs others trying to get to their seats. The pre-show bustle is all part of the excitement but not when there’s a wall of bodies refusing to budge. Stop clapping so much I mean, after every song at a musical ... It’s not Pop Idol. I have seen actors freeze and wait for it to end before they can get on with the next scene. Put your smartwatch on dim It’s annoying to see them beaming around the auditorium every time someone moves a wrist. Skip the booze A tipple is all part of the ritual of theatre-going for some. But many of the rounds being bought at interval scrums are shocking – along with the rise in noise levels. Knock back your booze in the pub afterwards. It’s cheaper, and there’s no risk of partying too hard in the aisles, either. Arifa Ak bar Ballet Read the programme This isn’t etiquette exactly, but enjoyment. Ballet can be baffling, and those mute swans aren’t going to tell you what’s going on. Programmes are pricey these days, but you can do your research and read the synopsis online beforehand for free, and gen up on who the dancers are, too – it’s amazing the difference that can make. Leave the drama onstage It’s surprising, the self-righteousness that can break out in the stalls. The guy who tuts and shushes the poor person having a coughing fit and ends up causing more disruption than the cougher. Don’t be that person. Wear what you like A ballgown’s fine, jeans too, and anything in between. There are all these ideas about ballet being elitist, and it’s just not true. There is an argument you might enjoy yourself more if you make a night of it and put some gladrags on, but straight-from-work attire is fine. There’ll be no one at the door with a clipboard looking you up and down. The ballet is not Berghain. Lyndsey Winship Art View image in fullscreen Never mind the Pollocks … please don’t feel the need to vandalise the art. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian Don’t accept the audioguide Galleries and museums want you to engage with their art yet are often the worst enemies of this, offering devices that tell you what to think. There’s a huge loss in letting these infernal voices get between you and the art. Look with your own eyes. Have tolerance Kids making a noise in the gallery? It doesn’t mean they are not looking and learning. Couple talking too loud, bloke being odd, woman looking at her phone? They all have their reasons. Enjoy the gallery your way, let others enjoy it in theirs. Ignore the wall texts Intrusive over-didactic texts are all too common and can include such stupid, arrogant statements that they wreck your mood. My advice is don’t read them. If you need information beyond the artists’ names, title of the work and date, look it up later. To interact or not to interact Artworks that invite you to climb or get on a swing or, God forbid, speak to an actor can be oppressive. They started in the 1960s as artists questioned institutions but are now sometimes institutionalised themselves, making you feel you have to take part in a corporate idea of fun. Don’t participate. Just walk away. Do not attack the art As may already be clear, I don’t find public behaviour in galleries particularly poor. I love the peaceful pleasure so many of us take in looking at art. But please, please don’t vandalise art, not even for a noble cause. It’s the wrong place and the wrong way to protest. Jonathan Jones Gigs View image in fullscreen No sweat … please think about your proximity to other crowd members. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian Stop, think: how much space am I taking up? At gigs, most audience transgressions boil down to issues of space. You can forestall frustration and make the evening more comfortable for everyone by considering how you stand, the volume of your conversation, not carelessly pushing past smaller people, or unleashing elaborate dance moves. Don’t bandsplain You do not need to spend an entire song droning on to your companion about when the track was first recorded, who played third tambourine or providing a detailed analysis of the lyrics. Just listen. Freshen up You’re going to a public event in an enclosed space where you will be in proximity to others, so act accordingly: wash, wear deodorant, tone down the aftershave, brush your teeth, and – for the love of all that is holy – keep a check on bodily emissions. Set your phone considerately I’m not going to tell you not to use your phone – I don’t care if you want to take a terrible photo of Mick Fleetwood – but I am going to respectfully suggest you turn down your screen brightness (the glare jars the mood) and set devices to silent (the alerts ruin the torch songs). Go easy on the refreshments As a general rule, once your vision is blurry enough to wonder whether this band now has more than one bassist, you have gone too far. What’s more, drunkenness at gigs lends itself to space-taking, phone misuse, droning on interminably and all manner of odorous behaviours. Remember: there is no shame in ordering a pint of tap water from the bar. Laura Barton The Proms For the authentic Proms experience you need to stand Skip the sitting and join the moshpit. Hardcore Prommers queue up each day to buy tickets to stand in the arena. The sound is apparently very good there, too. Be sure to arrive in plenty of time for your concert Lavatories are few and far between at the RAH, so if you don’t want to suffer through a whole concert with an uncomfortably full bladder, leave enough time to go searching, and be prepared to queue. Join in with the shout of “Heave!” whenever the piano lid is lifted It may be one of the more inexplicable Proms rituals, but the regulars seem to enjoy it. Andrew Clements Comedy Lighten up Don’t fold your arms. Don’t look so glum. As Mr T famously (almost) advised: “pity the fool”, that poor schmuck onstage sweating dreams to make you laugh. Give them a break. Unfold your arms, unclench your jaw. Turn that frown upside down. If you sit in the front row, you’re asking for it There’s no use avoiding eye contact. That ship has sailed. You’re in Row A, you are fair game. Don’t upload jokes to social media I mean: don’t. To comedians, jokes are money, and posting their jokes online is, er, theft. And even worse, it’s people like you that make the rest of us have to seal our phones in impenetrable synthetic pouches if ever we now go to an arena comedy show. (How am I supposed to check the football scores?!) Don’t whoop I recently got married / had a baby / won an award, the comedian may tell us. Well done you. We’re British. Don’t clap. Don’t cheer. We’re not American. It’s a standup show, not a love-in. Don’t heckle – unless, er, it’s OK to heckle Heckling – the cut-and-thrust of audience-performer backchat – used to be what made standup unique. Nowadays, it’s frowned upon by acts who do not wish their art to be sullied. But not by acts – such as James Acaster, with his new show Hecklers Welcome – who do. How can we know who’s who, and what’s what? The rule: read the room, and don’t be a dick. Brian Logan Explore more on these topics Culture Theatre Ballet Art Pop and rock Classical music Comedy features Share Reuse this content Cinema Don’t talk during the opening credits Not talking during the film should be a given. It is OK to talk (quietly) during the ads and it is similarly OK to talk (even more quietly) during the trailers. But the microsecond the film starts then you shut up. The credits are not like two football teams warming up before kickoff. The credits are part of the film. Do not kick the seat in front of you, or even press your knees against it It’s amazing how many people don’t understand what not kicking the seat in front of you means in practice. Actually kicking the seatback, from a seated position close behind, is almost impossible. What we mean is do not jam your knees against the seatback so the person in front is shoved forwards as if in the world’s least enjoyable funfair ride. Do not do that. View image in fullscreen Shine a light … do not use your phone torch to look for your seats. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian Do not use your phone light to search for empty seats if you turn up late When we are watching the film, we don’t want to be dazzled by someone standing in front of the screen, raking the auditorium with their phone light, as if looking for escapers from Stalag Luft III. People sitting next to the aisle: don’t roll your eyes when someone wants to get past You are sitting on the aisle because you want an easy getaway at the end. But the trade-off is that you have to either get up or bunch your knees to the side, with smiling good grace, when people want to get past – and it will be a lot of people. Do not behave as if their behaviour is unreasonable. Please finish your crisps before the film starts It is OK, within reason, to eat popcorn during the film because the crunching isn’t that loud, but crisps are different. Stop the crunching and rustling the second those opening credits roll. And don’t try to “stealth eat” them with individual bites during loud sections because that is distracting, too. Also if you or anyone you’re with has gone off to get more food once the film has started, and come back with armfuls of Diet Coke and nachos in the darkness, please be considerate and don’t spill them into the laps of other people you’re climbing past to sit back down. Peter Bradshaw Theatre Stop fake laughing It might come from a place of generosity – sending out a reassuring signal to actors, making an effort to add to the atmosphere – but forced laughter is obvious, and en masse it has the ear-piercing sound of a road drill. Don’t dawdle Standing stock still in the middle of the lobby with your companions, especially after the bell has gone, obstructs others trying to get to their seats. The pre-show bustle is all part of the excitement but not when there’s a wall of bodies refusing to budge. Stop clapping so much I mean, after every song at a musical ... It’s not Pop Idol. I have seen actors freeze and wait for it to end before they can get on with the next scene. Put your smartwatch on dim It’s annoying to see them beaming around the auditorium every time someone moves a wrist. Skip the booze A tipple is all part of the ritual of theatre-going for some. But many of the rounds being bought at interval scrums are shocking – along with the rise in noise levels. Knock back your booze in the pub afterwards. It’s cheaper, and there’s no risk of partying too hard in the aisles, either. Arifa Ak bar Ballet Read the programme This isn’t etiquette exactly, but enjoyment. Ballet can be baffling, and those mute swans aren’t going to tell you what’s going on. Programmes are pricey these days, but you can do your research and read the synopsis online beforehand for free, and gen up on who the dancers are, too – it’s amazing the difference that can make. Leave the drama onstage It’s surprising, the self-righteousness that can break out in the stalls. The guy who tuts and shushes the poor person having a coughing fit and ends up causing more disruption than the cougher. Don’t be that person. Wear what you like A ballgown’s fine, jeans too, and anything in between. There are all these ideas about ballet being elitist, and it’s just not true. There is an argument you might enjoy yourself more if you make a night of it and put some gladrags on, but straight-from-work attire is fine. There’ll be no one at the door with a clipboard looking you up and down. The ballet is not Berghain. Lyndsey Winship Art View image in fullscreen Never mind the Pollocks … please don’t feel the need to vandalise the art. Illustration: Mark Long/The Guardian Don’t accept the audioguide Galleries and museums want you to engage with their art yet are often the worst enemies of this, offering devices that tell you what to think. There’s a huge loss in letting these infernal voices get between you and the art. Look with your own eyes. Have tolerance Kids making a noise in the gallery? It doesn’t mean they are not looking and learning. Couple talking too loud, bloke being odd, woman looking at her phone? They all have their reasons. Enjoy the gallery your way, let others enjoy it in theirs. Ignore the wall texts Intrusive over-didactic texts are all too common and can include such stupid, arrogant statements that they wreck your mood. My advice is don’t read them. If you need information beyond the artists’ names, title of the work and date, look it up later. To interact or not to interact Artworks that invite you to climb or get on a swing or, God forbid, speak to an actor can be oppressive. They started in the 1960s as artists questioned institutions but are now sometimes institutionalised themselves, making you feel you have to take part in a corporate idea of fun. Don’t participate. Just walk away. Do not attack the art As may already be clear, I don’t find public behaviour in galleries particularly poor. I love the peaceful pleasure so many
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
I talked to Keir Starmer for three months: this is what I learned
Anushka Asthana, deputy political editor of ITV News, and Labour leader Keir Starmer. Photograph: ITV News View image in fullscreen Anushka Asthana, deputy political editor of ITV News, and Labour leader Keir Starmer. Photograph: ITV News This article is more than 1 year old I talked to Keir Starmer for three months: this is what I learned This article is more than 1 year old ITV’s deputy political editor had exclusive access to the Labour leader for a TV profile to be aired this week. Is he fit to be Britain’s next PM? T hree months ago, our cameras captured Keir Starmer standing backstage at the ACC conference centre in Liverpool. The Labour leader, dressed in a smart dark suit and holding a cup of water, paced back and forth, a slight nervousness etched into his face. He was waiting to deliver perhaps the most important speech of his political career. For Labour advisers, this was his big chance to answer a key question that they believed would dominate all the way up to the 2024 general election: “If not them [the Conservatives], why us [Labour]?” You may remember what happened next. Within minutes, Starmer’s speech was interrupted by a protester who somehow stormed on to the stage, threw glitter across his back and grabbed hold of his arm. If it wasn’t for the flick of genuine fear on Starmer’s face, a cynical journalist might have wondered had this moment been stage-managed? View image in fullscreen ‘We’re inheriting a terrible situation,’ Keir Starmer told ITV’s Anushka Asthana. Photograph: Justin Slee/ITV I joked to that effect in the moments after the speech when I caught up with the Labour leader, leaving with his wife to walk back to their hotel room. “No,” he exclaimed, wagging his finger in my direction. But he was laughing, as he admitted this was the image he wanted to portray. “If ever there was a symbol that the Labour party has changed from protest to power,” he said. When ITV’s Tonight programme was given exclusive up-close access to the Labour leader, this was one of many clues I got as to what drives Starmer politically. Over three months, I followed him from the highs of his party conference to the lows of division and resignations over Israel and Gaza . To understand his political journey, I went back to his old university in Leeds , asked about tax and immigration in a target constituency, pressed him on climate policies at the UN conference in Dubai, listened to his fears for his family – and, of course, chatted about his football obsession on the way to his beloved Arsenal. Keir Starmer won’t just be battling the Tories this year but also the absence of hope | Andrew Rawnsley Read more So, politically speaking, who is the man tipped to be our next prime minister? Is he the idealistic lefty who wrote about the “authoritarian onslaught of Thatcherism” as a student in the 1980s? Is he the 2020 Labour party leadership hopeful who made 10 pledges, including mass nationalisations? Or is he the centrist who (after that moment of fear) almost revelled in the imagery of a protester being booted off stage at the final party conference before a general election year? Perhaps the best understanding came during a conversation in King’s Academy Prospect, a secondary school in Reading. We spoke in a design and technology lab in a wing of impressive buildings funded in the New Labour years. It was a late visit squeezed into Starmer’s brutal schedule. There, he blamed a dire economic backdrop for his decision not to lift the two-child cap on benefits . Pointing out that the previous Labour government invested heavily in public services, I asked him if he was sad that he couldn’t be as bold as Tony Blair. “Well, of course, but we’re inheriting a terrible situation,” he replied. And Starmer has clearly been advised that he shouldn’t offer the Tories even an inch on unfunded public spending. His mantra is that economic growth will turn the situation around, and he claims that his shadow cabinet is drumming up business investment now, to land on day one if it is elected. For many, growth is a longer-term solution, so what about other more immediate choices, such as taxing people’s wealth? I turned back to Blair, reading this quote: “It’s not a burning ambition for me to make sure that David Beckham earns less money.” Did he disagree with that? “No,” Starmer responded without hesitation about Beckham or a similarly rich footballer today. “I don’t disagree with that.” But if you are prime minister, I went on, would you want to take more money from the super-rich (non-doms aside) and redistribute it to the poorest? Again, a “no”, without hesitation. “That isn’t how I want to grow the economy.” Starmer argued that while, of course, Labour believes in redistribution: “I don’t think redistribution is the sort of one-word answer for millions of people across the country”. He spoke of the dignity and respect of skilled work. “So I’m afraid if it’s just redistribution, I think that fundamentally disrespects people.” If I was to judge the Starmer I was listening to against two of the other contributors to our programme – Peter Mandelson, an architect of the 1997 Labour victory, and union leader Mick Lynch – it was clear which way he was leaning. This Labour leader was far more Mandy than Mick (though his advisers would argue he is neither). Lord Mandelson, a key figure in Blair’s 1997 victory, praised Starmer for bringing the party back from “a near-death experience” under Jeremy Corbyn. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Meanwhile, Lynch told us: “The Labour party has got to be a socialist organisation. We have got to take money off the rich and redistribute it to the rest of the communities in Britain. He’s got to identify with what working people need, not … with what the Daily Mail , the Telegraph and the Express are telling him to believe.” I wondered what had driven Starmer in the 80s. Back then, he was involved in producing a radical Trotskyist magazine called Socialist Alternatives . In one article, he argued that collective bargaining was not leftwing enough, handing too much power to the employers. And he did not hold back on the harm caused by Margaret Thatcher in the 80s. So why did he praise the former Conservative prime minister in a recent Sunday Telegraph article? Starmer asked if anyone would agree with exactly what they had believed at the age of 22. But, actually, he said he did agree that she delivered an “authoritarian onslaught”. “I would say the same now. What she had was a clarity of mission and a purpose – but actually what she did was very destructive.” Was he a lefty then? Is he now? Starmer hesitated briefly, aware of the growing gravity attached to his comments as the election draws near. But still “yes and yes”, he said. Still, something big has clearly shifted. I asked if defeat in the Hartlepool byelection in 2021 – a sobering moment, by all accounts – had led him to compromise those lefty principles to make way for a relentless pursuit of power? “When the electorate reject you as badly as they did in 2019, you don’t look at the electorate and say: ‘What are you thinking?’ You look at yourself and change the party.” And this was the theme Starmer kept coming back to: the hopelessness of opposition. He took every chance to stress how he had changed the party, moving Labour towards the centre ground (although some in the party would argue passionately that this is moving to where voters are, and they are in a different place in 2024 compared with 1997) and embracing the idea that he had been “ruthless” in doing so. He said it again as we walked up to the Arsenal and talked about how politics compares to football. “It’s all about winning. You know some people say: ‘It’s the taking part that counts’. I don’t.” Surely you don’t say that to your children, I suggested. But he doubled down: “I don’t subscribe to any of that,” he said. But what might a young Starmer, who was clearly driven by a desire to tackle injustice and inequality, say to his older self, who won’t commit to lifting a two-child benefit cap or taxing the super-rich more than he has said so far? “The Keir Starmer of my student days would also know that the most important thing is to have a Labour government, otherwise it’s shouting into the void.” But he did concede that an idealistic young Starmer would probably want him to go further – especially if he wins. 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 Keir Starmer The Observer Focus Labour Labour conference 2023 Labour conference ITV News features Share Reuse this content Anushka Asthana, deputy political editor of ITV News, and Labour leader Keir Starmer. Photograph: ITV News View image in fullscreen Anushka Asthana, deputy political editor of ITV News, and Labour leader Keir Starmer. Photograph: ITV News This article is more than 1 year old I talked to Keir Starmer for three months: this is what I learned This article is more than 1 year old ITV’s deputy political editor had exclusive access to the Labour leader for a TV profile to be aired this week. Is he fit to be Britain’s next PM? T hree months ago, our cameras captured Keir Starmer standing backstage at the ACC conference centre in Liverpool. The Labour leader, dressed in a smart dark suit and holding a cup of water, paced back and forth, a slight nervousness etched into his face. He was waiting to deliver perhaps the most important speech of his political career. For Labour advisers, this was his big chance to answer a key question that they believed would dominate all the way up to the 2024 general election: “If not them [the Conservatives], why us [Labour]?” You may remember what happened next. Within minutes, Starmer’s speech was interrupted by a protester who somehow stormed on to the stage, threw glitter across his back and grabbed hold of his arm. If it wasn’t for the flick of genuine fear on Starmer’s face, a cynical journalist might have wondered had this moment been stage-managed? View image in fullscreen ‘We’re inheriting a terrible situation,’ Keir Starmer told ITV’s Anushka Asthana. Photograph: Justin Slee/ITV I joked to that effect in the moments after the speech when I caught up with the Labour leader, leaving with his wife to walk back to their hotel room. “No,” he exclaimed, wagging his finger in my direction. But he was laughing, as he admitted this was the image he wanted to portray. “If ever there was a symbol that the Labour party has changed from protest to power,” he said. When ITV’s Tonight programme was given exclusive up-close access to the Labour leader, this was one of many clues I got as to what drives Starmer politically. Over three months, I followed him from the highs of his party conference to the lows of division and resignations over Israel and Gaza . To understand his political journey, I went back to his old university in Leeds , asked about tax and immigration in a target constituency, pressed him on climate policies at the UN conference in Dubai, listened to his fears for his family – and, of course, chatted about his football obsession on the way to his beloved Arsenal. Keir Starmer won’t just be battling the Tories this year but also the absence of hope | Andrew Rawnsley Read more So, politically speaking, who is the man tipped to be our next prime minister? Is he the idealistic lefty who wrote about the “authoritarian onslaught of Thatcherism” as a student in the 1980s? Is he the 2020 Labour party leadership hopeful who made 10 pledges, including mass nationalisations? Or is he the centrist who (after that moment of fear) almost revelled in the imagery of a protester being booted off stage at the final party conference before a general election year? Perhaps the best understanding came during a conversation in King’s Academy Prospect, a secondary school in Reading. We spoke in a design and technology lab in a wing of impressive buildings funded in the New Labour years. It was a late visit squeezed into Starmer’s brutal schedule. There, he blamed a dire economic backdrop for his decision not to lift the two-child cap on benefits . Pointing out that the previous Labour government invested heavily in public services, I asked him if he was sad that he couldn’t be as bold as Tony Blair. “Well, of course, but we’re inheriting a terrible situation,” he replied. And Starmer has clearly been advised that he shouldn’t offer the Tories even an inch on unfunded public spending. His mantra is that economic growth will turn the situation around, and he claims that his shadow cabinet is drumming up business investment now, to land on day one if it is elected. For many, growth is a longer-term solution, so what about other more immediate choices, such as taxing people’s wealth? I turned back to Blair, reading this quote: “It’s not a burning ambition for me to make sure that David Beckham earns less money.” Did he disagree with that? “No,” Starmer responded without hesitation about Beckham or a similarly rich footballer today. “I don’t disagree with that.” But if you are prime minister, I went on, would you want to take more money from the super-rich (non-doms aside) and redistribute it to the poorest? Again, a “no”, without hesitation. “That isn’t how I want to grow the economy.” Starmer argued that while, of course, Labour believes in redistribution: “I don’t think redistribution is the sort of one-word answer for millions of people across the country”. He spoke of the dignity and respect of skilled work. “So I’m afraid if it’s just redistribution, I think that fundamentally disrespects people.” If I was to judge the Starmer I was listening to against two of the other contributors to our programme – Peter Mandelson, an architect of the 1997 Labour victory, and union leader Mick Lynch – it was clear which way he was leaning. This Labour leader was far more Mandy than Mick (though his advisers would argue he is neither). Lord Mandelson, a key figure in Blair’s 1997 victory, praised Starmer for bringing the party back from “a near-death experience” under Jeremy Corbyn. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Meanwhile, Lynch told us: “The Labour party has got to be a socialist organisation. We have got to take money off the rich and redistribute it to the rest of the communities in Britain. He’s got to identify with what working people need, not … with what the Daily Mail , the Telegraph and the Express are telling him to believe.” I wondered what had driven Starmer in the 80s. Back then, he was involved in producing a radical Trotskyist magazine called Socialist Alternatives . In one article, he argued that collective bargaining was not leftwing enough, handing too much power to the employers. And he did not hold back on the harm caused by Margaret Thatcher in the 80s. So why did he praise the former Conservative prime minister in a recent Sunday Telegraph article? Starmer asked if anyone would agree with exactly what they had believed at the age of 22. But, actually, he said he did agree that she delivered an “authoritarian onslaught”. “I would say the same now. What she had was a clarity of mission and a purpose – but actually what she did was very destructive.” Was he a lefty then? Is he now? Starmer hesitated briefly, aware of the growing gravity attached to his comments as the election draws near. But still “yes and yes”, he said. Still, something big has clearly shifted. I asked if defeat in the Hartlepool byelection in 2021 – a sobering moment, by all accounts – had led him to compromise those lefty principles to make way for a relentless pursuit of power? “When the electorate reject you as badly as they did in 2019, you don’t look at the electorate and say: ‘What are you thinking?’ You look at yourself and change the party.” And this was the theme Starmer kept coming back to: the hopelessness of opposition. He took every chance to stress how he had changed the party, moving Labour towards the centre ground (although some in the party would argue passionately that this is moving to where voters are, and they are in a different place in 2024 compared with 1997) and embracing the idea that he had been “ruthless” in doing so. He said it again as we walked up to the Arsenal and talked about how politics compares to football. “It’s all about winning. You know some people say: ‘It’s the taking part that counts’. I don’t.” Surely you don’t say that to your children, I suggested. But he doubled down: “I don’t subscribe to any of that,” he said. But what might a young Starmer, who was clearly driven by a desire to tackle injustice and inequality, say to his older self, who won’t commit to lifting a two-child benefit cap or taxing the super-rich more than he has said so far? “The Keir Starmer of my student days would also know that the most important thing is to have a Labour government, otherwise it’s shouting into the void.” But he did concede that an idealistic young Starmer would probably want him to go further – especially if he wins. 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 Keir Starmer The Observer Focus Labour Labour conference 2023 Labour conference ITV News features Share Reuse this content Anushka Asthana, deputy political editor of ITV News, and Labour leader Keir Starmer. Photograph: ITV News View image in fullscreen Anushka Asthana, deputy political editor of ITV News, and Labour leader Keir Starmer. Photograph: ITV News Anushka Asthana, deputy political editor of ITV News, and Labour leader Keir Starmer. Photograph: ITV News View image in fullscreen Anushka Asthana, deputy political editor of ITV News, and Labour leader Keir Starmer. Photograph: ITV News Anushka Asthana, deputy political editor of ITV News, and Labour leader Keir Starmer. Photograph: ITV News View image in fullscreen Anushka Asthana, deputy political editor of ITV News, and Labour leader Keir Starmer. Photograph: ITV News Anushka Asthana, deputy political editor of ITV News, and Labour leader Keir Starmer. Photograph: ITV News View image in fullscreen Anushka Asthana, deputy political editor of ITV News, and Labour leader Keir Starmer. Photograph: ITV News Anushka Asthana, deputy political editor of ITV News, and Labour leader Keir Starmer. Photograph: ITV News Anushka Asthana, deputy political editor of ITV News, and Labour leader Keir Starmer. Photograph: ITV News This article is more than 1 year old I talked to Keir Starmer for three months: this is what I learned This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old I talked to Keir Starmer for three months: this is what I learned This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old I talked to Keir Starmer for three months: this is what I learned 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 ITV’s deputy political editor had exclusive access to the Labour leader for a TV profile to be aired this week. Is he fit to be Britain’s next PM? ITV’s deputy political editor had exclusive access to the Labour leader for a TV profile to be aired this week. Is he fit to be Britain’s next PM? ITV’s deputy political editor had exclusive access to the Labour leader for a TV profile to be aired this week. Is he fit to be Britain’s next PM? T hree months ago, our cameras captured Keir Starmer standing backstage at the ACC conference centre in Liverpool. The Labour leader, dressed in a smart dark suit and holding a cup of water, paced back and forth, a slight nervousness etched into his face. He was waiting to deliver perhaps the most important speech of his political career. For Labour advisers, this was his big chance to answer a key question that they believed would dominate all the way up to the 2024 general election: “If not them [the Conservatives], why us [Labour]?” You may remember what happened next. Within minutes, Starmer’s speech was interrupted by a protester who somehow stormed on to the stage, threw glitter across his back and grabbed hold of his arm. If it wasn’t for the flick of genuine fear on Starmer’s face, a cynical journalist might have wondered had this moment been stage-managed? View image in fullscreen ‘We’re inheriting a terrible situation,’ Keir Starmer told ITV’s Anushka Asthana. Photograph: Justin Slee/ITV I joked to that effect in the moments after the speech when I caught up with the Labour leader, leaving with his wife to walk back to their hotel room. “No,” he exclaimed, wagging his finger in my direction. But he was laughing, as he admitted this was the image he wanted to portray. “If ever there was a symbol that the Labour party has changed from protest to power,” he said. When ITV’s Tonight programme was given exclusive up-close access to the Labour leader, this was one of many clues I got as to what drives Starmer politically. Over three months, I followed him from the highs of his party conference to the lows of division and resignations over Israel and Gaza . To understand his political journey, I went back to his old university in Leeds , asked about tax and immigration in a target constituency, pressed him on climate policies at the UN conference in Dubai, listened to his fears for his family – and, of course, chatted about his football obsession on the way to his beloved Arsenal. Keir Starmer won’t just be battling the Tories this year but also the absence of hope | Andrew Rawnsley Read more So, politically speaking, who is the man tipped to be our next prime minister? Is he the idealistic lefty who wrote about the “authoritarian onslaught of Thatcherism” as a student in the 1980s? Is he the 2020 Labour party leadership hopeful who made 10 pledges, including mass nationalisations? Or is he the centrist who (after that moment of fear) almost revelled in the imagery of a protester being booted off stage at the final party conference before a general election year? Perhaps the best understanding came during a conversation in King’s Academy Prospect, a secondary school in Reading. We spoke in a design and technology lab in a wing of impressive buildings funded in the New Labour years. It was a late visit squeezed into Starmer’s brutal schedule. There, he blamed a dire economic backdrop for his decision not to lift the two-child cap on benefits . Pointing out that the previous Labour government invested heavily in public services, I asked him if he was sad that he couldn’t be as bold as Tony Blair. “Well, of course, but we’re inheriting a terrible situation,” he replied. And Starmer has clearly been advised that he shouldn’t offer the Tories even an inch on unfunded public spending. His mantra is that economic growth will turn the situation around, and he claims that his shadow cabinet is drumming up business investment now, to land on day one if it is elected. For many, growth is a longer-term solution, so what about other more immediate choices, such as taxing people’s wealth? I turned back to Blair, reading this quote: “It’s not a burning ambition for me to make sure that David Beckham earns less money.” Did he disagree with that? “No,” Starmer responded without hesitation about Beckham or a similarly rich footballer today. “I don’t disagree with that.” But if you are prime minister, I went on, would you want to take more money from the super-rich (non-doms aside) and redistribute it to the poorest? Again, a “no”, without hesitation. “That isn’t how I want to grow the economy.” Starmer argued that while, of course, Labour believes in redistribution: “I don’t think redistribution is the sort of one-word answer for millions of people across the country”. He spoke of the dignity and respect of skilled work. “So I’m afraid if it’s just redistribution, I think that fundamentally disrespects people.” If I was to judge the Starmer I was listening to against two of the other contributors to our programme – Peter Mandelson, an architect of the 1997 Labour victory, and union leader Mick Lynch – it was clear which way he was leaning. This Labour leader was far more Mandy than Mick (though his advisers would argue he is neither). Lord Mandelson, a key figure in Blair’s 1997 victory, praised Starmer for bringing the party back from “a near-death experience” under Jeremy Corbyn. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Meanwhile, Lynch told us: “The Labour party has got to be a socialist organisation. We have got to take money off the rich and redistribute it to the rest of the communities in Britain. He’s got to identify with what working people need, not … with what the Daily Mail , the Telegraph and the Express are telling him to believe.” I wondered what had driven Starmer in the 80s. Back then, he was involved in producing a radical Trotskyist magazine called Socialist Alternatives . In one article, he argued that collective bargaining was not leftwing enough, handing too much power to the employers. And he did not hold back on the harm caused by Margaret Thatcher in the 80s. So why did he praise the former Conservative prime minister in a recent Sunday Telegraph article? Starmer asked if anyone would agree with exactly what they had believed at the age of 22. But, actually, he said he did agree that she delivered an “authoritarian onslaught”. “I would say the same now. What she had was a clarity of mission and a purpose – but actually what she did was very destructive.” Was he a lefty then? Is he now? Starmer hesitated briefly, aware of the growing gravity attached to his comments as the election draws near. But still “yes and yes”, he said. Still, something big has clearly shifted. I asked if defeat in the Hartlepool byelection in 2021 – a sobering moment, by all accounts – had led him to compromise those lefty principles to make way for a relentless pursuit of power? “When the electorate reject you as badly as they did in 2019, you don’t look at the electorate and say: ‘What are you thinking?’ You look at yourself and change the party.” And this was the theme Starmer kept coming back to: the hopelessness of opposition. He took every chance to stress how he had changed the party, moving Labour towards the centre ground (although some in the party would argue passionately that this is moving to where voters are, and they are in a different place in 2024 compared with 1997) and embracing the idea that he had been “ruthless” in doing so. He said it again as we walked up to the Arsenal and talked about how politics compares to football. “It’s all about winning. You know some people say: ‘It’s the taking part that counts’. I don’t.” Surely you don’t say that to your children, I suggested. But he doubled down: “I don’t subscribe to any of that,” he said. But what might a young Starmer, who was clearly driven by a desire to tackle injustice and inequality, say to his older self, who won’t commit to lifting a two-child benefit cap or taxing the super-rich more than he has said so far? “The Keir Starmer of my student days would also know that the most important thing is to have a Labour government, otherwise it’s shouting into the void.” But he did concede that an idealistic young Starmer would probably want him to go further – especially if he wins. 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 Keir Starmer The Observer Focus Labour Labour conference 2023 Labour conference ITV News features Share Reuse this content T hree months ago, our cameras captured Keir Starmer standing backstage at the ACC conference centre in Liverpool. The Labour leader, dressed in a smart dark suit and holding a cup of water, paced back and forth, a slight nervousness etched into his face. He was waiting to deliver perhaps the most important speech of his political career. For Labour advisers, this was his big chance to answer a key question that they believed would dominate all the way up to the 2024 general election: “If not them [the Conservatives], why us [Labour]?” You may remember what happened next. Within minutes, Starmer’s speech was interrupted by a protester who somehow stormed on to the stage, threw glitter across his back and grabbed hold of his arm. If it wasn’t for the flick of genuine fear on Starmer’s face, a cynical journalist might have wondered had this moment been stage-managed? View image in fullscreen ‘We’re inheriting a terrible situation,’ Keir Starmer told ITV’s Anushka Asthana. Photograph: Justin Slee/ITV I joked to that effect in the moments after the speech when I caught up with the Labour leader, leaving with his wife to walk back to their hotel room. “No,” he exclaimed, wagging his finger in my direction. But he was laughing, as he admitted this was the image he wanted to portray. “If ever there was a symbol that the Labour party has changed from protest to power,” he said. When ITV’s Tonight programme was given exclusive up-close access to the Labour leader, this was one of many clues I got as to what drives Starmer politically. Over three months, I followed him from the highs of his party conference to the lows of division and resignations over Israel and Gaza . To understand his political journey, I went back to his old university in Leeds , asked about tax and immigration in a target constituency, pressed him on climate policies at the UN conference in Dubai, listened to his fears for his family – and, of course, chatted about his football obsession on the way to his beloved Arsenal. Keir Starmer won’t just be battling the Tories this year but also the absence of hope | Andrew Rawnsley Read more So, politically speaking, who is the man tipped to be our next prime minister? Is he the idealistic lefty who wrote about the “authoritarian onslaught of Thatcherism” as a student in the 1980s? Is he the 2020 Labour party leadership hopeful who made 10 pledges, including mass nationalisations? Or is he the centrist who (after that moment of fear) almost revelled in the imagery of a protester being booted off stage at the final party conference before a general election year? Perhaps the best understanding came during a conversation in King’s Academy Prospect, a secondary school in Reading. We spoke in a design and technology lab in a wing of impressive buildings funded in the New Labour years. It was a late visit squeezed into Starmer’s brutal schedule. There, he blamed a dire economic backdrop for his decision not to lift the two-child cap on benefits . Pointing out that the previous Labour government invested heavily in public services, I asked him if he was sad that he couldn’t be as bold as Tony Blair. “Well, of course, but we’re inheriting a terrible situation,” he replied. And Starmer has clearly been advised that he shouldn’t offer the Tories even an inch on unfunded public spending. His mantra is that economic growth will turn the situation around, and he claims that his shadow cabinet is drumming up business investment now, to land on day one if it is elected. For many, growth is a longer-term solution, so what about other more immediate choices, such as taxing people’s wealth? I turned back to Blair, reading this quote: “It’s not a burning ambition for me to make sure that David Beckham earns less money.” Did he disagree with that? “No,” Starmer responded without hesitation about Beckham or a similarly rich footballer today. “I don’t disagree with that.” But if you are prime minister, I went on, would you want to take more money from the super-rich (non-doms aside) and redistribute it to the poorest? Again, a “no”, without hesitation. “That isn’t how I want to grow the economy.” Starmer argued that while, of course, Labour believes in redistribution: “I don’t think redistribution is the sort of one-word answer for millions of people across the country”. He spoke of the dignity and respect of skilled work. “So I’m afraid if it’s just redistribution, I think that fundamentally disrespects people.” If I was to judge the Starmer I was listening to against two of the other contributors to our programme – Peter Mandelson, an architect of the 1997 Labour victory, and union leader Mick Lynch – it was clear which way he was leaning. This Labour leader was far more Mandy than Mick (though his advisers would argue he is neither). Lord Mandelson, a key figure in Blair’s 1997 victory, praised Starmer for bringing the party back from “a near-death experience” under Jeremy Corbyn. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Meanwhile, Lynch told us: “The Labour party has got to be a socialist organisation. We have got to take money off the rich and redistribute it to the rest of the communities in Britain. He’s got to identify with what working people need, not … with what the Daily Mail , the Telegraph and the Express are telling him to believe.” I wondered what had driven Starmer in the 80s. Back then, he was involved in producing a radical Trotskyist magazine called Socialist Alternatives . In one article, he argued that collective bargaining was not leftwing enough, handing too much power to the employers. And he did not hold back on the harm caused by Margaret Thatcher in the 80s. So why did he praise the former Conservative prime minister in a recent Sunday Telegraph article? Starmer asked if anyone would agree with exactly what they had believed at the age of 22. But, actually, he said he did agree that she delivered an “authoritarian onslaught”. “I would say the same now. What she had was a clarity of mission and a purpose – but actually what she did was very destructive.” Was he a lefty then? Is he now? Starmer hesitated briefly, aware of the growing gravity attached to his comments as the election draws near. But still “yes and yes”, he said. Still, something big has clearly shifted. I asked if defeat in the Hartlepool byelection in 2021 – a sobering moment, by all accounts – had led him to compromise those lefty principles to make way for a relentless pursuit of power? “When the electorate reject you as badly as they did in 2019, you don’t look at the electorate and say: ‘What are you thinking?’ You look at yourself and change the party.” And this was the theme Starmer kept coming back to: the hopelessness of opposition. He took every chance to stress how he had changed the party, moving Labour towards the centre ground (although some in the party would argue passionately that this is moving to where voters are, and they are in a different place in 2024 compared with 1997) and embracing the idea that he had been “ruthless” in doing so. He said it again as we walked up to the Arsenal and talked about how politics compares to football. “It’s all about winning. You know some people say: ‘It’s the taking part that counts’. I don’t.” Surely you don’t say that to your children, I suggested. But he doubled down: “I don’t subscribe to any of that,” he said. But what might a young Starmer, who was clearly driven by a desire to tackle injustice and inequality, say to his older self, who won’t commit to lifting a two-child benefit cap or taxing the super-rich more than he has said so far? “The Keir Starmer of my student days would also know that the most important thing is to have a Labour government, otherwise it’s shouting into the void.” But he did concede that an idealistic young Starmer would probably want him to go further – especially if he wins. 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 Keir Starmer The Observer Focus Labour Labour conference 2023 Labour conference ITV News features Share Reuse this content T hree months ago, our cameras captured Keir Starmer standing backstage at the ACC conference centre in Liverpool. The Labour leader, dressed in a smart dark suit and holding a cup of water, paced back and forth, a slight nervousness etched into his face. He was waiting to deliver perhaps the most important speech of his political career. For Labour advisers, this was his big chance to answer a key question that they believed would dominate all the way up to the 2024 general election: “If not them [the Conservatives], why us [Labour]?” You may remember what happened next. Within minutes, Starmer’s speech was interrupted by a protester who somehow stormed on to the stage, threw glitter across his back and grabbed hold of his arm. If it wasn’t for the flick of genuine fear on Starmer’s face, a cynical journalist might have wondered had this moment been stage-managed? View image in fullscreen ‘We’re inheriting a terrible situation,’ Keir Starmer told ITV’s Anushka Asthana. Photograph: Justin Slee/ITV I joked to that effect in the moments after the speech when I caught up with the Labour leader, leaving with his wife to walk back to their hotel room. “No,” he exclaimed, wagging his finger in my direction. But he was laughing, as he admitted this was the image he wanted to portray. “If ever there was a symbol that the Labour party has changed from protest to power,” he said. When ITV’s Tonight programme was given exclusive up-close access to the Labour leader, this was one of many clues I got as to what drives Starmer politically. Over three months, I followed him from the highs of his party conference to the lows of division and resignations over Israel and Gaza . To understand his political journey, I went back to his old university in Leeds , asked about tax and immigration in a target constituency, pressed him on climate policies at the UN conference in Dubai, listened to his fears for his family – and, of course, chatted about his football obsession on the way to his beloved Arsenal. Keir Starmer won’t just be battling the Tories this year but also the absence of hope | Andrew Rawnsley Read more So, politically speaking, who is the man tipped to be our next prime minister? Is he the idealistic lefty who wrote about the “authoritarian onslaught of Thatcherism” as a student in the 1980s? Is he the 2020 Labour party leadership hopeful who made 10 pledges, including mass nationalisations? Or is he the centrist who (after that moment of fear) almost revelled in the imagery of a protester being booted off stage at the final party conference before a general election year? Perhaps the best understanding came during a conversation in King’s Academy Prospect, a secondary school in Reading. We spoke in a design and technology lab in a wing of impressive buildings funded in the New Labour years. It was a late visit squeezed into Starmer’s brutal schedule. There, he blamed a dire economic backdrop for his decision not to lift the two-child cap on benefits . Pointing out that the previous Labour government invested heavily in public services, I asked him if he was sad that he couldn’t be as bold as Tony Blair. “Well, of course, but we’re inheriting a terrible situation,” he replied. And Starmer has clearly been advised that he shouldn’t offer the Tories even an inch on unfunded public spending. His mantra is that economic growth will turn the situation around, and he claims that his shadow cabinet is drumming up business investment now, to land on day one if it is elected. For many, growth is a longer-term solution, so what about other more immediate choices, such as taxing people’s wealth? I turned back to Blair, reading this quote: “It’s not a burning ambition for me to make sure that David Beckham earns less money.” Did he disagree with that? “No,” Starmer responded without hesitation about Beckham or a similarly rich footballer today. “I don’t disagree with that.” But if you are prime minister, I went on, would you want to take more money from the super-rich (non-doms aside) and redistribute it to the poorest? Again, a “no”, without hesitation. “That isn’t how I want to grow the economy.” Starmer argued that while, of course, Labour believes in redistribution: “I don’t think redistribution is the sort of one-word answer for millions of people across the country”. He spoke of the dignity and respect of skilled work. “So I’m afraid if it’s just redistribution, I think that fundamentally disrespects people.” If I was to judge the Starmer I was listening to against two of the other contributors to our programme – Peter Mandelson, an architect of the 1997 Labour victory, and union leader Mick Lynch – it was clear which way he was leaning. This Labour leader was far more Mandy than Mick (though his advisers would argue he is neither). Lord Mandelson, a key figure in Blair’s 1997 victory, praised Starmer for bringing the party back from “a near-death experience” under Jeremy Corbyn. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Meanwhile, Lynch told us: “The Labour party has got to be a socialist organisation. We have got to take money off the rich and redistribute it to the rest of the communities in Britain. He’s got to identify with what working people need, not … with what the Daily Mail , the Telegraph and the Express are telling him to believe.” I wondered what had driven Starmer in the 80s. Back then, he was involved in producing a radical Trotskyist magazine called Socialist Alternatives . In one article, he argued that collective bargaining was not leftwing enough, handing too much power to the employers. And he did not hold back on the harm caused by Margaret Thatcher in the 80s. So why did he praise the former Conservative prime minister in a recent Sunday Telegraph article? Starmer asked if anyone would agree with exactly what they had believed at the age of 22. But, actually, he said he did agree that she delivered an “authoritarian onslaught”. “I would say the same now. What she had was a clarity of mission and a purpose – but actually what she did was very destructive.” Was he a lefty then? Is he now? Starmer hesitated briefly, aware of the growing gravity attached to his comments as the election draws near. But still “yes and yes”, he said. Still, something big has clearly shifted. I asked if defeat in the Hartlepool byelection in 2021 – a sobering moment, by all accounts – had led him to compromise those lefty principles to make way for a relentless pursuit of power? “When the electorate reject you as badly as they did in 2019, you don’t look at the electorate and say: ‘What are you thinking?’ You look at yourself and change the party.” And this was the theme Starmer kept coming back to: the hopelessness of opposition. He took every chance to stress how he had changed the party, moving Labour towards the centre ground (although some in the party would argue passionately that this is moving to where voters are, and they are in a different place in 2024 compared with 1997) and embracing the idea that he had been “ruthless” in doing so. He said it again as we walked up to the Arsenal and talked about how politics compares to football. “It’s all about winning. You know some people say: ‘It’s the taking part that counts’. I don’t.” Surely you don’t say that to your children, I suggested. But he doubled down: “I don’t subscribe to any of that,” he said. But what might a young Starmer, who was clearly driven by a desire to tackle injustice and inequality, say to his older self, who won’t commit to lifting a two-child benefit cap or taxing the super-rich more than he has said so far? “The Keir Starmer of my student days would also know that the most important thing is to have a Labour government, otherwise it’s shouting into the void.” But he did concede that an idealistic young Starmer would probably want him to go further – especially if he wins. T hree months ago, our cameras captured Keir Starmer standing backstage at the ACC conference centre in Liverpool. The Labour leader, dressed in a smart dark suit and holding a cup of water, paced back and forth, a slight nervousness etched into his face. He was waiting to deliver perhaps the most important speech of his political career. For Labour advisers, this was his big chance to answer a key question that they believed would dominate all the way up to the 2024 general election: “If not them [the Conservatives], why us [Labour]?” You may remember what happened next. Within minutes, Starmer’s speech was interrupted by a protester who somehow stormed on to the stage, threw glitter across his back and grabbed hold of his arm. If it wasn’t for the flick of genuine fear on Starmer’s face, a cynical journalist might have wondered had this moment been stage-managed? View image in fullscreen ‘We’re inheriting a terrible situation,’ Keir Starmer told ITV’s Anushka Asthana. Photograph: Justin Slee/ITV I joked to that effect in the moments after the speech when I caught up with the Labour leader, leaving with his wife to walk back to their hotel room. “No,” he exclaimed, wagging his finger in my direction. But he was laughing, as he admitted this was the image he wanted to portray. “If ever there was a symbol that the Labour party has changed from protest to power,” he said. When ITV’s Tonight programme was given exclusive up-close access to the Labour leader, this was one of many clues I got as to what drives Starmer politically. Over three months, I followed him from the highs of his party conference to the lows of division and resignations over Israel and Gaza . To understand his political journey, I went back to his old university in Leeds , asked about tax and immigration in a target constituency, pressed him on climate policies at the UN conference in Dubai, listened to his fears for his family – and, of course, chatted about his football obsession on the way to his beloved Arsenal. Keir Starmer won’t just be battling the Tories this year but also the absence of hope | Andrew Rawnsley Read more So, politically speaking, who is the man tipped to be our next prime minister? Is he the idealistic lefty who wrote about the “authoritarian onslaught of Thatcherism” as a student in the 1980s? Is he the 2020 Labour party leadership hopeful who made 10 pledges, including mass nationalisations? Or is he the centrist who (after that moment of fear) almost revelled in the imagery of a protester being booted off stage at the final party conference before a general election year? Perhaps the best understanding came during a conversation in King’s Academy Prospect, a secondary school in Reading. We spoke in a design and technology lab in a wing of impressive buildings funded in the New Labour years. It was a late visit squeezed into Starmer’s brutal schedule. There, he blamed a dire economic backdrop for his decision not to lift the two-child cap on benefits . Pointing out that the previous Labour government invested heavily in public services, I asked him if he was sad that he couldn’t be as bold as Tony Blair. “Well, of course, but we’re inheriting a terrible situation,” he replied. And Starmer has clearly been advised that he shouldn’t offer the Tories even an inch on unfunded public spending. His mantra is that economic growth will turn the situation around, and he claims that his shadow cabinet is drumming up business investment now, to land on day one if it is elected. For many, growth is a longer-term solution, so what about other more immediate choices, such as taxing people’s wealth? I turned back to Blair, reading this quote: “It’s not a burning ambition for me to make sure that David Beckham earns less money.” Did he disagree with that? “No,” Starmer responded without hesitation about Beckham or a similarly rich footballer today. “I don’t disagree with that.” But if you are prime minister, I went on, would you want to take more money from the super-rich (non-doms aside) and redistribute it to the poorest? Again, a “no”, without hesitation. “That isn’t how I want to grow the economy.” Starmer argued that while, of course, Labour believes in redistribution: “I don’t think redistribution is the sort of one-word answer for millions of people across the country”. He spoke of the dignity and respect of skilled work. “So I’m afraid if it’s just redistribution, I think that fundamentally disrespects people.” If I was to judge the Starmer I was listening to against two of the other contributors to our programme – Peter Mandelson, an architect of the 1997 Labour victory, and union leader Mick Lynch – it was clear which way he was leaning. This Labour leader was far more Mandy than Mick (though his advisers would argue he is neither). Lord Mandelson, a key figure in Blair’s 1997 victory, praised Starmer for bringing the party back from “a near-death experience” under Jeremy Corbyn. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Meanwhile, Lynch told us: “The Labour party has got to be a socialist organisation. We have got to take money off the rich and redistribute it to the rest of the communities in Britain. He’s got to id
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
Why Europe’s farmers are protesting – and the far right is taking note
1:09 Tractors shut down roads in Berlin in protest against greener farming policies – video This article is more than 1 year old Why Europe’s farmers are protesting – and the far right is taking note This article is more than 1 year old For some farmers already struggling, paying for more of their pollution is a step too far. Germany is the latest country to see anger boil over T he columns of tractors that have blocked roads in Germany , causing chaos in cities and headaches for commuters, are the latest wave in a growing tide of anger against efforts to protect Europe’s nature from the pollution pumped out by its farms. In recent years, farmers in western Europe have fought with increasing ferocity against policies to protect the planet that they say cost too much. In the Netherlands, where the backlash has been strongest, a court ruling on nitrogen emissions in 2019 triggered furious and recurring protests over government efforts to close farms and cut the number of animals on them. In Belgium, similar fights led to convoys of tractors clogging the EU quarter of Brussels in March last year. In Ireland, which has seen smaller protests, dairy farmers angry at nitrogen restrictions marched with their cows to the offices of three government ministers last month. Spain and France have not escaped. On the back of Spain’s hottest year on record, farmers took to the streets of Madrid in January 2023 after the government announced plans to restrict how much water they could take from the drought-struck Tagus river. The following month, French farmers drove tractors through Paris to protest a pesticide ban. Now the fight has come to Europe’s biggest economy. After furious farmers dumped manure on the streets of Berlin in December, the German government watered down a plan to cut subsidies for diesel in farmyard vehicles. But lobby groups are pushing them to scrap the plan entirely. Joachim Rukwied, president of the German farmers’ association, said last Monday that 100,000 tractors had hit the streets for a week of disruptive protests. “Farmers today sent a clear signal to the federal government to completely withdraw the planned tax increases.” View image in fullscreen Firefighters at the scene as farmers set fire to manure and hay bales during a protest in Apeldoorn, the Netherlands in July 2022 Photograph: News United/EPA For some farmers, the burden of paying for more of their pollution is a step too far after an energy crisis and pandemic that has left many struggling to make ends meet. Some say they feel overburdened by rules and undervalued by city dwellers who eat the food they grow without knowing where it came from. In agricultural giants like the Netherlands and France, farmers have expressed frustration at the pressure from governments to produce less after years of encouragement to make more. Environmental activists say they do not want to reduce subsidies to farmers but instead spend them in a less destructive way. Sascha Müller-Kraenner, head of campaign group Environmental Action Germany , called for every euro of agricultural subsidy to come with ecological and social strings. “[We need] a better subsidy policy that gets more for farm income, climate protection and nature with the same funds,” he said. “Subsidies that are harmful to the climate must be phased out.” Scientists, meanwhile, have pointed to the damage that will be done to farms as planet-heating pollution turns the climate less hospitable to humans. More than 80% of habitats in Europe are in poor shape, according to the European Commission, and yields for some crops have already been hit by poor soils, a lack of water and extreme weather events that are growing increasingly violent. But for some European governments, the more pressing threat is the attention that farmers’ protests have attracted from far-right and populist parties, as well as radical conspiracy theorists. In the Netherlands, the nitrogen crisis led to the creation of the Farmer-Citizen Movement, a rural populist party that scored big wins in provincial elections in March but came sixth in general elections in November. In Germany, the protests have gained vocal support from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and groups with more extreme and anti-democratic views. The climate and economy minister, Robert Habeck, warned on Monday of fringe groups exploiting the protests. “There are calls circulating with coup fantasies, extremist groups are forming and ethnic-nationalist symbols are being openly displayed,” he said. The protests have also highlighted a split among Europe’s moderate conservative groups. In the European parliament last year, the centre-right European People’s party (EPP) led a rightwing alliance of lawmakers who narrowly failed to throw out a bill to restore nature on the grounds that it would hurt farmers. The proposal is a key pillar of the European Green Deal – championed by the European Commission president and EPP heavyweight, Ursula von der Leyen – that the centre-right grouping had previously backed. Grassroots support for farmers’ protests, from campaign placards to Telegram groups, has also overlapped with conspiracy theories about issues such as Covid, climate breakdown and migration. “The Netherlands was a bit of a harbinger when it comes to these protests,” said Léonie de Jonge, a political scientist at the University of Groningen who studies the far right. “This is the new kind of agrarian populism popping up in these countries.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Conspiracy theories have even spread from rural farms in northern Europe to cable TV shows in the US to social media feeds around the world. Last Monday, Dutch political pundit Eva Vlaardingerbroek joined farmers on a tractor in Germany to rail against “the global elites waging a war against the hard-working people who put food on our tables”. In an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson last year, Vlaardingerbroek pushed a popular conspiracy theory by claiming that groups like the World Economic Forum are trying to make Dutch people eat bugs by cracking down on farms and opening insect factories. The YouTube clip – titled “Politicians know when they control the food, they control the people: Activist” – has been viewed more than half a million times. “We don’t want to be eating insects, we want our steak,” she said. Similar pronouncements have been echoed by conspiracy theorists with even larger followings. In a post on X on Monday, Vlaardingerbroek described farmers as “one of the few groups in society with enough manpower to put up a real fight against the globalists who wants to radically change our way of life”. Elon Musk, one of the richest men in the world and owner of the platform, who has separately endorsed antisemitic conspiracy theories, replied: “Support the farmers!” The German farmers’ association has distanced itself from far-right groups who have tried to influence their protests. Some farmers turned up to protests with banners on tractors that read “Farming is colourful, not brown” in reference to the brown uniforms of fascist groups. Others were pictured with makeshift gallows dangling a traffic light – a reference to the parties of the coalition government whose colours are red, yellow and green. Farmers’ issues can lend themselves to far-right ideology through nostalgia for the past and “blood and soil” themes, said De Jonge, adding that there has been a “cross-contamination of different types of extremism” among some actors in the German and Dutch protests. “Ideologies used to be clearly delineated,” she said. “Now they take ideas from a mixed bag of ideological snippets and paste them into this worldview.” Explore more on these topics Farming Protest Germany Netherlands The far right Europe Pollution features Share Reuse this content 1:09 Tractors shut down roads in Berlin in protest against greener farming policies – video This article is more than 1 year old Why Europe’s farmers are protesting – and the far right is taking note This article is more than 1 year old For some farmers already struggling, paying for more of their pollution is a step too far. Germany is the latest country to see anger boil over T he columns of tractors that have blocked roads in Germany , causing chaos in cities and headaches for commuters, are the latest wave in a growing tide of anger against efforts to protect Europe’s nature from the pollution pumped out by its farms. In recent years, farmers in western Europe have fought with increasing ferocity against policies to protect the planet that they say cost too much. In the Netherlands, where the backlash has been strongest, a court ruling on nitrogen emissions in 2019 triggered furious and recurring protests over government efforts to close farms and cut the number of animals on them. In Belgium, similar fights led to convoys of tractors clogging the EU quarter of Brussels in March last year. In Ireland, which has seen smaller protests, dairy farmers angry at nitrogen restrictions marched with their cows to the offices of three government ministers last month. Spain and France have not escaped. On the back of Spain’s hottest year on record, farmers took to the streets of Madrid in January 2023 after the government announced plans to restrict how much water they could take from the drought-struck Tagus river. The following month, French farmers drove tractors through Paris to protest a pesticide ban. Now the fight has come to Europe’s biggest economy. After furious farmers dumped manure on the streets of Berlin in December, the German government watered down a plan to cut subsidies for diesel in farmyard vehicles. But lobby groups are pushing them to scrap the plan entirely. Joachim Rukwied, president of the German farmers’ association, said last Monday that 100,000 tractors had hit the streets for a week of disruptive protests. “Farmers today sent a clear signal to the federal government to completely withdraw the planned tax increases.” View image in fullscreen Firefighters at the scene as farmers set fire to manure and hay bales during a protest in Apeldoorn, the Netherlands in July 2022 Photograph: News United/EPA For some farmers, the burden of paying for more of their pollution is a step too far after an energy crisis and pandemic that has left many struggling to make ends meet. Some say they feel overburdened by rules and undervalued by city dwellers who eat the food they grow without knowing where it came from. In agricultural giants like the Netherlands and France, farmers have expressed frustration at the pressure from governments to produce less after years of encouragement to make more. Environmental activists say they do not want to reduce subsidies to farmers but instead spend them in a less destructive way. Sascha Müller-Kraenner, head of campaign group Environmental Action Germany , called for every euro of agricultural subsidy to come with ecological and social strings. “[We need] a better subsidy policy that gets more for farm income, climate protection and nature with the same funds,” he said. “Subsidies that are harmful to the climate must be phased out.” Scientists, meanwhile, have pointed to the damage that will be done to farms as planet-heating pollution turns the climate less hospitable to humans. More than 80% of habitats in Europe are in poor shape, according to the European Commission, and yields for some crops have already been hit by poor soils, a lack of water and extreme weather events that are growing increasingly violent. But for some European governments, the more pressing threat is the attention that farmers’ protests have attracted from far-right and populist parties, as well as radical conspiracy theorists. In the Netherlands, the nitrogen crisis led to the creation of the Farmer-Citizen Movement, a rural populist party that scored big wins in provincial elections in March but came sixth in general elections in November. In Germany, the protests have gained vocal support from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and groups with more extreme and anti-democratic views. The climate and economy minister, Robert Habeck, warned on Monday of fringe groups exploiting the protests. “There are calls circulating with coup fantasies, extremist groups are forming and ethnic-nationalist symbols are being openly displayed,” he said. The protests have also highlighted a split among Europe’s moderate conservative groups. In the European parliament last year, the centre-right European People’s party (EPP) led a rightwing alliance of lawmakers who narrowly failed to throw out a bill to restore nature on the grounds that it would hurt farmers. The proposal is a key pillar of the European Green Deal – championed by the European Commission president and EPP heavyweight, Ursula von der Leyen – that the centre-right grouping had previously backed. Grassroots support for farmers’ protests, from campaign placards to Telegram groups, has also overlapped with conspiracy theories about issues such as Covid, climate breakdown and migration. “The Netherlands was a bit of a harbinger when it comes to these protests,” said Léonie de Jonge, a political scientist at the University of Groningen who studies the far right. “This is the new kind of agrarian populism popping up in these countries.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Conspiracy theories have even spread from rural farms in northern Europe to cable TV shows in the US to social media feeds around the world. Last Monday, Dutch political pundit Eva Vlaardingerbroek joined farmers on a tractor in Germany to rail against “the global elites waging a war against the hard-working people who put food on our tables”. In an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson last year, Vlaardingerbroek pushed a popular conspiracy theory by claiming that groups like the World Economic Forum are trying to make Dutch people eat bugs by cracking down on farms and opening insect factories. The YouTube clip – titled “Politicians know when they control the food, they control the people: Activist” – has been viewed more than half a million times. “We don’t want to be eating insects, we want our steak,” she said. Similar pronouncements have been echoed by conspiracy theorists with even larger followings. In a post on X on Monday, Vlaardingerbroek described farmers as “one of the few groups in society with enough manpower to put up a real fight against the globalists who wants to radically change our way of life”. Elon Musk, one of the richest men in the world and owner of the platform, who has separately endorsed antisemitic conspiracy theories, replied: “Support the farmers!” The German farmers’ association has distanced itself from far-right groups who have tried to influence their protests. Some farmers turned up to protests with banners on tractors that read “Farming is colourful, not brown” in reference to the brown uniforms of fascist groups. Others were pictured with makeshift gallows dangling a traffic light – a reference to the parties of the coalition government whose colours are red, yellow and green. Farmers’ issues can lend themselves to far-right ideology through nostalgia for the past and “blood and soil” themes, said De Jonge, adding that there has been a “cross-contamination of different types of extremism” among some actors in the German and Dutch protests. “Ideologies used to be clearly delineated,” she said. “Now they take ideas from a mixed bag of ideological snippets and paste them into this worldview.” Explore more on these topics Farming Protest Germany Netherlands The far right Europe Pollution features Share Reuse this content 1:09 Tractors shut down roads in Berlin in protest against greener farming policies – video 1:09 Tractors shut down roads in Berlin in protest against greener farming policies – video 1:09 Tractors shut down roads in Berlin in protest against greener farming policies – video 1:09 Tractors shut down roads in Berlin in protest against greener farming policies – video This article is more than 1 year old Why Europe’s farmers are protesting – and the far right is taking note This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Why Europe’s farmers are protesting – and the far right is taking note This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Why Europe’s farmers are protesting – and the far right is taking note 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 some farmers already struggling, paying for more of their pollution is a step too far. Germany is the latest country to see anger boil over For some farmers already struggling, paying for more of their pollution is a step too far. Germany is the latest country to see anger boil over For some farmers already struggling, paying for more of their pollution is a step too far. Germany is the latest country to see anger boil over T he columns of tractors that have blocked roads in Germany , causing chaos in cities and headaches for commuters, are the latest wave in a growing tide of anger against efforts to protect Europe’s nature from the pollution pumped out by its farms. In recent years, farmers in western Europe have fought with increasing ferocity against policies to protect the planet that they say cost too much. In the Netherlands, where the backlash has been strongest, a court ruling on nitrogen emissions in 2019 triggered furious and recurring protests over government efforts to close farms and cut the number of animals on them. In Belgium, similar fights led to convoys of tractors clogging the EU quarter of Brussels in March last year. In Ireland, which has seen smaller protests, dairy farmers angry at nitrogen restrictions marched with their cows to the offices of three government ministers last month. Spain and France have not escaped. On the back of Spain’s hottest year on record, farmers took to the streets of Madrid in January 2023 after the government announced plans to restrict how much water they could take from the drought-struck Tagus river. The following month, French farmers drove tractors through Paris to protest a pesticide ban. Now the fight has come to Europe’s biggest economy. After furious farmers dumped manure on the streets of Berlin in December, the German government watered down a plan to cut subsidies for diesel in farmyard vehicles. But lobby groups are pushing them to scrap the plan entirely. Joachim Rukwied, president of the German farmers’ association, said last Monday that 100,000 tractors had hit the streets for a week of disruptive protests. “Farmers today sent a clear signal to the federal government to completely withdraw the planned tax increases.” View image in fullscreen Firefighters at the scene as farmers set fire to manure and hay bales during a protest in Apeldoorn, the Netherlands in July 2022 Photograph: News United/EPA For some farmers, the burden of paying for more of their pollution is a step too far after an energy crisis and pandemic that has left many struggling to make ends meet. Some say they feel overburdened by rules and undervalued by city dwellers who eat the food they grow without knowing where it came from. In agricultural giants like the Netherlands and France, farmers have expressed frustration at the pressure from governments to produce less after years of encouragement to make more. Environmental activists say they do not want to reduce subsidies to farmers but instead spend them in a less destructive way. Sascha Müller-Kraenner, head of campaign group Environmental Action Germany , called for every euro of agricultural subsidy to come with ecological and social strings. “[We need] a better subsidy policy that gets more for farm income, climate protection and nature with the same funds,” he said. “Subsidies that are harmful to the climate must be phased out.” Scientists, meanwhile, have pointed to the damage that will be done to farms as planet-heating pollution turns the climate less hospitable to humans. More than 80% of habitats in Europe are in poor shape, according to the European Commission, and yields for some crops have already been hit by poor soils, a lack of water and extreme weather events that are growing increasingly violent. But for some European governments, the more pressing threat is the attention that farmers’ protests have attracted from far-right and populist parties, as well as radical conspiracy theorists. In the Netherlands, the nitrogen crisis led to the creation of the Farmer-Citizen Movement, a rural populist party that scored big wins in provincial elections in March but came sixth in general elections in November. In Germany, the protests have gained vocal support from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and groups with more extreme and anti-democratic views. The climate and economy minister, Robert Habeck, warned on Monday of fringe groups exploiting the protests. “There are calls circulating with coup fantasies, extremist groups are forming and ethnic-nationalist symbols are being openly displayed,” he said. The protests have also highlighted a split among Europe’s moderate conservative groups. In the European parliament last year, the centre-right European People’s party (EPP) led a rightwing alliance of lawmakers who narrowly failed to throw out a bill to restore nature on the grounds that it would hurt farmers. The proposal is a key pillar of the European Green Deal – championed by the European Commission president and EPP heavyweight, Ursula von der Leyen – that the centre-right grouping had previously backed. Grassroots support for farmers’ protests, from campaign placards to Telegram groups, has also overlapped with conspiracy theories about issues such as Covid, climate breakdown and migration. “The Netherlands was a bit of a harbinger when it comes to these protests,” said Léonie de Jonge, a political scientist at the University of Groningen who studies the far right. “This is the new kind of agrarian populism popping up in these countries.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Conspiracy theories have even spread from rural farms in northern Europe to cable TV shows in the US to social media feeds around the world. Last Monday, Dutch political pundit Eva Vlaardingerbroek joined farmers on a tractor in Germany to rail against “the global elites waging a war against the hard-working people who put food on our tables”. In an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson last year, Vlaardingerbroek pushed a popular conspiracy theory by claiming that groups like the World Economic Forum are trying to make Dutch people eat bugs by cracking down on farms and opening insect factories. The YouTube clip – titled “Politicians know when they control the food, they control the people: Activist” – has been viewed more than half a million times. “We don’t want to be eating insects, we want our steak,” she said. Similar pronouncements have been echoed by conspiracy theorists with even larger followings. In a post on X on Monday, Vlaardingerbroek described farmers as “one of the few groups in society with enough manpower to put up a real fight against the globalists who wants to radically change our way of life”. Elon Musk, one of the richest men in the world and owner of the platform, who has separately endorsed antisemitic conspiracy theories, replied: “Support the farmers!” The German farmers’ association has distanced itself from far-right groups who have tried to influence their protests. Some farmers turned up to protests with banners on tractors that read “Farming is colourful, not brown” in reference to the brown uniforms of fascist groups. Others were pictured with makeshift gallows dangling a traffic light – a reference to the parties of the coalition government whose colours are red, yellow and green. Farmers’ issues can lend themselves to far-right ideology through nostalgia for the past and “blood and soil” themes, said De Jonge, adding that there has been a “cross-contamination of different types of extremism” among some actors in the German and Dutch protests. “Ideologies used to be clearly delineated,” she said. “Now they take ideas from a mixed bag of ideological snippets and paste them into this worldview.” Explore more on these topics Farming Protest Germany Netherlands The far right Europe Pollution features Share Reuse this content T he columns of tractors that have blocked roads in Germany , causing chaos in cities and headaches for commuters, are the latest wave in a growing tide of anger against efforts to protect Europe’s nature from the pollution pumped out by its farms. In recent years, farmers in western Europe have fought with increasing ferocity against policies to protect the planet that they say cost too much. In the Netherlands, where the backlash has been strongest, a court ruling on nitrogen emissions in 2019 triggered furious and recurring protests over government efforts to close farms and cut the number of animals on them. In Belgium, similar fights led to convoys of tractors clogging the EU quarter of Brussels in March last year. In Ireland, which has seen smaller protests, dairy farmers angry at nitrogen restrictions marched with their cows to the offices of three government ministers last month. Spain and France have not escaped. On the back of Spain’s hottest year on record, farmers took to the streets of Madrid in January 2023 after the government announced plans to restrict how much water they could take from the drought-struck Tagus river. The following month, French farmers drove tractors through Paris to protest a pesticide ban. Now the fight has come to Europe’s biggest economy. After furious farmers dumped manure on the streets of Berlin in December, the German government watered down a plan to cut subsidies for diesel in farmyard vehicles. But lobby groups are pushing them to scrap the plan entirely. Joachim Rukwied, president of the German farmers’ association, said last Monday that 100,000 tractors had hit the streets for a week of disruptive protests. “Farmers today sent a clear signal to the federal government to completely withdraw the planned tax increases.” View image in fullscreen Firefighters at the scene as farmers set fire to manure and hay bales during a protest in Apeldoorn, the Netherlands in July 2022 Photograph: News United/EPA For some farmers, the burden of paying for more of their pollution is a step too far after an energy crisis and pandemic that has left many struggling to make ends meet. Some say they feel overburdened by rules and undervalued by city dwellers who eat the food they grow without knowing where it came from. In agricultural giants like the Netherlands and France, farmers have expressed frustration at the pressure from governments to produce less after years of encouragement to make more. Environmental activists say they do not want to reduce subsidies to farmers but instead spend them in a less destructive way. Sascha Müller-Kraenner, head of campaign group Environmental Action Germany , called for every euro of agricultural subsidy to come with ecological and social strings. “[We need] a better subsidy policy that gets more for farm income, climate protection and nature with the same funds,” he said. “Subsidies that are harmful to the climate must be phased out.” Scientists, meanwhile, have pointed to the damage that will be done to farms as planet-heating pollution turns the climate less hospitable to humans. More than 80% of habitats in Europe are in poor shape, according to the European Commission, and yields for some crops have already been hit by poor soils, a lack of water and extreme weather events that are growing increasingly violent. But for some European governments, the more pressing threat is the attention that farmers’ protests have attracted from far-right and populist parties, as well as radical conspiracy theorists. In the Netherlands, the nitrogen crisis led to the creation of the Farmer-Citizen Movement, a rural populist party that scored big wins in provincial elections in March but came sixth in general elections in November. In Germany, the protests have gained vocal support from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and groups with more extreme and anti-democratic views. The climate and economy minister, Robert Habeck, warned on Monday of fringe groups exploiting the protests. “There are calls circulating with coup fantasies, extremist groups are forming and ethnic-nationalist symbols are being openly displayed,” he said. The protests have also highlighted a split among Europe’s moderate conservative groups. In the European parliament last year, the centre-right European People’s party (EPP) led a rightwing alliance of lawmakers who narrowly failed to throw out a bill to restore nature on the grounds that it would hurt farmers. The proposal is a key pillar of the European Green Deal – championed by the European Commission president and EPP heavyweight, Ursula von der Leyen – that the centre-right grouping had previously backed. Grassroots support for farmers’ protests, from campaign placards to Telegram groups, has also overlapped with conspiracy theories about issues such as Covid, climate breakdown and migration. “The Netherlands was a bit of a harbinger when it comes to these protests,” said Léonie de Jonge, a political scientist at the University of Groningen who studies the far right. “This is the new kind of agrarian populism popping up in these countries.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Conspiracy theories have even spread from rural farms in northern Europe to cable TV shows in the US to social media feeds around the world. Last Monday, Dutch political pundit Eva Vlaardingerbroek joined farmers on a tractor in Germany to rail against “the global elites waging a war against the hard-working people who put food on our tables”. In an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson last year, Vlaardingerbroek pushed a popular conspiracy theory by claiming that groups like the World Economic Forum are trying to make Dutch people eat bugs by cracking down on farms and opening insect factories. The YouTube clip – titled “Politicians know when they control the food, they control the people: Activist” – has been viewed more than half a million times. “We don’t want to be eating insects, we want our steak,” she said. Similar pronouncements have been echoed by conspiracy theorists with even larger followings. In a post on X on Monday, Vlaardingerbroek described farmers as “one of the few groups in society with enough manpower to put up a real fight against the globalists who wants to radically change our way of life”. Elon Musk, one of the richest men in the world and owner of the platform, who has separately endorsed antisemitic conspiracy theories, replied: “Support the farmers!” The German farmers’ association has distanced itself from far-right groups who have tried to influence their protests. Some farmers turned up to protests with banners on tractors that read “Farming is colourful, not brown” in reference to the brown uniforms of fascist groups. Others were pictured with makeshift gallows dangling a traffic light – a reference to the parties of the coalition government whose colours are red, yellow and green. Farmers’ issues can lend themselves to far-right ideology through nostalgia for the past and “blood and soil” themes, said De Jonge, adding that there has been a “cross-contamination of different types of extremism” among some actors in the German and Dutch protests. “Ideologies used to be clearly delineated,” she said. “Now they take ideas from a mixed bag of ideological snippets and paste them into this worldview.” Explore more on these topics Farming Protest Germany Netherlands The far right Europe Pollution features Share Reuse this content T he columns of tractors that have blocked roads in Germany , causing chaos in cities and headaches for commuters, are the latest wave in a growing tide of anger against efforts to protect Europe’s nature from the pollution pumped out by its farms. In recent years, farmers in western Europe have fought with increasing ferocity against policies to protect the planet that they say cost too much. In the Netherlands, where the backlash has been strongest, a court ruling on nitrogen emissions in 2019 triggered furious and recurring protests over government efforts to close farms and cut the number of animals on them. In Belgium, similar fights led to convoys of tractors clogging the EU quarter of Brussels in March last year. In Ireland, which has seen smaller protests, dairy farmers angry at nitrogen restrictions marched with their cows to the offices of three government ministers last month. Spain and France have not escaped. On the back of Spain’s hottest year on record, farmers took to the streets of Madrid in January 2023 after the government announced plans to restrict how much water they could take from the drought-struck Tagus river. The following month, French farmers drove tractors through Paris to protest a pesticide ban. Now the fight has come to Europe’s biggest economy. After furious farmers dumped manure on the streets of Berlin in December, the German government watered down a plan to cut subsidies for diesel in farmyard vehicles. But lobby groups are pushing them to scrap the plan entirely. Joachim Rukwied, president of the German farmers’ association, said last Monday that 100,000 tractors had hit the streets for a week of disruptive protests. “Farmers today sent a clear signal to the federal government to completely withdraw the planned tax increases.” View image in fullscreen Firefighters at the scene as farmers set fire to manure and hay bales during a protest in Apeldoorn, the Netherlands in July 2022 Photograph: News United/EPA For some farmers, the burden of paying for more of their pollution is a step too far after an energy crisis and pandemic that has left many struggling to make ends meet. Some say they feel overburdened by rules and undervalued by city dwellers who eat the food they grow without knowing where it came from. In agricultural giants like the Netherlands and France, farmers have expressed frustration at the pressure from governments to produce less after years of encouragement to make more. Environmental activists say they do not want to reduce subsidies to farmers but instead spend them in a less destructive way. Sascha Müller-Kraenner, head of campaign group Environmental Action Germany , called for every euro of agricultural subsidy to come with ecological and social strings. “[We need] a better subsidy policy that gets more for farm income, climate protection and nature with the same funds,” he said. “Subsidies that are harmful to the climate must be phased out.” Scientists, meanwhile, have pointed to the damage that will be done to farms as planet-heating pollution turns the climate less hospitable to humans. More than 80% of habitats in Europe are in poor shape, according to the European Commission, and yields for some crops have already been hit by poor soils, a lack of water and extreme weather events that are growing increasingly violent. But for some European governments, the more pressing threat is the attention that farmers’ protests have attracted from far-right and populist parties, as well as radical conspiracy theorists. In the Netherlands, the nitrogen crisis led to the creation of the Farmer-Citizen Movement, a rural populist party that scored big wins in provincial elections in March but came sixth in general elections in November. In Germany, the protests have gained vocal support from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and groups with more extreme and anti-democratic views. The climate and economy minister, Robert Habeck, warned on Monday of fringe groups exploiting the protests. “There are calls circulating with coup fantasies, extremist groups are forming and ethnic-nationalist symbols are being openly displayed,” he said. The protests have also highlighted a split among Europe’s moderate conservative groups. In the European parliament last year, the centre-right European People’s party (EPP) led a rightwing alliance of lawmakers who narrowly failed to throw out a bill to restore nature on the grounds that it would hurt farmers. The proposal is a key pillar of the European Green Deal – championed by the European Commission president and EPP heavyweight, Ursula von der Leyen – that the centre-right grouping had previously backed. Grassroots support for farmers’ protests, from campaign placards to Telegram groups, has also overlapped with conspiracy theories about issues such as Covid, climate breakdown and migration. “The Netherlands was a bit of a harbinger when it comes to these protests,” said Léonie de Jonge, a political scientist at the University of Groningen who studies the far right. “This is the new kind of agrarian populism popping up in these countries.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Conspiracy theories have even spread from rural farms in northern Europe to cable TV shows in the US to social media feeds around the world. Last Monday, Dutch political pundit Eva Vlaardingerbroek joined farmers on a tractor in Germany to rail against “the global elites waging a war against the hard-working people who put food on our tables”. In an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson last year, Vlaardingerbroek pushed a popular conspiracy theory by claiming that groups like the World Economic Forum are trying to make Dutch people eat bugs by cracking down on farms and opening insect factories. The YouTube clip – titled “Politicians know when they control the food, they control the people: Activist” – has been viewed more than half a million times. “We don’t want to be eating insects, we want our steak,” she said. Similar pronouncements have been echoed by conspiracy theorists with even larger followings. In a post on X on Monday, Vlaardingerbroek described farmers as “one of the few groups in society with enough manpower to put up a real fight against the globalists who wants to radically change our way of life”. Elon Musk, one of the richest men in the world and owner of the platform, who has separately endorsed antisemitic conspiracy theories, replied: “Support the farmers!” The German farmers’ association has distanced itself from far-right groups who have tried to influence their protests. Some farmers turned up to protests with banners on tractors that read “Farming is colourful, not brown” in reference to the brown uniforms of fascist groups. Others were pictured with makeshift gallows dangling a traffic light – a reference to the parties of the coalition government whose colours are red, yellow and green. Farmers’ issues can lend themselves to far-right ideology through nostalgia for the past and “blood and soil” themes, said De Jonge, adding that there has been a “cross-contamination of different types of extremism” among some actors in the German and Dutch protests. “Ideologies used to be clearly delineated,” she said. “Now they take ideas from a mixed bag of ideological snippets and paste them into this worldview.” T he columns of tractors that have blocked roads in Germany , causing chaos in cities and headaches for commuters, are the latest wave in a growing tide of anger against efforts to protect Europe’s nature from the pollution pumped out by its farms. In recent years, farmers in western Europe have fought with increasing ferocity against policies to protect the planet that they say cost too much. In the Netherlands, where the backlash has been strongest, a court ruling on nitrogen emissions in 2019 triggered furious and recurring protests over government efforts to close farms and cut the number of animals on them. In Belgium, similar fights led to convoys of tractors clogging the EU quarter of Brussels in March last year. In Ireland, which has seen smaller protests, dairy farmers angry at nitrogen restrictions marched with their cows to the offices of three government ministers last month. Spain and France have not escaped. On the back of Spain’s hottest year on record, farmers took to the streets of Madrid in January 2023 after the government announced plans to restrict how much water they could take from the drought-struck Tagus river. The following month, French farmers drove tractors through Paris to protest a pesticide ban. Now the fight has come to Europe’s biggest economy. After furious farmers dumped manure on the streets of Berlin in December, the German government watered down a plan to cut subsidies for diesel in farmyard vehicles. But lobby groups are pushing them to scrap the plan entirely. Joachim Rukwied, president of the German farmers’ association, said last Monday that 100,000 tractors had hit the streets for a week of disruptive protests. “Farmers today sent a clear signal to the federal government to completely withdraw the planned tax increases.” View image in fullscreen Firefighters at the scene as farmers set fire to manure and hay bales during a protest in Apeldoorn, the Netherlands in July 2022 Photograph: News United/EPA For some farmers, the burden of paying for more of their pollution is a step too far after an energy crisis and pandemic that has left many struggling to make ends meet. Some say they feel overburdened by rules and undervalued by city dwellers who eat the food they grow without knowing where it came from. In agricultural giants like the Netherlands and France, farmers have expressed frustration at the pressure from governments to produce less after years of encouragement to make more. Environmental activists say they do not want to reduce subsidies to farmers but instead spend them in a less destructive way. Sascha Müller-Kraenner, head of campaign group Environmental Action Germany , called for every euro of agricultural subsidy to come with ecological and social strings. “[We need] a better subsidy policy that gets more for farm income, climate protection and nature with the same funds,” he said. “Subsidies that are harmful to the climate must be phased out.” Scientists, meanwhile, have pointed to the damage that will be done to farms as planet-heating pollution turns the climate less hospitable to humans. More than 80% of habitats in Europe are in poor shape, according to the European Commission, and yields for some crops have already been hit by poor soils, a lack of water and extreme weather events that are growing increasingly violent. But for some European governments, the more pressing threat is the attention that farmers’ protests have attracted from far-right and populist parties, as well as radical conspiracy theorists. In the Netherlands, the nitrogen crisis led to the creation of the Farmer-Citizen Movement, a rural populist party that scored big wins in provincial elections in March but came sixth in general elections in November. In Germany, the protests have gained vocal support from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and groups with more extreme and anti-democratic views. The climate and economy minister, Robert Habeck, warned on Monday of fringe groups exploiting the protests. “There are calls circulating with coup fantasies, extremist groups are forming and ethnic-nationalist symbols are being openly displayed,” he said. The protests have also highlighted a split among Europe’s moderate conservative groups. In the European parliament last year, the centre-right European People’s party (EPP) led a rightwing alliance of lawmakers who narrowly failed to throw out a bill to restore nature on the grounds that it would hurt farmers. The proposal is a key pillar of the European Green Deal – championed by the European Commission president and EPP heavyweight, Ursula von der Leyen – that the centre-right grouping had previously backed. Grassroots support for farmers’ protests, from campaign placards to Telegram groups, has also overlapped with conspiracy theories about issues such as Covid, climate breakdown and migration. “The Netherlands was a bit of a harbinger when it comes to these protests,” said Léonie de Jonge, a political scientist at the University of Groningen who studies the far right. “This is the new kind of agrarian populism popping up in these countries.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Conspiracy theories have even spread from rural farms in northern Europe to cable TV shows in the US to social media feeds around the world. Last Monday, Dutch political pundit Eva Vlaardingerbroek joined farmers on a tractor in Germany to rail against “the global elites waging a war against the hard-working people who put food on our tables”. In an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson last year, Vlaardingerbroek pushed a popular conspiracy theory by claiming that groups like the World Economic Forum are trying to make Dutch people eat bugs by cracking down on farms and opening insect factories. The YouTube clip – titled “Politicians know when they control the food, they control the people: Activist” – has been viewed more than half a million times. “We don’t want to be eating insects, we want our steak,” she said. Similar pronouncements have been echoed by conspiracy theorists with even larger followings. In a post on X on Monday, Vlaardingerbroek described farmers as “one of the few groups in society with enough manpower to put up a real fight against the globalists who wants to radically change our way of life”. Elon Musk, one of the richest men in the world and owner of the platform, who has separately endorsed antisemitic conspiracy theories, replied: “Support the farmers!” The German farmers’ association has distanced itself from far-right groups who have tried to influence their protests. Some farmers turned up to protests with banners on tractors that read “Farming is colourful, not brown” in reference to the brown uniforms of fascist groups. Others were pictured with makeshift gallows dangling a traffic light – a reference to the parties of the coalition government whose colours are red, yellow and green. Farmers’ issues can lend themselves to far-right ideology through nostalgia for the past and “blood and soil” themes, said De Jonge, adding that there has been a “cross-contamination of different types of extremism” among some actors in the German and Dutch protests. “Ideologies used to be clearly delineated,” she said. “Now they take ideas from a mixed bag of ideological snippets and paste them into this worldview.” T he columns of tractors that have blocked roads in Germany , causing chaos in cities and headaches for commuters, are the latest wave in a growing tide of anger against efforts to protect Europe’s nature from the pollution pumped out by its farms. In recent years, farmers in western Europe have fought with increasing ferocity against policies to protect the planet that they say cost too much. In the Netherlands, where the backlash has been strongest, a court ruling on nitrogen emissions in 2019 triggered furious and recurring protests over government efforts to close farms and cut the number of animals on them. In Belgium, similar fights led to convoys of tractors clogging the EU quarter of Brussels in March last year. In Ireland, which has seen smaller protests, dairy farmers angry at nitrogen restrictions marched with their cows to the offices of three government ministers last month. Spain and France have not escaped. On the back of Spain’s hottest year on record, farmers took to the streets of Madrid in January 2023 after the government announced plans to restrict how much water they could take from the drought-struck Tagus river. The following month, French farmers drove tractors through Paris to protest a pesticide ban. Now the fight has come to Europe’s biggest economy. After furious farmers dumped manure on the streets of Berlin in December, the German government watered down a plan to cut subsidies for diesel in farmyard vehicles. But lobby groups are pushing them to scrap the plan entirely. Joachim Rukwied, president of the German farmers’ association, said last Monday that 100,000 tractors had hit the streets for a week of disruptive protests. “Farmers today sent a clear signal to the federal government to completely withdraw the planned tax increases.” For some farmers, the burden of paying for more of their pollution is a step too far after an energy crisis and pandemic that has left many struggling to make ends meet. Some say they feel overburdened by rules and undervalued by city dwellers who eat the food they grow without knowing where it came from. In agricultural giants like the Netherlands and France, farmers have expressed frustration
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
Knowsley asylum hotel riot accused says he went to join ‘peaceful protest’
A workman outside the Suites hotel in Knowsley in February last year after the disorder. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen A workman outside the Suites hotel in Knowsley in February last year after the disorder. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Knowsley asylum hotel riot accused says he went to join ‘peaceful protest’ This article is more than 1 year old Brian McPadden, 61, denies throwing any of missiles that injured police officers, or setting fire to a police van A man accused of taking part in a riot outside a Merseyside hotel housing asylum seekers told a jury he went to take part in a “peaceful protest” about local girls allegedly being propositioned by the hotel residents. Brian McPadden, 61, admitted going to protest outside the Suites hotel in Knowsley on 10 February last year but said he did not throw any of the missiles that left three police officers injured, or set fire to a police van. At the time, 163 single men were staying in the hotel while they awaited decisions on their asylum cases, the court has heard. McPadden, a former factory worker, is on trial at Liverpool crown court accused of violent disorder, along with four other men. On Monday the judge, Mr Justice Watson, ordered the jury to record not guilty verdicts against the three women on trial – Cheryl Nicholls, Nicola Elliott and Jennifer Knox. There was “insufficient evidence that they used or threatened unlawful violence” with others at the scene, the judge said. Eleven people have already been convicted for their part in the incident, the jury has heard. Giving evidence, McPadden said he went along to the protest on a whim, wearing shorts and making no attempt to cover his face. “I never turned it into a riot,” he said. He maintained he did not have a problem with “all” asylum seekers but a “handful of them” who he said had been “chatting up all the young girls” in the local park in Kirkby. He was caught on police cameras shouting “we’re the innocent ones, not them”, and “there’s one thing you don’t know, you don’t know Kirkby, we stick up for ourselves”. The jury has seen body-worn footage from the police recording McPadden shouting “they better not leave that place in the next few days cause they’ll be dead” and “every Friday we’ll be here, them bastards won’t be”. Cross-examined by the prosecutor Martyn Walsh, McPadden said this was not a death threat directed towards the asylum seekers, but a warning to police that “the young kids” locally would attack them. “Kirby was volatile that day,” he said. He said he was embarrassed at the foul language he used towards the hotel residents. He was captured in front of a police van waving and pointing towards the hotel shouting “we protect our own, yous are not from Kirkby, we are, these are twats” as missiles were thrown at police. The trial continues. Explore more on these topics UK news news Share Reuse this content A workman outside the Suites hotel in Knowsley in February last year after the disorder. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen A workman outside the Suites hotel in Knowsley in February last year after the disorder. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Knowsley asylum hotel riot accused says he went to join ‘peaceful protest’ This article is more than 1 year old Brian McPadden, 61, denies throwing any of missiles that injured police officers, or setting fire to a police van A man accused of taking part in a riot outside a Merseyside hotel housing asylum seekers told a jury he went to take part in a “peaceful protest” about local girls allegedly being propositioned by the hotel residents. Brian McPadden, 61, admitted going to protest outside the Suites hotel in Knowsley on 10 February last year but said he did not throw any of the missiles that left three police officers injured, or set fire to a police van. At the time, 163 single men were staying in the hotel while they awaited decisions on their asylum cases, the court has heard. McPadden, a former factory worker, is on trial at Liverpool crown court accused of violent disorder, along with four other men. On Monday the judge, Mr Justice Watson, ordered the jury to record not guilty verdicts against the three women on trial – Cheryl Nicholls, Nicola Elliott and Jennifer Knox. There was “insufficient evidence that they used or threatened unlawful violence” with others at the scene, the judge said. Eleven people have already been convicted for their part in the incident, the jury has heard. Giving evidence, McPadden said he went along to the protest on a whim, wearing shorts and making no attempt to cover his face. “I never turned it into a riot,” he said. He maintained he did not have a problem with “all” asylum seekers but a “handful of them” who he said had been “chatting up all the young girls” in the local park in Kirkby. He was caught on police cameras shouting “we’re the innocent ones, not them”, and “there’s one thing you don’t know, you don’t know Kirkby, we stick up for ourselves”. The jury has seen body-worn footage from the police recording McPadden shouting “they better not leave that place in the next few days cause they’ll be dead” and “every Friday we’ll be here, them bastards won’t be”. Cross-examined by the prosecutor Martyn Walsh, McPadden said this was not a death threat directed towards the asylum seekers, but a warning to police that “the young kids” locally would attack them. “Kirby was volatile that day,” he said. He said he was embarrassed at the foul language he used towards the hotel residents. He was captured in front of a police van waving and pointing towards the hotel shouting “we protect our own, yous are not from Kirkby, we are, these are twats” as missiles were thrown at police. The trial continues. Explore more on these topics UK news news Share Reuse this content A workman outside the Suites hotel in Knowsley in February last year after the disorder. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen A workman outside the Suites hotel in Knowsley in February last year after the disorder. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images A workman outside the Suites hotel in Knowsley in February last year after the disorder. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen A workman outside the Suites hotel in Knowsley in February last year after the disorder. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images A workman outside the Suites hotel in Knowsley in February last year after the disorder. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen A workman outside the Suites hotel in Knowsley in February last year after the disorder. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images A workman outside the Suites hotel in Knowsley in February last year after the disorder. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen A workman outside the Suites hotel in Knowsley in February last year after the disorder. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images A workman outside the Suites hotel in Knowsley in February last year after the disorder. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images A workman outside the Suites hotel in Knowsley in February last year after the disorder. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Knowsley asylum hotel riot accused says he went to join ‘peaceful protest’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Knowsley asylum hotel riot accused says he went to join ‘peaceful protest’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Knowsley asylum hotel riot accused says he went to join ‘peaceful 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 Brian McPadden, 61, denies throwing any of missiles that injured police officers, or setting fire to a police van Brian McPadden, 61, denies throwing any of missiles that injured police officers, or setting fire to a police van Brian McPadden, 61, denies throwing any of missiles that injured police officers, or setting fire to a police van A man accused of taking part in a riot outside a Merseyside hotel housing asylum seekers told a jury he went to take part in a “peaceful protest” about local girls allegedly being propositioned by the hotel residents. Brian McPadden, 61, admitted going to protest outside the Suites hotel in Knowsley on 10 February last year but said he did not throw any of the missiles that left three police officers injured, or set fire to a police van. At the time, 163 single men were staying in the hotel while they awaited decisions on their asylum cases, the court has heard. McPadden, a former factory worker, is on trial at Liverpool crown court accused of violent disorder, along with four other men. On Monday the judge, Mr Justice Watson, ordered the jury to record not guilty verdicts against the three women on trial – Cheryl Nicholls, Nicola Elliott and Jennifer Knox. There was “insufficient evidence that they used or threatened unlawful violence” with others at the scene, the judge said. Eleven people have already been convicted for their part in the incident, the jury has heard. Giving evidence, McPadden said he went along to the protest on a whim, wearing shorts and making no attempt to cover his face. “I never turned it into a riot,” he said. He maintained he did not have a problem with “all” asylum seekers but a “handful of them” who he said had been “chatting up all the young girls” in the local park in Kirkby. He was caught on police cameras shouting “we’re the innocent ones, not them”, and “there’s one thing you don’t know, you don’t know Kirkby, we stick up for ourselves”. The jury has seen body-worn footage from the police recording McPadden shouting “they better not leave that place in the next few days cause they’ll be dead” and “every Friday we’ll be here, them bastards won’t be”. Cross-examined by the prosecutor Martyn Walsh, McPadden said this was not a death threat directed towards the asylum seekers, but a warning to police that “the young kids” locally would attack them. “Kirby was volatile that day,” he said. He said he was embarrassed at the foul language he used towards the hotel residents. He was captured in front of a police van waving and pointing towards the hotel shouting “we protect our own, yous are not from Kirkby, we are, these are twats” as missiles were thrown at police. The trial continues. Explore more on these topics UK news news Share Reuse this content A man accused of taking part in a riot outside a Merseyside hotel housing asylum seekers told a jury he went to take part in a “peaceful protest” about local girls allegedly being propositioned by the hotel residents. Brian McPadden, 61, admitted going to protest outside the Suites hotel in Knowsley on 10 February last year but said he did not throw any of the missiles that left three police officers injured, or set fire to a police van. At the time, 163 single men were staying in the hotel while they awaited decisions on their asylum cases, the court has heard. McPadden, a former factory worker, is on trial at Liverpool crown court accused of violent disorder, along with four other men. On Monday the judge, Mr Justice Watson, ordered the jury to record not guilty verdicts against the three women on trial – Cheryl Nicholls, Nicola Elliott and Jennifer Knox. There was “insufficient evidence that they used or threatened unlawful violence” with others at the scene, the judge said. Eleven people have already been convicted for their part in the incident, the jury has heard. Giving evidence, McPadden said he went along to the protest on a whim, wearing shorts and making no attempt to cover his face. “I never turned it into a riot,” he said. He maintained he did not have a problem with “all” asylum seekers but a “handful of them” who he said had been “chatting up all the young girls” in the local park in Kirkby. He was caught on police cameras shouting “we’re the innocent ones, not them”, and “there’s one thing you don’t know, you don’t know Kirkby, we stick up for ourselves”. The jury has seen body-worn footage from the police recording McPadden shouting “they better not leave that place in the next few days cause they’ll be dead” and “every Friday we’ll be here, them bastards won’t be”. Cross-examined by the prosecutor Martyn Walsh, McPadden said this was not a death threat directed towards the asylum seekers, but a warning to police that “the young kids” locally would attack them. “Kirby was volatile that day,” he said. He said he was embarrassed at the foul language he used towards the hotel residents. He was captured in front of a police van waving and pointing towards the hotel shouting “we protect our own, yous are not from Kirkby, we are, these are twats” as missiles were thrown at police. The trial continues. Explore more on these topics UK news news Share Reuse this content A man accused of taking part in a riot outside a Merseyside hotel housing asylum seekers told a jury he went to take part in a “peaceful protest” about local girls allegedly being propositioned by the hotel residents. Brian McPadden, 61, admitted going to protest outside the Suites hotel in Knowsley on 10 February last year but said he did not throw any of the missiles that left three police officers injured, or set fire to a police van. At the time, 163 single men were staying in the hotel while they awaited decisions on their asylum cases, the court has heard. McPadden, a former factory worker, is on trial at Liverpool crown court accused of violent disorder, along with four other men. On Monday the judge, Mr Justice Watson, ordered the jury to record not guilty verdicts against the three women on trial – Cheryl Nicholls, Nicola Elliott and Jennifer Knox. There was “insufficient evidence that they used or threatened unlawful violence” with others at the scene, the judge said. Eleven people have already been convicted for their part in the incident, the jury has heard. Giving evidence, McPadden said he went along to the protest on a whim, wearing shorts and making no attempt to cover his face. “I never turned it into a riot,” he said. He maintained he did not have a problem with “all” asylum seekers but a “handful of them” who he said had been “chatting up all the young girls” in the local park in Kirkby. He was caught on police cameras shouting “we’re the innocent ones, not them”, and “there’s one thing you don’t know, you don’t know Kirkby, we stick up for ourselves”. The jury has seen body-worn footage from the police recording McPadden shouting “they better not leave that place in the next few days cause they’ll be dead” and “every Friday we’ll be here, them bastards won’t be”. Cross-examined by the prosecutor Martyn Walsh, McPadden said this was not a death threat directed towards the asylum seekers, but a warning to police that “the young kids” locally would attack them. “Kirby was volatile that day,” he said. He said he was embarrassed at the foul language he used towards the hotel residents. He was captured in front of a police van waving and pointing towards the hotel shouting “we protect our own, yous are not from Kirkby, we are, these are twats” as missiles were thrown at police. The trial continues. A man accused of taking part in a riot outside a Merseyside hotel housing asylum seekers told a jury he went to take part in a “peaceful protest” about local girls allegedly being propositioned by the hotel residents. Brian McPadden, 61, admitted going to protest outside the Suites hotel in Knowsley on 10 February last year but said he did not throw any of the missiles that left three police officers injured, or set fire to a police van. At the time, 163 single men were staying in the hotel while they awaited decisions on their asylum cases, the court has heard. McPadden, a former factory worker, is on trial at Liverpool crown court accused of violent disorder, along with four other men. On Monday the judge, Mr Justice Watson, ordered the jury to record not guilty verdicts against the three women on trial – Cheryl Nicholls, Nicola Elliott and Jennifer Knox. There was “insufficient evidence that they used or threatened unlawful violence” with others at the scene, the judge said. Eleven people have already been convicted for their part in the incident, the jury has heard. Giving evidence, McPadden said he went along to the protest on a whim, wearing shorts and making no attempt to cover his face. “I never turned it into a riot,” he said. He maintained he did not have a problem with “all” asylum seekers but a “handful of them” who he said had been “chatting up all the young girls” in the local park in Kirkby. He was caught on police cameras shouting “we’re the innocent ones, not them”, and “there’s one thing you don’t know, you don’t know Kirkby, we stick up for ourselves”. The jury has seen body-worn footage from the police recording McPadden shouting “they better not leave that place in the next few days cause they’ll be dead” and “every Friday we’ll be here, them bastards won’t be”. Cross-examined by the prosecutor Martyn Walsh, McPadden said this was not a death threat directed towards the asylum seekers, but a warning to police that “the young kids” locally would attack them. “Kirby was volatile that day,” he said. He said he was embarrassed at the foul language he used towards the hotel residents. He was captured in front of a police van waving and pointing towards the hotel shouting “we protect our own, yous are not from Kirkby, we are, these are twats” as missiles were thrown at police. The trial continues. A man accused of taking part in a riot outside a Merseyside hotel housing asylum seekers told a jury he went to take part in a “peaceful protest” about local girls allegedly being propositioned by the hotel residents. Brian McPadden, 61, admitted going to protest outside the Suites hotel in Knowsley on 10 February last year but said he did not throw any of the missiles that left three police officers injured, or set fire to a police van. At the time, 163 single men were staying in the hotel while they awaited decisions on their asylum cases, the court has heard. McPadden, a former factory worker, is on trial at Liverpool crown court accused of violent disorder, along with four other men. On Monday the judge, Mr Justice Watson, ordered the jury to record not guilty verdicts against the three women on trial – Cheryl Nicholls, Nicola Elliott and Jennifer Knox. There was “insufficient evidence that they used or threatened unlawful violence” with others at the scene, the judge said. Eleven people have already been convicted for their part in the incident, the jury has heard. Giving evidence, McPadden said he went along to the protest on a whim, wearing shorts and making no attempt to cover his face. “I never turned it into a riot,” he said. He maintained he did not have a problem with “all” asylum seekers but a “handful of them” who he said had been “chatting up all the young girls” in the local park in Kirkby. He was caught on police cameras shouting “we’re the innocent ones, not them”, and “there’s one thing you don’t know, you don’t know Kirkby, we stick up for ourselves”. The jury has seen body-worn footage from the police recording McPadden shouting “they better not leave that place in the next few days cause they’ll be dead” and “every Friday we’ll be here, them bastards won’t be”. Cross-examined by the prosecutor Martyn Walsh, McPadden said this was not a death threat directed towards the asylum seekers, but a warning to police that “the young kids” locally would attack them. “Kirby was volatile that day,” he said. He said he was embarrassed at the foul language he used towards the hotel residents. He was captured in front of a police van waving and pointing towards the hotel shouting “we protect our own, yous are not from Kirkby, we are, these are twats” as missiles were thrown at police. Explore more on these topics UK news news Share Reuse this content
|
Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir to be banned from organising in UK
Supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir march in London in 2007. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir march in London in 2007. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir to be banned from organising in UK This article is more than 1 year old Group has been criticised by ministers over demonstrations held against Israeli strikes on Gaza UK politics live – latest updates Hizb ut-Tahrir will be banned from organising in the UK after claims that the group is antisemitic, the home secretary has said. The Islamist group, which is already banned in countries including Germany and Indonesia, will no longer be allowed to recruit or hold protests and meetings across the UK. Ministers have criticised the group after demonstrations held against Israeli strikes on Gaza . If agreed by parliament, a draft order that was laid on Monday will come into force on 19 January. This means that belonging to, inviting support for and displaying articles in a public place in a way that arouses suspicion of membership or support for the group will be a criminal offence. James Cleverly, the home secretary, said: “Hizb ut-Tahrir is an antisemitic organisation that actively promotes and encourages terrorism, including praising and celebrating the appalling 7 October attacks. “Proscribing this terrorist group will ensure that anyone who belongs to and invites support for them will face consequences. It will curb Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ability to operate as it currently does.” Certain proscription offences can be punishable by up to 14 years in prison, which can be handed down by a court alongside, or in place of, a fine. Since the 7 October attacks by Hamas and the subsequent military response by Israel, Hizb ut-Tahrir has not condemned Hamas, a group already proscribed in the UK, rather hailing the attacks on Israeli citizens by saying “if this can be done by a resistance group, imagine what a unified response from the Muslim world could achieve”. It has called on Muslim countries to “get your armies and go and remove the Zionist occupiers”. Previously Hizb ut-Tahrir, which Tony Blair and David Cameron tried to ban when they were in Downing Street, has made calls to “wipe out that Zionist entity” and referred to “the monstrous Jews”. In October, the group’s members attended a rally outside the Egyptian and Turkish embassies in London and called for “Muslim armies” to attack Israel. The head of Hizb ut-Tahrir in the UK, Abdul Wahid, has spent more than 20 years practising as a family doctor under his real name, Dr Wahid Asif Shaida. After a Mail on Sunday report, Shaida confirmed he was also known as Abdul Wahid but denied Hizb ut-Tahrir was “extremist”, saying the word was “pejorative” and did not have an agreed meaning. He added: “For reasons of professional probity I keep a very clear line between my professional and political life.” Shaida has been approached for a comment.Hizb ut-Tahrir seeks the establishment of a caliphate in the Middle East. Critics, including former members of the group, have claimed it is a gateway to violent extremism. Blair vowed to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir as part of a counter-extremism plan after the 7 July 2005 bombings, but the proposal was dropped. Blair’s failure was criticised by David Cameron, who called Hizb ut-Tahrir “a conveyor-belt to terrorism”. But by the time Cameron stepped down as prime minister eight years later, there was no ban in place. On both occasions, the plans were dropped after protests that the group was non-violent and claims from lawyers that a ban would be unenforceable. With headquarters in Lebanon, the group operates in at least 32 countries including the US, Canada and Australia, with a “long-term goal of establishing a caliphate ruled under Islamic law”, the Home Office said. It was established in Jerusalem in the 1950s with a vision of an international caliphate across all Muslim countries. It rose to prominence in the early 1990s under the leadership of Omar Bakri Muhammed , the so-called “Tottenham Ayatollah”, who left in 1996 to set up the more hardline group al-Muhajiroun. The remaining leaders have argued that they are law-abiding. The group’s stated public position is that it does not support Hamas or advocate the use of violence to achieve an Islamic state. A spokesperson for Hizb ut-Tahrir said it would challenge the ban in the courts and plans to hold an online meeting to discuss the Middle East on Tuesday. “Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain explicitly states that it will challenge the proposed proscription using all available legal means,” the statement said. “Regardless of the outcome for Hizb ut-Tahrir, the political struggle in highlighting the genocide in Gaza, exposing the west’s colonial agenda and the obligation to work to restore Islam as a just way of life will always continue.” Yvette Cooper, Labour’s shadow home secretary, welcomed the ban. “It is right that the government has looked urgently at the evidence and intelligence information available to them about the threat posed by Hizb ut-Tahrir, and we welcome and support the decision to proscribe them,” she said. Senior Tories have previously criticised Keir Starmer for representing Hizb ut-Tahrir in 2008 when the group tried to overturn a ban in Germany. Starmer was one of a team of lawyers who submitted an application to the European court of human rights which was turned down and the ban remained. Labour has said he took the job because barristers may not withhold their services based on a client’s conduct, opinions or beliefs, and that he left it before any oral hearing to become director of public prosecutions. As DPP, he went on to prosecute “terrorists with links to Hizb ut-Tahrir and led the first ever prosecution of al-Qaida,” the party said. Explore more on these topics UK security and counter-terrorism Protest Palestine Gaza Israel-Gaza war Middle East and north Africa news Share Reuse this content Supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir march in London in 2007. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir march in London in 2007. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir to be banned from organising in UK This article is more than 1 year old Group has been criticised by ministers over demonstrations held against Israeli strikes on Gaza UK politics live – latest updates Hizb ut-Tahrir will be banned from organising in the UK after claims that the group is antisemitic, the home secretary has said. The Islamist group, which is already banned in countries including Germany and Indonesia, will no longer be allowed to recruit or hold protests and meetings across the UK. Ministers have criticised the group after demonstrations held against Israeli strikes on Gaza . If agreed by parliament, a draft order that was laid on Monday will come into force on 19 January. This means that belonging to, inviting support for and displaying articles in a public place in a way that arouses suspicion of membership or support for the group will be a criminal offence. James Cleverly, the home secretary, said: “Hizb ut-Tahrir is an antisemitic organisation that actively promotes and encourages terrorism, including praising and celebrating the appalling 7 October attacks. “Proscribing this terrorist group will ensure that anyone who belongs to and invites support for them will face consequences. It will curb Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ability to operate as it currently does.” Certain proscription offences can be punishable by up to 14 years in prison, which can be handed down by a court alongside, or in place of, a fine. Since the 7 October attacks by Hamas and the subsequent military response by Israel, Hizb ut-Tahrir has not condemned Hamas, a group already proscribed in the UK, rather hailing the attacks on Israeli citizens by saying “if this can be done by a resistance group, imagine what a unified response from the Muslim world could achieve”. It has called on Muslim countries to “get your armies and go and remove the Zionist occupiers”. Previously Hizb ut-Tahrir, which Tony Blair and David Cameron tried to ban when they were in Downing Street, has made calls to “wipe out that Zionist entity” and referred to “the monstrous Jews”. In October, the group’s members attended a rally outside the Egyptian and Turkish embassies in London and called for “Muslim armies” to attack Israel. The head of Hizb ut-Tahrir in the UK, Abdul Wahid, has spent more than 20 years practising as a family doctor under his real name, Dr Wahid Asif Shaida. After a Mail on Sunday report, Shaida confirmed he was also known as Abdul Wahid but denied Hizb ut-Tahrir was “extremist”, saying the word was “pejorative” and did not have an agreed meaning. He added: “For reasons of professional probity I keep a very clear line between my professional and political life.” Shaida has been approached for a comment.Hizb ut-Tahrir seeks the establishment of a caliphate in the Middle East. Critics, including former members of the group, have claimed it is a gateway to violent extremism. Blair vowed to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir as part of a counter-extremism plan after the 7 July 2005 bombings, but the proposal was dropped. Blair’s failure was criticised by David Cameron, who called Hizb ut-Tahrir “a conveyor-belt to terrorism”. But by the time Cameron stepped down as prime minister eight years later, there was no ban in place. On both occasions, the plans were dropped after protests that the group was non-violent and claims from lawyers that a ban would be unenforceable. With headquarters in Lebanon, the group operates in at least 32 countries including the US, Canada and Australia, with a “long-term goal of establishing a caliphate ruled under Islamic law”, the Home Office said. It was established in Jerusalem in the 1950s with a vision of an international caliphate across all Muslim countries. It rose to prominence in the early 1990s under the leadership of Omar Bakri Muhammed , the so-called “Tottenham Ayatollah”, who left in 1996 to set up the more hardline group al-Muhajiroun. The remaining leaders have argued that they are law-abiding. The group’s stated public position is that it does not support Hamas or advocate the use of violence to achieve an Islamic state. A spokesperson for Hizb ut-Tahrir said it would challenge the ban in the courts and plans to hold an online meeting to discuss the Middle East on Tuesday. “Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain explicitly states that it will challenge the proposed proscription using all available legal means,” the statement said. “Regardless of the outcome for Hizb ut-Tahrir, the political struggle in highlighting the genocide in Gaza, exposing the west’s colonial agenda and the obligation to work to restore Islam as a just way of life will always continue.” Yvette Cooper, Labour’s shadow home secretary, welcomed the ban. “It is right that the government has looked urgently at the evidence and intelligence information available to them about the threat posed by Hizb ut-Tahrir, and we welcome and support the decision to proscribe them,” she said. Senior Tories have previously criticised Keir Starmer for representing Hizb ut-Tahrir in 2008 when the group tried to overturn a ban in Germany. Starmer was one of a team of lawyers who submitted an application to the European court of human rights which was turned down and the ban remained. Labour has said he took the job because barristers may not withhold their services based on a client’s conduct, opinions or beliefs, and that he left it before any oral hearing to become director of public prosecutions. As DPP, he went on to prosecute “terrorists with links to Hizb ut-Tahrir and led the first ever prosecution of al-Qaida,” the party said. Explore more on these topics UK security and counter-terrorism Protest Palestine Gaza Israel-Gaza war Middle East and north Africa news Share Reuse this content Supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir march in London in 2007. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir march in London in 2007. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images Supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir march in London in 2007. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir march in London in 2007. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images Supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir march in London in 2007. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir march in London in 2007. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images Supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir march in London in 2007. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir march in London in 2007. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images Supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir march in London in 2007. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images Supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir march in London in 2007. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir to be banned from organising in UK This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir to be banned from organising in UK This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir to be banned from organising in 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 Group has been criticised by ministers over demonstrations held against Israeli strikes on Gaza UK politics live – latest updates Group has been criticised by ministers over demonstrations held against Israeli strikes on Gaza UK politics live – latest updates Group has been criticised by ministers over demonstrations held against Israeli strikes on Gaza Hizb ut-Tahrir will be banned from organising in the UK after claims that the group is antisemitic, the home secretary has said. The Islamist group, which is already banned in countries including Germany and Indonesia, will no longer be allowed to recruit or hold protests and meetings across the UK. Ministers have criticised the group after demonstrations held against Israeli strikes on Gaza . If agreed by parliament, a draft order that was laid on Monday will come into force on 19 January. This means that belonging to, inviting support for and displaying articles in a public place in a way that arouses suspicion of membership or support for the group will be a criminal offence. James Cleverly, the home secretary, said: “Hizb ut-Tahrir is an antisemitic organisation that actively promotes and encourages terrorism, including praising and celebrating the appalling 7 October attacks. “Proscribing this terrorist group will ensure that anyone who belongs to and invites support for them will face consequences. It will curb Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ability to operate as it currently does.” Certain proscription offences can be punishable by up to 14 years in prison, which can be handed down by a court alongside, or in place of, a fine. Since the 7 October attacks by Hamas and the subsequent military response by Israel, Hizb ut-Tahrir has not condemned Hamas, a group already proscribed in the UK, rather hailing the attacks on Israeli citizens by saying “if this can be done by a resistance group, imagine what a unified response from the Muslim world could achieve”. It has called on Muslim countries to “get your armies and go and remove the Zionist occupiers”. Previously Hizb ut-Tahrir, which Tony Blair and David Cameron tried to ban when they were in Downing Street, has made calls to “wipe out that Zionist entity” and referred to “the monstrous Jews”. In October, the group’s members attended a rally outside the Egyptian and Turkish embassies in London and called for “Muslim armies” to attack Israel. The head of Hizb ut-Tahrir in the UK, Abdul Wahid, has spent more than 20 years practising as a family doctor under his real name, Dr Wahid Asif Shaida. After a Mail on Sunday report, Shaida confirmed he was also known as Abdul Wahid but denied Hizb ut-Tahrir was “extremist”, saying the word was “pejorative” and did not have an agreed meaning. He added: “For reasons of professional probity I keep a very clear line between my professional and political life.” Shaida has been approached for a comment.Hizb ut-Tahrir seeks the establishment of a caliphate in the Middle East. Critics, including former members of the group, have claimed it is a gateway to violent extremism. Blair vowed to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir as part of a counter-extremism plan after the 7 July 2005 bombings, but the proposal was dropped. Blair’s failure was criticised by David Cameron, who called Hizb ut-Tahrir “a conveyor-belt to terrorism”. But by the time Cameron stepped down as prime minister eight years later, there was no ban in place. On both occasions, the plans were dropped after protests that the group was non-violent and claims from lawyers that a ban would be unenforceable. With headquarters in Lebanon, the group operates in at least 32 countries including the US, Canada and Australia, with a “long-term goal of establishing a caliphate ruled under Islamic law”, the Home Office said. It was established in Jerusalem in the 1950s with a vision of an international caliphate across all Muslim countries. It rose to prominence in the early 1990s under the leadership of Omar Bakri Muhammed , the so-called “Tottenham Ayatollah”, who left in 1996 to set up the more hardline group al-Muhajiroun. The remaining leaders have argued that they are law-abiding. The group’s stated public position is that it does not support Hamas or advocate the use of violence to achieve an Islamic state. A spokesperson for Hizb ut-Tahrir said it would challenge the ban in the courts and plans to hold an online meeting to discuss the Middle East on Tuesday. “Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain explicitly states that it will challenge the proposed proscription using all available legal means,” the statement said. “Regardless of the outcome for Hizb ut-Tahrir, the political struggle in highlighting the genocide in Gaza, exposing the west’s colonial agenda and the obligation to work to restore Islam as a just way of life will always continue.” Yvette Cooper, Labour’s shadow home secretary, welcomed the ban. “It is right that the government has looked urgently at the evidence and intelligence information available to them about the threat posed by Hizb ut-Tahrir, and we welcome and support the decision to proscribe them,” she said. Senior Tories have previously criticised Keir Starmer for representing Hizb ut-Tahrir in 2008 when the group tried to overturn a ban in Germany. Starmer was one of a team of lawyers who submitted an application to the European court of human rights which was turned down and the ban remained. Labour has said he took the job because barristers may not withhold their services based on a client’s conduct, opinions or beliefs, and that he left it before any oral hearing to become director of public prosecutions. As DPP, he went on to prosecute “terrorists with links to Hizb ut-Tahrir and led the first ever prosecution of al-Qaida,” the party said. Explore more on these topics UK security and counter-terrorism Protest Palestine Gaza Israel-Gaza war Middle East and north Africa news Share Reuse this content Hizb ut-Tahrir will be banned from organising in the UK after claims that the group is antisemitic, the home secretary has said. The Islamist group, which is already banned in countries including Germany and Indonesia, will no longer be allowed to recruit or hold protests and meetings across the UK. Ministers have criticised the group after demonstrations held against Israeli strikes on Gaza . If agreed by parliament, a draft order that was laid on Monday will come into force on 19 January. This means that belonging to, inviting support for and displaying articles in a public place in a way that arouses suspicion of membership or support for the group will be a criminal offence. James Cleverly, the home secretary, said: “Hizb ut-Tahrir is an antisemitic organisation that actively promotes and encourages terrorism, including praising and celebrating the appalling 7 October attacks. “Proscribing this terrorist group will ensure that anyone who belongs to and invites support for them will face consequences. It will curb Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ability to operate as it currently does.” Certain proscription offences can be punishable by up to 14 years in prison, which can be handed down by a court alongside, or in place of, a fine. Since the 7 October attacks by Hamas and the subsequent military response by Israel, Hizb ut-Tahrir has not condemned Hamas, a group already proscribed in the UK, rather hailing the attacks on Israeli citizens by saying “if this can be done by a resistance group, imagine what a unified response from the Muslim world could achieve”. It has called on Muslim countries to “get your armies and go and remove the Zionist occupiers”. Previously Hizb ut-Tahrir, which Tony Blair and David Cameron tried to ban when they were in Downing Street, has made calls to “wipe out that Zionist entity” and referred to “the monstrous Jews”. In October, the group’s members attended a rally outside the Egyptian and Turkish embassies in London and called for “Muslim armies” to attack Israel. The head of Hizb ut-Tahrir in the UK, Abdul Wahid, has spent more than 20 years practising as a family doctor under his real name, Dr Wahid Asif Shaida. After a Mail on Sunday report, Shaida confirmed he was also known as Abdul Wahid but denied Hizb ut-Tahrir was “extremist”, saying the word was “pejorative” and did not have an agreed meaning. He added: “For reasons of professional probity I keep a very clear line between my professional and political life.” Shaida has been approached for a comment.Hizb ut-Tahrir seeks the establishment of a caliphate in the Middle East. Critics, including former members of the group, have claimed it is a gateway to violent extremism. Blair vowed to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir as part of a counter-extremism plan after the 7 July 2005 bombings, but the proposal was dropped. Blair’s failure was criticised by David Cameron, who called Hizb ut-Tahrir “a conveyor-belt to terrorism”. But by the time Cameron stepped down as prime minister eight years later, there was no ban in place. On both occasions, the plans were dropped after protests that the group was non-violent and claims from lawyers that a ban would be unenforceable. With headquarters in Lebanon, the group operates in at least 32 countries including the US, Canada and Australia, with a “long-term goal of establishing a caliphate ruled under Islamic law”, the Home Office said. It was established in Jerusalem in the 1950s with a vision of an international caliphate across all Muslim countries. It rose to prominence in the early 1990s under the leadership of Omar Bakri Muhammed , the so-called “Tottenham Ayatollah”, who left in 1996 to set up the more hardline group al-Muhajiroun. The remaining leaders have argued that they are law-abiding. The group’s stated public position is that it does not support Hamas or advocate the use of violence to achieve an Islamic state. A spokesperson for Hizb ut-Tahrir said it would challenge the ban in the courts and plans to hold an online meeting to discuss the Middle East on Tuesday. “Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain explicitly states that it will challenge the proposed proscription using all available legal means,” the statement said. “Regardless of the outcome for Hizb ut-Tahrir, the political struggle in highlighting the genocide in Gaza, exposing the west’s colonial agenda and the obligation to work to restore Islam as a just way of life will always continue.” Yvette Cooper, Labour’s shadow home secretary, welcomed the ban. “It is right that the government has looked urgently at the evidence and intelligence information available to them about the threat posed by Hizb ut-Tahrir, and we welcome and support the decision to proscribe them,” she said. Senior Tories have previously criticised Keir Starmer for representing Hizb ut-Tahrir in 2008 when the group tried to overturn a ban in Germany. Starmer was one of a team of lawyers who submitted an application to the European court of human rights which was turned down and the ban remained. Labour has said he took the job because barristers may not withhold their services based on a client’s conduct, opinions or beliefs, and that he left it before any oral hearing to become director of public prosecutions. As DPP, he went on to prosecute “terrorists with links to Hizb ut-Tahrir and led the first ever prosecution of al-Qaida,” the party said. Explore more on these topics UK security and counter-terrorism Protest Palestine Gaza Israel-Gaza war Middle East and north Africa news Share Reuse this content Hizb ut-Tahrir will be banned from organising in the UK after claims that the group is antisemitic, the home secretary has said. The Islamist group, which is already banned in countries including Germany and Indonesia, will no longer be allowed to recruit or hold protests and meetings across the UK. Ministers have criticised the group after demonstrations held against Israeli strikes on Gaza . If agreed by parliament, a draft order that was laid on Monday will come into force on 19 January. This means that belonging to, inviting support for and displaying articles in a public place in a way that arouses suspicion of membership or support for the group will be a criminal offence. James Cleverly, the home secretary, said: “Hizb ut-Tahrir is an antisemitic organisation that actively promotes and encourages terrorism, including praising and celebrating the appalling 7 October attacks. “Proscribing this terrorist group will ensure that anyone who belongs to and invites support for them will face consequences. It will curb Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ability to operate as it currently does.” Certain proscription offences can be punishable by up to 14 years in prison, which can be handed down by a court alongside, or in place of, a fine. Since the 7 October attacks by Hamas and the subsequent military response by Israel, Hizb ut-Tahrir has not condemned Hamas, a group already proscribed in the UK, rather hailing the attacks on Israeli citizens by saying “if this can be done by a resistance group, imagine what a unified response from the Muslim world could achieve”. It has called on Muslim countries to “get your armies and go and remove the Zionist occupiers”. Previously Hizb ut-Tahrir, which Tony Blair and David Cameron tried to ban when they were in Downing Street, has made calls to “wipe out that Zionist entity” and referred to “the monstrous Jews”. In October, the group’s members attended a rally outside the Egyptian and Turkish embassies in London and called for “Muslim armies” to attack Israel. The head of Hizb ut-Tahrir in the UK, Abdul Wahid, has spent more than 20 years practising as a family doctor under his real name, Dr Wahid Asif Shaida. After a Mail on Sunday report, Shaida confirmed he was also known as Abdul Wahid but denied Hizb ut-Tahrir was “extremist”, saying the word was “pejorative” and did not have an agreed meaning. He added: “For reasons of professional probity I keep a very clear line between my professional and political life.” Shaida has been approached for a comment.Hizb ut-Tahrir seeks the establishment of a caliphate in the Middle East. Critics, including former members of the group, have claimed it is a gateway to violent extremism. Blair vowed to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir as part of a counter-extremism plan after the 7 July 2005 bombings, but the proposal was dropped. Blair’s failure was criticised by David Cameron, who called Hizb ut-Tahrir “a conveyor-belt to terrorism”. But by the time Cameron stepped down as prime minister eight years later, there was no ban in place. On both occasions, the plans were dropped after protests that the group was non-violent and claims from lawyers that a ban would be unenforceable. With headquarters in Lebanon, the group operates in at least 32 countries including the US, Canada and Australia, with a “long-term goal of establishing a caliphate ruled under Islamic law”, the Home Office said. It was established in Jerusalem in the 1950s with a vision of an international caliphate across all Muslim countries. It rose to prominence in the early 1990s under the leadership of Omar Bakri Muhammed , the so-called “Tottenham Ayatollah”, who left in 1996 to set up the more hardline group al-Muhajiroun. The remaining leaders have argued that they are law-abiding. The group’s stated public position is that it does not support Hamas or advocate the use of violence to achieve an Islamic state. A spokesperson for Hizb ut-Tahrir said it would challenge the ban in the courts and plans to hold an online meeting to discuss the Middle East on Tuesday. “Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain explicitly states that it will challenge the proposed proscription using all available legal means,” the statement said. “Regardless of the outcome for Hizb ut-Tahrir, the political struggle in highlighting the genocide in Gaza, exposing the west’s colonial agenda and the obligation to work to restore Islam as a just way of life will always continue.” Yvette Cooper, Labour’s shadow home secretary, welcomed the ban. “It is right that the government has looked urgently at the evidence and intelligence information available to them about the threat posed by Hizb ut-Tahrir, and we welcome and support the decision to proscribe them,” she said. Senior Tories have previously criticised Keir Starmer for representing Hizb ut-Tahrir in 2008 when the group tried to overturn a ban in Germany. Starmer was one of a team of lawyers who submitted an application to the European court of human rights which was turned down and the ban remained. Labour has said he took the job because barristers may not withhold their services based on a client’s conduct, opinions or beliefs, and that he left it before any oral hearing to become director of public prosecutions. As DPP, he went on to prosecute “terrorists with links to Hizb ut-Tahrir and led the first ever prosecution of al-Qaida,” the party said. Hizb ut-Tahrir will be banned from organising in the UK after claims that the group is antisemitic, the home secretary has said. The Islamist group, which is already banned in countries including Germany and Indonesia, will no longer be allowed to recruit or hold protests and meetings across the UK. Ministers have criticised the group after demonstrations held against Israeli strikes on Gaza . If agreed by parliament, a draft order that was laid on Monday will come into force on 19 January. This means that belonging to, inviting support for and displaying articles in a public place in a way that arouses suspicion of membership or support for the group will be a criminal offence. James Cleverly, the home secretary, said: “Hizb ut-Tahrir is an antisemitic organisation that actively promotes and encourages terrorism, including praising and celebrating the appalling 7 October attacks. “Proscribing this terrorist group will ensure that anyone who belongs to and invites support for them will face consequences. It will curb Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ability to operate as it currently does.” Certain proscription offences can be punishable by up to 14 years in prison, which can be handed down by a court alongside, or in place of, a fine. Since the 7 October attacks by Hamas and the subsequent military response by Israel, Hizb ut-Tahrir has not condemned Hamas, a group already proscribed in the UK, rather hailing the attacks on Israeli citizens by saying “if this can be done by a resistance group, imagine what a unified response from the Muslim world could achieve”. It has called on Muslim countries to “get your armies and go and remove the Zionist occupiers”. Previously Hizb ut-Tahrir, which Tony Blair and David Cameron tried to ban when they were in Downing Street, has made calls to “wipe out that Zionist entity” and referred to “the monstrous Jews”. In October, the group’s members attended a rally outside the Egyptian and Turkish embassies in London and called for “Muslim armies” to attack Israel. The head of Hizb ut-Tahrir in the UK, Abdul Wahid, has spent more than 20 years practising as a family doctor under his real name, Dr Wahid Asif Shaida. After a Mail on Sunday report, Shaida confirmed he was also known as Abdul Wahid but denied Hizb ut-Tahrir was “extremist”, saying the word was “pejorative” and did not have an agreed meaning. He added: “For reasons of professional probity I keep a very clear line between my professional and political life.” Shaida has been approached for a comment.Hizb ut-Tahrir seeks the establishment of a caliphate in the Middle East. Critics, including former members of the group, have claimed it is a gateway to violent extremism. Blair vowed to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir as part of a counter-extremism plan after the 7 July 2005 bombings, but the proposal was dropped. Blair’s failure was criticised by David Cameron, who called Hizb ut-Tahrir “a conveyor-belt to terrorism”. But by the time Cameron stepped down as prime minister eight years later, there was no ban in place. On both occasions, the plans were dropped after protests that the group was non-violent and claims from lawyers that a ban would be unenforceable. With headquarters in Lebanon, the group operates in at least 32 countries including the US, Canada and Australia, with a “long-term goal of establishing a caliphate ruled under Islamic law”, the Home Office said. It was established in Jerusalem in the 1950s with a vision of an international caliphate across all Muslim countries. It rose to prominence in the early 1990s under the leadership of Omar Bakri Muhammed , the so-called “Tottenham Ayatollah”, who left in 1996 to set up the more hardline group al-Muhajiroun. The remaining leaders have argued that they are law-abiding. The group’s stated public position is that it does not support Hamas or advocate the use of violence to achieve an Islamic state. A spokesperson for Hizb ut-Tahrir said it would challenge the ban in the courts and plans to hold an online meeting to discuss the Middle East on Tuesday. “Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain explicitly states that it will challenge the proposed proscription using all available legal means,” the statement said. “Regardless of the outcome for Hizb ut-Tahrir, the political struggle in highlighting the genocide in Gaza, exposing the west’s colonial agenda and the obligation to work to restore Islam as a just way of life will always continue.” Yvette Cooper, Labour’s shadow home secretary, welcomed the ban. “It is right that the government has looked urgently at the evidence and intelligence information available to them about the threat posed by Hizb ut-Tahrir, and we welcome and support the decision to proscribe them,” she said. Senior Tories have previously criticised Keir Starmer for representing Hizb ut-Tahrir in 2008 when the group tried to overturn a ban in Germany. Starmer was one of a team of lawyers who submitted an application to the European court of human rights which was turned down and the ban remained. Labour has said he took the job because barristers may not withhold their services based on a client’s conduct, opinions or beliefs, and that he left it before any oral hearing to become director of public prosecutions. As DPP, he went on to prosecute “terrorists with links to Hizb ut-Tahrir and led the first ever prosecution of al-Qaida,” the party said. Hizb ut-Tahrir will be banned from organising in the UK after claims that the group is antisemitic, the home secretary has said. The Islamist group, which is already banned in countries including Germany and Indonesia, will no longer be allowed to recruit or hold protests and meetings across the UK. Ministers have criticised the group after demonstrations held against Israeli strikes on Gaza . If agreed by parliament, a draft order that was laid on Monday will come into force on 19 January. This means that belonging to, inviting support for and displaying articles in a public place in a way that arouses suspicion of membership or support for the group will be a criminal offence. James Cleverly, the home secretary, said: “Hizb ut-Tahrir is an antisemitic organisation that actively promotes and encourages terrorism, including praising and celebrating the appalling 7 October attacks. “Proscribing this terrorist group will ensure that anyone who belongs to and invites support for them will face consequences. It will curb Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ability to operate as it currently does.” Certain proscription offences can be punishable by up to 14 years in prison, which can be handed down by a court alongside, or in place of, a fine. Since the 7 October attacks by Hamas and the subsequent military response by Israel, Hizb ut-Tahrir has not condemned Hamas, a group already proscribed in the UK, rather hailing the attacks on Israeli citizens by saying “if this can be done by a resistance group, imagine what a unified response from the Muslim world could achieve”. It has called on Muslim countries to “get your armies and go and remove the Zionist occupiers”. Previously Hizb ut-Tahrir, which Tony Blair and David Cameron tried to ban when they were in Downing Street, has made calls to “wipe out that Zionist entity” and referred to “the monstrous Jews”. In October, the group’s members attended a rally outside the Egyptian and Turkish embassies in London and called for “Muslim armies” to attack Israel. The head of Hizb ut-Tahrir in the UK, Abdul Wahid, has spent more than 20 years practising as a family doctor under his real name, Dr Wahid Asif Shaida. After a Mail on Sunday report, Shaida confirmed he was also known as Abdul Wahid but denied Hizb ut-Tahrir was “extremist”, saying the word was “pejorative” and did not have an agreed meaning. He added: “For reasons of professional probity I keep a very clear line between my professional and political life.” Shaida has been approached for a comment.Hizb ut-Tahrir seeks the establishment of a caliphate in the Middle East. Critics, including former members of the group, have claimed it is a gateway to violent extremism. Blair vowed to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir as part of a counter-extremism plan after the 7 July 2005 bombings, but the proposal was dropped. Blair’s failure was criticised by David Cameron, who called Hizb ut-Tahrir “a conveyor-belt to terrorism”. But by the time Cameron stepped down as prime minister eight years later, there was no ban in place. On both occasions, the plans were dropped after protests that the group was non-violent and claims from lawyers that a ban would be unenforceable. With headquarters in Lebanon, the group operates in at least 32 countries including the US, Canada and Australia, with a “long-term goal of establishing a caliphate ruled under Islamic law”, the Home Office said. It was established in Jerusalem in the 1950s with a vision of an international caliphate across all Muslim countries. It rose to prominence in the early 1990s under the leadership of Omar Bakri Muhammed , the so-called “Tottenham Ayatollah”, who left in 1996 to set up the more hardline group al-Muhajiroun. The remaining leaders have argued that they are law-abiding. The group’s stated public position is that it does not support Hamas or advocate the use of violence to achieve an Islamic state. A spokesperson for Hizb ut-Tahrir said it would challenge the ban in the courts and plans to hold an online meeting to discuss the Middle East on Tuesday. “Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain explicitly states that it will challenge the proposed proscription using all available legal means,” the statement said. “Regardless of the outcome for Hizb ut-Tahrir, the political struggle in highlighting the genocide in Gaza, exposing the west’s colonial agenda and the obligation to work to restore Islam as a just way of life will always continue.” Yvette Cooper, Labour’s shadow home secretary, welcomed the ban. “It is right that the government has looked urgently at the evidence and intelligence information available to them about the threat posed by Hizb ut-Tahrir, and we welcome and support the decision to proscribe them,” she said. Senior Tories have previously criticised Keir Starmer for representing Hizb ut-Tahrir in 2008 when the group tried to overturn a ban in Germany. Starmer was one of a team of lawyers who submitted an application to the European court of human rights which was turned down and the ban remained. Labour has said he took the job because barristers may not withhold their services based on a client’s conduct, opinions or beliefs, and that he left it before any oral hearing to become director of public prosecutions. As DPP, he went on to prosecute “terrorists with links to Hizb ut-Tahrir and led the first ever prosecution of al-Qaida,” the party said. Explore more on these topics UK security and counter-terrorism Protest Palestine Gaza Israel-Gaza war Middle East and north Africa news Share Reuse this content UK security and counter-terrorism Protest Palestine Gaza Israel-Gaza war Middle East and north Africa news
|
What is ‘antisemitic’ Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir and what does it want?
Protesters from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain outside parliament in 2011. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP View image in fullscreen Protesters from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain outside parliament in 2011. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP This article is more than 1 year old Explainer What is ‘antisemitic’ Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir and what does it want? This article is more than 1 year old Ban will come into force on Friday if approved by UK parliament, putting group on par with IS and al-Qaida Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir to be banned from organising in UK Hizb ut-Tahrir, the revolutionary Islamist organisation that is to be banned from organising in the UK, has been agitating and recruiting in Britain for nearly 40 years. A ban on the group, which has been called “antisemitic” by the home secretary, James Cleverly , will come into force on Friday if approved by parliament, in a move that will put it on a par with al-Qaida and Islamic State. What are the group’s origins ? Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), whose name translates into English as “party of liberation”, was founded in 1953 in Jordan by Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, an Islamist intellectual and Palestinian graduate of an Egyptian university. Nabhani’s focus was Arab unification based on Islam, as opposed to the secular ideology of pan-Arabism which was in the ascendancy at the time. Originally, HT’s main method of trying to gain power was by infiltrating militaries in countries with Muslim majorities. It was behind failed attempts to stage coups in Jordan, Iraq and Syria in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Its first European branch was established in the 1960s in West Germany and it soon spread to dozens of other countries. What does it want? Its official aim has been to re-establish the Islamic caliphate, a reference to the original caliphate that flourished briefly after the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632. But while it claims to disavow violence, the ultimate aim of its totalitarian ideology is the imposition of sharia law worldwide and the destruction of Israel. This particularly narrow interpretation of Islam means that it views universal human rights as concepts that are antithetical to Islam, regarding them as a western construction. What has been its role in the UK? HT was first established in Britain in 1986, focusing initially on Muslims who were living in the UK temporarily and setting up study groups. It moved from organising protests outside embassies to recruiting young second-generation British Muslims on campuses. After it encountered opposition from the National Union of Students (NUS) and others, it pivoted towards creating front-groups based around single issues. Key figures have included Omar Bakri Muhammad , who founded the UK branch of HT and remained leader until 1996, as well as Abdul Wahid , a doctor who has been the chair of its British branch. Why has it not been banned before? Several countries – including Germany, Egypt, Pakistan and several central-Asian and Arab countries – have banned HT, while the group has been the subject of political controversy in the UK for decades. Tony Blair said that he would ban the group shortly after the 7/7 bombings in 2005 as part of a plan to combat Islamist extremism, but then dropped the plan amid reservations from the Home Office and senior police officers, who feared this would backfire in terms of boosting recruitment. Successive home secretaries have also mulled enacting a ban, but decided against it – including Theresa May, who said she wanted to but had opted not to on the basis of legal advice. What has changed now? A catalyst for the ban has been the increased spotlight on the activities of HT in recent months amid street protests sparked by the Israel-Gaza conflict. The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, said hate crime laws “probably need redrawing” as the force came under pressure over its policing of a pro-Palestinian protest in London. The force also issued a statement saying it was taking no further action after footage appeared online of a man chanting “jihad, jihad” at a smaller rally organised by HT. Announcing the move to ban the groups’s activities, Cleverly specifically referenced its praise for the 7 October attacks by Hamas, which killed 1,200 people. Since those events, HT had not condemned Hamas, a group already proscribed in the UK, but instead had hailed the attacks on Israeli citizens by saying: “If this can be done by a resistance group, imagine what a unified response from the Muslim world could achieve.” Its praise for those attacks and description of Hamas as heroes on its website constituted promoting and encouraging terrorism, Cleverly said. HT has denied it was antisemitic, saying: “We do not support the Hamas group, but support the people of Palestine.” Explore more on these topics UK security and counter-terrorism Antisemitism James Cleverly Islam Sharia law explainers Share Reuse this content Protesters from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain outside parliament in 2011. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP View image in fullscreen Protesters from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain outside parliament in 2011. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP This article is more than 1 year old Explainer What is ‘antisemitic’ Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir and what does it want? This article is more than 1 year old Ban will come into force on Friday if approved by UK parliament, putting group on par with IS and al-Qaida Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir to be banned from organising in UK Hizb ut-Tahrir, the revolutionary Islamist organisation that is to be banned from organising in the UK, has been agitating and recruiting in Britain for nearly 40 years. A ban on the group, which has been called “antisemitic” by the home secretary, James Cleverly , will come into force on Friday if approved by parliament, in a move that will put it on a par with al-Qaida and Islamic State. What are the group’s origins ? Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), whose name translates into English as “party of liberation”, was founded in 1953 in Jordan by Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, an Islamist intellectual and Palestinian graduate of an Egyptian university. Nabhani’s focus was Arab unification based on Islam, as opposed to the secular ideology of pan-Arabism which was in the ascendancy at the time. Originally, HT’s main method of trying to gain power was by infiltrating militaries in countries with Muslim majorities. It was behind failed attempts to stage coups in Jordan, Iraq and Syria in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Its first European branch was established in the 1960s in West Germany and it soon spread to dozens of other countries. What does it want? Its official aim has been to re-establish the Islamic caliphate, a reference to the original caliphate that flourished briefly after the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632. But while it claims to disavow violence, the ultimate aim of its totalitarian ideology is the imposition of sharia law worldwide and the destruction of Israel. This particularly narrow interpretation of Islam means that it views universal human rights as concepts that are antithetical to Islam, regarding them as a western construction. What has been its role in the UK? HT was first established in Britain in 1986, focusing initially on Muslims who were living in the UK temporarily and setting up study groups. It moved from organising protests outside embassies to recruiting young second-generation British Muslims on campuses. After it encountered opposition from the National Union of Students (NUS) and others, it pivoted towards creating front-groups based around single issues. Key figures have included Omar Bakri Muhammad , who founded the UK branch of HT and remained leader until 1996, as well as Abdul Wahid , a doctor who has been the chair of its British branch. Why has it not been banned before? Several countries – including Germany, Egypt, Pakistan and several central-Asian and Arab countries – have banned HT, while the group has been the subject of political controversy in the UK for decades. Tony Blair said that he would ban the group shortly after the 7/7 bombings in 2005 as part of a plan to combat Islamist extremism, but then dropped the plan amid reservations from the Home Office and senior police officers, who feared this would backfire in terms of boosting recruitment. Successive home secretaries have also mulled enacting a ban, but decided against it – including Theresa May, who said she wanted to but had opted not to on the basis of legal advice. What has changed now? A catalyst for the ban has been the increased spotlight on the activities of HT in recent months amid street protests sparked by the Israel-Gaza conflict. The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, said hate crime laws “probably need redrawing” as the force came under pressure over its policing of a pro-Palestinian protest in London. The force also issued a statement saying it was taking no further action after footage appeared online of a man chanting “jihad, jihad” at a smaller rally organised by HT. Announcing the move to ban the groups’s activities, Cleverly specifically referenced its praise for the 7 October attacks by Hamas, which killed 1,200 people. Since those events, HT had not condemned Hamas, a group already proscribed in the UK, but instead had hailed the attacks on Israeli citizens by saying: “If this can be done by a resistance group, imagine what a unified response from the Muslim world could achieve.” Its praise for those attacks and description of Hamas as heroes on its website constituted promoting and encouraging terrorism, Cleverly said. HT has denied it was antisemitic, saying: “We do not support the Hamas group, but support the people of Palestine.” Explore more on these topics UK security and counter-terrorism Antisemitism James Cleverly Islam Sharia law explainers Share Reuse this content Protesters from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain outside parliament in 2011. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP View image in fullscreen Protesters from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain outside parliament in 2011. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP Protesters from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain outside parliament in 2011. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP View image in fullscreen Protesters from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain outside parliament in 2011. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP Protesters from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain outside parliament in 2011. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP View image in fullscreen Protesters from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain outside parliament in 2011. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP Protesters from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain outside parliament in 2011. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP View image in fullscreen Protesters from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain outside parliament in 2011. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP Protesters from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain outside parliament in 2011. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP Protesters from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain outside parliament in 2011. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP This article is more than 1 year old Explainer What is ‘antisemitic’ Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir and what does it want? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Explainer What is ‘antisemitic’ Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir and what does it want? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Explainer What is ‘antisemitic’ Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir and what does it want? 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 Ban will come into force on Friday if approved by UK parliament, putting group on par with IS and al-Qaida Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir to be banned from organising in UK Ban will come into force on Friday if approved by UK parliament, putting group on par with IS and al-Qaida Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir to be banned from organising in UK Ban will come into force on Friday if approved by UK parliament, putting group on par with IS and al-Qaida Hizb ut-Tahrir, the revolutionary Islamist organisation that is to be banned from organising in the UK, has been agitating and recruiting in Britain for nearly 40 years. A ban on the group, which has been called “antisemitic” by the home secretary, James Cleverly , will come into force on Friday if approved by parliament, in a move that will put it on a par with al-Qaida and Islamic State. What are the group’s origins ? Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), whose name translates into English as “party of liberation”, was founded in 1953 in Jordan by Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, an Islamist intellectual and Palestinian graduate of an Egyptian university. Nabhani’s focus was Arab unification based on Islam, as opposed to the secular ideology of pan-Arabism which was in the ascendancy at the time. Originally, HT’s main method of trying to gain power was by infiltrating militaries in countries with Muslim majorities. It was behind failed attempts to stage coups in Jordan, Iraq and Syria in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Its first European branch was established in the 1960s in West Germany and it soon spread to dozens of other countries. What does it want? Its official aim has been to re-establish the Islamic caliphate, a reference to the original caliphate that flourished briefly after the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632. But while it claims to disavow violence, the ultimate aim of its totalitarian ideology is the imposition of sharia law worldwide and the destruction of Israel. This particularly narrow interpretation of Islam means that it views universal human rights as concepts that are antithetical to Islam, regarding them as a western construction. What has been its role in the UK? HT was first established in Britain in 1986, focusing initially on Muslims who were living in the UK temporarily and setting up study groups. It moved from organising protests outside embassies to recruiting young second-generation British Muslims on campuses. After it encountered opposition from the National Union of Students (NUS) and others, it pivoted towards creating front-groups based around single issues. Key figures have included Omar Bakri Muhammad , who founded the UK branch of HT and remained leader until 1996, as well as Abdul Wahid , a doctor who has been the chair of its British branch. Why has it not been banned before? Several countries – including Germany, Egypt, Pakistan and several central-Asian and Arab countries – have banned HT, while the group has been the subject of political controversy in the UK for decades. Tony Blair said that he would ban the group shortly after the 7/7 bombings in 2005 as part of a plan to combat Islamist extremism, but then dropped the plan amid reservations from the Home Office and senior police officers, who feared this would backfire in terms of boosting recruitment. Successive home secretaries have also mulled enacting a ban, but decided against it – including Theresa May, who said she wanted to but had opted not to on the basis of legal advice. What has changed now? A catalyst for the ban has been the increased spotlight on the activities of HT in recent months amid street protests sparked by the Israel-Gaza conflict. The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, said hate crime laws “probably need redrawing” as the force came under pressure over its policing of a pro-Palestinian protest in London. The force also issued a statement saying it was taking no further action after footage appeared online of a man chanting “jihad, jihad” at a smaller rally organised by HT. Announcing the move to ban the groups’s activities, Cleverly specifically referenced its praise for the 7 October attacks by Hamas, which killed 1,200 people. Since those events, HT had not condemned Hamas, a group already proscribed in the UK, but instead had hailed the attacks on Israeli citizens by saying: “If this can be done by a resistance group, imagine what a unified response from the Muslim world could achieve.” Its praise for those attacks and description of Hamas as heroes on its website constituted promoting and encouraging terrorism, Cleverly said. HT has denied it was antisemitic, saying: “We do not support the Hamas group, but support the people of Palestine.” Explore more on these topics UK security and counter-terrorism Antisemitism James Cleverly Islam Sharia law explainers Share Reuse this content Hizb ut-Tahrir, the revolutionary Islamist organisation that is to be banned from organising in the UK, has been agitating and recruiting in Britain for nearly 40 years. A ban on the group, which has been called “antisemitic” by the home secretary, James Cleverly , will come into force on Friday if approved by parliament, in a move that will put it on a par with al-Qaida and Islamic State. What are the group’s origins ? Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), whose name translates into English as “party of liberation”, was founded in 1953 in Jordan by Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, an Islamist intellectual and Palestinian graduate of an Egyptian university. Nabhani’s focus was Arab unification based on Islam, as opposed to the secular ideology of pan-Arabism which was in the ascendancy at the time. Originally, HT’s main method of trying to gain power was by infiltrating militaries in countries with Muslim majorities. It was behind failed attempts to stage coups in Jordan, Iraq and Syria in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Its first European branch was established in the 1960s in West Germany and it soon spread to dozens of other countries. What does it want? Its official aim has been to re-establish the Islamic caliphate, a reference to the original caliphate that flourished briefly after the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632. But while it claims to disavow violence, the ultimate aim of its totalitarian ideology is the imposition of sharia law worldwide and the destruction of Israel. This particularly narrow interpretation of Islam means that it views universal human rights as concepts that are antithetical to Islam, regarding them as a western construction. What has been its role in the UK? HT was first established in Britain in 1986, focusing initially on Muslims who were living in the UK temporarily and setting up study groups. It moved from organising protests outside embassies to recruiting young second-generation British Muslims on campuses. After it encountered opposition from the National Union of Students (NUS) and others, it pivoted towards creating front-groups based around single issues. Key figures have included Omar Bakri Muhammad , who founded the UK branch of HT and remained leader until 1996, as well as Abdul Wahid , a doctor who has been the chair of its British branch. Why has it not been banned before? Several countries – including Germany, Egypt, Pakistan and several central-Asian and Arab countries – have banned HT, while the group has been the subject of political controversy in the UK for decades. Tony Blair said that he would ban the group shortly after the 7/7 bombings in 2005 as part of a plan to combat Islamist extremism, but then dropped the plan amid reservations from the Home Office and senior police officers, who feared this would backfire in terms of boosting recruitment. Successive home secretaries have also mulled enacting a ban, but decided against it – including Theresa May, who said she wanted to but had opted not to on the basis of legal advice. What has changed now? A catalyst for the ban has been the increased spotlight on the activities of HT in recent months amid street protests sparked by the Israel-Gaza conflict. The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, said hate crime laws “probably need redrawing” as the force came under pressure over its policing of a pro-Palestinian protest in London. The force also issued a statement saying it was taking no further action after footage appeared online of a man chanting “jihad, jihad” at a smaller rally organised by HT. Announcing the move to ban the groups’s activities, Cleverly specifically referenced its praise for the 7 October attacks by Hamas, which killed 1,200 people. Since those events, HT had not condemned Hamas, a group already proscribed in the UK, but instead had hailed the attacks on Israeli citizens by saying: “If this can be done by a resistance group, imagine what a unified response from the Muslim world could achieve.” Its praise for those attacks and description of Hamas as heroes on its website constituted promoting and encouraging terrorism, Cleverly said. HT has denied it was antisemitic, saying: “We do not support the Hamas group, but support the people of Palestine.” Explore more on these topics UK security and counter-terrorism Antisemitism James Cleverly Islam Sharia law explainers Share Reuse this content Hizb ut-Tahrir, the revolutionary Islamist organisation that is to be banned from organising in the UK, has been agitating and recruiting in Britain for nearly 40 years. A ban on the group, which has been called “antisemitic” by the home secretary, James Cleverly , will come into force on Friday if approved by parliament, in a move that will put it on a par with al-Qaida and Islamic State. What are the group’s origins ? Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), whose name translates into English as “party of liberation”, was founded in 1953 in Jordan by Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, an Islamist intellectual and Palestinian graduate of an Egyptian university. Nabhani’s focus was Arab unification based on Islam, as opposed to the secular ideology of pan-Arabism which was in the ascendancy at the time. Originally, HT’s main method of trying to gain power was by infiltrating militaries in countries with Muslim majorities. It was behind failed attempts to stage coups in Jordan, Iraq and Syria in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Its first European branch was established in the 1960s in West Germany and it soon spread to dozens of other countries. What does it want? Its official aim has been to re-establish the Islamic caliphate, a reference to the original caliphate that flourished briefly after the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632. But while it claims to disavow violence, the ultimate aim of its totalitarian ideology is the imposition of sharia law worldwide and the destruction of Israel. This particularly narrow interpretation of Islam means that it views universal human rights as concepts that are antithetical to Islam, regarding them as a western construction. What has been its role in the UK? HT was first established in Britain in 1986, focusing initially on Muslims who were living in the UK temporarily and setting up study groups. It moved from organising protests outside embassies to recruiting young second-generation British Muslims on campuses. After it encountered opposition from the National Union of Students (NUS) and others, it pivoted towards creating front-groups based around single issues. Key figures have included Omar Bakri Muhammad , who founded the UK branch of HT and remained leader until 1996, as well as Abdul Wahid , a doctor who has been the chair of its British branch. Why has it not been banned before? Several countries – including Germany, Egypt, Pakistan and several central-Asian and Arab countries – have banned HT, while the group has been the subject of political controversy in the UK for decades. Tony Blair said that he would ban the group shortly after the 7/7 bombings in 2005 as part of a plan to combat Islamist extremism, but then dropped the plan amid reservations from the Home Office and senior police officers, who feared this would backfire in terms of boosting recruitment. Successive home secretaries have also mulled enacting a ban, but decided against it – including Theresa May, who said she wanted to but had opted not to on the basis of legal advice. What has changed now? A catalyst for the ban has been the increased spotlight on the activities of HT in recent months amid street protests sparked by the Israel-Gaza conflict. The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, said hate crime laws “probably need redrawing” as the force came under pressure over its policing of a pro-Palestinian protest in London. The force also issued a statement saying it was taking no further action after footage appeared online of a man chanting “jihad, jihad” at a smaller rally organised by HT. Announcing the move to ban the groups’s activities, Cleverly specifically referenced its praise for the 7 October attacks by Hamas, which killed 1,200 people. Since those events, HT had not condemned Hamas, a group already proscribed in the UK, but instead had hailed the attacks on Israeli citizens by saying: “If this can be done by a resistance group, imagine what a unified response from the Muslim world could achieve.” Its praise for those attacks and description of Hamas as heroes on its website constituted promoting and encouraging terrorism, Cleverly said. HT has denied it was antisemitic, saying: “We do not support the Hamas group, but support the people of Palestine.” Hizb ut-Tahrir, the revolutionary Islamist organisation that is to be banned from organising in the UK, has been agitating and recruiting in Britain for nearly 40 years. A ban on the group, which has been called “antisemitic” by the home secretary, James Cleverly , will come into force on Friday if approved by parliament, in a move that will put it on a par with al-Qaida and Islamic State. What are the group’s origins ? Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), whose name translates into English as “party of liberation”, was founded in 1953 in Jordan by Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, an Islamist intellectual and Palestinian graduate of an Egyptian university. Nabhani’s focus was Arab unification based on Islam, as opposed to the secular ideology of pan-Arabism which was in the ascendancy at the time. Originally, HT’s main method of trying to gain power was by infiltrating militaries in countries with Muslim majorities. It was behind failed attempts to stage coups in Jordan, Iraq and Syria in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Its first European branch was established in the 1960s in West Germany and it soon spread to dozens of other countries. What does it want? Its official aim has been to re-establish the Islamic caliphate, a reference to the original caliphate that flourished briefly after the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632. But while it claims to disavow violence, the ultimate aim of its totalitarian ideology is the imposition of sharia law worldwide and the destruction of Israel. This particularly narrow interpretation of Islam means that it views universal human rights as concepts that are antithetical to Islam, regarding them as a western construction. What has been its role in the UK? HT was first established in Britain in 1986, focusing initially on Muslims who were living in the UK temporarily and setting up study groups. It moved from organising protests outside embassies to recruiting young second-generation British Muslims on campuses. After it encountered opposition from the National Union of Students (NUS) and others, it pivoted towards creating front-groups based around single issues. Key figures have included Omar Bakri Muhammad , who founded the UK branch of HT and remained leader until 1996, as well as Abdul Wahid , a doctor who has been the chair of its British branch. Why has it not been banned before? Several countries – including Germany, Egypt, Pakistan and several central-Asian and Arab countries – have banned HT, while the group has been the subject of political controversy in the UK for decades. Tony Blair said that he would ban the group shortly after the 7/7 bombings in 2005 as part of a plan to combat Islamist extremism, but then dropped the plan amid reservations from the Home Office and senior police officers, who feared this would backfire in terms of boosting recruitment. Successive home secretaries have also mulled enacting a ban, but decided against it – including Theresa May, who said she wanted to but had opted not to on the basis of legal advice. What has changed now? A catalyst for the ban has been the increased spotlight on the activities of HT in recent months amid street protests sparked by the Israel-Gaza conflict. The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, said hate crime laws “probably need redrawing” as the force came under pressure over its policing of a pro-Palestinian protest in London. The force also issued a statement saying it was taking no further action after footage appeared online of a man chanting “jihad, jihad” at a smaller rally organised by HT. Announcing the move to ban the groups’s activities, Cleverly specifically referenced its praise for the 7 October attacks by Hamas, which killed 1,200 people. Since those events, HT had not condemned Hamas, a group already proscribed in the UK, but instead had hailed the attacks on Israeli citizens by saying: “If this can be done by a resistance group, imagine what a unified response from the Muslim world could achieve.” Its praise for those attacks and description of Hamas as heroes on its website constituted promoting and encouraging terrorism, Cleverly said. HT has denied it was antisemitic, saying: “We do not support the Hamas group, but support the people of Palestine.” Hizb ut-Tahrir, the revolutionary Islamist organisation that is to be banned from organising in the UK, has been agitating and recruiting in Britain for nearly 40 years. A ban on the group, which has been called “antisemitic” by the home secretary, James Cleverly , will come into force on Friday if approved by parliament, in a move that will put it on a par with al-Qaida and Islamic State. Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), whose name translates into English as “party of liberation”, was founded in 1953 in Jordan by Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, an Islamist intellectual and Palestinian graduate of an Egyptian university. Nabhani’s focus was Arab unification based on Islam, as opposed to the secular ideology of pan-Arabism which was in the ascendancy at the time. Originally, HT’s main method of trying to gain power was by infiltrating militaries in countries with Muslim majorities. It was behind failed attempts to stage coups in Jordan, Iraq and Syria in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Its first European branch was established in the 1960s in West Germany and it soon spread to dozens of other countries. Its official aim has been to re-establish the Islamic caliphate, a reference to the original caliphate that flourished briefly after the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632. But while it claims to disavow violence, the ultimate aim of its totalitarian ideology is the imposition of sharia law worldwide and the destruction of Israel. This particularly narrow interpretation of Islam means that it views universal human rights as concepts that are antithetical to Islam, regarding them as a western construction. HT was first established in Britain in 1986, focusing initially on Muslims who were living in the UK temporarily and setting up study groups. It moved from organising protests outside embassies to recruiting young second-generation British Muslims on campuses. After it encountered opposition from the National Union of Students (NUS) and others, it pivoted towards creating front-groups based around single issues. Key figures have included Omar Bakri Muhammad , who founded the UK branch of HT and remained leader until 1996, as well as Abdul Wahid , a doctor who has been the chair of its British branch. Several countries – including Germany, Egypt, Pakistan and several central-Asian and Arab countries – have banned HT, while the group has been the subject of political controversy in the UK for decades. Tony Blair said that he would ban the group shortly after the 7/7 bombings in 2005 as part of a plan to combat Islamist extremism, but then dropped the plan amid reservations from the Home Office and senior police officers, who feared this would backfire in terms of boosting recruitment. Successive home secretaries have also mulled enacting a ban, but decided against it – including Theresa May, who said she wanted to but had opted not to on the basis of legal advice. A catalyst for the ban has been the increased spotlight on the activities of HT in recent months amid street protests sparked by the Israel-Gaza conflict. The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, said hate crime laws “probably need redrawing” as the force came under pressure over its policing of a pro-Palestinian protest in London. The force also issued a statement saying it was taking no further action after footage appeared online of a man chanting “jihad, jihad” at a smaller rally organised by HT. Announcing the move to ban the groups’s activities, Cleverly specifically referenced its praise for the 7 October attacks by Hamas, which killed 1,200 people. Since those events, HT had not condemned Hamas, a group already proscribed in the UK, but instead had hailed the attacks on Israeli citizens by saying: “If this can be done by a resistance group, imagine what a unified response from the Muslim world could achieve.” Its praise for those attacks and description of Hamas as heroes on its website constituted promoting and encouraging terrorism, Cleverly said. HT has denied it was antisemitic, saying: “We do not support the Hamas group, but support the people of Palestine.” Explore more on these topics UK security and counter-terrorism Antisemitism James Cleverly Islam Sharia law explainers Share Reuse this content UK security and counter-terrorism Antisemitism James Cleverly Islam Sharia law explainers
|
Striking junior doctors in Wales accuse Labour of driving medics out of NHS
Two junior doctors protesting outside the Senedd in Cardiff Bay. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Two junior doctors protesting outside the Senedd in Cardiff Bay. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Striking junior doctors in Wales accuse Labour of driving medics out of NHS This article is more than 1 year old Hundreds of doctors protest on steps of Welsh parliament over government’s refusal to increase pay offer Hundreds of striking junior doctors have protested on the steps of the Welsh parliament in Cardiff and accused Labour of driving medics out of the NHS in Wales by not paying them properly and undermining the beloved institution that is arguably the party’s greatest achievement. An estimated 600 doctors, who are taking part in a three-day strike, expressed anger at the Labour-led government’s refusal to increase its pay offer, with many threatening to leave the country if their demands are not met. The Welsh government said the strike, the first full stoppage ever by junior doctors in Wales , had so far led to 30% of planned procedures or operations being postponed and almost half of outpatient appointments rescheduled. Thirteen out of the 19 Welsh hospitals were at “level red”, their busiest level. Welsh ministers have said the 5% pay rise they have offered is in line with other workers in the Welsh NHS and was already “at the limits” of what it could afford. They blame the UK government for not providing enough funding for public services. But the doctors’ trade union, BMA Cymru Wales argues that pay has been “eroded” by almost a third since 2008-9 and is worse than that in England and Scotland. On the steps of the Senedd, junior doctors described their anguish at having to strike but said they were determined to get “fair” pay rises. Some held up placards pointing out that a doctor starting their career in Wales will earn as little as £13.65 an hour. Others suggested they were planning to leave for Australia. One placard said the Welsh government’s controversial 20mph speed limit saved 10 lives year , while junior doctors saved thousands. View image in fullscreen Hywel Rhys Williams joining the protest with his dog. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/the Guardian One of the doctors, Hywel Rhys Williams, 30, a junior registrar in Llanelli, south Wales, said: “I love my job but doctors pay in Wales isn’t good enough.” He began working as a cleaner at the hospital before getting into medical school and working as a junior doctor in Wales. He spent three years in Australia before returning. “I’m proud to be from Llanelli. I want to stay in Llanelli but I have to constantly battle with the thought that I know I can be paid better in England, and for sure in Australia. I only managed to buy a house here because I went to Australia. That’s a sorry state of affairs.” Williams said it felt uncomfortable protesting against a Labour administration. “The NHS is a gem and classically Labour is seen as the party of the NHS.” View image in fullscreen Hannah Wise at the protest outside the Senedd. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/the Guardian Hannah Wise, 27, works in the south Wales health board named after the architect of the NHS Aneurin Bevan. She said: “Doctors today are not worth a third less than the doctors of 2008.” Wise claimed cuts were compromising patient care. “The conditions are so bad. On a normal day, I will go and see patients who have waited 10 hours plus in A&E. They will wait another 10 hours for a bed. Multiple operations are cancelled every day, not just on strike days, because of the bed situation and rota gaps. The majority of my friends from uni have gone to Australia already. They seem so much happier, more valued and better paid.” NHS across UK spends a ‘staggering’ £10bn on temporary staff Read more Thomas Grother, 30, a GP registrar at the Royal Glamorgan hospital in his home town of Llantrisant, south Wales, said plenty of his medical friends had left for Australia and New Zealand. “I’m bitterly sad to be on strike. I was meant to be on a twilight shift – 2-10pm – today, seeing patients coming up from A&E. I want to be at work but the government has left us no option. The 5% offer felt like a kick in the teeth.” Speaking at a press conference, the Welsh health minister, Eluned Morgan, said a higher pay offer was impossible without additional funding from the UK government. She said: “We fully understand the strength of feeling behind the strike action. But our funding settlement, which comes largely from the UK government in the form of a block grant, is simply not sufficient to recognise the demands junior doctors are making. The UK government has failed to properly fund public services.” Explore more on these topics NHS Welsh politics Wales Doctors Health Health policy news Share Reuse this content Two junior doctors protesting outside the Senedd in Cardiff Bay. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Two junior doctors protesting outside the Senedd in Cardiff Bay. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Striking junior doctors in Wales accuse Labour of driving medics out of NHS This article is more than 1 year old Hundreds of doctors protest on steps of Welsh parliament over government’s refusal to increase pay offer Hundreds of striking junior doctors have protested on the steps of the Welsh parliament in Cardiff and accused Labour of driving medics out of the NHS in Wales by not paying them properly and undermining the beloved institution that is arguably the party’s greatest achievement. An estimated 600 doctors, who are taking part in a three-day strike, expressed anger at the Labour-led government’s refusal to increase its pay offer, with many threatening to leave the country if their demands are not met. The Welsh government said the strike, the first full stoppage ever by junior doctors in Wales , had so far led to 30% of planned procedures or operations being postponed and almost half of outpatient appointments rescheduled. Thirteen out of the 19 Welsh hospitals were at “level red”, their busiest level. Welsh ministers have said the 5% pay rise they have offered is in line with other workers in the Welsh NHS and was already “at the limits” of what it could afford. They blame the UK government for not providing enough funding for public services. But the doctors’ trade union, BMA Cymru Wales argues that pay has been “eroded” by almost a third since 2008-9 and is worse than that in England and Scotland. On the steps of the Senedd, junior doctors described their anguish at having to strike but said they were determined to get “fair” pay rises. Some held up placards pointing out that a doctor starting their career in Wales will earn as little as £13.65 an hour. Others suggested they were planning to leave for Australia. One placard said the Welsh government’s controversial 20mph speed limit saved 10 lives year , while junior doctors saved thousands. View image in fullscreen Hywel Rhys Williams joining the protest with his dog. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/the Guardian One of the doctors, Hywel Rhys Williams, 30, a junior registrar in Llanelli, south Wales, said: “I love my job but doctors pay in Wales isn’t good enough.” He began working as a cleaner at the hospital before getting into medical school and working as a junior doctor in Wales. He spent three years in Australia before returning. “I’m proud to be from Llanelli. I want to stay in Llanelli but I have to constantly battle with the thought that I know I can be paid better in England, and for sure in Australia. I only managed to buy a house here because I went to Australia. That’s a sorry state of affairs.” Williams said it felt uncomfortable protesting against a Labour administration. “The NHS is a gem and classically Labour is seen as the party of the NHS.” View image in fullscreen Hannah Wise at the protest outside the Senedd. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/the Guardian Hannah Wise, 27, works in the south Wales health board named after the architect of the NHS Aneurin Bevan. She said: “Doctors today are not worth a third less than the doctors of 2008.” Wise claimed cuts were compromising patient care. “The conditions are so bad. On a normal day, I will go and see patients who have waited 10 hours plus in A&E. They will wait another 10 hours for a bed. Multiple operations are cancelled every day, not just on strike days, because of the bed situation and rota gaps. The majority of my friends from uni have gone to Australia already. They seem so much happier, more valued and better paid.” NHS across UK spends a ‘staggering’ £10bn on temporary staff Read more Thomas Grother, 30, a GP registrar at the Royal Glamorgan hospital in his home town of Llantrisant, south Wales, said plenty of his medical friends had left for Australia and New Zealand. “I’m bitterly sad to be on strike. I was meant to be on a twilight shift – 2-10pm – today, seeing patients coming up from A&E. I want to be at work but the government has left us no option. The 5% offer felt like a kick in the teeth.” Speaking at a press conference, the Welsh health minister, Eluned Morgan, said a higher pay offer was impossible without additional funding from the UK government. She said: “We fully understand the strength of feeling behind the strike action. But our funding settlement, which comes largely from the UK government in the form of a block grant, is simply not sufficient to recognise the demands junior doctors are making. The UK government has failed to properly fund public services.” Explore more on these topics NHS Welsh politics Wales Doctors Health Health policy news Share Reuse this content Two junior doctors protesting outside the Senedd in Cardiff Bay. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Two junior doctors protesting outside the Senedd in Cardiff Bay. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/The Guardian Two junior doctors protesting outside the Senedd in Cardiff Bay. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Two junior doctors protesting outside the Senedd in Cardiff Bay. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/The Guardian Two junior doctors protesting outside the Senedd in Cardiff Bay. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Two junior doctors protesting outside the Senedd in Cardiff Bay. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/The Guardian Two junior doctors protesting outside the Senedd in Cardiff Bay. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Two junior doctors protesting outside the Senedd in Cardiff Bay. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/The Guardian Two junior doctors protesting outside the Senedd in Cardiff Bay. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/The Guardian Two junior doctors protesting outside the Senedd in Cardiff Bay. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Striking junior doctors in Wales accuse Labour of driving medics out of NHS This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Striking junior doctors in Wales accuse Labour of driving medics out of NHS This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Striking junior doctors in Wales accuse Labour of driving medics out of NHS 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 doctors protest on steps of Welsh parliament over government’s refusal to increase pay offer Hundreds of doctors protest on steps of Welsh parliament over government’s refusal to increase pay offer Hundreds of doctors protest on steps of Welsh parliament over government’s refusal to increase pay offer Hundreds of striking junior doctors have protested on the steps of the Welsh parliament in Cardiff and accused Labour of driving medics out of the NHS in Wales by not paying them properly and undermining the beloved institution that is arguably the party’s greatest achievement. An estimated 600 doctors, who are taking part in a three-day strike, expressed anger at the Labour-led government’s refusal to increase its pay offer, with many threatening to leave the country if their demands are not met. The Welsh government said the strike, the first full stoppage ever by junior doctors in Wales , had so far led to 30% of planned procedures or operations being postponed and almost half of outpatient appointments rescheduled. Thirteen out of the 19 Welsh hospitals were at “level red”, their busiest level. Welsh ministers have said the 5% pay rise they have offered is in line with other workers in the Welsh NHS and was already “at the limits” of what it could afford. They blame the UK government for not providing enough funding for public services. But the doctors’ trade union, BMA Cymru Wales argues that pay has been “eroded” by almost a third since 2008-9 and is worse than that in England and Scotland. On the steps of the Senedd, junior doctors described their anguish at having to strike but said they were determined to get “fair” pay rises. Some held up placards pointing out that a doctor starting their career in Wales will earn as little as £13.65 an hour. Others suggested they were planning to leave for Australia. One placard said the Welsh government’s controversial 20mph speed limit saved 10 lives year , while junior doctors saved thousands. View image in fullscreen Hywel Rhys Williams joining the protest with his dog. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/the Guardian One of the doctors, Hywel Rhys Williams, 30, a junior registrar in Llanelli, south Wales, said: “I love my job but doctors pay in Wales isn’t good enough.” He began working as a cleaner at the hospital before getting into medical school and working as a junior doctor in Wales. He spent three years in Australia before returning. “I’m proud to be from Llanelli. I want to stay in Llanelli but I have to constantly battle with the thought that I know I can be paid better in England, and for sure in Australia. I only managed to buy a house here because I went to Australia. That’s a sorry state of affairs.” Williams said it felt uncomfortable protesting against a Labour administration. “The NHS is a gem and classically Labour is seen as the party of the NHS.” View image in fullscreen Hannah Wise at the protest outside the Senedd. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/the Guardian Hannah Wise, 27, works in the south Wales health board named after the architect of the NHS Aneurin Bevan. She said: “Doctors today are not worth a third less than the doctors of 2008.” Wise claimed cuts were compromising patient care. “The conditions are so bad. On a normal day, I will go and see patients who have waited 10 hours plus in A&E. They will wait another 10 hours for a bed. Multiple operations are cancelled every day, not just on strike days, because of the bed situation and rota gaps. The majority of my friends from uni have gone to Australia already. They seem so much happier, more valued and better paid.” NHS across UK spends a ‘staggering’ £10bn on temporary staff Read more Thomas Grother, 30, a GP registrar at the Royal Glamorgan hospital in his home town of Llantrisant, south Wales, said plenty of his medical friends had left for Australia and New Zealand. “I’m bitterly sad to be on strike. I was meant to be on a twilight shift – 2-10pm – today, seeing patients coming up from A&E. I want to be at work but the government has left us no option. The 5% offer felt like a kick in the teeth.” Speaking at a press conference, the Welsh health minister, Eluned Morgan, said a higher pay offer was impossible without additional funding from the UK government. She said: “We fully understand the strength of feeling behind the strike action. But our funding settlement, which comes largely from the UK government in the form of a block grant, is simply not sufficient to recognise the demands junior doctors are making. The UK government has failed to properly fund public services.” Explore more on these topics NHS Welsh politics Wales Doctors Health Health policy news Share Reuse this content Hundreds of striking junior doctors have protested on the steps of the Welsh parliament in Cardiff and accused Labour of driving medics out of the NHS in Wales by not paying them properly and undermining the beloved institution that is arguably the party’s greatest achievement. An estimated 600 doctors, who are taking part in a three-day strike, expressed anger at the Labour-led government’s refusal to increase its pay offer, with many threatening to leave the country if their demands are not met. The Welsh government said the strike, the first full stoppage ever by junior doctors in Wales , had so far led to 30% of planned procedures or operations being postponed and almost half of outpatient appointments rescheduled. Thirteen out of the 19 Welsh hospitals were at “level red”, their busiest level. Welsh ministers have said the 5% pay rise they have offered is in line with other workers in the Welsh NHS and was already “at the limits” of what it could afford. They blame the UK government for not providing enough funding for public services. But the doctors’ trade union, BMA Cymru Wales argues that pay has been “eroded” by almost a third since 2008-9 and is worse than that in England and Scotland. On the steps of the Senedd, junior doctors described their anguish at having to strike but said they were determined to get “fair” pay rises. Some held up placards pointing out that a doctor starting their career in Wales will earn as little as £13.65 an hour. Others suggested they were planning to leave for Australia. One placard said the Welsh government’s controversial 20mph speed limit saved 10 lives year , while junior doctors saved thousands. View image in fullscreen Hywel Rhys Williams joining the protest with his dog. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/the Guardian One of the doctors, Hywel Rhys Williams, 30, a junior registrar in Llanelli, south Wales, said: “I love my job but doctors pay in Wales isn’t good enough.” He began working as a cleaner at the hospital before getting into medical school and working as a junior doctor in Wales. He spent three years in Australia before returning. “I’m proud to be from Llanelli. I want to stay in Llanelli but I have to constantly battle with the thought that I know I can be paid better in England, and for sure in Australia. I only managed to buy a house here because I went to Australia. That’s a sorry state of affairs.” Williams said it felt uncomfortable protesting against a Labour administration. “The NHS is a gem and classically Labour is seen as the party of the NHS.” View image in fullscreen Hannah Wise at the protest outside the Senedd. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/the Guardian Hannah Wise, 27, works in the south Wales health board named after the architect of the NHS Aneurin Bevan. She said: “Doctors today are not worth a third less than the doctors of 2008.” Wise claimed cuts were compromising patient care. “The conditions are so bad. On a normal day, I will go and see patients who have waited 10 hours plus in A&E. They will wait another 10 hours for a bed. Multiple operations are cancelled every day, not just on strike days, because of the bed situation and rota gaps. The majority of my friends from uni have gone to Australia already. They seem so much happier, more valued and better paid.” NHS across UK spends a ‘staggering’ £10bn on temporary staff Read more Thomas Grother, 30, a GP registrar at the Royal Glamorgan hospital in his home town of Llantrisant, south Wales, said plenty of his medical friends had left for Australia and New Zealand. “I’m bitterly sad to be on strike. I was meant to be on a twilight shift – 2-10pm – today, seeing patients coming up from A&E. I want to be at work but the government has left us no option. The 5% offer felt like a kick in the teeth.” Speaking at a press conference, the Welsh health minister, Eluned Morgan, said a higher pay offer was impossible without additional funding from the UK government. She said: “We fully understand the strength of feeling behind the strike action. But our funding settlement, which comes largely from the UK government in the form of a block grant, is simply not sufficient to recognise the demands junior doctors are making. The UK government has failed to properly fund public services.” Explore more on these topics NHS Welsh politics Wales Doctors Health Health policy news Share Reuse this content Hundreds of striking junior doctors have protested on the steps of the Welsh parliament in Cardiff and accused Labour of driving medics out of the NHS in Wales by not paying them properly and undermining the beloved institution that is arguably the party’s greatest achievement. An estimated 600 doctors, who are taking part in a three-day strike, expressed anger at the Labour-led government’s refusal to increase its pay offer, with many threatening to leave the country if their demands are not met. The Welsh government said the strike, the first full stoppage ever by junior doctors in Wales , had so far led to 30% of planned procedures or operations being postponed and almost half of outpatient appointments rescheduled. Thirteen out of the 19 Welsh hospitals were at “level red”, their busiest level. Welsh ministers have said the 5% pay rise they have offered is in line with other workers in the Welsh NHS and was already “at the limits” of what it could afford. They blame the UK government for not providing enough funding for public services. But the doctors’ trade union, BMA Cymru Wales argues that pay has been “eroded” by almost a third since 2008-9 and is worse than that in England and Scotland. On the steps of the Senedd, junior doctors described their anguish at having to strike but said they were determined to get “fair” pay rises. Some held up placards pointing out that a doctor starting their career in Wales will earn as little as £13.65 an hour. Others suggested they were planning to leave for Australia. One placard said the Welsh government’s controversial 20mph speed limit saved 10 lives year , while junior doctors saved thousands. View image in fullscreen Hywel Rhys Williams joining the protest with his dog. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/the Guardian One of the doctors, Hywel Rhys Williams, 30, a junior registrar in Llanelli, south Wales, said: “I love my job but doctors pay in Wales isn’t good enough.” He began working as a cleaner at the hospital before getting into medical school and working as a junior doctor in Wales. He spent three years in Australia before returning. “I’m proud to be from Llanelli. I want to stay in Llanelli but I have to constantly battle with the thought that I know I can be paid better in England, and for sure in Australia. I only managed to buy a house here because I went to Australia. That’s a sorry state of affairs.” Williams said it felt uncomfortable protesting against a Labour administration. “The NHS is a gem and classically Labour is seen as the party of the NHS.” View image in fullscreen Hannah Wise at the protest outside the Senedd. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/the Guardian Hannah Wise, 27, works in the south Wales health board named after the architect of the NHS Aneurin Bevan. She said: “Doctors today are not worth a third less than the doctors of 2008.” Wise claimed cuts were compromising patient care. “The conditions are so bad. On a normal day, I will go and see patients who have waited 10 hours plus in A&E. They will wait another 10 hours for a bed. Multiple operations are cancelled every day, not just on strike days, because of the bed situation and rota gaps. The majority of my friends from uni have gone to Australia already. They seem so much happier, more valued and better paid.” NHS across UK spends a ‘staggering’ £10bn on temporary staff Read more Thomas Grother, 30, a GP registrar at the Royal Glamorgan hospital in his home town of Llantrisant, south Wales, said plenty of his medical friends had left for Australia and New Zealand. “I’m bitterly sad to be on strike. I was meant to be on a twilight shift – 2-10pm – today, seeing patients coming up from A&E. I want to be at work but the government has left us no option. The 5% offer felt like a kick in the teeth.” Speaking at a press conference, the Welsh health minister, Eluned Morgan, said a higher pay offer was impossible without additional funding from the UK government. She said: “We fully understand the strength of feeling behind the strike action. But our funding settlement, which comes largely from the UK government in the form of a block grant, is simply not sufficient to recognise the demands junior doctors are making. The UK government has failed to properly fund public services.” Hundreds of striking junior doctors have protested on the steps of the Welsh parliament in Cardiff and accused Labour of driving medics out of the NHS in Wales by not paying them properly and undermining the beloved institution that is arguably the party’s greatest achievement. An estimated 600 doctors, who are taking part in a three-day strike, expressed anger at the Labour-led government’s refusal to increase its pay offer, with many threatening to leave the country if their demands are not met. The Welsh government said the strike, the first full stoppage ever by junior doctors in Wales , had so far led to 30% of planned procedures or operations being postponed and almost half of outpatient appointments rescheduled. Thirteen out of the 19 Welsh hospitals were at “level red”, their busiest level. Welsh ministers have said the 5% pay rise they have offered is in line with other workers in the Welsh NHS and was already “at the limits” of what it could afford. They blame the UK government for not providing enough funding for public services. But the doctors’ trade union, BMA Cymru Wales argues that pay has been “eroded” by almost a third since 2008-9 and is worse than that in England and Scotland. On the steps of the Senedd, junior doctors described their anguish at having to strike but said they were determined to get “fair” pay rises. Some held up placards pointing out that a doctor starting their career in Wales will earn as little as £13.65 an hour. Others suggested they were planning to leave for Australia. One placard said the Welsh government’s controversial 20mph speed limit saved 10 lives year , while junior doctors saved thousands. View image in fullscreen Hywel Rhys Williams joining the protest with his dog. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/the Guardian One of the doctors, Hywel Rhys Williams, 30, a junior registrar in Llanelli, south Wales, said: “I love my job but doctors pay in Wales isn’t good enough.” He began working as a cleaner at the hospital before getting into medical school and working as a junior doctor in Wales. He spent three years in Australia before returning. “I’m proud to be from Llanelli. I want to stay in Llanelli but I have to constantly battle with the thought that I know I can be paid better in England, and for sure in Australia. I only managed to buy a house here because I went to Australia. That’s a sorry state of affairs.” Williams said it felt uncomfortable protesting against a Labour administration. “The NHS is a gem and classically Labour is seen as the party of the NHS.” View image in fullscreen Hannah Wise at the protest outside the Senedd. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/the Guardian Hannah Wise, 27, works in the south Wales health board named after the architect of the NHS Aneurin Bevan. She said: “Doctors today are not worth a third less than the doctors of 2008.” Wise claimed cuts were compromising patient care. “The conditions are so bad. On a normal day, I will go and see patients who have waited 10 hours plus in A&E. They will wait another 10 hours for a bed. Multiple operations are cancelled every day, not just on strike days, because of the bed situation and rota gaps. The majority of my friends from uni have gone to Australia already. They seem so much happier, more valued and better paid.” NHS across UK spends a ‘staggering’ £10bn on temporary staff Read more Thomas Grother, 30, a GP registrar at the Royal Glamorgan hospital in his home town of Llantrisant, south Wales, said plenty of his medical friends had left for Australia and New Zealand. “I’m bitterly sad to be on strike. I was meant to be on a twilight shift – 2-10pm – today, seeing patients coming up from A&E. I want to be at work but the government has left us no option. The 5% offer felt like a kick in the teeth.” Speaking at a press conference, the Welsh health minister, Eluned Morgan, said a higher pay offer was impossible without additional funding from the UK government. She said: “We fully understand the strength of feeling behind the strike action. But our funding settlement, which comes largely from the UK government in the form of a block grant, is simply not sufficient to recognise the demands junior doctors are making. The UK government has failed to properly fund public services.” Hundreds of striking junior doctors have protested on the steps of the Welsh parliament in Cardiff and accused Labour of driving medics out of the NHS in Wales by not paying them properly and undermining the beloved institution that is arguably the party’s greatest achievement. An estimated 600 doctors, who are taking part in a three-day strike, expressed anger at the Labour-led government’s refusal to increase its pay offer, with many threatening to leave the country if their demands are not met. The Welsh government said the strike, the first full stoppage ever by junior doctors in Wales , had so far led to 30% of planned procedures or operations being postponed and almost half of outpatient appointments rescheduled. Thirteen out of the 19 Welsh hospitals were at “level red”, their busiest level. Welsh ministers have said the 5% pay rise they have offered is in line with other workers in the Welsh NHS and was already “at the limits” of what it could afford. They blame the UK government for not providing enough funding for public services. But the doctors’ trade union, BMA Cymru Wales argues that pay has been “eroded” by almost a third since 2008-9 and is worse than that in England and Scotland. On the steps of the Senedd, junior doctors described their anguish at having to strike but said they were determined to get “fair” pay rises. Some held up placards pointing out that a doctor starting their career in Wales will earn as little as £13.65 an hour. Others suggested they were planning to leave for Australia. One placard said the Welsh government’s controversial 20mph speed limit saved 10 lives year , while junior doctors saved thousands. One of the doctors, Hywel Rhys Williams, 30, a junior registrar in Llanelli, south Wales, said: “I love my job but doctors pay in Wales isn’t good enough.” He began working as a cleaner at the hospital before getting into medical school and working as a junior doctor in Wales. He spent three years in Australia before returning. “I’m proud to be from Llanelli. I want to stay in Llanelli but I have to constantly battle with the thought that I know I can be paid better in England, and for sure in Australia. I only managed to buy a house here because I went to Australia. That’s a sorry state of affairs.” Williams said it felt uncomfortable protesting against a Labour administration. “The NHS is a gem and classically Labour is seen as the party of the NHS.” Hannah Wise, 27, works in the south Wales health board named after the architect of the NHS Aneurin Bevan. She said: “Doctors today are not worth a third less than the doctors of 2008.” Wise claimed cuts were compromising patient care. “The conditions are so bad. On a normal day, I will go and see patients who have waited 10 hours plus in A&E. They will wait another 10 hours for a bed. Multiple operations are cancelled every day, not just on strike days, because of the bed situation and rota gaps. The majority of my friends from uni have gone to Australia already. They seem so much happier, more valued and better paid.” NHS across UK spends a ‘staggering’ £10bn on temporary staff Read more NHS across UK spends a ‘staggering’ £10bn on temporary staff Read more NHS across UK spends a ‘staggering’ £10bn on temporary staff Read more NHS across UK spends a ‘staggering’ £10bn on temporary staff NHS across UK spends a ‘staggering’ £10bn on temporary staff Thomas Grother, 30, a GP registrar at the Royal Glamorgan hospital in his home town of Llantrisant, south Wales, said plenty of his medical friends had left for Australia and New Zealand. “I’m bitterly sad to be on strike. I was meant to be on a twilight shift – 2-10pm – today, seeing patients coming up from A&E. I want to be at work but the government has left us no option. The 5% offer felt like a kick in the teeth.” Speaking at a press conference, the Welsh health minister, Eluned Morgan, said a higher pay offer was impossible without additional funding from the UK government. She said: “We fully understand the strength of feeling behind the strike action. But our funding settlement, which comes largely from the UK government in the form of a block grant, is simply not sufficient to recognise the demands junior doctors are making. The UK government has failed to properly fund public services.” Explore more on these topics NHS Welsh politics Wales Doctors Health Health policy news Share Reuse this content NHS Welsh politics Wales Doctors Health Health policy news
|
State of emergency: inside the 19 January Guardian Weekly
The cover of the 19 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Yuri Cortez/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The cover of the 19 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Yuri Cortez/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old State of emergency: inside the 19 January Guardian Weekly This article is more than 1 year old How drugs upended Ecuador. Plus: Europe’s eco-warrior monarchs Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Not long ago, Ecuador was chiefly known for its volcanoes, wildlife and eco-tourism. It’s an image that may now need some rehabilitation after chaos and bloodshed sparked by the prison escape last week of Adolfo Macías, the country’s most notorious gang leader and drug lord. With cartels from Peru and Colombia routinely funnelling narcotics through Ecuador’s ports en route to Europe, Latin America correspondent Tom Phillips reports on a rising problem that threatens to tear apart the once-peaceful Andean state. In the Middle East, Yemen’s Houthi rebels could stymie the increasingly slim chances of preventing a regional war. With the US and UK bombing Houthi bases in response to attacks on commercial shipping, diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour recounts the Houthis’ rise and why military strikes against them may not lead to the desired outcome. As of this week Denmark has a new monarch – Frederik X – following the abdication of Margrethe II. But, finds our Nordic correspondent Miranda Bryant , a growing number of Danes dream of a republic. And Europe environment correspondent Ajit Niranjan examines the green credentials of the continent’s more eco-conscious royals. Farmers in parts of Europe have been better known for angry protests than food production lately, but there’s a melancholic, risk-laden side to the profession that often goes unseen. Bella Bathurst meets the woman whose job is to be a friend and counsellor to Britain’s farmers in challenging times. In Culture, Chinese-American director Lulu Wang speaks to Claire Armitstead about her new TV series Expats, exploring the recent turmoil of life in Hong Kong. And, from theatres to art galleries, there’s a guide to the new rules of audience etiquette from our critics. Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Explore more on these topics Ecuador Inside Guardian Weekly Drugs trade Americas Share Reuse this content The cover of the 19 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Yuri Cortez/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The cover of the 19 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Yuri Cortez/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old State of emergency: inside the 19 January Guardian Weekly This article is more than 1 year old How drugs upended Ecuador. Plus: Europe’s eco-warrior monarchs Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Not long ago, Ecuador was chiefly known for its volcanoes, wildlife and eco-tourism. It’s an image that may now need some rehabilitation after chaos and bloodshed sparked by the prison escape last week of Adolfo Macías, the country’s most notorious gang leader and drug lord. With cartels from Peru and Colombia routinely funnelling narcotics through Ecuador’s ports en route to Europe, Latin America correspondent Tom Phillips reports on a rising problem that threatens to tear apart the once-peaceful Andean state. In the Middle East, Yemen’s Houthi rebels could stymie the increasingly slim chances of preventing a regional war. With the US and UK bombing Houthi bases in response to attacks on commercial shipping, diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour recounts the Houthis’ rise and why military strikes against them may not lead to the desired outcome. As of this week Denmark has a new monarch – Frederik X – following the abdication of Margrethe II. But, finds our Nordic correspondent Miranda Bryant , a growing number of Danes dream of a republic. And Europe environment correspondent Ajit Niranjan examines the green credentials of the continent’s more eco-conscious royals. Farmers in parts of Europe have been better known for angry protests than food production lately, but there’s a melancholic, risk-laden side to the profession that often goes unseen. Bella Bathurst meets the woman whose job is to be a friend and counsellor to Britain’s farmers in challenging times. In Culture, Chinese-American director Lulu Wang speaks to Claire Armitstead about her new TV series Expats, exploring the recent turmoil of life in Hong Kong. And, from theatres to art galleries, there’s a guide to the new rules of audience etiquette from our critics. Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Explore more on these topics Ecuador Inside Guardian Weekly Drugs trade Americas Share Reuse this content The cover of the 19 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Yuri Cortez/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The cover of the 19 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Yuri Cortez/AFP/Getty Images The cover of the 19 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Yuri Cortez/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The cover of the 19 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Yuri Cortez/AFP/Getty Images The cover of the 19 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Yuri Cortez/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The cover of the 19 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Yuri Cortez/AFP/Getty Images The cover of the 19 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Yuri Cortez/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The cover of the 19 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Yuri Cortez/AFP/Getty Images The cover of the 19 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Yuri Cortez/AFP/Getty Images The cover of the 19 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Yuri Cortez/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old State of emergency: inside the 19 January Guardian Weekly This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old State of emergency: inside the 19 January Guardian Weekly This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old State of emergency: inside the 19 January Guardian Weekly 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 How drugs upended Ecuador. Plus: Europe’s eco-warrior monarchs Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address How drugs upended Ecuador. Plus: Europe’s eco-warrior monarchs Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address How drugs upended Ecuador. Plus: Europe’s eco-warrior monarchs Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Not long ago, Ecuador was chiefly known for its volcanoes, wildlife and eco-tourism. It’s an image that may now need some rehabilitation after chaos and bloodshed sparked by the prison escape last week of Adolfo Macías, the country’s most notorious gang leader and drug lord. With cartels from Peru and Colombia routinely funnelling narcotics through Ecuador’s ports en route to Europe, Latin America correspondent Tom Phillips reports on a rising problem that threatens to tear apart the once-peaceful Andean state. In the Middle East, Yemen’s Houthi rebels could stymie the increasingly slim chances of preventing a regional war. With the US and UK bombing Houthi bases in response to attacks on commercial shipping, diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour recounts the Houthis’ rise and why military strikes against them may not lead to the desired outcome. As of this week Denmark has a new monarch – Frederik X – following the abdication of Margrethe II. But, finds our Nordic correspondent Miranda Bryant , a growing number of Danes dream of a republic. And Europe environment correspondent Ajit Niranjan examines the green credentials of the continent’s more eco-conscious royals. Farmers in parts of Europe have been better known for angry protests than food production lately, but there’s a melancholic, risk-laden side to the profession that often goes unseen. Bella Bathurst meets the woman whose job is to be a friend and counsellor to Britain’s farmers in challenging times. In Culture, Chinese-American director Lulu Wang speaks to Claire Armitstead about her new TV series Expats, exploring the recent turmoil of life in Hong Kong. And, from theatres to art galleries, there’s a guide to the new rules of audience etiquette from our critics. Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Explore more on these topics Ecuador Inside Guardian Weekly Drugs trade Americas Share Reuse this content Not long ago, Ecuador was chiefly known for its volcanoes, wildlife and eco-tourism. It’s an image that may now need some rehabilitation after chaos and bloodshed sparked by the prison escape last week of Adolfo Macías, the country’s most notorious gang leader and drug lord. With cartels from Peru and Colombia routinely funnelling narcotics through Ecuador’s ports en route to Europe, Latin America correspondent Tom Phillips reports on a rising problem that threatens to tear apart the once-peaceful Andean state. In the Middle East, Yemen’s Houthi rebels could stymie the increasingly slim chances of preventing a regional war. With the US and UK bombing Houthi bases in response to attacks on commercial shipping, diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour recounts the Houthis’ rise and why military strikes against them may not lead to the desired outcome. As of this week Denmark has a new monarch – Frederik X – following the abdication of Margrethe II. But, finds our Nordic correspondent Miranda Bryant , a growing number of Danes dream of a republic. And Europe environment correspondent Ajit Niranjan examines the green credentials of the continent’s more eco-conscious royals. Farmers in parts of Europe have been better known for angry protests than food production lately, but there’s a melancholic, risk-laden side to the profession that often goes unseen. Bella Bathurst meets the woman whose job is to be a friend and counsellor to Britain’s farmers in challenging times. In Culture, Chinese-American director Lulu Wang speaks to Claire Armitstead about her new TV series Expats, exploring the recent turmoil of life in Hong Kong. And, from theatres to art galleries, there’s a guide to the new rules of audience etiquette from our critics. Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Explore more on these topics Ecuador Inside Guardian Weekly Drugs trade Americas Share Reuse this content Not long ago, Ecuador was chiefly known for its volcanoes, wildlife and eco-tourism. It’s an image that may now need some rehabilitation after chaos and bloodshed sparked by the prison escape last week of Adolfo Macías, the country’s most notorious gang leader and drug lord. With cartels from Peru and Colombia routinely funnelling narcotics through Ecuador’s ports en route to Europe, Latin America correspondent Tom Phillips reports on a rising problem that threatens to tear apart the once-peaceful Andean state. In the Middle East, Yemen’s Houthi rebels could stymie the increasingly slim chances of preventing a regional war. With the US and UK bombing Houthi bases in response to attacks on commercial shipping, diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour recounts the Houthis’ rise and why military strikes against them may not lead to the desired outcome. As of this week Denmark has a new monarch – Frederik X – following the abdication of Margrethe II. But, finds our Nordic correspondent Miranda Bryant , a growing number of Danes dream of a republic. And Europe environment correspondent Ajit Niranjan examines the green credentials of the continent’s more eco-conscious royals. Farmers in parts of Europe have been better known for angry protests than food production lately, but there’s a melancholic, risk-laden side to the profession that often goes unseen. Bella Bathurst meets the woman whose job is to be a friend and counsellor to Britain’s farmers in challenging times. In Culture, Chinese-American director Lulu Wang speaks to Claire Armitstead about her new TV series Expats, exploring the recent turmoil of life in Hong Kong. And, from theatres to art galleries, there’s a guide to the new rules of audience etiquette from our critics. Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Not long ago, Ecuador was chiefly known for its volcanoes, wildlife and eco-tourism. It’s an image that may now need some rehabilitation after chaos and bloodshed sparked by the prison escape last week of Adolfo Macías, the country’s most notorious gang leader and drug lord. With cartels from Peru and Colombia routinely funnelling narcotics through Ecuador’s ports en route to Europe, Latin America correspondent Tom Phillips reports on a rising problem that threatens to tear apart the once-peaceful Andean state. In the Middle East, Yemen’s Houthi rebels could stymie the increasingly slim chances of preventing a regional war. With the US and UK bombing Houthi bases in response to attacks on commercial shipping, diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour recounts the Houthis’ rise and why military strikes against them may not lead to the desired outcome. As of this week Denmark has a new monarch – Frederik X – following the abdication of Margrethe II. But, finds our Nordic correspondent Miranda Bryant , a growing number of Danes dream of a republic. And Europe environment correspondent Ajit Niranjan examines the green credentials of the continent’s more eco-conscious royals. Farmers in parts of Europe have been better known for angry protests than food production lately, but there’s a melancholic, risk-laden side to the profession that often goes unseen. Bella Bathurst meets the woman whose job is to be a friend and counsellor to Britain’s farmers in challenging times. In Culture, Chinese-American director Lulu Wang speaks to Claire Armitstead about her new TV series Expats, exploring the recent turmoil of life in Hong Kong. And, from theatres to art galleries, there’s a guide to the new rules of audience etiquette from our critics. Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Not long ago, Ecuador was chiefly known for its volcanoes, wildlife and eco-tourism. It’s an image that may now need some rehabilitation after chaos and bloodshed sparked by the prison escape last week of Adolfo Macías, the country’s most notorious gang leader and drug lord. With cartels from Peru and Colombia routinely funnelling narcotics through Ecuador’s ports en route to Europe, Latin America correspondent Tom Phillips reports on a rising problem that threatens to tear apart the once-peaceful Andean state. In the Middle East, Yemen’s Houthi rebels could stymie the increasingly slim chances of preventing a regional war. With the US and UK bombing Houthi bases in response to attacks on commercial shipping, diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour recounts the Houthis’ rise and why military strikes against them may not lead to the desired outcome. As of this week Denmark has a new monarch – Frederik X – following the abdication of Margrethe II. But, finds our Nordic correspondent Miranda Bryant , a growing number of Danes dream of a republic. And Europe environment correspondent Ajit Niranjan examines the green credentials of the continent’s more eco-conscious royals. Farmers in parts of Europe have been better known for angry protests than food production lately, but there’s a melancholic, risk-laden side to the profession that often goes unseen. Bella Bathurst meets the woman whose job is to be a friend and counsellor to Britain’s farmers in challenging times. In Culture, Chinese-American director Lulu Wang speaks to Claire Armitstead about her new TV series Expats, exploring the recent turmoil of life in Hong Kong. And, from theatres to art galleries, there’s a guide to the new rules of audience etiquette from our critics. Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Explore more on these topics Ecuador Inside Guardian Weekly Drugs trade Americas Share Reuse this content Ecuador Inside Guardian Weekly Drugs trade Americas
|
The inside story of two rape trials: ‘It’s as bad as I’ve ever known it’
The barrister Tyrone Silcott in London. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian In sexual assault cases, the work of prosecution barristers is complex, poorly paid – and essential. With conviction rates extraordinarily low and barristers quitting criminal practice in droves, the Guardian shadowed one prosecutor for two years By Melissa Denes W hat Tyrone Silcott would really like to know is this: what were the jurors thinking? At the end of every trial that does not go the barrister’s way, he has to sit down and write an “adverse verdict report”; his best guess at the reasons why. With a rape case, the reasoning is more obscure than with any other type of crime. Physical evidence and witnesses are rare. A tendency to doubt the complainant is still a factor. To some extent, Silcott says, “the jury have to choose who they believe”. Do they identify with the accused? Do they see in him a son, a brother – someone who doesn’t deserve a minimum of four years in jail? Do they find the accuser just a little too calm on the stand? When I first meet Silcott, in March 2022, he has successfully prosecuted six sexual assault cases in a row – an unprecedented number. Still, the unpersuaded jurors play on his mind. He speaks via video link from the Inner London crown court in south London, taking off his wig to eat a 4.30pm lunch in an ante room. Silcott’s most recent case has made headlines : a 55-year-old photographer, Pascal Molliere, has been convicted of sexually assaulting a young woman during a photoshoot 12 years earlier. The jury voted 10-2 and 11-1 on three counts. What hadn’t convinced the holdouts? “She was very credible, yet they weren’t sure.” Silcott shakes his head, baffled. “They should allow controlled post-trial interviews with jurors. Otherwise we’re all rather guessing, aren’t we?” Silcott was called to the bar in 2004 after a career as a financial adviser. Now in his 50s, he is the most junior prosecutor in his chambers ( Furnival in central London ) who will take on rape cases. Many younger lawyers don’t want to do them: the work is complex, time-consuming and often poorly paid. It also appears to occupy a lower status within the criminal justice system: rape is rarely tried at the Old Bailey, for instance, or fast-tracked, because suspects are typically bailed. Junior barristers prefer the relative predictability of murder or organised crime. Since 2021, a requirement to offer to pre-record the complainant’s cross-examination, known as a section 28, has played havoc with schedules and resulted in barristers losing fees. While the measure is intended to protect vulnerable witnesses from having to testify in court, a barrister could end up working extensively on the case and then not be free for the trial itself, meaning no payment (a fee for section 28s was not introduced until February 2023 ). “A lot of the junior end think: ‘Why take that risk when there’s a lot of other good work out there?” says Silcott. View image in fullscreen The annexe of the Inner London crown court, south London. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Guardian Increasingly, “out there” means commercial work. According to the Criminal Bar Association, 46% of king’s counsels and 22% of junior barristers quit criminal practice between 2017 and 2022 – a catastrophic loss. In the year to June 2022, 2,389 crown court trials (of all crimes) did not go ahead because there was no prosecutor available – an increase of nearly 1,000% on 2021, according to government figures . Like most barristers, Silcott prosecutes and defends a range of crimes. Rape is the most important, he says, and the most difficult. “The guns and the drugs are fun, and fraud I know well. But this is an area where I feel I can make a difference.” He made the decision to retrain after 9/11. “I was sat at home, watching people who had gone to work that day throw themselves out the window, and thought: ‘What do I really want to do?’ It wasn’t helping wealthy people squeeze out a bit more.” He took a law degree in a year, followed by bar school. “I loved every minute. It was a humbling experience, to be surrounded by brilliant young people kicking my arse.” In the spring of 2022, Silcott thinks there are reasons for a rape prosecutor to be hopeful. He is seeing signs that more jurors understand the complexities and he is winning cases he wouldn’t have done a few years ago. “I’m not sure Molliere would have been convicted without this narrative of Jimmy Savile, Harvey Weinstein, all that we now know about how men in power exploit women,” he says. But the big picture is still a challenge. The conviction rate for rape in the spring of 2022 is 63% , but when only 5% of alleged rapes meet the high bar needed for prosecution, shouldn’t that figure be higher? People are waiting an average of two and a half years for a case to make it to trial. When we first meet, there is another complicating factor on the horizon: defence barristers have just voted to strike over pay that hasn’t increased since 1998. “I always feel embarrassed talking about this, because I make a good living,” Silcott says. “But the demands on us are akin to very senior executives working around the clock.” He prepares cases most evenings and weekends. The pressures on prosecution barristers are about to grow even more: in September 2022, the backlog of sexual offence cases awaiting trial will reach a record 7,859 cases (from 3,606 pre-pandemic ) and the failure to prosecute sexual violence will become an urgent political issue. The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, will promise to make it a 2024 manifesto priority, while the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, has affirmed the Conservatives’ pledge to more than double the number of rape cases reaching court. Even if the Conservatives’ plan succeeds, will there be any lawyers left to prosecute them? Back in south London, a clerk knocks on Silcott’s door to warn him the building is about to close. The lights flick off in the hallway – a cost-saving measure. “This courthouse is falling down around my ears,” Silcott says as he stands to pack his bag. “The toilets don’t work, the air conditioning makes a racket. There is no investment going into the criminal justice system.” This isn’t incidental, he adds: resources have a direct impact on the conviction rate. “Come to trial and you’ll see what I mean,” he says. O n a humid day at the end of August 2022, the accused enters the dock in courtroom two of Croydon crown court. He is in his 50s, dressed in jeans, thick spectacles and an anorak, and listens blankly as the judge discusses the case with Silcott and the defence barrister. A relative has alleged eight charges of rape and sexual assault, when she was aged between six and 11 years old and he was in his early 20s. The judge, impatient and imperious, asks the lawyers if the accused has any vulnerabilities. “You have no problems understanding me, do you?” she calls to the man, who shakes his head. She smiles encouragingly and admits the jury of eight women and four men. Over the next five days, the court hears from the complainant, her best friend, the investigating officer and the accused. It was her therapist who had first gone to the police, persuading her to file a report four years ago. One of the triggers, and a key piece of Silcott’s evidence, was a dramatic encounter in Poundland: after not seeing the accused for many years, she encountered him in the aisles and collapsed. An ambulance was called. But how can she prove it was him? He denies being there and his travelcard no longer holds the data. The defence emphasises the delay in reporting: how many of us remember what we were doing 30 years ago? She asks why the police officer did not interview other family members, before calling to the stand a relative – a surprise witness – who says he saw nothing. In the absence of hard evidence, a rape trial is, on some level, a storytelling contest: which lawyer paints the more vivid picture? Whose version feels more real? This is not like the organised crime Silcott prosecuted a few months earlier, where the jury could watch police body-camera footage, see the warehouse being broken into, the defendants’ gun store. Instead, the lawyers tease every last detail from their witnesses: the layout of the rooms in the house, the weekend routines, the family hierarchy – until it becomes three dimensional in the minds of the jurors, like a film they might remember. The jury hears about the Saturday morning trips to the butchers, the front room kept for best, the boardgames. “Which boardgames?” the defence barrister asks. “Monopoly, Kerplunk,” the accused replies. The evidence shifts from the banal to the unthinkable, the domestic to the criminal. The complainant says she was raped every other weekend. It is easier to visualise her descriptions of the green lino floor, the unpainted plaster walls, the yellow toy car on the windowsill. View image in fullscreen ‘For the first time, I’m really struggling to keep to my deadlines’ … Tyrone Silcott. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian While the jury breaks, there is a warmth between the lawyers. They compliment each other on effective lines of attack (“I’m going to steal that”) and gossip about a colleague. Silcott says he hopes the defence isn’t going to quote Winston Churchill or Sherlock Holmes in her summing up. Nelson Mandela is the other cliche: “‘Mandela was in the dock, so don’t hold it against the defendant you see before you.’ Also: ‘Bob Marley didn’t really shoot the sheriff.’” The defence laughs. She has broken the strike to be here, because she feels her client would be vulnerable if the trial were delayed. She is kind to him, mouthing ‘Are you OK?’, a gentleness in front of the jury that is its own form of defence. It is not the prosecutor’s job to be kind. In cross-examination, Silcott pushes the accused on his inconsistencies: he had testified that his bedroom door was kept open and kept closed – which was it? Flustered, the defendant protests: “She’s lying!” Silcott pauses to let the line sink in. Her testimony had been calm and coherent; did the jury think she was a liar? The defendant asks for a diazepam. The next day, the jury begin its deliberations. The judge is magnificent in her final directions, dismantling a series of myths. She tells the jurors they must put any expectation of how a complainant should behave from their mind: there are as many ways of reacting – animated, flat, emotionless, hysterical – as there are people. A delay in reporting does not make something untrue, any more than an immediate report makes it true. She makes a smart distinction: perhaps the complainant was mistaken about the man in Poundland, but even if she was, they could consider her distress. She tells the jurors to be human, but not too human; they must bring their knowledge of life to bear while putting sympathy aside; they must not speculate. In the end, the burden of proof is on the prosecution; the defendant does not have to prove his innocence. In other words, unless Silcott has made them absolutely sure, beyond all reasonable doubt, the jury must return a verdict of not guilty. After seven hours and two minutes, the jury were hung on all eight counts. The complainant, having waited four years for a verdict, decides against a retrial. W hen the bar for conviction is so high, is it surprising that so few cases make it to court? A juror cannot convict on a balance of probabilities, as happens in civil trials. There is no verdict of “not proven” in England and Wales, as there is in Scotland, although the government there plans to phase this out . A 2019 study in Scotland , involving 32 mock juries trying two fictional cases, heard from several jurors who worried that by using a “not proven” verdict, they were “sanctioning rape”. “I think he was guilty, but they couldn’t prove [it],” said one juror. “Although I definitely believe her.” Deliberating on a jury is one of the most secretive and consequential experiences in public life, which is what makes studies like the Scottish government’s so valuable. If Silcott could ask a juror two questions, he would say: “What was the key piece of evidence? What allowed you to be sure or not sure? I’d want to know if there was old-fashioned thinking in there.” The 2019 Scottish study found that some mock jurors were susceptible to rape myths: one disbelieved the complainant because she had not fought off her former boyfriend (“You would scratch, you would scream”). Others were less prescriptive. Ultimately, jurors are a randomly selected group of people, not experts – that is the whole point. In September 2023, the Scottish government proposed a pilot scheme for no-jury trials, noting that the overall conviction rate for other crimes was 91%, while rape stood at 51%. Under the pilot, a specialist judge would reach a verdict – a proposal the president of the Law Society of Scotland, Murray Etherington, vehemently rejected: “By definition a jury is more reflective of Scottish society than a single judge can possibly be.” For this and other reasons, you will struggle to find a lawyer who supports no-jury trials. “I wouldn’t be on that ticket,” says Silcott. In England and Wales, the Law Commission recently consulted on 113 measures to improve sexual offence prosecutions, ranging from the obvious to the radical, with its recommendations to be published later this year. Should the complainant be cross-examined by someone other than the defence lawyer, whose priority is an acquittal? Should vulnerable defendants give evidence by video link? Should rape be tried in specialist courts, with a bespoke design and trained staff? Most compellingly, the commission’s 731-page interim report looked at ways in which a complainant could have more agency in the trial process. At present, they are there only as the prosecution’s key witness, while the accused has their own lawyer, paid for by legal aid or privately. The prosecutor acts for the crown, not the complainant, although their interests overlap. Should complainants instead have access to independent legal advice and representation, as in Northern Ireland? Should a complainant have a say in what evidence, including phone records and therapy notes, is admissible? At the very least, they should meet their barrister before the trial – something that doesn’t always happen, but that the justice secretary, Alex Chalk, has announced will be compulsory from 2024 . Silcott has been meeting his complainants before trial for years. “It’s basic procedure,” he shrugs, “to make sure someone understands what happens in court. I’m the first person to ask them questions, and giving sworn evidence is really daunting.” As we await the verdict in Croydon crown court, Silcott looks through his diary of cases. There is a retrial of a man accused of assaulting his stepdaughter, rescheduled many times: “This is a 14-year-old girl who has gone through years of giving evidence.” There is another woman bringing historic charges against her uncle. And there is an outlier case, one that has been playing on his mind. The Crown Prosecution Service sent this case to Silcott for an opinion: was there a reasonable prospect of conviction? A couple had been in a relationship. One night, she said no and he had gone ahead anyway, briefly, before stopping and apologising. When they split up some time later, she told her mother, who reported him to the police. The relationship had been loving; the accused had no history of criminality: it would be an incredibly hard case. But Silcott has advised that it passes the public interest test. After his six guilty verdicts, he has decided to prosecute the case himself. I f you wanted a metaphor for the dilapidated justice system, you might start with the Inner London crown court. Its Grade II-listed facade houses a high-ceilinged lobby and oak-panelled corridors, but most of the action takes place in 1970s annexes that are falling apart : chairs and floors held together with gaffer tape, radiators that don’t heat, toilets that don’t flush. In September, a leaky ceiling collapsed on to an usher’s desk. A frame that once displayed the menu for “the advocates’ dining room” has been empty for years; when I find Silcott in an upstairs room in the spring of 2023, he is eating salad from a plastic container. There is a chance today’s trial may not go ahead. Others are running late and Silcott is committed to another case next week, as is the judge. If they can’t start, the complainant, who has been waiting for three years, is likely to withdraw. Silcott and his pupil, a trainee barrister, run through transcripts of phone messages in the hope that the judge will soon be free. The texts will be useful, Silcott says, tracing the back and forth of the accused and his then girlfriend: “You still did it.” “Did what?” “The incident.” “The ?” “The rape.” The case rests on a question of consent. The defence will argue that even though she said no – this is not denied – the way she rolled on to her front was understood as a yes. The accused’s lawyer has asked if he can raise a previous incident in their relationship. Silcott turns it into a mini-lesson for his pupil. “In your eyes, is that a section 41, or not?” he asks him. A judge must give permission for a complainant’s sexual history to be used in evidence. Silcott’s pupil thinks. “Yes? He has to make an application to use that.” Absolutely, Silcott says. “But would you let it in? Does it help or hinder him?” He reminds the young lawyer of the case of Ched Evans, the Welsh footballer whose rape conviction was quashed on retrial in 2016 , after intimate evidence about the complainant’s sexual history was allowed on appeal. Afterwards, more than 40 MPs wrote to the attorney general demanding a change in the law. The case set “a dangerous precedent” that how a woman “has behaved in the past can be taken as evidence of the way she behaved at the time of the alleged rape”, they wrote. The door is ajar. Outside, the accused and his mother wait. I sit beside them while the lawyers argue, their voices drifting along the corridor: “I’m not being difficult.” “But what does it add?” The mother, wearing a black puffer coat zipped against the draught, turns to her son and asks: “ Did you rape her? Was she crying?” It is not clear whether she is asking him or rehearsing him, but he is short with her; he is trying to listen to the barristers. When the trial begins, it is chaotic. Some members of the jury are mistakenly given evidence from the judge’s previous trial, whose jury can be heard laughing through the thin wall during deliberations. (I assume it is a low-harm trial, but later learn it is a rape involving multiple defendants.) There are breaks every time the jury from the previous case file in and out (there is no other exit), and breaks when the previous jury pass notes to the judge seeking advice. When he pauses the trial to hear their verdict – a pause that is an hour, then two – the defence lawyer asks, exasperated: “Will we explain the delay to the jury? This is the most disjointed trial I have been on for some time.” View image in fullscreen Croydon crown court. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Guardian The complainant gives her evidence from behind a red velvet curtain, visible only to the judge, the lawyers and the jury of eight men and four women. Her voice is steady, although she cries when the defence asks her to read their texts: “I was in and out babe,” he writes. “You’re not my babe,” she writes back. The lawyer asks why the accused was so apologetic in his texts: was it because she had confused him? Silcott objects: it is not up to her to say what was on his mind. Unless a witness is vulnerable, he believes they are their own best evidence, another reason he does not like the pre-recorded section 28s. “On this, I’m an outlier,” he says. “Keeping witnesses out of court – the belief that this is the priority has gripped everyone and I don’t agree.” In his experience, live testimony secures more convictions: “There is something very anaemic, very detached, about seeing someone cross-examined on screen.” Research published this month appears to back him up: a study carried out by University College London found 20% fewer convictions where pre-recorded evidence was used. Filmed testimonies may also leave complainants at a disadvantage against the accused. Today’s defendant is nervous as he takes the stand in a navy suit, slipping one hand into a pocket. His mother sits where he can see her. Silcott is precise in his questioning and presses him on the issue of consent. Did he sometimes misread the signs? “I accept there was a misunderstanding.” Did he get it wrong? “My understanding was she was consenting.” Why did he never say so in his texts? “I can’t remember.” He had told the complainant’s mother, in a transcript of a phone call, that he didn’t think it had been a traumatic experience. Did he not think rape was traumatic? The accused mumbles. “Speak up,” the judge says to him, and to Silcott: “This is not a private conversation.” The accused does speak up and a flash of anger translates into a strong speech: “I think rape is a serious offence. If I had done it when she said no, yes, it would be traumatic. But I believed she consented.” He scans the jury. “I know our relationship better than anyone else here, because I was in it.” It takes the jury just 35 minutes to reach a verdict, a record for Silcott. When it is read out – not guilty – the accused is released from the dock and embraced by his mother, the two of them collapsing to the floor in sobs. When I speak to Silcott again in October 2023, he has won his latest sexual assault case, with the sentence increased on appeal. Silcott tells me he has no regrets about bringing the trial I watched at Inner London crown court, with the young couple, and would charge it again. Afterwards, the judge, a specialist rape prosecutor, had sent Silcott a note to say it was “entirely appropriate” that the case had been brought. I ask whether a younger, more female jury might have reached a different conclusion. As ever, Silcott has no way of knowing. (I asked to speak to the complainants in both of the trials I witnessed; the first was too vulnerable for an approach to be made, Silcott felt, and the second did not respond.) In the 18 months since we first spoke, the problems he identified in the criminal justice system have become more acute. The court backlog now stretches to 9,792 sexual offence cases , a 23% increase on last year, while a dearth of lawyers and judges makes every trial date hostage to competing diaries. The prison population is the highest it has ever been . As improvements are made in police charge rates (largely as a result of Operation Soteria , a project to reform rape investigations), more pressure is brought to bear on the courts. A Rape Crisis report on the backlog heard from a student who had had her case rescheduled 10 times after the defendant withdrew his guilty plea; somewhere around the seventh postponed trial date, before he was finally convicted, she had attempted to kill herself. Chaos inflicts its own cruelty. The barristers’ strike ended in October 2022 with a 15% fee increase , a rise Silcott describes as “correctional” after decades of stagnation. But the problems of workload and pay remain. On an average annual income of £18,000 in their first three years, many junior barristers decide they cannot afford a career in the criminal bar. “It’s as bad as I’ve ever known it,” Silcott says. “For the first time, I’m really struggling to keep to my deadlines.” He thinks that judges have been a little kinder to prosecutors since the strike, however. The solutions to what Amelia Handy, the author of the Rape Crisis report, describes to me as a “catastrophic” collapse in the court system lie partly in money, but more largely in a culture shift. The work needs to be better supported (barristers experience trauma, too) and better valued as a practice requiring empathy, cunning, imagination and stamina – not one that should fall to the least in-demand or the most altruistic. The current state of crisis could be a starting point for a more nuanced, less adversarial system. If you fixed some of these things, Silcott says, the conviction rate would go up. More lawyers would want to do the work – and he would urge them to. He isn’t a specialist, by any means: “I do a maximum number of these cases, because that keeps me fresh and interested.” But it is very, very rewarding. Sometimes, he wants to grab a junior by the collar, one of the really good ones, and say: “Why aren’t you doing this? You should be doing this. Because I can’t think of more important work.” Explore more on these topics Rape and sexual assault Crime features Share Reuse this content The barrister Tyrone Silcott in London. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian In sexual assault cases, the work of prosecution barristers is complex, poorly paid – and essential. With conviction rates extraordinarily low and barristers quitting criminal practice in droves, the Guardian shadowed one prosecutor for two years By Melissa Denes W hat Tyrone Silcott would really like to know is this: what were the jurors thinking? At the end of every trial that does not go the barrister’s way, he has to sit down and write an “adverse verdict report”; his best guess at the reasons why. With a rape case, the reasoning is more obscure than with any other type of crime. Physical evidence and witnesses are rare. A tendency to doubt the complainant is still a factor. To some extent, Silcott says, “the jury have to choose who they believe”. Do they identify with the accused? Do they see in him a son, a brother – someone who doesn’t deserve a minimum of four years in jail? Do they find the accuser just a little too calm on the stand? When I first meet Silcott, in March 2022, he has successfully prosecuted six sexual assault cases in a row – an unprecedented number. Still, the unpersuaded jurors play on his mind. He speaks via video link from the Inner London crown court in south London, taking off his wig to eat a 4.30pm lunch in an ante room. Silcott’s most recent case has made headlines : a 55-year-old photographer, Pascal Molliere, has been convicted of sexually assaulting a young woman during a photoshoot 12 years earlier. The jury voted 10-2 and 11-1 on three counts. What hadn’t convinced the holdouts? “She was very credible, yet they weren’t sure.” Silcott shakes his head, baffled. “They should allow controlled post-trial interviews with jurors. Otherwise we’re all rather guessing, aren’t we?” Silcott was called to the bar in 2004 after a career as a financial adviser. Now in his 50s, he is the most junior prosecutor in his chambers ( Furnival in central London ) who will take on rape cases. Many younger lawyers don’t want to do them: the work is complex, time-consuming and often poorly paid. It also appears to occupy a lower status within the criminal justice system: rape is rarely tried at the Old Bailey, for instance, or fast-tracked, because suspects are typically bailed. Junior barristers prefer the relative predictability of murder or organised crime. Since 2021, a requirement to offer to pre-record the complainant’s cross-examination, known as a section 28, has played havoc with schedules and resulted in barristers losing fees. While the measure is intended to protect vulnerable witnesses from having to testify in court, a barrister could end up working extensively on the case and then not be free for the trial itself, meaning no payment (a fee for section 28s was not introduced until February 2023 ). “A lot of the junior end think: ‘Why take that risk when there’s a lot of other good work out there?” says Silcott. View image in fullscreen The annexe of the Inner London crown court, south London. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Guardian Increasingly, “out there” means commercial work. According to the Criminal Bar Association, 46% of king’s counsels and 22% of junior barristers quit criminal practice between 2017 and 2022 – a catastrophic loss. In the year to June 2022, 2,389 crown court trials (of all crimes) did not go ahead because there was no prosecutor available – an increase of nearly 1,000% on 2021, according to government figures . Like most barristers, Silcott prosecutes and defends a range of crimes. Rape is the most important, he says, and the most difficult. “The guns and the drugs are fun, and fraud I know well. But this is an area where I feel I can make a difference.” He made the decision to retrain after 9/11. “I was sat at home, watching people who had gone to work that day throw themselves out the window, and thought: ‘What do I really want to do?’ It wasn’t helping wealthy people squeeze out a bit more.” He took a law degree in a year, followed by bar school. “I loved every minute. It was a humbling experience, to be surrounded by brilliant young people kicking my arse.” In the spring of 2022, Silcott thinks there are reasons for a rape prosecutor to be hopeful. He is seeing signs that more jurors understand the complexities and he is winning cases he wouldn’t have done a few years ago. “I’m not sure Molliere would have been convicted without this narrative of Jimmy Savile, Harvey Weinstein, all that we now know about how men in power exploit women,” he says. But the big picture is still a challenge. The conviction rate for rape in the spring of 2022 is 63% , but when only 5% of alleged rapes meet the high bar needed for prosecution, shouldn’t that figure be higher? People are waiting an average of two and a half years for a case to make it to trial. When we first meet, there is another complicating factor on the horizon: defence barristers have just voted to strike over pay that hasn’t increased since 1998. “I always feel embarrassed talking about this, because I make a good living,” Silcott says. “But the demands on us are akin to very senior executives working around the clock.” He prepares cases most evenings and weekends. The pressures on prosecution barristers are about to grow even more: in September 2022, the backlog of sexual offence cases awaiting trial will reach a record 7,859 cases (from 3,606 pre-pandemic ) and the failure to prosecute sexual violence will become an urgent political issue. The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, will promise to make it a 2024 manifesto priority, while the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, has affirmed the Conservatives’ pledge to more than double the number of rape cases reaching court. Even if the Conservatives’ plan succeeds, will there be any lawyers left to prosecute them? Back in south London, a clerk knocks on Silcott’s door to warn him the building is about to close. The lights flick off in the hallway – a cost-saving measure. “This courthouse is falling down around my ears,” Silcott says as he stands to pack his bag. “The toilets don’t work, the air conditioning makes a racket. There is no investment going into the criminal justice system.” This isn’t incidental, he adds: resources have a direct impact on the conviction rate. “Come to trial and you’ll see what I mean,” he says. O n a humid day at the end of August 2022, the accused enters the dock in courtroom two of Croydon crown court. He is in his 50s, dressed in jeans, thick spectacles and an anorak, and listens blankly as the judge discusses the case with Silcott and the defence barrister. A relative has alleged eight charges of rape and sexual assault, when she was aged between six and 11 years old and he was in his early 20s. The judge, impatient and imperious, asks the lawyers if the accused has any vulnerabilities. “You have no problems understanding me, do you?” she calls to the man, who shakes his head. She smiles encouragingly and admits the jury of eight women and four men. Over the next five days, the court hears from the complainant, her best friend, the investigating officer and the accused. It was her therapist who had first gone to the police, persuading her to file a report four years ago. One of the triggers, and a key piece of Silcott’s evidence, was a dramatic encounter in Poundland: after not seeing the accused for many years, she encountered him in the aisles and collapsed. An ambulance was called. But how can she prove it was him? He denies being there and his travelcard no longer holds the data. The defence emphasises the delay in reporting: how many of us remember what we were doing 30 years ago? She asks why the police officer did not interview other family members, before calling to the stand a relative – a surprise witness – who says he saw nothing. In the absence of hard evidence, a rape trial is, on some level, a storytelling contest: which lawyer paints the more vivid picture? Whose version feels more real? This is not like the organised crime Silcott prosecuted a few months earlier, where the jury could watch police body-camera footage, see the warehouse being broken into, the defendants’ gun store. Instead, the lawyers tease every last detail from their witnesses: the layout of the rooms in the house, the weekend routines, the family hierarchy – until it becomes three dimensional in the minds of the jurors, like a film they might remember. The jury hears about the Saturday morning trips to the butchers, the front room kept for best, the boardgames. “Which boardgames?” the defence barrister asks. “Monopoly, Kerplunk,” the accused replies. The evidence shifts from the banal to the unthinkable, the domestic to the criminal. The complainant says she was raped every other weekend. It is easier to visualise her descriptions of the green lino floor, the unpainted plaster walls, the yellow toy car on the windowsill. View image in fullscreen ‘For the first time, I’m really struggling to keep to my deadlines’ … Tyrone Silcott. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian While the jury breaks, there is a warmth between the lawyers. They compliment each other on effective lines of attack (“I’m going to steal that”) and gossip about a colleague. Silcott says he hopes the defence isn’t going to quote Winston Churchill or Sherlock Holmes in her summing up. Nelson Mandela is the other cliche: “‘Mandela was in the dock, so don’t hold it against the defendant you see before you.’ Also: ‘Bob Marley didn’t really shoot the sheriff.’” The defence laughs. She has broken the strike to be here, because she feels her client would be vulnerable if the trial were delayed. She is kind to him, mouthing ‘Are you OK?’, a gentleness in front of the jury that is its own form of defence. It is not the prosecutor’s job to be kind. In cross-examination, Silcott pushes the accused on his inconsistencies: he had testified that his bedroom door was kept open and kept closed – which was it? Flustered, the defendant protests: “She’s lying!” Silcott pauses to let the line sink in. Her testimony had been calm and coherent; did the jury think she was a liar? The defendant asks for a diazepam. The next day, the jury begin its deliberations. The judge is magnificent in her final directions, dismantling a series of myths. She tells the jurors they must put any expectation of how a complainant should behave from their mind: there are as many ways of reacting – animated, flat, emotionless, hysterical – as there are people. A delay in reporting does not make something untrue, any more than an immediate report makes it true. She makes a smart distinction: perhaps the complainant was mistaken about the man in Poundland, but even if she was, they could consider her distress. She tells the jurors to be human, but not too human; they must bring their knowledge of life to bear while putting sympathy aside; they must not speculate. In the end, the burden of proof is on the prosecution; the defendant does not have to prove his innocence. In other words, unless Silcott has made them absolutely sure, beyond all reasonable doubt, the jury must return a verdict of not guilty. After seven hours and two minutes, the jury were hung on all eight counts. The complainant, having waited four years for a verdict, decides against a retrial. W hen the bar for conviction is so high, is it surprising that so few cases make it to court? A juror cannot convict on a balance of probabilities, as happens in civil trials. There is no verdict of “not proven” in England and Wales, as there is in Scotland, although the government there plans to phase this out . A 2019 study in Scotland , involving 32 mock juries trying two fictional cases, heard from several jurors who worried that by using a “not proven” verdict, they were “sanctioning rape”. “I think he was guilty, but they couldn’t prove [it],” said one juror. “Although I definitely believe her.” Deliberating on a jury is one of the most secretive and consequential experiences in public life, which is what makes studies like the Scottish government’s so valuable. If Silcott could ask a juror two questions, he would say: “What was the key piece of evidence? What allowed you to be sure or not sure? I’d want to know if there was old-fashioned thinking in there.” The 2019 Scottish study found that some mock jurors were susceptible to rape myths: one disbelieved the complainant because she had not fought off her former boyfriend (“You would scratch, you would scream”). Others were less prescriptive. Ultimately, jurors are a randomly selected group of people, not experts – that is the whole point. In September 2023, the Scottish government proposed a pilot scheme for no-jury trials, noting that the overall conviction rate for other crimes was 91%, while rape stood at 51%. Under the pilot, a specialist judge would reach a verdict – a proposal the president of the Law Society of Scotland, Murray Etherington, vehemently rejected: “By definition a jury is more reflective of Scottish society than a single judge can possibly be.” For this and other reasons, you will struggle to find a lawyer who supports no-jury trials. “I wouldn’t be on that ticket,” says Silcott. In England and Wales, the Law Commission recently consulted on 113 measures to improve sexual offence prosecutions, ranging from the obvious to the radical, with its recommendations to be published later this year. Should the complainant be cross-examined by someone other than the defence lawyer, whose priority is an acquittal? Should vulnerable defendants give evidence by video link? Should rape be tried in specialist courts, with a bespoke design and trained staff? Most compellingly, the commission’s 731-page interim report looked at ways in which a complainant could have more agency in the trial process. At present, they are there only as the prosecution’s key witness, while the accused has their own lawyer, paid for by legal aid or privately. The prosecutor acts for the crown, not the complainant, although their interests overlap. Should complainants instead have access to independent legal advice and representation, as in Northern Ireland? Should a complainant have a say in what evidence, including phone records and therapy notes, is admissible? At the very least, they should meet their barrister before the trial – something that doesn’t always happen, but that the justice secretary, Alex Chalk, has announced will be compulsory from 2024 . Silcott has been meeting his complainants before trial for years. “It’s basic procedure,” he shrugs, “to make sure someone understands what happens in court. I’m the first person to ask them questions, and giving sworn evidence is really daunting.” As we await the verdict in Croydon crown court, Silcott looks through his diary of cases. There is a retrial of a man accused of assaulting his stepdaughter, rescheduled many times: “This is a 14-year-old girl who has gone through years of giving evidence.” There is another woman bringing historic charges against her uncle. And there is an outlier case, one that has been playing on his mind. The Crown Prosecution Service sent this case to Silcott for an opinion: was there a reasonable prospect of conviction? A couple had been in a relationship. One night, she said no and he had gone ahead anyway, briefly, before stopping and apologising. When they split up some time later, she told her mother, who reported him to the police. The relationship had been loving; the accused had no history of criminality: it would be an incredibly hard case. But Silcott has advised that it passes the public interest test. After his six guilty verdicts, he has decided to prosecute the case himself. I f you wanted a metaphor for the dilapidated justice system, you might start with the Inner London crown court. Its Grade II-listed facade houses a high-ceilinged lobby and oak-panelled corridors, but most of the action takes place in 1970s annexes that are falling apart : chairs and floors held together with gaffer tape, radiators that don’t heat, toilets that don’t flush. In September, a leaky ceiling collapsed on to an usher’s desk. A frame that once displayed the menu for “the advocates’ dining room” has been empty for years; when I find Silcott in an upstairs room in the spring of 2023, he is eating salad from a plastic container. There is a chance today’s trial may not go ahead. Others are running late and Silcott is committed to another case next week, as is the judge. If they can’t start, the complainant, who has been waiting for three years, is likely to withdraw. Silcott and his pupil, a trainee barrister, run through transcripts of phone messages in the hope that the judge will soon be free. The texts will be useful, Silcott says, tracing the back and forth of the accused and his then girlfriend: “You still did it.” “Did what?” “The incident.” “The ?” “The rape.” The case rests on a question of consent. The defence will argue that even though she said no – this is not denied – the way she rolled on to her front was understood as a yes. The accused’s lawyer has asked if he can raise a previous incident in their relationship. Silcott turns it into a mini-lesson for his pupil. “In your eyes, is that a section 41, or not?” he asks him. A judge must give permission for a complainant’s sexual history to be used in evidence. Silcott’s pupil thinks. “Yes? He has to make an application to use that.” Absolutely, Silcott says. “But would you let it in? Does it help or hinder him?” He reminds the young lawyer of the case of Ched Evans, the Welsh footballer whose rape conviction was quashed on retrial in 2016 , after intimate evidence about the complainant’s sexual history was allowed on appeal. Afterwards, more than 40 MPs wrote to the attorney general demanding a change in the law. The case set “a dangerous precedent” that how a woman “has behaved in the past can be taken as evidence of the way she behaved at the time of the alleged rape”, they wrote. The door is ajar. Outside, the accused and his mother wait. I sit beside them while the lawyers argue, their voices drifting along the corridor: “I’m not being difficult.” “But what does it add?” The mother, wearing a black puffer coat zipped against the draught, turns to her son and asks: “ Did you rape her? Was she crying?” It is not clear whether she is asking him or rehearsing him, but he is short with her; he is trying to listen to the barristers. When the trial begins, it is chaotic. Some members of the jury are mistakenly given evidence from the judge’s previous trial, whose jury can be heard laughing through the thin wall during deliberations. (I assume it is a low-harm trial, but later learn it is a rape involving multiple defendants.) There are breaks every time the jury from the previous case file in and out (there is no other exit), and breaks when the previous jury pass notes to the judge seeking advice. When he pauses the trial to hear their verdict – a pause that is an hour, then two – the defence lawyer asks, exasperated: “Will we explain the delay to the jury? This is the most disjointed trial I have been on for some time.” View image in fullscreen Croydon crown court. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Guardian The complainant gives her evidence from behind a red velvet curtain, visible only to the judge, the lawyers and the jury of eight men and four women. Her voice is steady, although she cries when the defence asks her to read their texts: “I was in and out babe,” he writes. “You’re not my babe,” she writes back. The lawyer asks why the accused was so apologetic in his texts: was it because she had confused him? Silcott objects: it is not up to her to say what was on his mind. Unless a witness is vulnerable, he believes they are their own best evidence, another reason he does not like the pre-recorded section 28s. “On this, I’m an outlier,” he says. “Keeping witnesses out of court – the belief that this is the priority has gripped everyone and I don’t agree.” In his experience, live testimony secures more convictions: “There is something very anaemic, very detached, about seeing someone cross-examined on screen.” Research published this month appears to back him up: a study carried out by University College London found 20% fewer convictions where pre-recorded evidence was used. Filmed testimonies may also leave complainants at a disadvantage against the accused. Today’s defendant is nervous as he takes the stand in a navy suit, slipping one hand into a pocket. His mother sits where he can see her. Silcott is precise in his questioning and presses him on the issue of consent. Did he sometimes misread the signs? “I accept there was a misunderstanding.” Did he get it wrong? “My understanding was she was consenting.” Why did he never say so in his texts? “I can’t remember.” He had told the complainant’s mother, in a transcript of a phone call, that he didn’t think it had been a traumatic experience. Did he not think rape was traumatic? The accused mumbles. “Speak up,” the judge says to him, and to Silcott: “This is not a private conversation.” The accused does speak up and a flash of anger translates into a strong speech: “I think rape is a serious offence. If I had done it when she said no, yes, it would be traumatic. But I believed she consented.” He scans the jury. “I know our relationship better than anyone else here, because I was in it.” It takes the jury just 35 minutes to reach a verdict, a record for Silcott. When it is read out – not guilty – the accused is released from the dock and embraced by his mother, the two of them collapsing to the floor in sobs. When I speak to Silcott again in October 2023, he has won his latest sexual assault case, with the sentence increased on appeal. Silcott tells me he has no regrets about bringing the trial I watched at Inner London crown court, with the young couple, and would charge it again. Afterwards, the judge, a specialist rape prosecutor, had sent Silcott a note to say it was “entirely appropriate” that the case had been brought. I ask whether a younger, more female jury might have reached a different conclusion. As ever, Silcott has no way of knowing. (I asked to speak to the complainants in both of the trials I witnessed; the first was too vulnerable for an approach to be made, Silcott felt, and the second did not respond.) In the 18 months since we first spoke, the problems he identified in the criminal justice system have become more acute. The court backlog now stretches to 9,792 sexual offence cases , a 23% increase on last year, while a dearth of lawyers and judges makes every trial date hostage to competing diaries. The prison population is the highest it has ever been . As improvements are made in police charge rates (largely as a result of Operation Soteria , a project to reform rape investigations), more pressure is brought to bear on the courts. A Rape Crisis report on the backlog heard from a student who had had her case rescheduled 10 times after the defendant withdrew his guilty plea; somewhere around the seventh postponed trial date, before he was finally convicted, she had attempted to kill herself. Chaos inflicts its own cruelty. The barristers’ strike ended in October 2022 with a 15% fee increase , a rise Silcott describes as “correctional” after decades of stagnation. But the problems of workload and pay remain. On an average annual income of £18,000 in their first three years, many junior barristers decide they cannot afford a career in the criminal bar. “It’s as bad as I’ve ever known it,” Silcott says. “For the first time, I’m really struggling to keep to my deadlines.” He thinks that judges have been a little kinder to prosecutors since the strike, however. The solutions to what Amelia Handy, the author of the Rape Crisis report, describes to me as a “catastrophic” collapse in the court system lie partly in money, but more largely in a culture shift. The work needs to be better supported (barristers experience trauma, too) and better valued as a practice requiring empathy, cunning, imagination and stamina – not
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
‘Control the narrative’: how an Alabama utility wields influence by financing news
‘By controlling the media, they [Alabama Power] are able to present as good neighbors to the public.’ Illustration: Javier Palma/The Guardian View image in fullscreen ‘By controlling the media, they [Alabama Power] are able to present as good neighbors to the public.’ Illustration: Javier Palma/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old ‘Control the narrative’: how an Alabama utility wields influence by financing news This article is more than 1 year old A Floodlight investigation found Alabama Power runs a news service and its foundation bought a Black newspaper. Neither reports on high electric bills or utility-related pollution I n the more than a decade since Alabama regulators allowed a landfill to take in tons of waste from coal-burning power plants around the US, neighbors in the majority-Black community of Uniontown frequently complain of thick air so pungent it makes their eyes burn. Floodlight On some days, it can look like an eerily white Christmas in a place that rarely sees snow. “When the wind blows, all the trees in the area are totally gray and white,” said Ben Eaton, a Uniontown commissioner and president of Black Belt Citizens Fighting for Health and Justice, a local group that is pushing to shutter the facility. Residents of the former plantation town complain of high rates of kidney failure and neuropathy – two symptoms of exposure to coal ash, whose toxic byproduct contains mercury and arsenic. The controversy has been covered for years in local and national news outlets, including a civil rights case Eaton’s group filed – and lost – to close the landfill. Just last year, coal ash in the state drew national attention when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tentatively denied a state clean-up proposal that it found to be too weak for waste coming in part from its largest electricity provider – Alabama Power. View image in fullscreen A landfill in Uniontown, Alabama, that contains coal ash backs up against homes where children play. Photograph: The PJC Media/Courtesy of Michael Malcom But neither the news from Uniontown, nor the EPA rejection, ever appeared in the Birmingham Times – a historic African American newspaper – or on the online-only Alabama News Center , an investigation by Floodlight found. A search for “coal ash” in the Birmingham Times yields just one reprinted story from HuffPost , and it’s a reference to coal ash in another state. Both news outlets have financial ties to the main subject of those stories, Alabama Power. For decades, Alabama Power has sowed influence across the state, according to interviews with more than two dozen former and current reporters, civil rights activists, utility employees and environmentalists. What’s happening in Alabama is an example of how special interests have taken advantage of the diminishing reach and influence of shrinking mainstream newsrooms in the US. In their place have sprung up fake “pink slime” news sites operated by political interests; a utility that secretly created news outlets to attack its critics; and a Florida publisher who accepts payments for positive coverage. This investigation into power companies infiltrating local media follows Floodlight’s revelation earlier this month about how utilities wield influence among civil rights groups . In the last decade, nearly a dozen local reporters and editors were hired to staff the two Alabama news outlets. A Floodlight review of the content since the utility founded the Alabama News Center in 2015 shows it publishes overwhelmingly positive stories about the power company. Coverage of the utility by the Birmingham Times, which was funded with money from Alabama Power’s charitable arm the Alabama Power Foundation, consists of reprinted stories from the News Center and the utility’s own press releases . The Birmingham Times executive editor, Barnett Wright, said the outlet’s coverage is limited due to its small staff and having to make hard editorial decisions on what to cover. “The Alabama Power Foundation had or has zero influence in the newsroom,” Wright said in an email. “As the executive editor, I have never had any conversation with the Alabama Power Foundation about any article the Birmingham Times chooses to run or not run.” Alabama Power and its foundation did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Here is another example of news that readers of the Birmingham Times and the Alabama News Center do not see: when Alabama Power was granted three consecutive electric rate increases in 2022 – raising the average annual cost of electricity by $274 in 2023 – neither publication wrote about the rise, according to a search of their websites. View image in fullscreen The Rev Michael Malcom, executive director of Alabama Interfaith Power and Light. Photograph: The PJC Media/Michael Malcom Residents of this seventh poorest state have the most expensive monthly electric bills in the US . This past summer – after the increases – Alabama Power customers railed against bills topping $700 a month for some households. “Clearly those communities that are suffering this way don’t have pleasant things to say about those [Alabama Power] folks who are causing the problems in the first place,” said the Rev Michael Malcom, executive director of Alabama Interfaith Power and Light, a faith-based organization that focuses on climate change. “So how best do you silence these people? You control the narrative in the first place.” Wright countered that he does not have the staff to “give those rate increase stories the comprehensive cover … they deserve”. But, he added, “that’s a fair question. Our readers turn on lights, flush toilets, take showers and warm their homes, and it’s a story that should be covered and will be going forward – even if I have to write them myself.” A ‘good news’ site The Alabama News Center was launched to promote “the good news of this state”. Its stories run in outlets around Alabama and are picked up by national aggregators including Google and Apple News. It’s ostensibly news – with an electric industry tinge. Recent top stories include a write up of University of Alabama students competing in an electric vehicle battery challenge and a feature on a career day for future lineworkers. The News Center’s operation is entirely paid for by electricity customers, Alabama Power’s assistant treasurer, Brian George, said at a December public hearing. The electric company’s power over the news in the state is a significant silencer, according to 15 reporters interviewed by Floodlight. They cite Alabama Power’s digital and broadcast advertising purchasing power and its aggressive stance toward reporters and outlets that publish critical stories. Floodlight previously revealed the company’s secret hiring of an Alabama-based consulting firm to pay for positive news coverage in three other Alabama news outlets. Coupled with its foray into newsroom financing, Alabama Power now exerts a heavy influence on what news is covered or ignored in Alabama. The effect is compounded by hundreds of layoffs of news reporters in Birmingham, Montgomery, Huntsville and Mobile in the past decade. “If you just search Alabama Power and Google News, you’re not going to find a lot that’s very investigative or goes beyond the surface level of just covering press releases. There are a lot of factors that go into that, that aren’t just Alabama Power manipulating the media,” said Lee Hedgepeth, an Alabama-based reporter at Inside Climate News. Alabama’s powerful power company Alabama Power is a huge economic driver. Its parent company, Southern Co, employs about 27,700 employees, with more than 6,000 working for Alabama Power. It’s a significant player in the state’s mostly Republican politics. Using heavy lobbying and campaign contributions to utility regulators and politicians, Alabama Power has created strong allegiances that allow it to secure rate hike approvals without public hearings . The company also operates the nation’s dirtiest power plant . View image in fullscreen Dozens of residents live within a few hundred yards of Alabama Power’s Miller Plant in West Jefferson, Alabama, the nation’s largest contributor of greenhouse gases. Photograph: Lee Hedgepeth/Inside Climate News And it places steep fees on homeowners, which stymie the competing rooftop solar industry. The result is that sunny Alabama trails far behind Alaska – which sees only a few hours of daylight in deep winter – when it comes to clean solar energy. Alabama politicians have in large part allowed the utility to flourish. Shareholders of the publicly traded utility receive some of the highest returns on equity in the country. In fact, in 2022 Alabama Power reported more profit than allowed, and this past August had to refund $62m to its customers. Even before Alabama Power created its own news entities, four reporters in the state said the utility was aggressive in squashing negative news coverage, including frequently challenging reporting by demanding to meet with top newsroom leaders or threatening lawsuits. In 2001, Birmingham’s Fox6 station killed a story about an elderly woman who died after life-sustaining equipment was turned off in her home when Alabama Power halted her electric service over failure to pay. Three former newsroom staffers who asked not to be named said a station executive – who later went to work for Alabama Power – spiked the story. The utility later settled with the family for $15m . The former station executive did not respond to a request for comment. Two Alabama Political Reporter journalists recounted separate instances of a critical story they wrote about Alabama Power being killed without explanation by their outlet in 2013 and 2021. Each suspected the articles were held to appease Alabama Power. At least as far back as April 2013, the Alabama Political Reporter was being paid $8,000 a month by Matrix, the consulting firm employed by Alabama Power, leaked records show. The site’s publisher didn’t remember the stories and denied they were killed because of the utility. Utility foundation buys Black newspaper Founded in 1964 as a paper written by and for the Black community, the Birmingham Times emerged as the state became a leader in the civil rights movement, including the 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery march that culminated in brutal police attacks on protesters . In 2016, the Birmingham Times was sold to the Foundation for Progress in Journalism, a non-profit established with $35,000 of Alabama Power Foundation money, tax records show. Alabama Power’s charity gave the Foundation for Progress in Journalism $185,000 between 2014 and 2016. The chair of the board for the journalism foundation also was a vice-president at Alabama Power. Birmingham Times publisher Samuel Martin says the paper’s founder at 91 years old had no clear successor and approached the foundation to purchase it. “It was his hope that the Foundation would offer a way to preserve his legacy, with the Times being the only remaining Black newspaper in Birmingham. The foundation agreed,” Martin said in an emailed response. On the surface, the Times appears to be a typical independent newspaper. It largely publishes profiles and stories about the state’s Black community, sometimes touching on hard topics like gun violence and poverty. A recent issue of the newspaper had a lead story about the city’s Black homeless population. The back of the paper featured a full-page Alabama Power ad. The paper does not disclose its relationship to Alabama Power on its website or in the weekly print edition. Martin said there is “no reason to reference Alabama Power” on its website or in its paper and stories because “they have no ownership”. Influencing the Black community has been part of Alabama Power’s playbook for years, Floodlight has learned. In 2018, the utility paid the owner of the consulting firm Matrix LLC $124,000 a month – or nearly $1.5m a year – to maintain ties to Black communities, according to a leaked copy of the contract . One provision called for the Matrix owner to “continue strategic consulting and issue research that promotes [the] Company’s commitment to helping develop the Black Belt region”. It is also a region, in central Alabama, that suffers from environmental and health impacts linked to coal. Some residents there tape up windows to keep black soot out of their homes. “By controlling the media, they [Alabama Power] are able to present as good neighbors to the public while drowning out those private conversations that talk about the [environmental] burdens that these communities have to bear,” Malcom said. Warding off a rate hearing Alabama Power made its move into newsrooms on the heels of one of the biggest threats to its business model. Back in 2013, a Republican member of the Alabama Public Service Commission wanted to know why customers’ bills were so exorbitant. Terry Dunn wanted Alabama Power and two other utilities to open their books and answer questions about how rates were determined. It would be the first time in 30 years that Alabama Power was forced to answer to regulators in a formal public hearing. Dunn’s more-tenured fellow commissioners pushed back. The Public Service Commission president, Twinkle Cavanaugh, who the year before reportedly received nearly $89,000 in campaign donations from coal interests, rejected Dunn’s call for a hearing as “half-baked”. View image in fullscreen Michael Brown, executive director of Sustaining Way in South Carolina, protests Alabama Power’s parent company, Southern Co. Photograph: The PJC Media/Michael Malcom Around that same time, a non-profit, Alabama Citizens for Media Accountability, launched a website that attacked local reporters who covered Dunn’s arguments and his tight re-election race. The group said it was “devoted to exposing liberal bias in the Alabama media”. Articles posted on its website often targeted reporters from AL.com , an online conglomerate of Alabama’s three largest newspapers. “They went after me a lot,” said John Archibald, a two-time Pulitzer prize-winning editorial writer for AL.com who frequently wrote about Alabama Power. Public tax filings show that Alabama Citizens for Media Accountability was given $100,000 in 2014 from a non-profit directed by Alabama Power consultant Mike Fields. The funding made up nearly its entire annual budget. Dunn ultimately lost his re-election bid. Six months later, Alabama Citizens for Media Accountability stopped posting, and its executive director, Elizabeth BeShears, left to join Yellowhammer News, which has financial ties to the Matrix consulting firm, as Floodlight and NPR reported in 2022. BeShears, spokeswoman for a national school choice group, did not respond to requests for comment. Alabama Power’s ‘brand journalism’ In early 2015, less than a year after Dunn’s defeat, Alabama Power launched the Alabama News Center. Its motive: to bypass news organizations altogether. Through the News Center, the utility would no longer have to rely on other reporters and news outlets to get their message out, explained Ike Pigott, Alabama Power communications strategist and former broadcast reporter, in a 2016 podcast about the News Center. “It’s helping establish us as a source of news,” Pigott said. “And when you look at the kind of stories that we do, and the degree of professionalism we take with it, it is news. It’s just not coming from what you would traditionally consider a news-only provider.” Pigott said in creating its “brand journalism”, Alabama Power looked to fossil fuel giant Chevron for inspiration. Chevron in 2014 was caught secretly running a “community news site” in Richmond, California, that published positive stories – many written by a public relations firm – about oil and gas drilling in the state. “We were looking at the Richmond Standard, we saw it for what it was,” Pigott told the interviewer. “And we saw it as an opportunity to say, ‘Hey, we can get out and we can tell some of our stories too.’” Pigott did not respond to requests for comment. Alabama News Center divulges that it’s a product of Alabama Power on its homepage. But it does not do so on its stories that are picked up by legitimate news sites. The News Center operates as a state news wire and also reaches national readers through Apple and Google News, which both treat the site as a regular news outlet. Power companies paid civil rights leaders in the US south. They became loyal industry advocates Read more Regardless of ownership, traditional media outlets are bound to ethics standards that maintain a distance between the business operations and working journalists. “The easy question to answer is, ‘Are you being transparent? Are you levelling with the public about who you are?’” said Dan Kennedy, a professor at Northeastern University’s School of Journalism in Boston. “But if they’re doing some extremely favorable coverage of the power company, and any fair-minded person looking at this would say, ‘They’re leaving out important information about what the power company’s doing.’ It simply isn’t ethical to do that.” Today, Alabama has just a handful of reporters fully devoted to covering environmental and energy issues in the state of 5 million people and the country’s third-largest coal exporter. “I always regarded doing environmental journalism in Alabama like shooting fish in a barrel. There’s always so much to cover,” said Ben Raines, a former AL.com and Mobile Press Register environment editor who won several national prizes for his stories. Raines left AL.com in 2019 and now spends his days on documentary projects and giving tours of the Mobile River. “We have lost the firepower of environmental reporting we used to have. And in place of it, we have almost no coverage.” Floodlight reporters Kristi E Swartz and Mario Alejandro Ariza contributed to this story. Floodlight is a non-profit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action Explore more on these topics Alabama Floodlight features Share Reuse this content ‘By controlling the media, they [Alabama Power] are able to present as good neighbors to the public.’ Illustration: Javier Palma/The Guardian View image in fullscreen ‘By controlling the media, they [Alabama Power] are able to present as good neighbors to the public.’ Illustration: Javier Palma/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old ‘Control the narrative’: how an Alabama utility wields influence by financing news This article is more than 1 year old A Floodlight investigation found Alabama Power runs a news service and its foundation bought a Black newspaper. Neither reports on high electric bills or utility-related pollution I n the more than a decade since Alabama regulators allowed a landfill to take in tons of waste from coal-burning power plants around the US, neighbors in the majority-Black community of Uniontown frequently complain of thick air so pungent it makes their eyes burn. Floodlight On some days, it can look like an eerily white Christmas in a place that rarely sees snow. “When the wind blows, all the trees in the area are totally gray and white,” said Ben Eaton, a Uniontown commissioner and president of Black Belt Citizens Fighting for Health and Justice, a local group that is pushing to shutter the facility. Residents of the former plantation town complain of high rates of kidney failure and neuropathy – two symptoms of exposure to coal ash, whose toxic byproduct contains mercury and arsenic. The controversy has been covered for years in local and national news outlets, including a civil rights case Eaton’s group filed – and lost – to close the landfill. Just last year, coal ash in the state drew national attention when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tentatively denied a state clean-up proposal that it found to be too weak for waste coming in part from its largest electricity provider – Alabama Power. View image in fullscreen A landfill in Uniontown, Alabama, that contains coal ash backs up against homes where children play. Photograph: The PJC Media/Courtesy of Michael Malcom But neither the news from Uniontown, nor the EPA rejection, ever appeared in the Birmingham Times – a historic African American newspaper – or on the online-only Alabama News Center , an investigation by Floodlight found. A search for “coal ash” in the Birmingham Times yields just one reprinted story from HuffPost , and it’s a reference to coal ash in another state. Both news outlets have financial ties to the main subject of those stories, Alabama Power. For decades, Alabama Power has sowed influence across the state, according to interviews with more than two dozen former and current reporters, civil rights activists, utility employees and environmentalists. What’s happening in Alabama is an example of how special interests have taken advantage of the diminishing reach and influence of shrinking mainstream newsrooms in the US. In their place have sprung up fake “pink slime” news sites operated by political interests; a utility that secretly created news outlets to attack its critics; and a Florida publisher who accepts payments for positive coverage. This investigation into power companies infiltrating local media follows Floodlight’s revelation earlier this month about how utilities wield influence among civil rights groups . In the last decade, nearly a dozen local reporters and editors were hired to staff the two Alabama news outlets. A Floodlight review of the content since the utility founded the Alabama News Center in 2015 shows it publishes overwhelmingly positive stories about the power company. Coverage of the utility by the Birmingham Times, which was funded with money from Alabama Power’s charitable arm the Alabama Power Foundation, consists of reprinted stories from the News Center and the utility’s own press releases . The Birmingham Times executive editor, Barnett Wright, said the outlet’s coverage is limited due to its small staff and having to make hard editorial decisions on what to cover. “The Alabama Power Foundation had or has zero influence in the newsroom,” Wright said in an email. “As the executive editor, I have never had any conversation with the Alabama Power Foundation about any article the Birmingham Times chooses to run or not run.” Alabama Power and its foundation did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Here is another example of news that readers of the Birmingham Times and the Alabama News Center do not see: when Alabama Power was granted three consecutive electric rate increases in 2022 – raising the average annual cost of electricity by $274 in 2023 – neither publication wrote about the rise, according to a search of their websites. View image in fullscreen The Rev Michael Malcom, executive director of Alabama Interfaith Power and Light. Photograph: The PJC Media/Michael Malcom Residents of this seventh poorest state have the most expensive monthly electric bills in the US . This past summer – after the increases – Alabama Power customers railed against bills topping $700 a month for some households. “Clearly those communities that are suffering this way don’t have pleasant things to say about those [Alabama Power] folks who are causing the problems in the first place,” said the Rev Michael Malcom, executive director of Alabama Interfaith Power and Light, a faith-based organization that focuses on climate change. “So how best do you silence these people? You control the narrative in the first place.” Wright countered that he does not have the staff to “give those rate increase stories the comprehensive cover … they deserve”. But, he added, “that’s a fair question. Our readers turn on lights, flush toilets, take showers and warm their homes, and it’s a story that should be covered and will be going forward – even if I have to write them myself.” A ‘good news’ site The Alabama News Center was launched to promote “the good news of this state”. Its stories run in outlets around Alabama and are picked up by national aggregators including Google and Apple News. It’s ostensibly news – with an electric industry tinge. Recent top stories include a write up of University of Alabama students competing in an electric vehicle battery challenge and a feature on a career day for future lineworkers. The News Center’s operation is entirely paid for by electricity customers, Alabama Power’s assistant treasurer, Brian George, said at a December public hearing. The electric company’s power over the news in the state is a significant silencer, according to 15 reporters interviewed by Floodlight. They cite Alabama Power’s digital and broadcast advertising purchasing power and its aggressive stance toward reporters and outlets that publish critical stories. Floodlight previously revealed the company’s secret hiring of an Alabama-based consulting firm to pay for positive news coverage in three other Alabama news outlets. Coupled with its foray into newsroom financing, Alabama Power now exerts a heavy influence on what news is covered or ignored in Alabama. The effect is compounded by hundreds of layoffs of news reporters in Birmingham, Montgomery, Huntsville and Mobile in the past decade. “If you just search Alabama Power and Google News, you’re not going to find a lot that’s very investigative or goes beyond the surface level of just covering press releases. There are a lot of factors that go into that, that aren’t just Alabama Power manipulating the media,” said Lee Hedgepeth, an Alabama-based reporter at Inside Climate News. Alabama’s powerful power company Alabama Power is a huge economic driver. Its parent company, Southern Co, employs about 27,700 employees, with more than 6,000 working for Alabama Power. It’s a significant player in the state’s mostly Republican politics. Using heavy lobbying and campaign contributions to utility regulators and politicians, Alabama Power has created strong allegiances that allow it to secure rate hike approvals without public hearings . The company also operates the nation’s dirtiest power plant . View image in fullscreen Dozens of residents live within a few hundred yards of Alabama Power’s Miller Plant in West Jefferson, Alabama, the nation’s largest contributor of greenhouse gases. Photograph: Lee Hedgepeth/Inside Climate News And it places steep fees on homeowners, which stymie the competing rooftop solar industry. The result is that sunny Alabama trails far behind Alaska – which sees only a few hours of daylight in deep winter – when it comes to clean solar energy. Alabama politicians have in large part allowed the utility to flourish. Shareholders of the publicly traded utility receive some of the highest returns on equity in the country. In fact, in 2022 Alabama Power reported more profit than allowed, and this past August had to refund $62m to its customers. Even before Alabama Power created its own news entities, four reporters in the state said the utility was aggressive in squashing negative news coverage, including frequently challenging reporting by demanding to meet with top newsroom leaders or threatening lawsuits. In 2001, Birmingham’s Fox6 station killed a story about an elderly woman who died after life-sustaining equipment was turned off in her home when Alabama Power halted her electric service over failure to pay. Three former newsroom staffers who asked not to be named said a station executive – who later went to work for Alabama Power – spiked the story. The utility later settled with the family for $15m . The former station executive did not respond to a request for comment. Two Alabama Political Reporter journalists recounted separate instances of a critical story they wrote about Alabama Power being killed without explanation by their outlet in 2013 and 2021. Each suspected the articles were held to appease Alabama Power. At least as far back as April 2013, the Alabama Political Reporter was being paid $8,000 a month by Matrix, the consulting firm employed by Alabama Power, leaked records show. The site’s publisher didn’t remember the stories and denied they were killed because of the utility. Utility foundation buys Black newspaper Founded in 1964 as a paper written by and for the Black community, the Birmingham Times emerged as the state became a leader in the civil rights movement, including the 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery march that culminated in brutal police attacks on protesters . In 2016, the Birmingham Times was sold to the Foundation for Progress in Journalism, a non-profit established with $35,000 of Alabama Power Foundation money, tax records show. Alabama Power’s charity gave the Foundation for Progress in Journalism $185,000 between 2014 and 2016. The chair of the board for the journalism foundation also was a vice-president at Alabama Power. Birmingham Times publisher Samuel Martin says the paper’s founder at 91 years old had no clear successor and approached the foundation to purchase it. “It was his hope that the Foundation would offer a way to preserve his legacy, with the Times being the only remaining Black newspaper in Birmingham. The foundation agreed,” Martin said in an emailed response. On the surface, the Times appears to be a typical independent newspaper. It largely publishes profiles and stories about the state’s Black community, sometimes touching on hard topics like gun violence and poverty. A recent issue of the newspaper had a lead story about the city’s Black homeless population. The back of the paper featured a full-page Alabama Power ad. The paper does not disclose its relationship to Alabama Power on its website or in the weekly print edition. Martin said there is “no reason to reference Alabama Power” on its website or in its paper and stories because “they have no ownership”. Influencing the Black community has been part of Alabama Power’s playbook for years, Floodlight has learned. In 2018, the utility paid the owner of the consulting firm Matrix LLC $124,000 a month – or nearly $1.5m a year – to maintain ties to Black communities, according to a leaked copy of the contract . One provision called for the Matrix owner to “continue strategic consulting and issue research that promotes [the] Company’s commitment to helping develop the Black Belt region”. It is also a region, in central Alabama, that suffers from environmental and health impacts linked to coal. Some residents there tape up windows to keep black soot out of their homes. “By controlling the media, they [Alabama Power] are able to present as good neighbors to the public while drowning out those private conversations that talk about the [environmental] burdens that these communities have to bear,” Malcom said. Warding off a rate hearing Alabama Power made its move into newsrooms on the heels of one of the biggest threats to its business model. Back in 2013, a Republican member of the Alabama Public Service Commission wanted to know why customers’ bills were so exorbitant. Terry Dunn wanted Alabama Power and two other utilities to open their books and answer questions about how rates were determined. It would be the first time in 30 years that Alabama Power was forced to answer to regulators in a formal public hearing. Dunn’s more-tenured fellow commissioners pushed back. The Public Service Commission president, Twinkle Cavanaugh, who the year before reportedly received nearly $89,000 in campaign donations from coal interests, rejected Dunn’s call for a hearing as “half-baked”. View image in fullscreen Michael Brown, executive director of Sustaining Way in South Carolina, protests Alabama Power’s parent company, Southern Co. Photograph: The PJC Media/Michael Malcom Around that same time, a non-profit, Alabama Citizens for Media Accountability, launched a website that attacked local reporters who covered Dunn’s arguments and his tight re-election race. The group said it was “devoted to exposing liberal bias in the Alabama media”. Articles posted on its website often targeted reporters from AL.com , an online conglomerate of Alabama’s three largest newspapers. “They went after me a lot,” said John Archibald, a two-time Pulitzer prize-winning editorial writer for AL.com who frequently wrote about Alabama Power. Public tax filings show that Alabama Citizens for Media Accountability was given $100,000 in 2014 from a non-profit directed by Alabama Power consultant Mike Fields. The funding made up nearly its entire annual budget. Dunn ultimately lost his re-election bid. Six months later, Alabama Citizens for Media Accountability stopped posting, and its executive director, Elizabeth BeShears, left to join Yellowhammer News, which has financial ties to the Matrix consulting firm, as Floodlight and NPR reported in 2022. BeShears, spokeswoman for a national school choice group, did not respond to requests for comment. Alabama Power’s ‘brand journalism’ In early 2015, less than a year after Dunn’s defeat, Alabama Power launched the Alabama News Center. Its motive: to bypass news organizations altogether. Through the News Center, the utility would no longer have to rely on other reporters and news outlets to get their message out, explained Ike Pigott, Alabama Power communications strategist and former broadcast reporter, in a 2016 podcast about the News Center. “It’s helping establish us as a source of news,” Pigott said. “And when you look at the kind of stories that we do, and the degree of professionalism we take with it, it is news. It’s just not coming from what you would traditionally consider a news-only provider.” Pigott said in creating its “brand journalism”, Alabama Power looked to fossil fuel giant Chevron for inspiration. Chevron in 2014 was caught secretly running a “community news site” in Richmond, California, that published positive stories – many written by a public relations firm – about oil and gas drilling in the state. “We were looking at the Richmond Standard, we saw it for what it was,” Pigott told the interviewer. “And we saw it as an opportunity to say, ‘Hey, we can get out and we can tell some of our stories too.’” Pigott did not respond to requests for comment. Alabama News Center divulges that it’s a product of Alabama Power on its homepage. But it does not do so on its stories that are picked up by legitimate news sites. The News Center operates as a state news wire and also reaches national readers through Apple and Google News, which both treat the site as a regular news outlet. Power companies paid civil rights leaders in the US south. They became loyal industry advocates Read more Regardless of ownership, traditional media outlets are bound to ethics standards that maintain a distance between the business operations and working journalists. “The easy question to answer is, ‘Are you being transparent? Are you levelling with the public about who you are?’” said Dan Kennedy, a professor at Northeastern University’s School of Journalism in Boston. “But if they’re doing some extremely favorable coverage of the power company, and any fair-minded person looking at this would say, ‘They’re leaving out important information about what the power company’s doing.’ It simply isn’t ethical to do that.” Today, Alabama has just a handful of reporters fully devoted to covering environmental and energy issues in the state of 5 million people and the country’s third-largest coal exporter. “I always regarded doing environmental journalism in Alabama like shooting fish in a barrel. There’s always so much to cover,” said Ben Raines, a former AL.com and Mobile Press Register environment editor who won several national prizes for his stories. Raines left AL.com in 2019 and now spends his days on documentary projects and giving tours of the Mobile River. “We have lost the firepower of environmental reporting we used to have. And in place of it, we have almost no coverage.” Floodlight reporters Kristi E Swartz and Mario Alejandro Ariza contributed to this story. Floodlight is a non-profit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action Explore more on these topics Alabama Floodlight features Share Reuse this content ‘By controlling the media, they [Alabama Power] are able to present as good neighbors to the public.’ Illustration: Javier Palma/The Guardian View image in fullscreen ‘By controlling the media, they [Alabama Power] are able to present as good neighbors to the public.’ Illustration: Javier Palma/The Guardian ‘By controlling the media, they [Alabama Power] are able to present as good neighbors to the public.’ Illustration: Javier Palma/The Guardian View image in fullscreen ‘By controlling the media, they [Alabama Power] are able to present as good neighbors to the public.’ Illustration: Javier Palma/The Guardian ‘By controlling the media, they [Alabama Power] are able to present as good neighbors to the public.’ Illustration: Javier Palma/The Guardian View image in fullscreen ‘By controlling the media, they [Alabama Power] are able to present as good neighbors to the public.’ Illustration: Javier Palma/The Guardian ‘By controlling the media, they [Alabama Power] are able to present as good neighbors to the public.’ Illustration: Javier Palma/The Guardian View image in fullscreen ‘By controlling the media, they [Alabama Power] are able to present as good neighbors to the public.’ Illustration: Javier Palma/The Guardian ‘By controlling the media, they [Alabama Power] are able to present as good neighbors to the public.’ Illustration: Javier Palma/The Guardian ‘By controlling the media, they [Alabama Power] are able to present as good neighbors to the public.’ Illustration: Javier Palma/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old ‘Control the narrative’: how an Alabama utility wields influence by financing news This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘Control the narrative’: how an Alabama utility wields influence by financing news This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘Control the narrative’: how an Alabama utility wields influence by financing news 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 A Floodlight investigation found Alabama Power runs a news service and its foundation bought a Black newspaper. Neither reports on high electric bills or utility-related pollution A Floodlight investigation found Alabama Power runs a news service and its foundation bought a Black newspaper. Neither reports on high electric bills or utility-related pollution A Floodlight investigation found Alabama Power runs a news service and its foundation bought a Black newspaper. Neither reports on high electric bills or utility-related pollution I n the more than a decade since Alabama regulators allowed a landfill to take in tons of waste from coal-burning power plants around the US, neighbors in the majority-Black community of Uniontown frequently complain of thick air so pungent it makes their eyes burn. Floodlight On some days, it can look like an eerily white Christmas in a place that rarely sees snow. “When the wind blows, all the trees in the area are totally gray and white,” said Ben Eaton, a Uniontown commissioner and president of Black Belt Citizens Fighting for Health and Justice, a local group that is pushing to shutter the facility. Residents of the former plantation town complain of high rates of kidney failure and neuropathy – two symptoms of exposure to coal ash, whose toxic byproduct contains mercury and arsenic. The controversy has been covered for years in local and national news outlets, including a civil rights case Eaton’s group filed – and lost – to close the landfill. Just last year, coal ash in the state drew national attention when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tentatively denied a state clean-up proposal that it found to be too weak for waste coming in part from its largest electricity provider – Alabama Power. View image in fullscreen A landfill in Uniontown, Alabama, that contains coal ash backs up against homes where children play. Photograph: The PJC Media/Courtesy of Michael Malcom But neither the news from Uniontown, nor the EPA rejection, ever appeared in the Birmingham Times – a historic African American newspaper – or on the online-only Alabama News Center , an investigation by Floodlight found. A search for “coal ash” in the Birmingham Times yields just one reprinted story from HuffPost , and it’s a reference to coal ash in another state. Both news outlets have financial ties to the main subject of those stories, Alabama Power. For decades, Alabama Power has sowed influence across the state, according to interviews with more than two dozen former and current reporters, civil rights activists, utility employees and environmentalists. What’s happening in Alabama is an example of how special interests have taken advantage of the diminishing reach and influence of shrinking mainstream newsrooms in the US. In their place have sprung up fake “pink slime” news sites operated by political interests; a utility that secretly created news outlets to attack its critics; and a Florida publisher who accepts payments for positive coverage. This investigation into power companies infiltrating local media follows Floodlight’s revelation earlier this month about how utilities wield influence among civil rights groups . In the last decade, nearly a dozen local reporters and editors were hired to staff the two Alabama news outlets. A Floodlight review of the content since the utility founded the Alabama News Center in 2015 shows it publishes overwhelmingly positive stories about the power company. Coverage of the utility by the Birmingham Times, which was funded with money from Alabama Power’s charitable arm the Alabama Power Foundation, consists of reprinted stories from the News Center and the utility’s own press releases . The Birmingham Times executive editor, Barnett Wright, said the outlet’s coverage is limited due to its small staff and having to make hard editorial decisions on what to cover. “The Alabama Power Foundation had or has zero influence in the newsroom,” Wright said in an email. “As the executive editor, I have never had any conversation with the Alabama Power Foundation about any article the Birmingham Times chooses to run or not run.” Alabama Power and its foundation did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Here is another example of news that readers of the Birmingham Times and the Alabama News Center do not see: when Alabama Power was granted three consecutive electric rate increases in 2022 – raising the average annual cost of electricity by $274 in 2023 – neither publication wrote about the rise, according to a search of their websites. View image in fullscreen The Rev Michael Malcom, executive director of Alabama Interfaith Power and Light. Photograph: The PJC Media/Michael Malcom Residents of this seventh poorest state have the most expensive monthly electric bills in the US . This past summer – after the increases – Alabama Power customers railed against bills topping $700 a month for some households. “Clearly those communities that are suffering this way don’t have pleasant things to say about those [Alabama Power] folks who are causing the problems in the first place,” said the Rev Michael Malcom, executive director of Alabama Interfaith Power and Light, a faith-based organization that focuses on climate change. “So how best do you silence these people? You control the narrative in the first place.” Wright countered that he does not have the staff to “give those rate increase stories the comprehensive cover … they deserve”. But, he added, “that’s a fair question. Our readers turn on lights, flush toilets, take showers and warm their homes, and it’s a story that should be covered and will be going forward – even if I have to write them myself.” A ‘good news’ site The Alabama News Center was launched to promote “the good news of this state”. Its stories run in outlets around Alabama and are picked up by national aggregators including Google and Apple News. It’s ostensibly news – with an electric industry tinge. Recent top stories include a write up of University of Alabama students competing in an electric vehicle battery challenge and a feature on a career day for future lineworkers. The News Center’s operation is entirely paid for by electricity customers, Alabama Power’s assistant treasurer, Brian George, said at a December public hearing. The electric company’s power over the news in the state is a significant silencer, according to 15 reporters interviewed by Floodlight. They cite Alabama Power’s digital and broadcast advertising purchasing power and its aggressive stance toward reporters and outlets that publish critical stories. Floodlight previously revealed the company’s secret hiring of an Alabama-based consulting firm to pay for positive news coverage in three other Alabama news outlets. Coupled with its foray into newsroom financing, Alabama Power now exerts a heavy influence on what news is covered or ignored in Alabama. The effect is compounded by hundreds of layoffs of news reporters in Birmingham, Montgomery, Huntsville and Mobile in the past decade. “If you just search Alabama Power and Google News, you’re not going to find a lot that’s very investigative or goes beyond the surface level of just covering press releases. There are a lot of factors that go into that, that aren’t just Alabama Power manipulating the media,” said Lee Hedgepeth, an Alabama-based reporter at Inside Climate News. Alabama’s powerful power company Alabama Power is a huge economic driver. Its parent company, Southern Co, employs about 27,700 employees, with more than 6,000 working for Alabama Power. It’s a significant player in the state’s mostly Republican politics. Using heavy lobbying and campaign contributions to utility regulators and politicians, Alabama Power has created strong allegiances that allow it to secure rate hike approvals without public hearings . The company also operates the nation’s dirtiest power plant . View image in fullscreen Dozens of residents live within a few hundred yards of Alabama Power’s Miller Plant in West Jefferson, Alabama, the nation’s largest contributor of greenhouse gases. Photograph: Lee Hedgepeth/Inside Climate News And it places steep fees on homeowners, which stymie the competing rooftop solar industry. The result is that sunny Alabama trails far behind Alaska – which sees only a few hours of daylight in deep winter – when it comes to clean solar energy. Alabama politicians have in large part allowed the utility to flourish. Shareholders of the publicly traded utility receive some of the highest returns on equity in the country. In fact, in 2022 Alabama Power reported more profit than allowed, and this past August had to refund $62m to its customers. Even before Alabama Power created its own news entities, four reporters in the state said the utility was aggressive in squashing negative news coverage, including frequently challenging reporting by demanding to meet with top newsroom leaders or threatening lawsuits. In 2001, Birmingham’s Fox6 station killed a story about an elderly woman who died after life-sustaining equipment was turned off in her home when Alabama Power halted her electric service over failure to pay. Three former newsroom staffers who asked not to be named said a station executive – who later went to work for Alabama Power – spiked the story. The utility later settled with the family for $15m . The former station executive did not respond to a request for comment. Two Alabama Political Reporter journalists recounted separate instances of a critical story they wrote about Alabama Power being killed without explanation by their outlet in 2013 and 2021. Each suspected the articles were held to appease Alabama Power. At least as far back as April 2013, the Alabama Political Reporter was being paid $8,000 a month by Matrix, the consulting firm employed by Alabama Power, leaked records show. The site’s publisher didn’t remember the stories and denied they were killed because of the utility. Utility foundation buys Black newspaper Founded in 1964 as a paper written by and for the Black community, the Birmingham Times emerged as the state became a leader in the civil rights movement, including the 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery march that culminated in brutal police attacks on protesters . In 2016, the Birmingham Times was sold to the Foundation for Progress in Journalism, a non-profit established with $35,000 of Alabama Power Foundation money, tax records show. Alabama Power’s charity gave the Foundation for Progress in Journalism $185,000 between 2014 and 2016. The chair of the board for the journalism foundation also was a vice-president at Alabama Power. Birmingham Times publisher Samuel Martin says the paper’s founder at 91 year
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
Thousands of public sector workers stage 24-hour strike in Northern Ireland
The mass strike involved approximately 80% of the public sector. Photograph: Mark Marlow/EPA View image in fullscreen The mass strike involved approximately 80% of the public sector. Photograph: Mark Marlow/EPA This article is more than 1 year old Thousands of public sector workers stage 24-hour strike in Northern Ireland This article is more than 1 year old Combined action by about 150,000 nurses, teachers, cleaners and other sector workers is biggest in living memory Thousands of public sector workers have staged pickets and marches across Northern Ireland in the biggest strike in living memory. The combined action by nurses, teachers, bus drivers, carers, cleaners, civil servants and other sectors brought parts of the region to a standstill on Thursday and raised the stakes in a political crisis that has paralysed devolved government. An estimated 150,000 workers joined the 24-hour strike action, which caused widespread disruption and coincided with icy conditions, prompting many businesses to shut for the day. Picketers joined groups of people who chanted and waved banners as they streamed into central Belfast , Derry, Enniskillen and Omagh in a show of force by 16 unions. “People are very angry. We’ve had enough,” said Paul Andrews, Unison’s branch chair for Belfast City hospital. “No one wants to be out here on a freezing day fighting for pay parity. But we are fed up having to beg for equality.” View image in fullscreen Striking workers march towards Belfast city hall. Photograph: Mark Marlow/EPA The strike by approximately 80% of the public sector led to schools closing, buses and trains being left idle, and hospitals operating skeleton services. Road service workers, including gritters, launched a week-long strike. The Department for Infrastructure urged people not to travel unless it was essential, saying there would be limited gritting on only a handful of roads including the M1, M2, A1 and A4. Some bus drivers privately expressed reservations at driving routes that lacked gritting, saying they would be held responsible for any accidents. The coordinated protests followed months of separate strikes by individual unions and underscored growing frustration over crumbling public services and political dysfunction. Deadlock at Stormont , which collapsed two years ago after the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) quit power-sharing, has resulted in public sector workers not receiving pay rises granted to colleagues in the rest of the UK. In December the government offered £600m for public sector pay claims as part of a £3.3bn financial package for Northern Ireland, but made it conditional on Stormont’s restoration, saying only a devolved government had the authority to disburse the pay rises. The DUP continued its boycott, leaving Stormont mothballed, but said the secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris, could and should disburse the money. It accused him of trying to blackmail the party into abandoning its protest at post-Brexit trading arrangements, which collapsed Stormont in February 2022. Striking workers directed their ire towards the secretary of state, not the DUP. “Heaton-Harris is using us as hostages to try to force through political change,” said Andrews, as Unison members prepared to march on Belfast city hall. “This is the outcome of treating people as pawns in a greater game.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Paul Andrews, Unison’s branch chair at Belfast City hospital, picketing on Thursday. Photograph: Rory Carroll/The Guardian Craig Gill, Unite’s lead representative at Belfast City hospital, echoed the accusation. “He wants to use us as a political battering ram. I think today will help him realise that public sector workers are not willing to be used.” Sonia Ferris, a nurse with the GMB union, said chronic underfunding of the health service had demoralised staff, who felt their sacrifices and commitment counted for little. “The government has forgotten what we did during Covid. For us, it’s not just about pay, it’s working conditions and retention of staff.” Gerry Murphy, the assistant general secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, told the Belfast rally that workers had overcome many obstacles and that one more remained. “That obstacle is Heaton-Harris and his refusal to accept reality and his continuing to pursue a failed political strategy. We will overcome that strategy too. This fight continues until we win – and we will win.” In a statement, Heaton-Harris said the government had offered a “fair and generous package” that would address public sector pay and that it remained available for an incoming Northern Ireland executive. Without naming the DUP he said it was “regrettable” that a recall of Stormont on Wednesday failed to reboot power sharing. “The people of Northern Ireland deserve local political leadership from representatives they have elected to govern on their behalf.” Other political parties have blamed both Heaton-Harris and the DUP leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, for the impasse. Michelle O’Neill, Sinn Féin’s deputy leader, told the BBC: “I can only hope that Jeffrey Donaldson is listening and hears the plight of the workers and, even at this late juncture, makes the right call and joins with the rest of us around that executive table and let us do our best to try and support these workers.” Explore more on these topics Northern Ireland Industrial action Trade unions Belfast Public sector careers news Share Reuse this content The mass strike involved approximately 80% of the public sector. Photograph: Mark Marlow/EPA View image in fullscreen The mass strike involved approximately 80% of the public sector. Photograph: Mark Marlow/EPA This article is more than 1 year old Thousands of public sector workers stage 24-hour strike in Northern Ireland This article is more than 1 year old Combined action by about 150,000 nurses, teachers, cleaners and other sector workers is biggest in living memory Thousands of public sector workers have staged pickets and marches across Northern Ireland in the biggest strike in living memory. The combined action by nurses, teachers, bus drivers, carers, cleaners, civil servants and other sectors brought parts of the region to a standstill on Thursday and raised the stakes in a political crisis that has paralysed devolved government. An estimated 150,000 workers joined the 24-hour strike action, which caused widespread disruption and coincided with icy conditions, prompting many businesses to shut for the day. Picketers joined groups of people who chanted and waved banners as they streamed into central Belfast , Derry, Enniskillen and Omagh in a show of force by 16 unions. “People are very angry. We’ve had enough,” said Paul Andrews, Unison’s branch chair for Belfast City hospital. “No one wants to be out here on a freezing day fighting for pay parity. But we are fed up having to beg for equality.” View image in fullscreen Striking workers march towards Belfast city hall. Photograph: Mark Marlow/EPA The strike by approximately 80% of the public sector led to schools closing, buses and trains being left idle, and hospitals operating skeleton services. Road service workers, including gritters, launched a week-long strike. The Department for Infrastructure urged people not to travel unless it was essential, saying there would be limited gritting on only a handful of roads including the M1, M2, A1 and A4. Some bus drivers privately expressed reservations at driving routes that lacked gritting, saying they would be held responsible for any accidents. The coordinated protests followed months of separate strikes by individual unions and underscored growing frustration over crumbling public services and political dysfunction. Deadlock at Stormont , which collapsed two years ago after the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) quit power-sharing, has resulted in public sector workers not receiving pay rises granted to colleagues in the rest of the UK. In December the government offered £600m for public sector pay claims as part of a £3.3bn financial package for Northern Ireland, but made it conditional on Stormont’s restoration, saying only a devolved government had the authority to disburse the pay rises. The DUP continued its boycott, leaving Stormont mothballed, but said the secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris, could and should disburse the money. It accused him of trying to blackmail the party into abandoning its protest at post-Brexit trading arrangements, which collapsed Stormont in February 2022. Striking workers directed their ire towards the secretary of state, not the DUP. “Heaton-Harris is using us as hostages to try to force through political change,” said Andrews, as Unison members prepared to march on Belfast city hall. “This is the outcome of treating people as pawns in a greater game.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Paul Andrews, Unison’s branch chair at Belfast City hospital, picketing on Thursday. Photograph: Rory Carroll/The Guardian Craig Gill, Unite’s lead representative at Belfast City hospital, echoed the accusation. “He wants to use us as a political battering ram. I think today will help him realise that public sector workers are not willing to be used.” Sonia Ferris, a nurse with the GMB union, said chronic underfunding of the health service had demoralised staff, who felt their sacrifices and commitment counted for little. “The government has forgotten what we did during Covid. For us, it’s not just about pay, it’s working conditions and retention of staff.” Gerry Murphy, the assistant general secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, told the Belfast rally that workers had overcome many obstacles and that one more remained. “That obstacle is Heaton-Harris and his refusal to accept reality and his continuing to pursue a failed political strategy. We will overcome that strategy too. This fight continues until we win – and we will win.” In a statement, Heaton-Harris said the government had offered a “fair and generous package” that would address public sector pay and that it remained available for an incoming Northern Ireland executive. Without naming the DUP he said it was “regrettable” that a recall of Stormont on Wednesday failed to reboot power sharing. “The people of Northern Ireland deserve local political leadership from representatives they have elected to govern on their behalf.” Other political parties have blamed both Heaton-Harris and the DUP leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, for the impasse. Michelle O’Neill, Sinn Féin’s deputy leader, told the BBC: “I can only hope that Jeffrey Donaldson is listening and hears the plight of the workers and, even at this late juncture, makes the right call and joins with the rest of us around that executive table and let us do our best to try and support these workers.” Explore more on these topics Northern Ireland Industrial action Trade unions Belfast Public sector careers news Share Reuse this content The mass strike involved approximately 80% of the public sector. Photograph: Mark Marlow/EPA View image in fullscreen The mass strike involved approximately 80% of the public sector. Photograph: Mark Marlow/EPA The mass strike involved approximately 80% of the public sector. Photograph: Mark Marlow/EPA View image in fullscreen The mass strike involved approximately 80% of the public sector. Photograph: Mark Marlow/EPA The mass strike involved approximately 80% of the public sector. Photograph: Mark Marlow/EPA View image in fullscreen The mass strike involved approximately 80% of the public sector. Photograph: Mark Marlow/EPA The mass strike involved approximately 80% of the public sector. Photograph: Mark Marlow/EPA View image in fullscreen The mass strike involved approximately 80% of the public sector. Photograph: Mark Marlow/EPA The mass strike involved approximately 80% of the public sector. Photograph: Mark Marlow/EPA The mass strike involved approximately 80% of the public sector. Photograph: Mark Marlow/EPA This article is more than 1 year old Thousands of public sector workers stage 24-hour strike in Northern Ireland This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Thousands of public sector workers stage 24-hour strike in Northern Ireland This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Thousands of public sector workers stage 24-hour strike in Northern Ireland 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 Combined action by about 150,000 nurses, teachers, cleaners and other sector workers is biggest in living memory Combined action by about 150,000 nurses, teachers, cleaners and other sector workers is biggest in living memory Combined action by about 150,000 nurses, teachers, cleaners and other sector workers is biggest in living memory Thousands of public sector workers have staged pickets and marches across Northern Ireland in the biggest strike in living memory. The combined action by nurses, teachers, bus drivers, carers, cleaners, civil servants and other sectors brought parts of the region to a standstill on Thursday and raised the stakes in a political crisis that has paralysed devolved government. An estimated 150,000 workers joined the 24-hour strike action, which caused widespread disruption and coincided with icy conditions, prompting many businesses to shut for the day. Picketers joined groups of people who chanted and waved banners as they streamed into central Belfast , Derry, Enniskillen and Omagh in a show of force by 16 unions. “People are very angry. We’ve had enough,” said Paul Andrews, Unison’s branch chair for Belfast City hospital. “No one wants to be out here on a freezing day fighting for pay parity. But we are fed up having to beg for equality.” View image in fullscreen Striking workers march towards Belfast city hall. Photograph: Mark Marlow/EPA The strike by approximately 80% of the public sector led to schools closing, buses and trains being left idle, and hospitals operating skeleton services. Road service workers, including gritters, launched a week-long strike. The Department for Infrastructure urged people not to travel unless it was essential, saying there would be limited gritting on only a handful of roads including the M1, M2, A1 and A4. Some bus drivers privately expressed reservations at driving routes that lacked gritting, saying they would be held responsible for any accidents. The coordinated protests followed months of separate strikes by individual unions and underscored growing frustration over crumbling public services and political dysfunction. Deadlock at Stormont , which collapsed two years ago after the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) quit power-sharing, has resulted in public sector workers not receiving pay rises granted to colleagues in the rest of the UK. In December the government offered £600m for public sector pay claims as part of a £3.3bn financial package for Northern Ireland, but made it conditional on Stormont’s restoration, saying only a devolved government had the authority to disburse the pay rises. The DUP continued its boycott, leaving Stormont mothballed, but said the secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris, could and should disburse the money. It accused him of trying to blackmail the party into abandoning its protest at post-Brexit trading arrangements, which collapsed Stormont in February 2022. Striking workers directed their ire towards the secretary of state, not the DUP. “Heaton-Harris is using us as hostages to try to force through political change,” said Andrews, as Unison members prepared to march on Belfast city hall. “This is the outcome of treating people as pawns in a greater game.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Paul Andrews, Unison’s branch chair at Belfast City hospital, picketing on Thursday. Photograph: Rory Carroll/The Guardian Craig Gill, Unite’s lead representative at Belfast City hospital, echoed the accusation. “He wants to use us as a political battering ram. I think today will help him realise that public sector workers are not willing to be used.” Sonia Ferris, a nurse with the GMB union, said chronic underfunding of the health service had demoralised staff, who felt their sacrifices and commitment counted for little. “The government has forgotten what we did during Covid. For us, it’s not just about pay, it’s working conditions and retention of staff.” Gerry Murphy, the assistant general secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, told the Belfast rally that workers had overcome many obstacles and that one more remained. “That obstacle is Heaton-Harris and his refusal to accept reality and his continuing to pursue a failed political strategy. We will overcome that strategy too. This fight continues until we win – and we will win.” In a statement, Heaton-Harris said the government had offered a “fair and generous package” that would address public sector pay and that it remained available for an incoming Northern Ireland executive. Without naming the DUP he said it was “regrettable” that a recall of Stormont on Wednesday failed to reboot power sharing. “The people of Northern Ireland deserve local political leadership from representatives they have elected to govern on their behalf.” Other political parties have blamed both Heaton-Harris and the DUP leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, for the impasse. Michelle O’Neill, Sinn Féin’s deputy leader, told the BBC: “I can only hope that Jeffrey Donaldson is listening and hears the plight of the workers and, even at this late juncture, makes the right call and joins with the rest of us around that executive table and let us do our best to try and support these workers.” Explore more on these topics Northern Ireland Industrial action Trade unions Belfast Public sector careers news Share Reuse this content Thousands of public sector workers have staged pickets and marches across Northern Ireland in the biggest strike in living memory. The combined action by nurses, teachers, bus drivers, carers, cleaners, civil servants and other sectors brought parts of the region to a standstill on Thursday and raised the stakes in a political crisis that has paralysed devolved government. An estimated 150,000 workers joined the 24-hour strike action, which caused widespread disruption and coincided with icy conditions, prompting many businesses to shut for the day. Picketers joined groups of people who chanted and waved banners as they streamed into central Belfast , Derry, Enniskillen and Omagh in a show of force by 16 unions. “People are very angry. We’ve had enough,” said Paul Andrews, Unison’s branch chair for Belfast City hospital. “No one wants to be out here on a freezing day fighting for pay parity. But we are fed up having to beg for equality.” View image in fullscreen Striking workers march towards Belfast city hall. Photograph: Mark Marlow/EPA The strike by approximately 80% of the public sector led to schools closing, buses and trains being left idle, and hospitals operating skeleton services. Road service workers, including gritters, launched a week-long strike. The Department for Infrastructure urged people not to travel unless it was essential, saying there would be limited gritting on only a handful of roads including the M1, M2, A1 and A4. Some bus drivers privately expressed reservations at driving routes that lacked gritting, saying they would be held responsible for any accidents. The coordinated protests followed months of separate strikes by individual unions and underscored growing frustration over crumbling public services and political dysfunction. Deadlock at Stormont , which collapsed two years ago after the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) quit power-sharing, has resulted in public sector workers not receiving pay rises granted to colleagues in the rest of the UK. In December the government offered £600m for public sector pay claims as part of a £3.3bn financial package for Northern Ireland, but made it conditional on Stormont’s restoration, saying only a devolved government had the authority to disburse the pay rises. The DUP continued its boycott, leaving Stormont mothballed, but said the secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris, could and should disburse the money. It accused him of trying to blackmail the party into abandoning its protest at post-Brexit trading arrangements, which collapsed Stormont in February 2022. Striking workers directed their ire towards the secretary of state, not the DUP. “Heaton-Harris is using us as hostages to try to force through political change,” said Andrews, as Unison members prepared to march on Belfast city hall. “This is the outcome of treating people as pawns in a greater game.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Paul Andrews, Unison’s branch chair at Belfast City hospital, picketing on Thursday. Photograph: Rory Carroll/The Guardian Craig Gill, Unite’s lead representative at Belfast City hospital, echoed the accusation. “He wants to use us as a political battering ram. I think today will help him realise that public sector workers are not willing to be used.” Sonia Ferris, a nurse with the GMB union, said chronic underfunding of the health service had demoralised staff, who felt their sacrifices and commitment counted for little. “The government has forgotten what we did during Covid. For us, it’s not just about pay, it’s working conditions and retention of staff.” Gerry Murphy, the assistant general secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, told the Belfast rally that workers had overcome many obstacles and that one more remained. “That obstacle is Heaton-Harris and his refusal to accept reality and his continuing to pursue a failed political strategy. We will overcome that strategy too. This fight continues until we win – and we will win.” In a statement, Heaton-Harris said the government had offered a “fair and generous package” that would address public sector pay and that it remained available for an incoming Northern Ireland executive. Without naming the DUP he said it was “regrettable” that a recall of Stormont on Wednesday failed to reboot power sharing. “The people of Northern Ireland deserve local political leadership from representatives they have elected to govern on their behalf.” Other political parties have blamed both Heaton-Harris and the DUP leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, for the impasse. Michelle O’Neill, Sinn Féin’s deputy leader, told the BBC: “I can only hope that Jeffrey Donaldson is listening and hears the plight of the workers and, even at this late juncture, makes the right call and joins with the rest of us around that executive table and let us do our best to try and support these workers.” Explore more on these topics Northern Ireland Industrial action Trade unions Belfast Public sector careers news Share Reuse this content Thousands of public sector workers have staged pickets and marches across Northern Ireland in the biggest strike in living memory. The combined action by nurses, teachers, bus drivers, carers, cleaners, civil servants and other sectors brought parts of the region to a standstill on Thursday and raised the stakes in a political crisis that has paralysed devolved government. An estimated 150,000 workers joined the 24-hour strike action, which caused widespread disruption and coincided with icy conditions, prompting many businesses to shut for the day. Picketers joined groups of people who chanted and waved banners as they streamed into central Belfast , Derry, Enniskillen and Omagh in a show of force by 16 unions. “People are very angry. We’ve had enough,” said Paul Andrews, Unison’s branch chair for Belfast City hospital. “No one wants to be out here on a freezing day fighting for pay parity. But we are fed up having to beg for equality.” View image in fullscreen Striking workers march towards Belfast city hall. Photograph: Mark Marlow/EPA The strike by approximately 80% of the public sector led to schools closing, buses and trains being left idle, and hospitals operating skeleton services. Road service workers, including gritters, launched a week-long strike. The Department for Infrastructure urged people not to travel unless it was essential, saying there would be limited gritting on only a handful of roads including the M1, M2, A1 and A4. Some bus drivers privately expressed reservations at driving routes that lacked gritting, saying they would be held responsible for any accidents. The coordinated protests followed months of separate strikes by individual unions and underscored growing frustration over crumbling public services and political dysfunction. Deadlock at Stormont , which collapsed two years ago after the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) quit power-sharing, has resulted in public sector workers not receiving pay rises granted to colleagues in the rest of the UK. In December the government offered £600m for public sector pay claims as part of a £3.3bn financial package for Northern Ireland, but made it conditional on Stormont’s restoration, saying only a devolved government had the authority to disburse the pay rises. The DUP continued its boycott, leaving Stormont mothballed, but said the secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris, could and should disburse the money. It accused him of trying to blackmail the party into abandoning its protest at post-Brexit trading arrangements, which collapsed Stormont in February 2022. Striking workers directed their ire towards the secretary of state, not the DUP. “Heaton-Harris is using us as hostages to try to force through political change,” said Andrews, as Unison members prepared to march on Belfast city hall. “This is the outcome of treating people as pawns in a greater game.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Paul Andrews, Unison’s branch chair at Belfast City hospital, picketing on Thursday. Photograph: Rory Carroll/The Guardian Craig Gill, Unite’s lead representative at Belfast City hospital, echoed the accusation. “He wants to use us as a political battering ram. I think today will help him realise that public sector workers are not willing to be used.” Sonia Ferris, a nurse with the GMB union, said chronic underfunding of the health service had demoralised staff, who felt their sacrifices and commitment counted for little. “The government has forgotten what we did during Covid. For us, it’s not just about pay, it’s working conditions and retention of staff.” Gerry Murphy, the assistant general secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, told the Belfast rally that workers had overcome many obstacles and that one more remained. “That obstacle is Heaton-Harris and his refusal to accept reality and his continuing to pursue a failed political strategy. We will overcome that strategy too. This fight continues until we win – and we will win.” In a statement, Heaton-Harris said the government had offered a “fair and generous package” that would address public sector pay and that it remained available for an incoming Northern Ireland executive. Without naming the DUP he said it was “regrettable” that a recall of Stormont on Wednesday failed to reboot power sharing. “The people of Northern Ireland deserve local political leadership from representatives they have elected to govern on their behalf.” Other political parties have blamed both Heaton-Harris and the DUP leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, for the impasse. Michelle O’Neill, Sinn Féin’s deputy leader, told the BBC: “I can only hope that Jeffrey Donaldson is listening and hears the plight of the workers and, even at this late juncture, makes the right call and joins with the rest of us around that executive table and let us do our best to try and support these workers.” Thousands of public sector workers have staged pickets and marches across Northern Ireland in the biggest strike in living memory. The combined action by nurses, teachers, bus drivers, carers, cleaners, civil servants and other sectors brought parts of the region to a standstill on Thursday and raised the stakes in a political crisis that has paralysed devolved government. An estimated 150,000 workers joined the 24-hour strike action, which caused widespread disruption and coincided with icy conditions, prompting many businesses to shut for the day. Picketers joined groups of people who chanted and waved banners as they streamed into central Belfast , Derry, Enniskillen and Omagh in a show of force by 16 unions. “People are very angry. We’ve had enough,” said Paul Andrews, Unison’s branch chair for Belfast City hospital. “No one wants to be out here on a freezing day fighting for pay parity. But we are fed up having to beg for equality.” View image in fullscreen Striking workers march towards Belfast city hall. Photograph: Mark Marlow/EPA The strike by approximately 80% of the public sector led to schools closing, buses and trains being left idle, and hospitals operating skeleton services. Road service workers, including gritters, launched a week-long strike. The Department for Infrastructure urged people not to travel unless it was essential, saying there would be limited gritting on only a handful of roads including the M1, M2, A1 and A4. Some bus drivers privately expressed reservations at driving routes that lacked gritting, saying they would be held responsible for any accidents. The coordinated protests followed months of separate strikes by individual unions and underscored growing frustration over crumbling public services and political dysfunction. Deadlock at Stormont , which collapsed two years ago after the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) quit power-sharing, has resulted in public sector workers not receiving pay rises granted to colleagues in the rest of the UK. In December the government offered £600m for public sector pay claims as part of a £3.3bn financial package for Northern Ireland, but made it conditional on Stormont’s restoration, saying only a devolved government had the authority to disburse the pay rises. The DUP continued its boycott, leaving Stormont mothballed, but said the secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris, could and should disburse the money. It accused him of trying to blackmail the party into abandoning its protest at post-Brexit trading arrangements, which collapsed Stormont in February 2022. Striking workers directed their ire towards the secretary of state, not the DUP. “Heaton-Harris is using us as hostages to try to force through political change,” said Andrews, as Unison members prepared to march on Belfast city hall. “This is the outcome of treating people as pawns in a greater game.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Paul Andrews, Unison’s branch chair at Belfast City hospital, picketing on Thursday. Photograph: Rory Carroll/The Guardian Craig Gill, Unite’s lead representative at Belfast City hospital, echoed the accusation. “He wants to use us as a political battering ram. I think today will help him realise that public sector workers are not willing to be used.” Sonia Ferris, a nurse with the GMB union, said chronic underfunding of the health service had demoralised staff, who felt their sacrifices and commitment counted for little. “The government has forgotten what we did during Covid. For us, it’s not just about pay, it’s working conditions and retention of staff.” Gerry Murphy, the assistant general secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, told the Belfast rally that workers had overcome many obstacles and that one more remained. “That obstacle is Heaton-Harris and his refusal to accept reality and his continuing to pursue a failed political strategy. We will overcome that strategy too. This fight continues until we win – and we will win.” In a statement, Heaton-Harris said the government had offered a “fair and generous package” that would address public sector pay and that it remained available for an incoming Northern Ireland executive. Without naming the DUP he said it was “regrettable” that a recall of Stormont on Wednesday failed to reboot power sharing. “The people of Northern Ireland deserve local political leadership from representatives they have elected to govern on their behalf.” Other political parties have blamed both Heaton-Harris and the DUP leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, for the impasse. Michelle O’Neill, Sinn Féin’s deputy leader, told the BBC: “I can only hope that Jeffrey Donaldson is listening and hears the plight of the workers and, even at this late juncture, makes the right call and joins with the rest of us around that executive table and let us do our best to try and support these workers.” Thousands of public sector workers have staged pickets and marches across Northern Ireland in the biggest strike in living memory. The combined action by nurses, teachers, bus drivers, carers, cleaners, civil servants and other sectors brought parts of the region to a standstill on Thursday and raised the stakes in a political crisis that has paralysed devolved government. An estimated 150,000 workers joined the 24-hour strike action, which caused widespread disruption and coincided with icy conditions, prompting many businesses to shut for the day. Picketers joined groups of people who chanted and waved banners as they streamed into central Belfast , Derry, Enniskillen and Omagh in a show of force by 16 unions. “People are very angry. We’ve had enough,” said Paul Andrews, Unison’s branch chair for Belfast City hospital. “No one wants to be out here on a freezing day fighting for pay parity. But we are fed up having to beg for equality.” The strike by approximately 80% of the public sector led to schools closing, buses and trains being left idle, and hospitals operating skeleton services. Road service workers, including gritters, launched a week-long strike. The Department for Infrastructure urged people not to travel unless it was essential, saying there would be limited gritting on only a handful of roads including the M1, M2, A1 and A4. Some bus drivers privately expressed reservations at driving routes that lacked gritting, saying they would be held responsible for any accidents. The coordinated protests followed months of separate strikes by individual unions and underscored growing frustration over crumbling public services and political dysfunction. Deadlock at Stormont , which collapsed two years ago after the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) quit power-sharing, has resulted in public sector workers not receiving pay rises granted to colleagues in the rest of the UK. In December the government offered £600m for public sector pay claims as part of a £3.3bn financial package for Northern Ireland, but made it conditional on Stormont’s restoration, saying only a devolved government had the authority to disburse the pay rises. The DUP continued its boycott, leaving Stormont mothballed, but said the secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris, could and should disburse the money. It accused him of trying to blackmail the party into abandoning its protest at post-Brexit trading arrangements, which collapsed Stormont in February 2022. Striking workers directed their ire towards the secretary of state, not the DUP. “Heaton-Harris is using us as hostages to try to force through political change,” said Andrews, as Unison members prepared to march on Belfast city hall. “This is the outcome of treating people as pawns in a greater game.” Craig Gill, Unite’s lead representative at Belfast City hospital, echoed the accusation. “He wants to use us as a political battering ram. I think today will help him realise that public sector workers are not willing to be used.” Sonia Ferris, a nurse with the GMB union, said chronic underfunding of the health service had demoralised staff, who felt their sacrifices and commitment counted for little. “The government has forgotten what we did during Covid. For us, it’s not just about pay, it’s working conditions and retention of staff.” Gerry Murphy, the assistant general secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, told the Belfast rally that workers had overcome many obstacles and that one more remained. “That obstacle is Heaton-Harris and his refusal to accept reality and his continuing to pursue a failed political strategy. We will overcome that strategy too. This fight continues until we win – and we will win.” In a statement, Heaton-Harris said the government had offered a “fair and generous package” that would address public sector pay and that it remained available for an incoming Northern Ireland executive. Without naming the DUP he said it was “regrettable” that a recall of Stormont on Wednesday failed to reboot power sharing. “The people of Northern Ireland deserve local political leadership from representatives they have elected to govern on their behalf.” Other political parties have blamed both Heaton-Harris and the DUP leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, for the impasse. Michelle O’Neill, Sinn Féin’s deputy leader, told the BBC: “I can only hope that Jeffrey Donaldson is listening and hears the plight of the workers and, even at this late juncture, makes the right call and joins with the rest of us around that executive table and let us do our best to try and support these workers.” Explore more on these topics Northern Ireland Industrial action Trade unions Belfast Public sector careers news Share Reuse this content Northern Ireland Industrial action Trade unions Belfast Public sector careers news
|
East London school in Palestinian flag row could close after threats and abuse
Children at Barclay primary school. The academy trust has sought help from the Metropolitan police. Photograph: Felix Clay View image in fullscreen Children at Barclay primary school. The academy trust has sought help from the Metropolitan police. Photograph: Felix Clay This article is more than 1 year old East London school in Palestinian flag row could close after threats and abuse This article is more than 1 year old Barclay primary in Leyton may switch to online learning after facing protests over ban on political symbols An east London school has warned parents it may switch to online learning for its pupils because of threats to the school and abuse of staff since its decision to ban political symbols, including the Palestinian flag. Barclay primary school in Leyton, Waltham Forest, said it had sought help from the Metropolitan police to investigate harassment of staff, and also hired private security, installed CCTV cameras and restricted public access to the school. The Lion academy trust, which operates the school of more than 1,200 pupils, said it had received “a serious threat” during the Christmas period, as well as racial slurs and threats of arson, forcing it to take extra security measures, including a police presence. “If this situation does not revert to a normal mode of operation or should the trust believe that despite these measures, the safety of children or staff cannot be assured, then we will – with limited notice – close the school and revert to online learning for as long as we believe it is necessary,” the trust said in a letter to parents published on Friday. Charities report rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia at schools in England Read more “This is the option of last resort – but please be aware that should staff continue to be threatened, then we will have no option but to close the school. “Additionally, if any parent or individual is proven to be involved in instigating this campaign against the school, via their actions online or in person, we will act to ban those individuals from attending the site.” Last term the school told parents that children were not to bring clothing or badges displaying “political allegiance”, including on non-uniform days. One parent said her child was told to remove a replica Morocco football shirt, while others said they had received letters from the school warning they could be referred to the government’s Prevent counter-terrorism programme. A protest was held outside the school on the last scheduled day of term before Christmas, with the school opting to close a day early. The protest centred on a pupil who has been off school since late November after refusing to remove a small Palestinian flag patch from his jacket. The pupil’s mother is said to be from Gaza, and his father told the BBC that members of her family had died during the conflict with Israel. The school’s executive headteacher told parents in a letter that issues involving pupils were confidential, but that it was “disheartening to see how readily unproven allegations” were being accepted as fact. “No child has been suspended or excluded by the school through issues arising with the uniform policy, and to suggest otherwise is untrue,” the letter said. The letter added: “Staff have been subject to a severe degree of misconduct and harassment which now forms the basis of a series of criminal investigations that are now taking place.” Before the protest, a video shared on social media showed a Palestinian flag being hung outside the school. That video, and those of the protest, attracted attention from far-right activists and provoked further threats to the school. The Lion trust appealed to parents to be kind to staff and to “appropriately” challenge misinformation being spread in person or online. Explore more on these topics Primary schools Schools London Israel-Gaza war Teaching news Share Reuse this content Children at Barclay primary school. The academy trust has sought help from the Metropolitan police. Photograph: Felix Clay View image in fullscreen Children at Barclay primary school. The academy trust has sought help from the Metropolitan police. Photograph: Felix Clay This article is more than 1 year old East London school in Palestinian flag row could close after threats and abuse This article is more than 1 year old Barclay primary in Leyton may switch to online learning after facing protests over ban on political symbols An east London school has warned parents it may switch to online learning for its pupils because of threats to the school and abuse of staff since its decision to ban political symbols, including the Palestinian flag. Barclay primary school in Leyton, Waltham Forest, said it had sought help from the Metropolitan police to investigate harassment of staff, and also hired private security, installed CCTV cameras and restricted public access to the school. The Lion academy trust, which operates the school of more than 1,200 pupils, said it had received “a serious threat” during the Christmas period, as well as racial slurs and threats of arson, forcing it to take extra security measures, including a police presence. “If this situation does not revert to a normal mode of operation or should the trust believe that despite these measures, the safety of children or staff cannot be assured, then we will – with limited notice – close the school and revert to online learning for as long as we believe it is necessary,” the trust said in a letter to parents published on Friday. Charities report rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia at schools in England Read more “This is the option of last resort – but please be aware that should staff continue to be threatened, then we will have no option but to close the school. “Additionally, if any parent or individual is proven to be involved in instigating this campaign against the school, via their actions online or in person, we will act to ban those individuals from attending the site.” Last term the school told parents that children were not to bring clothing or badges displaying “political allegiance”, including on non-uniform days. One parent said her child was told to remove a replica Morocco football shirt, while others said they had received letters from the school warning they could be referred to the government’s Prevent counter-terrorism programme. A protest was held outside the school on the last scheduled day of term before Christmas, with the school opting to close a day early. The protest centred on a pupil who has been off school since late November after refusing to remove a small Palestinian flag patch from his jacket. The pupil’s mother is said to be from Gaza, and his father told the BBC that members of her family had died during the conflict with Israel. The school’s executive headteacher told parents in a letter that issues involving pupils were confidential, but that it was “disheartening to see how readily unproven allegations” were being accepted as fact. “No child has been suspended or excluded by the school through issues arising with the uniform policy, and to suggest otherwise is untrue,” the letter said. The letter added: “Staff have been subject to a severe degree of misconduct and harassment which now forms the basis of a series of criminal investigations that are now taking place.” Before the protest, a video shared on social media showed a Palestinian flag being hung outside the school. That video, and those of the protest, attracted attention from far-right activists and provoked further threats to the school. The Lion trust appealed to parents to be kind to staff and to “appropriately” challenge misinformation being spread in person or online. Explore more on these topics Primary schools Schools London Israel-Gaza war Teaching news Share Reuse this content Children at Barclay primary school. The academy trust has sought help from the Metropolitan police. Photograph: Felix Clay View image in fullscreen Children at Barclay primary school. The academy trust has sought help from the Metropolitan police. Photograph: Felix Clay Children at Barclay primary school. The academy trust has sought help from the Metropolitan police. Photograph: Felix Clay View image in fullscreen Children at Barclay primary school. The academy trust has sought help from the Metropolitan police. Photograph: Felix Clay Children at Barclay primary school. The academy trust has sought help from the Metropolitan police. Photograph: Felix Clay View image in fullscreen Children at Barclay primary school. The academy trust has sought help from the Metropolitan police. Photograph: Felix Clay Children at Barclay primary school. The academy trust has sought help from the Metropolitan police. Photograph: Felix Clay View image in fullscreen Children at Barclay primary school. The academy trust has sought help from the Metropolitan police. Photograph: Felix Clay Children at Barclay primary school. The academy trust has sought help from the Metropolitan police. Photograph: Felix Clay Children at Barclay primary school. The academy trust has sought help from the Metropolitan police. Photograph: Felix Clay This article is more than 1 year old East London school in Palestinian flag row could close after threats and abuse This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old East London school in Palestinian flag row could close after threats and abuse This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old East London school in Palestinian flag row could close after threats and abuse 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 Barclay primary in Leyton may switch to online learning after facing protests over ban on political symbols Barclay primary in Leyton may switch to online learning after facing protests over ban on political symbols Barclay primary in Leyton may switch to online learning after facing protests over ban on political symbols An east London school has warned parents it may switch to online learning for its pupils because of threats to the school and abuse of staff since its decision to ban political symbols, including the Palestinian flag. Barclay primary school in Leyton, Waltham Forest, said it had sought help from the Metropolitan police to investigate harassment of staff, and also hired private security, installed CCTV cameras and restricted public access to the school. The Lion academy trust, which operates the school of more than 1,200 pupils, said it had received “a serious threat” during the Christmas period, as well as racial slurs and threats of arson, forcing it to take extra security measures, including a police presence. “If this situation does not revert to a normal mode of operation or should the trust believe that despite these measures, the safety of children or staff cannot be assured, then we will – with limited notice – close the school and revert to online learning for as long as we believe it is necessary,” the trust said in a letter to parents published on Friday. Charities report rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia at schools in England Read more “This is the option of last resort – but please be aware that should staff continue to be threatened, then we will have no option but to close the school. “Additionally, if any parent or individual is proven to be involved in instigating this campaign against the school, via their actions online or in person, we will act to ban those individuals from attending the site.” Last term the school told parents that children were not to bring clothing or badges displaying “political allegiance”, including on non-uniform days. One parent said her child was told to remove a replica Morocco football shirt, while others said they had received letters from the school warning they could be referred to the government’s Prevent counter-terrorism programme. A protest was held outside the school on the last scheduled day of term before Christmas, with the school opting to close a day early. The protest centred on a pupil who has been off school since late November after refusing to remove a small Palestinian flag patch from his jacket. The pupil’s mother is said to be from Gaza, and his father told the BBC that members of her family had died during the conflict with Israel. The school’s executive headteacher told parents in a letter that issues involving pupils were confidential, but that it was “disheartening to see how readily unproven allegations” were being accepted as fact. “No child has been suspended or excluded by the school through issues arising with the uniform policy, and to suggest otherwise is untrue,” the letter said. The letter added: “Staff have been subject to a severe degree of misconduct and harassment which now forms the basis of a series of criminal investigations that are now taking place.” Before the protest, a video shared on social media showed a Palestinian flag being hung outside the school. That video, and those of the protest, attracted attention from far-right activists and provoked further threats to the school. The Lion trust appealed to parents to be kind to staff and to “appropriately” challenge misinformation being spread in person or online. Explore more on these topics Primary schools Schools London Israel-Gaza war Teaching news Share Reuse this content An east London school has warned parents it may switch to online learning for its pupils because of threats to the school and abuse of staff since its decision to ban political symbols, including the Palestinian flag. Barclay primary school in Leyton, Waltham Forest, said it had sought help from the Metropolitan police to investigate harassment of staff, and also hired private security, installed CCTV cameras and restricted public access to the school. The Lion academy trust, which operates the school of more than 1,200 pupils, said it had received “a serious threat” during the Christmas period, as well as racial slurs and threats of arson, forcing it to take extra security measures, including a police presence. “If this situation does not revert to a normal mode of operation or should the trust believe that despite these measures, the safety of children or staff cannot be assured, then we will – with limited notice – close the school and revert to online learning for as long as we believe it is necessary,” the trust said in a letter to parents published on Friday. Charities report rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia at schools in England Read more “This is the option of last resort – but please be aware that should staff continue to be threatened, then we will have no option but to close the school. “Additionally, if any parent or individual is proven to be involved in instigating this campaign against the school, via their actions online or in person, we will act to ban those individuals from attending the site.” Last term the school told parents that children were not to bring clothing or badges displaying “political allegiance”, including on non-uniform days. One parent said her child was told to remove a replica Morocco football shirt, while others said they had received letters from the school warning they could be referred to the government’s Prevent counter-terrorism programme. A protest was held outside the school on the last scheduled day of term before Christmas, with the school opting to close a day early. The protest centred on a pupil who has been off school since late November after refusing to remove a small Palestinian flag patch from his jacket. The pupil’s mother is said to be from Gaza, and his father told the BBC that members of her family had died during the conflict with Israel. The school’s executive headteacher told parents in a letter that issues involving pupils were confidential, but that it was “disheartening to see how readily unproven allegations” were being accepted as fact. “No child has been suspended or excluded by the school through issues arising with the uniform policy, and to suggest otherwise is untrue,” the letter said. The letter added: “Staff have been subject to a severe degree of misconduct and harassment which now forms the basis of a series of criminal investigations that are now taking place.” Before the protest, a video shared on social media showed a Palestinian flag being hung outside the school. That video, and those of the protest, attracted attention from far-right activists and provoked further threats to the school. The Lion trust appealed to parents to be kind to staff and to “appropriately” challenge misinformation being spread in person or online. Explore more on these topics Primary schools Schools London Israel-Gaza war Teaching news Share Reuse this content An east London school has warned parents it may switch to online learning for its pupils because of threats to the school and abuse of staff since its decision to ban political symbols, including the Palestinian flag. Barclay primary school in Leyton, Waltham Forest, said it had sought help from the Metropolitan police to investigate harassment of staff, and also hired private security, installed CCTV cameras and restricted public access to the school. The Lion academy trust, which operates the school of more than 1,200 pupils, said it had received “a serious threat” during the Christmas period, as well as racial slurs and threats of arson, forcing it to take extra security measures, including a police presence. “If this situation does not revert to a normal mode of operation or should the trust believe that despite these measures, the safety of children or staff cannot be assured, then we will – with limited notice – close the school and revert to online learning for as long as we believe it is necessary,” the trust said in a letter to parents published on Friday. Charities report rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia at schools in England Read more “This is the option of last resort – but please be aware that should staff continue to be threatened, then we will have no option but to close the school. “Additionally, if any parent or individual is proven to be involved in instigating this campaign against the school, via their actions online or in person, we will act to ban those individuals from attending the site.” Last term the school told parents that children were not to bring clothing or badges displaying “political allegiance”, including on non-uniform days. One parent said her child was told to remove a replica Morocco football shirt, while others said they had received letters from the school warning they could be referred to the government’s Prevent counter-terrorism programme. A protest was held outside the school on the last scheduled day of term before Christmas, with the school opting to close a day early. The protest centred on a pupil who has been off school since late November after refusing to remove a small Palestinian flag patch from his jacket. The pupil’s mother is said to be from Gaza, and his father told the BBC that members of her family had died during the conflict with Israel. The school’s executive headteacher told parents in a letter that issues involving pupils were confidential, but that it was “disheartening to see how readily unproven allegations” were being accepted as fact. “No child has been suspended or excluded by the school through issues arising with the uniform policy, and to suggest otherwise is untrue,” the letter said. The letter added: “Staff have been subject to a severe degree of misconduct and harassment which now forms the basis of a series of criminal investigations that are now taking place.” Before the protest, a video shared on social media showed a Palestinian flag being hung outside the school. That video, and those of the protest, attracted attention from far-right activists and provoked further threats to the school. The Lion trust appealed to parents to be kind to staff and to “appropriately” challenge misinformation being spread in person or online. An east London school has warned parents it may switch to online learning for its pupils because of threats to the school and abuse of staff since its decision to ban political symbols, including the Palestinian flag. Barclay primary school in Leyton, Waltham Forest, said it had sought help from the Metropolitan police to investigate harassment of staff, and also hired private security, installed CCTV cameras and restricted public access to the school. The Lion academy trust, which operates the school of more than 1,200 pupils, said it had received “a serious threat” during the Christmas period, as well as racial slurs and threats of arson, forcing it to take extra security measures, including a police presence. “If this situation does not revert to a normal mode of operation or should the trust believe that despite these measures, the safety of children or staff cannot be assured, then we will – with limited notice – close the school and revert to online learning for as long as we believe it is necessary,” the trust said in a letter to parents published on Friday. Charities report rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia at schools in England Read more “This is the option of last resort – but please be aware that should staff continue to be threatened, then we will have no option but to close the school. “Additionally, if any parent or individual is proven to be involved in instigating this campaign against the school, via their actions online or in person, we will act to ban those individuals from attending the site.” Last term the school told parents that children were not to bring clothing or badges displaying “political allegiance”, including on non-uniform days. One parent said her child was told to remove a replica Morocco football shirt, while others said they had received letters from the school warning they could be referred to the government’s Prevent counter-terrorism programme. A protest was held outside the school on the last scheduled day of term before Christmas, with the school opting to close a day early. The protest centred on a pupil who has been off school since late November after refusing to remove a small Palestinian flag patch from his jacket. The pupil’s mother is said to be from Gaza, and his father told the BBC that members of her family had died during the conflict with Israel. The school’s executive headteacher told parents in a letter that issues involving pupils were confidential, but that it was “disheartening to see how readily unproven allegations” were being accepted as fact. “No child has been suspended or excluded by the school through issues arising with the uniform policy, and to suggest otherwise is untrue,” the letter said. The letter added: “Staff have been subject to a severe degree of misconduct and harassment which now forms the basis of a series of criminal investigations that are now taking place.” Before the protest, a video shared on social media showed a Palestinian flag being hung outside the school. That video, and those of the protest, attracted attention from far-right activists and provoked further threats to the school. The Lion trust appealed to parents to be kind to staff and to “appropriately” challenge misinformation being spread in person or online. An east London school has warned parents it may switch to online learning for its pupils because of threats to the school and abuse of staff since its decision to ban political symbols, including the Palestinian flag. Barclay primary school in Leyton, Waltham Forest, said it had sought help from the Metropolitan police to investigate harassment of staff, and also hired private security, installed CCTV cameras and restricted public access to the school. The Lion academy trust, which operates the school of more than 1,200 pupils, said it had received “a serious threat” during the Christmas period, as well as racial slurs and threats of arson, forcing it to take extra security measures, including a police presence. “If this situation does not revert to a normal mode of operation or should the trust believe that despite these measures, the safety of children or staff cannot be assured, then we will – with limited notice – close the school and revert to online learning for as long as we believe it is necessary,” the trust said in a letter to parents published on Friday. Charities report rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia at schools in England Read more Charities report rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia at schools in England Read more Charities report rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia at schools in England Read more Charities report rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia at schools in England Charities report rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia at schools in England “This is the option of last resort – but please be aware that should staff continue to be threatened, then we will have no option but to close the school. “Additionally, if any parent or individual is proven to be involved in instigating this campaign against the school, via their actions online or in person, we will act to ban those individuals from attending the site.” Last term the school told parents that children were not to bring clothing or badges displaying “political allegiance”, including on non-uniform days. One parent said her child was told to remove a replica Morocco football shirt, while others said they had received letters from the school warning they could be referred to the government’s Prevent counter-terrorism programme. A protest was held outside the school on the last scheduled day of term before Christmas, with the school opting to close a day early. The protest centred on a pupil who has been off school since late November after refusing to remove a small Palestinian flag patch from his jacket. The pupil’s mother is said to be from Gaza, and his father told the BBC that members of her family had died during the conflict with Israel. The school’s executive headteacher told parents in a letter that issues involving pupils were confidential, but that it was “disheartening to see how readily unproven allegations” were being accepted as fact. “No child has been suspended or excluded by the school through issues arising with the uniform policy, and to suggest otherwise is untrue,” the letter said. The letter added: “Staff have been subject to a severe degree of misconduct and harassment which now forms the basis of a series of criminal investigations that are now taking place.” Before the protest, a video shared on social media showed a Palestinian flag being hung outside the school. That video, and those of the protest, attracted attention from far-right activists and provoked further threats to the school. The Lion trust appealed to parents to be kind to staff and to “appropriately” challenge misinformation being spread in person or online. Explore more on these topics Primary schools Schools London Israel-Gaza war Teaching news Share Reuse this content Primary schools Schools London Israel-Gaza war Teaching news
|
Israel-Gaza war behind surge in Islamist activity, says UK counter-terror head
Counter-terrorism officers in London Bridge the day after a terror attack in June 2017. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Counter-terrorism officers in London Bridge the day after a terror attack in June 2017. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Israel-Gaza war behind surge in Islamist activity, says UK counter-terror head This article is more than 1 year old Britain faces ‘dangerous climate’ as online propaganda and referrals to Prevent surge, says policing leader The conflict in the Middle East has led to a surge in Islamist activity, with online terrorist propaganda rocketing and new individuals feared to have been radicalised, the head of counter-terrorism policing has said. Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Matt Jukes, who is head of the UK Counter Terrorism Policing network, said the events had led to a “dangerous climate” with indications of a rising threat, after Hamas’s atrocity against Israel on 7 October last year led to a sustained Israeli assault on Gaza with heavy civilian casualties still continuing. British counter-terrorism officials are concerned that outrage at Israel’s actions and at alleged western inaction is feeding grievances that can be exploited by Islamist propaganda, pushing people to go and stage their own attacks or support those who want to. Jukes said: “That puts us at a point in communities, on the street and online which would lead us to describe what has happened in the Middle East as a radicalisation moment. “These are the moments when a mixture of outrage, grievance and a set of enduring factors have got the potential to influence those susceptible of being pushed towards terrorism.” He said that referrals to Prevent, the official scheme to stop people becoming terrorists, were up 13% between 7 October and 31 December last year compared with the same period in 2022. Jukes said the increase “is directly related to the conflict in the Middle East”. After the attacks, the amount of terrorist propaganda online – a key way to incite attacks and support violent extremism – surged to 15 times the level it was at beforehand, before settling at a level seven times greater. The British counter-terrorism chief said that 700 cases referred to terrorist cyber investigators had a British link and had potentially broken terrorism or other laws. Jukes said: “That is extraordinary and demonstrates the volume and intensity of online rhetoric around the ongoing conflict. “We always see spikes after terrorist incidents but what we have seen since 7 October is higher and more sustained than ever before. “This is a conflict and these are tensions playing out online in a way which, in our experience, is unprecedented.” The counter-terrorism internet referral unit has had to be reinforced. Jukes said: “We’ve had to put an unprecedented number of people into that work because we are looking for a needle in a haystack, and when the haystack gets 15 times bigger that poses a real challenge.” Jukes said there had been a 25% increase in information flowing through police systems about terrorism and violent extremism, with useful calls coming in from the public: “I would describe the speed and the scale of the impact of those global events as extraordinary.” He said there had been 33 terrorism arrests in the UK since 7 October, with 19 for alleged offences at protests and 13 for alleged terrorism offences online. So far, seven people have been charged and an investigation continues into a killing to examine whether there was an extremist motive. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The body that sets the UK terror threat level, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, has so far kept it at “substantial”. Jukes’s comments talked to fears that the likelihood of an attack has risen, with the most likely perpetrator being a lone actor carrying out an atrocity of low sophistication, such as a knife attack. Jukes said: “I have not seen the conditions collide in the way we have in the last months during my tenure.” But he added that the counter-terrorism command was skilled at foiling plots – 39 since 2017 – including making “goalline saves” where attacks were foiled at the last moment. The war crimes unit, consisting of 20 officers, has received 92 reports of alleged offences: 19 by Hamas and 73 by Israel. British detectives have assessed them and decided that one merits being sent to the international criminal court for further investigation. Jukes also said that espionage threats from foreign states – such as China, Russia and Iran – continue to grow, with organised criminals hired to stage attacks in some cases. “That challenge is greater now than it has been since the days of the cold war,” Jukes said. Explore more on these topics UK security and counter-terrorism Police Crime Prevent strategy Israel-Gaza war news Share Reuse this content Counter-terrorism officers in London Bridge the day after a terror attack in June 2017. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Counter-terrorism officers in London Bridge the day after a terror attack in June 2017. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Israel-Gaza war behind surge in Islamist activity, says UK counter-terror head This article is more than 1 year old Britain faces ‘dangerous climate’ as online propaganda and referrals to Prevent surge, says policing leader The conflict in the Middle East has led to a surge in Islamist activity, with online terrorist propaganda rocketing and new individuals feared to have been radicalised, the head of counter-terrorism policing has said. Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Matt Jukes, who is head of the UK Counter Terrorism Policing network, said the events had led to a “dangerous climate” with indications of a rising threat, after Hamas’s atrocity against Israel on 7 October last year led to a sustained Israeli assault on Gaza with heavy civilian casualties still continuing. British counter-terrorism officials are concerned that outrage at Israel’s actions and at alleged western inaction is feeding grievances that can be exploited by Islamist propaganda, pushing people to go and stage their own attacks or support those who want to. Jukes said: “That puts us at a point in communities, on the street and online which would lead us to describe what has happened in the Middle East as a radicalisation moment. “These are the moments when a mixture of outrage, grievance and a set of enduring factors have got the potential to influence those susceptible of being pushed towards terrorism.” He said that referrals to Prevent, the official scheme to stop people becoming terrorists, were up 13% between 7 October and 31 December last year compared with the same period in 2022. Jukes said the increase “is directly related to the conflict in the Middle East”. After the attacks, the amount of terrorist propaganda online – a key way to incite attacks and support violent extremism – surged to 15 times the level it was at beforehand, before settling at a level seven times greater. The British counter-terrorism chief said that 700 cases referred to terrorist cyber investigators had a British link and had potentially broken terrorism or other laws. Jukes said: “That is extraordinary and demonstrates the volume and intensity of online rhetoric around the ongoing conflict. “We always see spikes after terrorist incidents but what we have seen since 7 October is higher and more sustained than ever before. “This is a conflict and these are tensions playing out online in a way which, in our experience, is unprecedented.” The counter-terrorism internet referral unit has had to be reinforced. Jukes said: “We’ve had to put an unprecedented number of people into that work because we are looking for a needle in a haystack, and when the haystack gets 15 times bigger that poses a real challenge.” Jukes said there had been a 25% increase in information flowing through police systems about terrorism and violent extremism, with useful calls coming in from the public: “I would describe the speed and the scale of the impact of those global events as extraordinary.” He said there had been 33 terrorism arrests in the UK since 7 October, with 19 for alleged offences at protests and 13 for alleged terrorism offences online. So far, seven people have been charged and an investigation continues into a killing to examine whether there was an extremist motive. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The body that sets the UK terror threat level, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, has so far kept it at “substantial”. Jukes’s comments talked to fears that the likelihood of an attack has risen, with the most likely perpetrator being a lone actor carrying out an atrocity of low sophistication, such as a knife attack. Jukes said: “I have not seen the conditions collide in the way we have in the last months during my tenure.” But he added that the counter-terrorism command was skilled at foiling plots – 39 since 2017 – including making “goalline saves” where attacks were foiled at the last moment. The war crimes unit, consisting of 20 officers, has received 92 reports of alleged offences: 19 by Hamas and 73 by Israel. British detectives have assessed them and decided that one merits being sent to the international criminal court for further investigation. Jukes also said that espionage threats from foreign states – such as China, Russia and Iran – continue to grow, with organised criminals hired to stage attacks in some cases. “That challenge is greater now than it has been since the days of the cold war,” Jukes said. Explore more on these topics UK security and counter-terrorism Police Crime Prevent strategy Israel-Gaza war news Share Reuse this content Counter-terrorism officers in London Bridge the day after a terror attack in June 2017. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Counter-terrorism officers in London Bridge the day after a terror attack in June 2017. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Counter-terrorism officers in London Bridge the day after a terror attack in June 2017. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Counter-terrorism officers in London Bridge the day after a terror attack in June 2017. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Counter-terrorism officers in London Bridge the day after a terror attack in June 2017. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Counter-terrorism officers in London Bridge the day after a terror attack in June 2017. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Counter-terrorism officers in London Bridge the day after a terror attack in June 2017. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Counter-terrorism officers in London Bridge the day after a terror attack in June 2017. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Counter-terrorism officers in London Bridge the day after a terror attack in June 2017. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Counter-terrorism officers in London Bridge the day after a terror attack in June 2017. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Israel-Gaza war behind surge in Islamist activity, says UK counter-terror head This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Israel-Gaza war behind surge in Islamist activity, says UK counter-terror head This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Israel-Gaza war behind surge in Islamist activity, says UK counter-terror head 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 Britain faces ‘dangerous climate’ as online propaganda and referrals to Prevent surge, says policing leader Britain faces ‘dangerous climate’ as online propaganda and referrals to Prevent surge, says policing leader Britain faces ‘dangerous climate’ as online propaganda and referrals to Prevent surge, says policing leader The conflict in the Middle East has led to a surge in Islamist activity, with online terrorist propaganda rocketing and new individuals feared to have been radicalised, the head of counter-terrorism policing has said. Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Matt Jukes, who is head of the UK Counter Terrorism Policing network, said the events had led to a “dangerous climate” with indications of a rising threat, after Hamas’s atrocity against Israel on 7 October last year led to a sustained Israeli assault on Gaza with heavy civilian casualties still continuing. British counter-terrorism officials are concerned that outrage at Israel’s actions and at alleged western inaction is feeding grievances that can be exploited by Islamist propaganda, pushing people to go and stage their own attacks or support those who want to. Jukes said: “That puts us at a point in communities, on the street and online which would lead us to describe what has happened in the Middle East as a radicalisation moment. “These are the moments when a mixture of outrage, grievance and a set of enduring factors have got the potential to influence those susceptible of being pushed towards terrorism.” He said that referrals to Prevent, the official scheme to stop people becoming terrorists, were up 13% between 7 October and 31 December last year compared with the same period in 2022. Jukes said the increase “is directly related to the conflict in the Middle East”. After the attacks, the amount of terrorist propaganda online – a key way to incite attacks and support violent extremism – surged to 15 times the level it was at beforehand, before settling at a level seven times greater. The British counter-terrorism chief said that 700 cases referred to terrorist cyber investigators had a British link and had potentially broken terrorism or other laws. Jukes said: “That is extraordinary and demonstrates the volume and intensity of online rhetoric around the ongoing conflict. “We always see spikes after terrorist incidents but what we have seen since 7 October is higher and more sustained than ever before. “This is a conflict and these are tensions playing out online in a way which, in our experience, is unprecedented.” The counter-terrorism internet referral unit has had to be reinforced. Jukes said: “We’ve had to put an unprecedented number of people into that work because we are looking for a needle in a haystack, and when the haystack gets 15 times bigger that poses a real challenge.” Jukes said there had been a 25% increase in information flowing through police systems about terrorism and violent extremism, with useful calls coming in from the public: “I would describe the speed and the scale of the impact of those global events as extraordinary.” He said there had been 33 terrorism arrests in the UK since 7 October, with 19 for alleged offences at protests and 13 for alleged terrorism offences online. So far, seven people have been charged and an investigation continues into a killing to examine whether there was an extremist motive. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The body that sets the UK terror threat level, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, has so far kept it at “substantial”. Jukes’s comments talked to fears that the likelihood of an attack has risen, with the most likely perpetrator being a lone actor carrying out an atrocity of low sophistication, such as a knife attack. Jukes said: “I have not seen the conditions collide in the way we have in the last months during my tenure.” But he added that the counter-terrorism command was skilled at foiling plots – 39 since 2017 – including making “goalline saves” where attacks were foiled at the last moment. The war crimes unit, consisting of 20 officers, has received 92 reports of alleged offences: 19 by Hamas and 73 by Israel. British detectives have assessed them and decided that one merits being sent to the international criminal court for further investigation. Jukes also said that espionage threats from foreign states – such as China, Russia and Iran – continue to grow, with organised criminals hired to stage attacks in some cases. “That challenge is greater now than it has been since the days of the cold war,” Jukes said. Explore more on these topics UK security and counter-terrorism Police Crime Prevent strategy Israel-Gaza war news Share Reuse this content The conflict in the Middle East has led to a surge in Islamist activity, with online terrorist propaganda rocketing and new individuals feared to have been radicalised, the head of counter-terrorism policing has said. Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Matt Jukes, who is head of the UK Counter Terrorism Policing network, said the events had led to a “dangerous climate” with indications of a rising threat, after Hamas’s atrocity against Israel on 7 October last year led to a sustained Israeli assault on Gaza with heavy civilian casualties still continuing. British counter-terrorism officials are concerned that outrage at Israel’s actions and at alleged western inaction is feeding grievances that can be exploited by Islamist propaganda, pushing people to go and stage their own attacks or support those who want to. Jukes said: “That puts us at a point in communities, on the street and online which would lead us to describe what has happened in the Middle East as a radicalisation moment. “These are the moments when a mixture of outrage, grievance and a set of enduring factors have got the potential to influence those susceptible of being pushed towards terrorism.” He said that referrals to Prevent, the official scheme to stop people becoming terrorists, were up 13% between 7 October and 31 December last year compared with the same period in 2022. Jukes said the increase “is directly related to the conflict in the Middle East”. After the attacks, the amount of terrorist propaganda online – a key way to incite attacks and support violent extremism – surged to 15 times the level it was at beforehand, before settling at a level seven times greater. The British counter-terrorism chief said that 700 cases referred to terrorist cyber investigators had a British link and had potentially broken terrorism or other laws. Jukes said: “That is extraordinary and demonstrates the volume and intensity of online rhetoric around the ongoing conflict. “We always see spikes after terrorist incidents but what we have seen since 7 October is higher and more sustained than ever before. “This is a conflict and these are tensions playing out online in a way which, in our experience, is unprecedented.” The counter-terrorism internet referral unit has had to be reinforced. Jukes said: “We’ve had to put an unprecedented number of people into that work because we are looking for a needle in a haystack, and when the haystack gets 15 times bigger that poses a real challenge.” Jukes said there had been a 25% increase in information flowing through police systems about terrorism and violent extremism, with useful calls coming in from the public: “I would describe the speed and the scale of the impact of those global events as extraordinary.” He said there had been 33 terrorism arrests in the UK since 7 October, with 19 for alleged offences at protests and 13 for alleged terrorism offences online. So far, seven people have been charged and an investigation continues into a killing to examine whether there was an extremist motive. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The body that sets the UK terror threat level, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, has so far kept it at “substantial”. Jukes’s comments talked to fears that the likelihood of an attack has risen, with the most likely perpetrator being a lone actor carrying out an atrocity of low sophistication, such as a knife attack. Jukes said: “I have not seen the conditions collide in the way we have in the last months during my tenure.” But he added that the counter-terrorism command was skilled at foiling plots – 39 since 2017 – including making “goalline saves” where attacks were foiled at the last moment. The war crimes unit, consisting of 20 officers, has received 92 reports of alleged offences: 19 by Hamas and 73 by Israel. British detectives have assessed them and decided that one merits being sent to the international criminal court for further investigation. Jukes also said that espionage threats from foreign states – such as China, Russia and Iran – continue to grow, with organised criminals hired to stage attacks in some cases. “That challenge is greater now than it has been since the days of the cold war,” Jukes said. Explore more on these topics UK security and counter-terrorism Police Crime Prevent strategy Israel-Gaza war news Share Reuse this content The conflict in the Middle East has led to a surge in Islamist activity, with online terrorist propaganda rocketing and new individuals feared to have been radicalised, the head of counter-terrorism policing has said. Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Matt Jukes, who is head of the UK Counter Terrorism Policing network, said the events had led to a “dangerous climate” with indications of a rising threat, after Hamas’s atrocity against Israel on 7 October last year led to a sustained Israeli assault on Gaza with heavy civilian casualties still continuing. British counter-terrorism officials are concerned that outrage at Israel’s actions and at alleged western inaction is feeding grievances that can be exploited by Islamist propaganda, pushing people to go and stage their own attacks or support those who want to. Jukes said: “That puts us at a point in communities, on the street and online which would lead us to describe what has happened in the Middle East as a radicalisation moment. “These are the moments when a mixture of outrage, grievance and a set of enduring factors have got the potential to influence those susceptible of being pushed towards terrorism.” He said that referrals to Prevent, the official scheme to stop people becoming terrorists, were up 13% between 7 October and 31 December last year compared with the same period in 2022. Jukes said the increase “is directly related to the conflict in the Middle East”. After the attacks, the amount of terrorist propaganda online – a key way to incite attacks and support violent extremism – surged to 15 times the level it was at beforehand, before settling at a level seven times greater. The British counter-terrorism chief said that 700 cases referred to terrorist cyber investigators had a British link and had potentially broken terrorism or other laws. Jukes said: “That is extraordinary and demonstrates the volume and intensity of online rhetoric around the ongoing conflict. “We always see spikes after terrorist incidents but what we have seen since 7 October is higher and more sustained than ever before. “This is a conflict and these are tensions playing out online in a way which, in our experience, is unprecedented.” The counter-terrorism internet referral unit has had to be reinforced. Jukes said: “We’ve had to put an unprecedented number of people into that work because we are looking for a needle in a haystack, and when the haystack gets 15 times bigger that poses a real challenge.” Jukes said there had been a 25% increase in information flowing through police systems about terrorism and violent extremism, with useful calls coming in from the public: “I would describe the speed and the scale of the impact of those global events as extraordinary.” He said there had been 33 terrorism arrests in the UK since 7 October, with 19 for alleged offences at protests and 13 for alleged terrorism offences online. So far, seven people have been charged and an investigation continues into a killing to examine whether there was an extremist motive. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The body that sets the UK terror threat level, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, has so far kept it at “substantial”. Jukes’s comments talked to fears that the likelihood of an attack has risen, with the most likely perpetrator being a lone actor carrying out an atrocity of low sophistication, such as a knife attack. Jukes said: “I have not seen the conditions collide in the way we have in the last months during my tenure.” But he added that the counter-terrorism command was skilled at foiling plots – 39 since 2017 – including making “goalline saves” where attacks were foiled at the last moment. The war crimes unit, consisting of 20 officers, has received 92 reports of alleged offences: 19 by Hamas and 73 by Israel. British detectives have assessed them and decided that one merits being sent to the international criminal court for further investigation. Jukes also said that espionage threats from foreign states – such as China, Russia and Iran – continue to grow, with organised criminals hired to stage attacks in some cases. “That challenge is greater now than it has been since the days of the cold war,” Jukes said. The conflict in the Middle East has led to a surge in Islamist activity, with online terrorist propaganda rocketing and new individuals feared to have been radicalised, the head of counter-terrorism policing has said. Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Matt Jukes, who is head of the UK Counter Terrorism Policing network, said the events had led to a “dangerous climate” with indications of a rising threat, after Hamas’s atrocity against Israel on 7 October last year led to a sustained Israeli assault on Gaza with heavy civilian casualties still continuing. British counter-terrorism officials are concerned that outrage at Israel’s actions and at alleged western inaction is feeding grievances that can be exploited by Islamist propaganda, pushing people to go and stage their own attacks or support those who want to. Jukes said: “That puts us at a point in communities, on the street and online which would lead us to describe what has happened in the Middle East as a radicalisation moment. “These are the moments when a mixture of outrage, grievance and a set of enduring factors have got the potential to influence those susceptible of being pushed towards terrorism.” He said that referrals to Prevent, the official scheme to stop people becoming terrorists, were up 13% between 7 October and 31 December last year compared with the same period in 2022. Jukes said the increase “is directly related to the conflict in the Middle East”. After the attacks, the amount of terrorist propaganda online – a key way to incite attacks and support violent extremism – surged to 15 times the level it was at beforehand, before settling at a level seven times greater. The British counter-terrorism chief said that 700 cases referred to terrorist cyber investigators had a British link and had potentially broken terrorism or other laws. Jukes said: “That is extraordinary and demonstrates the volume and intensity of online rhetoric around the ongoing conflict. “We always see spikes after terrorist incidents but what we have seen since 7 October is higher and more sustained than ever before. “This is a conflict and these are tensions playing out online in a way which, in our experience, is unprecedented.” The counter-terrorism internet referral unit has had to be reinforced. Jukes said: “We’ve had to put an unprecedented number of people into that work because we are looking for a needle in a haystack, and when the haystack gets 15 times bigger that poses a real challenge.” Jukes said there had been a 25% increase in information flowing through police systems about terrorism and violent extremism, with useful calls coming in from the public: “I would describe the speed and the scale of the impact of those global events as extraordinary.” He said there had been 33 terrorism arrests in the UK since 7 October, with 19 for alleged offences at protests and 13 for alleged terrorism offences online. So far, seven people have been charged and an investigation continues into a killing to examine whether there was an extremist motive. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The body that sets the UK terror threat level, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, has so far kept it at “substantial”. Jukes’s comments talked to fears that the likelihood of an attack has risen, with the most likely perpetrator being a lone actor carrying out an atrocity of low sophistication, such as a knife attack. Jukes said: “I have not seen the conditions collide in the way we have in the last months during my tenure.” But he added that the counter-terrorism command was skilled at foiling plots – 39 since 2017 – including making “goalline saves” where attacks were foiled at the last moment. The war crimes unit, consisting of 20 officers, has received 92 reports of alleged offences: 19 by Hamas and 73 by Israel. British detectives have assessed them and decided that one merits being sent to the international criminal court for further investigation. Jukes also said that espionage threats from foreign states – such as China, Russia and Iran – continue to grow, with organised criminals hired to stage attacks in some cases. “That challenge is greater now than it has been since the days of the cold war,” Jukes said. The conflict in the Middle East has led to a surge in Islamist activity, with online terrorist propaganda rocketing and new individuals feared to have been radicalised, the head of counter-terrorism policing has said. Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Matt Jukes, who is head of the UK Counter Terrorism Policing network, said the events had led to a “dangerous climate” with indications of a rising threat, after Hamas’s atrocity against Israel on 7 October last year led to a sustained Israeli assault on Gaza with heavy civilian casualties still continuing. British counter-terrorism officials are concerned that outrage at Israel’s actions and at alleged western inaction is feeding grievances that can be exploited by Islamist propaganda, pushing people to go and stage their own attacks or support those who want to. Jukes said: “That puts us at a point in communities, on the street and online which would lead us to describe what has happened in the Middle East as a radicalisation moment. “These are the moments when a mixture of outrage, grievance and a set of enduring factors have got the potential to influence those susceptible of being pushed towards terrorism.” He said that referrals to Prevent, the official scheme to stop people becoming terrorists, were up 13% between 7 October and 31 December last year compared with the same period in 2022. Jukes said the increase “is directly related to the conflict in the Middle East”. After the attacks, the amount of terrorist propaganda online – a key way to incite attacks and support violent extremism – surged to 15 times the level it was at beforehand, before settling at a level seven times greater. The British counter-terrorism chief said that 700 cases referred to terrorist cyber investigators had a British link and had potentially broken terrorism or other laws. Jukes said: “That is extraordinary and demonstrates the volume and intensity of online rhetoric around the ongoing conflict. “We always see spikes after terrorist incidents but what we have seen since 7 October is higher and more sustained than ever before. “This is a conflict and these are tensions playing out online in a way which, in our experience, is unprecedented.” The counter-terrorism internet referral unit has had to be reinforced. Jukes said: “We’ve had to put an unprecedented number of people into that work because we are looking for a needle in a haystack, and when the haystack gets 15 times bigger that poses a real challenge.” Jukes said there had been a 25% increase in information flowing through police systems about terrorism and violent extremism, with useful calls coming in from the public: “I would describe the speed and the scale of the impact of those global events as extraordinary.” He said there had been 33 terrorism arrests in the UK since 7 October, with 19 for alleged offences at protests and 13 for alleged terrorism offences online. So far, seven people have been charged and an investigation continues into a killing to examine whether there was an extremist motive. The body that sets the UK terror threat level, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, has so far kept it at “substantial”. Jukes’s comments talked to fears that the likelihood of an attack has risen, with the most likely perpetrator being a lone actor carrying out an atrocity of low sophistication, such as a knife attack. Jukes said: “I have not seen the conditions collide in the way we have in the last months during my tenure.” But he added that the counter-terrorism command was skilled at foiling plots – 39 since 2017 – including making “goalline saves” where attacks were foiled at the last moment. The war crimes unit, consisting of 20 officers, has received 92 reports of alleged offences: 19 by Hamas and 73 by Israel. British detectives have assessed them and decided that one merits being sent to the international criminal court for further investigation. Jukes also said that espionage threats from foreign states – such as China, Russia and Iran – continue to grow, with organised criminals hired to stage attacks in some cases. “That challenge is greater now than it has been since the days of the cold war,” Jukes said. Explore more on these topics UK security and counter-terrorism Police Crime Prevent strategy Israel-Gaza war news Share Reuse this content UK security and counter-terrorism Police Crime Prevent strategy Israel-Gaza war news
|
Northern Ireland ‘dirty corner of Europe’ due to lack of governance, say experts
Algae choking Lough Neagh, the largest lake in the British Isles. Illustration: Guardian Design/Guardian Design/PA View image in fullscreen Algae choking Lough Neagh, the largest lake in the British Isles. Illustration: Guardian Design/Guardian Design/PA This article is more than 1 year old Northern Ireland ‘dirty corner of Europe’ due to lack of governance, say experts This article is more than 1 year old Campaigners say keeping higher EU standards post-Brexit will have little impact as existing rules are already being flouted Brexit divergence from EU destroying UK’s environmental protections UK ‘used to be a leader on climate’, lament European lawmakers Explainer: UK environmental protections dropped since Brexit Northern Ireland ’s environment is unlikely to benefit from higher EU standards because the country already flouts the existing rules, leaving it in a “grossly degraded” state, experts have said. The region may escape a post-Brexit erosion of UK environmental law but still suffer grave environmental damage because of governance failures, they warned. Northern Ireland has no functioning executive or environmental protection agency and the civil service has not published an environmental strategy or statement of principles. Under the Windsor framework the region remains subject to EU laws that in many cases are more stringent than those in England, Wales and Scotland. But Northern Ireland will struggle to exploit that opportunity, said Ciara Brennan, director of the advocacy group Environmental Justice Network Ireland . “It cannot be absorbed given the already grossly degraded state of the environment here. The crisis at Lough Neagh is symptomatic of how bad things are across the north.” A vast algal bloom is choking the largest lake in the British Isles and the source of 40% of Northern Ireland’s drinking water. It has been contaminated by slurry and other agricultural runoff as well as human sewage discharges. Campaigners say the plight of Lough Neagh and a huge illegal waste dump outside Derry reflect a lack of scrutiny, enforcement and accountability that have made Northern Ireland the “dirty corner of Europe”, with the department of agriculture, environment and rural affairs, or Daera, accused of favouring farming interests over the environment. The department did not respond to a request for comment. Poor governance subverted ambitious EU rules, said James Orr, director of Friends of the Earth in Northern Ireland. “The only way that environmental standards are maintained is if there are effective watchdogs and enforcement bodies. The difficulty is that those agencies don’t exist or have been defunded or deprioritised.” Great Britain’s divergence from EU rules might leave Northern Ireland with higher standards, but that was of limited value when the region was an environmental “basket case”, said Orr. “There is no effective rule of law when it comes to environmental standards.” Retaining EU rules was no reason to “dance in the aisles” given that Northern Ireland has ignored EU rules for decades, said Jim Wells, a former Stormont assembly member of the Democratic Unionist party (DUP). “We’re decades behind the rest of the UK and Europe ,” he said. Any divergence from rules in Great Britain had gone unnoticed because of the parlous state of the region’s waterways, bogs and other areas, said Wells. He accused nationalist and unionist parties of kowtowing to the Ulster Farmers Union. “The UFU only have to blink twice and various environmental protections are dropped,” he said. Viviane Gravey, a politics lecturer and expert on EU environmental policy at Queen’s University Belfast, said the collapse of the Stormont executive and assembly had left the civil service struggling to fill the vacuum. “There is all this potential for Northern Ireland to be more ambitious than Great Britain but for that you need to have civil servants capable of doing the work and an environmental agency that has teeth. The civil service is under so much stress and there are so many gaps. Deadlines are being missed.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The DUP collapsed power-sharing in January 2022 in protest over the post-Brexit trading arrangements, which the party said weakened Northern Ireland’s place in the UK and left it under EU sway. The party cites divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK as justification for a continued boycott that has left the secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris, overseeing a civil service that runs the region on a type of auto-pilot, unable or unwilling to take major decisions. Analysts say this has aggravated environmental neglect that dates back to the Troubles and which continued after the Good Friday agreement when the major parties backed the rapid expansion of industrial factory farms, especially of pigs and poultry, that now contribute to 9m cubic metres of slurry a year. Northern Ireland was in the “surreal” situation of not adopting an EU ban on single-use plastics, while England, Wales and Scotland, which were not bound by EU rules, enacted their own ban, said Gravey. However, Northern Ireland’s new Office for Environmental Protection – which can scrutinise but not enforce – was prodding the civil service into decisions and greater transparency, she said. “That’s where I see some hope.” The scale of divergence in standards between Northern Ireland and Great Britain remained unclear, said Brennan. “But you could say the divergence question is academic because if you don’t have the governance structures in place to implement environmental law then it doesn’t really matter what the law is.” Explore more on these topics Northern Ireland European Union Europe news Share Reuse this content Algae choking Lough Neagh, the largest lake in the British Isles. Illustration: Guardian Design/Guardian Design/PA View image in fullscreen Algae choking Lough Neagh, the largest lake in the British Isles. Illustration: Guardian Design/Guardian Design/PA This article is more than 1 year old Northern Ireland ‘dirty corner of Europe’ due to lack of governance, say experts This article is more than 1 year old Campaigners say keeping higher EU standards post-Brexit will have little impact as existing rules are already being flouted Brexit divergence from EU destroying UK’s environmental protections UK ‘used to be a leader on climate’, lament European lawmakers Explainer: UK environmental protections dropped since Brexit Northern Ireland ’s environment is unlikely to benefit from higher EU standards because the country already flouts the existing rules, leaving it in a “grossly degraded” state, experts have said. The region may escape a post-Brexit erosion of UK environmental law but still suffer grave environmental damage because of governance failures, they warned. Northern Ireland has no functioning executive or environmental protection agency and the civil service has not published an environmental strategy or statement of principles. Under the Windsor framework the region remains subject to EU laws that in many cases are more stringent than those in England, Wales and Scotland. But Northern Ireland will struggle to exploit that opportunity, said Ciara Brennan, director of the advocacy group Environmental Justice Network Ireland . “It cannot be absorbed given the already grossly degraded state of the environment here. The crisis at Lough Neagh is symptomatic of how bad things are across the north.” A vast algal bloom is choking the largest lake in the British Isles and the source of 40% of Northern Ireland’s drinking water. It has been contaminated by slurry and other agricultural runoff as well as human sewage discharges. Campaigners say the plight of Lough Neagh and a huge illegal waste dump outside Derry reflect a lack of scrutiny, enforcement and accountability that have made Northern Ireland the “dirty corner of Europe”, with the department of agriculture, environment and rural affairs, or Daera, accused of favouring farming interests over the environment. The department did not respond to a request for comment. Poor governance subverted ambitious EU rules, said James Orr, director of Friends of the Earth in Northern Ireland. “The only way that environmental standards are maintained is if there are effective watchdogs and enforcement bodies. The difficulty is that those agencies don’t exist or have been defunded or deprioritised.” Great Britain’s divergence from EU rules might leave Northern Ireland with higher standards, but that was of limited value when the region was an environmental “basket case”, said Orr. “There is no effective rule of law when it comes to environmental standards.” Retaining EU rules was no reason to “dance in the aisles” given that Northern Ireland has ignored EU rules for decades, said Jim Wells, a former Stormont assembly member of the Democratic Unionist party (DUP). “We’re decades behind the rest of the UK and Europe ,” he said. Any divergence from rules in Great Britain had gone unnoticed because of the parlous state of the region’s waterways, bogs and other areas, said Wells. He accused nationalist and unionist parties of kowtowing to the Ulster Farmers Union. “The UFU only have to blink twice and various environmental protections are dropped,” he said. Viviane Gravey, a politics lecturer and expert on EU environmental policy at Queen’s University Belfast, said the collapse of the Stormont executive and assembly had left the civil service struggling to fill the vacuum. “There is all this potential for Northern Ireland to be more ambitious than Great Britain but for that you need to have civil servants capable of doing the work and an environmental agency that has teeth. The civil service is under so much stress and there are so many gaps. Deadlines are being missed.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The DUP collapsed power-sharing in January 2022 in protest over the post-Brexit trading arrangements, which the party said weakened Northern Ireland’s place in the UK and left it under EU sway. The party cites divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK as justification for a continued boycott that has left the secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris, overseeing a civil service that runs the region on a type of auto-pilot, unable or unwilling to take major decisions. Analysts say this has aggravated environmental neglect that dates back to the Troubles and which continued after the Good Friday agreement when the major parties backed the rapid expansion of industrial factory farms, especially of pigs and poultry, that now contribute to 9m cubic metres of slurry a year. Northern Ireland was in the “surreal” situation of not adopting an EU ban on single-use plastics, while England, Wales and Scotland, which were not bound by EU rules, enacted their own ban, said Gravey. However, Northern Ireland’s new Office for Environmental Protection – which can scrutinise but not enforce – was prodding the civil service into decisions and greater transparency, she said. “That’s where I see some hope.” The scale of divergence in standards between Northern Ireland and Great Britain remained unclear, said Brennan. “But you could say the divergence question is academic because if you don’t have the governance structures in place to implement environmental law then it doesn’t really matter what the law is.” Explore more on these topics Northern Ireland European Union Europe news Share Reuse this content Algae choking Lough Neagh, the largest lake in the British Isles. Illustration: Guardian Design/Guardian Design/PA View image in fullscreen Algae choking Lough Neagh, the largest lake in the British Isles. Illustration: Guardian Design/Guardian Design/PA Algae choking Lough Neagh, the largest lake in the British Isles. Illustration: Guardian Design/Guardian Design/PA View image in fullscreen Algae choking Lough Neagh, the largest lake in the British Isles. Illustration: Guardian Design/Guardian Design/PA Algae choking Lough Neagh, the largest lake in the British Isles. Illustration: Guardian Design/Guardian Design/PA View image in fullscreen Algae choking Lough Neagh, the largest lake in the British Isles. Illustration: Guardian Design/Guardian Design/PA Algae choking Lough Neagh, the largest lake in the British Isles. Illustration: Guardian Design/Guardian Design/PA View image in fullscreen Algae choking Lough Neagh, the largest lake in the British Isles. Illustration: Guardian Design/Guardian Design/PA Algae choking Lough Neagh, the largest lake in the British Isles. Illustration: Guardian Design/Guardian Design/PA Algae choking Lough Neagh, the largest lake in the British Isles. Illustration: Guardian Design/Guardian Design/PA This article is more than 1 year old Northern Ireland ‘dirty corner of Europe’ due to lack of governance, say experts This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Northern Ireland ‘dirty corner of Europe’ due to lack of governance, say experts This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Northern Ireland ‘dirty corner of Europe’ due to lack of governance, say experts 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 say keeping higher EU standards post-Brexit will have little impact as existing rules are already being flouted Brexit divergence from EU destroying UK’s environmental protections UK ‘used to be a leader on climate’, lament European lawmakers Explainer: UK environmental protections dropped since Brexit Campaigners say keeping higher EU standards post-Brexit will have little impact as existing rules are already being flouted Brexit divergence from EU destroying UK’s environmental protections UK ‘used to be a leader on climate’, lament European lawmakers Explainer: UK environmental protections dropped since Brexit Campaigners say keeping higher EU standards post-Brexit will have little impact as existing rules are already being flouted Northern Ireland ’s environment is unlikely to benefit from higher EU standards because the country already flouts the existing rules, leaving it in a “grossly degraded” state, experts have said. The region may escape a post-Brexit erosion of UK environmental law but still suffer grave environmental damage because of governance failures, they warned. Northern Ireland has no functioning executive or environmental protection agency and the civil service has not published an environmental strategy or statement of principles. Under the Windsor framework the region remains subject to EU laws that in many cases are more stringent than those in England, Wales and Scotland. But Northern Ireland will struggle to exploit that opportunity, said Ciara Brennan, director of the advocacy group Environmental Justice Network Ireland . “It cannot be absorbed given the already grossly degraded state of the environment here. The crisis at Lough Neagh is symptomatic of how bad things are across the north.” A vast algal bloom is choking the largest lake in the British Isles and the source of 40% of Northern Ireland’s drinking water. It has been contaminated by slurry and other agricultural runoff as well as human sewage discharges. Campaigners say the plight of Lough Neagh and a huge illegal waste dump outside Derry reflect a lack of scrutiny, enforcement and accountability that have made Northern Ireland the “dirty corner of Europe”, with the department of agriculture, environment and rural affairs, or Daera, accused of favouring farming interests over the environment. The department did not respond to a request for comment. Poor governance subverted ambitious EU rules, said James Orr, director of Friends of the Earth in Northern Ireland. “The only way that environmental standards are maintained is if there are effective watchdogs and enforcement bodies. The difficulty is that those agencies don’t exist or have been defunded or deprioritised.” Great Britain’s divergence from EU rules might leave Northern Ireland with higher standards, but that was of limited value when the region was an environmental “basket case”, said Orr. “There is no effective rule of law when it comes to environmental standards.” Retaining EU rules was no reason to “dance in the aisles” given that Northern Ireland has ignored EU rules for decades, said Jim Wells, a former Stormont assembly member of the Democratic Unionist party (DUP). “We’re decades behind the rest of the UK and Europe ,” he said. Any divergence from rules in Great Britain had gone unnoticed because of the parlous state of the region’s waterways, bogs and other areas, said Wells. He accused nationalist and unionist parties of kowtowing to the Ulster Farmers Union. “The UFU only have to blink twice and various environmental protections are dropped,” he said. Viviane Gravey, a politics lecturer and expert on EU environmental policy at Queen’s University Belfast, said the collapse of the Stormont executive and assembly had left the civil service struggling to fill the vacuum. “There is all this potential for Northern Ireland to be more ambitious than Great Britain but for that you need to have civil servants capable of doing the work and an environmental agency that has teeth. The civil service is under so much stress and there are so many gaps. Deadlines are being missed.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The DUP collapsed power-sharing in January 2022 in protest over the post-Brexit trading arrangements, which the party said weakened Northern Ireland’s place in the UK and left it under EU sway. The party cites divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK as justification for a continued boycott that has left the secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris, overseeing a civil service that runs the region on a type of auto-pilot, unable or unwilling to take major decisions. Analysts say this has aggravated environmental neglect that dates back to the Troubles and which continued after the Good Friday agreement when the major parties backed the rapid expansion of industrial factory farms, especially of pigs and poultry, that now contribute to 9m cubic metres of slurry a year. Northern Ireland was in the “surreal” situation of not adopting an EU ban on single-use plastics, while England, Wales and Scotland, which were not bound by EU rules, enacted their own ban, said Gravey. However, Northern Ireland’s new Office for Environmental Protection – which can scrutinise but not enforce – was prodding the civil service into decisions and greater transparency, she said. “That’s where I see some hope.” The scale of divergence in standards between Northern Ireland and Great Britain remained unclear, said Brennan. “But you could say the divergence question is academic because if you don’t have the governance structures in place to implement environmental law then it doesn’t really matter what the law is.” Explore more on these topics Northern Ireland European Union Europe news Share Reuse this content Northern Ireland ’s environment is unlikely to benefit from higher EU standards because the country already flouts the existing rules, leaving it in a “grossly degraded” state, experts have said. The region may escape a post-Brexit erosion of UK environmental law but still suffer grave environmental damage because of governance failures, they warned. Northern Ireland has no functioning executive or environmental protection agency and the civil service has not published an environmental strategy or statement of principles. Under the Windsor framework the region remains subject to EU laws that in many cases are more stringent than those in England, Wales and Scotland. But Northern Ireland will struggle to exploit that opportunity, said Ciara Brennan, director of the advocacy group Environmental Justice Network Ireland . “It cannot be absorbed given the already grossly degraded state of the environment here. The crisis at Lough Neagh is symptomatic of how bad things are across the north.” A vast algal bloom is choking the largest lake in the British Isles and the source of 40% of Northern Ireland’s drinking water. It has been contaminated by slurry and other agricultural runoff as well as human sewage discharges. Campaigners say the plight of Lough Neagh and a huge illegal waste dump outside Derry reflect a lack of scrutiny, enforcement and accountability that have made Northern Ireland the “dirty corner of Europe”, with the department of agriculture, environment and rural affairs, or Daera, accused of favouring farming interests over the environment. The department did not respond to a request for comment. Poor governance subverted ambitious EU rules, said James Orr, director of Friends of the Earth in Northern Ireland. “The only way that environmental standards are maintained is if there are effective watchdogs and enforcement bodies. The difficulty is that those agencies don’t exist or have been defunded or deprioritised.” Great Britain’s divergence from EU rules might leave Northern Ireland with higher standards, but that was of limited value when the region was an environmental “basket case”, said Orr. “There is no effective rule of law when it comes to environmental standards.” Retaining EU rules was no reason to “dance in the aisles” given that Northern Ireland has ignored EU rules for decades, said Jim Wells, a former Stormont assembly member of the Democratic Unionist party (DUP). “We’re decades behind the rest of the UK and Europe ,” he said. Any divergence from rules in Great Britain had gone unnoticed because of the parlous state of the region’s waterways, bogs and other areas, said Wells. He accused nationalist and unionist parties of kowtowing to the Ulster Farmers Union. “The UFU only have to blink twice and various environmental protections are dropped,” he said. Viviane Gravey, a politics lecturer and expert on EU environmental policy at Queen’s University Belfast, said the collapse of the Stormont executive and assembly had left the civil service struggling to fill the vacuum. “There is all this potential for Northern Ireland to be more ambitious than Great Britain but for that you need to have civil servants capable of doing the work and an environmental agency that has teeth. The civil service is under so much stress and there are so many gaps. Deadlines are being missed.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The DUP collapsed power-sharing in January 2022 in protest over the post-Brexit trading arrangements, which the party said weakened Northern Ireland’s place in the UK and left it under EU sway. The party cites divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK as justification for a continued boycott that has left the secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris, overseeing a civil service that runs the region on a type of auto-pilot, unable or unwilling to take major decisions. Analysts say this has aggravated environmental neglect that dates back to the Troubles and which continued after the Good Friday agreement when the major parties backed the rapid expansion of industrial factory farms, especially of pigs and poultry, that now contribute to 9m cubic metres of slurry a year. Northern Ireland was in the “surreal” situation of not adopting an EU ban on single-use plastics, while England, Wales and Scotland, which were not bound by EU rules, enacted their own ban, said Gravey. However, Northern Ireland’s new Office for Environmental Protection – which can scrutinise but not enforce – was prodding the civil service into decisions and greater transparency, she said. “That’s where I see some hope.” The scale of divergence in standards between Northern Ireland and Great Britain remained unclear, said Brennan. “But you could say the divergence question is academic because if you don’t have the governance structures in place to implement environmental law then it doesn’t really matter what the law is.” Explore more on these topics Northern Ireland European Union Europe news Share Reuse this content Northern Ireland ’s environment is unlikely to benefit from higher EU standards because the country already flouts the existing rules, leaving it in a “grossly degraded” state, experts have said. The region may escape a post-Brexit erosion of UK environmental law but still suffer grave environmental damage because of governance failures, they warned. Northern Ireland has no functioning executive or environmental protection agency and the civil service has not published an environmental strategy or statement of principles. Under the Windsor framework the region remains subject to EU laws that in many cases are more stringent than those in England, Wales and Scotland. But Northern Ireland will struggle to exploit that opportunity, said Ciara Brennan, director of the advocacy group Environmental Justice Network Ireland . “It cannot be absorbed given the already grossly degraded state of the environment here. The crisis at Lough Neagh is symptomatic of how bad things are across the north.” A vast algal bloom is choking the largest lake in the British Isles and the source of 40% of Northern Ireland’s drinking water. It has been contaminated by slurry and other agricultural runoff as well as human sewage discharges. Campaigners say the plight of Lough Neagh and a huge illegal waste dump outside Derry reflect a lack of scrutiny, enforcement and accountability that have made Northern Ireland the “dirty corner of Europe”, with the department of agriculture, environment and rural affairs, or Daera, accused of favouring farming interests over the environment. The department did not respond to a request for comment. Poor governance subverted ambitious EU rules, said James Orr, director of Friends of the Earth in Northern Ireland. “The only way that environmental standards are maintained is if there are effective watchdogs and enforcement bodies. The difficulty is that those agencies don’t exist or have been defunded or deprioritised.” Great Britain’s divergence from EU rules might leave Northern Ireland with higher standards, but that was of limited value when the region was an environmental “basket case”, said Orr. “There is no effective rule of law when it comes to environmental standards.” Retaining EU rules was no reason to “dance in the aisles” given that Northern Ireland has ignored EU rules for decades, said Jim Wells, a former Stormont assembly member of the Democratic Unionist party (DUP). “We’re decades behind the rest of the UK and Europe ,” he said. Any divergence from rules in Great Britain had gone unnoticed because of the parlous state of the region’s waterways, bogs and other areas, said Wells. He accused nationalist and unionist parties of kowtowing to the Ulster Farmers Union. “The UFU only have to blink twice and various environmental protections are dropped,” he said. Viviane Gravey, a politics lecturer and expert on EU environmental policy at Queen’s University Belfast, said the collapse of the Stormont executive and assembly had left the civil service struggling to fill the vacuum. “There is all this potential for Northern Ireland to be more ambitious than Great Britain but for that you need to have civil servants capable of doing the work and an environmental agency that has teeth. The civil service is under so much stress and there are so many gaps. Deadlines are being missed.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The DUP collapsed power-sharing in January 2022 in protest over the post-Brexit trading arrangements, which the party said weakened Northern Ireland’s place in the UK and left it under EU sway. The party cites divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK as justification for a continued boycott that has left the secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris, overseeing a civil service that runs the region on a type of auto-pilot, unable or unwilling to take major decisions. Analysts say this has aggravated environmental neglect that dates back to the Troubles and which continued after the Good Friday agreement when the major parties backed the rapid expansion of industrial factory farms, especially of pigs and poultry, that now contribute to 9m cubic metres of slurry a year. Northern Ireland was in the “surreal” situation of not adopting an EU ban on single-use plastics, while England, Wales and Scotland, which were not bound by EU rules, enacted their own ban, said Gravey. However, Northern Ireland’s new Office for Environmental Protection – which can scrutinise but not enforce – was prodding the civil service into decisions and greater transparency, she said. “That’s where I see some hope.” The scale of divergence in standards between Northern Ireland and Great Britain remained unclear, said Brennan. “But you could say the divergence question is academic because if you don’t have the governance structures in place to implement environmental law then it doesn’t really matter what the law is.” Northern Ireland ’s environment is unlikely to benefit from higher EU standards because the country already flouts the existing rules, leaving it in a “grossly degraded” state, experts have said. The region may escape a post-Brexit erosion of UK environmental law but still suffer grave environmental damage because of governance failures, they warned. Northern Ireland has no functioning executive or environmental protection agency and the civil service has not published an environmental strategy or statement of principles. Under the Windsor framework the region remains subject to EU laws that in many cases are more stringent than those in England, Wales and Scotland. But Northern Ireland will struggle to exploit that opportunity, said Ciara Brennan, director of the advocacy group Environmental Justice Network Ireland . “It cannot be absorbed given the already grossly degraded state of the environment here. The crisis at Lough Neagh is symptomatic of how bad things are across the north.” A vast algal bloom is choking the largest lake in the British Isles and the source of 40% of Northern Ireland’s drinking water. It has been contaminated by slurry and other agricultural runoff as well as human sewage discharges. Campaigners say the plight of Lough Neagh and a huge illegal waste dump outside Derry reflect a lack of scrutiny, enforcement and accountability that have made Northern Ireland the “dirty corner of Europe”, with the department of agriculture, environment and rural affairs, or Daera, accused of favouring farming interests over the environment. The department did not respond to a request for comment. Poor governance subverted ambitious EU rules, said James Orr, director of Friends of the Earth in Northern Ireland. “The only way that environmental standards are maintained is if there are effective watchdogs and enforcement bodies. The difficulty is that those agencies don’t exist or have been defunded or deprioritised.” Great Britain’s divergence from EU rules might leave Northern Ireland with higher standards, but that was of limited value when the region was an environmental “basket case”, said Orr. “There is no effective rule of law when it comes to environmental standards.” Retaining EU rules was no reason to “dance in the aisles” given that Northern Ireland has ignored EU rules for decades, said Jim Wells, a former Stormont assembly member of the Democratic Unionist party (DUP). “We’re decades behind the rest of the UK and Europe ,” he said. Any divergence from rules in Great Britain had gone unnoticed because of the parlous state of the region’s waterways, bogs and other areas, said Wells. He accused nationalist and unionist parties of kowtowing to the Ulster Farmers Union. “The UFU only have to blink twice and various environmental protections are dropped,” he said. Viviane Gravey, a politics lecturer and expert on EU environmental policy at Queen’s University Belfast, said the collapse of the Stormont executive and assembly had left the civil service struggling to fill the vacuum. “There is all this potential for Northern Ireland to be more ambitious than Great Britain but for that you need to have civil servants capable of doing the work and an environmental agency that has teeth. The civil service is under so much stress and there are so many gaps. Deadlines are being missed.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The DUP collapsed power-sharing in January 2022 in protest over the post-Brexit trading arrangements, which the party said weakened Northern Ireland’s place in the UK and left it under EU sway. The party cites divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK as justification for a continued boycott that has left the secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris, overseeing a civil service that runs the region on a type of auto-pilot, unable or unwilling to take major decisions. Analysts say this has aggravated environmental neglect that dates back to the Troubles and which continued after the Good Friday agreement when the major parties backed the rapid expansion of industrial factory farms, especially of pigs and poultry, that now contribute to 9m cubic metres of slurry a year. Northern Ireland was in the “surreal” situation of not adopting an EU ban on single-use plastics, while England, Wales and Scotland, which were not bound by EU rules, enacted their own ban, said Gravey. However, Northern Ireland’s new Office for Environmental Protection – which can scrutinise but not enforce – was prodding the civil service into decisions and greater transparency, she said. “That’s where I see some hope.” The scale of divergence in standards between Northern Ireland and Great Britain remained unclear, said Brennan. “But you could say the divergence question is academic because if you don’t have the governance structures in place to implement environmental law then it doesn’t really matter what the law is.” Northern Ireland ’s environment is unlikely to benefit from higher EU standards because the country already flouts the existing rules, leaving it in a “grossly degraded” state, experts have said. The region may escape a post-Brexit erosion of UK environmental law but still suffer grave environmental damage because of governance failures, they warned. Northern Ireland has no functioning executive or environmental protection agency and the civil service has not published an environmental strategy or statement of principles. Under the Windsor framework the region remains subject to EU laws that in many cases are more stringent than those in England, Wales and Scotland. But Northern Ireland will struggle to exploit that opportunity, said Ciara Brennan, director of the advocacy group Environmental Justice Network Ireland . “It cannot be absorbed given the already grossly degraded state of the environment here. The crisis at Lough Neagh is symptomatic of how bad things are across the north.” A vast algal bloom is choking the largest lake in the British Isles and the source of 40% of Northern Ireland’s drinking water. It has been contaminated by slurry and other agricultural runoff as well as human sewage discharges. Campaigners say the plight of Lough Neagh and a huge illegal waste dump outside Derry reflect a lack of scrutiny, enforcement and accountability that have made Northern Ireland the “dirty corner of Europe”, with the department of agriculture, environment and rural affairs, or Daera, accused of favouring farming interests over the environment. The department did not respond to a request for comment. Poor governance subverted ambitious EU rules, said James Orr, director of Friends of the Earth in Northern Ireland. “The only way that environmental standards are maintained is if there are effective watchdogs and enforcement bodies. The difficulty is that those agencies don’t exist or have been defunded or deprioritised.” Great Britain’s divergence from EU rules might leave Northern Ireland with higher standards, but that was of limited value when the region was an environmental “basket case”, said Orr. “There is no effective rule of law when it comes to environmental standards.” Retaining EU rules was no reason to “dance in the aisles” given that Northern Ireland has ignored EU rules for decades, said Jim Wells, a former Stormont assembly member of the Democratic Unionist party (DUP). “We’re decades behind the rest of the UK and Europe ,” he said. Any divergence from rules in Great Britain had gone unnoticed because of the parlous state of the region’s waterways, bogs and other areas, said Wells. He accused nationalist and unionist parties of kowtowing to the Ulster Farmers Union. “The UFU only have to blink twice and various environmental protections are dropped,” he said. Viviane Gravey, a politics lecturer and expert on EU environmental policy at Queen’s University Belfast, said the collapse of the Stormont executive and assembly had left the civil service struggling to fill the vacuum. “There is all this potential for Northern Ireland to be more ambitious than Great Britain but for that you need to have civil servants capable of doing the work and an environmental agency that has teeth. The civil service is under so much stress and there are so many gaps. Deadlines are being missed.” The DUP collapsed power-sharing in January 2022 in protest over the post-Brexit trading arrangements, which the party said weakened Northern Ireland’s place in the UK and left it under EU sway. The party cites divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK as justification for a continued boycott that has left the secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris, overseeing a civil service that runs the region on a type of auto-pilot, unable or unwilling to take major decisions. Analysts say this has aggravated environmental neglect that dates back to the Troubles and which continued after the Good Friday agreement when the major parties backed the rapid expansion of industrial factory farms, especially of pigs and poultry, that now contribute to 9m cubic metres of slurry a year. Northern Ireland was in the “surreal” situation of not adopting an EU ban on single-use plastics, while England, Wales and Scotland, which were not bound by EU rules, enacted their own ban, said Gravey. However, Northern Ireland’s new Office for Environmental Protection – which can scrutinise but not enforce – was prodding the civil service into decisions and greater transparency, she said. “That’s where I see some hope.” The scale of divergence in standards between Northern Ireland and Great Britain remained unclear, said Brennan. “But you could say the divergence question is academic because if you don’t have the governance structures in place to implement environmental law then it doesn’t really matter what the law is.” Explore more on these topics Northern Ireland European Union Europe news Share Reuse this content Northern Ireland European Union Europe news
|
Pro-Palestinian protesters disrupt David Lammy speech in London
A pro-Palestinian protester is removed from London’s Guildhall after interrupting David Lammy’s speech. Photograph: Maja Smiejkowska/PA View image in fullscreen A pro-Palestinian protester is removed from London’s Guildhall after interrupting David Lammy’s speech. Photograph: Maja Smiejkowska/PA This article is more than 1 year old Pro-Palestinian protesters disrupt David Lammy speech in London This article is more than 1 year old Shadow foreign secretary tries to continue as demonstrators shout and criticise Labour’s stance on Israel-Gaza war Middle East crisis – live updates A keynote speech by David Lammy at a Labour-linked thinktank’s conference has been disrupted by protesters who held Palestinian flags as they shouted “ceasefire now”. As security officials at London’s Guildhall rushed to take the first two individuals out of the building, another three protesters began shouting and criticising Labour’s stance on the Israel-Gaza war as Lammy attempted to continue his speech at the Fabian Society event. Lammy had returned to the stage to huge applause after the first pair of protesters were led out of the venue, saying: “I was born in Tottenham, don’t worry,” before adding: “Friends let me be clear, we want a sustained ceasefire in Gaza .” One of the protesters shouted: “David Lammy, you should be ashamed of yourself,” referring to Labour’s shifting position on the war in the Middle East. “We really need a ceasefire, people are dying,” they said as they were led out of the venue. Lammy decided to address their chants of “ceasefire now” head on as more tried to derail his speech on Saturday, responding: “Change through power not through protest,” in a similar response to the words Keir Starmer used when he was glitter-bombed at party conference. “My friend, we all want a sustainable ceasefire,” he said, as he was once again interrupted by chants. Addressing the crisis, the shadow foreign secretary said: “In Gaza, thousands of children have been killed. Over 85% of the population has been made refugees and more than 100 Israeli hostages are still held as prisoners, while rockets are still flying into Israel. The situation is intolerable. It’s unbearable. Which is why Labour has called for a sustainable ceasefire.” Netanyahu’s rejection of Palestinian state unacceptable, says David Lammy Read more He also criticised the Israeli prime minister’s rejection of a two-state solution, describing it as “morally wrong”. Lammy called on the Israeli state to swiftly change its “pain and despair” approach. “The peaceful quest for a Palestinian state is a just cause as Keir Starmer said, it is undeniably a rite of passage and the only way to guarantee just and lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. The Israeli government must immediately change their approach from the pain of despair; new weapons and new political processes must emerge to make two states a reality.” Lammy said a Labour government would start urgent diplomatic talks on the creation of a new international contact group to take over from the defunct quartet – the UN, US, EU and Russia – to coordinate with western and Arab partners over Middle East peace. His speech came after that of the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, who urged voters not to “let the Tories do to London what they’ve done to our country”, as he hit out at their “hollow, desperate and divisive narrative”. Khan attacked the Conservatives for “exploiting people’s fears, but never addressing them”, in an attempt to lead the electorate to believe they were “struggling because of someone else”. The London mayoral elections in May would be be “the toughest fight yet”, Khan told the audience, because it will be the first time London has used the first-past-the-post system and the voter ID system will also be in force. Explore more on these topics Labour Israel David Lammy Middle East and north Africa Gaza Palestine news Share Reuse this content A pro-Palestinian protester is removed from London’s Guildhall after interrupting David Lammy’s speech. Photograph: Maja Smiejkowska/PA View image in fullscreen A pro-Palestinian protester is removed from London’s Guildhall after interrupting David Lammy’s speech. Photograph: Maja Smiejkowska/PA This article is more than 1 year old Pro-Palestinian protesters disrupt David Lammy speech in London This article is more than 1 year old Shadow foreign secretary tries to continue as demonstrators shout and criticise Labour’s stance on Israel-Gaza war Middle East crisis – live updates A keynote speech by David Lammy at a Labour-linked thinktank’s conference has been disrupted by protesters who held Palestinian flags as they shouted “ceasefire now”. As security officials at London’s Guildhall rushed to take the first two individuals out of the building, another three protesters began shouting and criticising Labour’s stance on the Israel-Gaza war as Lammy attempted to continue his speech at the Fabian Society event. Lammy had returned to the stage to huge applause after the first pair of protesters were led out of the venue, saying: “I was born in Tottenham, don’t worry,” before adding: “Friends let me be clear, we want a sustained ceasefire in Gaza .” One of the protesters shouted: “David Lammy, you should be ashamed of yourself,” referring to Labour’s shifting position on the war in the Middle East. “We really need a ceasefire, people are dying,” they said as they were led out of the venue. Lammy decided to address their chants of “ceasefire now” head on as more tried to derail his speech on Saturday, responding: “Change through power not through protest,” in a similar response to the words Keir Starmer used when he was glitter-bombed at party conference. “My friend, we all want a sustainable ceasefire,” he said, as he was once again interrupted by chants. Addressing the crisis, the shadow foreign secretary said: “In Gaza, thousands of children have been killed. Over 85% of the population has been made refugees and more than 100 Israeli hostages are still held as prisoners, while rockets are still flying into Israel. The situation is intolerable. It’s unbearable. Which is why Labour has called for a sustainable ceasefire.” Netanyahu’s rejection of Palestinian state unacceptable, says David Lammy Read more He also criticised the Israeli prime minister’s rejection of a two-state solution, describing it as “morally wrong”. Lammy called on the Israeli state to swiftly change its “pain and despair” approach. “The peaceful quest for a Palestinian state is a just cause as Keir Starmer said, it is undeniably a rite of passage and the only way to guarantee just and lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. The Israeli government must immediately change their approach from the pain of despair; new weapons and new political processes must emerge to make two states a reality.” Lammy said a Labour government would start urgent diplomatic talks on the creation of a new international contact group to take over from the defunct quartet – the UN, US, EU and Russia – to coordinate with western and Arab partners over Middle East peace. His speech came after that of the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, who urged voters not to “let the Tories do to London what they’ve done to our country”, as he hit out at their “hollow, desperate and divisive narrative”. Khan attacked the Conservatives for “exploiting people’s fears, but never addressing them”, in an attempt to lead the electorate to believe they were “struggling because of someone else”. The London mayoral elections in May would be be “the toughest fight yet”, Khan told the audience, because it will be the first time London has used the first-past-the-post system and the voter ID system will also be in force. Explore more on these topics Labour Israel David Lammy Middle East and north Africa Gaza Palestine news Share Reuse this content A pro-Palestinian protester is removed from London’s Guildhall after interrupting David Lammy’s speech. Photograph: Maja Smiejkowska/PA View image in fullscreen A pro-Palestinian protester is removed from London’s Guildhall after interrupting David Lammy’s speech. Photograph: Maja Smiejkowska/PA A pro-Palestinian protester is removed from London’s Guildhall after interrupting David Lammy’s speech. Photograph: Maja Smiejkowska/PA View image in fullscreen A pro-Palestinian protester is removed from London’s Guildhall after interrupting David Lammy’s speech. Photograph: Maja Smiejkowska/PA A pro-Palestinian protester is removed from London’s Guildhall after interrupting David Lammy’s speech. Photograph: Maja Smiejkowska/PA View image in fullscreen A pro-Palestinian protester is removed from London’s Guildhall after interrupting David Lammy’s speech. Photograph: Maja Smiejkowska/PA A pro-Palestinian protester is removed from London’s Guildhall after interrupting David Lammy’s speech. Photograph: Maja Smiejkowska/PA View image in fullscreen A pro-Palestinian protester is removed from London’s Guildhall after interrupting David Lammy’s speech. Photograph: Maja Smiejkowska/PA A pro-Palestinian protester is removed from London’s Guildhall after interrupting David Lammy’s speech. Photograph: Maja Smiejkowska/PA A pro-Palestinian protester is removed from London’s Guildhall after interrupting David Lammy’s speech. Photograph: Maja Smiejkowska/PA This article is more than 1 year old Pro-Palestinian protesters disrupt David Lammy speech in London This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Pro-Palestinian protesters disrupt David Lammy speech in London This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Pro-Palestinian protesters disrupt David Lammy speech in 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 Shadow foreign secretary tries to continue as demonstrators shout and criticise Labour’s stance on Israel-Gaza war Middle East crisis – live updates Shadow foreign secretary tries to continue as demonstrators shout and criticise Labour’s stance on Israel-Gaza war Middle East crisis – live updates Shadow foreign secretary tries to continue as demonstrators shout and criticise Labour’s stance on Israel-Gaza war A keynote speech by David Lammy at a Labour-linked thinktank’s conference has been disrupted by protesters who held Palestinian flags as they shouted “ceasefire now”. As security officials at London’s Guildhall rushed to take the first two individuals out of the building, another three protesters began shouting and criticising Labour’s stance on the Israel-Gaza war as Lammy attempted to continue his speech at the Fabian Society event. Lammy had returned to the stage to huge applause after the first pair of protesters were led out of the venue, saying: “I was born in Tottenham, don’t worry,” before adding: “Friends let me be clear, we want a sustained ceasefire in Gaza .” One of the protesters shouted: “David Lammy, you should be ashamed of yourself,” referring to Labour’s shifting position on the war in the Middle East. “We really need a ceasefire, people are dying,” they said as they were led out of the venue. Lammy decided to address their chants of “ceasefire now” head on as more tried to derail his speech on Saturday, responding: “Change through power not through protest,” in a similar response to the words Keir Starmer used when he was glitter-bombed at party conference. “My friend, we all want a sustainable ceasefire,” he said, as he was once again interrupted by chants. Addressing the crisis, the shadow foreign secretary said: “In Gaza, thousands of children have been killed. Over 85% of the population has been made refugees and more than 100 Israeli hostages are still held as prisoners, while rockets are still flying into Israel. The situation is intolerable. It’s unbearable. Which is why Labour has called for a sustainable ceasefire.” Netanyahu’s rejection of Palestinian state unacceptable, says David Lammy Read more He also criticised the Israeli prime minister’s rejection of a two-state solution, describing it as “morally wrong”. Lammy called on the Israeli state to swiftly change its “pain and despair” approach. “The peaceful quest for a Palestinian state is a just cause as Keir Starmer said, it is undeniably a rite of passage and the only way to guarantee just and lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. The Israeli government must immediately change their approach from the pain of despair; new weapons and new political processes must emerge to make two states a reality.” Lammy said a Labour government would start urgent diplomatic talks on the creation of a new international contact group to take over from the defunct quartet – the UN, US, EU and Russia – to coordinate with western and Arab partners over Middle East peace. His speech came after that of the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, who urged voters not to “let the Tories do to London what they’ve done to our country”, as he hit out at their “hollow, desperate and divisive narrative”. Khan attacked the Conservatives for “exploiting people’s fears, but never addressing them”, in an attempt to lead the electorate to believe they were “struggling because of someone else”. The London mayoral elections in May would be be “the toughest fight yet”, Khan told the audience, because it will be the first time London has used the first-past-the-post system and the voter ID system will also be in force. Explore more on these topics Labour Israel David Lammy Middle East and north Africa Gaza Palestine news Share Reuse this content A keynote speech by David Lammy at a Labour-linked thinktank’s conference has been disrupted by protesters who held Palestinian flags as they shouted “ceasefire now”. As security officials at London’s Guildhall rushed to take the first two individuals out of the building, another three protesters began shouting and criticising Labour’s stance on the Israel-Gaza war as Lammy attempted to continue his speech at the Fabian Society event. Lammy had returned to the stage to huge applause after the first pair of protesters were led out of the venue, saying: “I was born in Tottenham, don’t worry,” before adding: “Friends let me be clear, we want a sustained ceasefire in Gaza .” One of the protesters shouted: “David Lammy, you should be ashamed of yourself,” referring to Labour’s shifting position on the war in the Middle East. “We really need a ceasefire, people are dying,” they said as they were led out of the venue. Lammy decided to address their chants of “ceasefire now” head on as more tried to derail his speech on Saturday, responding: “Change through power not through protest,” in a similar response to the words Keir Starmer used when he was glitter-bombed at party conference. “My friend, we all want a sustainable ceasefire,” he said, as he was once again interrupted by chants. Addressing the crisis, the shadow foreign secretary said: “In Gaza, thousands of children have been killed. Over 85% of the population has been made refugees and more than 100 Israeli hostages are still held as prisoners, while rockets are still flying into Israel. The situation is intolerable. It’s unbearable. Which is why Labour has called for a sustainable ceasefire.” Netanyahu’s rejection of Palestinian state unacceptable, says David Lammy Read more He also criticised the Israeli prime minister’s rejection of a two-state solution, describing it as “morally wrong”. Lammy called on the Israeli state to swiftly change its “pain and despair” approach. “The peaceful quest for a Palestinian state is a just cause as Keir Starmer said, it is undeniably a rite of passage and the only way to guarantee just and lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. The Israeli government must immediately change their approach from the pain of despair; new weapons and new political processes must emerge to make two states a reality.” Lammy said a Labour government would start urgent diplomatic talks on the creation of a new international contact group to take over from the defunct quartet – the UN, US, EU and Russia – to coordinate with western and Arab partners over Middle East peace. His speech came after that of the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, who urged voters not to “let the Tories do to London what they’ve done to our country”, as he hit out at their “hollow, desperate and divisive narrative”. Khan attacked the Conservatives for “exploiting people’s fears, but never addressing them”, in an attempt to lead the electorate to believe they were “struggling because of someone else”. The London mayoral elections in May would be be “the toughest fight yet”, Khan told the audience, because it will be the first time London has used the first-past-the-post system and the voter ID system will also be in force. Explore more on these topics Labour Israel David Lammy Middle East and north Africa Gaza Palestine news Share Reuse this content A keynote speech by David Lammy at a Labour-linked thinktank’s conference has been disrupted by protesters who held Palestinian flags as they shouted “ceasefire now”. As security officials at London’s Guildhall rushed to take the first two individuals out of the building, another three protesters began shouting and criticising Labour’s stance on the Israel-Gaza war as Lammy attempted to continue his speech at the Fabian Society event. Lammy had returned to the stage to huge applause after the first pair of protesters were led out of the venue, saying: “I was born in Tottenham, don’t worry,” before adding: “Friends let me be clear, we want a sustained ceasefire in Gaza .” One of the protesters shouted: “David Lammy, you should be ashamed of yourself,” referring to Labour’s shifting position on the war in the Middle East. “We really need a ceasefire, people are dying,” they said as they were led out of the venue. Lammy decided to address their chants of “ceasefire now” head on as more tried to derail his speech on Saturday, responding: “Change through power not through protest,” in a similar response to the words Keir Starmer used when he was glitter-bombed at party conference. “My friend, we all want a sustainable ceasefire,” he said, as he was once again interrupted by chants. Addressing the crisis, the shadow foreign secretary said: “In Gaza, thousands of children have been killed. Over 85% of the population has been made refugees and more than 100 Israeli hostages are still held as prisoners, while rockets are still flying into Israel. The situation is intolerable. It’s unbearable. Which is why Labour has called for a sustainable ceasefire.” Netanyahu’s rejection of Palestinian state unacceptable, says David Lammy Read more He also criticised the Israeli prime minister’s rejection of a two-state solution, describing it as “morally wrong”. Lammy called on the Israeli state to swiftly change its “pain and despair” approach. “The peaceful quest for a Palestinian state is a just cause as Keir Starmer said, it is undeniably a rite of passage and the only way to guarantee just and lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. The Israeli government must immediately change their approach from the pain of despair; new weapons and new political processes must emerge to make two states a reality.” Lammy said a Labour government would start urgent diplomatic talks on the creation of a new international contact group to take over from the defunct quartet – the UN, US, EU and Russia – to coordinate with western and Arab partners over Middle East peace. His speech came after that of the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, who urged voters not to “let the Tories do to London what they’ve done to our country”, as he hit out at their “hollow, desperate and divisive narrative”. Khan attacked the Conservatives for “exploiting people’s fears, but never addressing them”, in an attempt to lead the electorate to believe they were “struggling because of someone else”. The London mayoral elections in May would be be “the toughest fight yet”, Khan told the audience, because it will be the first time London has used the first-past-the-post system and the voter ID system will also be in force. A keynote speech by David Lammy at a Labour-linked thinktank’s conference has been disrupted by protesters who held Palestinian flags as they shouted “ceasefire now”. As security officials at London’s Guildhall rushed to take the first two individuals out of the building, another three protesters began shouting and criticising Labour’s stance on the Israel-Gaza war as Lammy attempted to continue his speech at the Fabian Society event. Lammy had returned to the stage to huge applause after the first pair of protesters were led out of the venue, saying: “I was born in Tottenham, don’t worry,” before adding: “Friends let me be clear, we want a sustained ceasefire in Gaza .” One of the protesters shouted: “David Lammy, you should be ashamed of yourself,” referring to Labour’s shifting position on the war in the Middle East. “We really need a ceasefire, people are dying,” they said as they were led out of the venue. Lammy decided to address their chants of “ceasefire now” head on as more tried to derail his speech on Saturday, responding: “Change through power not through protest,” in a similar response to the words Keir Starmer used when he was glitter-bombed at party conference. “My friend, we all want a sustainable ceasefire,” he said, as he was once again interrupted by chants. Addressing the crisis, the shadow foreign secretary said: “In Gaza, thousands of children have been killed. Over 85% of the population has been made refugees and more than 100 Israeli hostages are still held as prisoners, while rockets are still flying into Israel. The situation is intolerable. It’s unbearable. Which is why Labour has called for a sustainable ceasefire.” Netanyahu’s rejection of Palestinian state unacceptable, says David Lammy Read more He also criticised the Israeli prime minister’s rejection of a two-state solution, describing it as “morally wrong”. Lammy called on the Israeli state to swiftly change its “pain and despair” approach. “The peaceful quest for a Palestinian state is a just cause as Keir Starmer said, it is undeniably a rite of passage and the only way to guarantee just and lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. The Israeli government must immediately change their approach from the pain of despair; new weapons and new political processes must emerge to make two states a reality.” Lammy said a Labour government would start urgent diplomatic talks on the creation of a new international contact group to take over from the defunct quartet – the UN, US, EU and Russia – to coordinate with western and Arab partners over Middle East peace. His speech came after that of the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, who urged voters not to “let the Tories do to London what they’ve done to our country”, as he hit out at their “hollow, desperate and divisive narrative”. Khan attacked the Conservatives for “exploiting people’s fears, but never addressing them”, in an attempt to lead the electorate to believe they were “struggling because of someone else”. The London mayoral elections in May would be be “the toughest fight yet”, Khan told the audience, because it will be the first time London has used the first-past-the-post system and the voter ID system will also be in force. A keynote speech by David Lammy at a Labour-linked thinktank’s conference has been disrupted by protesters who held Palestinian flags as they shouted “ceasefire now”. As security officials at London’s Guildhall rushed to take the first two individuals out of the building, another three protesters began shouting and criticising Labour’s stance on the Israel-Gaza war as Lammy attempted to continue his speech at the Fabian Society event. Lammy had returned to the stage to huge applause after the first pair of protesters were led out of the venue, saying: “I was born in Tottenham, don’t worry,” before adding: “Friends let me be clear, we want a sustained ceasefire in Gaza .” One of the protesters shouted: “David Lammy, you should be ashamed of yourself,” referring to Labour’s shifting position on the war in the Middle East. “We really need a ceasefire, people are dying,” they said as they were led out of the venue. Lammy decided to address their chants of “ceasefire now” head on as more tried to derail his speech on Saturday, responding: “Change through power not through protest,” in a similar response to the words Keir Starmer used when he was glitter-bombed at party conference. “My friend, we all want a sustainable ceasefire,” he said, as he was once again interrupted by chants. Addressing the crisis, the shadow foreign secretary said: “In Gaza, thousands of children have been killed. Over 85% of the population has been made refugees and more than 100 Israeli hostages are still held as prisoners, while rockets are still flying into Israel. The situation is intolerable. It’s unbearable. Which is why Labour has called for a sustainable ceasefire.” Netanyahu’s rejection of Palestinian state unacceptable, says David Lammy Read more Netanyahu’s rejection of Palestinian state unacceptable, says David Lammy Read more Netanyahu’s rejection of Palestinian state unacceptable, says David Lammy Read more Netanyahu’s rejection of Palestinian state unacceptable, says David Lammy Netanyahu’s rejection of Palestinian state unacceptable, says David Lammy He also criticised the Israeli prime minister’s rejection of a two-state solution, describing it as “morally wrong”. Lammy called on the Israeli state to swiftly change its “pain and despair” approach. “The peaceful quest for a Palestinian state is a just cause as Keir Starmer said, it is undeniably a rite of passage and the only way to guarantee just and lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. The Israeli government must immediately change their approach from the pain of despair; new weapons and new political processes must emerge to make two states a reality.” Lammy said a Labour government would start urgent diplomatic talks on the creation of a new international contact group to take over from the defunct quartet – the UN, US, EU and Russia – to coordinate with western and Arab partners over Middle East peace. His speech came after that of the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, who urged voters not to “let the Tories do to London what they’ve done to our country”, as he hit out at their “hollow, desperate and divisive narrative”. Khan attacked the Conservatives for “exploiting people’s fears, but never addressing them”, in an attempt to lead the electorate to believe they were “struggling because of someone else”. The London mayoral elections in May would be be “the toughest fight yet”, Khan told the audience, because it will be the first time London has used the first-past-the-post system and the voter ID system will also be in force. Explore more on these topics Labour Israel David Lammy Middle East and north Africa Gaza Palestine news Share Reuse this content Labour Israel David Lammy Middle East and north Africa Gaza Palestine news
|
Rishi Sunak facing renewed pressure over plans to ‘max out’ North Sea oil
A climate activist protesting in London against the Rosebank oil field project in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen A climate activist protesting in London against the Rosebank oil field project in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Rishi Sunak facing renewed pressure over plans to ‘max out’ North Sea oil This article is more than 1 year old Dithering on renewable energy and insulation will leave people in Britain ‘colder and poorer’, campaigners warn Rishi Sunak is facing further attacks on his plans to expand oil and gas exploration in the North Sea this week. The Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill – to be debated in the Commons on Monday – has already triggered widespread protests, including the resignation of Chris Skidmore , a former Conservative energy minister. The bill aims to boost fossil fuel extraction by establishing a new system under which licences for North Sea oil and gas projects will be awarded annually. Green groups and analysts are lining up to criticise it. UpLift, which campaigns for green energy, pointed out that the bill, which the government says will “max out” the UK’s reserves , will actually result in only a 2% rise in North Sea gas output. “The remaining 98% of gas demand will come from existing North Sea fields,” its analysis finds. It adds that just one 1.3 gigawatt windfarm would generate more than enough electricity to offset the gas that would be lost if no new licences were awarded under the bill. “Sunak, like his predecessor Liz Truss, is obsessing over oil and gas, but dithering on renewables and insulation which will boost UK energy security and lower bills,” said Tessa Khan, executive director of UpLift. “And it’s making people in this country colder and poorer.” This point was backed by Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. “Investments in new North Sea developments will not make a significant difference to energy bills ; they will have relatively high operating costs; and they will make it more difficult for the world to halt climate change.” By contrast, investing in clean British energy and electrifying the economy, with heat pumps and electric vehicles, would reduce dependence on insecure and expensive fossil fuels, Ward added. A new report by a group of leading economists including Nicholas Stern, criticises the government for allowing too much investment to continue to flow into unsustainable economies such as the development of new oil and gas fields and the construction of homes and offices that are not energy efficient or climate-resilient. “Investing in the opportunities afforded by the global transition to an efficient, resilient and inclusive economy needs to be a bigger part of restoring productivity and output growth for the UK to gain a competitive lead in the innovative markets of the 21st century,” they state. These criticisms follow a letter from the all-party parliamentary group for climate change which says: “Just last month, as the UK’s second warmest year on record concluded, the UK joined other countries in signing the UAE consensus at Cop28 and thus pledged to transition way from fossil fuels. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “However, this bill is diametrically opposed to that agreement. Instead of honouring the promises we’ve made to our allies and partners at Cop28 this bill further weakens any claim the UK makes to be a world leader in tackling climate change.” For his part, Skidmore said before his resignation that he could not vote for legislation that “clearly promotes the production of new oil and gas” and would show that the UK is “rowing ever further back from its climate commitments.” 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 Energy The Observer Oil (Environment) Oil (Business) Renewable energy Rishi Sunak Chris Skidmore Gas news Share Reuse this content A climate activist protesting in London against the Rosebank oil field project in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen A climate activist protesting in London against the Rosebank oil field project in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Rishi Sunak facing renewed pressure over plans to ‘max out’ North Sea oil This article is more than 1 year old Dithering on renewable energy and insulation will leave people in Britain ‘colder and poorer’, campaigners warn Rishi Sunak is facing further attacks on his plans to expand oil and gas exploration in the North Sea this week. The Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill – to be debated in the Commons on Monday – has already triggered widespread protests, including the resignation of Chris Skidmore , a former Conservative energy minister. The bill aims to boost fossil fuel extraction by establishing a new system under which licences for North Sea oil and gas projects will be awarded annually. Green groups and analysts are lining up to criticise it. UpLift, which campaigns for green energy, pointed out that the bill, which the government says will “max out” the UK’s reserves , will actually result in only a 2% rise in North Sea gas output. “The remaining 98% of gas demand will come from existing North Sea fields,” its analysis finds. It adds that just one 1.3 gigawatt windfarm would generate more than enough electricity to offset the gas that would be lost if no new licences were awarded under the bill. “Sunak, like his predecessor Liz Truss, is obsessing over oil and gas, but dithering on renewables and insulation which will boost UK energy security and lower bills,” said Tessa Khan, executive director of UpLift. “And it’s making people in this country colder and poorer.” This point was backed by Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. “Investments in new North Sea developments will not make a significant difference to energy bills ; they will have relatively high operating costs; and they will make it more difficult for the world to halt climate change.” By contrast, investing in clean British energy and electrifying the economy, with heat pumps and electric vehicles, would reduce dependence on insecure and expensive fossil fuels, Ward added. A new report by a group of leading economists including Nicholas Stern, criticises the government for allowing too much investment to continue to flow into unsustainable economies such as the development of new oil and gas fields and the construction of homes and offices that are not energy efficient or climate-resilient. “Investing in the opportunities afforded by the global transition to an efficient, resilient and inclusive economy needs to be a bigger part of restoring productivity and output growth for the UK to gain a competitive lead in the innovative markets of the 21st century,” they state. These criticisms follow a letter from the all-party parliamentary group for climate change which says: “Just last month, as the UK’s second warmest year on record concluded, the UK joined other countries in signing the UAE consensus at Cop28 and thus pledged to transition way from fossil fuels. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “However, this bill is diametrically opposed to that agreement. Instead of honouring the promises we’ve made to our allies and partners at Cop28 this bill further weakens any claim the UK makes to be a world leader in tackling climate change.” For his part, Skidmore said before his resignation that he could not vote for legislation that “clearly promotes the production of new oil and gas” and would show that the UK is “rowing ever further back from its climate commitments.” 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 Energy The Observer Oil (Environment) Oil (Business) Renewable energy Rishi Sunak Chris Skidmore Gas news Share Reuse this content A climate activist protesting in London against the Rosebank oil field project in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen A climate activist protesting in London against the Rosebank oil field project in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images A climate activist protesting in London against the Rosebank oil field project in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen A climate activist protesting in London against the Rosebank oil field project in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images A climate activist protesting in London against the Rosebank oil field project in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen A climate activist protesting in London against the Rosebank oil field project in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images A climate activist protesting in London against the Rosebank oil field project in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen A climate activist protesting in London against the Rosebank oil field project in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images A climate activist protesting in London against the Rosebank oil field project in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images A climate activist protesting in London against the Rosebank oil field project in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Rishi Sunak facing renewed pressure over plans to ‘max out’ North Sea oil This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Rishi Sunak facing renewed pressure over plans to ‘max out’ North Sea oil This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Rishi Sunak facing renewed pressure over plans to ‘max out’ North Sea oil 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 Dithering on renewable energy and insulation will leave people in Britain ‘colder and poorer’, campaigners warn Dithering on renewable energy and insulation will leave people in Britain ‘colder and poorer’, campaigners warn Dithering on renewable energy and insulation will leave people in Britain ‘colder and poorer’, campaigners warn Rishi Sunak is facing further attacks on his plans to expand oil and gas exploration in the North Sea this week. The Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill – to be debated in the Commons on Monday – has already triggered widespread protests, including the resignation of Chris Skidmore , a former Conservative energy minister. The bill aims to boost fossil fuel extraction by establishing a new system under which licences for North Sea oil and gas projects will be awarded annually. Green groups and analysts are lining up to criticise it. UpLift, which campaigns for green energy, pointed out that the bill, which the government says will “max out” the UK’s reserves , will actually result in only a 2% rise in North Sea gas output. “The remaining 98% of gas demand will come from existing North Sea fields,” its analysis finds. It adds that just one 1.3 gigawatt windfarm would generate more than enough electricity to offset the gas that would be lost if no new licences were awarded under the bill. “Sunak, like his predecessor Liz Truss, is obsessing over oil and gas, but dithering on renewables and insulation which will boost UK energy security and lower bills,” said Tessa Khan, executive director of UpLift. “And it’s making people in this country colder and poorer.” This point was backed by Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. “Investments in new North Sea developments will not make a significant difference to energy bills ; they will have relatively high operating costs; and they will make it more difficult for the world to halt climate change.” By contrast, investing in clean British energy and electrifying the economy, with heat pumps and electric vehicles, would reduce dependence on insecure and expensive fossil fuels, Ward added. A new report by a group of leading economists including Nicholas Stern, criticises the government for allowing too much investment to continue to flow into unsustainable economies such as the development of new oil and gas fields and the construction of homes and offices that are not energy efficient or climate-resilient. “Investing in the opportunities afforded by the global transition to an efficient, resilient and inclusive economy needs to be a bigger part of restoring productivity and output growth for the UK to gain a competitive lead in the innovative markets of the 21st century,” they state. These criticisms follow a letter from the all-party parliamentary group for climate change which says: “Just last month, as the UK’s second warmest year on record concluded, the UK joined other countries in signing the UAE consensus at Cop28 and thus pledged to transition way from fossil fuels. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “However, this bill is diametrically opposed to that agreement. Instead of honouring the promises we’ve made to our allies and partners at Cop28 this bill further weakens any claim the UK makes to be a world leader in tackling climate change.” For his part, Skidmore said before his resignation that he could not vote for legislation that “clearly promotes the production of new oil and gas” and would show that the UK is “rowing ever further back from its climate commitments.” 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 Energy The Observer Oil (Environment) Oil (Business) Renewable energy Rishi Sunak Chris Skidmore Gas news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak is facing further attacks on his plans to expand oil and gas exploration in the North Sea this week. The Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill – to be debated in the Commons on Monday – has already triggered widespread protests, including the resignation of Chris Skidmore , a former Conservative energy minister. The bill aims to boost fossil fuel extraction by establishing a new system under which licences for North Sea oil and gas projects will be awarded annually. Green groups and analysts are lining up to criticise it. UpLift, which campaigns for green energy, pointed out that the bill, which the government says will “max out” the UK’s reserves , will actually result in only a 2% rise in North Sea gas output. “The remaining 98% of gas demand will come from existing North Sea fields,” its analysis finds. It adds that just one 1.3 gigawatt windfarm would generate more than enough electricity to offset the gas that would be lost if no new licences were awarded under the bill. “Sunak, like his predecessor Liz Truss, is obsessing over oil and gas, but dithering on renewables and insulation which will boost UK energy security and lower bills,” said Tessa Khan, executive director of UpLift. “And it’s making people in this country colder and poorer.” This point was backed by Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. “Investments in new North Sea developments will not make a significant difference to energy bills ; they will have relatively high operating costs; and they will make it more difficult for the world to halt climate change.” By contrast, investing in clean British energy and electrifying the economy, with heat pumps and electric vehicles, would reduce dependence on insecure and expensive fossil fuels, Ward added. A new report by a group of leading economists including Nicholas Stern, criticises the government for allowing too much investment to continue to flow into unsustainable economies such as the development of new oil and gas fields and the construction of homes and offices that are not energy efficient or climate-resilient. “Investing in the opportunities afforded by the global transition to an efficient, resilient and inclusive economy needs to be a bigger part of restoring productivity and output growth for the UK to gain a competitive lead in the innovative markets of the 21st century,” they state. These criticisms follow a letter from the all-party parliamentary group for climate change which says: “Just last month, as the UK’s second warmest year on record concluded, the UK joined other countries in signing the UAE consensus at Cop28 and thus pledged to transition way from fossil fuels. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “However, this bill is diametrically opposed to that agreement. Instead of honouring the promises we’ve made to our allies and partners at Cop28 this bill further weakens any claim the UK makes to be a world leader in tackling climate change.” For his part, Skidmore said before his resignation that he could not vote for legislation that “clearly promotes the production of new oil and gas” and would show that the UK is “rowing ever further back from its climate commitments.” 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 Energy The Observer Oil (Environment) Oil (Business) Renewable energy Rishi Sunak Chris Skidmore Gas news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak is facing further attacks on his plans to expand oil and gas exploration in the North Sea this week. The Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill – to be debated in the Commons on Monday – has already triggered widespread protests, including the resignation of Chris Skidmore , a former Conservative energy minister. The bill aims to boost fossil fuel extraction by establishing a new system under which licences for North Sea oil and gas projects will be awarded annually. Green groups and analysts are lining up to criticise it. UpLift, which campaigns for green energy, pointed out that the bill, which the government says will “max out” the UK’s reserves , will actually result in only a 2% rise in North Sea gas output. “The remaining 98% of gas demand will come from existing North Sea fields,” its analysis finds. It adds that just one 1.3 gigawatt windfarm would generate more than enough electricity to offset the gas that would be lost if no new licences were awarded under the bill. “Sunak, like his predecessor Liz Truss, is obsessing over oil and gas, but dithering on renewables and insulation which will boost UK energy security and lower bills,” said Tessa Khan, executive director of UpLift. “And it’s making people in this country colder and poorer.” This point was backed by Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. “Investments in new North Sea developments will not make a significant difference to energy bills ; they will have relatively high operating costs; and they will make it more difficult for the world to halt climate change.” By contrast, investing in clean British energy and electrifying the economy, with heat pumps and electric vehicles, would reduce dependence on insecure and expensive fossil fuels, Ward added. A new report by a group of leading economists including Nicholas Stern, criticises the government for allowing too much investment to continue to flow into unsustainable economies such as the development of new oil and gas fields and the construction of homes and offices that are not energy efficient or climate-resilient. “Investing in the opportunities afforded by the global transition to an efficient, resilient and inclusive economy needs to be a bigger part of restoring productivity and output growth for the UK to gain a competitive lead in the innovative markets of the 21st century,” they state. These criticisms follow a letter from the all-party parliamentary group for climate change which says: “Just last month, as the UK’s second warmest year on record concluded, the UK joined other countries in signing the UAE consensus at Cop28 and thus pledged to transition way from fossil fuels. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “However, this bill is diametrically opposed to that agreement. Instead of honouring the promises we’ve made to our allies and partners at Cop28 this bill further weakens any claim the UK makes to be a world leader in tackling climate change.” For his part, Skidmore said before his resignation that he could not vote for legislation that “clearly promotes the production of new oil and gas” and would show that the UK is “rowing ever further back from its climate commitments.” Rishi Sunak is facing further attacks on his plans to expand oil and gas exploration in the North Sea this week. The Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill – to be debated in the Commons on Monday – has already triggered widespread protests, including the resignation of Chris Skidmore , a former Conservative energy minister. The bill aims to boost fossil fuel extraction by establishing a new system under which licences for North Sea oil and gas projects will be awarded annually. Green groups and analysts are lining up to criticise it. UpLift, which campaigns for green energy, pointed out that the bill, which the government says will “max out” the UK’s reserves , will actually result in only a 2% rise in North Sea gas output. “The remaining 98% of gas demand will come from existing North Sea fields,” its analysis finds. It adds that just one 1.3 gigawatt windfarm would generate more than enough electricity to offset the gas that would be lost if no new licences were awarded under the bill. “Sunak, like his predecessor Liz Truss, is obsessing over oil and gas, but dithering on renewables and insulation which will boost UK energy security and lower bills,” said Tessa Khan, executive director of UpLift. “And it’s making people in this country colder and poorer.” This point was backed by Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. “Investments in new North Sea developments will not make a significant difference to energy bills ; they will have relatively high operating costs; and they will make it more difficult for the world to halt climate change.” By contrast, investing in clean British energy and electrifying the economy, with heat pumps and electric vehicles, would reduce dependence on insecure and expensive fossil fuels, Ward added. A new report by a group of leading economists including Nicholas Stern, criticises the government for allowing too much investment to continue to flow into unsustainable economies such as the development of new oil and gas fields and the construction of homes and offices that are not energy efficient or climate-resilient. “Investing in the opportunities afforded by the global transition to an efficient, resilient and inclusive economy needs to be a bigger part of restoring productivity and output growth for the UK to gain a competitive lead in the innovative markets of the 21st century,” they state. These criticisms follow a letter from the all-party parliamentary group for climate change which says: “Just last month, as the UK’s second warmest year on record concluded, the UK joined other countries in signing the UAE consensus at Cop28 and thus pledged to transition way from fossil fuels. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “However, this bill is diametrically opposed to that agreement. Instead of honouring the promises we’ve made to our allies and partners at Cop28 this bill further weakens any claim the UK makes to be a world leader in tackling climate change.” For his part, Skidmore said before his resignation that he could not vote for legislation that “clearly promotes the production of new oil and gas” and would show that the UK is “rowing ever further back from its climate commitments.” Rishi Sunak is facing further attacks on his plans to expand oil and gas exploration in the North Sea this week. The Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill – to be debated in the Commons on Monday – has already triggered widespread protests, including the resignation of Chris Skidmore , a former Conservative energy minister. The bill aims to boost fossil fuel extraction by establishing a new system under which licences for North Sea oil and gas projects will be awarded annually. Green groups and analysts are lining up to criticise it. UpLift, which campaigns for green energy, pointed out that the bill, which the government says will “max out” the UK’s reserves , will actually result in only a 2% rise in North Sea gas output. “The remaining 98% of gas demand will come from existing North Sea fields,” its analysis finds. It adds that just one 1.3 gigawatt windfarm would generate more than enough electricity to offset the gas that would be lost if no new licences were awarded under the bill. “Sunak, like his predecessor Liz Truss, is obsessing over oil and gas, but dithering on renewables and insulation which will boost UK energy security and lower bills,” said Tessa Khan, executive director of UpLift. “And it’s making people in this country colder and poorer.” This point was backed by Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. “Investments in new North Sea developments will not make a significant difference to energy bills ; they will have relatively high operating costs; and they will make it more difficult for the world to halt climate change.” By contrast, investing in clean British energy and electrifying the economy, with heat pumps and electric vehicles, would reduce dependence on insecure and expensive fossil fuels, Ward added. A new report by a group of leading economists including Nicholas Stern, criticises the government for allowing too much investment to continue to flow into unsustainable economies such as the development of new oil and gas fields and the construction of homes and offices that are not energy efficient or climate-resilient. “Investing in the opportunities afforded by the global transition to an efficient, resilient and inclusive economy needs to be a bigger part of restoring productivity and output growth for the UK to gain a competitive lead in the innovative markets of the 21st century,” they state. These criticisms follow a letter from the all-party parliamentary group for climate change which says: “Just last month, as the UK’s second warmest year on record concluded, the UK joined other countries in signing the UAE consensus at Cop28 and thus pledged to transition way from fossil fuels. “However, this bill is diametrically opposed to that agreement. Instead of honouring the promises we’ve made to our allies and partners at Cop28 this bill further weakens any claim the UK makes to be a world leader in tackling climate change.” For his part, Skidmore said before his resignation that he could not vote for legislation that “clearly promotes the production of new oil and gas” and would show that the UK is “rowing ever further back from its climate commitments.” 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 Energy The Observer Oil (Environment) Oil (Business) Renewable energy Rishi Sunak Chris Skidmore Gas news Share Reuse this content Energy The Observer Oil (Environment) Oil (Business) Renewable energy Rishi Sunak Chris Skidmore Gas news
|
The terrifying, far-right ‘masterplan’ sparking protests across Germany
This article is more than 1 year old The terrifying, far-right ‘masterplan’ sparking protests across Germany This article is more than 1 year old 00:00:00 00:00:00 The far-right party AfD has met neo-Nazi activists to discuss mass deportations. Why is the party still so popular? Kate Connolly reports A secret meeting between the far-right political party the AfD and neo-Nazis has shocked Germans. Thousands have been protesting across the country after investigative journalists said they had discovered the meeting was to map out a “masterplan” for mass deportations if the party came to power. Michael Safi hears how in the meeting an Austrian far-right extremist was said to have discussed his ideas for “re-migration”, a euphemism for the deporting of migrants who have broken the law or not “assimilated”, even if they were German citizens. The AfD leader has fired one aide who attended the meeting and insisted they were not planning mass deportations. For more than a week Germans have been rallying in protest about the meeting – yet it has had a surprisingly small effect on the poll ratings of the AfD. The Guardian’s Berlin correspondent, Kate Connolly, explains who the AfD are, why they have been surging in popularity – thanks to their focus on migration and a cost of living crisis – and why the shadow of nazism has made the grassroots backlash against them so heartfelt. Photograph: Annegret Hilse/Reuters Explore more on these topics Germany Today in Focus The far right This article is more than 1 year old The terrifying, far-right ‘masterplan’ sparking protests across Germany This article is more than 1 year old 00:00:00 00:00:00 The far-right party AfD has met neo-Nazi activists to discuss mass deportations. Why is the party still so popular? Kate Connolly reports A secret meeting between the far-right political party the AfD and neo-Nazis has shocked Germans. Thousands have been protesting across the country after investigative journalists said they had discovered the meeting was to map out a “masterplan” for mass deportations if the party came to power. Michael Safi hears how in the meeting an Austrian far-right extremist was said to have discussed his ideas for “re-migration”, a euphemism for the deporting of migrants who have broken the law or not “assimilated”, even if they were German citizens. The AfD leader has fired one aide who attended the meeting and insisted they were not planning mass deportations. For more than a week Germans have been rallying in protest about the meeting – yet it has had a surprisingly small effect on the poll ratings of the AfD. The Guardian’s Berlin correspondent, Kate Connolly, explains who the AfD are, why they have been surging in popularity – thanks to their focus on migration and a cost of living crisis – and why the shadow of nazism has made the grassroots backlash against them so heartfelt. Photograph: Annegret Hilse/Reuters Explore more on these topics Germany Today in Focus The far right This article is more than 1 year old The terrifying, far-right ‘masterplan’ sparking protests across Germany This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old The terrifying, far-right ‘masterplan’ sparking protests across Germany This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old The terrifying, far-right ‘masterplan’ sparking protests across Germany 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 far-right party AfD has met neo-Nazi activists to discuss mass deportations. Why is the party still so popular? Kate Connolly reports The far-right party AfD has met neo-Nazi activists to discuss mass deportations. Why is the party still so popular? Kate Connolly reports The far-right party AfD has met neo-Nazi activists to discuss mass deportations. Why is the party still so popular? Kate Connolly reports A secret meeting between the far-right political party the AfD and neo-Nazis has shocked Germans. Thousands have been protesting across the country after investigative journalists said they had discovered the meeting was to map out a “masterplan” for mass deportations if the party came to power. Michael Safi hears how in the meeting an Austrian far-right extremist was said to have discussed his ideas for “re-migration”, a euphemism for the deporting of migrants who have broken the law or not “assimilated”, even if they were German citizens. The AfD leader has fired one aide who attended the meeting and insisted they were not planning mass deportations. For more than a week Germans have been rallying in protest about the meeting – yet it has had a surprisingly small effect on the poll ratings of the AfD. The Guardian’s Berlin correspondent, Kate Connolly, explains who the AfD are, why they have been surging in popularity – thanks to their focus on migration and a cost of living crisis – and why the shadow of nazism has made the grassroots backlash against them so heartfelt. Photograph: Annegret Hilse/Reuters Explore more on these topics Germany Today in Focus The far right A secret meeting between the far-right political party the AfD and neo-Nazis has shocked Germans. Thousands have been protesting across the country after investigative journalists said they had discovered the meeting was to map out a “masterplan” for mass deportations if the party came to power. Michael Safi hears how in the meeting an Austrian far-right extremist was said to have discussed his ideas for “re-migration”, a euphemism for the deporting of migrants who have broken the law or not “assimilated”, even if they were German citizens. The AfD leader has fired one aide who attended the meeting and insisted they were not planning mass deportations. For more than a week Germans have been rallying in protest about the meeting – yet it has had a surprisingly small effect on the poll ratings of the AfD. The Guardian’s Berlin correspondent, Kate Connolly, explains who the AfD are, why they have been surging in popularity – thanks to their focus on migration and a cost of living crisis – and why the shadow of nazism has made the grassroots backlash against them so heartfelt. Photograph: Annegret Hilse/Reuters Explore more on these topics Germany Today in Focus The far right A secret meeting between the far-right political party the AfD and neo-Nazis has shocked Germans. Thousands have been protesting across the country after investigative journalists said they had discovered the meeting was to map out a “masterplan” for mass deportations if the party came to power. Michael Safi hears how in the meeting an Austrian far-right extremist was said to have discussed his ideas for “re-migration”, a euphemism for the deporting of migrants who have broken the law or not “assimilated”, even if they were German citizens. The AfD leader has fired one aide who attended the meeting and insisted they were not planning mass deportations. For more than a week Germans have been rallying in protest about the meeting – yet it has had a surprisingly small effect on the poll ratings of the AfD. The Guardian’s Berlin correspondent, Kate Connolly, explains who the AfD are, why they have been surging in popularity – thanks to their focus on migration and a cost of living crisis – and why the shadow of nazism has made the grassroots backlash against them so heartfelt. Photograph: Annegret Hilse/Reuters A secret meeting between the far-right political party the AfD and neo-Nazis has shocked Germans. Thousands have been protesting across the country after investigative journalists said they had discovered the meeting was to map out a “masterplan” for mass deportations if the party came to power. Michael Safi hears how in the meeting an Austrian far-right extremist was said to have discussed his ideas for “re-migration”, a euphemism for the deporting of migrants who have broken the law or not “assimilated”, even if they were German citizens. The AfD leader has fired one aide who attended the meeting and insisted they were not planning mass deportations. For more than a week Germans have been rallying in protest about the meeting – yet it has had a surprisingly small effect on the poll ratings of the AfD. The Guardian’s Berlin correspondent, Kate Connolly, explains who the AfD are, why they have been surging in popularity – thanks to their focus on migration and a cost of living crisis – and why the shadow of nazism has made the grassroots backlash against them so heartfelt. Photograph: Annegret Hilse/Reuters A secret meeting between the far-right political party the AfD and neo-Nazis has shocked Germans. Thousands have been protesting across the country after investigative journalists said they had discovered the meeting was to map out a “masterplan” for mass deportations if the party came to power. Michael Safi hears how in the meeting an Austrian far-right extremist was said to have discussed his ideas for “re-migration”, a euphemism for the deporting of migrants who have broken the law or not “assimilated”, even if they were German citizens. The AfD leader has fired one aide who attended the meeting and insisted they were not planning mass deportations. For more than a week Germans have been rallying in protest about the meeting – yet it has had a surprisingly small effect on the poll ratings of the AfD. The Guardian’s Berlin correspondent, Kate Connolly, explains who the AfD are, why they have been surging in popularity – thanks to their focus on migration and a cost of living crisis – and why the shadow of nazism has made the grassroots backlash against them so heartfelt. Explore more on these topics Germany Today in Focus The far right Germany Today in Focus The far right
|
UN expert condemns UK crackdown on environmental protest
Michel Forst said the prosecution of peaceful protesters and the use of the Public Order Act 2023 was criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer View image in fullscreen Michel Forst said the prosecution of peaceful protesters and the use of the Public Order Act 2023 was criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer This article is more than 1 year old UN expert condemns UK crackdown on environmental protest This article is more than 1 year old UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders says he is seriously concerned about ‘regressive new laws’ Five examples of the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters A severe crackdown on environmental protest in Britain with “draconian” new laws, excessive restrictions on courtroom evidence and the use of civil injunctions is having a chilling impact on fundamental freedoms, the United Nations special rapporteur has said. As the world faces a triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, environmental protesters were acting for the “benefit of us all” and must be protected, Michel Forst, the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders, said on Tuesday. Forst said that during a two-day visit to the UK earlier this month he uncovered worrying information on the treatment of peaceful protesters. Rules imposed on defendants in one London court have prevented them from explaining their motivations to the jury. At Inner London crown court, peaceful protesters have been forbidden by court order from mentioning the climate crisis, fuel poverty or even the US civil rights movement in their statements to the jury. “It is very difficult to understand what could justify denying the jury the opportunity to hear the reason for the defendant’s action, and how a jury could reach a properly informed decision without hearing it, in particular at the time of environmental defenders’ peaceful but ever more urgent calls for the government to take pressing action for the climate,” Forst said. He said the prosecution of peaceful protesters under “regressive” new public nuisance laws in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which carried a 10-year sentence, and the use of the Public Order Act 2023 was criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Forst highlighted the case of a peaceful protester jailed in December for six months for walking slowly down a road for 30 minutes during a climate protest under the new public order law. “It is important to highlight that, prior to these legislative developments, it had been almost unheard of since the 1930s for members of the public to be imprisoned for peaceful protest in the UK,” said Forst, in a statement issued on Tuesday morning. “I am therefore seriously concerned by these regressive new laws.” Forst also picked out the harsh bail conditions imposed on climate activists for peaceful protests. These include being forced to wear tags while awaiting trial, restrictions on movement, and bans on speaking to other environmental activists. “Some environmental defenders have also been required to wear electronic ankle tags, some including a 10pm-7am curfew, and others, GPS tracking,” said Forst. “Under the current timeframes of the criminal justice system, environmental defenders may be on bail for up to two years from the date of arrest to their eventual criminal trial. “Such severe bail conditions have significant impacts on the environmental defenders’ personal lives and mental health, and I seriously question the necessity and proportionality of such conditions for persons engaging in peaceful protest.” He condemned the widespread use of civil injunctions to stop peaceful protest and the “toxic” discourse in the media and among politicians about climate protesters. “The toxic discourse may also be used by the state as justification for adopting increasingly severe and draconian measures against environmental defenders,” he said. “In the course of my visit, I witnessed first-hand that this is precisely what is taking place in the UK right now. This has a significant chilling effect on civil society and the exercise of fundamental freedoms.” Forst said he was speaking out because of the gravity of his concerns about the widespread restrictions on peaceful protest. His investigations are ongoing as he considers formal complaints about treatment that have been submitted to him. He called for a constructive dialogue with the Conservative government to ensure that members of the public seeking to protect the environment were not subject to persecution, penalisation or harassment for doing so. The UN special rapporteur is appointed under the Aarhus convention to which the Uk is a signatory. Tim Crosland of Plan B said the convention was legally binding on the UK and the implication of the special rapporteur’s report was that the Government was acting unlawfully. “ If the events related by the UN rapporteur were taking place in Russia or China we’d be appalled,” he said. “The British Government aims to crush political opposition to its environmental destruction through a violent programme of repression - imprisoning peaceful demonstrators and undermining the right to a fair trial. In doing they vandalise not only our environment and Britain’s international reputation, but also our democracy.” Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, said: “The UN special rapporteur offers a damning indictment of the repressive crackdown climate activists in the UK face for exercising their right to peacefully protest. “The UK Government seems more intent on creating a climate of fear than tackling the climate crisis.“ Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Protest UK criminal justice Freedom of speech news Share Reuse this content Michel Forst said the prosecution of peaceful protesters and the use of the Public Order Act 2023 was criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer View image in fullscreen Michel Forst said the prosecution of peaceful protesters and the use of the Public Order Act 2023 was criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer This article is more than 1 year old UN expert condemns UK crackdown on environmental protest This article is more than 1 year old UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders says he is seriously concerned about ‘regressive new laws’ Five examples of the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters A severe crackdown on environmental protest in Britain with “draconian” new laws, excessive restrictions on courtroom evidence and the use of civil injunctions is having a chilling impact on fundamental freedoms, the United Nations special rapporteur has said. As the world faces a triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, environmental protesters were acting for the “benefit of us all” and must be protected, Michel Forst, the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders, said on Tuesday. Forst said that during a two-day visit to the UK earlier this month he uncovered worrying information on the treatment of peaceful protesters. Rules imposed on defendants in one London court have prevented them from explaining their motivations to the jury. At Inner London crown court, peaceful protesters have been forbidden by court order from mentioning the climate crisis, fuel poverty or even the US civil rights movement in their statements to the jury. “It is very difficult to understand what could justify denying the jury the opportunity to hear the reason for the defendant’s action, and how a jury could reach a properly informed decision without hearing it, in particular at the time of environmental defenders’ peaceful but ever more urgent calls for the government to take pressing action for the climate,” Forst said. He said the prosecution of peaceful protesters under “regressive” new public nuisance laws in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which carried a 10-year sentence, and the use of the Public Order Act 2023 was criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Forst highlighted the case of a peaceful protester jailed in December for six months for walking slowly down a road for 30 minutes during a climate protest under the new public order law. “It is important to highlight that, prior to these legislative developments, it had been almost unheard of since the 1930s for members of the public to be imprisoned for peaceful protest in the UK,” said Forst, in a statement issued on Tuesday morning. “I am therefore seriously concerned by these regressive new laws.” Forst also picked out the harsh bail conditions imposed on climate activists for peaceful protests. These include being forced to wear tags while awaiting trial, restrictions on movement, and bans on speaking to other environmental activists. “Some environmental defenders have also been required to wear electronic ankle tags, some including a 10pm-7am curfew, and others, GPS tracking,” said Forst. “Under the current timeframes of the criminal justice system, environmental defenders may be on bail for up to two years from the date of arrest to their eventual criminal trial. “Such severe bail conditions have significant impacts on the environmental defenders’ personal lives and mental health, and I seriously question the necessity and proportionality of such conditions for persons engaging in peaceful protest.” He condemned the widespread use of civil injunctions to stop peaceful protest and the “toxic” discourse in the media and among politicians about climate protesters. “The toxic discourse may also be used by the state as justification for adopting increasingly severe and draconian measures against environmental defenders,” he said. “In the course of my visit, I witnessed first-hand that this is precisely what is taking place in the UK right now. This has a significant chilling effect on civil society and the exercise of fundamental freedoms.” Forst said he was speaking out because of the gravity of his concerns about the widespread restrictions on peaceful protest. His investigations are ongoing as he considers formal complaints about treatment that have been submitted to him. He called for a constructive dialogue with the Conservative government to ensure that members of the public seeking to protect the environment were not subject to persecution, penalisation or harassment for doing so. The UN special rapporteur is appointed under the Aarhus convention to which the Uk is a signatory. Tim Crosland of Plan B said the convention was legally binding on the UK and the implication of the special rapporteur’s report was that the Government was acting unlawfully. “ If the events related by the UN rapporteur were taking place in Russia or China we’d be appalled,” he said. “The British Government aims to crush political opposition to its environmental destruction through a violent programme of repression - imprisoning peaceful demonstrators and undermining the right to a fair trial. In doing they vandalise not only our environment and Britain’s international reputation, but also our democracy.” Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, said: “The UN special rapporteur offers a damning indictment of the repressive crackdown climate activists in the UK face for exercising their right to peacefully protest. “The UK Government seems more intent on creating a climate of fear than tackling the climate crisis.“ Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Protest UK criminal justice Freedom of speech news Share Reuse this content Michel Forst said the prosecution of peaceful protesters and the use of the Public Order Act 2023 was criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer View image in fullscreen Michel Forst said the prosecution of peaceful protesters and the use of the Public Order Act 2023 was criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer Michel Forst said the prosecution of peaceful protesters and the use of the Public Order Act 2023 was criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer View image in fullscreen Michel Forst said the prosecution of peaceful protesters and the use of the Public Order Act 2023 was criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer Michel Forst said the prosecution of peaceful protesters and the use of the Public Order Act 2023 was criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer View image in fullscreen Michel Forst said the prosecution of peaceful protesters and the use of the Public Order Act 2023 was criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer Michel Forst said the prosecution of peaceful protesters and the use of the Public Order Act 2023 was criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer View image in fullscreen Michel Forst said the prosecution of peaceful protesters and the use of the Public Order Act 2023 was criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer Michel Forst said the prosecution of peaceful protesters and the use of the Public Order Act 2023 was criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer Michel Forst said the prosecution of peaceful protesters and the use of the Public Order Act 2023 was criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer This article is more than 1 year old UN expert condemns UK crackdown on environmental protest This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old UN expert condemns UK crackdown on environmental protest This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old UN expert condemns UK crackdown on environmental 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 UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders says he is seriously concerned about ‘regressive new laws’ Five examples of the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders says he is seriously concerned about ‘regressive new laws’ Five examples of the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders says he is seriously concerned about ‘regressive new laws’ A severe crackdown on environmental protest in Britain with “draconian” new laws, excessive restrictions on courtroom evidence and the use of civil injunctions is having a chilling impact on fundamental freedoms, the United Nations special rapporteur has said. As the world faces a triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, environmental protesters were acting for the “benefit of us all” and must be protected, Michel Forst, the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders, said on Tuesday. Forst said that during a two-day visit to the UK earlier this month he uncovered worrying information on the treatment of peaceful protesters. Rules imposed on defendants in one London court have prevented them from explaining their motivations to the jury. At Inner London crown court, peaceful protesters have been forbidden by court order from mentioning the climate crisis, fuel poverty or even the US civil rights movement in their statements to the jury. “It is very difficult to understand what could justify denying the jury the opportunity to hear the reason for the defendant’s action, and how a jury could reach a properly informed decision without hearing it, in particular at the time of environmental defenders’ peaceful but ever more urgent calls for the government to take pressing action for the climate,” Forst said. He said the prosecution of peaceful protesters under “regressive” new public nuisance laws in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which carried a 10-year sentence, and the use of the Public Order Act 2023 was criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Forst highlighted the case of a peaceful protester jailed in December for six months for walking slowly down a road for 30 minutes during a climate protest under the new public order law. “It is important to highlight that, prior to these legislative developments, it had been almost unheard of since the 1930s for members of the public to be imprisoned for peaceful protest in the UK,” said Forst, in a statement issued on Tuesday morning. “I am therefore seriously concerned by these regressive new laws.” Forst also picked out the harsh bail conditions imposed on climate activists for peaceful protests. These include being forced to wear tags while awaiting trial, restrictions on movement, and bans on speaking to other environmental activists. “Some environmental defenders have also been required to wear electronic ankle tags, some including a 10pm-7am curfew, and others, GPS tracking,” said Forst. “Under the current timeframes of the criminal justice system, environmental defenders may be on bail for up to two years from the date of arrest to their eventual criminal trial. “Such severe bail conditions have significant impacts on the environmental defenders’ personal lives and mental health, and I seriously question the necessity and proportionality of such conditions for persons engaging in peaceful protest.” He condemned the widespread use of civil injunctions to stop peaceful protest and the “toxic” discourse in the media and among politicians about climate protesters. “The toxic discourse may also be used by the state as justification for adopting increasingly severe and draconian measures against environmental defenders,” he said. “In the course of my visit, I witnessed first-hand that this is precisely what is taking place in the UK right now. This has a significant chilling effect on civil society and the exercise of fundamental freedoms.” Forst said he was speaking out because of the gravity of his concerns about the widespread restrictions on peaceful protest. His investigations are ongoing as he considers formal complaints about treatment that have been submitted to him. He called for a constructive dialogue with the Conservative government to ensure that members of the public seeking to protect the environment were not subject to persecution, penalisation or harassment for doing so. The UN special rapporteur is appointed under the Aarhus convention to which the Uk is a signatory. Tim Crosland of Plan B said the convention was legally binding on the UK and the implication of the special rapporteur’s report was that the Government was acting unlawfully. “ If the events related by the UN rapporteur were taking place in Russia or China we’d be appalled,” he said. “The British Government aims to crush political opposition to its environmental destruction through a violent programme of repression - imprisoning peaceful demonstrators and undermining the right to a fair trial. In doing they vandalise not only our environment and Britain’s international reputation, but also our democracy.” Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, said: “The UN special rapporteur offers a damning indictment of the repressive crackdown climate activists in the UK face for exercising their right to peacefully protest. “The UK Government seems more intent on creating a climate of fear than tackling the climate crisis.“ Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Protest UK criminal justice Freedom of speech news Share Reuse this content A severe crackdown on environmental protest in Britain with “draconian” new laws, excessive restrictions on courtroom evidence and the use of civil injunctions is having a chilling impact on fundamental freedoms, the United Nations special rapporteur has said. As the world faces a triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, environmental protesters were acting for the “benefit of us all” and must be protected, Michel Forst, the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders, said on Tuesday. Forst said that during a two-day visit to the UK earlier this month he uncovered worrying information on the treatment of peaceful protesters. Rules imposed on defendants in one London court have prevented them from explaining their motivations to the jury. At Inner London crown court, peaceful protesters have been forbidden by court order from mentioning the climate crisis, fuel poverty or even the US civil rights movement in their statements to the jury. “It is very difficult to understand what could justify denying the jury the opportunity to hear the reason for the defendant’s action, and how a jury could reach a properly informed decision without hearing it, in particular at the time of environmental defenders’ peaceful but ever more urgent calls for the government to take pressing action for the climate,” Forst said. He said the prosecution of peaceful protesters under “regressive” new public nuisance laws in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which carried a 10-year sentence, and the use of the Public Order Act 2023 was criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Forst highlighted the case of a peaceful protester jailed in December for six months for walking slowly down a road for 30 minutes during a climate protest under the new public order law. “It is important to highlight that, prior to these legislative developments, it had been almost unheard of since the 1930s for members of the public to be imprisoned for peaceful protest in the UK,” said Forst, in a statement issued on Tuesday morning. “I am therefore seriously concerned by these regressive new laws.” Forst also picked out the harsh bail conditions imposed on climate activists for peaceful protests. These include being forced to wear tags while awaiting trial, restrictions on movement, and bans on speaking to other environmental activists. “Some environmental defenders have also been required to wear electronic ankle tags, some including a 10pm-7am curfew, and others, GPS tracking,” said Forst. “Under the current timeframes of the criminal justice system, environmental defenders may be on bail for up to two years from the date of arrest to their eventual criminal trial. “Such severe bail conditions have significant impacts on the environmental defenders’ personal lives and mental health, and I seriously question the necessity and proportionality of such conditions for persons engaging in peaceful protest.” He condemned the widespread use of civil injunctions to stop peaceful protest and the “toxic” discourse in the media and among politicians about climate protesters. “The toxic discourse may also be used by the state as justification for adopting increasingly severe and draconian measures against environmental defenders,” he said. “In the course of my visit, I witnessed first-hand that this is precisely what is taking place in the UK right now. This has a significant chilling effect on civil society and the exercise of fundamental freedoms.” Forst said he was speaking out because of the gravity of his concerns about the widespread restrictions on peaceful protest. His investigations are ongoing as he considers formal complaints about treatment that have been submitted to him. He called for a constructive dialogue with the Conservative government to ensure that members of the public seeking to protect the environment were not subject to persecution, penalisation or harassment for doing so. The UN special rapporteur is appointed under the Aarhus convention to which the Uk is a signatory. Tim Crosland of Plan B said the convention was legally binding on the UK and the implication of the special rapporteur’s report was that the Government was acting unlawfully. “ If the events related by the UN rapporteur were taking place in Russia or China we’d be appalled,” he said. “The British Government aims to crush political opposition to its environmental destruction through a violent programme of repression - imprisoning peaceful demonstrators and undermining the right to a fair trial. In doing they vandalise not only our environment and Britain’s international reputation, but also our democracy.” Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, said: “The UN special rapporteur offers a damning indictment of the repressive crackdown climate activists in the UK face for exercising their right to peacefully protest. “The UK Government seems more intent on creating a climate of fear than tackling the climate crisis.“ Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Protest UK criminal justice Freedom of speech news Share Reuse this content A severe crackdown on environmental protest in Britain with “draconian” new laws, excessive restrictions on courtroom evidence and the use of civil injunctions is having a chilling impact on fundamental freedoms, the United Nations special rapporteur has said. As the world faces a triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, environmental protesters were acting for the “benefit of us all” and must be protected, Michel Forst, the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders, said on Tuesday. Forst said that during a two-day visit to the UK earlier this month he uncovered worrying information on the treatment of peaceful protesters. Rules imposed on defendants in one London court have prevented them from explaining their motivations to the jury. At Inner London crown court, peaceful protesters have been forbidden by court order from mentioning the climate crisis, fuel poverty or even the US civil rights movement in their statements to the jury. “It is very difficult to understand what could justify denying the jury the opportunity to hear the reason for the defendant’s action, and how a jury could reach a properly informed decision without hearing it, in particular at the time of environmental defenders’ peaceful but ever more urgent calls for the government to take pressing action for the climate,” Forst said. He said the prosecution of peaceful protesters under “regressive” new public nuisance laws in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which carried a 10-year sentence, and the use of the Public Order Act 2023 was criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Forst highlighted the case of a peaceful protester jailed in December for six months for walking slowly down a road for 30 minutes during a climate protest under the new public order law. “It is important to highlight that, prior to these legislative developments, it had been almost unheard of since the 1930s for members of the public to be imprisoned for peaceful protest in the UK,” said Forst, in a statement issued on Tuesday morning. “I am therefore seriously concerned by these regressive new laws.” Forst also picked out the harsh bail conditions imposed on climate activists for peaceful protests. These include being forced to wear tags while awaiting trial, restrictions on movement, and bans on speaking to other environmental activists. “Some environmental defenders have also been required to wear electronic ankle tags, some including a 10pm-7am curfew, and others, GPS tracking,” said Forst. “Under the current timeframes of the criminal justice system, environmental defenders may be on bail for up to two years from the date of arrest to their eventual criminal trial. “Such severe bail conditions have significant impacts on the environmental defenders’ personal lives and mental health, and I seriously question the necessity and proportionality of such conditions for persons engaging in peaceful protest.” He condemned the widespread use of civil injunctions to stop peaceful protest and the “toxic” discourse in the media and among politicians about climate protesters. “The toxic discourse may also be used by the state as justification for adopting increasingly severe and draconian measures against environmental defenders,” he said. “In the course of my visit, I witnessed first-hand that this is precisely what is taking place in the UK right now. This has a significant chilling effect on civil society and the exercise of fundamental freedoms.” Forst said he was speaking out because of the gravity of his concerns about the widespread restrictions on peaceful protest. His investigations are ongoing as he considers formal complaints about treatment that have been submitted to him. He called for a constructive dialogue with the Conservative government to ensure that members of the public seeking to protect the environment were not subject to persecution, penalisation or harassment for doing so. The UN special rapporteur is appointed under the Aarhus convention to which the Uk is a signatory. Tim Crosland of Plan B said the convention was legally binding on the UK and the implication of the special rapporteur’s report was that the Government was acting unlawfully. “ If the events related by the UN rapporteur were taking place in Russia or China we’d be appalled,” he said. “The British Government aims to crush political opposition to its environmental destruction through a violent programme of repression - imprisoning peaceful demonstrators and undermining the right to a fair trial. In doing they vandalise not only our environment and Britain’s international reputation, but also our democracy.” Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, said: “The UN special rapporteur offers a damning indictment of the repressive crackdown climate activists in the UK face for exercising their right to peacefully protest. “The UK Government seems more intent on creating a climate of fear than tackling the climate crisis.“ A severe crackdown on environmental protest in Britain with “draconian” new laws, excessive restrictions on courtroom evidence and the use of civil injunctions is having a chilling impact on fundamental freedoms, the United Nations special rapporteur has said. As the world faces a triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, environmental protesters were acting for the “benefit of us all” and must be protected, Michel Forst, the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders, said on Tuesday. Forst said that during a two-day visit to the UK earlier this month he uncovered worrying information on the treatment of peaceful protesters. Rules imposed on defendants in one London court have prevented them from explaining their motivations to the jury. At Inner London crown court, peaceful protesters have been forbidden by court order from mentioning the climate crisis, fuel poverty or even the US civil rights movement in their statements to the jury. “It is very difficult to understand what could justify denying the jury the opportunity to hear the reason for the defendant’s action, and how a jury could reach a properly informed decision without hearing it, in particular at the time of environmental defenders’ peaceful but ever more urgent calls for the government to take pressing action for the climate,” Forst said. He said the prosecution of peaceful protesters under “regressive” new public nuisance laws in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which carried a 10-year sentence, and the use of the Public Order Act 2023 was criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Forst highlighted the case of a peaceful protester jailed in December for six months for walking slowly down a road for 30 minutes during a climate protest under the new public order law. “It is important to highlight that, prior to these legislative developments, it had been almost unheard of since the 1930s for members of the public to be imprisoned for peaceful protest in the UK,” said Forst, in a statement issued on Tuesday morning. “I am therefore seriously concerned by these regressive new laws.” Forst also picked out the harsh bail conditions imposed on climate activists for peaceful protests. These include being forced to wear tags while awaiting trial, restrictions on movement, and bans on speaking to other environmental activists. “Some environmental defenders have also been required to wear electronic ankle tags, some including a 10pm-7am curfew, and others, GPS tracking,” said Forst. “Under the current timeframes of the criminal justice system, environmental defenders may be on bail for up to two years from the date of arrest to their eventual criminal trial. “Such severe bail conditions have significant impacts on the environmental defenders’ personal lives and mental health, and I seriously question the necessity and proportionality of such conditions for persons engaging in peaceful protest.” He condemned the widespread use of civil injunctions to stop peaceful protest and the “toxic” discourse in the media and among politicians about climate protesters. “The toxic discourse may also be used by the state as justification for adopting increasingly severe and draconian measures against environmental defenders,” he said. “In the course of my visit, I witnessed first-hand that this is precisely what is taking place in the UK right now. This has a significant chilling effect on civil society and the exercise of fundamental freedoms.” Forst said he was speaking out because of the gravity of his concerns about the widespread restrictions on peaceful protest. His investigations are ongoing as he considers formal complaints about treatment that have been submitted to him. He called for a constructive dialogue with the Conservative government to ensure that members of the public seeking to protect the environment were not subject to persecution, penalisation or harassment for doing so. The UN special rapporteur is appointed under the Aarhus convention to which the Uk is a signatory. Tim Crosland of Plan B said the convention was legally binding on the UK and the implication of the special rapporteur’s report was that the Government was acting unlawfully. “ If the events related by the UN rapporteur were taking place in Russia or China we’d be appalled,” he said. “The British Government aims to crush political opposition to its environmental destruction through a violent programme of repression - imprisoning peaceful demonstrators and undermining the right to a fair trial. In doing they vandalise not only our environment and Britain’s international reputation, but also our democracy.” Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, said: “The UN special rapporteur offers a damning indictment of the repressive crackdown climate activists in the UK face for exercising their right to peacefully protest. “The UK Government seems more intent on creating a climate of fear than tackling the climate crisis.“ A severe crackdown on environmental protest in Britain with “draconian” new laws, excessive restrictions on courtroom evidence and the use of civil injunctions is having a chilling impact on fundamental freedoms, the United Nations special rapporteur has said. As the world faces a triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, environmental protesters were acting for the “benefit of us all” and must be protected, Michel Forst, the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders, said on Tuesday. Forst said that during a two-day visit to the UK earlier this month he uncovered worrying information on the treatment of peaceful protesters. Rules imposed on defendants in one London court have prevented them from explaining their motivations to the jury. At Inner London crown court, peaceful protesters have been forbidden by court order from mentioning the climate crisis, fuel poverty or even the US civil rights movement in their statements to the jury. “It is very difficult to understand what could justify denying the jury the opportunity to hear the reason for the defendant’s action, and how a jury could reach a properly informed decision without hearing it, in particular at the time of environmental defenders’ peaceful but ever more urgent calls for the government to take pressing action for the climate,” Forst said. He said the prosecution of peaceful protesters under “regressive” new public nuisance laws in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which carried a 10-year sentence, and the use of the Public Order Act 2023 was criminalising peaceful demonstrations. Forst highlighted the case of a peaceful protester jailed in December for six months for walking slowly down a road for 30 minutes during a climate protest under the new public order law. “It is important to highlight that, prior to these legislative developments, it had been almost unheard of since the 1930s for members of the public to be imprisoned for peaceful protest in the UK,” said Forst, in a statement issued on Tuesday morning. “I am therefore seriously concerned by these regressive new laws.” Forst also picked out the harsh bail conditions imposed on climate activists for peaceful protests. These include being forced to wear tags while awaiting trial, restrictions on movement, and bans on speaking to other environmental activists. “Some environmental defenders have also been required to wear electronic ankle tags, some including a 10pm-7am curfew, and others, GPS tracking,” said Forst. “Under the current timeframes of the criminal justice system, environmental defenders may be on bail for up to two years from the date of arrest to their eventual criminal trial. “Such severe bail conditions have significant impacts on the environmental defenders’ personal lives and mental health, and I seriously question the necessity and proportionality of such conditions for persons engaging in peaceful protest.” He condemned the widespread use of civil injunctions to stop peaceful protest and the “toxic” discourse in the media and among politicians about climate protesters. “The toxic discourse may also be used by the state as justification for adopting increasingly severe and draconian measures against environmental defenders,” he said. “In the course of my visit, I witnessed first-hand that this is precisely what is taking place in the UK right now. This has a significant chilling effect on civil society and the exercise of fundamental freedoms.” Forst said he was speaking out because of the gravity of his concerns about the widespread restrictions on peaceful protest. His investigations are ongoing as he considers formal complaints about treatment that have been submitted to him. He called for a constructive dialogue with the Conservative government to ensure that members of the public seeking to protect the environment were not subject to persecution, penalisation or harassment for doing so. The UN special rapporteur is appointed under the Aarhus convention to which the Uk is a signatory. Tim Crosland of Plan B said the convention was legally binding on the UK and the implication of the special rapporteur’s report was that the Government was acting unlawfully. “ If the events related by the UN rapporteur were taking place in Russia or China we’d be appalled,” he said. “The British Government aims to crush political opposition to its environmental destruction through a violent programme of repression - imprisoning peaceful demonstrators and undermining the right to a fair trial. In doing they vandalise not only our environment and Britain’s international reputation, but also our democracy.” Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, said: “The UN special rapporteur offers a damning indictment of the repressive crackdown climate activists in the UK face for exercising their right to peacefully protest. “The UK Government seems more intent on creating a climate of fear than tackling the climate crisis.“ Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Protest UK criminal justice Freedom of speech news Share Reuse this content Environmental activism Protest UK criminal justice Freedom of speech news
|
Five examples of the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters
Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker were jailed after climbing the Queen Elizabeth II bridge over the Dartford Crossing and unveiling a Just Stop Oil banner. Photograph: Essex Police/PA View image in fullscreen Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker were jailed after climbing the Queen Elizabeth II bridge over the Dartford Crossing and unveiling a Just Stop Oil banner. Photograph: Essex Police/PA This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Five examples of the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters This article is more than 1 year old As UN expert says UK’s actions are chilling and regressive, we look at some of the cases UN expert condemns UK crackdown on environmental protest The UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders Michel Forst has said the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters is chilling , regressive and a restriction on fundamental freedoms. We look at some of the cases: Defendants on trial for peaceful protest were forbidden from mentioning the words climate change, fuel poverty or the civil rights movement when they were on trial for public nuisance. Several people, including a social worker, David Nixon , and the Dorset councillor Giovanna Lewis , were jailed for contempt of court when they defied the restrictions to explain their motivations for taking action to the jury. A retired social worker, Trudi Warner, is being prosecuted for contempt of court for holding up a sign outside a court defending the right of juries to decide a case on their conscience. The decision to prosecute was made by the then solicitor general Michael Tomlinson KC, a minister and the Conservative MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole. Stephen Gingell, 57, was jailed for six months after pleading guilty to taking part in a peaceful slow march protest on a London road. The sentence is thought to be the first jailing under the Public Order Act 2023, which includes an offence of “interference with key national infrastructure”. Gingell is appealing. Civil injunctions have been issued to hundreds of individuals. National Highways has injunctions covering 4,300 miles of motorways and major A roads. Anyone who breaches this injunction faces imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. Any corporation can apply for a civil injunction , and individuals can be punished without a trial. Marcus Decker and Morgan Trowland made history as the peaceful protesters who have received the longest jail sentences in modern history in the UK when they were sentenced to two years and seven months, and three years respectively for public nuisance. They climbed the Queen Elizabeth II bridge over the Dartford Crossing and unveiled a banner for Just Stop Oil in 2022. Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Protest UK criminal justice explainers Share Reuse this content Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker were jailed after climbing the Queen Elizabeth II bridge over the Dartford Crossing and unveiling a Just Stop Oil banner. Photograph: Essex Police/PA View image in fullscreen Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker were jailed after climbing the Queen Elizabeth II bridge over the Dartford Crossing and unveiling a Just Stop Oil banner. Photograph: Essex Police/PA This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Five examples of the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters This article is more than 1 year old As UN expert says UK’s actions are chilling and regressive, we look at some of the cases UN expert condemns UK crackdown on environmental protest The UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders Michel Forst has said the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters is chilling , regressive and a restriction on fundamental freedoms. We look at some of the cases: Defendants on trial for peaceful protest were forbidden from mentioning the words climate change, fuel poverty or the civil rights movement when they were on trial for public nuisance. Several people, including a social worker, David Nixon , and the Dorset councillor Giovanna Lewis , were jailed for contempt of court when they defied the restrictions to explain their motivations for taking action to the jury. A retired social worker, Trudi Warner, is being prosecuted for contempt of court for holding up a sign outside a court defending the right of juries to decide a case on their conscience. The decision to prosecute was made by the then solicitor general Michael Tomlinson KC, a minister and the Conservative MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole. Stephen Gingell, 57, was jailed for six months after pleading guilty to taking part in a peaceful slow march protest on a London road. The sentence is thought to be the first jailing under the Public Order Act 2023, which includes an offence of “interference with key national infrastructure”. Gingell is appealing. Civil injunctions have been issued to hundreds of individuals. National Highways has injunctions covering 4,300 miles of motorways and major A roads. Anyone who breaches this injunction faces imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. Any corporation can apply for a civil injunction , and individuals can be punished without a trial. Marcus Decker and Morgan Trowland made history as the peaceful protesters who have received the longest jail sentences in modern history in the UK when they were sentenced to two years and seven months, and three years respectively for public nuisance. They climbed the Queen Elizabeth II bridge over the Dartford Crossing and unveiled a banner for Just Stop Oil in 2022. Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Protest UK criminal justice explainers Share Reuse this content Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker were jailed after climbing the Queen Elizabeth II bridge over the Dartford Crossing and unveiling a Just Stop Oil banner. Photograph: Essex Police/PA View image in fullscreen Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker were jailed after climbing the Queen Elizabeth II bridge over the Dartford Crossing and unveiling a Just Stop Oil banner. Photograph: Essex Police/PA Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker were jailed after climbing the Queen Elizabeth II bridge over the Dartford Crossing and unveiling a Just Stop Oil banner. Photograph: Essex Police/PA View image in fullscreen Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker were jailed after climbing the Queen Elizabeth II bridge over the Dartford Crossing and unveiling a Just Stop Oil banner. Photograph: Essex Police/PA Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker were jailed after climbing the Queen Elizabeth II bridge over the Dartford Crossing and unveiling a Just Stop Oil banner. Photograph: Essex Police/PA View image in fullscreen Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker were jailed after climbing the Queen Elizabeth II bridge over the Dartford Crossing and unveiling a Just Stop Oil banner. Photograph: Essex Police/PA Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker were jailed after climbing the Queen Elizabeth II bridge over the Dartford Crossing and unveiling a Just Stop Oil banner. Photograph: Essex Police/PA View image in fullscreen Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker were jailed after climbing the Queen Elizabeth II bridge over the Dartford Crossing and unveiling a Just Stop Oil banner. Photograph: Essex Police/PA Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker were jailed after climbing the Queen Elizabeth II bridge over the Dartford Crossing and unveiling a Just Stop Oil banner. Photograph: Essex Police/PA Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker were jailed after climbing the Queen Elizabeth II bridge over the Dartford Crossing and unveiling a Just Stop Oil banner. Photograph: Essex Police/PA This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Five examples of the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Five examples of the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Five examples of the UK’s crackdown on climate 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 As UN expert says UK’s actions are chilling and regressive, we look at some of the cases UN expert condemns UK crackdown on environmental protest As UN expert says UK’s actions are chilling and regressive, we look at some of the cases UN expert condemns UK crackdown on environmental protest As UN expert says UK’s actions are chilling and regressive, we look at some of the cases The UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders Michel Forst has said the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters is chilling , regressive and a restriction on fundamental freedoms. We look at some of the cases: Defendants on trial for peaceful protest were forbidden from mentioning the words climate change, fuel poverty or the civil rights movement when they were on trial for public nuisance. Several people, including a social worker, David Nixon , and the Dorset councillor Giovanna Lewis , were jailed for contempt of court when they defied the restrictions to explain their motivations for taking action to the jury. A retired social worker, Trudi Warner, is being prosecuted for contempt of court for holding up a sign outside a court defending the right of juries to decide a case on their conscience. The decision to prosecute was made by the then solicitor general Michael Tomlinson KC, a minister and the Conservative MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole. Stephen Gingell, 57, was jailed for six months after pleading guilty to taking part in a peaceful slow march protest on a London road. The sentence is thought to be the first jailing under the Public Order Act 2023, which includes an offence of “interference with key national infrastructure”. Gingell is appealing. Civil injunctions have been issued to hundreds of individuals. National Highways has injunctions covering 4,300 miles of motorways and major A roads. Anyone who breaches this injunction faces imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. Any corporation can apply for a civil injunction , and individuals can be punished without a trial. Marcus Decker and Morgan Trowland made history as the peaceful protesters who have received the longest jail sentences in modern history in the UK when they were sentenced to two years and seven months, and three years respectively for public nuisance. They climbed the Queen Elizabeth II bridge over the Dartford Crossing and unveiled a banner for Just Stop Oil in 2022. Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Protest UK criminal justice explainers Share Reuse this content The UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders Michel Forst has said the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters is chilling , regressive and a restriction on fundamental freedoms. We look at some of the cases: Defendants on trial for peaceful protest were forbidden from mentioning the words climate change, fuel poverty or the civil rights movement when they were on trial for public nuisance. Several people, including a social worker, David Nixon , and the Dorset councillor Giovanna Lewis , were jailed for contempt of court when they defied the restrictions to explain their motivations for taking action to the jury. A retired social worker, Trudi Warner, is being prosecuted for contempt of court for holding up a sign outside a court defending the right of juries to decide a case on their conscience. The decision to prosecute was made by the then solicitor general Michael Tomlinson KC, a minister and the Conservative MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole. Stephen Gingell, 57, was jailed for six months after pleading guilty to taking part in a peaceful slow march protest on a London road. The sentence is thought to be the first jailing under the Public Order Act 2023, which includes an offence of “interference with key national infrastructure”. Gingell is appealing. Civil injunctions have been issued to hundreds of individuals. National Highways has injunctions covering 4,300 miles of motorways and major A roads. Anyone who breaches this injunction faces imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. Any corporation can apply for a civil injunction , and individuals can be punished without a trial. Marcus Decker and Morgan Trowland made history as the peaceful protesters who have received the longest jail sentences in modern history in the UK when they were sentenced to two years and seven months, and three years respectively for public nuisance. They climbed the Queen Elizabeth II bridge over the Dartford Crossing and unveiled a banner for Just Stop Oil in 2022. Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Protest UK criminal justice explainers Share Reuse this content The UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders Michel Forst has said the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters is chilling , regressive and a restriction on fundamental freedoms. We look at some of the cases: Defendants on trial for peaceful protest were forbidden from mentioning the words climate change, fuel poverty or the civil rights movement when they were on trial for public nuisance. Several people, including a social worker, David Nixon , and the Dorset councillor Giovanna Lewis , were jailed for contempt of court when they defied the restrictions to explain their motivations for taking action to the jury. A retired social worker, Trudi Warner, is being prosecuted for contempt of court for holding up a sign outside a court defending the right of juries to decide a case on their conscience. The decision to prosecute was made by the then solicitor general Michael Tomlinson KC, a minister and the Conservative MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole. Stephen Gingell, 57, was jailed for six months after pleading guilty to taking part in a peaceful slow march protest on a London road. The sentence is thought to be the first jailing under the Public Order Act 2023, which includes an offence of “interference with key national infrastructure”. Gingell is appealing. Civil injunctions have been issued to hundreds of individuals. National Highways has injunctions covering 4,300 miles of motorways and major A roads. Anyone who breaches this injunction faces imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. Any corporation can apply for a civil injunction , and individuals can be punished without a trial. Marcus Decker and Morgan Trowland made history as the peaceful protesters who have received the longest jail sentences in modern history in the UK when they were sentenced to two years and seven months, and three years respectively for public nuisance. They climbed the Queen Elizabeth II bridge over the Dartford Crossing and unveiled a banner for Just Stop Oil in 2022. The UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders Michel Forst has said the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters is chilling , regressive and a restriction on fundamental freedoms. We look at some of the cases: Defendants on trial for peaceful protest were forbidden from mentioning the words climate change, fuel poverty or the civil rights movement when they were on trial for public nuisance. Several people, including a social worker, David Nixon , and the Dorset councillor Giovanna Lewis , were jailed for contempt of court when they defied the restrictions to explain their motivations for taking action to the jury. A retired social worker, Trudi Warner, is being prosecuted for contempt of court for holding up a sign outside a court defending the right of juries to decide a case on their conscience. The decision to prosecute was made by the then solicitor general Michael Tomlinson KC, a minister and the Conservative MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole. Stephen Gingell, 57, was jailed for six months after pleading guilty to taking part in a peaceful slow march protest on a London road. The sentence is thought to be the first jailing under the Public Order Act 2023, which includes an offence of “interference with key national infrastructure”. Gingell is appealing. Civil injunctions have been issued to hundreds of individuals. National Highways has injunctions covering 4,300 miles of motorways and major A roads. Anyone who breaches this injunction faces imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. Any corporation can apply for a civil injunction , and individuals can be punished without a trial. Marcus Decker and Morgan Trowland made history as the peaceful protesters who have received the longest jail sentences in modern history in the UK when they were sentenced to two years and seven months, and three years respectively for public nuisance. They climbed the Queen Elizabeth II bridge over the Dartford Crossing and unveiled a banner for Just Stop Oil in 2022. The UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders Michel Forst has said the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters is chilling , regressive and a restriction on fundamental freedoms. Defendants on trial for peaceful protest were forbidden from mentioning the words climate change, fuel poverty or the civil rights movement when they were on trial for public nuisance. Several people, including a social worker, David Nixon , and the Dorset councillor Giovanna Lewis , were jailed for contempt of court when they defied the restrictions to explain their motivations for taking action to the jury. A retired social worker, Trudi Warner, is being prosecuted for contempt of court for holding up a sign outside a court defending the right of juries to decide a case on their conscience. The decision to prosecute was made by the then solicitor general Michael Tomlinson KC, a minister and the Conservative MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole. Stephen Gingell, 57, was jailed for six months after pleading guilty to taking part in a peaceful slow march protest on a London road. The sentence is thought to be the first jailing under the Public Order Act 2023, which includes an offence of “interference with key national infrastructure”. Gingell is appealing. Civil injunctions have been issued to hundreds of individuals. National Highways has injunctions covering 4,300 miles of motorways and major A roads. Anyone who breaches this injunction faces imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. Any corporation can apply for a civil injunction , and individuals can be punished without a trial. Marcus Decker and Morgan Trowland made history as the peaceful protesters who have received the longest jail sentences in modern history in the UK when they were sentenced to two years and seven months, and three years respectively for public nuisance. They climbed the Queen Elizabeth II bridge over the Dartford Crossing and unveiled a banner for Just Stop Oil in 2022. Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Protest UK criminal justice explainers Share Reuse this content Environmental activism Protest UK criminal justice explainers
|
The AfD’s true colours: inside the 26 January Guardian Weekly
The cover of the 26 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Pete Reynolds/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The cover of the 26 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Pete Reynolds/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old The AfD’s true colours: inside the 26 January Guardian Weekly This article is more than 1 year old The German far-right party, exposed. Plus: meltdown in the Middle East Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Having been founded a decade ago by anti-euro economists, Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland party has since tracked sharply to the right – a fact amply illustrated by recent revelations that AfD politicians met with neo‑Nazi groups to discuss plans for mass deportations, should the party gain power. The exposé has sparked mass protests in Germany and even calls to ban the AfD. But, as Philip Oltermann and Kate Connolly report, with support for the party holding firm, any moves to prohibit the AfD could be a major political gamble. The challenge for illustrator Pete Reynolds in conveying the AfD’s covert agenda on the Guardian Weekly magazine’s cover this week was one of balance. “In portraying a hidden danger there must exist a tension between hiding the danger and revealing it,” says Pete. “It’s a cover, so the idea must be communicated with some immediacy, yet there is a need for delayed recognition. The wolf must be seen, but not straight away.” Events in the Middle East continue to unfold at a bewildering pace, with pockets of conflict opening up across the region. Diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour rounds up a week of flashpoints and assesses increasingly slim hopes for controlling the situation. And Oliver Holmes provides a revealing profile of Yemen, one of the most unchanging and least visited countries in the Middle East. The Weekly went to press before news of Donald Trump’s victory in the New Hampshire Republican primary on Tuesday night, but you can catch up with all the latest Guardian coverage and reaction here . In the magazine, David Smith delivers a postmortem on Ron DeSantis’s doomed campaign, while Jonathan Freedland argues that Trump’s march to the White House can still be stopped. Our long-read features take somewhat divergent paths this week. First, Charlotte Edwardes meets Gary Lineker, the former England footballer turned TV presenter whose penchant for regularly airing his liberal worldviews has made him public enemy No 1 for Britain’s anti-woke brigade. Then, Chananya Groner unearths a remarkable story of factionalism and messianic fervour within New York’s Hasidic Jewish community, stretching back 30 years, which led to secret tunnels recently being discovered beneath a Brooklyn synagogue. And in Culture, Charlotte Higgins meets the classical musicians Dalia Stasevska and Joshua Bell, who are resurrecting a long-forgotten Ukrainian concerto as a gesture of defiance to Russia. Finally, we’re on the lookout for your best photographs of the world around us. For a chance for your picture to feature in the magazine, send us your best shot , telling us where you were in the world when you took it and why the scene resonated with you at that particular time. Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Explore more on these topics Germany Inside Guardian Weekly Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) The far right Europe Share Reuse this content The cover of the 26 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Pete Reynolds/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The cover of the 26 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Pete Reynolds/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old The AfD’s true colours: inside the 26 January Guardian Weekly This article is more than 1 year old The German far-right party, exposed. Plus: meltdown in the Middle East Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Having been founded a decade ago by anti-euro economists, Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland party has since tracked sharply to the right – a fact amply illustrated by recent revelations that AfD politicians met with neo‑Nazi groups to discuss plans for mass deportations, should the party gain power. The exposé has sparked mass protests in Germany and even calls to ban the AfD. But, as Philip Oltermann and Kate Connolly report, with support for the party holding firm, any moves to prohibit the AfD could be a major political gamble. The challenge for illustrator Pete Reynolds in conveying the AfD’s covert agenda on the Guardian Weekly magazine’s cover this week was one of balance. “In portraying a hidden danger there must exist a tension between hiding the danger and revealing it,” says Pete. “It’s a cover, so the idea must be communicated with some immediacy, yet there is a need for delayed recognition. The wolf must be seen, but not straight away.” Events in the Middle East continue to unfold at a bewildering pace, with pockets of conflict opening up across the region. Diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour rounds up a week of flashpoints and assesses increasingly slim hopes for controlling the situation. And Oliver Holmes provides a revealing profile of Yemen, one of the most unchanging and least visited countries in the Middle East. The Weekly went to press before news of Donald Trump’s victory in the New Hampshire Republican primary on Tuesday night, but you can catch up with all the latest Guardian coverage and reaction here . In the magazine, David Smith delivers a postmortem on Ron DeSantis’s doomed campaign, while Jonathan Freedland argues that Trump’s march to the White House can still be stopped. Our long-read features take somewhat divergent paths this week. First, Charlotte Edwardes meets Gary Lineker, the former England footballer turned TV presenter whose penchant for regularly airing his liberal worldviews has made him public enemy No 1 for Britain’s anti-woke brigade. Then, Chananya Groner unearths a remarkable story of factionalism and messianic fervour within New York’s Hasidic Jewish community, stretching back 30 years, which led to secret tunnels recently being discovered beneath a Brooklyn synagogue. And in Culture, Charlotte Higgins meets the classical musicians Dalia Stasevska and Joshua Bell, who are resurrecting a long-forgotten Ukrainian concerto as a gesture of defiance to Russia. Finally, we’re on the lookout for your best photographs of the world around us. For a chance for your picture to feature in the magazine, send us your best shot , telling us where you were in the world when you took it and why the scene resonated with you at that particular time. Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Explore more on these topics Germany Inside Guardian Weekly Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) The far right Europe Share Reuse this content The cover of the 26 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Pete Reynolds/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The cover of the 26 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Pete Reynolds/The Guardian The cover of the 26 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Pete Reynolds/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The cover of the 26 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Pete Reynolds/The Guardian The cover of the 26 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Pete Reynolds/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The cover of the 26 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Pete Reynolds/The Guardian The cover of the 26 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Pete Reynolds/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The cover of the 26 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Pete Reynolds/The Guardian The cover of the 26 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Pete Reynolds/The Guardian The cover of the 26 January edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Pete Reynolds/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old The AfD’s true colours: inside the 26 January Guardian Weekly This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old The AfD’s true colours: inside the 26 January Guardian Weekly This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old The AfD’s true colours: inside the 26 January Guardian Weekly 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 German far-right party, exposed. Plus: meltdown in the Middle East Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address The German far-right party, exposed. Plus: meltdown in the Middle East Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address The German far-right party, exposed. Plus: meltdown in the Middle East Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Having been founded a decade ago by anti-euro economists, Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland party has since tracked sharply to the right – a fact amply illustrated by recent revelations that AfD politicians met with neo‑Nazi groups to discuss plans for mass deportations, should the party gain power. The exposé has sparked mass protests in Germany and even calls to ban the AfD. But, as Philip Oltermann and Kate Connolly report, with support for the party holding firm, any moves to prohibit the AfD could be a major political gamble. The challenge for illustrator Pete Reynolds in conveying the AfD’s covert agenda on the Guardian Weekly magazine’s cover this week was one of balance. “In portraying a hidden danger there must exist a tension between hiding the danger and revealing it,” says Pete. “It’s a cover, so the idea must be communicated with some immediacy, yet there is a need for delayed recognition. The wolf must be seen, but not straight away.” Events in the Middle East continue to unfold at a bewildering pace, with pockets of conflict opening up across the region. Diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour rounds up a week of flashpoints and assesses increasingly slim hopes for controlling the situation. And Oliver Holmes provides a revealing profile of Yemen, one of the most unchanging and least visited countries in the Middle East. The Weekly went to press before news of Donald Trump’s victory in the New Hampshire Republican primary on Tuesday night, but you can catch up with all the latest Guardian coverage and reaction here . In the magazine, David Smith delivers a postmortem on Ron DeSantis’s doomed campaign, while Jonathan Freedland argues that Trump’s march to the White House can still be stopped. Our long-read features take somewhat divergent paths this week. First, Charlotte Edwardes meets Gary Lineker, the former England footballer turned TV presenter whose penchant for regularly airing his liberal worldviews has made him public enemy No 1 for Britain’s anti-woke brigade. Then, Chananya Groner unearths a remarkable story of factionalism and messianic fervour within New York’s Hasidic Jewish community, stretching back 30 years, which led to secret tunnels recently being discovered beneath a Brooklyn synagogue. And in Culture, Charlotte Higgins meets the classical musicians Dalia Stasevska and Joshua Bell, who are resurrecting a long-forgotten Ukrainian concerto as a gesture of defiance to Russia. Finally, we’re on the lookout for your best photographs of the world around us. For a chance for your picture to feature in the magazine, send us your best shot , telling us where you were in the world when you took it and why the scene resonated with you at that particular time. Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Explore more on these topics Germany Inside Guardian Weekly Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) The far right Europe Share Reuse this content Having been founded a decade ago by anti-euro economists, Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland party has since tracked sharply to the right – a fact amply illustrated by recent revelations that AfD politicians met with neo‑Nazi groups to discuss plans for mass deportations, should the party gain power. The exposé has sparked mass protests in Germany and even calls to ban the AfD. But, as Philip Oltermann and Kate Connolly report, with support for the party holding firm, any moves to prohibit the AfD could be a major political gamble. The challenge for illustrator Pete Reynolds in conveying the AfD’s covert agenda on the Guardian Weekly magazine’s cover this week was one of balance. “In portraying a hidden danger there must exist a tension between hiding the danger and revealing it,” says Pete. “It’s a cover, so the idea must be communicated with some immediacy, yet there is a need for delayed recognition. The wolf must be seen, but not straight away.” Events in the Middle East continue to unfold at a bewildering pace, with pockets of conflict opening up across the region. Diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour rounds up a week of flashpoints and assesses increasingly slim hopes for controlling the situation. And Oliver Holmes provides a revealing profile of Yemen, one of the most unchanging and least visited countries in the Middle East. The Weekly went to press before news of Donald Trump’s victory in the New Hampshire Republican primary on Tuesday night, but you can catch up with all the latest Guardian coverage and reaction here . In the magazine, David Smith delivers a postmortem on Ron DeSantis’s doomed campaign, while Jonathan Freedland argues that Trump’s march to the White House can still be stopped. Our long-read features take somewhat divergent paths this week. First, Charlotte Edwardes meets Gary Lineker, the former England footballer turned TV presenter whose penchant for regularly airing his liberal worldviews has made him public enemy No 1 for Britain’s anti-woke brigade. Then, Chananya Groner unearths a remarkable story of factionalism and messianic fervour within New York’s Hasidic Jewish community, stretching back 30 years, which led to secret tunnels recently being discovered beneath a Brooklyn synagogue. And in Culture, Charlotte Higgins meets the classical musicians Dalia Stasevska and Joshua Bell, who are resurrecting a long-forgotten Ukrainian concerto as a gesture of defiance to Russia. Finally, we’re on the lookout for your best photographs of the world around us. For a chance for your picture to feature in the magazine, send us your best shot , telling us where you were in the world when you took it and why the scene resonated with you at that particular time. Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Explore more on these topics Germany Inside Guardian Weekly Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) The far right Europe Share Reuse this content Having been founded a decade ago by anti-euro economists, Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland party has since tracked sharply to the right – a fact amply illustrated by recent revelations that AfD politicians met with neo‑Nazi groups to discuss plans for mass deportations, should the party gain power. The exposé has sparked mass protests in Germany and even calls to ban the AfD. But, as Philip Oltermann and Kate Connolly report, with support for the party holding firm, any moves to prohibit the AfD could be a major political gamble. The challenge for illustrator Pete Reynolds in conveying the AfD’s covert agenda on the Guardian Weekly magazine’s cover this week was one of balance. “In portraying a hidden danger there must exist a tension between hiding the danger and revealing it,” says Pete. “It’s a cover, so the idea must be communicated with some immediacy, yet there is a need for delayed recognition. The wolf must be seen, but not straight away.” Events in the Middle East continue to unfold at a bewildering pace, with pockets of conflict opening up across the region. Diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour rounds up a week of flashpoints and assesses increasingly slim hopes for controlling the situation. And Oliver Holmes provides a revealing profile of Yemen, one of the most unchanging and least visited countries in the Middle East. The Weekly went to press before news of Donald Trump’s victory in the New Hampshire Republican primary on Tuesday night, but you can catch up with all the latest Guardian coverage and reaction here . In the magazine, David Smith delivers a postmortem on Ron DeSantis’s doomed campaign, while Jonathan Freedland argues that Trump’s march to the White House can still be stopped. Our long-read features take somewhat divergent paths this week. First, Charlotte Edwardes meets Gary Lineker, the former England footballer turned TV presenter whose penchant for regularly airing his liberal worldviews has made him public enemy No 1 for Britain’s anti-woke brigade. Then, Chananya Groner unearths a remarkable story of factionalism and messianic fervour within New York’s Hasidic Jewish community, stretching back 30 years, which led to secret tunnels recently being discovered beneath a Brooklyn synagogue. And in Culture, Charlotte Higgins meets the classical musicians Dalia Stasevska and Joshua Bell, who are resurrecting a long-forgotten Ukrainian concerto as a gesture of defiance to Russia. Finally, we’re on the lookout for your best photographs of the world around us. For a chance for your picture to feature in the magazine, send us your best shot , telling us where you were in the world when you took it and why the scene resonated with you at that particular time. Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Having been founded a decade ago by anti-euro economists, Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland party has since tracked sharply to the right – a fact amply illustrated by recent revelations that AfD politicians met with neo‑Nazi groups to discuss plans for mass deportations, should the party gain power. The exposé has sparked mass protests in Germany and even calls to ban the AfD. But, as Philip Oltermann and Kate Connolly report, with support for the party holding firm, any moves to prohibit the AfD could be a major political gamble. The challenge for illustrator Pete Reynolds in conveying the AfD’s covert agenda on the Guardian Weekly magazine’s cover this week was one of balance. “In portraying a hidden danger there must exist a tension between hiding the danger and revealing it,” says Pete. “It’s a cover, so the idea must be communicated with some immediacy, yet there is a need for delayed recognition. The wolf must be seen, but not straight away.” Events in the Middle East continue to unfold at a bewildering pace, with pockets of conflict opening up across the region. Diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour rounds up a week of flashpoints and assesses increasingly slim hopes for controlling the situation. And Oliver Holmes provides a revealing profile of Yemen, one of the most unchanging and least visited countries in the Middle East. The Weekly went to press before news of Donald Trump’s victory in the New Hampshire Republican primary on Tuesday night, but you can catch up with all the latest Guardian coverage and reaction here . In the magazine, David Smith delivers a postmortem on Ron DeSantis’s doomed campaign, while Jonathan Freedland argues that Trump’s march to the White House can still be stopped. Our long-read features take somewhat divergent paths this week. First, Charlotte Edwardes meets Gary Lineker, the former England footballer turned TV presenter whose penchant for regularly airing his liberal worldviews has made him public enemy No 1 for Britain’s anti-woke brigade. Then, Chananya Groner unearths a remarkable story of factionalism and messianic fervour within New York’s Hasidic Jewish community, stretching back 30 years, which led to secret tunnels recently being discovered beneath a Brooklyn synagogue. And in Culture, Charlotte Higgins meets the classical musicians Dalia Stasevska and Joshua Bell, who are resurrecting a long-forgotten Ukrainian concerto as a gesture of defiance to Russia. Finally, we’re on the lookout for your best photographs of the world around us. For a chance for your picture to feature in the magazine, send us your best shot , telling us where you were in the world when you took it and why the scene resonated with you at that particular time. Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Having been founded a decade ago by anti-euro economists, Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland party has since tracked sharply to the right – a fact amply illustrated by recent revelations that AfD politicians met with neo‑Nazi groups to discuss plans for mass deportations, should the party gain power. The exposé has sparked mass protests in Germany and even calls to ban the AfD. But, as Philip Oltermann and Kate Connolly report, with support for the party holding firm, any moves to prohibit the AfD could be a major political gamble. The challenge for illustrator Pete Reynolds in conveying the AfD’s covert agenda on the Guardian Weekly magazine’s cover this week was one of balance. “In portraying a hidden danger there must exist a tension between hiding the danger and revealing it,” says Pete. “It’s a cover, so the idea must be communicated with some immediacy, yet there is a need for delayed recognition. The wolf must be seen, but not straight away.” Events in the Middle East continue to unfold at a bewildering pace, with pockets of conflict opening up across the region. Diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour rounds up a week of flashpoints and assesses increasingly slim hopes for controlling the situation. And Oliver Holmes provides a revealing profile of Yemen, one of the most unchanging and least visited countries in the Middle East. The Weekly went to press before news of Donald Trump’s victory in the New Hampshire Republican primary on Tuesday night, but you can catch up with all the latest Guardian coverage and reaction here . In the magazine, David Smith delivers a postmortem on Ron DeSantis’s doomed campaign, while Jonathan Freedland argues that Trump’s march to the White House can still be stopped. Our long-read features take somewhat divergent paths this week. First, Charlotte Edwardes meets Gary Lineker, the former England footballer turned TV presenter whose penchant for regularly airing his liberal worldviews has made him public enemy No 1 for Britain’s anti-woke brigade. Then, Chananya Groner unearths a remarkable story of factionalism and messianic fervour within New York’s Hasidic Jewish community, stretching back 30 years, which led to secret tunnels recently being discovered beneath a Brooklyn synagogue. And in Culture, Charlotte Higgins meets the classical musicians Dalia Stasevska and Joshua Bell, who are resurrecting a long-forgotten Ukrainian concerto as a gesture of defiance to Russia. Finally, we’re on the lookout for your best photographs of the world around us. For a chance for your picture to feature in the magazine, send us your best shot , telling us where you were in the world when you took it and why the scene resonated with you at that particular time. Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Explore more on these topics Germany Inside Guardian Weekly Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) The far right Europe Share Reuse this content Germany Inside Guardian Weekly Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) The far right Europe
|
First girls join Lerwick’s Up Helly Aa jarl squad after male-only rule axed
A dense crowd watches a longboat go up in flames at 2023’s Up Helly Aa in Lerwick. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian View image in fullscreen A dense crowd watches a longboat go up in flames at 2023’s Up Helly Aa in Lerwick. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old First girls join Lerwick’s Up Helly Aa jarl squad after male-only rule axed This article is more than 1 year old Jenna Moar and three cousins will be first female full members of Viking-dressed squad that will lead annual fire festival Jenna Moar will win a small place in history next week, marked by the sizzling sound and heat of her flare being lit in the darkness of a January night in Lerwick, Shetland. Jenna, 16, wearing her handmade Viking warrior’s uniform, will be among the first female participants, alongside three cousins, at the heart of one of Scotland’s most famous cultural events, Lerwick’s Up Helly Aa fire festival. After decades of quiet complaints, covert attempts at subversion and then open rebellion from feminist Shetlanders, she and her cousins are full members of the jarl squad, the axe-wielding Viking-dressed celebrants who will lead Up Helly Aa on Tuesday. Her father, Richard, 47, is this year’s guizer jarl, or chief. He has overseen, in conditions of some secrecy, the building of a replica longship by his squad, which includes 31 family members from Shetland, Norway and London. After parading through the town alongside the boat, all four girls will join Moar and the rest of the squad in throwing their blazing torches in an arc of fire on to the longship. Jenna has been brought up watching Up Helly Aa with her brothers. Her father has taken part in 30 of them, serving his apprenticeship first as a fiddle case carrier in 1990, aged 14, and then as a member of Lerwick’s junior jarl squad. Jenna said: “Every year my favourite part is the procession at night with the torches lit and you hear the crack of a flare, so I think this year it will be even more special having Dad going up the ranks with the galley surrounded by his squad.” The event, whose name comes from the islands’ Norse-derived dialect of Norn, has punctuated Shetland’s long, harsh winters for more than 140 years. The first torchlit procession took place in 1881 and the Viking theme began in 1889. Scotland’s Up Helly Aa festival – in pictures Read more It spawned other Up Helly Aas across Shetland. Those have allowed women and girls to take part for decades, with women recently elected as jarls. But in Lerwick the male-only tradition remained dominant, rooted in early 20th-century social codes under which women rarely drank and never went to the pub. Instead, women were expected to look after the Up Helly Aa reception halls, run by different families and social groups, that the jarl squad visits throughout the night after the longship is burned, operating as hostesses. One or two women dressed up as men to surreptitiously join the non-Viking participants in Up Helly Aa, known as guizer squads. There were protests more recently with women trying to form guizer squads only to be turned away, and furious arguments on Shetland’s news and community webpages. Change came quickly and without resistance when two women were elected in May 2022 to run Shetland Islands council. Andrea Manson became convener, or provost, and Emma Macdonald became the political leader, joining Maggie Sandison, who was the council’s female chief executive. Last year several women took part as non-Viking guizers, including Sandison, while 27 schoolgirls took part in the junior Up Helly Aa, lobbing their torches into a smaller longboat. Manson said Tuesday’s festival would be a particularly poignant moment for Richard Moar after investing several decades of his life in the festival, and she said the arrival of women was inevitable and natural. “It’s wonderful. I’m very happy for the girls, and the daughter especially, that they’re able to go out their brothers. It’s just how it would’ve happened with the Vikings: the brave women warriors would’ve gone out with their family,” she said. Jenna said this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. “I think some people will be happy and some people will be mad, but it’s going to change. If I didn’t do it I might have regrets,” she said. Zara Pennington, one of the leading activists for including women in the festival with the campaign Reclaim the Raven, said it was a “fantastic moment”. She said: “For Shetland as a whole it is transformative; it’s a symbol that Shetland is gender inclusive, that women’s equality is embraced in such a public spectacle.” Explore more on these topics Scotland Women news Share Reuse this content A dense crowd watches a longboat go up in flames at 2023’s Up Helly Aa in Lerwick. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian View image in fullscreen A dense crowd watches a longboat go up in flames at 2023’s Up Helly Aa in Lerwick. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old First girls join Lerwick’s Up Helly Aa jarl squad after male-only rule axed This article is more than 1 year old Jenna Moar and three cousins will be first female full members of Viking-dressed squad that will lead annual fire festival Jenna Moar will win a small place in history next week, marked by the sizzling sound and heat of her flare being lit in the darkness of a January night in Lerwick, Shetland. Jenna, 16, wearing her handmade Viking warrior’s uniform, will be among the first female participants, alongside three cousins, at the heart of one of Scotland’s most famous cultural events, Lerwick’s Up Helly Aa fire festival. After decades of quiet complaints, covert attempts at subversion and then open rebellion from feminist Shetlanders, she and her cousins are full members of the jarl squad, the axe-wielding Viking-dressed celebrants who will lead Up Helly Aa on Tuesday. Her father, Richard, 47, is this year’s guizer jarl, or chief. He has overseen, in conditions of some secrecy, the building of a replica longship by his squad, which includes 31 family members from Shetland, Norway and London. After parading through the town alongside the boat, all four girls will join Moar and the rest of the squad in throwing their blazing torches in an arc of fire on to the longship. Jenna has been brought up watching Up Helly Aa with her brothers. Her father has taken part in 30 of them, serving his apprenticeship first as a fiddle case carrier in 1990, aged 14, and then as a member of Lerwick’s junior jarl squad. Jenna said: “Every year my favourite part is the procession at night with the torches lit and you hear the crack of a flare, so I think this year it will be even more special having Dad going up the ranks with the galley surrounded by his squad.” The event, whose name comes from the islands’ Norse-derived dialect of Norn, has punctuated Shetland’s long, harsh winters for more than 140 years. The first torchlit procession took place in 1881 and the Viking theme began in 1889. Scotland’s Up Helly Aa festival – in pictures Read more It spawned other Up Helly Aas across Shetland. Those have allowed women and girls to take part for decades, with women recently elected as jarls. But in Lerwick the male-only tradition remained dominant, rooted in early 20th-century social codes under which women rarely drank and never went to the pub. Instead, women were expected to look after the Up Helly Aa reception halls, run by different families and social groups, that the jarl squad visits throughout the night after the longship is burned, operating as hostesses. One or two women dressed up as men to surreptitiously join the non-Viking participants in Up Helly Aa, known as guizer squads. There were protests more recently with women trying to form guizer squads only to be turned away, and furious arguments on Shetland’s news and community webpages. Change came quickly and without resistance when two women were elected in May 2022 to run Shetland Islands council. Andrea Manson became convener, or provost, and Emma Macdonald became the political leader, joining Maggie Sandison, who was the council’s female chief executive. Last year several women took part as non-Viking guizers, including Sandison, while 27 schoolgirls took part in the junior Up Helly Aa, lobbing their torches into a smaller longboat. Manson said Tuesday’s festival would be a particularly poignant moment for Richard Moar after investing several decades of his life in the festival, and she said the arrival of women was inevitable and natural. “It’s wonderful. I’m very happy for the girls, and the daughter especially, that they’re able to go out their brothers. It’s just how it would’ve happened with the Vikings: the brave women warriors would’ve gone out with their family,” she said. Jenna said this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. “I think some people will be happy and some people will be mad, but it’s going to change. If I didn’t do it I might have regrets,” she said. Zara Pennington, one of the leading activists for including women in the festival with the campaign Reclaim the Raven, said it was a “fantastic moment”. She said: “For Shetland as a whole it is transformative; it’s a symbol that Shetland is gender inclusive, that women’s equality is embraced in such a public spectacle.” Explore more on these topics Scotland Women news Share Reuse this content A dense crowd watches a longboat go up in flames at 2023’s Up Helly Aa in Lerwick. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian View image in fullscreen A dense crowd watches a longboat go up in flames at 2023’s Up Helly Aa in Lerwick. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian A dense crowd watches a longboat go up in flames at 2023’s Up Helly Aa in Lerwick. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian View image in fullscreen A dense crowd watches a longboat go up in flames at 2023’s Up Helly Aa in Lerwick. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian A dense crowd watches a longboat go up in flames at 2023’s Up Helly Aa in Lerwick. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian View image in fullscreen A dense crowd watches a longboat go up in flames at 2023’s Up Helly Aa in Lerwick. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian A dense crowd watches a longboat go up in flames at 2023’s Up Helly Aa in Lerwick. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian View image in fullscreen A dense crowd watches a longboat go up in flames at 2023’s Up Helly Aa in Lerwick. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian A dense crowd watches a longboat go up in flames at 2023’s Up Helly Aa in Lerwick. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian A dense crowd watches a longboat go up in flames at 2023’s Up Helly Aa in Lerwick. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old First girls join Lerwick’s Up Helly Aa jarl squad after male-only rule axed This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old First girls join Lerwick’s Up Helly Aa jarl squad after male-only rule axed This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old First girls join Lerwick’s Up Helly Aa jarl squad after male-only rule axed 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 Jenna Moar and three cousins will be first female full members of Viking-dressed squad that will lead annual fire festival Jenna Moar and three cousins will be first female full members of Viking-dressed squad that will lead annual fire festival Jenna Moar and three cousins will be first female full members of Viking-dressed squad that will lead annual fire festival Jenna Moar will win a small place in history next week, marked by the sizzling sound and heat of her flare being lit in the darkness of a January night in Lerwick, Shetland. Jenna, 16, wearing her handmade Viking warrior’s uniform, will be among the first female participants, alongside three cousins, at the heart of one of Scotland’s most famous cultural events, Lerwick’s Up Helly Aa fire festival. After decades of quiet complaints, covert attempts at subversion and then open rebellion from feminist Shetlanders, she and her cousins are full members of the jarl squad, the axe-wielding Viking-dressed celebrants who will lead Up Helly Aa on Tuesday. Her father, Richard, 47, is this year’s guizer jarl, or chief. He has overseen, in conditions of some secrecy, the building of a replica longship by his squad, which includes 31 family members from Shetland, Norway and London. After parading through the town alongside the boat, all four girls will join Moar and the rest of the squad in throwing their blazing torches in an arc of fire on to the longship. Jenna has been brought up watching Up Helly Aa with her brothers. Her father has taken part in 30 of them, serving his apprenticeship first as a fiddle case carrier in 1990, aged 14, and then as a member of Lerwick’s junior jarl squad. Jenna said: “Every year my favourite part is the procession at night with the torches lit and you hear the crack of a flare, so I think this year it will be even more special having Dad going up the ranks with the galley surrounded by his squad.” The event, whose name comes from the islands’ Norse-derived dialect of Norn, has punctuated Shetland’s long, harsh winters for more than 140 years. The first torchlit procession took place in 1881 and the Viking theme began in 1889. Scotland’s Up Helly Aa festival – in pictures Read more It spawned other Up Helly Aas across Shetland. Those have allowed women and girls to take part for decades, with women recently elected as jarls. But in Lerwick the male-only tradition remained dominant, rooted in early 20th-century social codes under which women rarely drank and never went to the pub. Instead, women were expected to look after the Up Helly Aa reception halls, run by different families and social groups, that the jarl squad visits throughout the night after the longship is burned, operating as hostesses. One or two women dressed up as men to surreptitiously join the non-Viking participants in Up Helly Aa, known as guizer squads. There were protests more recently with women trying to form guizer squads only to be turned away, and furious arguments on Shetland’s news and community webpages. Change came quickly and without resistance when two women were elected in May 2022 to run Shetland Islands council. Andrea Manson became convener, or provost, and Emma Macdonald became the political leader, joining Maggie Sandison, who was the council’s female chief executive. Last year several women took part as non-Viking guizers, including Sandison, while 27 schoolgirls took part in the junior Up Helly Aa, lobbing their torches into a smaller longboat. Manson said Tuesday’s festival would be a particularly poignant moment for Richard Moar after investing several decades of his life in the festival, and she said the arrival of women was inevitable and natural. “It’s wonderful. I’m very happy for the girls, and the daughter especially, that they’re able to go out their brothers. It’s just how it would’ve happened with the Vikings: the brave women warriors would’ve gone out with their family,” she said. Jenna said this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. “I think some people will be happy and some people will be mad, but it’s going to change. If I didn’t do it I might have regrets,” she said. Zara Pennington, one of the leading activists for including women in the festival with the campaign Reclaim the Raven, said it was a “fantastic moment”. She said: “For Shetland as a whole it is transformative; it’s a symbol that Shetland is gender inclusive, that women’s equality is embraced in such a public spectacle.” Explore more on these topics Scotland Women news Share Reuse this content Jenna Moar will win a small place in history next week, marked by the sizzling sound and heat of her flare being lit in the darkness of a January night in Lerwick, Shetland. Jenna, 16, wearing her handmade Viking warrior’s uniform, will be among the first female participants, alongside three cousins, at the heart of one of Scotland’s most famous cultural events, Lerwick’s Up Helly Aa fire festival. After decades of quiet complaints, covert attempts at subversion and then open rebellion from feminist Shetlanders, she and her cousins are full members of the jarl squad, the axe-wielding Viking-dressed celebrants who will lead Up Helly Aa on Tuesday. Her father, Richard, 47, is this year’s guizer jarl, or chief. He has overseen, in conditions of some secrecy, the building of a replica longship by his squad, which includes 31 family members from Shetland, Norway and London. After parading through the town alongside the boat, all four girls will join Moar and the rest of the squad in throwing their blazing torches in an arc of fire on to the longship. Jenna has been brought up watching Up Helly Aa with her brothers. Her father has taken part in 30 of them, serving his apprenticeship first as a fiddle case carrier in 1990, aged 14, and then as a member of Lerwick’s junior jarl squad. Jenna said: “Every year my favourite part is the procession at night with the torches lit and you hear the crack of a flare, so I think this year it will be even more special having Dad going up the ranks with the galley surrounded by his squad.” The event, whose name comes from the islands’ Norse-derived dialect of Norn, has punctuated Shetland’s long, harsh winters for more than 140 years. The first torchlit procession took place in 1881 and the Viking theme began in 1889. Scotland’s Up Helly Aa festival – in pictures Read more It spawned other Up Helly Aas across Shetland. Those have allowed women and girls to take part for decades, with women recently elected as jarls. But in Lerwick the male-only tradition remained dominant, rooted in early 20th-century social codes under which women rarely drank and never went to the pub. Instead, women were expected to look after the Up Helly Aa reception halls, run by different families and social groups, that the jarl squad visits throughout the night after the longship is burned, operating as hostesses. One or two women dressed up as men to surreptitiously join the non-Viking participants in Up Helly Aa, known as guizer squads. There were protests more recently with women trying to form guizer squads only to be turned away, and furious arguments on Shetland’s news and community webpages. Change came quickly and without resistance when two women were elected in May 2022 to run Shetland Islands council. Andrea Manson became convener, or provost, and Emma Macdonald became the political leader, joining Maggie Sandison, who was the council’s female chief executive. Last year several women took part as non-Viking guizers, including Sandison, while 27 schoolgirls took part in the junior Up Helly Aa, lobbing their torches into a smaller longboat. Manson said Tuesday’s festival would be a particularly poignant moment for Richard Moar after investing several decades of his life in the festival, and she said the arrival of women was inevitable and natural. “It’s wonderful. I’m very happy for the girls, and the daughter especially, that they’re able to go out their brothers. It’s just how it would’ve happened with the Vikings: the brave women warriors would’ve gone out with their family,” she said. Jenna said this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. “I think some people will be happy and some people will be mad, but it’s going to change. If I didn’t do it I might have regrets,” she said. Zara Pennington, one of the leading activists for including women in the festival with the campaign Reclaim the Raven, said it was a “fantastic moment”. She said: “For Shetland as a whole it is transformative; it’s a symbol that Shetland is gender inclusive, that women’s equality is embraced in such a public spectacle.” Explore more on these topics Scotland Women news Share Reuse this content Jenna Moar will win a small place in history next week, marked by the sizzling sound and heat of her flare being lit in the darkness of a January night in Lerwick, Shetland. Jenna, 16, wearing her handmade Viking warrior’s uniform, will be among the first female participants, alongside three cousins, at the heart of one of Scotland’s most famous cultural events, Lerwick’s Up Helly Aa fire festival. After decades of quiet complaints, covert attempts at subversion and then open rebellion from feminist Shetlanders, she and her cousins are full members of the jarl squad, the axe-wielding Viking-dressed celebrants who will lead Up Helly Aa on Tuesday. Her father, Richard, 47, is this year’s guizer jarl, or chief. He has overseen, in conditions of some secrecy, the building of a replica longship by his squad, which includes 31 family members from Shetland, Norway and London. After parading through the town alongside the boat, all four girls will join Moar and the rest of the squad in throwing their blazing torches in an arc of fire on to the longship. Jenna has been brought up watching Up Helly Aa with her brothers. Her father has taken part in 30 of them, serving his apprenticeship first as a fiddle case carrier in 1990, aged 14, and then as a member of Lerwick’s junior jarl squad. Jenna said: “Every year my favourite part is the procession at night with the torches lit and you hear the crack of a flare, so I think this year it will be even more special having Dad going up the ranks with the galley surrounded by his squad.” The event, whose name comes from the islands’ Norse-derived dialect of Norn, has punctuated Shetland’s long, harsh winters for more than 140 years. The first torchlit procession took place in 1881 and the Viking theme began in 1889. Scotland’s Up Helly Aa festival – in pictures Read more It spawned other Up Helly Aas across Shetland. Those have allowed women and girls to take part for decades, with women recently elected as jarls. But in Lerwick the male-only tradition remained dominant, rooted in early 20th-century social codes under which women rarely drank and never went to the pub. Instead, women were expected to look after the Up Helly Aa reception halls, run by different families and social groups, that the jarl squad visits throughout the night after the longship is burned, operating as hostesses. One or two women dressed up as men to surreptitiously join the non-Viking participants in Up Helly Aa, known as guizer squads. There were protests more recently with women trying to form guizer squads only to be turned away, and furious arguments on Shetland’s news and community webpages. Change came quickly and without resistance when two women were elected in May 2022 to run Shetland Islands council. Andrea Manson became convener, or provost, and Emma Macdonald became the political leader, joining Maggie Sandison, who was the council’s female chief executive. Last year several women took part as non-Viking guizers, including Sandison, while 27 schoolgirls took part in the junior Up Helly Aa, lobbing their torches into a smaller longboat. Manson said Tuesday’s festival would be a particularly poignant moment for Richard Moar after investing several decades of his life in the festival, and she said the arrival of women was inevitable and natural. “It’s wonderful. I’m very happy for the girls, and the daughter especially, that they’re able to go out their brothers. It’s just how it would’ve happened with the Vikings: the brave women warriors would’ve gone out with their family,” she said. Jenna said this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. “I think some people will be happy and some people will be mad, but it’s going to change. If I didn’t do it I might have regrets,” she said. Zara Pennington, one of the leading activists for including women in the festival with the campaign Reclaim the Raven, said it was a “fantastic moment”. She said: “For Shetland as a whole it is transformative; it’s a symbol that Shetland is gender inclusive, that women’s equality is embraced in such a public spectacle.” Jenna Moar will win a small place in history next week, marked by the sizzling sound and heat of her flare being lit in the darkness of a January night in Lerwick, Shetland. Jenna, 16, wearing her handmade Viking warrior’s uniform, will be among the first female participants, alongside three cousins, at the heart of one of Scotland’s most famous cultural events, Lerwick’s Up Helly Aa fire festival. After decades of quiet complaints, covert attempts at subversion and then open rebellion from feminist Shetlanders, she and her cousins are full members of the jarl squad, the axe-wielding Viking-dressed celebrants who will lead Up Helly Aa on Tuesday. Her father, Richard, 47, is this year’s guizer jarl, or chief. He has overseen, in conditions of some secrecy, the building of a replica longship by his squad, which includes 31 family members from Shetland, Norway and London. After parading through the town alongside the boat, all four girls will join Moar and the rest of the squad in throwing their blazing torches in an arc of fire on to the longship. Jenna has been brought up watching Up Helly Aa with her brothers. Her father has taken part in 30 of them, serving his apprenticeship first as a fiddle case carrier in 1990, aged 14, and then as a member of Lerwick’s junior jarl squad. Jenna said: “Every year my favourite part is the procession at night with the torches lit and you hear the crack of a flare, so I think this year it will be even more special having Dad going up the ranks with the galley surrounded by his squad.” The event, whose name comes from the islands’ Norse-derived dialect of Norn, has punctuated Shetland’s long, harsh winters for more than 140 years. The first torchlit procession took place in 1881 and the Viking theme began in 1889. Scotland’s Up Helly Aa festival – in pictures Read more It spawned other Up Helly Aas across Shetland. Those have allowed women and girls to take part for decades, with women recently elected as jarls. But in Lerwick the male-only tradition remained dominant, rooted in early 20th-century social codes under which women rarely drank and never went to the pub. Instead, women were expected to look after the Up Helly Aa reception halls, run by different families and social groups, that the jarl squad visits throughout the night after the longship is burned, operating as hostesses. One or two women dressed up as men to surreptitiously join the non-Viking participants in Up Helly Aa, known as guizer squads. There were protests more recently with women trying to form guizer squads only to be turned away, and furious arguments on Shetland’s news and community webpages. Change came quickly and without resistance when two women were elected in May 2022 to run Shetland Islands council. Andrea Manson became convener, or provost, and Emma Macdonald became the political leader, joining Maggie Sandison, who was the council’s female chief executive. Last year several women took part as non-Viking guizers, including Sandison, while 27 schoolgirls took part in the junior Up Helly Aa, lobbing their torches into a smaller longboat. Manson said Tuesday’s festival would be a particularly poignant moment for Richard Moar after investing several decades of his life in the festival, and she said the arrival of women was inevitable and natural. “It’s wonderful. I’m very happy for the girls, and the daughter especially, that they’re able to go out their brothers. It’s just how it would’ve happened with the Vikings: the brave women warriors would’ve gone out with their family,” she said. Jenna said this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. “I think some people will be happy and some people will be mad, but it’s going to change. If I didn’t do it I might have regrets,” she said. Zara Pennington, one of the leading activists for including women in the festival with the campaign Reclaim the Raven, said it was a “fantastic moment”. She said: “For Shetland as a whole it is transformative; it’s a symbol that Shetland is gender inclusive, that women’s equality is embraced in such a public spectacle.” Jenna Moar will win a small place in history next week, marked by the sizzling sound and heat of her flare being lit in the darkness of a January night in Lerwick, Shetland. Jenna, 16, wearing her handmade Viking warrior’s uniform, will be among the first female participants, alongside three cousins, at the heart of one of Scotland’s most famous cultural events, Lerwick’s Up Helly Aa fire festival. After decades of quiet complaints, covert attempts at subversion and then open rebellion from feminist Shetlanders, she and her cousins are full members of the jarl squad, the axe-wielding Viking-dressed celebrants who will lead Up Helly Aa on Tuesday. Her father, Richard, 47, is this year’s guizer jarl, or chief. He has overseen, in conditions of some secrecy, the building of a replica longship by his squad, which includes 31 family members from Shetland, Norway and London. After parading through the town alongside the boat, all four girls will join Moar and the rest of the squad in throwing their blazing torches in an arc of fire on to the longship. Jenna has been brought up watching Up Helly Aa with her brothers. Her father has taken part in 30 of them, serving his apprenticeship first as a fiddle case carrier in 1990, aged 14, and then as a member of Lerwick’s junior jarl squad. Jenna said: “Every year my favourite part is the procession at night with the torches lit and you hear the crack of a flare, so I think this year it will be even more special having Dad going up the ranks with the galley surrounded by his squad.” The event, whose name comes from the islands’ Norse-derived dialect of Norn, has punctuated Shetland’s long, harsh winters for more than 140 years. The first torchlit procession took place in 1881 and the Viking theme began in 1889. Scotland’s Up Helly Aa festival – in pictures Read more Scotland’s Up Helly Aa festival – in pictures Read more Scotland’s Up Helly Aa festival – in pictures Read more Scotland’s Up Helly Aa festival – in pictures Scotland’s Up Helly Aa festival – in pictures It spawned other Up Helly Aas across Shetland. Those have allowed women and girls to take part for decades, with women recently elected as jarls. But in Lerwick the male-only tradition remained dominant, rooted in early 20th-century social codes under which women rarely drank and never went to the pub. Instead, women were expected to look after the Up Helly Aa reception halls, run by different families and social groups, that the jarl squad visits throughout the night after the longship is burned, operating as hostesses. One or two women dressed up as men to surreptitiously join the non-Viking participants in Up Helly Aa, known as guizer squads. There were protests more recently with women trying to form guizer squads only to be turned away, and furious arguments on Shetland’s news and community webpages. Change came quickly and without resistance when two women were elected in May 2022 to run Shetland Islands council. Andrea Manson became convener, or provost, and Emma Macdonald became the political leader, joining Maggie Sandison, who was the council’s female chief executive. Last year several women took part as non-Viking guizers, including Sandison, while 27 schoolgirls took part in the junior Up Helly Aa, lobbing their torches into a smaller longboat. Manson said Tuesday’s festival would be a particularly poignant moment for Richard Moar after investing several decades of his life in the festival, and she said the arrival of women was inevitable and natural. “It’s wonderful. I’m very happy for the girls, and the daughter especially, that they’re able to go out their brothers. It’s just how it would’ve happened with the Vikings: the brave women warriors would’ve gone out with their family,” she said. Jenna said this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. “I think some people will be happy and some people will be mad, but it’s going to change. If I didn’t do it I might have regrets,” she said. Zara Pennington, one of the leading activists for including women in the festival with the campaign Reclaim the Raven, said it was a “fantastic moment”. She said: “For Shetland as a whole it is transformative; it’s a symbol that Shetland is gender inclusive, that women’s equality is embraced in such a public spectacle.” Explore more on these topics Scotland Women news Share Reuse this content
|
Farmers block motorway near Paris in wave of nationwide protests – video
1:24 This article is more than 1 year old Farmers block motorway near Paris in wave of nationwide protests – video This article is more than 1 year old Farmers across France have been using tractors to create road blocks in a wave of protests. Major French motorways were blocked near Paris and Bayonne, close to the Spanish border. Farmers said anger was growing for several reasons. Many feel abandoned in the face of the climate crisis, with droughts and severe weather conditions, but there is also fury at impossibly low prices for their products, the difficulty of red tape, complex environmental norms, and green policies – such as on water use – which they say are affecting profits. Further protests took place in Germany and Romania ahead of the European elections in June French farming protests: mother and daughter die after car hits road blockade Explore more on these topics Farming France Europe European Union 1:24 This article is more than 1 year old Farmers block motorway near Paris in wave of nationwide protests – video This article is more than 1 year old Farmers across France have been using tractors to create road blocks in a wave of protests. Major French motorways were blocked near Paris and Bayonne, close to the Spanish border. Farmers said anger was growing for several reasons. Many feel abandoned in the face of the climate crisis, with droughts and severe weather conditions, but there is also fury at impossibly low prices for their products, the difficulty of red tape, complex environmental norms, and green policies – such as on water use – which they say are affecting profits. Further protests took place in Germany and Romania ahead of the European elections in June French farming protests: mother and daughter die after car hits road blockade Explore more on these topics Farming France Europe European Union This article is more than 1 year old Farmers block motorway near Paris in wave of nationwide protests – video This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Farmers block motorway near Paris in wave of nationwide protests – video This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Farmers block motorway near Paris in wave of nationwide protests – 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 Farmers across France have been using tractors to create road blocks in a wave of protests. Major French motorways were blocked near Paris and Bayonne, close to the Spanish border. Farmers said anger was growing for several reasons. Many feel abandoned in the face of the climate crisis, with droughts and severe weather conditions, but there is also fury at impossibly low prices for their products, the difficulty of red tape, complex environmental norms, and green policies – such as on water use – which they say are affecting profits. Further protests took place in Germany and Romania ahead of the European elections in June French farming protests: mother and daughter die after car hits road blockade Farmers across France have been using tractors to create road blocks in a wave of protests. Major French motorways were blocked near Paris and Bayonne, close to the Spanish border. Farmers said anger was growing for several reasons. Many feel abandoned in the face of the climate crisis, with droughts and severe weather conditions, but there is also fury at impossibly low prices for their products, the difficulty of red tape, complex environmental norms, and green policies – such as on water use – which they say are affecting profits. Further protests took place in Germany and Romania ahead of the European elections in June French farming protests: mother and daughter die after car hits road blockade Farmers across France have been using tractors to create road blocks in a wave of protests. Major French motorways were blocked near Paris and Bayonne, close to the Spanish border. Farmers said anger was growing for several reasons. Many feel abandoned in the face of the climate crisis, with droughts and severe weather conditions, but there is also fury at impossibly low prices for their products, the difficulty of red tape, complex environmental norms, and green policies – such as on water use – which they say are affecting profits. Further protests took place in Germany and Romania ahead of the European elections in June French farming protests: mother and daughter die after car hits road blockade Explore more on these topics Farming France Europe European Union Explore more on these topics Farming France Europe European Union Explore more on these topics Farming France Europe European Union Farming France Europe European Union
|
Thousands march against femicide in Kenya after rise in killings
A march in Nairobi against femicide in Kenya. At least 500 cases of femicide have been recorded in the country since 2016. Photograph: Daniel Irungu/EPA View image in fullscreen A march in Nairobi against femicide in Kenya. At least 500 cases of femicide have been recorded in the country since 2016. Photograph: Daniel Irungu/EPA This article is more than 1 year old Thousands march against femicide in Kenya after rise in killings This article is more than 1 year old Reports of at least a dozen cases of femicide since start of year prompt protests across the country Protests against femicide have taken place across Kenya after a rise in killings this month. Reports of at least a dozen cases of femicide since the start of the year have prompted public outrage, debate and demonstrations across the country, including in Nairobi, Kisumu and Mombasa. Thousands of women marched in major cities on Saturday carrying placards that called for an end to femicide, with messages reading #StopKillingUs #EndFemicideKe and #WeJustWantToLive. Other signage bore the names of women who have been killed in recent months, with the messages “Say Their Names” or “SheWasSomeone”. Tens of thousands of posts calling for an end to the violent killings trended online. At least 500 cases of femicide have been recorded in Kenya since 2016. Organisations that document the deaths say the actual number may be higher due to unreported cases or incidents where details are omitted in police or media reports, leaving the deaths miscategorised. A majority of the cases of femicide were perpetrated by men who knew the women and were in intimate relationships with them, according to the data organisation Africa Data Hub . It found that many of the killings were preceded by systematic domestic violence. In the week before the march, women shared their fears and reasons for protest, citing apprehensions about their safety or interactions with men, trauma from rolling news of the recent deaths, and public debate that called women’s autonomy into question. Protesters called for femicide to be legally recognised as a crime, saying that its conflation with murder did not account for the unique circumstances under which the killings are committed, which are defined by unequal power relations between men and women, or harmful gender norms. “Many people don’t understand what femicide is,” said Maria Angela Maina, 26, a lawyer and gender equality advocate who took part in the protests. “The circumstances of these murders are different from normal homicides … so the fact that people are now more aware and they are speaking about this issue and even going to the streets to protest is so powerful.” Activists say the growing clamour may signal growing awareness of femicide, and hope it will prompt better enforcement of laws protecting women. However, protesters also faced some pushback and threats. A video surfaced online of two men opposing the demonstration and threatening to kill women, as one went on a tirade about how women must provide sex for financial favours or face the consequences. The activist Boniface Mwangi called for more men to join calls for an end to the violent killings, saying: “This is why we as Kenyan men should speak boldly, and loudly against [femicide] … As a man and a father, these men don’t speak for the men I know.” Calls for the country’s leaders to address the femicide crisis have grown. “We implore the authorities to implement effective measures to protect women and girls,” said the women’s non-profit Akili Dada. “The time for action is now.” Explore more on these topics Violence against women and girls Kenya Protest Africa news Share Reuse this content A march in Nairobi against femicide in Kenya. At least 500 cases of femicide have been recorded in the country since 2016. Photograph: Daniel Irungu/EPA View image in fullscreen A march in Nairobi against femicide in Kenya. At least 500 cases of femicide have been recorded in the country since 2016. Photograph: Daniel Irungu/EPA This article is more than 1 year old Thousands march against femicide in Kenya after rise in killings This article is more than 1 year old Reports of at least a dozen cases of femicide since start of year prompt protests across the country Protests against femicide have taken place across Kenya after a rise in killings this month. Reports of at least a dozen cases of femicide since the start of the year have prompted public outrage, debate and demonstrations across the country, including in Nairobi, Kisumu and Mombasa. Thousands of women marched in major cities on Saturday carrying placards that called for an end to femicide, with messages reading #StopKillingUs #EndFemicideKe and #WeJustWantToLive. Other signage bore the names of women who have been killed in recent months, with the messages “Say Their Names” or “SheWasSomeone”. Tens of thousands of posts calling for an end to the violent killings trended online. At least 500 cases of femicide have been recorded in Kenya since 2016. Organisations that document the deaths say the actual number may be higher due to unreported cases or incidents where details are omitted in police or media reports, leaving the deaths miscategorised. A majority of the cases of femicide were perpetrated by men who knew the women and were in intimate relationships with them, according to the data organisation Africa Data Hub . It found that many of the killings were preceded by systematic domestic violence. In the week before the march, women shared their fears and reasons for protest, citing apprehensions about their safety or interactions with men, trauma from rolling news of the recent deaths, and public debate that called women’s autonomy into question. Protesters called for femicide to be legally recognised as a crime, saying that its conflation with murder did not account for the unique circumstances under which the killings are committed, which are defined by unequal power relations between men and women, or harmful gender norms. “Many people don’t understand what femicide is,” said Maria Angela Maina, 26, a lawyer and gender equality advocate who took part in the protests. “The circumstances of these murders are different from normal homicides … so the fact that people are now more aware and they are speaking about this issue and even going to the streets to protest is so powerful.” Activists say the growing clamour may signal growing awareness of femicide, and hope it will prompt better enforcement of laws protecting women. However, protesters also faced some pushback and threats. A video surfaced online of two men opposing the demonstration and threatening to kill women, as one went on a tirade about how women must provide sex for financial favours or face the consequences. The activist Boniface Mwangi called for more men to join calls for an end to the violent killings, saying: “This is why we as Kenyan men should speak boldly, and loudly against [femicide] … As a man and a father, these men don’t speak for the men I know.” Calls for the country’s leaders to address the femicide crisis have grown. “We implore the authorities to implement effective measures to protect women and girls,” said the women’s non-profit Akili Dada. “The time for action is now.” Explore more on these topics Violence against women and girls Kenya Protest Africa news Share Reuse this content A march in Nairobi against femicide in Kenya. At least 500 cases of femicide have been recorded in the country since 2016. Photograph: Daniel Irungu/EPA View image in fullscreen A march in Nairobi against femicide in Kenya. At least 500 cases of femicide have been recorded in the country since 2016. Photograph: Daniel Irungu/EPA A march in Nairobi against femicide in Kenya. At least 500 cases of femicide have been recorded in the country since 2016. Photograph: Daniel Irungu/EPA View image in fullscreen A march in Nairobi against femicide in Kenya. At least 500 cases of femicide have been recorded in the country since 2016. Photograph: Daniel Irungu/EPA A march in Nairobi against femicide in Kenya. At least 500 cases of femicide have been recorded in the country since 2016. Photograph: Daniel Irungu/EPA View image in fullscreen A march in Nairobi against femicide in Kenya. At least 500 cases of femicide have been recorded in the country since 2016. Photograph: Daniel Irungu/EPA A march in Nairobi against femicide in Kenya. At least 500 cases of femicide have been recorded in the country since 2016. Photograph: Daniel Irungu/EPA View image in fullscreen A march in Nairobi against femicide in Kenya. At least 500 cases of femicide have been recorded in the country since 2016. Photograph: Daniel Irungu/EPA A march in Nairobi against femicide in Kenya. At least 500 cases of femicide have been recorded in the country since 2016. Photograph: Daniel Irungu/EPA A march in Nairobi against femicide in Kenya. At least 500 cases of femicide have been recorded in the country since 2016. Photograph: Daniel Irungu/EPA This article is more than 1 year old Thousands march against femicide in Kenya after rise in killings This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Thousands march against femicide in Kenya after rise in killings This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Thousands march against femicide in Kenya after rise in killings 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 Reports of at least a dozen cases of femicide since start of year prompt protests across the country Reports of at least a dozen cases of femicide since start of year prompt protests across the country Reports of at least a dozen cases of femicide since start of year prompt protests across the country Protests against femicide have taken place across Kenya after a rise in killings this month. Reports of at least a dozen cases of femicide since the start of the year have prompted public outrage, debate and demonstrations across the country, including in Nairobi, Kisumu and Mombasa. Thousands of women marched in major cities on Saturday carrying placards that called for an end to femicide, with messages reading #StopKillingUs #EndFemicideKe and #WeJustWantToLive. Other signage bore the names of women who have been killed in recent months, with the messages “Say Their Names” or “SheWasSomeone”. Tens of thousands of posts calling for an end to the violent killings trended online. At least 500 cases of femicide have been recorded in Kenya since 2016. Organisations that document the deaths say the actual number may be higher due to unreported cases or incidents where details are omitted in police or media reports, leaving the deaths miscategorised. A majority of the cases of femicide were perpetrated by men who knew the women and were in intimate relationships with them, according to the data organisation Africa Data Hub . It found that many of the killings were preceded by systematic domestic violence. In the week before the march, women shared their fears and reasons for protest, citing apprehensions about their safety or interactions with men, trauma from rolling news of the recent deaths, and public debate that called women’s autonomy into question. Protesters called for femicide to be legally recognised as a crime, saying that its conflation with murder did not account for the unique circumstances under which the killings are committed, which are defined by unequal power relations between men and women, or harmful gender norms. “Many people don’t understand what femicide is,” said Maria Angela Maina, 26, a lawyer and gender equality advocate who took part in the protests. “The circumstances of these murders are different from normal homicides … so the fact that people are now more aware and they are speaking about this issue and even going to the streets to protest is so powerful.” Activists say the growing clamour may signal growing awareness of femicide, and hope it will prompt better enforcement of laws protecting women. However, protesters also faced some pushback and threats. A video surfaced online of two men opposing the demonstration and threatening to kill women, as one went on a tirade about how women must provide sex for financial favours or face the consequences. The activist Boniface Mwangi called for more men to join calls for an end to the violent killings, saying: “This is why we as Kenyan men should speak boldly, and loudly against [femicide] … As a man and a father, these men don’t speak for the men I know.” Calls for the country’s leaders to address the femicide crisis have grown. “We implore the authorities to implement effective measures to protect women and girls,” said the women’s non-profit Akili Dada. “The time for action is now.” Explore more on these topics Violence against women and girls Kenya Protest Africa news Share Reuse this content Protests against femicide have taken place across Kenya after a rise in killings this month. Reports of at least a dozen cases of femicide since the start of the year have prompted public outrage, debate and demonstrations across the country, including in Nairobi, Kisumu and Mombasa. Thousands of women marched in major cities on Saturday carrying placards that called for an end to femicide, with messages reading #StopKillingUs #EndFemicideKe and #WeJustWantToLive. Other signage bore the names of women who have been killed in recent months, with the messages “Say Their Names” or “SheWasSomeone”. Tens of thousands of posts calling for an end to the violent killings trended online. At least 500 cases of femicide have been recorded in Kenya since 2016. Organisations that document the deaths say the actual number may be higher due to unreported cases or incidents where details are omitted in police or media reports, leaving the deaths miscategorised. A majority of the cases of femicide were perpetrated by men who knew the women and were in intimate relationships with them, according to the data organisation Africa Data Hub . It found that many of the killings were preceded by systematic domestic violence. In the week before the march, women shared their fears and reasons for protest, citing apprehensions about their safety or interactions with men, trauma from rolling news of the recent deaths, and public debate that called women’s autonomy into question. Protesters called for femicide to be legally recognised as a crime, saying that its conflation with murder did not account for the unique circumstances under which the killings are committed, which are defined by unequal power relations between men and women, or harmful gender norms. “Many people don’t understand what femicide is,” said Maria Angela Maina, 26, a lawyer and gender equality advocate who took part in the protests. “The circumstances of these murders are different from normal homicides … so the fact that people are now more aware and they are speaking about this issue and even going to the streets to protest is so powerful.” Activists say the growing clamour may signal growing awareness of femicide, and hope it will prompt better enforcement of laws protecting women. However, protesters also faced some pushback and threats. A video surfaced online of two men opposing the demonstration and threatening to kill women, as one went on a tirade about how women must provide sex for financial favours or face the consequences. The activist Boniface Mwangi called for more men to join calls for an end to the violent killings, saying: “This is why we as Kenyan men should speak boldly, and loudly against [femicide] … As a man and a father, these men don’t speak for the men I know.” Calls for the country’s leaders to address the femicide crisis have grown. “We implore the authorities to implement effective measures to protect women and girls,” said the women’s non-profit Akili Dada. “The time for action is now.” Explore more on these topics Violence against women and girls Kenya Protest Africa news Share Reuse this content Protests against femicide have taken place across Kenya after a rise in killings this month. Reports of at least a dozen cases of femicide since the start of the year have prompted public outrage, debate and demonstrations across the country, including in Nairobi, Kisumu and Mombasa. Thousands of women marched in major cities on Saturday carrying placards that called for an end to femicide, with messages reading #StopKillingUs #EndFemicideKe and #WeJustWantToLive. Other signage bore the names of women who have been killed in recent months, with the messages “Say Their Names” or “SheWasSomeone”. Tens of thousands of posts calling for an end to the violent killings trended online. At least 500 cases of femicide have been recorded in Kenya since 2016. Organisations that document the deaths say the actual number may be higher due to unreported cases or incidents where details are omitted in police or media reports, leaving the deaths miscategorised. A majority of the cases of femicide were perpetrated by men who knew the women and were in intimate relationships with them, according to the data organisation Africa Data Hub . It found that many of the killings were preceded by systematic domestic violence. In the week before the march, women shared their fears and reasons for protest, citing apprehensions about their safety or interactions with men, trauma from rolling news of the recent deaths, and public debate that called women’s autonomy into question. Protesters called for femicide to be legally recognised as a crime, saying that its conflation with murder did not account for the unique circumstances under which the killings are committed, which are defined by unequal power relations between men and women, or harmful gender norms. “Many people don’t understand what femicide is,” said Maria Angela Maina, 26, a lawyer and gender equality advocate who took part in the protests. “The circumstances of these murders are different from normal homicides … so the fact that people are now more aware and they are speaking about this issue and even going to the streets to protest is so powerful.” Activists say the growing clamour may signal growing awareness of femicide, and hope it will prompt better enforcement of laws protecting women. However, protesters also faced some pushback and threats. A video surfaced online of two men opposing the demonstration and threatening to kill women, as one went on a tirade about how women must provide sex for financial favours or face the consequences. The activist Boniface Mwangi called for more men to join calls for an end to the violent killings, saying: “This is why we as Kenyan men should speak boldly, and loudly against [femicide] … As a man and a father, these men don’t speak for the men I know.” Calls for the country’s leaders to address the femicide crisis have grown. “We implore the authorities to implement effective measures to protect women and girls,” said the women’s non-profit Akili Dada. “The time for action is now.” Protests against femicide have taken place across Kenya after a rise in killings this month. Reports of at least a dozen cases of femicide since the start of the year have prompted public outrage, debate and demonstrations across the country, including in Nairobi, Kisumu and Mombasa. Thousands of women marched in major cities on Saturday carrying placards that called for an end to femicide, with messages reading #StopKillingUs #EndFemicideKe and #WeJustWantToLive. Other signage bore the names of women who have been killed in recent months, with the messages “Say Their Names” or “SheWasSomeone”. Tens of thousands of posts calling for an end to the violent killings trended online. At least 500 cases of femicide have been recorded in Kenya since 2016. Organisations that document the deaths say the actual number may be higher due to unreported cases or incidents where details are omitted in police or media reports, leaving the deaths miscategorised. A majority of the cases of femicide were perpetrated by men who knew the women and were in intimate relationships with them, according to the data organisation Africa Data Hub . It found that many of the killings were preceded by systematic domestic violence. In the week before the march, women shared their fears and reasons for protest, citing apprehensions about their safety or interactions with men, trauma from rolling news of the recent deaths, and public debate that called women’s autonomy into question. Protesters called for femicide to be legally recognised as a crime, saying that its conflation with murder did not account for the unique circumstances under which the killings are committed, which are defined by unequal power relations between men and women, or harmful gender norms. “Many people don’t understand what femicide is,” said Maria Angela Maina, 26, a lawyer and gender equality advocate who took part in the protests. “The circumstances of these murders are different from normal homicides … so the fact that people are now more aware and they are speaking about this issue and even going to the streets to protest is so powerful.” Activists say the growing clamour may signal growing awareness of femicide, and hope it will prompt better enforcement of laws protecting women. However, protesters also faced some pushback and threats. A video surfaced online of two men opposing the demonstration and threatening to kill women, as one went on a tirade about how women must provide sex for financial favours or face the consequences. The activist Boniface Mwangi called for more men to join calls for an end to the violent killings, saying: “This is why we as Kenyan men should speak boldly, and loudly against [femicide] … As a man and a father, these men don’t speak for the men I know.” Calls for the country’s leaders to address the femicide crisis have grown. “We implore the authorities to implement effective measures to protect women and girls,” said the women’s non-profit Akili Dada. “The time for action is now.” Protests against femicide have taken place across Kenya after a rise in killings this month. Reports of at least a dozen cases of femicide since the start of the year have prompted public outrage, debate and demonstrations across the country, including in Nairobi, Kisumu and Mombasa. Thousands of women marched in major cities on Saturday carrying placards that called for an end to femicide, with messages reading #StopKillingUs #EndFemicideKe and #WeJustWantToLive. Other signage bore the names of women who have been killed in recent months, with the messages “Say Their Names” or “SheWasSomeone”. Tens of thousands of posts calling for an end to the violent killings trended online. At least 500 cases of femicide have been recorded in Kenya since 2016. Organisations that document the deaths say the actual number may be higher due to unreported cases or incidents where details are omitted in police or media reports, leaving the deaths miscategorised. A majority of the cases of femicide were perpetrated by men who knew the women and were in intimate relationships with them, according to the data organisation Africa Data Hub . It found that many of the killings were preceded by systematic domestic violence. In the week before the march, women shared their fears and reasons for protest, citing apprehensions about their safety or interactions with men, trauma from rolling news of the recent deaths, and public debate that called women’s autonomy into question. Protesters called for femicide to be legally recognised as a crime, saying that its conflation with murder did not account for the unique circumstances under which the killings are committed, which are defined by unequal power relations between men and women, or harmful gender norms. “Many people don’t understand what femicide is,” said Maria Angela Maina, 26, a lawyer and gender equality advocate who took part in the protests. “The circumstances of these murders are different from normal homicides … so the fact that people are now more aware and they are speaking about this issue and even going to the streets to protest is so powerful.” Activists say the growing clamour may signal growing awareness of femicide, and hope it will prompt better enforcement of laws protecting women. However, protesters also faced some pushback and threats. A video surfaced online of two men opposing the demonstration and threatening to kill women, as one went on a tirade about how women must provide sex for financial favours or face the consequences. The activist Boniface Mwangi called for more men to join calls for an end to the violent killings, saying: “This is why we as Kenyan men should speak boldly, and loudly against [femicide] … As a man and a father, these men don’t speak for the men I know.” Calls for the country’s leaders to address the femicide crisis have grown. “We implore the authorities to implement effective measures to protect women and girls,” said the women’s non-profit Akili Dada. “The time for action is now.” Explore more on these topics Violence against women and girls Kenya Protest Africa news Share Reuse this content Violence against women and girls Kenya Protest Africa news
|
Greta Thunberg joins protest against expansion of Hampshire airport
‘The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,’ says Greta Thunberg. Photograph: Carlos Jasso/Reuters View image in fullscreen ‘The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,’ says Greta Thunberg. Photograph: Carlos Jasso/Reuters This article is more than 1 year old Greta Thunberg joins protest against expansion of Hampshire airport This article is more than 1 year old Farnborough airport submits plans to increase number of flights amid calls for a ban on private jets The climate activist Greta Thunberg has marched alongside local residents and Extinction Rebellion activists to protest against an airport’s expansion plans. Farnborough Airport Ltd has submitted a planning application to Rushmoor borough council to increase the number of flights from 50,000 to 70,000 a year. The Swedish climate activist joined the march from Farnborough town centre, in Hampshire , to Farnborough airport. The group set off pink smoke flares and waved banners as they called for a total ban on private jets, which they say are up to 30 times more polluting than passenger airliners. “The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,” Thunberg said. “There are few examples that show as clearly how the rich elite is sacrificing present and future living conditions on this planet so they can maintain their extreme and violent lifestyles.” Private jets are awful for the climate. It’s time to tax the rich who fly in them | Edward J Markey Read more If approved, the airport plans would result in an increase in non-weekday aircraft movements from 8,900 to 18,900 a year and would allow heavier aircraft to use the airport. Farnborough airport said its environmental footprint was “a fraction that of a traditional commercial airport” yet it served as one of the largest employment sites in the region. Rushmoor borough council will consider the plans in March. Todd Smith, a former airline pilot and an Extinction Rebellion spokesperson, said: “Flying is the fastest way to fry the planet and private jets are the most polluting way to fly. “Surely it’s a no-brainer to ban private jets and stop expanding these luxury airports in the midst of a climate crisis? Survey after survey, as well as several citizens’ assemblies, have shown this would be very popular and has widespread support from the general public.” Sarah Hart, an office assistant from Farnborough, said: “As a local resident and a mum of two, I am utterly appalled at the airport’s plan to expand when we should be banning private flying completely. We need to be taking drastic steps to ensure a liveable world for all our children, not increasing our use in fossil fuels.” A Farnborough airport spokesperson said the facility was an “important gateway for business aviation connectivity with the majority of flights being operated for business and corporate travel purposes”. He said: “The airport’s environmental footprint is a fraction that of a traditional commercial airport, yet it serves as one of the largest employment sites in the region. We recognise the importance of continually reducing our environmental impact and we are only one of a small number of UK airports to have achieved level four-plus under the airport carbon accreditation programme.” Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Greta Thunberg Climate crisis Hampshire Airline emissions Airline industry Extinction Rebellion news Share Reuse this content ‘The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,’ says Greta Thunberg. Photograph: Carlos Jasso/Reuters View image in fullscreen ‘The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,’ says Greta Thunberg. Photograph: Carlos Jasso/Reuters This article is more than 1 year old Greta Thunberg joins protest against expansion of Hampshire airport This article is more than 1 year old Farnborough airport submits plans to increase number of flights amid calls for a ban on private jets The climate activist Greta Thunberg has marched alongside local residents and Extinction Rebellion activists to protest against an airport’s expansion plans. Farnborough Airport Ltd has submitted a planning application to Rushmoor borough council to increase the number of flights from 50,000 to 70,000 a year. The Swedish climate activist joined the march from Farnborough town centre, in Hampshire , to Farnborough airport. The group set off pink smoke flares and waved banners as they called for a total ban on private jets, which they say are up to 30 times more polluting than passenger airliners. “The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,” Thunberg said. “There are few examples that show as clearly how the rich elite is sacrificing present and future living conditions on this planet so they can maintain their extreme and violent lifestyles.” Private jets are awful for the climate. It’s time to tax the rich who fly in them | Edward J Markey Read more If approved, the airport plans would result in an increase in non-weekday aircraft movements from 8,900 to 18,900 a year and would allow heavier aircraft to use the airport. Farnborough airport said its environmental footprint was “a fraction that of a traditional commercial airport” yet it served as one of the largest employment sites in the region. Rushmoor borough council will consider the plans in March. Todd Smith, a former airline pilot and an Extinction Rebellion spokesperson, said: “Flying is the fastest way to fry the planet and private jets are the most polluting way to fly. “Surely it’s a no-brainer to ban private jets and stop expanding these luxury airports in the midst of a climate crisis? Survey after survey, as well as several citizens’ assemblies, have shown this would be very popular and has widespread support from the general public.” Sarah Hart, an office assistant from Farnborough, said: “As a local resident and a mum of two, I am utterly appalled at the airport’s plan to expand when we should be banning private flying completely. We need to be taking drastic steps to ensure a liveable world for all our children, not increasing our use in fossil fuels.” A Farnborough airport spokesperson said the facility was an “important gateway for business aviation connectivity with the majority of flights being operated for business and corporate travel purposes”. He said: “The airport’s environmental footprint is a fraction that of a traditional commercial airport, yet it serves as one of the largest employment sites in the region. We recognise the importance of continually reducing our environmental impact and we are only one of a small number of UK airports to have achieved level four-plus under the airport carbon accreditation programme.” Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Greta Thunberg Climate crisis Hampshire Airline emissions Airline industry Extinction Rebellion news Share Reuse this content ‘The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,’ says Greta Thunberg. Photograph: Carlos Jasso/Reuters View image in fullscreen ‘The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,’ says Greta Thunberg. Photograph: Carlos Jasso/Reuters ‘The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,’ says Greta Thunberg. Photograph: Carlos Jasso/Reuters View image in fullscreen ‘The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,’ says Greta Thunberg. Photograph: Carlos Jasso/Reuters ‘The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,’ says Greta Thunberg. Photograph: Carlos Jasso/Reuters View image in fullscreen ‘The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,’ says Greta Thunberg. Photograph: Carlos Jasso/Reuters ‘The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,’ says Greta Thunberg. Photograph: Carlos Jasso/Reuters View image in fullscreen ‘The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,’ says Greta Thunberg. Photograph: Carlos Jasso/Reuters ‘The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,’ says Greta Thunberg. Photograph: Carlos Jasso/Reuters ‘The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,’ says Greta Thunberg. Photograph: Carlos Jasso/Reuters This article is more than 1 year old Greta Thunberg joins protest against expansion of Hampshire airport This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Greta Thunberg joins protest against expansion of Hampshire airport This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Greta Thunberg joins protest against expansion of Hampshire airport 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 Farnborough airport submits plans to increase number of flights amid calls for a ban on private jets Farnborough airport submits plans to increase number of flights amid calls for a ban on private jets Farnborough airport submits plans to increase number of flights amid calls for a ban on private jets The climate activist Greta Thunberg has marched alongside local residents and Extinction Rebellion activists to protest against an airport’s expansion plans. Farnborough Airport Ltd has submitted a planning application to Rushmoor borough council to increase the number of flights from 50,000 to 70,000 a year. The Swedish climate activist joined the march from Farnborough town centre, in Hampshire , to Farnborough airport. The group set off pink smoke flares and waved banners as they called for a total ban on private jets, which they say are up to 30 times more polluting than passenger airliners. “The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,” Thunberg said. “There are few examples that show as clearly how the rich elite is sacrificing present and future living conditions on this planet so they can maintain their extreme and violent lifestyles.” Private jets are awful for the climate. It’s time to tax the rich who fly in them | Edward J Markey Read more If approved, the airport plans would result in an increase in non-weekday aircraft movements from 8,900 to 18,900 a year and would allow heavier aircraft to use the airport. Farnborough airport said its environmental footprint was “a fraction that of a traditional commercial airport” yet it served as one of the largest employment sites in the region. Rushmoor borough council will consider the plans in March. Todd Smith, a former airline pilot and an Extinction Rebellion spokesperson, said: “Flying is the fastest way to fry the planet and private jets are the most polluting way to fly. “Surely it’s a no-brainer to ban private jets and stop expanding these luxury airports in the midst of a climate crisis? Survey after survey, as well as several citizens’ assemblies, have shown this would be very popular and has widespread support from the general public.” Sarah Hart, an office assistant from Farnborough, said: “As a local resident and a mum of two, I am utterly appalled at the airport’s plan to expand when we should be banning private flying completely. We need to be taking drastic steps to ensure a liveable world for all our children, not increasing our use in fossil fuels.” A Farnborough airport spokesperson said the facility was an “important gateway for business aviation connectivity with the majority of flights being operated for business and corporate travel purposes”. He said: “The airport’s environmental footprint is a fraction that of a traditional commercial airport, yet it serves as one of the largest employment sites in the region. We recognise the importance of continually reducing our environmental impact and we are only one of a small number of UK airports to have achieved level four-plus under the airport carbon accreditation programme.” Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Greta Thunberg Climate crisis Hampshire Airline emissions Airline industry Extinction Rebellion news Share Reuse this content The climate activist Greta Thunberg has marched alongside local residents and Extinction Rebellion activists to protest against an airport’s expansion plans. Farnborough Airport Ltd has submitted a planning application to Rushmoor borough council to increase the number of flights from 50,000 to 70,000 a year. The Swedish climate activist joined the march from Farnborough town centre, in Hampshire , to Farnborough airport. The group set off pink smoke flares and waved banners as they called for a total ban on private jets, which they say are up to 30 times more polluting than passenger airliners. “The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,” Thunberg said. “There are few examples that show as clearly how the rich elite is sacrificing present and future living conditions on this planet so they can maintain their extreme and violent lifestyles.” Private jets are awful for the climate. It’s time to tax the rich who fly in them | Edward J Markey Read more If approved, the airport plans would result in an increase in non-weekday aircraft movements from 8,900 to 18,900 a year and would allow heavier aircraft to use the airport. Farnborough airport said its environmental footprint was “a fraction that of a traditional commercial airport” yet it served as one of the largest employment sites in the region. Rushmoor borough council will consider the plans in March. Todd Smith, a former airline pilot and an Extinction Rebellion spokesperson, said: “Flying is the fastest way to fry the planet and private jets are the most polluting way to fly. “Surely it’s a no-brainer to ban private jets and stop expanding these luxury airports in the midst of a climate crisis? Survey after survey, as well as several citizens’ assemblies, have shown this would be very popular and has widespread support from the general public.” Sarah Hart, an office assistant from Farnborough, said: “As a local resident and a mum of two, I am utterly appalled at the airport’s plan to expand when we should be banning private flying completely. We need to be taking drastic steps to ensure a liveable world for all our children, not increasing our use in fossil fuels.” A Farnborough airport spokesperson said the facility was an “important gateway for business aviation connectivity with the majority of flights being operated for business and corporate travel purposes”. He said: “The airport’s environmental footprint is a fraction that of a traditional commercial airport, yet it serves as one of the largest employment sites in the region. We recognise the importance of continually reducing our environmental impact and we are only one of a small number of UK airports to have achieved level four-plus under the airport carbon accreditation programme.” Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Greta Thunberg Climate crisis Hampshire Airline emissions Airline industry Extinction Rebellion news Share Reuse this content The climate activist Greta Thunberg has marched alongside local residents and Extinction Rebellion activists to protest against an airport’s expansion plans. Farnborough Airport Ltd has submitted a planning application to Rushmoor borough council to increase the number of flights from 50,000 to 70,000 a year. The Swedish climate activist joined the march from Farnborough town centre, in Hampshire , to Farnborough airport. The group set off pink smoke flares and waved banners as they called for a total ban on private jets, which they say are up to 30 times more polluting than passenger airliners. “The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,” Thunberg said. “There are few examples that show as clearly how the rich elite is sacrificing present and future living conditions on this planet so they can maintain their extreme and violent lifestyles.” Private jets are awful for the climate. It’s time to tax the rich who fly in them | Edward J Markey Read more If approved, the airport plans would result in an increase in non-weekday aircraft movements from 8,900 to 18,900 a year and would allow heavier aircraft to use the airport. Farnborough airport said its environmental footprint was “a fraction that of a traditional commercial airport” yet it served as one of the largest employment sites in the region. Rushmoor borough council will consider the plans in March. Todd Smith, a former airline pilot and an Extinction Rebellion spokesperson, said: “Flying is the fastest way to fry the planet and private jets are the most polluting way to fly. “Surely it’s a no-brainer to ban private jets and stop expanding these luxury airports in the midst of a climate crisis? Survey after survey, as well as several citizens’ assemblies, have shown this would be very popular and has widespread support from the general public.” Sarah Hart, an office assistant from Farnborough, said: “As a local resident and a mum of two, I am utterly appalled at the airport’s plan to expand when we should be banning private flying completely. We need to be taking drastic steps to ensure a liveable world for all our children, not increasing our use in fossil fuels.” A Farnborough airport spokesperson said the facility was an “important gateway for business aviation connectivity with the majority of flights being operated for business and corporate travel purposes”. He said: “The airport’s environmental footprint is a fraction that of a traditional commercial airport, yet it serves as one of the largest employment sites in the region. We recognise the importance of continually reducing our environmental impact and we are only one of a small number of UK airports to have achieved level four-plus under the airport carbon accreditation programme.” The climate activist Greta Thunberg has marched alongside local residents and Extinction Rebellion activists to protest against an airport’s expansion plans. Farnborough Airport Ltd has submitted a planning application to Rushmoor borough council to increase the number of flights from 50,000 to 70,000 a year. The Swedish climate activist joined the march from Farnborough town centre, in Hampshire , to Farnborough airport. The group set off pink smoke flares and waved banners as they called for a total ban on private jets, which they say are up to 30 times more polluting than passenger airliners. “The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,” Thunberg said. “There are few examples that show as clearly how the rich elite is sacrificing present and future living conditions on this planet so they can maintain their extreme and violent lifestyles.” Private jets are awful for the climate. It’s time to tax the rich who fly in them | Edward J Markey Read more If approved, the airport plans would result in an increase in non-weekday aircraft movements from 8,900 to 18,900 a year and would allow heavier aircraft to use the airport. Farnborough airport said its environmental footprint was “a fraction that of a traditional commercial airport” yet it served as one of the largest employment sites in the region. Rushmoor borough council will consider the plans in March. Todd Smith, a former airline pilot and an Extinction Rebellion spokesperson, said: “Flying is the fastest way to fry the planet and private jets are the most polluting way to fly. “Surely it’s a no-brainer to ban private jets and stop expanding these luxury airports in the midst of a climate crisis? Survey after survey, as well as several citizens’ assemblies, have shown this would be very popular and has widespread support from the general public.” Sarah Hart, an office assistant from Farnborough, said: “As a local resident and a mum of two, I am utterly appalled at the airport’s plan to expand when we should be banning private flying completely. We need to be taking drastic steps to ensure a liveable world for all our children, not increasing our use in fossil fuels.” A Farnborough airport spokesperson said the facility was an “important gateway for business aviation connectivity with the majority of flights being operated for business and corporate travel purposes”. He said: “The airport’s environmental footprint is a fraction that of a traditional commercial airport, yet it serves as one of the largest employment sites in the region. We recognise the importance of continually reducing our environmental impact and we are only one of a small number of UK airports to have achieved level four-plus under the airport carbon accreditation programme.” The climate activist Greta Thunberg has marched alongside local residents and Extinction Rebellion activists to protest against an airport’s expansion plans. Farnborough Airport Ltd has submitted a planning application to Rushmoor borough council to increase the number of flights from 50,000 to 70,000 a year. The Swedish climate activist joined the march from Farnborough town centre, in Hampshire , to Farnborough airport. The group set off pink smoke flares and waved banners as they called for a total ban on private jets, which they say are up to 30 times more polluting than passenger airliners. “The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,” Thunberg said. “There are few examples that show as clearly how the rich elite is sacrificing present and future living conditions on this planet so they can maintain their extreme and violent lifestyles.” Private jets are awful for the climate. It’s time to tax the rich who fly in them | Edward J Markey Read more Private jets are awful for the climate. It’s time to tax the rich who fly in them | Edward J Markey Read more Private jets are awful for the climate. It’s time to tax the rich who fly in them | Edward J Markey Read more Private jets are awful for the climate. It’s time to tax the rich who fly in them | Edward J Markey Private jets are awful for the climate. It’s time to tax the rich who fly in them | Edward J Markey If approved, the airport plans would result in an increase in non-weekday aircraft movements from 8,900 to 18,900 a year and would allow heavier aircraft to use the airport. Farnborough airport said its environmental footprint was “a fraction that of a traditional commercial airport” yet it served as one of the largest employment sites in the region. Rushmoor borough council will consider the plans in March. Todd Smith, a former airline pilot and an Extinction Rebellion spokesperson, said: “Flying is the fastest way to fry the planet and private jets are the most polluting way to fly. “Surely it’s a no-brainer to ban private jets and stop expanding these luxury airports in the midst of a climate crisis? Survey after survey, as well as several citizens’ assemblies, have shown this would be very popular and has widespread support from the general public.” Sarah Hart, an office assistant from Farnborough, said: “As a local resident and a mum of two, I am utterly appalled at the airport’s plan to expand when we should be banning private flying completely. We need to be taking drastic steps to ensure a liveable world for all our children, not increasing our use in fossil fuels.” A Farnborough airport spokesperson said the facility was an “important gateway for business aviation connectivity with the majority of flights being operated for business and corporate travel purposes”. He said: “The airport’s environmental footprint is a fraction that of a traditional commercial airport, yet it serves as one of the largest employment sites in the region. We recognise the importance of continually reducing our environmental impact and we are only one of a small number of UK airports to have achieved level four-plus under the airport carbon accreditation programme.” Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Greta Thunberg Climate crisis Hampshire Airline emissions Airline industry Extinction Rebellion news Share Reuse this content Environmental activism Greta Thunberg Climate crisis Hampshire Airline emissions Airline industry Extinction Rebellion news
|
The mothers and wives of Russian soldiers daring to defy Putin
This article is more than 1 year old The mothers and wives of Russian soldiers daring to defy Putin This article is more than 1 year old 00:00:00 00:00:00 Partners and parents of conscripted fighters are demanding that their loved ones come home. What does it say about Russian support for the war? With Pjotr Sauer Wearing white scarves and clutching flowers to lay at the tomb of the unknown soldier, or standing outside the Kremlin, they are unexpected protesters. Mothers and wives whose sons and husbands have been conscripted into the Russian army to fight in Ukraine. Some were once Putin’s supporters; others still believe the war in Ukraine is a just one. But all of them want their men to come home – and they are risking everything to let the world know. The Guardian’s Russian affairs correspondent, Pjotr Sauer , has spoken to one of the most prominent of the women, Maria Andreevas, about what her husband is going through and why she does not want him to fight any more. He explains how other protesters in Russia are treated, and why the soldiers’ mothers and wives could be surprisingly difficult critics to deal with. Nosheen Iqbal finds out what the women’s protests say about the way the war is seen in Russia, and hears about Putin’s attempts to stamp down on critics. Will the protests change anything? Photograph: Reuters Explore more on these topics Russia Today in Focus Vladimir Putin Europe This article is more than 1 year old The mothers and wives of Russian soldiers daring to defy Putin This article is more than 1 year old 00:00:00 00:00:00 Partners and parents of conscripted fighters are demanding that their loved ones come home. What does it say about Russian support for the war? With Pjotr Sauer Wearing white scarves and clutching flowers to lay at the tomb of the unknown soldier, or standing outside the Kremlin, they are unexpected protesters. Mothers and wives whose sons and husbands have been conscripted into the Russian army to fight in Ukraine. Some were once Putin’s supporters; others still believe the war in Ukraine is a just one. But all of them want their men to come home – and they are risking everything to let the world know. The Guardian’s Russian affairs correspondent, Pjotr Sauer , has spoken to one of the most prominent of the women, Maria Andreevas, about what her husband is going through and why she does not want him to fight any more. He explains how other protesters in Russia are treated, and why the soldiers’ mothers and wives could be surprisingly difficult critics to deal with. Nosheen Iqbal finds out what the women’s protests say about the way the war is seen in Russia, and hears about Putin’s attempts to stamp down on critics. Will the protests change anything? Photograph: Reuters Explore more on these topics Russia Today in Focus Vladimir Putin Europe This article is more than 1 year old The mothers and wives of Russian soldiers daring to defy Putin This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old The mothers and wives of Russian soldiers daring to defy Putin This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old The mothers and wives of Russian soldiers daring to defy Putin 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 Partners and parents of conscripted fighters are demanding that their loved ones come home. What does it say about Russian support for the war? With Pjotr Sauer Partners and parents of conscripted fighters are demanding that their loved ones come home. What does it say about Russian support for the war? With Pjotr Sauer Partners and parents of conscripted fighters are demanding that their loved ones come home. What does it say about Russian support for the war? With Pjotr Sauer Wearing white scarves and clutching flowers to lay at the tomb of the unknown soldier, or standing outside the Kremlin, they are unexpected protesters. Mothers and wives whose sons and husbands have been conscripted into the Russian army to fight in Ukraine. Some were once Putin’s supporters; others still believe the war in Ukraine is a just one. But all of them want their men to come home – and they are risking everything to let the world know. The Guardian’s Russian affairs correspondent, Pjotr Sauer , has spoken to one of the most prominent of the women, Maria Andreevas, about what her husband is going through and why she does not want him to fight any more. He explains how other protesters in Russia are treated, and why the soldiers’ mothers and wives could be surprisingly difficult critics to deal with. Nosheen Iqbal finds out what the women’s protests say about the way the war is seen in Russia, and hears about Putin’s attempts to stamp down on critics. Will the protests change anything? Photograph: Reuters Explore more on these topics Russia Today in Focus Vladimir Putin Europe Wearing white scarves and clutching flowers to lay at the tomb of the unknown soldier, or standing outside the Kremlin, they are unexpected protesters. Mothers and wives whose sons and husbands have been conscripted into the Russian army to fight in Ukraine. Some were once Putin’s supporters; others still believe the war in Ukraine is a just one. But all of them want their men to come home – and they are risking everything to let the world know. The Guardian’s Russian affairs correspondent, Pjotr Sauer , has spoken to one of the most prominent of the women, Maria Andreevas, about what her husband is going through and why she does not want him to fight any more. He explains how other protesters in Russia are treated, and why the soldiers’ mothers and wives could be surprisingly difficult critics to deal with. Nosheen Iqbal finds out what the women’s protests say about the way the war is seen in Russia, and hears about Putin’s attempts to stamp down on critics. Will the protests change anything? Photograph: Reuters Explore more on these topics Russia Today in Focus Vladimir Putin Europe Wearing white scarves and clutching flowers to lay at the tomb of the unknown soldier, or standing outside the Kremlin, they are unexpected protesters. Mothers and wives whose sons and husbands have been conscripted into the Russian army to fight in Ukraine. Some were once Putin’s supporters; others still believe the war in Ukraine is a just one. But all of them want their men to come home – and they are risking everything to let the world know. The Guardian’s Russian affairs correspondent, Pjotr Sauer , has spoken to one of the most prominent of the women, Maria Andreevas, about what her husband is going through and why she does not want him to fight any more. He explains how other protesters in Russia are treated, and why the soldiers’ mothers and wives could be surprisingly difficult critics to deal with. Nosheen Iqbal finds out what the women’s protests say about the way the war is seen in Russia, and hears about Putin’s attempts to stamp down on critics. Will the protests change anything? Photograph: Reuters Wearing white scarves and clutching flowers to lay at the tomb of the unknown soldier, or standing outside the Kremlin, they are unexpected protesters. Mothers and wives whose sons and husbands have been conscripted into the Russian army to fight in Ukraine. Some were once Putin’s supporters; others still believe the war in Ukraine is a just one. But all of them want their men to come home – and they are risking everything to let the world know. The Guardian’s Russian affairs correspondent, Pjotr Sauer , has spoken to one of the most prominent of the women, Maria Andreevas, about what her husband is going through and why she does not want him to fight any more. He explains how other protesters in Russia are treated, and why the soldiers’ mothers and wives could be surprisingly difficult critics to deal with. Nosheen Iqbal finds out what the women’s protests say about the way the war is seen in Russia, and hears about Putin’s attempts to stamp down on critics. Will the protests change anything? Photograph: Reuters Wearing white scarves and clutching flowers to lay at the tomb of the unknown soldier, or standing outside the Kremlin, they are unexpected protesters. Mothers and wives whose sons and husbands have been conscripted into the Russian army to fight in Ukraine. Some were once Putin’s supporters; others still believe the war in Ukraine is a just one. But all of them want their men to come home – and they are risking everything to let the world know. The Guardian’s Russian affairs correspondent, Pjotr Sauer , has spoken to one of the most prominent of the women, Maria Andreevas, about what her husband is going through and why she does not want him to fight any more. He explains how other protesters in Russia are treated, and why the soldiers’ mothers and wives could be surprisingly difficult critics to deal with. Nosheen Iqbal finds out what the women’s protests say about the way the war is seen in Russia, and hears about Putin’s attempts to stamp down on critics. Will the protests change anything? Explore more on these topics Russia Today in Focus Vladimir Putin Europe Russia Today in Focus Vladimir Putin Europe
|
Move to sustainable food systems could bring $10tn benefits a year, study finds
The study suggested directing financial incentives towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The study suggested directing financial incentives towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Move to sustainable food systems could bring $10tn benefits a year, study finds This article is more than 1 year old Existing production destroys more value than it creates due to medical and environmental costs, researchers say A shift towards a more sustainable global food system could create up to $10tn (£7.9tn) of benefits a year, improve human health and ease the climate crisis, according to the most comprehensive economic study of its type. It found that existing food systems destroyed more value than they created due to hidden environmental and medical costs, in effect, borrowing from the future to take profits today. Food systems drive a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, putting the world on course for 2.7C of warming by the end of the century. This creates a vicious cycle, as higher temperatures bring more extreme weather and greater damage to harvests. Food insecurity also puts a burden on medical systems. The study predicted a business-as-usual approach would leave 640 million people underweight by 2050, while obesity would increase by 70%. Redirecting the food system would be politically challenging but bring huge economic and welfare benefits, said the international team of authors behind the study, which aims to be the food equivalent of the Stern review , the 2006 examination of the costs of climate change. Johan Rockström, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and one of the study’s authors, said: “The global food system holds the future of humanity on Earth in its hand.” The study proposes a shift of subsidies and tax incentives away from destructive large-scale monocultures that rely on fertilisers, pesticides and forest clearance. Instead, financial incentives should be directed towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife. A change of diet is another key element, along with investment in technologies to enhance efficiency and cut emissions. With less food insecurity, the report says, undernutrition could be eradicated by 2050, with 174 million fewer premature deaths, and 400 million farm workers able to earn a sufficient income. The proposed transition would help to limit global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels and halve nitrogen run-offs from agriculture. Overall, they estimate the costs of the transformation at between 0.2% and 0.4% of global GDP per year. In early research, Rockström and his colleagues found food was the largest sector of the economy breaching planetary boundaries . As well at the climate impact, it is a major driver of land-use change and biodiversity decline, and is responsible for 70% of freshwater drawdown. The report was produced by the Food System Economics Commission, which has been formed by the Potsdam Institute, the Food and Land Use Coalition, and EAT, a holistic food-system coalition of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, the Wellcome Trust and the Strawberry Foundation. Academic partners include the University of Oxford and the London School of Economics. It estimated the hidden costs of food, including climate change, human health, nutrition and natural resources, at $15tn, and created a new model to project how these hidden costs could develop over time, depending on humanity’s ability to change. Their calculations were in line with a report last year by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which estimated off-books agrifood costs at more than $10trillion globally in 2020 . Dr Steven Lord, of the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute, said in a statement: “This analysis puts a first figure on the regional and global economic opportunity in transforming food systems. While not easy, the transformation is affordable on a global scale and the accumulating costs into the future of doing nothing pose a considerable economic risk.” Is eating local produce actually better for the planet? Read more Numerous other studies have demonstrated the health and climate benefits of a shift towards a plant-based diet. A report last year by the Climate Observatory notes that Brazil’s beef industry – and its related deforestation – now has a bigger carbon footprint than all the cars, factories, air conditioners, electric gadgets and other sources of emissions in Japan. The new study is not prescriptive about vegetarianism, but Rockström said demand for beef and most other meat would fall if hidden health and environmental costs were included in the price. Nicholas Stern, the chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, welcomed the study: “The economics of today’s food system are, sadly, broken beyond repair. Its so-called ‘hidden costs’ are harming our health and degrading our planet, while also worsening global inequalities. Changing the ways we produce and consume food will be critical to tackling climate change, protecting biodiversity, and building a better future. It is time for radical change.” The main challenge of the proposed food transition is that costs of food would rise. Rockström said this would have to be handled with political dexterity and support for poor sections of society otherwise the result could be protests, such as the gilets jaunes (yellow vests) demonstrations held in France over petrol price hikes. Christiana Figueres, the former executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, emphasised the forward-looking nature of the report: “This research … proves that a different reality is possible, and shows us what it would take to turn the food system into a net carbon sink by 2040. This opportunity should capture the attention of any policymaker who wants to secure a healthier future for the planet and for people.” Explore more on these topics Food Agriculture Climate crisis Health Economics Greenhouse gas emissions Food & drink industry news Share Reuse this content The study suggested directing financial incentives towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The study suggested directing financial incentives towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Move to sustainable food systems could bring $10tn benefits a year, study finds This article is more than 1 year old Existing production destroys more value than it creates due to medical and environmental costs, researchers say A shift towards a more sustainable global food system could create up to $10tn (£7.9tn) of benefits a year, improve human health and ease the climate crisis, according to the most comprehensive economic study of its type. It found that existing food systems destroyed more value than they created due to hidden environmental and medical costs, in effect, borrowing from the future to take profits today. Food systems drive a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, putting the world on course for 2.7C of warming by the end of the century. This creates a vicious cycle, as higher temperatures bring more extreme weather and greater damage to harvests. Food insecurity also puts a burden on medical systems. The study predicted a business-as-usual approach would leave 640 million people underweight by 2050, while obesity would increase by 70%. Redirecting the food system would be politically challenging but bring huge economic and welfare benefits, said the international team of authors behind the study, which aims to be the food equivalent of the Stern review , the 2006 examination of the costs of climate change. Johan Rockström, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and one of the study’s authors, said: “The global food system holds the future of humanity on Earth in its hand.” The study proposes a shift of subsidies and tax incentives away from destructive large-scale monocultures that rely on fertilisers, pesticides and forest clearance. Instead, financial incentives should be directed towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife. A change of diet is another key element, along with investment in technologies to enhance efficiency and cut emissions. With less food insecurity, the report says, undernutrition could be eradicated by 2050, with 174 million fewer premature deaths, and 400 million farm workers able to earn a sufficient income. The proposed transition would help to limit global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels and halve nitrogen run-offs from agriculture. Overall, they estimate the costs of the transformation at between 0.2% and 0.4% of global GDP per year. In early research, Rockström and his colleagues found food was the largest sector of the economy breaching planetary boundaries . As well at the climate impact, it is a major driver of land-use change and biodiversity decline, and is responsible for 70% of freshwater drawdown. The report was produced by the Food System Economics Commission, which has been formed by the Potsdam Institute, the Food and Land Use Coalition, and EAT, a holistic food-system coalition of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, the Wellcome Trust and the Strawberry Foundation. Academic partners include the University of Oxford and the London School of Economics. It estimated the hidden costs of food, including climate change, human health, nutrition and natural resources, at $15tn, and created a new model to project how these hidden costs could develop over time, depending on humanity’s ability to change. Their calculations were in line with a report last year by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which estimated off-books agrifood costs at more than $10trillion globally in 2020 . Dr Steven Lord, of the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute, said in a statement: “This analysis puts a first figure on the regional and global economic opportunity in transforming food systems. While not easy, the transformation is affordable on a global scale and the accumulating costs into the future of doing nothing pose a considerable economic risk.” Is eating local produce actually better for the planet? Read more Numerous other studies have demonstrated the health and climate benefits of a shift towards a plant-based diet. A report last year by the Climate Observatory notes that Brazil’s beef industry – and its related deforestation – now has a bigger carbon footprint than all the cars, factories, air conditioners, electric gadgets and other sources of emissions in Japan. The new study is not prescriptive about vegetarianism, but Rockström said demand for beef and most other meat would fall if hidden health and environmental costs were included in the price. Nicholas Stern, the chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, welcomed the study: “The economics of today’s food system are, sadly, broken beyond repair. Its so-called ‘hidden costs’ are harming our health and degrading our planet, while also worsening global inequalities. Changing the ways we produce and consume food will be critical to tackling climate change, protecting biodiversity, and building a better future. It is time for radical change.” The main challenge of the proposed food transition is that costs of food would rise. Rockström said this would have to be handled with political dexterity and support for poor sections of society otherwise the result could be protests, such as the gilets jaunes (yellow vests) demonstrations held in France over petrol price hikes. Christiana Figueres, the former executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, emphasised the forward-looking nature of the report: “This research … proves that a different reality is possible, and shows us what it would take to turn the food system into a net carbon sink by 2040. This opportunity should capture the attention of any policymaker who wants to secure a healthier future for the planet and for people.” Explore more on these topics Food Agriculture Climate crisis Health Economics Greenhouse gas emissions Food & drink industry news Share Reuse this content The study suggested directing financial incentives towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The study suggested directing financial incentives towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images The study suggested directing financial incentives towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The study suggested directing financial incentives towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images The study suggested directing financial incentives towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The study suggested directing financial incentives towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images The study suggested directing financial incentives towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The study suggested directing financial incentives towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images The study suggested directing financial incentives towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images The study suggested directing financial incentives towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Move to sustainable food systems could bring $10tn benefits a year, study finds This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Move to sustainable food systems could bring $10tn benefits a year, study finds This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Move to sustainable food systems could bring $10tn benefits a year, study finds 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 Existing production destroys more value than it creates due to medical and environmental costs, researchers say Existing production destroys more value than it creates due to medical and environmental costs, researchers say Existing production destroys more value than it creates due to medical and environmental costs, researchers say A shift towards a more sustainable global food system could create up to $10tn (£7.9tn) of benefits a year, improve human health and ease the climate crisis, according to the most comprehensive economic study of its type. It found that existing food systems destroyed more value than they created due to hidden environmental and medical costs, in effect, borrowing from the future to take profits today. Food systems drive a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, putting the world on course for 2.7C of warming by the end of the century. This creates a vicious cycle, as higher temperatures bring more extreme weather and greater damage to harvests. Food insecurity also puts a burden on medical systems. The study predicted a business-as-usual approach would leave 640 million people underweight by 2050, while obesity would increase by 70%. Redirecting the food system would be politically challenging but bring huge economic and welfare benefits, said the international team of authors behind the study, which aims to be the food equivalent of the Stern review , the 2006 examination of the costs of climate change. Johan Rockström, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and one of the study’s authors, said: “The global food system holds the future of humanity on Earth in its hand.” The study proposes a shift of subsidies and tax incentives away from destructive large-scale monocultures that rely on fertilisers, pesticides and forest clearance. Instead, financial incentives should be directed towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife. A change of diet is another key element, along with investment in technologies to enhance efficiency and cut emissions. With less food insecurity, the report says, undernutrition could be eradicated by 2050, with 174 million fewer premature deaths, and 400 million farm workers able to earn a sufficient income. The proposed transition would help to limit global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels and halve nitrogen run-offs from agriculture. Overall, they estimate the costs of the transformation at between 0.2% and 0.4% of global GDP per year. In early research, Rockström and his colleagues found food was the largest sector of the economy breaching planetary boundaries . As well at the climate impact, it is a major driver of land-use change and biodiversity decline, and is responsible for 70% of freshwater drawdown. The report was produced by the Food System Economics Commission, which has been formed by the Potsdam Institute, the Food and Land Use Coalition, and EAT, a holistic food-system coalition of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, the Wellcome Trust and the Strawberry Foundation. Academic partners include the University of Oxford and the London School of Economics. It estimated the hidden costs of food, including climate change, human health, nutrition and natural resources, at $15tn, and created a new model to project how these hidden costs could develop over time, depending on humanity’s ability to change. Their calculations were in line with a report last year by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which estimated off-books agrifood costs at more than $10trillion globally in 2020 . Dr Steven Lord, of the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute, said in a statement: “This analysis puts a first figure on the regional and global economic opportunity in transforming food systems. While not easy, the transformation is affordable on a global scale and the accumulating costs into the future of doing nothing pose a considerable economic risk.” Is eating local produce actually better for the planet? Read more Numerous other studies have demonstrated the health and climate benefits of a shift towards a plant-based diet. A report last year by the Climate Observatory notes that Brazil’s beef industry – and its related deforestation – now has a bigger carbon footprint than all the cars, factories, air conditioners, electric gadgets and other sources of emissions in Japan. The new study is not prescriptive about vegetarianism, but Rockström said demand for beef and most other meat would fall if hidden health and environmental costs were included in the price. Nicholas Stern, the chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, welcomed the study: “The economics of today’s food system are, sadly, broken beyond repair. Its so-called ‘hidden costs’ are harming our health and degrading our planet, while also worsening global inequalities. Changing the ways we produce and consume food will be critical to tackling climate change, protecting biodiversity, and building a better future. It is time for radical change.” The main challenge of the proposed food transition is that costs of food would rise. Rockström said this would have to be handled with political dexterity and support for poor sections of society otherwise the result could be protests, such as the gilets jaunes (yellow vests) demonstrations held in France over petrol price hikes. Christiana Figueres, the former executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, emphasised the forward-looking nature of the report: “This research … proves that a different reality is possible, and shows us what it would take to turn the food system into a net carbon sink by 2040. This opportunity should capture the attention of any policymaker who wants to secure a healthier future for the planet and for people.” Explore more on these topics Food Agriculture Climate crisis Health Economics Greenhouse gas emissions Food & drink industry news Share Reuse this content A shift towards a more sustainable global food system could create up to $10tn (£7.9tn) of benefits a year, improve human health and ease the climate crisis, according to the most comprehensive economic study of its type. It found that existing food systems destroyed more value than they created due to hidden environmental and medical costs, in effect, borrowing from the future to take profits today. Food systems drive a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, putting the world on course for 2.7C of warming by the end of the century. This creates a vicious cycle, as higher temperatures bring more extreme weather and greater damage to harvests. Food insecurity also puts a burden on medical systems. The study predicted a business-as-usual approach would leave 640 million people underweight by 2050, while obesity would increase by 70%. Redirecting the food system would be politically challenging but bring huge economic and welfare benefits, said the international team of authors behind the study, which aims to be the food equivalent of the Stern review , the 2006 examination of the costs of climate change. Johan Rockström, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and one of the study’s authors, said: “The global food system holds the future of humanity on Earth in its hand.” The study proposes a shift of subsidies and tax incentives away from destructive large-scale monocultures that rely on fertilisers, pesticides and forest clearance. Instead, financial incentives should be directed towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife. A change of diet is another key element, along with investment in technologies to enhance efficiency and cut emissions. With less food insecurity, the report says, undernutrition could be eradicated by 2050, with 174 million fewer premature deaths, and 400 million farm workers able to earn a sufficient income. The proposed transition would help to limit global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels and halve nitrogen run-offs from agriculture. Overall, they estimate the costs of the transformation at between 0.2% and 0.4% of global GDP per year. In early research, Rockström and his colleagues found food was the largest sector of the economy breaching planetary boundaries . As well at the climate impact, it is a major driver of land-use change and biodiversity decline, and is responsible for 70% of freshwater drawdown. The report was produced by the Food System Economics Commission, which has been formed by the Potsdam Institute, the Food and Land Use Coalition, and EAT, a holistic food-system coalition of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, the Wellcome Trust and the Strawberry Foundation. Academic partners include the University of Oxford and the London School of Economics. It estimated the hidden costs of food, including climate change, human health, nutrition and natural resources, at $15tn, and created a new model to project how these hidden costs could develop over time, depending on humanity’s ability to change. Their calculations were in line with a report last year by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which estimated off-books agrifood costs at more than $10trillion globally in 2020 . Dr Steven Lord, of the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute, said in a statement: “This analysis puts a first figure on the regional and global economic opportunity in transforming food systems. While not easy, the transformation is affordable on a global scale and the accumulating costs into the future of doing nothing pose a considerable economic risk.” Is eating local produce actually better for the planet? Read more Numerous other studies have demonstrated the health and climate benefits of a shift towards a plant-based diet. A report last year by the Climate Observatory notes that Brazil’s beef industry – and its related deforestation – now has a bigger carbon footprint than all the cars, factories, air conditioners, electric gadgets and other sources of emissions in Japan. The new study is not prescriptive about vegetarianism, but Rockström said demand for beef and most other meat would fall if hidden health and environmental costs were included in the price. Nicholas Stern, the chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, welcomed the study: “The economics of today’s food system are, sadly, broken beyond repair. Its so-called ‘hidden costs’ are harming our health and degrading our planet, while also worsening global inequalities. Changing the ways we produce and consume food will be critical to tackling climate change, protecting biodiversity, and building a better future. It is time for radical change.” The main challenge of the proposed food transition is that costs of food would rise. Rockström said this would have to be handled with political dexterity and support for poor sections of society otherwise the result could be protests, such as the gilets jaunes (yellow vests) demonstrations held in France over petrol price hikes. Christiana Figueres, the former executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, emphasised the forward-looking nature of the report: “This research … proves that a different reality is possible, and shows us what it would take to turn the food system into a net carbon sink by 2040. This opportunity should capture the attention of any policymaker who wants to secure a healthier future for the planet and for people.” Explore more on these topics Food Agriculture Climate crisis Health Economics Greenhouse gas emissions Food & drink industry news Share Reuse this content A shift towards a more sustainable global food system could create up to $10tn (£7.9tn) of benefits a year, improve human health and ease the climate crisis, according to the most comprehensive economic study of its type. It found that existing food systems destroyed more value than they created due to hidden environmental and medical costs, in effect, borrowing from the future to take profits today. Food systems drive a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, putting the world on course for 2.7C of warming by the end of the century. This creates a vicious cycle, as higher temperatures bring more extreme weather and greater damage to harvests. Food insecurity also puts a burden on medical systems. The study predicted a business-as-usual approach would leave 640 million people underweight by 2050, while obesity would increase by 70%. Redirecting the food system would be politically challenging but bring huge economic and welfare benefits, said the international team of authors behind the study, which aims to be the food equivalent of the Stern review , the 2006 examination of the costs of climate change. Johan Rockström, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and one of the study’s authors, said: “The global food system holds the future of humanity on Earth in its hand.” The study proposes a shift of subsidies and tax incentives away from destructive large-scale monocultures that rely on fertilisers, pesticides and forest clearance. Instead, financial incentives should be directed towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife. A change of diet is another key element, along with investment in technologies to enhance efficiency and cut emissions. With less food insecurity, the report says, undernutrition could be eradicated by 2050, with 174 million fewer premature deaths, and 400 million farm workers able to earn a sufficient income. The proposed transition would help to limit global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels and halve nitrogen run-offs from agriculture. Overall, they estimate the costs of the transformation at between 0.2% and 0.4% of global GDP per year. In early research, Rockström and his colleagues found food was the largest sector of the economy breaching planetary boundaries . As well at the climate impact, it is a major driver of land-use change and biodiversity decline, and is responsible for 70% of freshwater drawdown. The report was produced by the Food System Economics Commission, which has been formed by the Potsdam Institute, the Food and Land Use Coalition, and EAT, a holistic food-system coalition of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, the Wellcome Trust and the Strawberry Foundation. Academic partners include the University of Oxford and the London School of Economics. It estimated the hidden costs of food, including climate change, human health, nutrition and natural resources, at $15tn, and created a new model to project how these hidden costs could develop over time, depending on humanity’s ability to change. Their calculations were in line with a report last year by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which estimated off-books agrifood costs at more than $10trillion globally in 2020 . Dr Steven Lord, of the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute, said in a statement: “This analysis puts a first figure on the regional and global economic opportunity in transforming food systems. While not easy, the transformation is affordable on a global scale and the accumulating costs into the future of doing nothing pose a considerable economic risk.” Is eating local produce actually better for the planet? Read more Numerous other studies have demonstrated the health and climate benefits of a shift towards a plant-based diet. A report last year by the Climate Observatory notes that Brazil’s beef industry – and its related deforestation – now has a bigger carbon footprint than all the cars, factories, air conditioners, electric gadgets and other sources of emissions in Japan. The new study is not prescriptive about vegetarianism, but Rockström said demand for beef and most other meat would fall if hidden health and environmental costs were included in the price. Nicholas Stern, the chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, welcomed the study: “The economics of today’s food system are, sadly, broken beyond repair. Its so-called ‘hidden costs’ are harming our health and degrading our planet, while also worsening global inequalities. Changing the ways we produce and consume food will be critical to tackling climate change, protecting biodiversity, and building a better future. It is time for radical change.” The main challenge of the proposed food transition is that costs of food would rise. Rockström said this would have to be handled with political dexterity and support for poor sections of society otherwise the result could be protests, such as the gilets jaunes (yellow vests) demonstrations held in France over petrol price hikes. Christiana Figueres, the former executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, emphasised the forward-looking nature of the report: “This research … proves that a different reality is possible, and shows us what it would take to turn the food system into a net carbon sink by 2040. This opportunity should capture the attention of any policymaker who wants to secure a healthier future for the planet and for people.” A shift towards a more sustainable global food system could create up to $10tn (£7.9tn) of benefits a year, improve human health and ease the climate crisis, according to the most comprehensive economic study of its type. It found that existing food systems destroyed more value than they created due to hidden environmental and medical costs, in effect, borrowing from the future to take profits today. Food systems drive a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, putting the world on course for 2.7C of warming by the end of the century. This creates a vicious cycle, as higher temperatures bring more extreme weather and greater damage to harvests. Food insecurity also puts a burden on medical systems. The study predicted a business-as-usual approach would leave 640 million people underweight by 2050, while obesity would increase by 70%. Redirecting the food system would be politically challenging but bring huge economic and welfare benefits, said the international team of authors behind the study, which aims to be the food equivalent of the Stern review , the 2006 examination of the costs of climate change. Johan Rockström, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and one of the study’s authors, said: “The global food system holds the future of humanity on Earth in its hand.” The study proposes a shift of subsidies and tax incentives away from destructive large-scale monocultures that rely on fertilisers, pesticides and forest clearance. Instead, financial incentives should be directed towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife. A change of diet is another key element, along with investment in technologies to enhance efficiency and cut emissions. With less food insecurity, the report says, undernutrition could be eradicated by 2050, with 174 million fewer premature deaths, and 400 million farm workers able to earn a sufficient income. The proposed transition would help to limit global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels and halve nitrogen run-offs from agriculture. Overall, they estimate the costs of the transformation at between 0.2% and 0.4% of global GDP per year. In early research, Rockström and his colleagues found food was the largest sector of the economy breaching planetary boundaries . As well at the climate impact, it is a major driver of land-use change and biodiversity decline, and is responsible for 70% of freshwater drawdown. The report was produced by the Food System Economics Commission, which has been formed by the Potsdam Institute, the Food and Land Use Coalition, and EAT, a holistic food-system coalition of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, the Wellcome Trust and the Strawberry Foundation. Academic partners include the University of Oxford and the London School of Economics. It estimated the hidden costs of food, including climate change, human health, nutrition and natural resources, at $15tn, and created a new model to project how these hidden costs could develop over time, depending on humanity’s ability to change. Their calculations were in line with a report last year by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which estimated off-books agrifood costs at more than $10trillion globally in 2020 . Dr Steven Lord, of the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute, said in a statement: “This analysis puts a first figure on the regional and global economic opportunity in transforming food systems. While not easy, the transformation is affordable on a global scale and the accumulating costs into the future of doing nothing pose a considerable economic risk.” Is eating local produce actually better for the planet? Read more Numerous other studies have demonstrated the health and climate benefits of a shift towards a plant-based diet. A report last year by the Climate Observatory notes that Brazil’s beef industry – and its related deforestation – now has a bigger carbon footprint than all the cars, factories, air conditioners, electric gadgets and other sources of emissions in Japan. The new study is not prescriptive about vegetarianism, but Rockström said demand for beef and most other meat would fall if hidden health and environmental costs were included in the price. Nicholas Stern, the chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, welcomed the study: “The economics of today’s food system are, sadly, broken beyond repair. Its so-called ‘hidden costs’ are harming our health and degrading our planet, while also worsening global inequalities. Changing the ways we produce and consume food will be critical to tackling climate change, protecting biodiversity, and building a better future. It is time for radical change.” The main challenge of the proposed food transition is that costs of food would rise. Rockström said this would have to be handled with political dexterity and support for poor sections of society otherwise the result could be protests, such as the gilets jaunes (yellow vests) demonstrations held in France over petrol price hikes. Christiana Figueres, the former executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, emphasised the forward-looking nature of the report: “This research … proves that a different reality is possible, and shows us what it would take to turn the food system into a net carbon sink by 2040. This opportunity should capture the attention of any policymaker who wants to secure a healthier future for the planet and for people.” A shift towards a more sustainable global food system could create up to $10tn (£7.9tn) of benefits a year, improve human health and ease the climate crisis, according to the most comprehensive economic study of its type. It found that existing food systems destroyed more value than they created due to hidden environmental and medical costs, in effect, borrowing from the future to take profits today. Food systems drive a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, putting the world on course for 2.7C of warming by the end of the century. This creates a vicious cycle, as higher temperatures bring more extreme weather and greater damage to harvests. Food insecurity also puts a burden on medical systems. The study predicted a business-as-usual approach would leave 640 million people underweight by 2050, while obesity would increase by 70%. Redirecting the food system would be politically challenging but bring huge economic and welfare benefits, said the international team of authors behind the study, which aims to be the food equivalent of the Stern review , the 2006 examination of the costs of climate change. Johan Rockström, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and one of the study’s authors, said: “The global food system holds the future of humanity on Earth in its hand.” The study proposes a shift of subsidies and tax incentives away from destructive large-scale monocultures that rely on fertilisers, pesticides and forest clearance. Instead, financial incentives should be directed towards smallholders who could turn farms into carbon sinks with more space for wildlife. A change of diet is another key element, along with investment in technologies to enhance efficiency and cut emissions. With less food insecurity, the report says, undernutrition could be eradicated by 2050, with 174 million fewer premature deaths, and 400 million farm workers able to earn a sufficient income. The proposed transition would help to limit global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels and halve nitrogen run-offs from agriculture. Overall, they estimate the costs of the transformation at between 0.2% and 0.4% of global GDP per year. In early research, Rockström and his colleagues found food was the largest sector of the economy breaching planetary boundaries . As well at the climate impact, it is a major driver of land-use change and biodiversity decline, and is responsible for 70% of freshwater drawdown. The report was produced by the Food System Economics Commission, which has been formed by the Potsdam Institute, the Food and Land Use Coalition, and EAT, a holistic food-system coalition of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, the Wellcome Trust and the Strawberry Foundation. Academic partners include the University of Oxford and the London School of Economics. It estimated the hidden costs of food, including climate change, human health, nutrition and natural resources, at $15tn, and created a new model to project how these hidden costs could develop over time, depending on humanity’s ability to change. Their calculations were in line with a report last year by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which estimated off-books agrifood costs at more than $10trillion globally in 2020 . Dr Steven Lord, of the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute, said in a statement: “This analysis puts a first figure on the regional and global economic opportunity in transforming food systems. While not easy, the transformation is affordable on a global scale and the accumulating costs into the future of doing nothing pose a considerable economic risk.” Is eating local produce actually better for the planet? Read more Is eating local produce actually better for the planet? Read more Is eating local produce actually better for the planet? Read more Is eating local produce actually better for the planet? Is eating local produce actually better for the planet? Numerous other studies have demonstrated the health and climate benefits of a shift towards a plant-based diet. A report last year by the Climate Observatory notes that Brazil’s beef industry – and its related deforestation – now has a bigger carbon footprint than all the cars, factories, air conditioners, electric gadgets and other sources of emissions in Japan. The new study is not prescriptive about vegetarianism, but Rockström said demand for beef and most other meat would fall if hidden health and environmental costs were included in the price. Nicholas Stern, the chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, welcomed the study: “The economics of today’s food system are, sadly, broken beyond repair. Its so-called ‘hidden costs’ are harming our health and degrading our planet, while also worsening global inequalities. Changing the ways we produce and consume food will be critical to tackling climate change, protecting biodiversity, and building a better future. It is time for radical change.” The main challenge of the proposed food transition is that costs of food would rise. Rockström said this would have to be handled with political dexterity and support for poor sections of society otherwise the result could be protests, such as the gilets jaunes (yellow vests) demonstrations held in France over petrol price hikes. Christiana Figueres, the former executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, emphasised the forward-looking nature of the report: “This research … proves that a different reality is possible, and shows us what it would take to turn the food system into a net carbon sink by 2040. This opportunity should capture the attention of any policymaker who wants to secure a healthier future for the planet and for people.” Explore more on these topics Food Agriculture Climate crisis Health Economics Greenhouse gas emissions Food & drink industry news Share Reuse this content Food Agriculture Climate crisis Health Economics Greenhouse gas emissions Food & drink industry news
|
Laurence Fox loses libel battle with Twitter users he called paedophiles
Laurence Fox outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA View image in fullscreen Laurence Fox outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA This article is more than 1 year old Laurence Fox loses libel battle with Twitter users he called paedophiles This article is more than 1 year old Reclaim party founder defamed two men on site now known as X after they called him a racist, judge rules The actor and rightwing activist Laurence Fox has lost a high court libel battle with two men he called paedophiles after they called him a racist. The former actor defamed the men when he used the slur on social media, Mrs Justice Collins Rice has ruled. The Reclaim party founder was sued by Simon Blake, a former Stonewall trustee, and Crystal, a drag artist, over a dispute on Twitter, now X, in October 2020. Fox, 45, called Blake and the former RuPaul’s Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, paedophiles in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury’s to provide a safe space for black employees during Black History Month. Fox’s call for a boycott of the supermarket had prompted claims by Blake, Seymour and Nicola Thorp, a former Coronation Street actor, that he was a racist. Fox countersued, telling the high court that being accused of racism was a “reputation-destroying allegation” and “career-ending”. His claims were dismissed on Monday. Collins Rice said: “Mr Fox’s labelling of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour as paedophiles was, on the evidence, probabilities and facts of this case, seriously harmful, defamatory and baseless. “The law affords few defences to defamation of this sort. Mr Fox did not attempt to show these allegations were true, and he was not able to bring himself on the facts within the terms of any other defence recognised in law.” She added that the issue of damages and any other remedies would be discussed at a later date. The judge did not make a ruling on whether describing Fox as “a racist” is “substantially true”, after finding that the three tweets cited in his counterclaim were unlikely to cause serious harm to his reputation. Lorna Skinner KC, representing Blake, Seymour and Thorp at the six-day trial in November, said the three “honestly believed, and continue honestly to believe, that Mr Fox is a racist”. In his written evidence for the case, Seymour, a Canadian artist, said he had faced “overwhelming and distressing” abuse after Fox’s tweet, adding that he felt less safe as a drag performer. Blake, now chief executive of Mental Health First Aid England, said the false suggestion that all gay men were paedophiles was “a trope as old as the hills”. Fox said he faced a “significant decline” in the number and quality of roles he was offered after he was accused of being a racist in the social media row. Under cross-examination, Fox suggested there were contexts in which the phrase “I hate black people” was not racist. He said: “If a man is just released from a Ugandan jail where he’s been gang-raped by several men and he walks out and he goes: ‘I hate black people’, it’s a sort of understandable response.” Asked whether it was racist to say “Black people in the UK should go home”, Fox replied: “Depends on what context.” During the trial, Fox dismissed the Black Lives Matter movement as “grift” and “a Ponzi scheme”. He added: “We’re all equal in the eyes of god, so all lives matter.” Fox also insisted that he had been subjected to anti-white racism. When Skinner put it to him that he had not had a lived experience of racism, Fox said: “Yes, I have … There’s huge quantities of anti-right white racism in the world. It’s the only acceptable form of racism there is left.” He also described the idea of white privilege as “disgusting racism” and added: “I choose to understand white privilege as a racist insult because it’s about the colour of your skin, and it’s not about the content of your character.” The court heard Fox defending his criticism of successful black actors who complain about racism. He told the court: “Would I be allowed to stand up and go: ‘It was just so difficult as a kid from Harrow, you know, as a missionary’s son, it was so hard’? I wouldn’t.” The actor claimed there was an “incongruity” in black actors playing white characters. He told the court that casting a black actor in the role of Anne Boleyn was “done for political reasons. It was done in my view to virtue signal to an audience … My point is a philosophical point, which is: if Anne Boleyn can be black, then Nelson Mandela can be white, surely.” Fox also told the court that footballers who took the knee were cowards, and loudly chanted a New Zealand haka to try to illustrate his point. He told the court: “The New Zealanders going to a rugby game going, ‘Whakaka tu ka pu pu’, you know, it’s to intimidate your rival because you’re about to beat your rival. “I think kneeling before your rival makes you look like a bit of a coward who’s going to lose the game.” Speaking outside the court, Fox described the verdict as a “nothing-burger” and said he was considering an appeal. “I’m not a racist,” he said. Seymour said he was “incredibly pleased” by the verdict. He said: “Mr Fox could have made this go away very early on with a meaningful apology and settlement. Instead, and despite his protestations about the importance of ‘free speech’, he sued me for holding the opinion that he is a racist. I suggest Mr Fox spend some time reflecting on the serious harm he causes rather than fixating on his own self-inflicted martyrdom.” Thorp said Fox’s own views had damaged his career. In a post on X, she said: “The same man who later told a black man to ‘fuck off back to Jamaica’, posted pride flags in the shape of a swastika and shared blacked-up images of himself … It’s time that Mr Fox accepted that any damage to his reputation is entirely his own doing.” Explore more on these topics Laurence Fox Media law news Share Reuse this content Laurence Fox outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA View image in fullscreen Laurence Fox outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA This article is more than 1 year old Laurence Fox loses libel battle with Twitter users he called paedophiles This article is more than 1 year old Reclaim party founder defamed two men on site now known as X after they called him a racist, judge rules The actor and rightwing activist Laurence Fox has lost a high court libel battle with two men he called paedophiles after they called him a racist. The former actor defamed the men when he used the slur on social media, Mrs Justice Collins Rice has ruled. The Reclaim party founder was sued by Simon Blake, a former Stonewall trustee, and Crystal, a drag artist, over a dispute on Twitter, now X, in October 2020. Fox, 45, called Blake and the former RuPaul’s Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, paedophiles in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury’s to provide a safe space for black employees during Black History Month. Fox’s call for a boycott of the supermarket had prompted claims by Blake, Seymour and Nicola Thorp, a former Coronation Street actor, that he was a racist. Fox countersued, telling the high court that being accused of racism was a “reputation-destroying allegation” and “career-ending”. His claims were dismissed on Monday. Collins Rice said: “Mr Fox’s labelling of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour as paedophiles was, on the evidence, probabilities and facts of this case, seriously harmful, defamatory and baseless. “The law affords few defences to defamation of this sort. Mr Fox did not attempt to show these allegations were true, and he was not able to bring himself on the facts within the terms of any other defence recognised in law.” She added that the issue of damages and any other remedies would be discussed at a later date. The judge did not make a ruling on whether describing Fox as “a racist” is “substantially true”, after finding that the three tweets cited in his counterclaim were unlikely to cause serious harm to his reputation. Lorna Skinner KC, representing Blake, Seymour and Thorp at the six-day trial in November, said the three “honestly believed, and continue honestly to believe, that Mr Fox is a racist”. In his written evidence for the case, Seymour, a Canadian artist, said he had faced “overwhelming and distressing” abuse after Fox’s tweet, adding that he felt less safe as a drag performer. Blake, now chief executive of Mental Health First Aid England, said the false suggestion that all gay men were paedophiles was “a trope as old as the hills”. Fox said he faced a “significant decline” in the number and quality of roles he was offered after he was accused of being a racist in the social media row. Under cross-examination, Fox suggested there were contexts in which the phrase “I hate black people” was not racist. He said: “If a man is just released from a Ugandan jail where he’s been gang-raped by several men and he walks out and he goes: ‘I hate black people’, it’s a sort of understandable response.” Asked whether it was racist to say “Black people in the UK should go home”, Fox replied: “Depends on what context.” During the trial, Fox dismissed the Black Lives Matter movement as “grift” and “a Ponzi scheme”. He added: “We’re all equal in the eyes of god, so all lives matter.” Fox also insisted that he had been subjected to anti-white racism. When Skinner put it to him that he had not had a lived experience of racism, Fox said: “Yes, I have … There’s huge quantities of anti-right white racism in the world. It’s the only acceptable form of racism there is left.” He also described the idea of white privilege as “disgusting racism” and added: “I choose to understand white privilege as a racist insult because it’s about the colour of your skin, and it’s not about the content of your character.” The court heard Fox defending his criticism of successful black actors who complain about racism. He told the court: “Would I be allowed to stand up and go: ‘It was just so difficult as a kid from Harrow, you know, as a missionary’s son, it was so hard’? I wouldn’t.” The actor claimed there was an “incongruity” in black actors playing white characters. He told the court that casting a black actor in the role of Anne Boleyn was “done for political reasons. It was done in my view to virtue signal to an audience … My point is a philosophical point, which is: if Anne Boleyn can be black, then Nelson Mandela can be white, surely.” Fox also told the court that footballers who took the knee were cowards, and loudly chanted a New Zealand haka to try to illustrate his point. He told the court: “The New Zealanders going to a rugby game going, ‘Whakaka tu ka pu pu’, you know, it’s to intimidate your rival because you’re about to beat your rival. “I think kneeling before your rival makes you look like a bit of a coward who’s going to lose the game.” Speaking outside the court, Fox described the verdict as a “nothing-burger” and said he was considering an appeal. “I’m not a racist,” he said. Seymour said he was “incredibly pleased” by the verdict. He said: “Mr Fox could have made this go away very early on with a meaningful apology and settlement. Instead, and despite his protestations about the importance of ‘free speech’, he sued me for holding the opinion that he is a racist. I suggest Mr Fox spend some time reflecting on the serious harm he causes rather than fixating on his own self-inflicted martyrdom.” Thorp said Fox’s own views had damaged his career. In a post on X, she said: “The same man who later told a black man to ‘fuck off back to Jamaica’, posted pride flags in the shape of a swastika and shared blacked-up images of himself … It’s time that Mr Fox accepted that any damage to his reputation is entirely his own doing.” Explore more on these topics Laurence Fox Media law news Share Reuse this content Laurence Fox outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA View image in fullscreen Laurence Fox outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA Laurence Fox outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA View image in fullscreen Laurence Fox outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA Laurence Fox outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA View image in fullscreen Laurence Fox outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA Laurence Fox outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA View image in fullscreen Laurence Fox outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA Laurence Fox outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA Laurence Fox outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA This article is more than 1 year old Laurence Fox loses libel battle with Twitter users he called paedophiles This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Laurence Fox loses libel battle with Twitter users he called paedophiles This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Laurence Fox loses libel battle with Twitter users he called paedophiles 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 Reclaim party founder defamed two men on site now known as X after they called him a racist, judge rules Reclaim party founder defamed two men on site now known as X after they called him a racist, judge rules Reclaim party founder defamed two men on site now known as X after they called him a racist, judge rules The actor and rightwing activist Laurence Fox has lost a high court libel battle with two men he called paedophiles after they called him a racist. The former actor defamed the men when he used the slur on social media, Mrs Justice Collins Rice has ruled. The Reclaim party founder was sued by Simon Blake, a former Stonewall trustee, and Crystal, a drag artist, over a dispute on Twitter, now X, in October 2020. Fox, 45, called Blake and the former RuPaul’s Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, paedophiles in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury’s to provide a safe space for black employees during Black History Month. Fox’s call for a boycott of the supermarket had prompted claims by Blake, Seymour and Nicola Thorp, a former Coronation Street actor, that he was a racist. Fox countersued, telling the high court that being accused of racism was a “reputation-destroying allegation” and “career-ending”. His claims were dismissed on Monday. Collins Rice said: “Mr Fox’s labelling of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour as paedophiles was, on the evidence, probabilities and facts of this case, seriously harmful, defamatory and baseless. “The law affords few defences to defamation of this sort. Mr Fox did not attempt to show these allegations were true, and he was not able to bring himself on the facts within the terms of any other defence recognised in law.” She added that the issue of damages and any other remedies would be discussed at a later date. The judge did not make a ruling on whether describing Fox as “a racist” is “substantially true”, after finding that the three tweets cited in his counterclaim were unlikely to cause serious harm to his reputation. Lorna Skinner KC, representing Blake, Seymour and Thorp at the six-day trial in November, said the three “honestly believed, and continue honestly to believe, that Mr Fox is a racist”. In his written evidence for the case, Seymour, a Canadian artist, said he had faced “overwhelming and distressing” abuse after Fox’s tweet, adding that he felt less safe as a drag performer. Blake, now chief executive of Mental Health First Aid England, said the false suggestion that all gay men were paedophiles was “a trope as old as the hills”. Fox said he faced a “significant decline” in the number and quality of roles he was offered after he was accused of being a racist in the social media row. Under cross-examination, Fox suggested there were contexts in which the phrase “I hate black people” was not racist. He said: “If a man is just released from a Ugandan jail where he’s been gang-raped by several men and he walks out and he goes: ‘I hate black people’, it’s a sort of understandable response.” Asked whether it was racist to say “Black people in the UK should go home”, Fox replied: “Depends on what context.” During the trial, Fox dismissed the Black Lives Matter movement as “grift” and “a Ponzi scheme”. He added: “We’re all equal in the eyes of god, so all lives matter.” Fox also insisted that he had been subjected to anti-white racism. When Skinner put it to him that he had not had a lived experience of racism, Fox said: “Yes, I have … There’s huge quantities of anti-right white racism in the world. It’s the only acceptable form of racism there is left.” He also described the idea of white privilege as “disgusting racism” and added: “I choose to understand white privilege as a racist insult because it’s about the colour of your skin, and it’s not about the content of your character.” The court heard Fox defending his criticism of successful black actors who complain about racism. He told the court: “Would I be allowed to stand up and go: ‘It was just so difficult as a kid from Harrow, you know, as a missionary’s son, it was so hard’? I wouldn’t.” The actor claimed there was an “incongruity” in black actors playing white characters. He told the court that casting a black actor in the role of Anne Boleyn was “done for political reasons. It was done in my view to virtue signal to an audience … My point is a philosophical point, which is: if Anne Boleyn can be black, then Nelson Mandela can be white, surely.” Fox also told the court that footballers who took the knee were cowards, and loudly chanted a New Zealand haka to try to illustrate his point. He told the court: “The New Zealanders going to a rugby game going, ‘Whakaka tu ka pu pu’, you know, it’s to intimidate your rival because you’re about to beat your rival. “I think kneeling before your rival makes you look like a bit of a coward who’s going to lose the game.” Speaking outside the court, Fox described the verdict as a “nothing-burger” and said he was considering an appeal. “I’m not a racist,” he said. Seymour said he was “incredibly pleased” by the verdict. He said: “Mr Fox could have made this go away very early on with a meaningful apology and settlement. Instead, and despite his protestations about the importance of ‘free speech’, he sued me for holding the opinion that he is a racist. I suggest Mr Fox spend some time reflecting on the serious harm he causes rather than fixating on his own self-inflicted martyrdom.” Thorp said Fox’s own views had damaged his career. In a post on X, she said: “The same man who later told a black man to ‘fuck off back to Jamaica’, posted pride flags in the shape of a swastika and shared blacked-up images of himself … It’s time that Mr Fox accepted that any damage to his reputation is entirely his own doing.” Explore more on these topics Laurence Fox Media law news Share Reuse this content The actor and rightwing activist Laurence Fox has lost a high court libel battle with two men he called paedophiles after they called him a racist. The former actor defamed the men when he used the slur on social media, Mrs Justice Collins Rice has ruled. The Reclaim party founder was sued by Simon Blake, a former Stonewall trustee, and Crystal, a drag artist, over a dispute on Twitter, now X, in October 2020. Fox, 45, called Blake and the former RuPaul’s Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, paedophiles in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury’s to provide a safe space for black employees during Black History Month. Fox’s call for a boycott of the supermarket had prompted claims by Blake, Seymour and Nicola Thorp, a former Coronation Street actor, that he was a racist. Fox countersued, telling the high court that being accused of racism was a “reputation-destroying allegation” and “career-ending”. His claims were dismissed on Monday. Collins Rice said: “Mr Fox’s labelling of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour as paedophiles was, on the evidence, probabilities and facts of this case, seriously harmful, defamatory and baseless. “The law affords few defences to defamation of this sort. Mr Fox did not attempt to show these allegations were true, and he was not able to bring himself on the facts within the terms of any other defence recognised in law.” She added that the issue of damages and any other remedies would be discussed at a later date. The judge did not make a ruling on whether describing Fox as “a racist” is “substantially true”, after finding that the three tweets cited in his counterclaim were unlikely to cause serious harm to his reputation. Lorna Skinner KC, representing Blake, Seymour and Thorp at the six-day trial in November, said the three “honestly believed, and continue honestly to believe, that Mr Fox is a racist”. In his written evidence for the case, Seymour, a Canadian artist, said he had faced “overwhelming and distressing” abuse after Fox’s tweet, adding that he felt less safe as a drag performer. Blake, now chief executive of Mental Health First Aid England, said the false suggestion that all gay men were paedophiles was “a trope as old as the hills”. Fox said he faced a “significant decline” in the number and quality of roles he was offered after he was accused of being a racist in the social media row. Under cross-examination, Fox suggested there were contexts in which the phrase “I hate black people” was not racist. He said: “If a man is just released from a Ugandan jail where he’s been gang-raped by several men and he walks out and he goes: ‘I hate black people’, it’s a sort of understandable response.” Asked whether it was racist to say “Black people in the UK should go home”, Fox replied: “Depends on what context.” During the trial, Fox dismissed the Black Lives Matter movement as “grift” and “a Ponzi scheme”. He added: “We’re all equal in the eyes of god, so all lives matter.” Fox also insisted that he had been subjected to anti-white racism. When Skinner put it to him that he had not had a lived experience of racism, Fox said: “Yes, I have … There’s huge quantities of anti-right white racism in the world. It’s the only acceptable form of racism there is left.” He also described the idea of white privilege as “disgusting racism” and added: “I choose to understand white privilege as a racist insult because it’s about the colour of your skin, and it’s not about the content of your character.” The court heard Fox defending his criticism of successful black actors who complain about racism. He told the court: “Would I be allowed to stand up and go: ‘It was just so difficult as a kid from Harrow, you know, as a missionary’s son, it was so hard’? I wouldn’t.” The actor claimed there was an “incongruity” in black actors playing white characters. He told the court that casting a black actor in the role of Anne Boleyn was “done for political reasons. It was done in my view to virtue signal to an audience … My point is a philosophical point, which is: if Anne Boleyn can be black, then Nelson Mandela can be white, surely.” Fox also told the court that footballers who took the knee were cowards, and loudly chanted a New Zealand haka to try to illustrate his point. He told the court: “The New Zealanders going to a rugby game going, ‘Whakaka tu ka pu pu’, you know, it’s to intimidate your rival because you’re about to beat your rival. “I think kneeling before your rival makes you look like a bit of a coward who’s going to lose the game.” Speaking outside the court, Fox described the verdict as a “nothing-burger” and said he was considering an appeal. “I’m not a racist,” he said. Seymour said he was “incredibly pleased” by the verdict. He said: “Mr Fox could have made this go away very early on with a meaningful apology and settlement. Instead, and despite his protestations about the importance of ‘free speech’, he sued me for holding the opinion that he is a racist. I suggest Mr Fox spend some time reflecting on the serious harm he causes rather than fixating on his own self-inflicted martyrdom.” Thorp said Fox’s own views had damaged his career. In a post on X, she said: “The same man who later told a black man to ‘fuck off back to Jamaica’, posted pride flags in the shape of a swastika and shared blacked-up images of himself … It’s time that Mr Fox accepted that any damage to his reputation is entirely his own doing.” Explore more on these topics Laurence Fox Media law news Share Reuse this content The actor and rightwing activist Laurence Fox has lost a high court libel battle with two men he called paedophiles after they called him a racist. The former actor defamed the men when he used the slur on social media, Mrs Justice Collins Rice has ruled. The Reclaim party founder was sued by Simon Blake, a former Stonewall trustee, and Crystal, a drag artist, over a dispute on Twitter, now X, in October 2020. Fox, 45, called Blake and the former RuPaul’s Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, paedophiles in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury’s to provide a safe space for black employees during Black History Month. Fox’s call for a boycott of the supermarket had prompted claims by Blake, Seymour and Nicola Thorp, a former Coronation Street actor, that he was a racist. Fox countersued, telling the high court that being accused of racism was a “reputation-destroying allegation” and “career-ending”. His claims were dismissed on Monday. Collins Rice said: “Mr Fox’s labelling of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour as paedophiles was, on the evidence, probabilities and facts of this case, seriously harmful, defamatory and baseless. “The law affords few defences to defamation of this sort. Mr Fox did not attempt to show these allegations were true, and he was not able to bring himself on the facts within the terms of any other defence recognised in law.” She added that the issue of damages and any other remedies would be discussed at a later date. The judge did not make a ruling on whether describing Fox as “a racist” is “substantially true”, after finding that the three tweets cited in his counterclaim were unlikely to cause serious harm to his reputation. Lorna Skinner KC, representing Blake, Seymour and Thorp at the six-day trial in November, said the three “honestly believed, and continue honestly to believe, that Mr Fox is a racist”. In his written evidence for the case, Seymour, a Canadian artist, said he had faced “overwhelming and distressing” abuse after Fox’s tweet, adding that he felt less safe as a drag performer. Blake, now chief executive of Mental Health First Aid England, said the false suggestion that all gay men were paedophiles was “a trope as old as the hills”. Fox said he faced a “significant decline” in the number and quality of roles he was offered after he was accused of being a racist in the social media row. Under cross-examination, Fox suggested there were contexts in which the phrase “I hate black people” was not racist. He said: “If a man is just released from a Ugandan jail where he’s been gang-raped by several men and he walks out and he goes: ‘I hate black people’, it’s a sort of understandable response.” Asked whether it was racist to say “Black people in the UK should go home”, Fox replied: “Depends on what context.” During the trial, Fox dismissed the Black Lives Matter movement as “grift” and “a Ponzi scheme”. He added: “We’re all equal in the eyes of god, so all lives matter.” Fox also insisted that he had been subjected to anti-white racism. When Skinner put it to him that he had not had a lived experience of racism, Fox said: “Yes, I have … There’s huge quantities of anti-right white racism in the world. It’s the only acceptable form of racism there is left.” He also described the idea of white privilege as “disgusting racism” and added: “I choose to understand white privilege as a racist insult because it’s about the colour of your skin, and it’s not about the content of your character.” The court heard Fox defending his criticism of successful black actors who complain about racism. He told the court: “Would I be allowed to stand up and go: ‘It was just so difficult as a kid from Harrow, you know, as a missionary’s son, it was so hard’? I wouldn’t.” The actor claimed there was an “incongruity” in black actors playing white characters. He told the court that casting a black actor in the role of Anne Boleyn was “done for political reasons. It was done in my view to virtue signal to an audience … My point is a philosophical point, which is: if Anne Boleyn can be black, then Nelson Mandela can be white, surely.” Fox also told the court that footballers who took the knee were cowards, and loudly chanted a New Zealand haka to try to illustrate his point. He told the court: “The New Zealanders going to a rugby game going, ‘Whakaka tu ka pu pu’, you know, it’s to intimidate your rival because you’re about to beat your rival. “I think kneeling before your rival makes you look like a bit of a coward who’s going to lose the game.” Speaking outside the court, Fox described the verdict as a “nothing-burger” and said he was considering an appeal. “I’m not a racist,” he said. Seymour said he was “incredibly pleased” by the verdict. He said: “Mr Fox could have made this go away very early on with a meaningful apology and settlement. Instead, and despite his protestations about the importance of ‘free speech’, he sued me for holding the opinion that he is a racist. I suggest Mr Fox spend some time reflecting on the serious harm he causes rather than fixating on his own self-inflicted martyrdom.” Thorp said Fox’s own views had damaged his career. In a post on X, she said: “The same man who later told a black man to ‘fuck off back to Jamaica’, posted pride flags in the shape of a swastika and shared blacked-up images of himself … It’s time that Mr Fox accepted that any damage to his reputation is entirely his own doing.” The actor and rightwing activist Laurence Fox has lost a high court libel battle with two men he called paedophiles after they called him a racist. The former actor defamed the men when he used the slur on social media, Mrs Justice Collins Rice has ruled. The Reclaim party founder was sued by Simon Blake, a former Stonewall trustee, and Crystal, a drag artist, over a dispute on Twitter, now X, in October 2020. Fox, 45, called Blake and the former RuPaul’s Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, paedophiles in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury’s to provide a safe space for black employees during Black History Month. Fox’s call for a boycott of the supermarket had prompted claims by Blake, Seymour and Nicola Thorp, a former Coronation Street actor, that he was a racist. Fox countersued, telling the high court that being accused of racism was a “reputation-destroying allegation” and “career-ending”. His claims were dismissed on Monday. Collins Rice said: “Mr Fox’s labelling of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour as paedophiles was, on the evidence, probabilities and facts of this case, seriously harmful, defamatory and baseless. “The law affords few defences to defamation of this sort. Mr Fox did not attempt to show these allegations were true, and he was not able to bring himself on the facts within the terms of any other defence recognised in law.” She added that the issue of damages and any other remedies would be discussed at a later date. The judge did not make a ruling on whether describing Fox as “a racist” is “substantially true”, after finding that the three tweets cited in his counterclaim were unlikely to cause serious harm to his reputation. Lorna Skinner KC, representing Blake, Seymour and Thorp at the six-day trial in November, said the three “honestly believed, and continue honestly to believe, that Mr Fox is a racist”. In his written evidence for the case, Seymour, a Canadian artist, said he had faced “overwhelming and distressing” abuse after Fox’s tweet, adding that he felt less safe as a drag performer. Blake, now chief executive of Mental Health First Aid England, said the false suggestion that all gay men were paedophiles was “a trope as old as the hills”. Fox said he faced a “significant decline” in the number and quality of roles he was offered after he was accused of being a racist in the social media row. Under cross-examination, Fox suggested there were contexts in which the phrase “I hate black people” was not racist. He said: “If a man is just released from a Ugandan jail where he’s been gang-raped by several men and he walks out and he goes: ‘I hate black people’, it’s a sort of understandable response.” Asked whether it was racist to say “Black people in the UK should go home”, Fox replied: “Depends on what context.” During the trial, Fox dismissed the Black Lives Matter movement as “grift” and “a Ponzi scheme”. He added: “We’re all equal in the eyes of god, so all lives matter.” Fox also insisted that he had been subjected to anti-white racism. When Skinner put it to him that he had not had a lived experience of racism, Fox said: “Yes, I have … There’s huge quantities of anti-right white racism in the world. It’s the only acceptable form of racism there is left.” He also described the idea of white privilege as “disgusting racism” and added: “I choose to understand white privilege as a racist insult because it’s about the colour of your skin, and it’s not about the content of your character.” The court heard Fox defending his criticism of successful black actors who complain about racism. He told the court: “Would I be allowed to stand up and go: ‘It was just so difficult as a kid from Harrow, you know, as a missionary’s son, it was so hard’? I wouldn’t.” The actor claimed there was an “incongruity” in black actors playing white characters. He told the court that casting a black actor in the role of Anne Boleyn was “done for political reasons. It was done in my view to virtue signal to an audience … My point is a philosophical point, which is: if Anne Boleyn can be black, then Nelson Mandela can be white, surely.” Fox also told the court that footballers who took the knee were cowards, and loudly chanted a New Zealand haka to try to illustrate his point. He told the court: “The New Zealanders going to a rugby game going, ‘Whakaka tu ka pu pu’, you know, it’s to intimidate your rival because you’re about to beat your rival. “I think kneeling before your rival makes you look like a bit of a coward who’s going to lose the game.” Speaking outside the court, Fox described the verdict as a “nothing-burger” and said he was considering an appeal. “I’m not a racist,” he said. Seymour said he was “incredibly pleased” by the verdict. He said: “Mr Fox could have made this go away very early on with a meaningful apology and settlement. Instead, and despite his protestations about the importance of ‘free speech’, he sued me for holding the opinion that he is a racist. I suggest Mr Fox spend some time reflecting on the serious harm he causes rather than fixating on his own self-inflicted martyrdom.” Thorp said Fox’s own views had damaged his career. In a post on X, she said: “The same man who later told a black man to ‘fuck off back to Jamaica’, posted pride flags in the shape of a swastika and shared blacked-up images of himself … It’s time that Mr Fox accepted that any damage to his reputation is entirely his own doing.” The actor and rightwing activist Laurence Fox has lost a high court libel battle with two men he called paedophiles after they called him a racist. The former actor defamed the men when he used the slur on social media, Mrs Justice Collins Rice has ruled. The Reclaim party founder was sued by Simon Blake, a former Stonewall trustee, and Crystal, a drag artist, over a dispute on Twitter, now X, in October 2020. Fox, 45, called Blake and the former RuPaul’s Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, paedophiles in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury’s to provide a safe space for black employees during Black History Month. Fox’s call for a boycott of the supermarket had prompted claims by Blake, Seymour and Nicola Thorp, a former Coronation Street actor, that he was a racist. Fox countersued, telling the high court that being accused of racism was a “reputation-destroying allegation” and “career-ending”. His claims were dismissed on Monday. Collins Rice said: “Mr Fox’s labelling of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour as paedophiles was, on the evidence, probabilities and facts of this case, seriously harmful, defamatory and baseless. “The law affords few defences to defamation of this sort. Mr Fox did not attempt to show these allegations were true, and he was not able to bring himself on the facts within the terms of any other defence recognised in law.” She added that the issue of damages and any other remedies would be discussed at a later date. The judge did not make a ruling on whether describing Fox as “a racist” is “substantially true”, after finding that the three tweets cited in his counterclaim were unlikely to cause serious harm to his reputation. Lorna Skinner KC, representing Blake, Seymour and Thorp at the six-day trial in November, said the three “honestly believed, and continue honestly to believe, that Mr Fox is a racist”. In his written evidence for the case, Seymour, a Canadian artist, said he had faced “overwhelming and distressing” abuse after Fox’s tweet, adding that he felt less safe as a drag performer. Blake, now chief executive of Mental Health First Aid England, said the false suggestion that all gay men were paedophiles was “a trope as old as the hills”. Fox said he faced a “significant decline” in the number and quality of roles he was offered after he was accused of being a racist in the social media row. Under cross-examination, Fox suggested there were contexts in which the phrase “I hate black people” was not racist. He said: “If a man is just released from a Ugandan jail where he’s been gang-raped by several men and he walks out and he goes: ‘I hate black people’, it’s a sort of understandable response.” Asked whether it was racist to say “Black people in the UK should go home”, Fox replied: “Depends on what context.” During the trial, Fox dismissed the Black Lives Matter movement as “grift” and “a Ponzi scheme”. He added: “We’re all equal in the eyes of god, so all lives matter.” Fox also insisted that he had been subjected to anti-white racism. When Skinner put it to him that he had not had a lived experience of racism, Fox said: “Yes, I have … There’s huge quantities of anti-right white racism in the world. It’s the only acceptable form of racism there is left.” He also described the idea of white privilege as “disgusting racism” and added: “I choose to understand white privilege as a racist insult because it’s about the colour of your skin, and it’s not about the content of your character.” The court heard Fox defending his criticism of successful black actors who complain about racism. He told the court: “Would I be allowed to stand up and go: ‘It was just so difficult as a kid from Harrow, you know, as a missionary’s son, it was so hard’? I wouldn’t.” The actor claimed there was an “incongruity” in black actors playing white characters. He told the court that casting a black actor in the role of Anne Boleyn was “done for political reasons. It was done in my view to virtue signal to an audience … My point is a philosophical point, which is: if Anne Boleyn can be black, then Nelson Mandela can be white, surely.” Fox also told the court that footballers who took the knee were cowards, and loudly chanted a New Zealand haka to try to illustrate his point. He told the court: “The New Zealanders going to a rugby game going, ‘Whakaka tu ka pu pu’, you know, it’s to intimidate your rival because you’re about to beat your rival. “I think kneeling before your rival makes you look like a bit of a coward who’s going to lose the game.” Speaking outside the court, Fox described the verdict as a “nothing-burger” and said he was considering an appeal. “I’m not a racist,” he said. Seymour said he was “incredibly pleased” by the verdict. He said: “Mr Fox could have made this go away very early on with a meaningful apology and settlement. Instead, and despite his protestations about the importance of ‘free speech’, he sued me for holding the opinion that he is a racist. I suggest Mr Fox spend some time reflecting on the serious harm he causes rather than fixating on his own self-inflicted martyrdom.” Thorp said Fox’s own views had damaged his career. In a post on X, she said: “The same man who later told a black man to ‘fuck off back to Jamaica’, posted pride flags in the shape of a swastika and shared blacked-up images of himself … It’s time that Mr Fox accepted that any damage to his reputation is entirely his own doing.” Explore more on these topics Laurence Fox Media law news Share Reuse this content
|
Farmers 'besiege' Paris as protests spread to Brussels – video
1:15 This article is more than 1 year old Farmers 'besiege' Paris as protests spread to Brussels – video This article is more than 1 year old French farmers have been getting closer to Paris as they continue to block highways in protest against price pressures, taxes and green regulation. Dozens of tractors occupied a motorway near the city of Beauvais leading to the French capital. In Belgium, farmers blocked highways in the south of the country and parked tractors near the European parliament in Brussels French farmers paralyse routes into Paris in tractor protest Explore more on these topics Farming France Belgium Europe European Union 1:15 This article is more than 1 year old Farmers 'besiege' Paris as protests spread to Brussels – video This article is more than 1 year old French farmers have been getting closer to Paris as they continue to block highways in protest against price pressures, taxes and green regulation. Dozens of tractors occupied a motorway near the city of Beauvais leading to the French capital. In Belgium, farmers blocked highways in the south of the country and parked tractors near the European parliament in Brussels French farmers paralyse routes into Paris in tractor protest Explore more on these topics Farming France Belgium Europe European Union This article is more than 1 year old Farmers 'besiege' Paris as protests spread to Brussels – video This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Farmers 'besiege' Paris as protests spread to Brussels – video This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Farmers 'besiege' Paris as protests spread to Brussels – 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 French farmers have been getting closer to Paris as they continue to block highways in protest against price pressures, taxes and green regulation. Dozens of tractors occupied a motorway near the city of Beauvais leading to the French capital. In Belgium, farmers blocked highways in the south of the country and parked tractors near the European parliament in Brussels French farmers paralyse routes into Paris in tractor protest French farmers have been getting closer to Paris as they continue to block highways in protest against price pressures, taxes and green regulation. Dozens of tractors occupied a motorway near the city of Beauvais leading to the French capital. In Belgium, farmers blocked highways in the south of the country and parked tractors near the European parliament in Brussels French farmers paralyse routes into Paris in tractor protest French farmers have been getting closer to Paris as they continue to block highways in protest against price pressures, taxes and green regulation. Dozens of tractors occupied a motorway near the city of Beauvais leading to the French capital. In Belgium, farmers blocked highways in the south of the country and parked tractors near the European parliament in Brussels French farmers paralyse routes into Paris in tractor protest Explore more on these topics Farming France Belgium Europe European Union Explore more on these topics Farming France Belgium Europe European Union Explore more on these topics Farming France Belgium Europe European Union Farming France Belgium Europe European Union
|
‘Trust is lost’: Muslim voters unhappy with Labour’s stance on Gaza war
Walsall Central mosque. In November, eight Labour councillors in Walsall resigned over the party leader Keir Starmer’s stance on Gaza. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Walsall Central mosque. In November, eight Labour councillors in Walsall resigned over the party leader Keir Starmer’s stance on Gaza. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old ‘Trust is lost’: Muslim voters unhappy with Labour’s stance on Gaza war This article is more than 1 year old Party’s position has shifted with Keir Starmer now calling for a ‘sustainable ceasefire’ but for some voters it is too little too late Exclusive: Labour acts on fears over Muslim vote A t Walsall Central mosque, a redbrick building on a street of Victorian terraces in the West Midlands market town, the imam, Murthaza Qadri, has reflected on the changing views of his congregation over the past few months. “There was never much talk about politics before but now everyone cares, lots of people are speaking up,” he said last week. “We’ve been brought up in an environment where we were blindly supporters of Labour , old and young. But now people are opening their eyes a bit more.” The issue that has opened the eyes of Muslims in Walsall and elsewhere across the country is Labour’s failure to explicitly demand a permanent ceasefire in the war between Israel and Hamas. The party’s position has shifted in recent weeks but, with more than 25,000 casualties in Gaza and a growing humanitarian catastrophe, it is too little and too late for many Muslims. The anguish and anger felt by Muslims in the UK over the Israel-Gaza war could spell trouble for Labour at the next election. An opinion poll carried out in November by Savanta found strong support for Labour among Muslim voters, with 64% backing the party. But more than 40% said Keir Starmer’s response to the war had made them less likely to vote Labour, while 20% said it had made them more likely to do so. One in three Muslim voters rated the conflict among their top three issues in deciding who to vote for. In Ilford North, local activists have selected a candidate to challenge the 5,198 majority of the shadow health secretary Wes Streeting specifically on Labour’s position on the Gaza war. Nearly a quarter of the population is Muslim. In Walsall, where 11.3% of the population is Muslim, eight Labour councillors who resigned from the party over the issue in November are considering putting up a candidate at the general election. This month Ammar Anwar, a Labour councillor in Kirklees, Yorkshire, and a lifelong member of the party, announced his resignation in tears and with a Palestinian flag draped around his neck. Eleven Labour councillors in Burnley resigned from the party in November, 10 resigned in Oxford , eight quit in Blackburn , and there have been others. View image in fullscreen Walsall Central mosque in the West Midlands. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Aftab Nawaz, one of those who resigned in Walsall, said he had been inundated with messages of support from the Muslim community. “We had calls from all over the place, not just in Walsall. People were coming up to us and hugging us and saying well done, you’ve stood up for what you believe, you’ve stood up for us and you’ll always be our heroes. We’re not heroes,” he said. Nawaz said he had been unhappy with the party’s creeping “central control”, but it was its response to the war that pushed him over the edge. “We saw a side of the Labour party which we didn’t expect,” he said. “If we are sitting at home or in our mosques praying for the people of Palestine, yet we represent a party whose leader isn’t saying that this should stop, we ourselves become complicit.” He said walking away from Labour had been a difficult decision. His father, who came to work in the West Midlands metal-bashing factories, had been supported by Labour and the union movement at a time when ethnic minorities were being targeted by the National Front. “We were all Labour people and we always trusted that the Labour party would do the right thing. People voted for the Labour party without even blinking, they wouldn’t read the manifesto,” he said. He joined the party in 2000 and spent many hours campaigning as a paper candidate in wards that the party had little chance in winning – “we used to call it flying the red flag”. “You’d go out in the middle of the snow and rain deliver leaflets and get people’s doors smashed in your face because they didn’t want to know anything,” he said. “But it was something that enriched my life, and I’ll never regret being part of the Labour party. We’re still Labour people. I’ve said to people it’s not that we’ve left the Labour party, the Labour party has left us.” Qadri, the imam, who has been a party member for six years but is unlikely to vote for Labour in the next election, was confident he had a good insight into the views of the hundreds of people who attend Walsall Central mosque each week. Younger people in particular were influenced by what they saw about the conflict on social media, he said. They were emailing their MPs to demand answers and passing the message on to older generations. View image in fullscreen Murthaza Qadri, an Imam at Walsall Central mosque. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian That message appeared to be cutting through in Walsall. Nahid Ahmed, 54, a former Labour party member of 15 years who left the party over its stance on Palestine, said he would vote for an independent candidate or abstain. “Labour thinks Muslims are going to vote [for them] anyway, but they have to understand this has changed now,” he said. Even if Starmer explicitly backed an immediate and permanent ceasefire now after months of death and destruction, it may not bring Muslim votes back into the fold. “As things are getting worse in Palestine, you would expect their sense of moral duty, their humane side, to have come out and it hasn’t. That trust is lost,” said Sajad, 40, who declined to give her surname. In the immediate aftermath of the horrific atrocities committed by Hamas and others on 7 October, the Labour leadership offered full-throated support for Israel. In an interview on LBC radio a few days later, Starmer said Israel had the right to withhold power and water in Gaza. His words – which he later sought to clarify – shocked many Labour supporters. In response, three senior frontbenchers – Streeting, Shabana Mahmood and Louise Haigh – warned in a shadow cabinet meeting that Labour was at risk of losing Muslim votes. The following month, 56 Labour MPs rebelled against the leadership by backing a Scottish National party amendment to the king’s speech that explicitly called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in the Israel-Gaza war. Eight frontbenchers resigned their posts. Despite his shadow cabinet warning, Streeting was not among them. In his Ilford North constituency, protests were held outside the MP’s constituency office, and a grassroots organisation, the Redbridge Community Action Group (RCAG), was formed. “Trust has irretrievably broken down between British Muslims and the Labour party. It’s a fundamental break,” said Vaseem Ahmed, a spokesperson for the RCAG. Leading Labour MPs had shown a “lack of empathy to the 75-year suffering of the Palestinian people … For them, Palestinian lives matter much less than others,” he said. This month the RCAG held a meeting to choose an independent candidate to contest the general election. “We are proud to live in a democracy and we are using democracy to make our views known,” Ahmed said. The candidate, Leanne Mohamad, a 23-year-old British-Palestinian who grew up in the constituency, said: “It’s clear to me and countless others that Labour no longer represents the interests of working people. British Muslims are aghast at what is taking place in Gaza and they have marched in their millions to make this point.” She said Labour had failed “to hold Israel to account for its actions and they still haven’t called for an immediate ceasefire in order to save lives. The sheer hypocrisy between their position on Ukraine when compared to Gaza lays bare what many, including Muslims, now see as a party devoid of any principles whatsoever.” Mahmoud Rauf, 77, a retired accountant who has lived in the area for more than 40 years and is a lifelong Labour supporter, said he had previously canvassed for Streeting but would not do so again, and may not even vote Labour at the next election. “Wes Streeting might have a good bashing when the election comes because this area [is home to] a lot of supporters from the Palestinian side,” he said. “I don’t support [him] any more. I don’t see that he’s playing fair.” Another accountant, Imtyaz Vakil, 54, a Labour voter who switched to the Conservatives after the Iraq war, said he would never again vote for either party. He had joined RCAG and would be supporting Mohamed in the election, saying her candidacy was “the first piece in the whole jigsaw”. Political parties would ignore Muslim voices at their peril, he said. “It’s the second, third generation of Muslims here and we’re growing. We’re not just going to sit back and accept that.” In recent weeks, senior Labour figures have toughened their language in response to the scale of killing and destruction in Gaza. Last month, Streeting spoke of the need for a “sustainable ceasefire” amid “intolerable civilian casualties”. On Tuesday, Starmer told the Commons: “What is needed in Gaza is a humanitarian truce now, a sustainable ceasefire to stop the killing of innocent civilians.” Streeting told the Guardian: “For the last nine years I’ve consistently fought for all communities in Redbridge, including launching the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims … [and] campaigning for the recognition of a Palestinian state and the end of human rights abuses. The next election is a choice between five more years of Conservative failure or change for the better with Labour.” Explore more on these topics Labour West Midlands Keir Starmer Israel-Gaza war features Share Reuse this content Walsall Central mosque. In November, eight Labour councillors in Walsall resigned over the party leader Keir Starmer’s stance on Gaza. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Walsall Central mosque. In November, eight Labour councillors in Walsall resigned over the party leader Keir Starmer’s stance on Gaza. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old ‘Trust is lost’: Muslim voters unhappy with Labour’s stance on Gaza war This article is more than 1 year old Party’s position has shifted with Keir Starmer now calling for a ‘sustainable ceasefire’ but for some voters it is too little too late Exclusive: Labour acts on fears over Muslim vote A t Walsall Central mosque, a redbrick building on a street of Victorian terraces in the West Midlands market town, the imam, Murthaza Qadri, has reflected on the changing views of his congregation over the past few months. “There was never much talk about politics before but now everyone cares, lots of people are speaking up,” he said last week. “We’ve been brought up in an environment where we were blindly supporters of Labour , old and young. But now people are opening their eyes a bit more.” The issue that has opened the eyes of Muslims in Walsall and elsewhere across the country is Labour’s failure to explicitly demand a permanent ceasefire in the war between Israel and Hamas. The party’s position has shifted in recent weeks but, with more than 25,000 casualties in Gaza and a growing humanitarian catastrophe, it is too little and too late for many Muslims. The anguish and anger felt by Muslims in the UK over the Israel-Gaza war could spell trouble for Labour at the next election. An opinion poll carried out in November by Savanta found strong support for Labour among Muslim voters, with 64% backing the party. But more than 40% said Keir Starmer’s response to the war had made them less likely to vote Labour, while 20% said it had made them more likely to do so. One in three Muslim voters rated the conflict among their top three issues in deciding who to vote for. In Ilford North, local activists have selected a candidate to challenge the 5,198 majority of the shadow health secretary Wes Streeting specifically on Labour’s position on the Gaza war. Nearly a quarter of the population is Muslim. In Walsall, where 11.3% of the population is Muslim, eight Labour councillors who resigned from the party over the issue in November are considering putting up a candidate at the general election. This month Ammar Anwar, a Labour councillor in Kirklees, Yorkshire, and a lifelong member of the party, announced his resignation in tears and with a Palestinian flag draped around his neck. Eleven Labour councillors in Burnley resigned from the party in November, 10 resigned in Oxford , eight quit in Blackburn , and there have been others. View image in fullscreen Walsall Central mosque in the West Midlands. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Aftab Nawaz, one of those who resigned in Walsall, said he had been inundated with messages of support from the Muslim community. “We had calls from all over the place, not just in Walsall. People were coming up to us and hugging us and saying well done, you’ve stood up for what you believe, you’ve stood up for us and you’ll always be our heroes. We’re not heroes,” he said. Nawaz said he had been unhappy with the party’s creeping “central control”, but it was its response to the war that pushed him over the edge. “We saw a side of the Labour party which we didn’t expect,” he said. “If we are sitting at home or in our mosques praying for the people of Palestine, yet we represent a party whose leader isn’t saying that this should stop, we ourselves become complicit.” He said walking away from Labour had been a difficult decision. His father, who came to work in the West Midlands metal-bashing factories, had been supported by Labour and the union movement at a time when ethnic minorities were being targeted by the National Front. “We were all Labour people and we always trusted that the Labour party would do the right thing. People voted for the Labour party without even blinking, they wouldn’t read the manifesto,” he said. He joined the party in 2000 and spent many hours campaigning as a paper candidate in wards that the party had little chance in winning – “we used to call it flying the red flag”. “You’d go out in the middle of the snow and rain deliver leaflets and get people’s doors smashed in your face because they didn’t want to know anything,” he said. “But it was something that enriched my life, and I’ll never regret being part of the Labour party. We’re still Labour people. I’ve said to people it’s not that we’ve left the Labour party, the Labour party has left us.” Qadri, the imam, who has been a party member for six years but is unlikely to vote for Labour in the next election, was confident he had a good insight into the views of the hundreds of people who attend Walsall Central mosque each week. Younger people in particular were influenced by what they saw about the conflict on social media, he said. They were emailing their MPs to demand answers and passing the message on to older generations. View image in fullscreen Murthaza Qadri, an Imam at Walsall Central mosque. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian That message appeared to be cutting through in Walsall. Nahid Ahmed, 54, a former Labour party member of 15 years who left the party over its stance on Palestine, said he would vote for an independent candidate or abstain. “Labour thinks Muslims are going to vote [for them] anyway, but they have to understand this has changed now,” he said. Even if Starmer explicitly backed an immediate and permanent ceasefire now after months of death and destruction, it may not bring Muslim votes back into the fold. “As things are getting worse in Palestine, you would expect their sense of moral duty, their humane side, to have come out and it hasn’t. That trust is lost,” said Sajad, 40, who declined to give her surname. In the immediate aftermath of the horrific atrocities committed by Hamas and others on 7 October, the Labour leadership offered full-throated support for Israel. In an interview on LBC radio a few days later, Starmer said Israel had the right to withhold power and water in Gaza. His words – which he later sought to clarify – shocked many Labour supporters. In response, three senior frontbenchers – Streeting, Shabana Mahmood and Louise Haigh – warned in a shadow cabinet meeting that Labour was at risk of losing Muslim votes. The following month, 56 Labour MPs rebelled against the leadership by backing a Scottish National party amendment to the king’s speech that explicitly called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in the Israel-Gaza war. Eight frontbenchers resigned their posts. Despite his shadow cabinet warning, Streeting was not among them. In his Ilford North constituency, protests were held outside the MP’s constituency office, and a grassroots organisation, the Redbridge Community Action Group (RCAG), was formed. “Trust has irretrievably broken down between British Muslims and the Labour party. It’s a fundamental break,” said Vaseem Ahmed, a spokesperson for the RCAG. Leading Labour MPs had shown a “lack of empathy to the 75-year suffering of the Palestinian people … For them, Palestinian lives matter much less than others,” he said. This month the RCAG held a meeting to choose an independent candidate to contest the general election. “We are proud to live in a democracy and we are using democracy to make our views known,” Ahmed said. The candidate, Leanne Mohamad, a 23-year-old British-Palestinian who grew up in the constituency, said: “It’s clear to me and countless others that Labour no longer represents the interests of working people. British Muslims are aghast at what is taking place in Gaza and they have marched in their millions to make this point.” She said Labour had failed “to hold Israel to account for its actions and they still haven’t called for an immediate ceasefire in order to save lives. The sheer hypocrisy between their position on Ukraine when compared to Gaza lays bare what many, including Muslims, now see as a party devoid of any principles whatsoever.” Mahmoud Rauf, 77, a retired accountant who has lived in the area for more than 40 years and is a lifelong Labour supporter, said he had previously canvassed for Streeting but would not do so again, and may not even vote Labour at the next election. “Wes Streeting might have a good bashing when the election comes because this area [is home to] a lot of supporters from the Palestinian side,” he said. “I don’t support [him] any more. I don’t see that he’s playing fair.” Another accountant, Imtyaz Vakil, 54, a Labour voter who switched to the Conservatives after the Iraq war, said he would never again vote for either party. He had joined RCAG and would be supporting Mohamed in the election, saying her candidacy was “the first piece in the whole jigsaw”. Political parties would ignore Muslim voices at their peril, he said. “It’s the second, third generation of Muslims here and we’re growing. We’re not just going to sit back and accept that.” In recent weeks, senior Labour figures have toughened their language in response to the scale of killing and destruction in Gaza. Last month, Streeting spoke of the need for a “sustainable ceasefire” amid “intolerable civilian casualties”. On Tuesday, Starmer told the Commons: “What is needed in Gaza is a humanitarian truce now, a sustainable ceasefire to stop the killing of innocent civilians.” Streeting told the Guardian: “For the last nine years I’ve consistently fought for all communities in Redbridge, including launching the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims … [and] campaigning for the recognition of a Palestinian state and the end of human rights abuses. The next election is a choice between five more years of Conservative failure or change for the better with Labour.” Explore more on these topics Labour West Midlands Keir Starmer Israel-Gaza war features Share Reuse this content Walsall Central mosque. In November, eight Labour councillors in Walsall resigned over the party leader Keir Starmer’s stance on Gaza. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Walsall Central mosque. In November, eight Labour councillors in Walsall resigned over the party leader Keir Starmer’s stance on Gaza. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Walsall Central mosque. In November, eight Labour councillors in Walsall resigned over the party leader Keir Starmer’s stance on Gaza. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Walsall Central mosque. In November, eight Labour councillors in Walsall resigned over the party leader Keir Starmer’s stance on Gaza. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Walsall Central mosque. In November, eight Labour councillors in Walsall resigned over the party leader Keir Starmer’s stance on Gaza. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Walsall Central mosque. In November, eight Labour councillors in Walsall resigned over the party leader Keir Starmer’s stance on Gaza. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Walsall Central mosque. In November, eight Labour councillors in Walsall resigned over the party leader Keir Starmer’s stance on Gaza. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Walsall Central mosque. In November, eight Labour councillors in Walsall resigned over the party leader Keir Starmer’s stance on Gaza. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Walsall Central mosque. In November, eight Labour councillors in Walsall resigned over the party leader Keir Starmer’s stance on Gaza. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Walsall Central mosque. In November, eight Labour councillors in Walsall resigned over the party leader Keir Starmer’s stance on Gaza. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old ‘Trust is lost’: Muslim voters unhappy with Labour’s stance on Gaza war This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘Trust is lost’: Muslim voters unhappy with Labour’s stance on Gaza war This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘Trust is lost’: Muslim voters unhappy with Labour’s stance on Gaza war 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’s position has shifted with Keir Starmer now calling for a ‘sustainable ceasefire’ but for some voters it is too little too late Exclusive: Labour acts on fears over Muslim vote Party’s position has shifted with Keir Starmer now calling for a ‘sustainable ceasefire’ but for some voters it is too little too late Exclusive: Labour acts on fears over Muslim vote Party’s position has shifted with Keir Starmer now calling for a ‘sustainable ceasefire’ but for some voters it is too little too late A t Walsall Central mosque, a redbrick building on a street of Victorian terraces in the West Midlands market town, the imam, Murthaza Qadri, has reflected on the changing views of his congregation over the past few months. “There was never much talk about politics before but now everyone cares, lots of people are speaking up,” he said last week. “We’ve been brought up in an environment where we were blindly supporters of Labour , old and young. But now people are opening their eyes a bit more.” The issue that has opened the eyes of Muslims in Walsall and elsewhere across the country is Labour’s failure to explicitly demand a permanent ceasefire in the war between Israel and Hamas. The party’s position has shifted in recent weeks but, with more than 25,000 casualties in Gaza and a growing humanitarian catastrophe, it is too little and too late for many Muslims. The anguish and anger felt by Muslims in the UK over the Israel-Gaza war could spell trouble for Labour at the next election. An opinion poll carried out in November by Savanta found strong support for Labour among Muslim voters, with 64% backing the party. But more than 40% said Keir Starmer’s response to the war had made them less likely to vote Labour, while 20% said it had made them more likely to do so. One in three Muslim voters rated the conflict among their top three issues in deciding who to vote for. In Ilford North, local activists have selected a candidate to challenge the 5,198 majority of the shadow health secretary Wes Streeting specifically on Labour’s position on the Gaza war. Nearly a quarter of the population is Muslim. In Walsall, where 11.3% of the population is Muslim, eight Labour councillors who resigned from the party over the issue in November are considering putting up a candidate at the general election. This month Ammar Anwar, a Labour councillor in Kirklees, Yorkshire, and a lifelong member of the party, announced his resignation in tears and with a Palestinian flag draped around his neck. Eleven Labour councillors in Burnley resigned from the party in November, 10 resigned in Oxford , eight quit in Blackburn , and there have been others. View image in fullscreen Walsall Central mosque in the West Midlands. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Aftab Nawaz, one of those who resigned in Walsall, said he had been inundated with messages of support from the Muslim community. “We had calls from all over the place, not just in Walsall. People were coming up to us and hugging us and saying well done, you’ve stood up for what you believe, you’ve stood up for us and you’ll always be our heroes. We’re not heroes,” he said. Nawaz said he had been unhappy with the party’s creeping “central control”, but it was its response to the war that pushed him over the edge. “We saw a side of the Labour party which we didn’t expect,” he said. “If we are sitting at home or in our mosques praying for the people of Palestine, yet we represent a party whose leader isn’t saying that this should stop, we ourselves become complicit.” He said walking away from Labour had been a difficult decision. His father, who came to work in the West Midlands metal-bashing factories, had been supported by Labour and the union movement at a time when ethnic minorities were being targeted by the National Front. “We were all Labour people and we always trusted that the Labour party would do the right thing. People voted for the Labour party without even blinking, they wouldn’t read the manifesto,” he said. He joined the party in 2000 and spent many hours campaigning as a paper candidate in wards that the party had little chance in winning – “we used to call it flying the red flag”. “You’d go out in the middle of the snow and rain deliver leaflets and get people’s doors smashed in your face because they didn’t want to know anything,” he said. “But it was something that enriched my life, and I’ll never regret being part of the Labour party. We’re still Labour people. I’ve said to people it’s not that we’ve left the Labour party, the Labour party has left us.” Qadri, the imam, who has been a party member for six years but is unlikely to vote for Labour in the next election, was confident he had a good insight into the views of the hundreds of people who attend Walsall Central mosque each week. Younger people in particular were influenced by what they saw about the conflict on social media, he said. They were emailing their MPs to demand answers and passing the message on to older generations. View image in fullscreen Murthaza Qadri, an Imam at Walsall Central mosque. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian That message appeared to be cutting through in Walsall. Nahid Ahmed, 54, a former Labour party member of 15 years who left the party over its stance on Palestine, said he would vote for an independent candidate or abstain. “Labour thinks Muslims are going to vote [for them] anyway, but they have to understand this has changed now,” he said. Even if Starmer explicitly backed an immediate and permanent ceasefire now after months of death and destruction, it may not bring Muslim votes back into the fold. “As things are getting worse in Palestine, you would expect their sense of moral duty, their humane side, to have come out and it hasn’t. That trust is lost,” said Sajad, 40, who declined to give her surname. In the immediate aftermath of the horrific atrocities committed by Hamas and others on 7 October, the Labour leadership offered full-throated support for Israel. In an interview on LBC radio a few days later, Starmer said Israel had the right to withhold power and water in Gaza. His words – which he later sought to clarify – shocked many Labour supporters. In response, three senior frontbenchers – Streeting, Shabana Mahmood and Louise Haigh – warned in a shadow cabinet meeting that Labour was at risk of losing Muslim votes. The following month, 56 Labour MPs rebelled against the leadership by backing a Scottish National party amendment to the king’s speech that explicitly called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in the Israel-Gaza war. Eight frontbenchers resigned their posts. Despite his shadow cabinet warning, Streeting was not among them. In his Ilford North constituency, protests were held outside the MP’s constituency office, and a grassroots organisation, the Redbridge Community Action Group (RCAG), was formed. “Trust has irretrievably broken down between British Muslims and the Labour party. It’s a fundamental break,” said Vaseem Ahmed, a spokesperson for the RCAG. Leading Labour MPs had shown a “lack of empathy to the 75-year suffering of the Palestinian people … For them, Palestinian lives matter much less than others,” he said. This month the RCAG held a meeting to choose an independent candidate to contest the general election. “We are proud to live in a democracy and we are using democracy to make our views known,” Ahmed said. The candidate, Leanne Mohamad, a 23-year-old British-Palestinian who grew up in the constituency, said: “It’s clear to me and countless others that Labour no longer represents the interests of working people. British Muslims are aghast at what is taking place in Gaza and they have marched in their millions to make this point.” She said Labour had failed “to hold Israel to account for its actions and they still haven’t called for an immediate ceasefire in order to save lives. The sheer hypocrisy between their position on Ukraine when compared to Gaza lays bare what many, including Muslims, now see as a party devoid of any principles whatsoever.” Mahmoud Rauf, 77, a retired accountant who has lived in the area for more than 40 years and is a lifelong Labour supporter, said he had previously canvassed for Streeting but would not do so again, and may not even vote Labour at the next election. “Wes Streeting might have a good bashing when the election comes because this area [is home to] a lot of supporters from the Palestinian side,” he said. “I don’t support [him] any more. I don’t see that he’s playing fair.” Another accountant, Imtyaz Vakil, 54, a Labour voter who switched to the Conservatives after the Iraq war, said he would never again vote for either party. He had joined RCAG and would be supporting Mohamed in the election, saying her candidacy was “the first piece in the whole jigsaw”. Political parties would ignore Muslim voices at their peril, he said. “It’s the second, third generation of Muslims here and we’re growing. We’re not just going to sit back and accept that.” In recent weeks, senior Labour figures have toughened their language in response to the scale of killing and destruction in Gaza. Last month, Streeting spoke of the need for a “sustainable ceasefire” amid “intolerable civilian casualties”. On Tuesday, Starmer told the Commons: “What is needed in Gaza is a humanitarian truce now, a sustainable ceasefire to stop the killing of innocent civilians.” Streeting told the Guardian: “For the last nine years I’ve consistently fought for all communities in Redbridge, including launching the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims … [and] campaigning for the recognition of a Palestinian state and the end of human rights abuses. The next election is a choice between five more years of Conservative failure or change for the better with Labour.” Explore more on these topics Labour West Midlands Keir Starmer Israel-Gaza war features Share Reuse this content A t Walsall Central mosque, a redbrick building on a street of Victorian terraces in the West Midlands market town, the imam, Murthaza Qadri, has reflected on the changing views of his congregation over the past few months. “There was never much talk about politics before but now everyone cares, lots of people are speaking up,” he said last week. “We’ve been brought up in an environment where we were blindly supporters of Labour , old and young. But now people are opening their eyes a bit more.” The issue that has opened the eyes of Muslims in Walsall and elsewhere across the country is Labour’s failure to explicitly demand a permanent ceasefire in the war between Israel and Hamas. The party’s position has shifted in recent weeks but, with more than 25,000 casualties in Gaza and a growing humanitarian catastrophe, it is too little and too late for many Muslims. The anguish and anger felt by Muslims in the UK over the Israel-Gaza war could spell trouble for Labour at the next election. An opinion poll carried out in November by Savanta found strong support for Labour among Muslim voters, with 64% backing the party. But more than 40% said Keir Starmer’s response to the war had made them less likely to vote Labour, while 20% said it had made them more likely to do so. One in three Muslim voters rated the conflict among their top three issues in deciding who to vote for. In Ilford North, local activists have selected a candidate to challenge the 5,198 majority of the shadow health secretary Wes Streeting specifically on Labour’s position on the Gaza war. Nearly a quarter of the population is Muslim. In Walsall, where 11.3% of the population is Muslim, eight Labour councillors who resigned from the party over the issue in November are considering putting up a candidate at the general election. This month Ammar Anwar, a Labour councillor in Kirklees, Yorkshire, and a lifelong member of the party, announced his resignation in tears and with a Palestinian flag draped around his neck. Eleven Labour councillors in Burnley resigned from the party in November, 10 resigned in Oxford , eight quit in Blackburn , and there have been others. View image in fullscreen Walsall Central mosque in the West Midlands. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Aftab Nawaz, one of those who resigned in Walsall, said he had been inundated with messages of support from the Muslim community. “We had calls from all over the place, not just in Walsall. People were coming up to us and hugging us and saying well done, you’ve stood up for what you believe, you’ve stood up for us and you’ll always be our heroes. We’re not heroes,” he said. Nawaz said he had been unhappy with the party’s creeping “central control”, but it was its response to the war that pushed him over the edge. “We saw a side of the Labour party which we didn’t expect,” he said. “If we are sitting at home or in our mosques praying for the people of Palestine, yet we represent a party whose leader isn’t saying that this should stop, we ourselves become complicit.” He said walking away from Labour had been a difficult decision. His father, who came to work in the West Midlands metal-bashing factories, had been supported by Labour and the union movement at a time when ethnic minorities were being targeted by the National Front. “We were all Labour people and we always trusted that the Labour party would do the right thing. People voted for the Labour party without even blinking, they wouldn’t read the manifesto,” he said. He joined the party in 2000 and spent many hours campaigning as a paper candidate in wards that the party had little chance in winning – “we used to call it flying the red flag”. “You’d go out in the middle of the snow and rain deliver leaflets and get people’s doors smashed in your face because they didn’t want to know anything,” he said. “But it was something that enriched my life, and I’ll never regret being part of the Labour party. We’re still Labour people. I’ve said to people it’s not that we’ve left the Labour party, the Labour party has left us.” Qadri, the imam, who has been a party member for six years but is unlikely to vote for Labour in the next election, was confident he had a good insight into the views of the hundreds of people who attend Walsall Central mosque each week. Younger people in particular were influenced by what they saw about the conflict on social media, he said. They were emailing their MPs to demand answers and passing the message on to older generations. View image in fullscreen Murthaza Qadri, an Imam at Walsall Central mosque. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian That message appeared to be cutting through in Walsall. Nahid Ahmed, 54, a former Labour party member of 15 years who left the party over its stance on Palestine, said he would vote for an independent candidate or abstain. “Labour thinks Muslims are going to vote [for them] anyway, but they have to understand this has changed now,” he said. Even if Starmer explicitly backed an immediate and permanent ceasefire now after months of death and destruction, it may not bring Muslim votes back into the fold. “As things are getting worse in Palestine, you would expect their sense of moral duty, their humane side, to have come out and it hasn’t. That trust is lost,” said Sajad, 40, who declined to give her surname. In the immediate aftermath of the horrific atrocities committed by Hamas and others on 7 October, the Labour leadership offered full-throated support for Israel. In an interview on LBC radio a few days later, Starmer said Israel had the right to withhold power and water in Gaza. His words – which he later sought to clarify – shocked many Labour supporters. In response, three senior frontbenchers – Streeting, Shabana Mahmood and Louise Haigh – warned in a shadow cabinet meeting that Labour was at risk of losing Muslim votes. The following month, 56 Labour MPs rebelled against the leadership by backing a Scottish National party amendment to the king’s speech that explicitly called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in the Israel-Gaza war. Eight frontbenchers resigned their posts. Despite his shadow cabinet warning, Streeting was not among them. In his Ilford North constituency, protests were held outside the MP’s constituency office, and a grassroots organisation, the Redbridge Community Action Group (RCAG), was formed. “Trust has irretrievably broken down between British Muslims and the Labour party. It’s a fundamental break,” said Vaseem Ahmed, a spokesperson for the RCAG. Leading Labour MPs had shown a “lack of empathy to the 75-year suffering of the Palestinian people … For them, Palestinian lives matter much less than others,” he said. This month the RCAG held a meeting to choose an independent candidate to contest the general election. “We are proud to live in a democracy and we are using democracy to make our views known,” Ahmed said. The candidate, Leanne Mohamad, a 23-year-old British-Palestinian who grew up in the constituency, said: “It’s clear to me and countless others that Labour no longer represents the interests of working people. British Muslims are aghast at what is taking place in Gaza and they have marched in their millions to make this point.” She said Labour had failed “to hold Israel to account for its actions and they still haven’t called for an immediate ceasefire in order to save lives. The sheer hypocrisy between their position on Ukraine when compared to Gaza lays bare what many, including Muslims, now see as a party devoid of any principles whatsoever.” Mahmoud Rauf, 77, a retired accountant who has lived in the area for more than 40 years and is a lifelong Labour supporter, said he had previously canvassed for Streeting but would not do so again, and may not even vote Labour at the next election. “Wes Streeting might have a good bashing when the election comes because this area [is home to] a lot of supporters from the Palestinian side,” he said. “I don’t support [him] any more. I don’t see that he’s playing fair.” Another accountant, Imtyaz Vakil, 54, a Labour voter who switched to the Conservatives after the Iraq war, said he would never again vote for either party. He had joined RCAG and would be supporting Mohamed in the election, saying her candidacy was “the first piece in the whole jigsaw”. Political parties would ignore Muslim voices at their peril, he said. “It’s the second, third generation of Muslims here and we’re growing. We’re not just going to sit back and accept that.” In recent weeks, senior Labour figures have toughened their language in response to the scale of killing and destruction in Gaza. Last month, Streeting spoke of the need for a “sustainable ceasefire” amid “intolerable civilian casualties”. On Tuesday, Starmer told the Commons: “What is needed in Gaza is a humanitarian truce now, a sustainable ceasefire to stop the killing of innocent civilians.” Streeting told the Guardian: “For the last nine years I’ve consistently fought for all communities in Redbridge, including launching the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims … [and] campaigning for the recognition of a Palestinian state and the end of human rights abuses. The next election is a choice between five more years of Conservative failure or change for the better with Labour.” Explore more on these topics Labour West Midlands Keir Starmer Israel-Gaza war features Share Reuse this content A t Walsall Central mosque, a redbrick building on a street of Victorian terraces in the West Midlands market town, the imam, Murthaza Qadri, has reflected on the changing views of his congregation over the past few months. “There was never much talk about politics before but now everyone cares, lots of people are speaking up,” he said last week. “We’ve been brought up in an environment where we were blindly supporters of Labour , old and young. But now people are opening their eyes a bit more.” The issue that has opened the eyes of Muslims in Walsall and elsewhere across the country is Labour’s failure to explicitly demand a permanent ceasefire in the war between Israel and Hamas. The party’s position has shifted in recent weeks but, with more than 25,000 casualties in Gaza and a growing humanitarian catastrophe, it is too little and too late for many Muslims. The anguish and anger felt by Muslims in the UK over the Israel-Gaza war could spell trouble for Labour at the next election. An opinion poll carried out in November by Savanta found strong support for Labour among Muslim voters, with 64% backing the party. But more than 40% said Keir Starmer’s response to the war had made them less likely to vote Labour, while 20% said it had made them more likely to do so. One in three Muslim voters rated the conflict among their top three issues in deciding who to vote for. In Ilford North, local activists have selected a candidate to challenge the 5,198 majority of the shadow health secretary Wes Streeting specifically on Labour’s position on the Gaza war. Nearly a quarter of the population is Muslim. In Walsall, where 11.3% of the population is Muslim, eight Labour councillors who resigned from the party over the issue in November are considering putting up a candidate at the general election. This month Ammar Anwar, a Labour councillor in Kirklees, Yorkshire, and a lifelong member of the party, announced his resignation in tears and with a Palestinian flag draped around his neck. Eleven Labour councillors in Burnley resigned from the party in November, 10 resigned in Oxford , eight quit in Blackburn , and there have been others. View image in fullscreen Walsall Central mosque in the West Midlands. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Aftab Nawaz, one of those who resigned in Walsall, said he had been inundated with messages of support from the Muslim community. “We had calls from all over the place, not just in Walsall. People were coming up to us and hugging us and saying well done, you’ve stood up for what you believe, you’ve stood up for us and you’ll always be our heroes. We’re not heroes,” he said. Nawaz said he had been unhappy with the party’s creeping “central control”, but it was its response to the war that pushed him over the edge. “We saw a side of the Labour party which we didn’t expect,” he said. “If we are sitting at home or in our mosques praying for the people of Palestine, yet we represent a party whose leader isn’t saying that this should stop, we ourselves become complicit.” He said walking away from Labour had been a difficult decision. His father, who came to work in the West Midlands metal-bashing factories, had been supported by Labour and the union movement at a time when ethnic minorities were being targeted by the National Front. “We were all Labour people and we always trusted that the Labour party would do the right thing. People voted for the Labour party without even blinking, they wouldn’t read the manifesto,” he said. He joined the party in 2000 and spent many hours campaigning as a paper candidate in wards that the party had little chance in winning – “we used to call it flying the red flag”. “You’d go out in the middle of the snow and rain deliver leaflets and get people’s doors smashed in your face because they didn’t want to know anything,” he said. “But it was something that enriched my life, and I’ll never regret being part of the Labour party. We’re still Labour people. I’ve said to people it’s not that we’ve left the Labour party, the Labour party has left us.” Qadri, the imam, who has been a party member for six years but is unlikely to vote for Labour in the next election, was confident he had a good insight into the views of the hundreds of people who attend Walsall Central mosque each week. Younger people in particular were influenced by what they saw about the conflict on social media, he said. They were emailing their MPs to demand answers and passing the message on to older generations. View image in fullscreen Murthaza Qadri, an Imam at Walsall Central mosque. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian That message appeared to be cutting through in Walsall. Nahid Ahmed, 54, a former Labour party member of 15 years who left the party over its stance on Palestine, said he would vote for an independent candidate or abstain. “Labour thinks Muslims are going to vote [for them] anyway, but they have to understand this has changed now,” he said. Even if Starmer explicitly backed an immediate and permanent ceasefire now after months of death and destruction, it may not bring Muslim votes back into the fold. “As things are getting worse in Palestine, you would expect their sense of moral duty, their humane side, to have come out and it hasn’t. That trust is lost,” said Sajad, 40, who declined to give her surname. In the immediate aftermath of the horrific atrocities committed by Hamas and others on 7 October, the Labour leadership offered full-throated support for Israel. In an interview on LBC radio a few days later, Starmer said Israel had the right to withhold power and water in Gaza. His words – which he later sought to clarify – shocked many Labour supporters. In response, three senior frontbenchers – Streeting, Shabana Mahmood and Louise Haigh – warned in a shadow cabinet meeting that Labour was at risk of losing Muslim votes. The following month, 56 Labour MPs rebelled against the leadership by backing a Scottish National party amendment to the king’s speech that explicitly called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in the Israel-Gaza war. Eight frontbenchers resigned their posts. Despite his shadow cabinet warning, Streeting was not among them. In his Ilford North constituency, protests were held outside the MP’s constituency office, and a grassroots organisation, the Redbridge Community Action Group (RCAG), was formed. “Trust has irretrievably broken down between British Muslims and the Labour party. It’s a fundamental break,” said Vaseem Ahmed, a spokesperson for the RCAG. Leading Labour MPs had shown a “lack of empathy to the 75-year suffering of the Palestinian people … For them, Palestinian lives matter much less than others,” he said. This month the RCAG held a meeting to choose an independent candidate to contest the general ele
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
Protests at Stormont as DUP agrees deal to restore Northern Ireland power sharing – video report
2:02 This article is more than 1 year old Protests at Stormont as DUP agrees deal to restore Northern Ireland power sharing – video report This article is more than 1 year old The Democratic Unionist party has agreed to end a boycott that left Northern Ireland without a power-sharing administration for two years – a breakthrough that could restore a Belfast government within days. After a late-night meeting, the DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson said the party’s executive had backed proposals to return to government. The deal means Sinn Féin will get to nominate its inaugural first minister after it overtook the DUP as the biggest party in the 2022 assembly election Stormont power sharing in sight as Northern Ireland DUP accepts post-Brexit deal Northern Irish parties meet to chart Stormont return after DUP backs deal Northern Ireland: what is the power-sharing deal – and could it be blocked? UK politics live – latest updates Explore more on these topics Northern Irish politics Northern Ireland Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Sinn Féin 2:02 This article is more than 1 year old Protests at Stormont as DUP agrees deal to restore Northern Ireland power sharing – video report This article is more than 1 year old The Democratic Unionist party has agreed to end a boycott that left Northern Ireland without a power-sharing administration for two years – a breakthrough that could restore a Belfast government within days. After a late-night meeting, the DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson said the party’s executive had backed proposals to return to government. The deal means Sinn Féin will get to nominate its inaugural first minister after it overtook the DUP as the biggest party in the 2022 assembly election Stormont power sharing in sight as Northern Ireland DUP accepts post-Brexit deal Northern Irish parties meet to chart Stormont return after DUP backs deal Northern Ireland: what is the power-sharing deal – and could it be blocked? UK politics live – latest updates Explore more on these topics Northern Irish politics Northern Ireland Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Sinn Féin This article is more than 1 year old Protests at Stormont as DUP agrees deal to restore Northern Ireland power sharing – video report This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Protests at Stormont as DUP agrees deal to restore Northern Ireland power sharing – video report This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Protests at Stormont as DUP agrees deal to restore Northern Ireland power sharing – 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 The Democratic Unionist party has agreed to end a boycott that left Northern Ireland without a power-sharing administration for two years – a breakthrough that could restore a Belfast government within days. After a late-night meeting, the DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson said the party’s executive had backed proposals to return to government. The deal means Sinn Féin will get to nominate its inaugural first minister after it overtook the DUP as the biggest party in the 2022 assembly election Stormont power sharing in sight as Northern Ireland DUP accepts post-Brexit deal Northern Irish parties meet to chart Stormont return after DUP backs deal Northern Ireland: what is the power-sharing deal – and could it be blocked? UK politics live – latest updates The Democratic Unionist party has agreed to end a boycott that left Northern Ireland without a power-sharing administration for two years – a breakthrough that could restore a Belfast government within days. After a late-night meeting, the DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson said the party’s executive had backed proposals to return to government. The deal means Sinn Féin will get to nominate its inaugural first minister after it overtook the DUP as the biggest party in the 2022 assembly election Stormont power sharing in sight as Northern Ireland DUP accepts post-Brexit deal Northern Irish parties meet to chart Stormont return after DUP backs deal Northern Ireland: what is the power-sharing deal – and could it be blocked? UK politics live – latest updates The Democratic Unionist party has agreed to end a boycott that left Northern Ireland without a power-sharing administration for two years – a breakthrough that could restore a Belfast government within days. After a late-night meeting, the DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson said the party’s executive had backed proposals to return to government. The deal means Sinn Féin will get to nominate its inaugural first minister after it overtook the DUP as the biggest party in the 2022 assembly election Stormont power sharing in sight as Northern Ireland DUP accepts post-Brexit deal Northern Irish parties meet to chart Stormont return after DUP backs deal Northern Ireland: what is the power-sharing deal – and could it be blocked? UK politics live – latest updates Explore more on these topics Northern Irish politics Northern Ireland Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Sinn Féin Explore more on these topics Northern Irish politics Northern Ireland Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Sinn Féin Explore more on these topics Northern Irish politics Northern Ireland Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Sinn Féin Northern Irish politics Northern Ireland Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Sinn Féin
|
Northern Ireland: what is the power-sharing deal – and could it be blocked?
2:02 Protests at Stormont as DUP agrees deal to restore Northern Ireland power sharing – video report This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Northern Ireland: what is the power-sharing deal – and could it be blocked? This article is more than 1 year old DUP approves post-Brexit legislation, meaning devolved government could soon be functioning again UK politics live – latest updates Power-sharing in Northern Ireland is on the verge of being restored after a night of drama in Belfast. It would end an almost two-year power vacuum in the region after the Democratic Unionist party collapsed the Stormont government to protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements. We have heard this before. What is different this time? A new deal that centres on concessions made by London, not Brussels, was put to DUP executive members and debated over five hours, with an announcement in the small hours of Tuesday morning that the party had endorsed the agreement brokered by its leader, Jeffrey Donaldson. Donaldson told BBC radio on Tuesday that the deal – details of which the UK government will publish on Wednesday – would include “constitutional legislation” as well as practical arrangements. “The result was clear. The DUP has been decisive. I have been mandated to move forward,” Donaldson said. What about the Windsor framework? Agreement comes 11 months after Brussels made major concessions in replacing the original Northern Ireland protocol Brexit trading arrangements with the Windsor framework, in a deal sweetened by No 10, memorably, by a meeting between European Commission chief, Ursula von der Leyen, and King Charles. That deal was hailed by Rishi Sunak and Von der Leyen as the breakthrough that would end the DUP’s boycott of Stormont. So why didn’t the DUP return to Stormont in February 2023? The DUP had argued that, even with the concessions by Brussels, the Windsor framework undermined Northern Ireland’s place in the UK, forcing traders to deal differently with the region. How soon could Stormont resume? Sinn Féin’s Conor Murphy has said he believes the executive could be back up and running “before the week is out”. Brexit border rules could cut shelf life of fresh food from EU by a fifth, say experts Read more Pressure from the public has been mounting in recent weeks with an estimated 150,000 public sector workers in Northern Ireland on strike two weeks ago, the largest protest in more than 50 years. They had not received pay increases despite high inflation following the collapse of the power-sharing government. Northern Ireland’s health service is routinely ranked as the worst in the UK with long waiting lists and poor health outcomes. The government made a £3.3bn financial package – that included pay rises for public sector workers – conditional on Stormont’s revival. What is in the deal? Donaldson said it would end “dynamic alignment” whereby future changes in EU law would have to be observed in Northern Ireland. Pending the deal’s publication on Wednesday, it appears that Sunak has offered to keep Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) aligned with European standards if the DUP returned to Stormont. All new laws at Westminster would be checked to ensure they did not compromise unfettered trade with Northern Ireland, meaning no separate rules or labels for goods that remain in the region. Does that mean the UK will remain closer to Brussels? It appears that the deal is a dusting down of proposals Theresa May made in 2019 to align rules for Ireland with those in the UK, thereby removing the need for what became known as the Brexit sea border. This compromise was rejected by the Conservatives, whose policies were then shaped by convulsions about sovereignty, taking back control of British law and a clean break Brexit. Will the hard Brexiters be able to kill the deal? Liz Truss, Priti Patel and Iain Duncan Smith opposed the Windsor framework last March, arguing that the Stormont brake, the mechanism by which the Belfast executive could block new EU laws applying locally, was not substantial enough. How can Sunak sell this? He can argue that the alignment with EU law is limited and applies to goods and farm produce and not wider issues such as the rule of law and other national competencies such as health, education, security, justice. What will this mean for a potential Labour government? It could make it easier for Keir Starmer to strike a veterinary agreement with the EU, which would dynamically align foods standards with EU standards, paving the way for fewer trade barriers between the UK and the EU as a whole. Explore more on these topics Northern Ireland Northern Irish politics Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Brexit explainers Share Reuse this content 2:02 Protests at Stormont as DUP agrees deal to restore Northern Ireland power sharing – video report This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Northern Ireland: what is the power-sharing deal – and could it be blocked? This article is more than 1 year old DUP approves post-Brexit legislation, meaning devolved government could soon be functioning again UK politics live – latest updates Power-sharing in Northern Ireland is on the verge of being restored after a night of drama in Belfast. It would end an almost two-year power vacuum in the region after the Democratic Unionist party collapsed the Stormont government to protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements. We have heard this before. What is different this time? A new deal that centres on concessions made by London, not Brussels, was put to DUP executive members and debated over five hours, with an announcement in the small hours of Tuesday morning that the party had endorsed the agreement brokered by its leader, Jeffrey Donaldson. Donaldson told BBC radio on Tuesday that the deal – details of which the UK government will publish on Wednesday – would include “constitutional legislation” as well as practical arrangements. “The result was clear. The DUP has been decisive. I have been mandated to move forward,” Donaldson said. What about the Windsor framework? Agreement comes 11 months after Brussels made major concessions in replacing the original Northern Ireland protocol Brexit trading arrangements with the Windsor framework, in a deal sweetened by No 10, memorably, by a meeting between European Commission chief, Ursula von der Leyen, and King Charles. That deal was hailed by Rishi Sunak and Von der Leyen as the breakthrough that would end the DUP’s boycott of Stormont. So why didn’t the DUP return to Stormont in February 2023? The DUP had argued that, even with the concessions by Brussels, the Windsor framework undermined Northern Ireland’s place in the UK, forcing traders to deal differently with the region. How soon could Stormont resume? Sinn Féin’s Conor Murphy has said he believes the executive could be back up and running “before the week is out”. Brexit border rules could cut shelf life of fresh food from EU by a fifth, say experts Read more Pressure from the public has been mounting in recent weeks with an estimated 150,000 public sector workers in Northern Ireland on strike two weeks ago, the largest protest in more than 50 years. They had not received pay increases despite high inflation following the collapse of the power-sharing government. Northern Ireland’s health service is routinely ranked as the worst in the UK with long waiting lists and poor health outcomes. The government made a £3.3bn financial package – that included pay rises for public sector workers – conditional on Stormont’s revival. What is in the deal? Donaldson said it would end “dynamic alignment” whereby future changes in EU law would have to be observed in Northern Ireland. Pending the deal’s publication on Wednesday, it appears that Sunak has offered to keep Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) aligned with European standards if the DUP returned to Stormont. All new laws at Westminster would be checked to ensure they did not compromise unfettered trade with Northern Ireland, meaning no separate rules or labels for goods that remain in the region. Does that mean the UK will remain closer to Brussels? It appears that the deal is a dusting down of proposals Theresa May made in 2019 to align rules for Ireland with those in the UK, thereby removing the need for what became known as the Brexit sea border. This compromise was rejected by the Conservatives, whose policies were then shaped by convulsions about sovereignty, taking back control of British law and a clean break Brexit. Will the hard Brexiters be able to kill the deal? Liz Truss, Priti Patel and Iain Duncan Smith opposed the Windsor framework last March, arguing that the Stormont brake, the mechanism by which the Belfast executive could block new EU laws applying locally, was not substantial enough. How can Sunak sell this? He can argue that the alignment with EU law is limited and applies to goods and farm produce and not wider issues such as the rule of law and other national competencies such as health, education, security, justice. What will this mean for a potential Labour government? It could make it easier for Keir Starmer to strike a veterinary agreement with the EU, which would dynamically align foods standards with EU standards, paving the way for fewer trade barriers between the UK and the EU as a whole. Explore more on these topics Northern Ireland Northern Irish politics Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Brexit explainers Share Reuse this content 2:02 Protests at Stormont as DUP agrees deal to restore Northern Ireland power sharing – video report 2:02 Protests at Stormont as DUP agrees deal to restore Northern Ireland power sharing – video report 2:02 Protests at Stormont as DUP agrees deal to restore Northern Ireland power sharing – video report 2:02 Protests at Stormont as DUP agrees deal to restore Northern Ireland power sharing – video report This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Northern Ireland: what is the power-sharing deal – and could it be blocked? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Northern Ireland: what is the power-sharing deal – and could it be blocked? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Northern Ireland: what is the power-sharing deal – and could it be blocked? 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 DUP approves post-Brexit legislation, meaning devolved government could soon be functioning again UK politics live – latest updates DUP approves post-Brexit legislation, meaning devolved government could soon be functioning again UK politics live – latest updates DUP approves post-Brexit legislation, meaning devolved government could soon be functioning again Power-sharing in Northern Ireland is on the verge of being restored after a night of drama in Belfast. It would end an almost two-year power vacuum in the region after the Democratic Unionist party collapsed the Stormont government to protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements. We have heard this before. What is different this time? A new deal that centres on concessions made by London, not Brussels, was put to DUP executive members and debated over five hours, with an announcement in the small hours of Tuesday morning that the party had endorsed the agreement brokered by its leader, Jeffrey Donaldson. Donaldson told BBC radio on Tuesday that the deal – details of which the UK government will publish on Wednesday – would include “constitutional legislation” as well as practical arrangements. “The result was clear. The DUP has been decisive. I have been mandated to move forward,” Donaldson said. What about the Windsor framework? Agreement comes 11 months after Brussels made major concessions in replacing the original Northern Ireland protocol Brexit trading arrangements with the Windsor framework, in a deal sweetened by No 10, memorably, by a meeting between European Commission chief, Ursula von der Leyen, and King Charles. That deal was hailed by Rishi Sunak and Von der Leyen as the breakthrough that would end the DUP’s boycott of Stormont. So why didn’t the DUP return to Stormont in February 2023? The DUP had argued that, even with the concessions by Brussels, the Windsor framework undermined Northern Ireland’s place in the UK, forcing traders to deal differently with the region. How soon could Stormont resume? Sinn Féin’s Conor Murphy has said he believes the executive could be back up and running “before the week is out”. Brexit border rules could cut shelf life of fresh food from EU by a fifth, say experts Read more Pressure from the public has been mounting in recent weeks with an estimated 150,000 public sector workers in Northern Ireland on strike two weeks ago, the largest protest in more than 50 years. They had not received pay increases despite high inflation following the collapse of the power-sharing government. Northern Ireland’s health service is routinely ranked as the worst in the UK with long waiting lists and poor health outcomes. The government made a £3.3bn financial package – that included pay rises for public sector workers – conditional on Stormont’s revival. What is in the deal? Donaldson said it would end “dynamic alignment” whereby future changes in EU law would have to be observed in Northern Ireland. Pending the deal’s publication on Wednesday, it appears that Sunak has offered to keep Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) aligned with European standards if the DUP returned to Stormont. All new laws at Westminster would be checked to ensure they did not compromise unfettered trade with Northern Ireland, meaning no separate rules or labels for goods that remain in the region. Does that mean the UK will remain closer to Brussels? It appears that the deal is a dusting down of proposals Theresa May made in 2019 to align rules for Ireland with those in the UK, thereby removing the need for what became known as the Brexit sea border. This compromise was rejected by the Conservatives, whose policies were then shaped by convulsions about sovereignty, taking back control of British law and a clean break Brexit. Will the hard Brexiters be able to kill the deal? Liz Truss, Priti Patel and Iain Duncan Smith opposed the Windsor framework last March, arguing that the Stormont brake, the mechanism by which the Belfast executive could block new EU laws applying locally, was not substantial enough. How can Sunak sell this? He can argue that the alignment with EU law is limited and applies to goods and farm produce and not wider issues such as the rule of law and other national competencies such as health, education, security, justice. What will this mean for a potential Labour government? It could make it easier for Keir Starmer to strike a veterinary agreement with the EU, which would dynamically align foods standards with EU standards, paving the way for fewer trade barriers between the UK and the EU as a whole. Explore more on these topics Northern Ireland Northern Irish politics Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Brexit explainers Share Reuse this content Power-sharing in Northern Ireland is on the verge of being restored after a night of drama in Belfast. It would end an almost two-year power vacuum in the region after the Democratic Unionist party collapsed the Stormont government to protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements. We have heard this before. What is different this time? A new deal that centres on concessions made by London, not Brussels, was put to DUP executive members and debated over five hours, with an announcement in the small hours of Tuesday morning that the party had endorsed the agreement brokered by its leader, Jeffrey Donaldson. Donaldson told BBC radio on Tuesday that the deal – details of which the UK government will publish on Wednesday – would include “constitutional legislation” as well as practical arrangements. “The result was clear. The DUP has been decisive. I have been mandated to move forward,” Donaldson said. What about the Windsor framework? Agreement comes 11 months after Brussels made major concessions in replacing the original Northern Ireland protocol Brexit trading arrangements with the Windsor framework, in a deal sweetened by No 10, memorably, by a meeting between European Commission chief, Ursula von der Leyen, and King Charles. That deal was hailed by Rishi Sunak and Von der Leyen as the breakthrough that would end the DUP’s boycott of Stormont. So why didn’t the DUP return to Stormont in February 2023? The DUP had argued that, even with the concessions by Brussels, the Windsor framework undermined Northern Ireland’s place in the UK, forcing traders to deal differently with the region. How soon could Stormont resume? Sinn Féin’s Conor Murphy has said he believes the executive could be back up and running “before the week is out”. Brexit border rules could cut shelf life of fresh food from EU by a fifth, say experts Read more Pressure from the public has been mounting in recent weeks with an estimated 150,000 public sector workers in Northern Ireland on strike two weeks ago, the largest protest in more than 50 years. They had not received pay increases despite high inflation following the collapse of the power-sharing government. Northern Ireland’s health service is routinely ranked as the worst in the UK with long waiting lists and poor health outcomes. The government made a £3.3bn financial package – that included pay rises for public sector workers – conditional on Stormont’s revival. What is in the deal? Donaldson said it would end “dynamic alignment” whereby future changes in EU law would have to be observed in Northern Ireland. Pending the deal’s publication on Wednesday, it appears that Sunak has offered to keep Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) aligned with European standards if the DUP returned to Stormont. All new laws at Westminster would be checked to ensure they did not compromise unfettered trade with Northern Ireland, meaning no separate rules or labels for goods that remain in the region. Does that mean the UK will remain closer to Brussels? It appears that the deal is a dusting down of proposals Theresa May made in 2019 to align rules for Ireland with those in the UK, thereby removing the need for what became known as the Brexit sea border. This compromise was rejected by the Conservatives, whose policies were then shaped by convulsions about sovereignty, taking back control of British law and a clean break Brexit. Will the hard Brexiters be able to kill the deal? Liz Truss, Priti Patel and Iain Duncan Smith opposed the Windsor framework last March, arguing that the Stormont brake, the mechanism by which the Belfast executive could block new EU laws applying locally, was not substantial enough. How can Sunak sell this? He can argue that the alignment with EU law is limited and applies to goods and farm produce and not wider issues such as the rule of law and other national competencies such as health, education, security, justice. What will this mean for a potential Labour government? It could make it easier for Keir Starmer to strike a veterinary agreement with the EU, which would dynamically align foods standards with EU standards, paving the way for fewer trade barriers between the UK and the EU as a whole. Explore more on these topics Northern Ireland Northern Irish politics Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Brexit explainers Share Reuse this content Power-sharing in Northern Ireland is on the verge of being restored after a night of drama in Belfast. It would end an almost two-year power vacuum in the region after the Democratic Unionist party collapsed the Stormont government to protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements. We have heard this before. What is different this time? A new deal that centres on concessions made by London, not Brussels, was put to DUP executive members and debated over five hours, with an announcement in the small hours of Tuesday morning that the party had endorsed the agreement brokered by its leader, Jeffrey Donaldson. Donaldson told BBC radio on Tuesday that the deal – details of which the UK government will publish on Wednesday – would include “constitutional legislation” as well as practical arrangements. “The result was clear. The DUP has been decisive. I have been mandated to move forward,” Donaldson said. What about the Windsor framework? Agreement comes 11 months after Brussels made major concessions in replacing the original Northern Ireland protocol Brexit trading arrangements with the Windsor framework, in a deal sweetened by No 10, memorably, by a meeting between European Commission chief, Ursula von der Leyen, and King Charles. That deal was hailed by Rishi Sunak and Von der Leyen as the breakthrough that would end the DUP’s boycott of Stormont. So why didn’t the DUP return to Stormont in February 2023? The DUP had argued that, even with the concessions by Brussels, the Windsor framework undermined Northern Ireland’s place in the UK, forcing traders to deal differently with the region. How soon could Stormont resume? Sinn Féin’s Conor Murphy has said he believes the executive could be back up and running “before the week is out”. Brexit border rules could cut shelf life of fresh food from EU by a fifth, say experts Read more Pressure from the public has been mounting in recent weeks with an estimated 150,000 public sector workers in Northern Ireland on strike two weeks ago, the largest protest in more than 50 years. They had not received pay increases despite high inflation following the collapse of the power-sharing government. Northern Ireland’s health service is routinely ranked as the worst in the UK with long waiting lists and poor health outcomes. The government made a £3.3bn financial package – that included pay rises for public sector workers – conditional on Stormont’s revival. What is in the deal? Donaldson said it would end “dynamic alignment” whereby future changes in EU law would have to be observed in Northern Ireland. Pending the deal’s publication on Wednesday, it appears that Sunak has offered to keep Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) aligned with European standards if the DUP returned to Stormont. All new laws at Westminster would be checked to ensure they did not compromise unfettered trade with Northern Ireland, meaning no separate rules or labels for goods that remain in the region. Does that mean the UK will remain closer to Brussels? It appears that the deal is a dusting down of proposals Theresa May made in 2019 to align rules for Ireland with those in the UK, thereby removing the need for what became known as the Brexit sea border. This compromise was rejected by the Conservatives, whose policies were then shaped by convulsions about sovereignty, taking back control of British law and a clean break Brexit. Will the hard Brexiters be able to kill the deal? Liz Truss, Priti Patel and Iain Duncan Smith opposed the Windsor framework last March, arguing that the Stormont brake, the mechanism by which the Belfast executive could block new EU laws applying locally, was not substantial enough. How can Sunak sell this? He can argue that the alignment with EU law is limited and applies to goods and farm produce and not wider issues such as the rule of law and other national competencies such as health, education, security, justice. What will this mean for a potential Labour government? It could make it easier for Keir Starmer to strike a veterinary agreement with the EU, which would dynamically align foods standards with EU standards, paving the way for fewer trade barriers between the UK and the EU as a whole. Power-sharing in Northern Ireland is on the verge of being restored after a night of drama in Belfast. It would end an almost two-year power vacuum in the region after the Democratic Unionist party collapsed the Stormont government to protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements. We have heard this before. What is different this time? A new deal that centres on concessions made by London, not Brussels, was put to DUP executive members and debated over five hours, with an announcement in the small hours of Tuesday morning that the party had endorsed the agreement brokered by its leader, Jeffrey Donaldson. Donaldson told BBC radio on Tuesday that the deal – details of which the UK government will publish on Wednesday – would include “constitutional legislation” as well as practical arrangements. “The result was clear. The DUP has been decisive. I have been mandated to move forward,” Donaldson said. What about the Windsor framework? Agreement comes 11 months after Brussels made major concessions in replacing the original Northern Ireland protocol Brexit trading arrangements with the Windsor framework, in a deal sweetened by No 10, memorably, by a meeting between European Commission chief, Ursula von der Leyen, and King Charles. That deal was hailed by Rishi Sunak and Von der Leyen as the breakthrough that would end the DUP’s boycott of Stormont. So why didn’t the DUP return to Stormont in February 2023? The DUP had argued that, even with the concessions by Brussels, the Windsor framework undermined Northern Ireland’s place in the UK, forcing traders to deal differently with the region. How soon could Stormont resume? Sinn Féin’s Conor Murphy has said he believes the executive could be back up and running “before the week is out”. Brexit border rules could cut shelf life of fresh food from EU by a fifth, say experts Read more Pressure from the public has been mounting in recent weeks with an estimated 150,000 public sector workers in Northern Ireland on strike two weeks ago, the largest protest in more than 50 years. They had not received pay increases despite high inflation following the collapse of the power-sharing government. Northern Ireland’s health service is routinely ranked as the worst in the UK with long waiting lists and poor health outcomes. The government made a £3.3bn financial package – that included pay rises for public sector workers – conditional on Stormont’s revival. What is in the deal? Donaldson said it would end “dynamic alignment” whereby future changes in EU law would have to be observed in Northern Ireland. Pending the deal’s publication on Wednesday, it appears that Sunak has offered to keep Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) aligned with European standards if the DUP returned to Stormont. All new laws at Westminster would be checked to ensure they did not compromise unfettered trade with Northern Ireland, meaning no separate rules or labels for goods that remain in the region. Does that mean the UK will remain closer to Brussels? It appears that the deal is a dusting down of proposals Theresa May made in 2019 to align rules for Ireland with those in the UK, thereby removing the need for what became known as the Brexit sea border. This compromise was rejected by the Conservatives, whose policies were then shaped by convulsions about sovereignty, taking back control of British law and a clean break Brexit. Will the hard Brexiters be able to kill the deal? Liz Truss, Priti Patel and Iain Duncan Smith opposed the Windsor framework last March, arguing that the Stormont brake, the mechanism by which the Belfast executive could block new EU laws applying locally, was not substantial enough. How can Sunak sell this? He can argue that the alignment with EU law is limited and applies to goods and farm produce and not wider issues such as the rule of law and other national competencies such as health, education, security, justice. What will this mean for a potential Labour government? It could make it easier for Keir Starmer to strike a veterinary agreement with the EU, which would dynamically align foods standards with EU standards, paving the way for fewer trade barriers between the UK and the EU as a whole. Power-sharing in Northern Ireland is on the verge of being restored after a night of drama in Belfast. It would end an almost two-year power vacuum in the region after the Democratic Unionist party collapsed the Stormont government to protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements. A new deal that centres on concessions made by London, not Brussels, was put to DUP executive members and debated over five hours, with an announcement in the small hours of Tuesday morning that the party had endorsed the agreement brokered by its leader, Jeffrey Donaldson. Donaldson told BBC radio on Tuesday that the deal – details of which the UK government will publish on Wednesday – would include “constitutional legislation” as well as practical arrangements. “The result was clear. The DUP has been decisive. I have been mandated to move forward,” Donaldson said. Agreement comes 11 months after Brussels made major concessions in replacing the original Northern Ireland protocol Brexit trading arrangements with the Windsor framework, in a deal sweetened by No 10, memorably, by a meeting between European Commission chief, Ursula von der Leyen, and King Charles. That deal was hailed by Rishi Sunak and Von der Leyen as the breakthrough that would end the DUP’s boycott of Stormont. The DUP had argued that, even with the concessions by Brussels, the Windsor framework undermined Northern Ireland’s place in the UK, forcing traders to deal differently with the region. Sinn Féin’s Conor Murphy has said he believes the executive could be back up and running “before the week is out”. Brexit border rules could cut shelf life of fresh food from EU by a fifth, say experts Read more Brexit border rules could cut shelf life of fresh food from EU by a fifth, say experts Read more Brexit border rules could cut shelf life of fresh food from EU by a fifth, say experts Read more Brexit border rules could cut shelf life of fresh food from EU by a fifth, say experts Brexit border rules could cut shelf life of fresh food from EU by a fifth, say experts Pressure from the public has been mounting in recent weeks with an estimated 150,000 public sector workers in Northern Ireland on strike two weeks ago, the largest protest in more than 50 years. They had not received pay increases despite high inflation following the collapse of the power-sharing government. Northern Ireland’s health service is routinely ranked as the worst in the UK with long waiting lists and poor health outcomes. The government made a £3.3bn financial package – that included pay rises for public sector workers – conditional on Stormont’s revival. Donaldson said it would end “dynamic alignment” whereby future changes in EU law would have to be observed in Northern Ireland. Pending the deal’s publication on Wednesday, it appears that Sunak has offered to keep Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) aligned with European standards if the DUP returned to Stormont. All new laws at Westminster would be checked to ensure they did not compromise unfettered trade with Northern Ireland, meaning no separate rules or labels for goods that remain in the region. It appears that the deal is a dusting down of proposals Theresa May made in 2019 to align rules for Ireland with those in the UK, thereby removing the need for what became known as the Brexit sea border. This compromise was rejected by the Conservatives, whose policies were then shaped by convulsions about sovereignty, taking back control of British law and a clean break Brexit. Liz Truss, Priti Patel and Iain Duncan Smith opposed the Windsor framework last March, arguing that the Stormont brake, the mechanism by which the Belfast executive could block new EU laws applying locally, was not substantial enough. He can argue that the alignment with EU law is limited and applies to goods and farm produce and not wider issues such as the rule of law and other national competencies such as health, education, security, justice. It could make it easier for Keir Starmer to strike a veterinary agreement with the EU, which would dynamically align foods standards with EU standards, paving the way for fewer trade barriers between the UK and the EU as a whole. Explore more on these topics Northern Ireland Northern Irish politics Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Brexit explainers Share Reuse this content Northern Ireland Northern Irish politics Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Brexit explainers
|
Sinn Féin says united Ireland ‘within touching distance’ as Stormont deal agreed
Sinn Féin’s Michelle O'Neill (R) and Mary Lou McDonald (C) speak during a press conference at Stormont on Tuesday. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Sinn Féin’s Michelle O'Neill (R) and Mary Lou McDonald (C) speak during a press conference at Stormont on Tuesday. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Sinn Féin says united Ireland ‘within touching distance’ as Stormont deal agreed This article is more than 1 year old Party prepares to claim Northern Ireland first minister post for first time with power sharing set to resume Sinn Féin has said a united Ireland is “within touching distance” as the party prepares to claim the post of Northern Ireland first minister for the first time. Mary Lou McDonald said on Tuesday that the expected restoration of power sharing in the wake of a deal between the Democratic Unionist party and the UK government came amid a “historical turning of the wheel” that would unite the island. “In historic terms, it is within touching distance and I think that is a very exciting thing and I hope people will find that a very welcoming conversation,” the Sinn Féin leader said. According to a speedy political choreography that is supposed to unfold at Westminster on Wednesday and Thursday, her deputy, Michelle O’Neill, could become first minister of the Stormont executive by the weekend. “That will be a moment of very great significance, not simply because we haven’t had government for so long but because it will be the first time that we will have a Sinn Féin first minister, a nationalist first minister,” McDonald said. O’Neill became the region’s putative first minister when Sinn Féin overtook the DUP as the biggest party in the 2022 assembly election. But a DUP boycott to protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements mothballed Stormont. The DUP leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, signalled an end to two years of deadlock early on Tuesday when a tumultuous meeting of the party’s 130-member executive endorsed a deal to revive power sharing. The deal will remove restrictions on the movement of goods within the UK, Donaldson said. “That was our core key objective and I believe what we have secured represents real change and everybody will be able to see it for themselves.” He has promised “zero checks, zero customs paperwork on goods moving within the United Kingdom”. The DUP endorsement is conditional on two statutory instruments at Westminster to give legislative effect to Downing Street commitments on trade and sovereignty. Chris Heaton-Harris, the UK’s Northern Ireland secretary, said the deal featured a “vast array of decent improvements” and would be published on Wednesday. The legislation is expected to be fast-tracked through Westminster on Thursday. A spokesperson for Rishi Sunak said the deal was a “strong basis” to restore Stormont. Downing Street said the prime minister had a “good call” with Leo Varadkar. Ireland’s taoiseach has welcomed the deal but he cautioned that Dublin and Brussels needed to see the text to be confident there were no “negative consequences” for the Windsor framework or for the Good Friday agreement. The European Commission echoed the guarded welcome. “We will examine those texts when the time comes,” said a spokesperson. Conservative MPs have expressed concern the deal could limit Great Britain’s ability to diverge from EU rules in the future to limit the impact of an Irish Sea border on internal trade with Northern Ireland. Downing Street said the deal would not prevent the UK from exploiting post-Brexit freedoms. If there are no glitches, Stormont could be recalled as early as Friday to elect an assembly speaker and appoint an executive drawn from Sinn Féin, the DUP, the Alliance party and the Ulster Unionist party. The DUP will be entitled to the deputy first minister post, which has equal power to first minister but less prestige and symbolic weight. 2:02 Protests at Stormont as DUP agrees deal to restore Northern Ireland power sharing – video report O’Neill said Stormont faced an urgent workload, including a fiscal crisis, strikes and crumbling healthcare. “We have a lot of hard work ahead of us, a slog ahead of us, but collectively we can do better for the people we serve. Collectively, we can fight back against this Tory austerity agenda, collectively we can stand up and fight hard for public services.” The government has offered a £3.3bn financial package that is conditional on Stormont’s restoration. It includes funding for pay rises that could avert public sector strikes, though not a strike by transport workers that is to go ahead on Thursday. The Alliance leader, Naomi Long, said the breakthrough deal brought “bittersweet emotions” because of the time Stormont had been absent. Matthew O’Toole, of the Social Democratic and Labour party, said it was “not the time for champagne corks to pop or balloons to be released in celebration” given the failures of the past two years. Jim Allister, the leader of the hardline Traditional Unionist Voice, accused the DUP of a “tawdry climbdown” and said its boycott should continue. Explore more on these topics Northern Irish politics Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Northern Ireland Michelle O'Neill Mary Lou McDonald Ireland news Share Reuse this content Sinn Féin’s Michelle O'Neill (R) and Mary Lou McDonald (C) speak during a press conference at Stormont on Tuesday. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Sinn Féin’s Michelle O'Neill (R) and Mary Lou McDonald (C) speak during a press conference at Stormont on Tuesday. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Sinn Féin says united Ireland ‘within touching distance’ as Stormont deal agreed This article is more than 1 year old Party prepares to claim Northern Ireland first minister post for first time with power sharing set to resume Sinn Féin has said a united Ireland is “within touching distance” as the party prepares to claim the post of Northern Ireland first minister for the first time. Mary Lou McDonald said on Tuesday that the expected restoration of power sharing in the wake of a deal between the Democratic Unionist party and the UK government came amid a “historical turning of the wheel” that would unite the island. “In historic terms, it is within touching distance and I think that is a very exciting thing and I hope people will find that a very welcoming conversation,” the Sinn Féin leader said. According to a speedy political choreography that is supposed to unfold at Westminster on Wednesday and Thursday, her deputy, Michelle O’Neill, could become first minister of the Stormont executive by the weekend. “That will be a moment of very great significance, not simply because we haven’t had government for so long but because it will be the first time that we will have a Sinn Féin first minister, a nationalist first minister,” McDonald said. O’Neill became the region’s putative first minister when Sinn Féin overtook the DUP as the biggest party in the 2022 assembly election. But a DUP boycott to protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements mothballed Stormont. The DUP leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, signalled an end to two years of deadlock early on Tuesday when a tumultuous meeting of the party’s 130-member executive endorsed a deal to revive power sharing. The deal will remove restrictions on the movement of goods within the UK, Donaldson said. “That was our core key objective and I believe what we have secured represents real change and everybody will be able to see it for themselves.” He has promised “zero checks, zero customs paperwork on goods moving within the United Kingdom”. The DUP endorsement is conditional on two statutory instruments at Westminster to give legislative effect to Downing Street commitments on trade and sovereignty. Chris Heaton-Harris, the UK’s Northern Ireland secretary, said the deal featured a “vast array of decent improvements” and would be published on Wednesday. The legislation is expected to be fast-tracked through Westminster on Thursday. A spokesperson for Rishi Sunak said the deal was a “strong basis” to restore Stormont. Downing Street said the prime minister had a “good call” with Leo Varadkar. Ireland’s taoiseach has welcomed the deal but he cautioned that Dublin and Brussels needed to see the text to be confident there were no “negative consequences” for the Windsor framework or for the Good Friday agreement. The European Commission echoed the guarded welcome. “We will examine those texts when the time comes,” said a spokesperson. Conservative MPs have expressed concern the deal could limit Great Britain’s ability to diverge from EU rules in the future to limit the impact of an Irish Sea border on internal trade with Northern Ireland. Downing Street said the deal would not prevent the UK from exploiting post-Brexit freedoms. If there are no glitches, Stormont could be recalled as early as Friday to elect an assembly speaker and appoint an executive drawn from Sinn Féin, the DUP, the Alliance party and the Ulster Unionist party. The DUP will be entitled to the deputy first minister post, which has equal power to first minister but less prestige and symbolic weight. 2:02 Protests at Stormont as DUP agrees deal to restore Northern Ireland power sharing – video report O’Neill said Stormont faced an urgent workload, including a fiscal crisis, strikes and crumbling healthcare. “We have a lot of hard work ahead of us, a slog ahead of us, but collectively we can do better for the people we serve. Collectively, we can fight back against this Tory austerity agenda, collectively we can stand up and fight hard for public services.” The government has offered a £3.3bn financial package that is conditional on Stormont’s restoration. It includes funding for pay rises that could avert public sector strikes, though not a strike by transport workers that is to go ahead on Thursday. The Alliance leader, Naomi Long, said the breakthrough deal brought “bittersweet emotions” because of the time Stormont had been absent. Matthew O’Toole, of the Social Democratic and Labour party, said it was “not the time for champagne corks to pop or balloons to be released in celebration” given the failures of the past two years. Jim Allister, the leader of the hardline Traditional Unionist Voice, accused the DUP of a “tawdry climbdown” and said its boycott should continue. Explore more on these topics Northern Irish politics Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Northern Ireland Michelle O'Neill Mary Lou McDonald Ireland news Share Reuse this content Sinn Féin’s Michelle O'Neill (R) and Mary Lou McDonald (C) speak during a press conference at Stormont on Tuesday. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Sinn Féin’s Michelle O'Neill (R) and Mary Lou McDonald (C) speak during a press conference at Stormont on Tuesday. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images Sinn Féin’s Michelle O'Neill (R) and Mary Lou McDonald (C) speak during a press conference at Stormont on Tuesday. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Sinn Féin’s Michelle O'Neill (R) and Mary Lou McDonald (C) speak during a press conference at Stormont on Tuesday. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images Sinn Féin’s Michelle O'Neill (R) and Mary Lou McDonald (C) speak during a press conference at Stormont on Tuesday. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Sinn Féin’s Michelle O'Neill (R) and Mary Lou McDonald (C) speak during a press conference at Stormont on Tuesday. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images Sinn Féin’s Michelle O'Neill (R) and Mary Lou McDonald (C) speak during a press conference at Stormont on Tuesday. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Sinn Féin’s Michelle O'Neill (R) and Mary Lou McDonald (C) speak during a press conference at Stormont on Tuesday. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images Sinn Féin’s Michelle O'Neill (R) and Mary Lou McDonald (C) speak during a press conference at Stormont on Tuesday. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images Sinn Féin’s Michelle O'Neill (R) and Mary Lou McDonald (C) speak during a press conference at Stormont on Tuesday. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Sinn Féin says united Ireland ‘within touching distance’ as Stormont deal agreed This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Sinn Féin says united Ireland ‘within touching distance’ as Stormont deal agreed This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Sinn Féin says united Ireland ‘within touching distance’ as Stormont deal agreed 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 prepares to claim Northern Ireland first minister post for first time with power sharing set to resume Party prepares to claim Northern Ireland first minister post for first time with power sharing set to resume Party prepares to claim Northern Ireland first minister post for first time with power sharing set to resume Sinn Féin has said a united Ireland is “within touching distance” as the party prepares to claim the post of Northern Ireland first minister for the first time. Mary Lou McDonald said on Tuesday that the expected restoration of power sharing in the wake of a deal between the Democratic Unionist party and the UK government came amid a “historical turning of the wheel” that would unite the island. “In historic terms, it is within touching distance and I think that is a very exciting thing and I hope people will find that a very welcoming conversation,” the Sinn Féin leader said. According to a speedy political choreography that is supposed to unfold at Westminster on Wednesday and Thursday, her deputy, Michelle O’Neill, could become first minister of the Stormont executive by the weekend. “That will be a moment of very great significance, not simply because we haven’t had government for so long but because it will be the first time that we will have a Sinn Féin first minister, a nationalist first minister,” McDonald said. O’Neill became the region’s putative first minister when Sinn Féin overtook the DUP as the biggest party in the 2022 assembly election. But a DUP boycott to protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements mothballed Stormont. The DUP leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, signalled an end to two years of deadlock early on Tuesday when a tumultuous meeting of the party’s 130-member executive endorsed a deal to revive power sharing. The deal will remove restrictions on the movement of goods within the UK, Donaldson said. “That was our core key objective and I believe what we have secured represents real change and everybody will be able to see it for themselves.” He has promised “zero checks, zero customs paperwork on goods moving within the United Kingdom”. The DUP endorsement is conditional on two statutory instruments at Westminster to give legislative effect to Downing Street commitments on trade and sovereignty. Chris Heaton-Harris, the UK’s Northern Ireland secretary, said the deal featured a “vast array of decent improvements” and would be published on Wednesday. The legislation is expected to be fast-tracked through Westminster on Thursday. A spokesperson for Rishi Sunak said the deal was a “strong basis” to restore Stormont. Downing Street said the prime minister had a “good call” with Leo Varadkar. Ireland’s taoiseach has welcomed the deal but he cautioned that Dublin and Brussels needed to see the text to be confident there were no “negative consequences” for the Windsor framework or for the Good Friday agreement. The European Commission echoed the guarded welcome. “We will examine those texts when the time comes,” said a spokesperson. Conservative MPs have expressed concern the deal could limit Great Britain’s ability to diverge from EU rules in the future to limit the impact of an Irish Sea border on internal trade with Northern Ireland. Downing Street said the deal would not prevent the UK from exploiting post-Brexit freedoms. If there are no glitches, Stormont could be recalled as early as Friday to elect an assembly speaker and appoint an executive drawn from Sinn Féin, the DUP, the Alliance party and the Ulster Unionist party. The DUP will be entitled to the deputy first minister post, which has equal power to first minister but less prestige and symbolic weight. 2:02 Protests at Stormont as DUP agrees deal to restore Northern Ireland power sharing – video report O’Neill said Stormont faced an urgent workload, including a fiscal crisis, strikes and crumbling healthcare. “We have a lot of hard work ahead of us, a slog ahead of us, but collectively we can do better for the people we serve. Collectively, we can fight back against this Tory austerity agenda, collectively we can stand up and fight hard for public services.” The government has offered a £3.3bn financial package that is conditional on Stormont’s restoration. It includes funding for pay rises that could avert public sector strikes, though not a strike by transport workers that is to go ahead on Thursday. The Alliance leader, Naomi Long, said the breakthrough deal brought “bittersweet emotions” because of the time Stormont had been absent. Matthew O’Toole, of the Social Democratic and Labour party, said it was “not the time for champagne corks to pop or balloons to be released in celebration” given the failures of the past two years. Jim Allister, the leader of the hardline Traditional Unionist Voice, accused the DUP of a “tawdry climbdown” and said its boycott should continue. Explore more on these topics Northern Irish politics Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Northern Ireland Michelle O'Neill Mary Lou McDonald Ireland news Share Reuse this content Sinn Féin has said a united Ireland is “within touching distance” as the party prepares to claim the post of Northern Ireland first minister for the first time. Mary Lou McDonald said on Tuesday that the expected restoration of power sharing in the wake of a deal between the Democratic Unionist party and the UK government came amid a “historical turning of the wheel” that would unite the island. “In historic terms, it is within touching distance and I think that is a very exciting thing and I hope people will find that a very welcoming conversation,” the Sinn Féin leader said. According to a speedy political choreography that is supposed to unfold at Westminster on Wednesday and Thursday, her deputy, Michelle O’Neill, could become first minister of the Stormont executive by the weekend. “That will be a moment of very great significance, not simply because we haven’t had government for so long but because it will be the first time that we will have a Sinn Féin first minister, a nationalist first minister,” McDonald said. O’Neill became the region’s putative first minister when Sinn Féin overtook the DUP as the biggest party in the 2022 assembly election. But a DUP boycott to protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements mothballed Stormont. The DUP leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, signalled an end to two years of deadlock early on Tuesday when a tumultuous meeting of the party’s 130-member executive endorsed a deal to revive power sharing. The deal will remove restrictions on the movement of goods within the UK, Donaldson said. “That was our core key objective and I believe what we have secured represents real change and everybody will be able to see it for themselves.” He has promised “zero checks, zero customs paperwork on goods moving within the United Kingdom”. The DUP endorsement is conditional on two statutory instruments at Westminster to give legislative effect to Downing Street commitments on trade and sovereignty. Chris Heaton-Harris, the UK’s Northern Ireland secretary, said the deal featured a “vast array of decent improvements” and would be published on Wednesday. The legislation is expected to be fast-tracked through Westminster on Thursday. A spokesperson for Rishi Sunak said the deal was a “strong basis” to restore Stormont. Downing Street said the prime minister had a “good call” with Leo Varadkar. Ireland’s taoiseach has welcomed the deal but he cautioned that Dublin and Brussels needed to see the text to be confident there were no “negative consequences” for the Windsor framework or for the Good Friday agreement. The European Commission echoed the guarded welcome. “We will examine those texts when the time comes,” said a spokesperson. Conservative MPs have expressed concern the deal could limit Great Britain’s ability to diverge from EU rules in the future to limit the impact of an Irish Sea border on internal trade with Northern Ireland. Downing Street said the deal would not prevent the UK from exploiting post-Brexit freedoms. If there are no glitches, Stormont could be recalled as early as Friday to elect an assembly speaker and appoint an executive drawn from Sinn Féin, the DUP, the Alliance party and the Ulster Unionist party. The DUP will be entitled to the deputy first minister post, which has equal power to first minister but less prestige and symbolic weight. 2:02 Protests at Stormont as DUP agrees deal to restore Northern Ireland power sharing – video report O’Neill said Stormont faced an urgent workload, including a fiscal crisis, strikes and crumbling healthcare. “We have a lot of hard work ahead of us, a slog ahead of us, but collectively we can do better for the people we serve. Collectively, we can fight back against this Tory austerity agenda, collectively we can stand up and fight hard for public services.” The government has offered a £3.3bn financial package that is conditional on Stormont’s restoration. It includes funding for pay rises that could avert public sector strikes, though not a strike by transport workers that is to go ahead on Thursday. The Alliance leader, Naomi Long, said the breakthrough deal brought “bittersweet emotions” because of the time Stormont had been absent. Matthew O’Toole, of the Social Democratic and Labour party, said it was “not the time for champagne corks to pop or balloons to be released in celebration” given the failures of the past two years. Jim Allister, the leader of the hardline Traditional Unionist Voice, accused the DUP of a “tawdry climbdown” and said its boycott should continue. Explore more on these topics Northern Irish politics Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Northern Ireland Michelle O'Neill Mary Lou McDonald Ireland news Share Reuse this content Sinn Féin has said a united Ireland is “within touching distance” as the party prepares to claim the post of Northern Ireland first minister for the first time. Mary Lou McDonald said on Tuesday that the expected restoration of power sharing in the wake of a deal between the Democratic Unionist party and the UK government came amid a “historical turning of the wheel” that would unite the island. “In historic terms, it is within touching distance and I think that is a very exciting thing and I hope people will find that a very welcoming conversation,” the Sinn Féin leader said. According to a speedy political choreography that is supposed to unfold at Westminster on Wednesday and Thursday, her deputy, Michelle O’Neill, could become first minister of the Stormont executive by the weekend. “That will be a moment of very great significance, not simply because we haven’t had government for so long but because it will be the first time that we will have a Sinn Féin first minister, a nationalist first minister,” McDonald said. O’Neill became the region’s putative first minister when Sinn Féin overtook the DUP as the biggest party in the 2022 assembly election. But a DUP boycott to protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements mothballed Stormont. The DUP leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, signalled an end to two years of deadlock early on Tuesday when a tumultuous meeting of the party’s 130-member executive endorsed a deal to revive power sharing. The deal will remove restrictions on the movement of goods within the UK, Donaldson said. “That was our core key objective and I believe what we have secured represents real change and everybody will be able to see it for themselves.” He has promised “zero checks, zero customs paperwork on goods moving within the United Kingdom”. The DUP endorsement is conditional on two statutory instruments at Westminster to give legislative effect to Downing Street commitments on trade and sovereignty. Chris Heaton-Harris, the UK’s Northern Ireland secretary, said the deal featured a “vast array of decent improvements” and would be published on Wednesday. The legislation is expected to be fast-tracked through Westminster on Thursday. A spokesperson for Rishi Sunak said the deal was a “strong basis” to restore Stormont. Downing Street said the prime minister had a “good call” with Leo Varadkar. Ireland’s taoiseach has welcomed the deal but he cautioned that Dublin and Brussels needed to see the text to be confident there were no “negative consequences” for the Windsor framework or for the Good Friday agreement. The European Commission echoed the guarded welcome. “We will examine those texts when the time comes,” said a spokesperson. Conservative MPs have expressed concern the deal could limit Great Britain’s ability to diverge from EU rules in the future to limit the impact of an Irish Sea border on internal trade with Northern Ireland. Downing Street said the deal would not prevent the UK from exploiting post-Brexit freedoms. If there are no glitches, Stormont could be recalled as early as Friday to elect an assembly speaker and appoint an executive drawn from Sinn Féin, the DUP, the Alliance party and the Ulster Unionist party. The DUP will be entitled to the deputy first minister post, which has equal power to first minister but less prestige and symbolic weight. 2:02 Protests at Stormont as DUP agrees deal to restore Northern Ireland power sharing – video report O’Neill said Stormont faced an urgent workload, including a fiscal crisis, strikes and crumbling healthcare. “We have a lot of hard work ahead of us, a slog ahead of us, but collectively we can do better for the people we serve. Collectively, we can fight back against this Tory austerity agenda, collectively we can stand up and fight hard for public services.” The government has offered a £3.3bn financial package that is conditional on Stormont’s restoration. It includes funding for pay rises that could avert public sector strikes, though not a strike by transport workers that is to go ahead on Thursday. The Alliance leader, Naomi Long, said the breakthrough deal brought “bittersweet emotions” because of the time Stormont had been absent. Matthew O’Toole, of the Social Democratic and Labour party, said it was “not the time for champagne corks to pop or balloons to be released in celebration” given the failures of the past two years. Jim Allister, the leader of the hardline Traditional Unionist Voice, accused the DUP of a “tawdry climbdown” and said its boycott should continue. Sinn Féin has said a united Ireland is “within touching distance” as the party prepares to claim the post of Northern Ireland first minister for the first time. Mary Lou McDonald said on Tuesday that the expected restoration of power sharing in the wake of a deal between the Democratic Unionist party and the UK government came amid a “historical turning of the wheel” that would unite the island. “In historic terms, it is within touching distance and I think that is a very exciting thing and I hope people will find that a very welcoming conversation,” the Sinn Féin leader said. According to a speedy political choreography that is supposed to unfold at Westminster on Wednesday and Thursday, her deputy, Michelle O’Neill, could become first minister of the Stormont executive by the weekend. “That will be a moment of very great significance, not simply because we haven’t had government for so long but because it will be the first time that we will have a Sinn Féin first minister, a nationalist first minister,” McDonald said. O’Neill became the region’s putative first minister when Sinn Féin overtook the DUP as the biggest party in the 2022 assembly election. But a DUP boycott to protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements mothballed Stormont. The DUP leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, signalled an end to two years of deadlock early on Tuesday when a tumultuous meeting of the party’s 130-member executive endorsed a deal to revive power sharing. The deal will remove restrictions on the movement of goods within the UK, Donaldson said. “That was our core key objective and I believe what we have secured represents real change and everybody will be able to see it for themselves.” He has promised “zero checks, zero customs paperwork on goods moving within the United Kingdom”. The DUP endorsement is conditional on two statutory instruments at Westminster to give legislative effect to Downing Street commitments on trade and sovereignty. Chris Heaton-Harris, the UK’s Northern Ireland secretary, said the deal featured a “vast array of decent improvements” and would be published on Wednesday. The legislation is expected to be fast-tracked through Westminster on Thursday. A spokesperson for Rishi Sunak said the deal was a “strong basis” to restore Stormont. Downing Street said the prime minister had a “good call” with Leo Varadkar. Ireland’s taoiseach has welcomed the deal but he cautioned that Dublin and Brussels needed to see the text to be confident there were no “negative consequences” for the Windsor framework or for the Good Friday agreement. The European Commission echoed the guarded welcome. “We will examine those texts when the time comes,” said a spokesperson. Conservative MPs have expressed concern the deal could limit Great Britain’s ability to diverge from EU rules in the future to limit the impact of an Irish Sea border on internal trade with Northern Ireland. Downing Street said the deal would not prevent the UK from exploiting post-Brexit freedoms. If there are no glitches, Stormont could be recalled as early as Friday to elect an assembly speaker and appoint an executive drawn from Sinn Féin, the DUP, the Alliance party and the Ulster Unionist party. The DUP will be entitled to the deputy first minister post, which has equal power to first minister but less prestige and symbolic weight. 2:02 Protests at Stormont as DUP agrees deal to restore Northern Ireland power sharing – video report O’Neill said Stormont faced an urgent workload, including a fiscal crisis, strikes and crumbling healthcare. “We have a lot of hard work ahead of us, a slog ahead of us, but collectively we can do better for the people we serve. Collectively, we can fight back against this Tory austerity agenda, collectively we can stand up and fight hard for public services.” The government has offered a £3.3bn financial package that is conditional on Stormont’s restoration. It includes funding for pay rises that could avert public sector strikes, though not a strike by transport workers that is to go ahead on Thursday. The Alliance leader, Naomi Long, said the breakthrough deal brought “bittersweet emotions” because of the time Stormont had been absent. Matthew O’Toole, of the Social Democratic and Labour party, said it was “not the time for champagne corks to pop or balloons to be released in celebration” given the failures of the past two years. Jim Allister, the leader of the hardline Traditional Unionist Voice, accused the DUP of a “tawdry climbdown” and said its boycott should continue. Sinn Féin has said a united Ireland is “within touching distance” as the party prepares to claim the post of Northern Ireland first minister for the first time. Mary Lou McDonald said on Tuesday that the expected restoration of power sharing in the wake of a deal between the Democratic Unionist party and the UK government came amid a “historical turning of the wheel” that would unite the island. “In historic terms, it is within touching distance and I think that is a very exciting thing and I hope people will find that a very welcoming conversation,” the Sinn Féin leader said. According to a speedy political choreography that is supposed to unfold at Westminster on Wednesday and Thursday, her deputy, Michelle O’Neill, could become first minister of the Stormont executive by the weekend. “That will be a moment of very great significance, not simply because we haven’t had government for so long but because it will be the first time that we will have a Sinn Féin first minister, a nationalist first minister,” McDonald said. O’Neill became the region’s putative first minister when Sinn Féin overtook the DUP as the biggest party in the 2022 assembly election. But a DUP boycott to protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements mothballed Stormont. The DUP leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, signalled an end to two years of deadlock early on Tuesday when a tumultuous meeting of the party’s 130-member executive endorsed a deal to revive power sharing. The deal will remove restrictions on the movement of goods within the UK, Donaldson said. “That was our core key objective and I believe what we have secured represents real change and everybody will be able to see it for themselves.” He has promised “zero checks, zero customs paperwork on goods moving within the United Kingdom”. The DUP endorsement is conditional on two statutory instruments at Westminster to give legislative effect to Downing Street commitments on trade and sovereignty. Chris Heaton-Harris, the UK’s Northern Ireland secretary, said the deal featured a “vast array of decent improvements” and would be published on Wednesday. The legislation is expected to be fast-tracked through Westminster on Thursday. A spokesperson for Rishi Sunak said the deal was a “strong basis” to restore Stormont. Downing Street said the prime minister had a “good call” with Leo Varadkar. Ireland’s taoiseach has welcomed the deal but he cautioned that Dublin and Brussels needed to see the text to be confident there were no “negative consequences” for the Windsor framework or for the Good Friday agreement. The European Commission echoed the guarded welcome. “We will examine those texts when the time comes,” said a spokesperson. Conservative MPs have expressed concern the deal could limit Great Britain’s ability to diverge from EU rules in the future to limit the impact of an Irish Sea border on internal trade with Northern Ireland. Downing Street said the deal would not prevent the UK from exploiting post-Brexit freedoms. If there are no glitches, Stormont could be recalled as early as Friday to elect an assembly speaker and appoint an executive drawn from Sinn Féin, the DUP, the Alliance party and the Ulster Unionist party. The DUP will be entitled to the deputy first minister post, which has equal power to first minister but less prestige and symbolic weight. 2:02 Protests at Stormont as DUP agrees deal to restore Northern Ireland power sharing – video report O’Neill said Stormont faced an urgent workload, including a fiscal crisis, strikes and crumbling healthcare. “We have a lot of hard work ahead of us, a slog ahead of us, but collectively we can do better for the people we serve. Collectively, we can fight back against this Tory austerity agenda, collectively we can stand up and fight hard for public services.” The government has offered a £3.3bn financial package that is conditional on Stormont’s restoration. It includes funding for pay rises that could avert public sector strikes, though not a strike by transport workers that is to go ahead on Thursday. The Alliance leader, Naomi Long, said the breakthrough deal brought “bittersweet emotions” because of the time Stormont had been absent. Matthew O’Toole, of the Social Democratic and Labour party, said it was “not the time for champagne corks to pop or balloons to be released in celebration” given the failures of the past two years. Jim Allister, the leader of the hardline Traditional Unionist Voice, accused the DUP of a “tawdry climbdown” and said its boycott should continue. Explore more on these topics Northern Irish politics Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Northern Ireland Michelle O'Neill Mary Lou McDonald Ireland news Share Reuse this content Northern Irish politics Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Northern Ireland Michelle O'Neill Mary Lou McDonald Ireland news
|
MPs condemn Andrew Bridgen’s plan to host politician from Germany’s AfD
There are also concerns Andrew Bridgen could use parliament as a platform for the dissemination of conspiracy theories. Photograph: Beresford Hodge/PA View image in fullscreen There are also concerns Andrew Bridgen could use parliament as a platform for the dissemination of conspiracy theories. Photograph: Beresford Hodge/PA This article is more than 1 year old MPs condemn Andrew Bridgen’s plan to host politician from Germany’s AfD This article is more than 1 year old Members of the far-right party were recently caught meeting neo-Nazis to discuss mass deportations UK politics live – latest updates MPs have condemned plans by the former Tory backbencher Andrew Bridgen to host an MEP from Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland in parliament, weeks after members of the far-right party were caught in discussion with neo-Nazis about carrying out mass deportations. There was also concern that parliament could be used as a platform for the dissemination of conspiracy theories after Bridgen said the event, billed as a meeting of the Save Our Sovereignty campaign group, would discuss issues including “vaccine harms”, 15-minute cities and a “power grab” by the World Health Organization. Bridgen, who now sits as an independent MP after being expelled from the Conservatives for comparing the use of Covid vaccines to the Holocaust, said the meeting on Monday would be addressed by the AfD MEP Christine Anderson and two other individuals. The Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran said: “Andrew Bridgen’s fringe views and torrid misinformation have absolutely no place in the House of Commons . Bridgen and his collection of conspiracies have constantly brought our nation into the gutter, and this latest meeting adds another page to his catalogue of errors.” She added: “This MP does not represent the British people’s views.” Concern was also expressed by Labour’s Clive Lewis, who said: “You don’t give platforms to people who would take your platform away and when we talk about AFD, we are talking about a party whose members have been actively planning to deport millions of Germans who they deem to be not sufficiently German. “This is the company Andrew Bridgen is keeping and it is just really grim that they are being taken into parliament.” Bridgen is suing Matt Hancock after the former Tory health secretary accused him of being antisemitic for likening the Covid vaccine to the Holocaust. As well as Anderson, the meeting will be addressed by Meryl Nass, who had her licence as a doctor in the US state of Maine suspended during the pandemic over the sharing of misinformation about Covid-19, and Philipp Kruse, a Swiss lawyer associated with an anti-vaccine group. Bridgen said all MPs and peers had been invited and urged followers on the X social media platform to lobby their member of parliament to attend. He told the Guardian that he was proud to speak alongside Anderson in defiance of what they saw as opposition to a “transfer of sovereignty” to the World Health Organization and “millions of Germans” supported her party. He claimed that debate about the alleged harms of vaccines was also being “shut down in parliament” and that history “would not judge kindly” those who did not ask questions about the issue. As for 15-minute cites – a concept that has become bound up in conspiracy theories about a “great reset” – he claimed this was also about “taking away the freedoms and rights of individuals”. Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets of Germany in recent weeks in protest against the AfD . The protests began after it emerged AfD members had attended meetings with neo-Nazis and other extremists to discuss the mass deportation of migrants, asylum seekers and German citizens of foreign origin deemed to have failed to integrate. News of the gathering shocked Germany at a time when the AfD was soaring in opinion polls, months before three big regional elections in eastern Germany where its support is strongest. Explore more on these topics Politics House of Commons The far right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) Germany Europe news Share Reuse this content There are also concerns Andrew Bridgen could use parliament as a platform for the dissemination of conspiracy theories. Photograph: Beresford Hodge/PA View image in fullscreen There are also concerns Andrew Bridgen could use parliament as a platform for the dissemination of conspiracy theories. Photograph: Beresford Hodge/PA This article is more than 1 year old MPs condemn Andrew Bridgen’s plan to host politician from Germany’s AfD This article is more than 1 year old Members of the far-right party were recently caught meeting neo-Nazis to discuss mass deportations UK politics live – latest updates MPs have condemned plans by the former Tory backbencher Andrew Bridgen to host an MEP from Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland in parliament, weeks after members of the far-right party were caught in discussion with neo-Nazis about carrying out mass deportations. There was also concern that parliament could be used as a platform for the dissemination of conspiracy theories after Bridgen said the event, billed as a meeting of the Save Our Sovereignty campaign group, would discuss issues including “vaccine harms”, 15-minute cities and a “power grab” by the World Health Organization. Bridgen, who now sits as an independent MP after being expelled from the Conservatives for comparing the use of Covid vaccines to the Holocaust, said the meeting on Monday would be addressed by the AfD MEP Christine Anderson and two other individuals. The Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran said: “Andrew Bridgen’s fringe views and torrid misinformation have absolutely no place in the House of Commons . Bridgen and his collection of conspiracies have constantly brought our nation into the gutter, and this latest meeting adds another page to his catalogue of errors.” She added: “This MP does not represent the British people’s views.” Concern was also expressed by Labour’s Clive Lewis, who said: “You don’t give platforms to people who would take your platform away and when we talk about AFD, we are talking about a party whose members have been actively planning to deport millions of Germans who they deem to be not sufficiently German. “This is the company Andrew Bridgen is keeping and it is just really grim that they are being taken into parliament.” Bridgen is suing Matt Hancock after the former Tory health secretary accused him of being antisemitic for likening the Covid vaccine to the Holocaust. As well as Anderson, the meeting will be addressed by Meryl Nass, who had her licence as a doctor in the US state of Maine suspended during the pandemic over the sharing of misinformation about Covid-19, and Philipp Kruse, a Swiss lawyer associated with an anti-vaccine group. Bridgen said all MPs and peers had been invited and urged followers on the X social media platform to lobby their member of parliament to attend. He told the Guardian that he was proud to speak alongside Anderson in defiance of what they saw as opposition to a “transfer of sovereignty” to the World Health Organization and “millions of Germans” supported her party. He claimed that debate about the alleged harms of vaccines was also being “shut down in parliament” and that history “would not judge kindly” those who did not ask questions about the issue. As for 15-minute cites – a concept that has become bound up in conspiracy theories about a “great reset” – he claimed this was also about “taking away the freedoms and rights of individuals”. Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets of Germany in recent weeks in protest against the AfD . The protests began after it emerged AfD members had attended meetings with neo-Nazis and other extremists to discuss the mass deportation of migrants, asylum seekers and German citizens of foreign origin deemed to have failed to integrate. News of the gathering shocked Germany at a time when the AfD was soaring in opinion polls, months before three big regional elections in eastern Germany where its support is strongest. Explore more on these topics Politics House of Commons The far right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) Germany Europe news Share Reuse this content There are also concerns Andrew Bridgen could use parliament as a platform for the dissemination of conspiracy theories. Photograph: Beresford Hodge/PA View image in fullscreen There are also concerns Andrew Bridgen could use parliament as a platform for the dissemination of conspiracy theories. Photograph: Beresford Hodge/PA There are also concerns Andrew Bridgen could use parliament as a platform for the dissemination of conspiracy theories. Photograph: Beresford Hodge/PA View image in fullscreen There are also concerns Andrew Bridgen could use parliament as a platform for the dissemination of conspiracy theories. Photograph: Beresford Hodge/PA There are also concerns Andrew Bridgen could use parliament as a platform for the dissemination of conspiracy theories. Photograph: Beresford Hodge/PA View image in fullscreen There are also concerns Andrew Bridgen could use parliament as a platform for the dissemination of conspiracy theories. Photograph: Beresford Hodge/PA There are also concerns Andrew Bridgen could use parliament as a platform for the dissemination of conspiracy theories. Photograph: Beresford Hodge/PA View image in fullscreen There are also concerns Andrew Bridgen could use parliament as a platform for the dissemination of conspiracy theories. Photograph: Beresford Hodge/PA There are also concerns Andrew Bridgen could use parliament as a platform for the dissemination of conspiracy theories. Photograph: Beresford Hodge/PA There are also concerns Andrew Bridgen could use parliament as a platform for the dissemination of conspiracy theories. Photograph: Beresford Hodge/PA This article is more than 1 year old MPs condemn Andrew Bridgen’s plan to host politician from Germany’s AfD This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old MPs condemn Andrew Bridgen’s plan to host politician from Germany’s AfD This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old MPs condemn Andrew Bridgen’s plan to host politician from Germany’s AfD 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 Members of the far-right party were recently caught meeting neo-Nazis to discuss mass deportations UK politics live – latest updates Members of the far-right party were recently caught meeting neo-Nazis to discuss mass deportations UK politics live – latest updates Members of the far-right party were recently caught meeting neo-Nazis to discuss mass deportations MPs have condemned plans by the former Tory backbencher Andrew Bridgen to host an MEP from Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland in parliament, weeks after members of the far-right party were caught in discussion with neo-Nazis about carrying out mass deportations. There was also concern that parliament could be used as a platform for the dissemination of conspiracy theories after Bridgen said the event, billed as a meeting of the Save Our Sovereignty campaign group, would discuss issues including “vaccine harms”, 15-minute cities and a “power grab” by the World Health Organization. Bridgen, who now sits as an independent MP after being expelled from the Conservatives for comparing the use of Covid vaccines to the Holocaust, said the meeting on Monday would be addressed by the AfD MEP Christine Anderson and two other individuals. The Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran said: “Andrew Bridgen’s fringe views and torrid misinformation have absolutely no place in the House of Commons . Bridgen and his collection of conspiracies have constantly brought our nation into the gutter, and this latest meeting adds another page to his catalogue of errors.” She added: “This MP does not represent the British people’s views.” Concern was also expressed by Labour’s Clive Lewis, who said: “You don’t give platforms to people who would take your platform away and when we talk about AFD, we are talking about a party whose members have been actively planning to deport millions of Germans who they deem to be not sufficiently German. “This is the company Andrew Bridgen is keeping and it is just really grim that they are being taken into parliament.” Bridgen is suing Matt Hancock after the former Tory health secretary accused him of being antisemitic for likening the Covid vaccine to the Holocaust. As well as Anderson, the meeting will be addressed by Meryl Nass, who had her licence as a doctor in the US state of Maine suspended during the pandemic over the sharing of misinformation about Covid-19, and Philipp Kruse, a Swiss lawyer associated with an anti-vaccine group. Bridgen said all MPs and peers had been invited and urged followers on the X social media platform to lobby their member of parliament to attend. He told the Guardian that he was proud to speak alongside Anderson in defiance of what they saw as opposition to a “transfer of sovereignty” to the World Health Organization and “millions of Germans” supported her party. He claimed that debate about the alleged harms of vaccines was also being “shut down in parliament” and that history “would not judge kindly” those who did not ask questions about the issue. As for 15-minute cites – a concept that has become bound up in conspiracy theories about a “great reset” – he claimed this was also about “taking away the freedoms and rights of individuals”. Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets of Germany in recent weeks in protest against the AfD . The protests began after it emerged AfD members had attended meetings with neo-Nazis and other extremists to discuss the mass deportation of migrants, asylum seekers and German citizens of foreign origin deemed to have failed to integrate. News of the gathering shocked Germany at a time when the AfD was soaring in opinion polls, months before three big regional elections in eastern Germany where its support is strongest. Explore more on these topics Politics House of Commons The far right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) Germany Europe news Share Reuse this content MPs have condemned plans by the former Tory backbencher Andrew Bridgen to host an MEP from Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland in parliament, weeks after members of the far-right party were caught in discussion with neo-Nazis about carrying out mass deportations. There was also concern that parliament could be used as a platform for the dissemination of conspiracy theories after Bridgen said the event, billed as a meeting of the Save Our Sovereignty campaign group, would discuss issues including “vaccine harms”, 15-minute cities and a “power grab” by the World Health Organization. Bridgen, who now sits as an independent MP after being expelled from the Conservatives for comparing the use of Covid vaccines to the Holocaust, said the meeting on Monday would be addressed by the AfD MEP Christine Anderson and two other individuals. The Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran said: “Andrew Bridgen’s fringe views and torrid misinformation have absolutely no place in the House of Commons . Bridgen and his collection of conspiracies have constantly brought our nation into the gutter, and this latest meeting adds another page to his catalogue of errors.” She added: “This MP does not represent the British people’s views.” Concern was also expressed by Labour’s Clive Lewis, who said: “You don’t give platforms to people who would take your platform away and when we talk about AFD, we are talking about a party whose members have been actively planning to deport millions of Germans who they deem to be not sufficiently German. “This is the company Andrew Bridgen is keeping and it is just really grim that they are being taken into parliament.” Bridgen is suing Matt Hancock after the former Tory health secretary accused him of being antisemitic for likening the Covid vaccine to the Holocaust. As well as Anderson, the meeting will be addressed by Meryl Nass, who had her licence as a doctor in the US state of Maine suspended during the pandemic over the sharing of misinformation about Covid-19, and Philipp Kruse, a Swiss lawyer associated with an anti-vaccine group. Bridgen said all MPs and peers had been invited and urged followers on the X social media platform to lobby their member of parliament to attend. He told the Guardian that he was proud to speak alongside Anderson in defiance of what they saw as opposition to a “transfer of sovereignty” to the World Health Organization and “millions of Germans” supported her party. He claimed that debate about the alleged harms of vaccines was also being “shut down in parliament” and that history “would not judge kindly” those who did not ask questions about the issue. As for 15-minute cites – a concept that has become bound up in conspiracy theories about a “great reset” – he claimed this was also about “taking away the freedoms and rights of individuals”. Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets of Germany in recent weeks in protest against the AfD . The protests began after it emerged AfD members had attended meetings with neo-Nazis and other extremists to discuss the mass deportation of migrants, asylum seekers and German citizens of foreign origin deemed to have failed to integrate. News of the gathering shocked Germany at a time when the AfD was soaring in opinion polls, months before three big regional elections in eastern Germany where its support is strongest. Explore more on these topics Politics House of Commons The far right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) Germany Europe news Share Reuse this content MPs have condemned plans by the former Tory backbencher Andrew Bridgen to host an MEP from Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland in parliament, weeks after members of the far-right party were caught in discussion with neo-Nazis about carrying out mass deportations. There was also concern that parliament could be used as a platform for the dissemination of conspiracy theories after Bridgen said the event, billed as a meeting of the Save Our Sovereignty campaign group, would discuss issues including “vaccine harms”, 15-minute cities and a “power grab” by the World Health Organization. Bridgen, who now sits as an independent MP after being expelled from the Conservatives for comparing the use of Covid vaccines to the Holocaust, said the meeting on Monday would be addressed by the AfD MEP Christine Anderson and two other individuals. The Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran said: “Andrew Bridgen’s fringe views and torrid misinformation have absolutely no place in the House of Commons . Bridgen and his collection of conspiracies have constantly brought our nation into the gutter, and this latest meeting adds another page to his catalogue of errors.” She added: “This MP does not represent the British people’s views.” Concern was also expressed by Labour’s Clive Lewis, who said: “You don’t give platforms to people who would take your platform away and when we talk about AFD, we are talking about a party whose members have been actively planning to deport millions of Germans who they deem to be not sufficiently German. “This is the company Andrew Bridgen is keeping and it is just really grim that they are being taken into parliament.” Bridgen is suing Matt Hancock after the former Tory health secretary accused him of being antisemitic for likening the Covid vaccine to the Holocaust. As well as Anderson, the meeting will be addressed by Meryl Nass, who had her licence as a doctor in the US state of Maine suspended during the pandemic over the sharing of misinformation about Covid-19, and Philipp Kruse, a Swiss lawyer associated with an anti-vaccine group. Bridgen said all MPs and peers had been invited and urged followers on the X social media platform to lobby their member of parliament to attend. He told the Guardian that he was proud to speak alongside Anderson in defiance of what they saw as opposition to a “transfer of sovereignty” to the World Health Organization and “millions of Germans” supported her party. He claimed that debate about the alleged harms of vaccines was also being “shut down in parliament” and that history “would not judge kindly” those who did not ask questions about the issue. As for 15-minute cites – a concept that has become bound up in conspiracy theories about a “great reset” – he claimed this was also about “taking away the freedoms and rights of individuals”. Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets of Germany in recent weeks in protest against the AfD . The protests began after it emerged AfD members had attended meetings with neo-Nazis and other extremists to discuss the mass deportation of migrants, asylum seekers and German citizens of foreign origin deemed to have failed to integrate. News of the gathering shocked Germany at a time when the AfD was soaring in opinion polls, months before three big regional elections in eastern Germany where its support is strongest. MPs have condemned plans by the former Tory backbencher Andrew Bridgen to host an MEP from Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland in parliament, weeks after members of the far-right party were caught in discussion with neo-Nazis about carrying out mass deportations. There was also concern that parliament could be used as a platform for the dissemination of conspiracy theories after Bridgen said the event, billed as a meeting of the Save Our Sovereignty campaign group, would discuss issues including “vaccine harms”, 15-minute cities and a “power grab” by the World Health Organization. Bridgen, who now sits as an independent MP after being expelled from the Conservatives for comparing the use of Covid vaccines to the Holocaust, said the meeting on Monday would be addressed by the AfD MEP Christine Anderson and two other individuals. The Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran said: “Andrew Bridgen’s fringe views and torrid misinformation have absolutely no place in the House of Commons . Bridgen and his collection of conspiracies have constantly brought our nation into the gutter, and this latest meeting adds another page to his catalogue of errors.” She added: “This MP does not represent the British people’s views.” Concern was also expressed by Labour’s Clive Lewis, who said: “You don’t give platforms to people who would take your platform away and when we talk about AFD, we are talking about a party whose members have been actively planning to deport millions of Germans who they deem to be not sufficiently German. “This is the company Andrew Bridgen is keeping and it is just really grim that they are being taken into parliament.” Bridgen is suing Matt Hancock after the former Tory health secretary accused him of being antisemitic for likening the Covid vaccine to the Holocaust. As well as Anderson, the meeting will be addressed by Meryl Nass, who had her licence as a doctor in the US state of Maine suspended during the pandemic over the sharing of misinformation about Covid-19, and Philipp Kruse, a Swiss lawyer associated with an anti-vaccine group. Bridgen said all MPs and peers had been invited and urged followers on the X social media platform to lobby their member of parliament to attend. He told the Guardian that he was proud to speak alongside Anderson in defiance of what they saw as opposition to a “transfer of sovereignty” to the World Health Organization and “millions of Germans” supported her party. He claimed that debate about the alleged harms of vaccines was also being “shut down in parliament” and that history “would not judge kindly” those who did not ask questions about the issue. As for 15-minute cites – a concept that has become bound up in conspiracy theories about a “great reset” – he claimed this was also about “taking away the freedoms and rights of individuals”. Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets of Germany in recent weeks in protest against the AfD . The protests began after it emerged AfD members had attended meetings with neo-Nazis and other extremists to discuss the mass deportation of migrants, asylum seekers and German citizens of foreign origin deemed to have failed to integrate. News of the gathering shocked Germany at a time when the AfD was soaring in opinion polls, months before three big regional elections in eastern Germany where its support is strongest. MPs have condemned plans by the former Tory backbencher Andrew Bridgen to host an MEP from Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland in parliament, weeks after members of the far-right party were caught in discussion with neo-Nazis about carrying out mass deportations. There was also concern that parliament could be used as a platform for the dissemination of conspiracy theories after Bridgen said the event, billed as a meeting of the Save Our Sovereignty campaign group, would discuss issues including “vaccine harms”, 15-minute cities and a “power grab” by the World Health Organization. Bridgen, who now sits as an independent MP after being expelled from the Conservatives for comparing the use of Covid vaccines to the Holocaust, said the meeting on Monday would be addressed by the AfD MEP Christine Anderson and two other individuals. The Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran said: “Andrew Bridgen’s fringe views and torrid misinformation have absolutely no place in the House of Commons . Bridgen and his collection of conspiracies have constantly brought our nation into the gutter, and this latest meeting adds another page to his catalogue of errors.” She added: “This MP does not represent the British people’s views.” Concern was also expressed by Labour’s Clive Lewis, who said: “You don’t give platforms to people who would take your platform away and when we talk about AFD, we are talking about a party whose members have been actively planning to deport millions of Germans who they deem to be not sufficiently German. “This is the company Andrew Bridgen is keeping and it is just really grim that they are being taken into parliament.” Bridgen is suing Matt Hancock after the former Tory health secretary accused him of being antisemitic for likening the Covid vaccine to the Holocaust. As well as Anderson, the meeting will be addressed by Meryl Nass, who had her licence as a doctor in the US state of Maine suspended during the pandemic over the sharing of misinformation about Covid-19, and Philipp Kruse, a Swiss lawyer associated with an anti-vaccine group. Bridgen said all MPs and peers had been invited and urged followers on the X social media platform to lobby their member of parliament to attend. He told the Guardian that he was proud to speak alongside Anderson in defiance of what they saw as opposition to a “transfer of sovereignty” to the World Health Organization and “millions of Germans” supported her party. He claimed that debate about the alleged harms of vaccines was also being “shut down in parliament” and that history “would not judge kindly” those who did not ask questions about the issue. As for 15-minute cites – a concept that has become bound up in conspiracy theories about a “great reset” – he claimed this was also about “taking away the freedoms and rights of individuals”. Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets of Germany in recent weeks in protest against the AfD . The protests began after it emerged AfD members had attended meetings with neo-Nazis and other extremists to discuss the mass deportation of migrants, asylum seekers and German citizens of foreign origin deemed to have failed to integrate. News of the gathering shocked Germany at a time when the AfD was soaring in opinion polls, months before three big regional elections in eastern Germany where its support is strongest. Explore more on these topics Politics House of Commons The far right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) Germany Europe news Share Reuse this content Politics House of Commons The far right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) Germany Europe news
|
How a US mining firm sued Mexico for billions – for trying to protect its own seabed
Another day’s fishing in calm waters at San Juanico on the coast of north-west Mexico … but a storm has long been brewing. Photograph: Laura Paddison Local fishers helped halt underwater mining off Baja California’s coast in 2018. But then an obscure international legal process was put into motion By Laura Paddison in San Juanico The ship When it first appeared, it looked like a floating city. For months in the summer of 2012, the ship just sat there – a hulking, confusing presence off the Pacific coast of Baja California Sur. Florencio Aguilar was worried. A stranger in the waves was a threat. Like many others in the tiny fishing towns of San Juanico, Las Barrancas and others in north-west Mexico , Aguilar relies for his livelihood on the lobsters, octopus and abalone that thrive here. The pristine waters are also home to endangered sea turtles, a breeding ground for giant grey whales and a magnet for surfers, who flock here to ride one of the world’s longest waves. View image in fullscreen Surfers at San Juanico, which boasts one of the world’s longest waves. Photograph: Laura Paddison Aguilar ticked off the possibilities: the enormous ship wasn’t one of the research vessels that edged along the Baja coast to survey the rich marine life, and it didn’t look like one of the big fishing ships that sometimes came to scoop up shrimp. The news eventually filtered down to him from some fellow fishers. The ship belonged to the Florida-based Odyssey Marine Exploration , which had obtained a concession across a huge area of Mexican seabed to mine phosphate, a key ingredient in commercial fertilisers. View image in fullscreen The Odyssey Explorer, a vessel owned by US-based Odyssey Marine Exploration . Photograph: AP Photo/Odyssey Marine Exploration Aguilar was horrified. The project, which could see dredging happen for 50 years, overlapped directly with the fishing concession belonging to the Puerto Chale cooperative, an alliance he leads of more than 120 fishers whose families have lived off these waters for generations. “Constant dredging would finish marine life and all life in our fishing sector,” Aguilar says. The discovery was just the beginning – the trigger for years of disruption as Aguilar and the cooperative fought against a mine they saw as an existential threat. There were angry public meetings, accusations of corruption, appeals to the Mexican president. At last, six years later in 2018, Mexico’s government eventually rejected the mine because the potential environmental impacts would be too damaging. Aguilar and the community celebrated. For once, their story seemed to buck the trend of mining corporations trampling the tiny communities that stand in their way. But Odyssey had an ace up its sleeve. In 2019, it sued Mexico. To do so, it used an obscure tool of international law called investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), which allows companies to bypass domestic courts. Suddenly, the fate of this seabed mine mattered far beyond this desert-fringed coast. Odyssey’s lawsuit had opened a window into an opaque legal system, one with the power to fatally undermine the abilities of countries to protect their own environments – just as the world teeters on the edge of climate and biodiversity breakdown. View image in fullscreen Hunting for phospate: Odyssey’s eight-tonne remotely operated exploration vehicle Zeus is launched into the sea. Photograph: Reuters The company Ironically, considering the impact it could end up having on mining worldwide, Odyssey has never operated a mine before. Its roots lie in a very different kind of seabed extraction: it was set up in 1994 as a shipwreck-hunting company. The two founders, Greg Stemm, an ex-ad man, and John Morris, a former property developer, already had a long history in the business. That same year, they were battling charges of fraud and insider trading in relation to their previous company over allegations they had misrepresented the value of a Florida Keys wreck. (They successfully beat the charges in 1997.) View image in fullscreen Ex-advertising man Greg Stemm, co-founder of Odyssey Marine Exploration, and project manager Tom Dettweiler (right) examine a coin from the Black Swan shipwreck in 2007. A Spanish judge ruled that Odyssey should give the treasure back. Photograph: AP The next decade was spent scouring the ocean for more valuable wrecks, and in 2007 they hit the jackpot: 17 tonnes of silver and gold coins, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, found in a wreck off Portugal’s Algarve coast. Odyssey named the ship the Black Swan, hauled the coins to the surface, loaded them into plastic buckets and flew them to Florida. Spain protested. It said the Black Swan was one of its frigates, sunk by the British in 1804 along with more than 200 crew – and claimed the treasure legally belonged to Spain. In 2012, US courts agreed, forcing Odyssey to return the coins and pay $1m to Spain for what a judge called its “continuous, core campaign of bad faith, deception, and deflection that pervaded this litigation from the start”. With the risks of shipwreck hunting mounting – laws were tighter and investor dollars fewer – Odyssey turned its attention to a new industry, one that could make use of its specialised ocean skills: the potentially lucrative world of seabed mining. The reporter When rumours about Odyssey’s underwater mine first reached the ears of Carlos G Ibarra, a journalist based in the Baja California Sur capital of La Paz, he was immediately suspicious. Sitting outside a busy beachfront bar in La Paz on a sweltering September evening, Ibarra explains that he has lived his whole life in the shadow of mines. He spent his childhood in a salt-mine town and his adult career as a reporter, covering the impact of extractive companies here. View image in fullscreen Odyssey pitched the project as a standard dredging operation that would be invisible from the shoreline and cause no disruption to fishers or tourists. Photograph: Odyssey Marine Exploration At first, the rumours were vague. He didn’t know exactly where the underwater mine would be placed, or anything about the company. Then he read an investor report that sent his curiosity into overdrive. Written in 2013 by Ryan Morris, the founder of US hedge fund Meson Capital, the report was scathing. Morris claimed that since 2000, Odyssey executives and directors received $20m in cash compensation but had made losses of $180m. “We believe the purpose of [Odyssey] is to serve as a vehicle for [Odyssey] insiders to live a life of glamor hunting the ocean while disappointed investors foot the bill,” the report concluded. An Odyssey spokesperson dismissed the report as having “factual errors, incomplete information and erroneous conclusions”, and referred to Morris’s interest in short selling of stocks. But for Ibarra, it was a cue to dig further. He approached Aguilar, who urged him to keep digging into the mining project. Ibarra then spoke to government officials, and checked the permits Odyssey had applied for. He discovered the company had obtained a 50-year concession over nearly 270,000 hectares (667,000 acres) of seabed through a Mexican subsidiary, Exploraciones Oceánicas. When Odyssey then declared it had found one of the most significant phosphate deposits in the world – more than 580m tonnes, making it enough, the company claimed, to meet most of North America’s fertiliser needs for 100 years – Ibarra’s heart sank, and he began to write about it for anybody that would publish him. View image in fullscreen Taking pride in the coastline that has nourished them for generations, people in San Juanico sweep the beach clean. Photograph: Laura Paddison The mine Ibarra knew exactly how the mine would be pitched to the community. The corporate narrative of extractive projects tends to follow a well-worn path: the resource plays a vital role for humanity, mining it will benefit the local community, and there will be no permanent environmental damage. Odyssey was no different. It claimed the fertiliser would secure Mexico’s food self-sufficiency and promised jobs and millions of dollars for Mexico through tax revenues and economic development. The company also had an environmental pitch. Most phosphate is mined by ripping up land. Extracting it from beneath the waves would be more sustainable. It said its large ships would dredge the seafloor, separate the phosphate on deck, and then pump unwanted material – which it said would be made up of “unaltered” sediments – back into furrows on the seabed. Unlike deep-sea mining, which involves scooping up minerals from up to four miles (6km) down in international waters, this mine would be located in the shallower waters of Mexico’s continental shelf. This type of seabed mining is sometimes presented as environmentally preferable because coastal waters are better understood than the deep sea. View image in fullscreen Baja California Sur’s waters are home to bottlenose dolphins, as well as grey whales, loggerhead turtles and sea lions. No one knows the harm that dredging may cause them. Photograph: Minden Pictures/Alamy But while shallower waters may lack the mysteries of the ocean’s abyssal plains, they still hold fragile ecosystems bursting with life. Odyssey told the Guardian that seabed mining projects can “provide a clean, sustainable, and economical opportunity to source much-needed minerals”, and that the project “would employ extensive measures to limit environmental impacts”. But some experts say that no one knows for sure what the impacts could be of the sediment plumes kicked up by dredging, or the noise , or how many organisms might be sucked up along with the phosphate. Nor do they know how quickly coastal seabeds can repair themselves. No phosphate mining project on the seabed has ever gone ahead. In 2015, New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority turned down a similar proposal on the basis that it would cause “significant and permanent adverse effects”. More recently, attempts in Namibia have stalled amid heavy opposition. “Mining will always destroy part of a habitat,” says Laura Kaikkonen, a marine scientist at the University of Helsinki who has researched shallow water mining . “It’s not an easy solution to get minerals just because it’s in shallow areas.” View image in fullscreen An aerial shot shows flamingos at Walvis Bay lagoon in Namibia. Photograph: Chris Wildblood/Alamy View image in fullscreen A drill ship seen near Walvis Bay. Attempts to mine phosphate in Namibian waters have met with heavy opposition. Photograph: Wirestock, Inc./Alamy Aguilar goes further. On a sleepy September Sunday in Las Barrancas, sitting in a concrete outbuilding tacked on the side of a house, with his sunglasses tucked neatly into his light purple shirt, he explains that they consider stopping the mine a matter of survival. “We have a large body of water on the peninsula, and when it is poisoned – because that is how we describe it – fishing income and progress would obviously end,” he says. Odyssey said references to poisoning were “incorrect”, and mining operations “would not interfere with the fishing operations”. It also pointed to support from other regional fisheries organisations. But, over the past decade, Aguilar and the cooperative have refused to back down, fighting the mine in public consultations, and meeting the president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, with protest banners when he visited the region. View image in fullscreen Members of the Puerto Chale fishing cooperative meet to fight back against the threat from the mine. Photograph: Laura Paddison It has been a rocky road. In 2014, Odyssey named Aguilar and Ibarra in a criminal complaint – something Ibarra only discovered when he read an article in the El Sudcaliforniano newspaper – by a representative for Odyssey’s subsidiary Exploraciones Oceánicas. He called them “pseudo-environmentalists” and accused them of extortion and “attacking consumption and natural wealth” by resisting the mine – crimes that carry a potential prison sentence of up to 10 years. “They said that we were to blame for its lack of approval and a financial loss of millions of dollars,” Aguilar says. “This was an intimidation strategy,” adds Ibarra. A spokesperson for Odyssey said it “took appropriate legal actions to defend itself from an extortion attempt”, and did not intend to “intimidate or dissuade opposition to the project”. Both Aguilar and Ibarra vigorously reject accusations of extortion, and although they were eventually told no lawsuit would be progressing, for Ibarra the stress caused him to all but abandon journalism for years. But for a while, the ordeal seemed to have been worth it. Twice the Mexican government turned down the mining permit – once in 2016, and again, definitively, in 2018, saying the mine “sought to uninterruptedly dredge the seafloor” of a place “that constitutes a natural treasure and of utmost importance for Mexico and the world”. “We felt very satisfied,” Aguilar says, but adds, “We knew it was just a rest, and not total victory.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion He was right. In 2019, Odyssey sued Mexico itself for billions of dollars – the hypothetical future profits of the mine. Archaeologists accuse MoD of allowing US company to ‘plunder’ shipwreck Read more The case ISDS (investor-state dispute settlement) is an acronym so dull it almost seems deliberate, considering the power it holds. The most benign description is a system giving companies a way to protect themselves if the country where they’re operating does something to damage their investment. Advocates say ISDS – which is not a single law but rather a system established through clauses in more than 3,000 trade agreements and investment treaties – is a win-win, reassuring companies while incentivising investment in developing countries. But others believe it has developed into a secretive legal process that lets companies override countries’ environmental, climate and human rights laws. View image in fullscreen Chatree goldmine in Thailand’s Phichit province leaves giant scars on the landscape. Mining has now restarted, six years after the government suspended operations over health and environmental concerns. Photograph: Lillian Suwanrumpha/AFP/Getty Images It is “the wild, wild west of international law”, says George Kahale III, an international arbitration lawyer and chair of Curtis law firm in New York. In Odyssey’s case, it claimed Mexico had breached its rights under the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) by making what it described as a politically motivated decision to reject the mine, disregarding scientific evidence. It said the value of its investment had been destroyed, along with future profits, and demanded $3.54bn (£2.8bn), later reduced to $2.36bn. The process for ISDS claims is opaque. Hearings are not held in courts, but in meeting rooms at, for example, the World Bank, conference centres or hotels. Claims are decided by a panel of three arbitrators: one chosen by the company, one by the state and one by mutual agreement. Decisions cannot be appealed, only annulled in very limited circumstances. Kahale calls it a “caricature of a legal system” that has been “consistently interpreted more expansively against the host countries of investment in favour of investors”. (He has recently been instructed by the Mexican government to help with ISDS claims but has no involvement in Odyssey’s case.) Since the 1990s, the volume of these cases has exploded. About 60% of claims are made by companies based in wealthy countries, predominantly the US, Canada and western Europe, against lower-income countries, says Jen Moore, an associate fellow at the US thinktank the Institute for Policy Studies. A quarter of all known claims have been filed by oil, gas and mining companies. As well as protecting corporations from physical expropriation of their assets, these trade and investment treaties also protect them from “indirect expropriation”. Companies often resort to ISDS when a country rejects their projects for threatening human rights, climate or the environment. “Mining companies often haven’t even been able to get a shovel in the ground – but then they bring these outrageous suits,” says Moore. She calls it “mining for profits through arbitration”. As the frequency of claims has increased, so too have the amounts. The Odyssey case – where a relatively small investment has resulted in a claim of more than $2bn – is no longer abnormal, says Kahale. Some investment firms will even fund companies to do it, in exchange for a cut of the award: Odyssey’s own claim is being financed by the hedge fund Poplar Falls. And companies are winning. In 2016, an arbitration tribunal ordered Venezuela to pay $1.2bn plus interest– a huge amount for a country facing insolvency – to a Canadian mining company, Crystallex, after Venezuela refused permits for a goldmine in a national forest reserve, citing concerns for the environment and Indigenous people. Crystallex claimed Venezuela had expropriated the mine. View image in fullscreen Searching for gold near the Las Cristinas concession, where the Canadian miner Crystallex holds a contract in southern Bolivar State, Venezuela. Photograph: Howard Yanes/Reuters This kind of thing casts a “policy chill”, Moore says. In Guatemala, for example, freedom of information requests apparently showed the government citing the threat of ISDS proceedings as a reason not to suspend another Canadian-owned goldmine, despite human rights groups saying it violated Indigenous rights. In such cases, merely the threat of arbitration can work as “political leverage”, says Carla Garcia Zendejas at the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel). Odyssey said its arbitration proceedings are “not shadowy or secretive” and added that it has not used arbitration as a “threat” or for political leverage. “Odyssey used the only remaining tool available to it to attempt to address Mexico’s unlawful action and to protect its substantial investment in Mexico and its shareholders’ interests,” the company said. Yet for many experts, ISDS could not be more shadowy and secretive. The proceedings are literally behind closed doors, Moore points out. “Arbitration is an esoteric thing” for most people, she notes, while providing “a convenient way to hide the fact that a company is trying to bend the hand of the government”. The community For Aguilar, ISDS also meant shutting out local communities like his. The Puerto Chale cooperative found this out when, with the help of Ciel, it asked to give evidence to the ISDS panel about how the mine would affect them. Their request was rejected in December 2021 by a majority of the panel – two people – who ruled that the cooperative “did not have a significant interest” in the dispute because Odyssey is seeking compensation, not a new permit. View image in fullscreen Baja California Sur state governor, Víctor Castro Cosío, tells a press conference of his battle against Odyssey. Photograph: Laura Paddison The dissenting arbitrator, environmental lawyer Philippe Sands , issued a stinging rebuke to the decision, calling it “deeply regrettable” and writing that it would “only serve to undermine perceptions as to the legitimacy of these proceedings”. “We felt unprotected,” says Aguilar. Zendejas notes that it is common for the communities where the projects are located to have no voice in the proceedings. “It’s a system where communities aren’t welcome.” She adds that there is nothing to stop Odyssey and Mexico from discussing a settlement that could leave the door open to a second look at the mining permit. The future What’s happening in Baja California Sur is being watched closely in other parts of the world. Nearly 5,000 miles away in the South Pacific, the government of the Cook Island has handed out an exploration licence to a company called CIC to investigate mining the seabed for potato-like nodules that contain cobalt and other metals used for the green economy. Odyssey is an investor in CIC, and is paid for services it provides to CIC. The founder of CIC? Odyssey’s own Greg Stemm. Three men pushing a boat from the beach into the sea An idyllic scene at San Juanico on the coast of north-west Mexico – but what does the future hold? Some environmental campaigners worry that the Cook Islands could prove reluctant to reject a future seabed mine for fear of a multibillion-dollar claim like Odyssey’s in Mexico. “Here is this company who were denied an environmental permit to mine in Mexico, and now they’re suing,” says Kelvin Passfield of Te Ipukarea Society, a Cook Islands environmental nonprofit organisation. Odyssey’s claim in Mexico “is a warning”, argues Duncan Currie, an international lawyer with the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition. He says that countries that hand out seabed exploration permits – particularly to companies already suing other countries for billions of dollars – are putting themselves at risk. “While some countries see sea mining as a potential source of riches, I think these are really good examples that countries need to tread very carefully.” One way they can protect themselves is by rejecting the whole international arbitration system, Moore argues. Pakistan , Ecuador and Bolivia are among those that have started terminating agreements with ISDS provisions. Doing so can be a tricky process, however. “The myth that international investment agreements are necessary to attract foreign direct investment remains strong,” she says. The ISDS clause was also removed between Canada and the US in the renegotiated Nafta ( now called the USMCA ) which went into effect in July 2020. Chrystia Freeland, then Canadian minister of foreign affairs, said at the time this was one of her proudest achievements : “ISDS elevates the rights of corporations over those of sovereign governments. In removing it, we have strengthened our government’s right to regulate in the public interest, to protect public health and the environment.” ISDS provisions still remain between the US and Mexico under the renegotiated agreement, but are more limited – oil, gas and transport cases can go directly to ISDS but others must first go through the domestic courts. Yet ISDS provisions remain in many other trade agreements Mexico has signed, including with Canada. Mexico currently faces more than $11bn in ISDS claims, according to a recent calculation . F or those who have spent years battling the mine, it’s a waiting game. Ibarra has steadily returned to journalism, digging into the mining companies and mega-tourism developments springing up across Baja California Sur; he still keeps one eye on Odyssey’s plans. The fishers who have spent the last decade in fear of the mine, meanwhile, still get up every day at 5am. On San Juanico’s wide, sandy beach, lights bob about in the inky darkness as men with head torches circle a small fishing boat – loading lobster traps, checking the motor, fixing the radio. When they’re ready, a truck pulls the boat towards the ocean, roaring in the quiet pre-dawn. They wait for the right wave, push the boat out into the surf and speed towards the exact location where Odyssey wanted to mine. View image in fullscreen Martín Guadalupe Trasviña, a fisher from the San Juanico Surf cooperative. Photograph: Laura Paddison People here agree that Baja California Sur needs development: better roads, more reliable electricity, better healthcare. But most don’t believe they will benefit from a mine they see as a threat to fishing and tourism – the region’s lifeblood. “To give it all up for a project that will just bring destruction, that will make a few people rich and will make thousands of families poor, and future generations poor …” says Aguilar, trailing off. Race to the bottom: the disastrous, blindfolded rush to mine the deep sea Read more If Odyssey wins a second look at the mining project, he says they are prepared to keep fighting. “We would raise up all the people throughout the peninsula to organise leadership from point to point, and in absolute opposition. “I don’t know what we would do out in the sea – but we would have to do something to stand our ground.” Explore more on these topics Seascape: the state of our oceans Oceans Mexico Americas Fishing industry Fishing Marine life features Share Reuse this content Another day’s fishing in calm waters at San Juanico on the coast of north-west Mexico … but a storm has long been brewing. Photograph: Laura Paddison Local fishers helped halt underwater mining off Baja California’s coast in 2018. But then an obscure international legal process was put into motion By Laura Paddison in San Juanico The ship When it first appeared, it looked like a floating city. For months in the summer of 2012, the ship just sat there – a hulking, confusing presence off the Pacific coast of Baja California Sur. Florencio Aguilar was worried. A stranger in the waves was a threat. Like many others in the tiny fishing towns of San Juanico, Las Barrancas and others in north-west Mexico , Aguilar relies for his livelihood on the lobsters, octopus and abalone that thrive here. The pristine waters are also home to endangered sea turtles, a breeding ground for giant grey whales and a magnet for surfers, who flock here to ride one of the world’s longest waves. View image in fullscreen Surfers at San Juanico, which boasts one of the world’s longest waves. Photograph: Laura Paddison Aguilar ticked off the possibilities: the enormous ship wasn’t one of the research vessels that edged along the Baja coast to survey the rich marine life, and it didn’t look like one of the big fishing ships that sometimes came to scoop up shrimp. The news eventually filtered down to him from some fellow fishers. The ship belonged to the Florida-based Odyssey Marine Exploration , which had obtained a concession across a huge area of Mexican seabed to mine phosphate, a key ingredient in commercial fertilisers. View image in fullscreen The Odyssey Explorer, a vessel owned by US-based Odyssey Marine Exploration . Photograph: AP Photo/Odyssey Marine Exploration Aguilar was horrified. The project, which could see dredging happen for 50 years, overlapped directly with the fishing concession belonging to the Puerto Chale cooperative, an alliance he leads of more than 120 fishers whose families have lived off these waters for generations. “Constant dredging would finish marine life and all life in our fishing sector,” Aguilar says. The discovery was just the beginning – the trigger for years of disruption as Aguilar and the cooperative fought against a mine they saw as an existential threat. There were angry public meetings, accusations of corruption, appeals to the Mexican president. At last, six years later in 2018, Mexico’s government eventually rejected the mine because the potential environmental impacts would be too damaging. Aguilar and the community celebrated. For once, their story seemed to buck the trend of mining corporations trampling the tiny communities that stand in their way. But Odyssey had an ace up its sleeve. In 2019, it sued Mexico. To do so, it used an obscure tool of international law called investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), which allows companies to bypass domestic courts. Suddenly, the fate of this seabed mine mattered far beyond this desert-fringed coast. Odyssey’s lawsuit had opened a window into an opaque legal system, one with the power to fatally undermine the abilities of countries to protect their own environments – just as the world teeters on the edge of climate and biodiversity breakdown. View image in fullscreen Hunting for phospate: Odyssey’s eight-tonne remotely operated exploration vehicle Zeus is launched into the sea. Photograph: Reuters The company Ironically, considering the impact it could end up having on mining worldwide, Odyssey has never operated a mine before. Its roots lie in a very different kind of seabed extraction: it was set up in 1994 as a shipwreck-hunting company. The two founders, Greg Stemm, an ex-ad man, and John Morris, a former property developer, already had a long history in the business. That same year, they were battling charges of fraud and insider trading in relation to their previous company over allegations they had misrepresented the value of a Florida Keys wreck. (They successfully beat the charges in 1997.) View image in fullscreen Ex-advertising man Greg Stemm, co-founder of Odyssey Marine Exploration, and project manager Tom Dettweiler (right) examine a coin from the Black Swan shipwreck in 2007. A Spanish judge ruled that Odyssey should give the treasure back. Photograph: AP The next decade was spent scouring the ocean for more valuable wrecks, and in 2007 they hit the jackpot: 17 tonnes of silver and gold coins, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, found in a wreck off Portugal’s Algarve coast. Odyssey named the ship the Black Swan, hauled the coins to the surface, loaded them into plastic buckets and flew them to Florida. Spain protested. It said the Black Swan was one of its frigates, sunk by the British in 1804 along with more than 200 crew – and claimed the treasure legally belonged to Spain. In 2012, US courts agreed, forcing Odyssey to return the coins and pay $1m to Spain for what a judge called its “continuous, core campaign of bad faith, deception, and deflection that pervaded this litigation from the start”. With the risks of shipwreck hunting mounting – laws were tighter and investor dollars fewer – Odyssey turned its attention to a new industry, one that could make use of its specialised ocean skills: the potentially lucrative world of seabed mining. The reporter When rumours about Odyssey’s underwater mine first reached the ears of Carlos G Ibarra, a journalist based in the Baja California Sur capital of La Paz, he was immediately suspicious. Sitting outside a busy beachfront bar in La Paz on a sweltering September evening, Ibarra explains that he has lived his whole life in the shadow of mines. He spent his childhood in a salt-mine town and his adult career as a reporter, covering the impact of extractive companies here. View image in fullscreen Odyssey pitched the project as a standard dredging operation that would be invisible from the shoreline and cause no disruption to fishers or tourists. Photograph: Odyssey Marine Exploration At first, the rumours were vague. He didn’t know exactly where the underwater mine would be placed, or anything about the company. Then he read an investor report that sent his curiosity into overdrive. Written in 2013 by Ryan Morris, the founder of US hedge fund Meson Capital, the report was scathing. Morris claimed that since 2000, Odyssey executives and directors received $20m in cash compensation but had made losses of $180m. “We believe the purpose of [Odyssey] is to serve as a vehicle for [Odyssey] insiders to live a life of glamor hunting the ocean while disappointed investors foot the bill,” the report concluded. An Odyssey spokesperson dismissed the report as having “factual errors, incomplete information and erroneous conclusions”, and referred to Morris’s interest in short selling of stocks. But for Ibarra, it was a cue to dig further. He approached Aguilar, who urged him to keep digging into the mining project. Ibarra then spoke to government officials, and checked the permits Odyssey had applied for. He discovered the company had obtained a 50-year concession over nearly 270,000 hectares (667,000 acres) of seabed through a Mexican subsidiary, Exploraciones Oceánicas. When Odyssey then declared it had found one of the most significant phosphate deposits in the world – more than 580m tonnes, making it enough, the company claimed, to meet most of North America’s fertiliser needs for 100 years – Ibarra’s heart sank, and he began to write about it for anybody that would publish him. View image in fullscreen Taking pride in the coastline that has nourished them for generations, people in San Juanico sweep the beach clean. Photograph: Laura Paddison The mine Ibarra knew exactly how the mine would be pitched to the community. The corporate narrative of extractive projects tends to follow a well-worn path: the resource plays a vital role for humanity, mining it will benefit the local community, and there will be no permanent environmental damage. Odyssey was no different. It claimed the fertiliser would secure Mexico’s food self-sufficiency and promised jobs and millions of dollars for Mexico through tax revenues and economic development. The company also had an environmental pitch. Most phosphate is mined by ripping up land. Extracting it from beneath the waves would be more sustainable. It said its large ships would dredge the seafloor, separate the phosphate on deck, and then pump unwanted material – which it said would be made up of “unaltered” sediments – back into furrows on the seabed. Unlike deep-sea mining, which involves scooping up minerals from up to four miles (6km) down in international waters, this mine would be located in the shallower waters of Mexico’s continental shelf. This type of seabed mining is sometimes presented as environmentally preferable because coastal waters are better understood than the deep sea. View image in fullscreen Baja California Sur’s waters are home to bottlenose dolphins, as well as grey whales, loggerhead turtles and sea lions. No one knows the harm that dredging may cause them. Photograph: Minden Pictures/Alamy But while shallower waters may lack the mysteries of the ocean’s abyssal plains, they still hold fragile ecosystems bursting with life. Odyssey told the Guardian that seabed mining projects can “provide a clean, sustainable, and economical opportunity to source much-needed minerals”, and that the project “would employ extensive measures to limit environmental impacts”. But some experts say that no one knows for sure what the impacts could be of the sediment plumes kicked up by dredging, or the noise , or how many organisms might be sucked up along with the phosphate. Nor do they know how quickly coastal seabeds can repair themselves. No phosphate mining project on the seabed has ever gone ahead. In 2015, New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority turned down a similar proposal on the basis that it would cause “significant and permanent adverse effects”. More recently, attempts in Namibia have stalled amid heavy opposition. “Mining will always destroy part of a habitat,” says Laura Kaikkonen, a marine scientist at the University of Helsinki who has researched shallow water mining . “It’s not an easy solution to get minerals just because it’s in shallow areas.” View image in fullscreen An aerial shot shows flamingos at Walvis Bay lagoon in Namibia. Photograph: Chris Wildblood/Alamy View image in fullscreen A drill ship seen near Walvis Bay. Attempts to mine phosphate in Namibian waters have met with heavy opposition. Photograph: Wirestock, Inc./Alamy Aguilar goes further. On a sleepy September Sunday in Las Barrancas, sitting in a concrete outbuilding tacked on the side of a house, with his sunglasses tucked neatly into his light purple shirt, he explains that they consider stopping the mine a matter of survival. “We have a large body of water on the peninsula, and when it is poisoned – because that is how we describe it – fishing income and progress would obviously end,” he says. Odyssey said references to poisoning were “incorrect”, and mining operations “would not interfere with the fishing operations”. It also pointed to support from other regional fisheries organisations. But, over the past decade, Aguilar and the cooperative have refused to back down, fighting the mine in public consultations, and meeting the president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, with protest banners when he visited the region. View image in fullscreen Members of the Puerto Chale fishing cooperative meet to fight back against the threat from the mine. Photograph: Laura Paddison It has been a rocky road. In 2014, Odyssey named Aguilar and Ibarra in a criminal complaint – something Ibarra only discovered when he read an article in the El Sudcaliforniano newspaper – by a representative for Odyssey’s subsidiary Exploraciones Oceánicas. He called them “pseudo-environmentalists” and accused them of extortion and “attacking consumption and natural wealth” by resisting the mine – crimes that carry a potential prison sentence of up to 10 years. “They said that we were to blame for its lack of approval and a financial loss of millions of dollars,” Aguilar says. “This was an intimidation strategy,” adds Ibarra. A spokesperson for Odyssey said it “took appropriate legal actions to defend itself from an extortion attempt”, and did not intend to “intimidate or dissuade opposition to the project”. Both Aguilar and Ibarra vigorously reject accusations of extortion, and although they were eventually told no lawsuit would be progressing, for Ibarra the stress caused him to all but abandon journalism for years. But for a while, the ordeal seemed to have been worth it. Twice the Mexican government turned down the mining permit – once in 2016, and again, definitively, in 2018, saying the mine “sought to uninterruptedly dredge the seafloor” of a place “that constitutes a natural treasure and of utmost importance for Mexico and the world”. “We felt very satisfied,” Aguilar says, but adds, “We knew it was just a rest, and not total victory.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion He was right. In 2019, Odyssey sued Mexico itself for billions of dollars – the hypothetical future profits of the mine. Archaeologists accuse MoD of allowing US company to ‘plunder’ shipwreck Read more The case ISDS (investor-state dispute settlement) is an acronym so dull it almost seems deliberate, considering the power it holds. The most benign description is a system giving companies a way to protect themselves if the country where they’re operating does something to damage their investment. Advocates say ISDS – which is not a single law but rather a system established through clauses in more than 3,000 trade agreements and investment treaties – is a win-win, reassuring companies while incentivising investment in developing countries. But others believe it has developed into a secretive legal process that lets companies override countries’ environmental, climate and human rights laws. View image in fullscreen Chatree goldmine in Thailand’s Phichit province leaves giant scars on the landscape. Mining has now restarted, six years after the government suspended operations over health and environmental concerns. Photograph: Lillian Suwanrumpha/AFP/Getty Images It is “the wild, wild west of international law”, says George Kahale III, an international arbitration lawyer and chair of Curtis law firm in New York. In Odyssey’s case, it claimed Mexico had breached its rights under the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) by making what it described as a politically motivated decision to reject the mine, disregarding scientific evidence. It said the value of its investment had been destroyed, along with future profits, and demanded $3.54bn (£2.8bn), later reduced to $2.36bn. The process for ISDS claims is opaque. Hearings are not held in courts, but in meeting rooms at, for example, the World Bank, conference centres or hotels. Claims are decided by a panel of three arbitrators: one chosen by the company, one by the state and one by mutual agreement. Decisions cannot be appealed, only annulled in very limited circumstances. Kahale calls it a “caricature of a legal system” that has been “consistently interpreted more expansively against the host countries of investment in favour of investors”. (He has recently been instructed by the Mexican government to help with ISDS claims but has no involvement in Odyssey’s case.) Since the 1990s, the volume of these cases has exploded. About 60% of claims are made by companies based in wealthy countries, predominantly the US, Canada and western Europe, against lower-income countries, says Jen Moore, an associate fellow at the US thinktank the Institute for Policy Studies. A quarter of all known claims have been filed by oil, gas and mining companies. As well as protecting corporations from physical expropriation of their assets, these trade and investment treaties also protect them from “indirect expropriation”. Companies often resort to ISDS when a country rejects their projects for threatening human rights, climate or the environment. “Mining companies often haven’t even been able to get a shovel in the ground – but then they bring these outrageous suits,” says Moore. She calls it “mining for profits through arbitration”. As the frequency of claims has increased, so too have the amounts. The Odyssey case – where a relatively small investment has resulted in a claim of more than $2bn – is no longer abnormal, says Kahale. Some investment firms will even fund companies to do it, in exchange for a cut of the award: Odyssey’s own claim is being financed by the hedge fund Poplar Falls. And companies are winning. In 2016, an arbitration tribunal ordered Venezuela to pay $1.2bn plus interest– a huge amount for a country facing insolvency – to a Canadian mining company, Crystallex, after Venezuela refused permits for a goldmine in a national forest reserve, citing concerns for the environment and Indigenous people. Crystallex claimed Venezuela had expropriated the mine. View image in fullscreen Searching for gold near the Las Cristinas concession, where the Canadian miner Crystallex holds a contract in southern Bolivar State, Venezuela. Photograph: Howard Yanes/Reuters This kind of thing casts a “policy chill”, Moore says. In Guatemala, for example, freedom of information requests apparently showed the government citing the threat of ISDS proceedings as a reason not to suspend another Canadian-owned goldmine, despite human rights groups saying it violated Indigenous rights. In such cases, merely the threat of arbitration can work as “political leverage”, says Carla Garcia Zendejas at the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel). Odyssey said its arbitration proceedings are “not shadowy or secretive” and added that it has not used arbitration as a “threat” or for political leverage. “Odyssey used the only remaining tool available to it to attempt to address Mexico’s unlawful action and to protect its substantial investment in Mexico and its shareholders’ interests,” the company said. Yet for many experts, ISDS could not be more shadowy and secretive. The proceedings are literally behind closed doors, Moore points out. “Arbitration is an esoteric thing” for most people, she notes, while providing “a convenient way to hide the fact that a company is trying to bend the hand of the government”. The community For Aguilar, ISDS also meant shutting out local communities like his. The Puerto Chale cooperative found this out when, with the help of Ciel, it asked to give evidence to the ISDS panel about how the mine would affect them. Their request was rejected in December 2021 by a majority of the panel – two people – who ruled that the cooperative “did not have a significant interest” in the dispute because Odyssey is seeking compensation, not a new permit. View image in fullscreen Baja California Sur state governor, Víctor Castro Cosío, tells a press conference of his battle against Odyssey. Photograph: Laura Paddison The dissenting arbitrator, environmental lawyer Philippe Sands , issued a stinging rebuke to the decision, calling it “deeply regrettable” and writing that it would “only serve to undermine perceptions as to the legitimacy of these proceedings”. “We felt unprotected,” says Aguilar. Zendejas notes that it is common for the communities where the projects are located to have no voice in the proceedings. “It’s a system where communities aren’t welcome.” She adds that there is nothing to stop Odyssey and Mexico from discussing a settlement that could leave the door open to a second look at the mining permit. The future What’s happening in Baja California Sur is being watched closely in other parts of the world. Nearly 5,000 miles away in the South Pacific, the government of the Cook Island has handed out an exploration licence to a company called CIC to investigate mining the seabed for potato-like nodules that contain cobalt and other metals used for the green economy. Odyssey is an investor in CIC, and is paid for services it provides to CIC. The founder of CIC? Odyssey’s own Greg Stemm. Three men pushing a boat from the beach into the sea An idyllic scene at San Juanico on the coast of north-west Mexico – but what does the future hold? Some environmental campaigners worry that the Cook Islands could prove reluctant to reject a future seabed mine for fear of a multibillion-dollar claim like Odyssey’s in Mexico. “Here is this company who were denied an environmental permit to mine in Mexico, and now they’re suing,” says Kelvin Passfield of Te Ipukarea Society, a Cook Islands environmental nonprofit organisation. Odyssey’s claim in Mexico “is a warning”, argues Duncan Currie, an international lawyer with the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition. He says that countries that hand out seabed exploration permits – particularly to companies already suing other countries for billions of dollars – are putting themselves at risk. “While some countries see sea mining as a potential source of riches, I think these are really good examples that countries need to tread very carefully.” One way they can protect themselves is by rejecting the whole international arbitration system, Moore argues. Pakistan , Ecuador and Bolivia are among those that have started terminating agreements with ISDS provisions. Doing so can be a tricky process, however. “The myth that international investment agreements are necessary to attract foreign direct investment remains strong,” she says. The ISDS clause was also removed between Canada and the US in the renegotiated Nafta ( now called the USMCA ) which went into effect in July 2020. Chrystia Freeland, then Canadian minister of foreign affairs, said at the time this was one of her proudest achievements : “ISDS elevates the rights of corporations over those of sovereign governments. In removing it, we have strengthened our government’s right to regulate in the public interest, to protect public health and the environment.” ISDS provisions still remain between the US and Mexico under the renegotiated agreement, but are more limited – oil, gas and transport cases can go directly to ISDS but others must first go through the domestic courts. Yet ISDS provisions remain in many other trade agreements Mexico has signed, including with Canada. Mexico currently faces more than $11bn in ISDS claims, according to a recent calculation . F or those who have spent years battling the mine, it’s a waiting game. Ibarra has steadily returned to journalism, digging into the mining companies and mega-tourism developments springing up across Baja California Sur; he still keeps one eye on Odyssey’s plans. The fishers who have spent the last decade in fear of the mine, meanwhile, still get up every day at 5am. On San Juanico’s wide, sandy beach, lights bob about in the inky darkness as men with head torches circle a small fishing boat – loading lobster traps, checking the motor, fixing the radio. When they’re ready, a truck pulls the boat towards the ocean, roaring in the quiet pre-dawn. They wait for the right wave, push the boat out into the surf and speed towards the exact location where Odyssey wanted to mine. View image in fullscreen Martín Guadalupe Trasviña, a fisher from the San Juanico Surf cooperative. Photograph: Laura Paddison People here agree that Baja California Sur needs development: better roads, more reliable electricity, better healthcare. But most don’t believe they will benefit from a mine they see as a threat to fishing and tourism – the region’s lifeblood. “To give it all up for a project that will just bring destruction, that will make a few people rich and will make thousands of families poor, and future generations poor …” says Aguilar, trailing off. Race to the bottom: the disastrous, blindfolded rush to mine the deep sea Read more If Odyssey wins a second look at the mining project, he says they are prepared to keep fighting. “We would raise up all the people throughout the peninsula to organise leadership from point to point, and in absolute opposition. “I don’t know what we would do out in the sea – but we would have to do something to stand our ground.” Explore more on these topics Seascape: the state of our oceans Oceans Mexico Americas Fishing industry Fishing Marine life features Share Reuse this content Another day’s fishing in calm waters at San Juanico on the coast of north-west Mexico … but
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
DPP appeals to supreme court in case of protesters who called MP ‘Tory scum’
Iain Duncan Smith, who is a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: Karwai Tang/WireImage View image in fullscreen Iain Duncan Smith, who is a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: Karwai Tang/WireImage This article is more than 1 year old DPP appeals to supreme court in case of protesters who called MP ‘Tory scum’ This article is more than 1 year old Exclusive: Move follows high court ruling that it was reasonable for them to have called Iain Duncan Smith the term The director of public prosecutions is appealing to the supreme court in an ongoing and expensive battle to overturn the acquittal of two protesters found to have acted reasonably in calling Iain Duncan Smith “Tory scum”. The unusual move will add to the cost to the public purse of a case that Lord Justice Popplewell, who heard the case at the high court, has said has already taken up “significant and substantial legal resources”. The Crown Prosecution Service declined to say how much the case had cost the taxpayer. A spokesperson said: “We have a duty to ensure that that we understand the reasoning of a court so that we can correctly apply any considerations to future cases and charging decisions. This appeal was pursued because what is required, for all concerned, is clarity and certainty.” Ruth Wood, 52, and Radical Haslam, 30, were found not guilty in November 2022 of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent after a two-day trial in Manchester magistrates court. They had been outside the Midland hotel in Manchester, where the Conservative party annual conference was taking place in October 2021, when Duncan Smith, a former Tory party leader, emerged to walk to the Mercure hotel for a conference about Brexit. He was accompanied by his wife, Betsy Duncan Smith, and her friend Primrose Yorke. As Duncan Smith crossed the road, an individual ran up behind him and placed a traffic cone on his head. The former cabinet minister removed the cone, called the protesters “pathetic” and continued on his way. Haslam and Wood, who were not involved in the traffic cone incident, had followed Duncan Smith from a short distance. They separately called him “Tory scum”. Wood added: “Fuck off out of Manchester.” Wood had successfully defended her comments on the grounds that her job working with homeless people in her local community meant she felt very strongly about the impact Conservative party policies were having on people’s lives. Duncan Smith was the work and pensions secretary from 2010 to 2016. Haslam’s comments were made in a speech in which he cited child poverty, homelessness and a lack of action over the climate emergency as reasons “why people hate you, why people call you scum”. He added: “It doesn’t come out of nowhere. It comes from what you have done to ordinary people’s lives … shame on you, Tory scum.” In clearing the two protesters, Judge Goldspring, who is also described as the chief magistrate, had noted that “the use of Tory scum was to highlight the policies” of Duncan Smith and that this was relevant to the “reasonableness of the conduct” in relation to the rights of freedom of expression and assembly. Goldspring added: “The use of those words did not amount to an offence, as in the circumstances it was reasonable.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The DPP had sought a judicial review of that ruling at the high court but Popplewell and Mr Justice Fordham ruled last November that there was no fault in law. The director of public prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, who has previously criticised Keir Starmer’s record in the role between 2008 and 2013, has now sought leave to appeal to the supreme court. In response, Popplewell said it was up to the supreme court whether it would consider the point in law on which the DPP is seeking to appeal against the acquittals. He agreed to a stay of execution on the DPP paying £40,000 worth of costs due to the defence lawyers that would otherwise be covered by legal aid. He criticised the prosecution’s position, however, as involving “fluidity”. The DPP is arguing on a technicality that the chief magistrate was wrong in law to consider the proportionality of convicting the two protesters for their comments. They argue that instead, the courts should have “taken into account” the defendants’ right to freedom of expression and “taken into account” the potential justifications for interfering with that right set out in article 10(2) and then asked whether the defendants’ conduct was reasonable. Explore more on these topics UK supreme court Iain Duncan Smith Conservatives Protest news Share Reuse this content Iain Duncan Smith, who is a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: Karwai Tang/WireImage View image in fullscreen Iain Duncan Smith, who is a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: Karwai Tang/WireImage This article is more than 1 year old DPP appeals to supreme court in case of protesters who called MP ‘Tory scum’ This article is more than 1 year old Exclusive: Move follows high court ruling that it was reasonable for them to have called Iain Duncan Smith the term The director of public prosecutions is appealing to the supreme court in an ongoing and expensive battle to overturn the acquittal of two protesters found to have acted reasonably in calling Iain Duncan Smith “Tory scum”. The unusual move will add to the cost to the public purse of a case that Lord Justice Popplewell, who heard the case at the high court, has said has already taken up “significant and substantial legal resources”. The Crown Prosecution Service declined to say how much the case had cost the taxpayer. A spokesperson said: “We have a duty to ensure that that we understand the reasoning of a court so that we can correctly apply any considerations to future cases and charging decisions. This appeal was pursued because what is required, for all concerned, is clarity and certainty.” Ruth Wood, 52, and Radical Haslam, 30, were found not guilty in November 2022 of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent after a two-day trial in Manchester magistrates court. They had been outside the Midland hotel in Manchester, where the Conservative party annual conference was taking place in October 2021, when Duncan Smith, a former Tory party leader, emerged to walk to the Mercure hotel for a conference about Brexit. He was accompanied by his wife, Betsy Duncan Smith, and her friend Primrose Yorke. As Duncan Smith crossed the road, an individual ran up behind him and placed a traffic cone on his head. The former cabinet minister removed the cone, called the protesters “pathetic” and continued on his way. Haslam and Wood, who were not involved in the traffic cone incident, had followed Duncan Smith from a short distance. They separately called him “Tory scum”. Wood added: “Fuck off out of Manchester.” Wood had successfully defended her comments on the grounds that her job working with homeless people in her local community meant she felt very strongly about the impact Conservative party policies were having on people’s lives. Duncan Smith was the work and pensions secretary from 2010 to 2016. Haslam’s comments were made in a speech in which he cited child poverty, homelessness and a lack of action over the climate emergency as reasons “why people hate you, why people call you scum”. He added: “It doesn’t come out of nowhere. It comes from what you have done to ordinary people’s lives … shame on you, Tory scum.” In clearing the two protesters, Judge Goldspring, who is also described as the chief magistrate, had noted that “the use of Tory scum was to highlight the policies” of Duncan Smith and that this was relevant to the “reasonableness of the conduct” in relation to the rights of freedom of expression and assembly. Goldspring added: “The use of those words did not amount to an offence, as in the circumstances it was reasonable.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The DPP had sought a judicial review of that ruling at the high court but Popplewell and Mr Justice Fordham ruled last November that there was no fault in law. The director of public prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, who has previously criticised Keir Starmer’s record in the role between 2008 and 2013, has now sought leave to appeal to the supreme court. In response, Popplewell said it was up to the supreme court whether it would consider the point in law on which the DPP is seeking to appeal against the acquittals. He agreed to a stay of execution on the DPP paying £40,000 worth of costs due to the defence lawyers that would otherwise be covered by legal aid. He criticised the prosecution’s position, however, as involving “fluidity”. The DPP is arguing on a technicality that the chief magistrate was wrong in law to consider the proportionality of convicting the two protesters for their comments. They argue that instead, the courts should have “taken into account” the defendants’ right to freedom of expression and “taken into account” the potential justifications for interfering with that right set out in article 10(2) and then asked whether the defendants’ conduct was reasonable. Explore more on these topics UK supreme court Iain Duncan Smith Conservatives Protest news Share Reuse this content Iain Duncan Smith, who is a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: Karwai Tang/WireImage View image in fullscreen Iain Duncan Smith, who is a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: Karwai Tang/WireImage Iain Duncan Smith, who is a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: Karwai Tang/WireImage View image in fullscreen Iain Duncan Smith, who is a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: Karwai Tang/WireImage Iain Duncan Smith, who is a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: Karwai Tang/WireImage View image in fullscreen Iain Duncan Smith, who is a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: Karwai Tang/WireImage Iain Duncan Smith, who is a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: Karwai Tang/WireImage View image in fullscreen Iain Duncan Smith, who is a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: Karwai Tang/WireImage Iain Duncan Smith, who is a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: Karwai Tang/WireImage Iain Duncan Smith, who is a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: Karwai Tang/WireImage This article is more than 1 year old DPP appeals to supreme court in case of protesters who called MP ‘Tory scum’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old DPP appeals to supreme court in case of protesters who called MP ‘Tory scum’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old DPP appeals to supreme court in case of protesters who called MP ‘Tory scum’ 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: Move follows high court ruling that it was reasonable for them to have called Iain Duncan Smith the term Exclusive: Move follows high court ruling that it was reasonable for them to have called Iain Duncan Smith the term Exclusive: Move follows high court ruling that it was reasonable for them to have called Iain Duncan Smith the term The director of public prosecutions is appealing to the supreme court in an ongoing and expensive battle to overturn the acquittal of two protesters found to have acted reasonably in calling Iain Duncan Smith “Tory scum”. The unusual move will add to the cost to the public purse of a case that Lord Justice Popplewell, who heard the case at the high court, has said has already taken up “significant and substantial legal resources”. The Crown Prosecution Service declined to say how much the case had cost the taxpayer. A spokesperson said: “We have a duty to ensure that that we understand the reasoning of a court so that we can correctly apply any considerations to future cases and charging decisions. This appeal was pursued because what is required, for all concerned, is clarity and certainty.” Ruth Wood, 52, and Radical Haslam, 30, were found not guilty in November 2022 of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent after a two-day trial in Manchester magistrates court. They had been outside the Midland hotel in Manchester, where the Conservative party annual conference was taking place in October 2021, when Duncan Smith, a former Tory party leader, emerged to walk to the Mercure hotel for a conference about Brexit. He was accompanied by his wife, Betsy Duncan Smith, and her friend Primrose Yorke. As Duncan Smith crossed the road, an individual ran up behind him and placed a traffic cone on his head. The former cabinet minister removed the cone, called the protesters “pathetic” and continued on his way. Haslam and Wood, who were not involved in the traffic cone incident, had followed Duncan Smith from a short distance. They separately called him “Tory scum”. Wood added: “Fuck off out of Manchester.” Wood had successfully defended her comments on the grounds that her job working with homeless people in her local community meant she felt very strongly about the impact Conservative party policies were having on people’s lives. Duncan Smith was the work and pensions secretary from 2010 to 2016. Haslam’s comments were made in a speech in which he cited child poverty, homelessness and a lack of action over the climate emergency as reasons “why people hate you, why people call you scum”. He added: “It doesn’t come out of nowhere. It comes from what you have done to ordinary people’s lives … shame on you, Tory scum.” In clearing the two protesters, Judge Goldspring, who is also described as the chief magistrate, had noted that “the use of Tory scum was to highlight the policies” of Duncan Smith and that this was relevant to the “reasonableness of the conduct” in relation to the rights of freedom of expression and assembly. Goldspring added: “The use of those words did not amount to an offence, as in the circumstances it was reasonable.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The DPP had sought a judicial review of that ruling at the high court but Popplewell and Mr Justice Fordham ruled last November that there was no fault in law. The director of public prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, who has previously criticised Keir Starmer’s record in the role between 2008 and 2013, has now sought leave to appeal to the supreme court. In response, Popplewell said it was up to the supreme court whether it would consider the point in law on which the DPP is seeking to appeal against the acquittals. He agreed to a stay of execution on the DPP paying £40,000 worth of costs due to the defence lawyers that would otherwise be covered by legal aid. He criticised the prosecution’s position, however, as involving “fluidity”. The DPP is arguing on a technicality that the chief magistrate was wrong in law to consider the proportionality of convicting the two protesters for their comments. They argue that instead, the courts should have “taken into account” the defendants’ right to freedom of expression and “taken into account” the potential justifications for interfering with that right set out in article 10(2) and then asked whether the defendants’ conduct was reasonable. Explore more on these topics UK supreme court Iain Duncan Smith Conservatives Protest news Share Reuse this content The director of public prosecutions is appealing to the supreme court in an ongoing and expensive battle to overturn the acquittal of two protesters found to have acted reasonably in calling Iain Duncan Smith “Tory scum”. The unusual move will add to the cost to the public purse of a case that Lord Justice Popplewell, who heard the case at the high court, has said has already taken up “significant and substantial legal resources”. The Crown Prosecution Service declined to say how much the case had cost the taxpayer. A spokesperson said: “We have a duty to ensure that that we understand the reasoning of a court so that we can correctly apply any considerations to future cases and charging decisions. This appeal was pursued because what is required, for all concerned, is clarity and certainty.” Ruth Wood, 52, and Radical Haslam, 30, were found not guilty in November 2022 of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent after a two-day trial in Manchester magistrates court. They had been outside the Midland hotel in Manchester, where the Conservative party annual conference was taking place in October 2021, when Duncan Smith, a former Tory party leader, emerged to walk to the Mercure hotel for a conference about Brexit. He was accompanied by his wife, Betsy Duncan Smith, and her friend Primrose Yorke. As Duncan Smith crossed the road, an individual ran up behind him and placed a traffic cone on his head. The former cabinet minister removed the cone, called the protesters “pathetic” and continued on his way. Haslam and Wood, who were not involved in the traffic cone incident, had followed Duncan Smith from a short distance. They separately called him “Tory scum”. Wood added: “Fuck off out of Manchester.” Wood had successfully defended her comments on the grounds that her job working with homeless people in her local community meant she felt very strongly about the impact Conservative party policies were having on people’s lives. Duncan Smith was the work and pensions secretary from 2010 to 2016. Haslam’s comments were made in a speech in which he cited child poverty, homelessness and a lack of action over the climate emergency as reasons “why people hate you, why people call you scum”. He added: “It doesn’t come out of nowhere. It comes from what you have done to ordinary people’s lives … shame on you, Tory scum.” In clearing the two protesters, Judge Goldspring, who is also described as the chief magistrate, had noted that “the use of Tory scum was to highlight the policies” of Duncan Smith and that this was relevant to the “reasonableness of the conduct” in relation to the rights of freedom of expression and assembly. Goldspring added: “The use of those words did not amount to an offence, as in the circumstances it was reasonable.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The DPP had sought a judicial review of that ruling at the high court but Popplewell and Mr Justice Fordham ruled last November that there was no fault in law. The director of public prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, who has previously criticised Keir Starmer’s record in the role between 2008 and 2013, has now sought leave to appeal to the supreme court. In response, Popplewell said it was up to the supreme court whether it would consider the point in law on which the DPP is seeking to appeal against the acquittals. He agreed to a stay of execution on the DPP paying £40,000 worth of costs due to the defence lawyers that would otherwise be covered by legal aid. He criticised the prosecution’s position, however, as involving “fluidity”. The DPP is arguing on a technicality that the chief magistrate was wrong in law to consider the proportionality of convicting the two protesters for their comments. They argue that instead, the courts should have “taken into account” the defendants’ right to freedom of expression and “taken into account” the potential justifications for interfering with that right set out in article 10(2) and then asked whether the defendants’ conduct was reasonable. Explore more on these topics UK supreme court Iain Duncan Smith Conservatives Protest news Share Reuse this content The director of public prosecutions is appealing to the supreme court in an ongoing and expensive battle to overturn the acquittal of two protesters found to have acted reasonably in calling Iain Duncan Smith “Tory scum”. The unusual move will add to the cost to the public purse of a case that Lord Justice Popplewell, who heard the case at the high court, has said has already taken up “significant and substantial legal resources”. The Crown Prosecution Service declined to say how much the case had cost the taxpayer. A spokesperson said: “We have a duty to ensure that that we understand the reasoning of a court so that we can correctly apply any considerations to future cases and charging decisions. This appeal was pursued because what is required, for all concerned, is clarity and certainty.” Ruth Wood, 52, and Radical Haslam, 30, were found not guilty in November 2022 of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent after a two-day trial in Manchester magistrates court. They had been outside the Midland hotel in Manchester, where the Conservative party annual conference was taking place in October 2021, when Duncan Smith, a former Tory party leader, emerged to walk to the Mercure hotel for a conference about Brexit. He was accompanied by his wife, Betsy Duncan Smith, and her friend Primrose Yorke. As Duncan Smith crossed the road, an individual ran up behind him and placed a traffic cone on his head. The former cabinet minister removed the cone, called the protesters “pathetic” and continued on his way. Haslam and Wood, who were not involved in the traffic cone incident, had followed Duncan Smith from a short distance. They separately called him “Tory scum”. Wood added: “Fuck off out of Manchester.” Wood had successfully defended her comments on the grounds that her job working with homeless people in her local community meant she felt very strongly about the impact Conservative party policies were having on people’s lives. Duncan Smith was the work and pensions secretary from 2010 to 2016. Haslam’s comments were made in a speech in which he cited child poverty, homelessness and a lack of action over the climate emergency as reasons “why people hate you, why people call you scum”. He added: “It doesn’t come out of nowhere. It comes from what you have done to ordinary people’s lives … shame on you, Tory scum.” In clearing the two protesters, Judge Goldspring, who is also described as the chief magistrate, had noted that “the use of Tory scum was to highlight the policies” of Duncan Smith and that this was relevant to the “reasonableness of the conduct” in relation to the rights of freedom of expression and assembly. Goldspring added: “The use of those words did not amount to an offence, as in the circumstances it was reasonable.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The DPP had sought a judicial review of that ruling at the high court but Popplewell and Mr Justice Fordham ruled last November that there was no fault in law. The director of public prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, who has previously criticised Keir Starmer’s record in the role between 2008 and 2013, has now sought leave to appeal to the supreme court. In response, Popplewell said it was up to the supreme court whether it would consider the point in law on which the DPP is seeking to appeal against the acquittals. He agreed to a stay of execution on the DPP paying £40,000 worth of costs due to the defence lawyers that would otherwise be covered by legal aid. He criticised the prosecution’s position, however, as involving “fluidity”. The DPP is arguing on a technicality that the chief magistrate was wrong in law to consider the proportionality of convicting the two protesters for their comments. They argue that instead, the courts should have “taken into account” the defendants’ right to freedom of expression and “taken into account” the potential justifications for interfering with that right set out in article 10(2) and then asked whether the defendants’ conduct was reasonable. The director of public prosecutions is appealing to the supreme court in an ongoing and expensive battle to overturn the acquittal of two protesters found to have acted reasonably in calling Iain Duncan Smith “Tory scum”. The unusual move will add to the cost to the public purse of a case that Lord Justice Popplewell, who heard the case at the high court, has said has already taken up “significant and substantial legal resources”. The Crown Prosecution Service declined to say how much the case had cost the taxpayer. A spokesperson said: “We have a duty to ensure that that we understand the reasoning of a court so that we can correctly apply any considerations to future cases and charging decisions. This appeal was pursued because what is required, for all concerned, is clarity and certainty.” Ruth Wood, 52, and Radical Haslam, 30, were found not guilty in November 2022 of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent after a two-day trial in Manchester magistrates court. They had been outside the Midland hotel in Manchester, where the Conservative party annual conference was taking place in October 2021, when Duncan Smith, a former Tory party leader, emerged to walk to the Mercure hotel for a conference about Brexit. He was accompanied by his wife, Betsy Duncan Smith, and her friend Primrose Yorke. As Duncan Smith crossed the road, an individual ran up behind him and placed a traffic cone on his head. The former cabinet minister removed the cone, called the protesters “pathetic” and continued on his way. Haslam and Wood, who were not involved in the traffic cone incident, had followed Duncan Smith from a short distance. They separately called him “Tory scum”. Wood added: “Fuck off out of Manchester.” Wood had successfully defended her comments on the grounds that her job working with homeless people in her local community meant she felt very strongly about the impact Conservative party policies were having on people’s lives. Duncan Smith was the work and pensions secretary from 2010 to 2016. Haslam’s comments were made in a speech in which he cited child poverty, homelessness and a lack of action over the climate emergency as reasons “why people hate you, why people call you scum”. He added: “It doesn’t come out of nowhere. It comes from what you have done to ordinary people’s lives … shame on you, Tory scum.” In clearing the two protesters, Judge Goldspring, who is also described as the chief magistrate, had noted that “the use of Tory scum was to highlight the policies” of Duncan Smith and that this was relevant to the “reasonableness of the conduct” in relation to the rights of freedom of expression and assembly. Goldspring added: “The use of those words did not amount to an offence, as in the circumstances it was reasonable.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The DPP had sought a judicial review of that ruling at the high court but Popplewell and Mr Justice Fordham ruled last November that there was no fault in law. The director of public prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, who has previously criticised Keir Starmer’s record in the role between 2008 and 2013, has now sought leave to appeal to the supreme court. In response, Popplewell said it was up to the supreme court whether it would consider the point in law on which the DPP is seeking to appeal against the acquittals. He agreed to a stay of execution on the DPP paying £40,000 worth of costs due to the defence lawyers that would otherwise be covered by legal aid. He criticised the prosecution’s position, however, as involving “fluidity”. The DPP is arguing on a technicality that the chief magistrate was wrong in law to consider the proportionality of convicting the two protesters for their comments. They argue that instead, the courts should have “taken into account” the defendants’ right to freedom of expression and “taken into account” the potential justifications for interfering with that right set out in article 10(2) and then asked whether the defendants’ conduct was reasonable. The director of public prosecutions is appealing to the supreme court in an ongoing and expensive battle to overturn the acquittal of two protesters found to have acted reasonably in calling Iain Duncan Smith “Tory scum”. The unusual move will add to the cost to the public purse of a case that Lord Justice Popplewell, who heard the case at the high court, has said has already taken up “significant and substantial legal resources”. The Crown Prosecution Service declined to say how much the case had cost the taxpayer. A spokesperson said: “We have a duty to ensure that that we understand the reasoning of a court so that we can correctly apply any considerations to future cases and charging decisions. This appeal was pursued because what is required, for all concerned, is clarity and certainty.” Ruth Wood, 52, and Radical Haslam, 30, were found not guilty in November 2022 of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent after a two-day trial in Manchester magistrates court. They had been outside the Midland hotel in Manchester, where the Conservative party annual conference was taking place in October 2021, when Duncan Smith, a former Tory party leader, emerged to walk to the Mercure hotel for a conference about Brexit. He was accompanied by his wife, Betsy Duncan Smith, and her friend Primrose Yorke. As Duncan Smith crossed the road, an individual ran up behind him and placed a traffic cone on his head. The former cabinet minister removed the cone, called the protesters “pathetic” and continued on his way. Haslam and Wood, who were not involved in the traffic cone incident, had followed Duncan Smith from a short distance. They separately called him “Tory scum”. Wood added: “Fuck off out of Manchester.” Wood had successfully defended her comments on the grounds that her job working with homeless people in her local community meant she felt very strongly about the impact Conservative party policies were having on people’s lives. Duncan Smith was the work and pensions secretary from 2010 to 2016. Haslam’s comments were made in a speech in which he cited child poverty, homelessness and a lack of action over the climate emergency as reasons “why people hate you, why people call you scum”. He added: “It doesn’t come out of nowhere. It comes from what you have done to ordinary people’s lives … shame on you, Tory scum.” In clearing the two protesters, Judge Goldspring, who is also described as the chief magistrate, had noted that “the use of Tory scum was to highlight the policies” of Duncan Smith and that this was relevant to the “reasonableness of the conduct” in relation to the rights of freedom of expression and assembly. Goldspring added: “The use of those words did not amount to an offence, as in the circumstances it was reasonable.” The DPP had sought a judicial review of that ruling at the high court but Popplewell and Mr Justice Fordham ruled last November that there was no fault in law. The director of public prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, who has previously criticised Keir Starmer’s record in the role between 2008 and 2013, has now sought leave to appeal to the supreme court. In response, Popplewell said it was up to the supreme court whether it would consider the point in law on which the DPP is seeking to appeal against the acquittals. He agreed to a stay of execution on the DPP paying £40,000 worth of costs due to the defence lawyers that would otherwise be covered by legal aid. He criticised the prosecution’s position, however, as involving “fluidity”. The DPP is arguing on a technicality that the chief magistrate was wrong in law to consider the proportionality of convicting the two protesters for their comments. They argue that instead, the courts should have “taken into account” the defendants’ right to freedom of expression and “taken into account” the potential justifications for interfering with that right set out in article 10(2) and then asked whether the defendants’ conduct was reasonable. Explore more on these topics UK supreme court Iain Duncan Smith Conservatives Protest news Share Reuse this content UK supreme court Iain Duncan Smith Conservatives Protest news
|
‘This system is broken’: protesters say Suffolk cuts encapsulate UK arts crisis
Demonstrators protest against Suffolk county council’s proposed cuts to arts funding. Photograph: Jason Bye/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Demonstrators protest against Suffolk county council’s proposed cuts to arts funding. Photograph: Jason Bye/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old ‘This system is broken’: protesters say Suffolk cuts encapsulate UK arts crisis This article is more than 1 year old Council has found one-off funding pot after announcing 100% cut, but people in county say sector is being destroyed A s a chant of “Stop the cuts! Stop the cuts! Stop the cuts!” echoes off the exterior of Suffolk county council’s Endeavour House, protesters gather to rally against seismic changes to the way the arts is funded in the county. The 100% cut to Suffolk’s arts funding sent shock waves not just through the county but the country when it was announced at the start of January. Some called it a “ national emergency ” that could usher in a wave of closures as arts institutions can no longer afford to stay open. How a decade of austerity has squeezed council budgets in England Read more Outside Endeavour House there are the usual union representatives and opposition councillors, but there are also young fashion designers, business consultants and Windrush activists who want to make their voices heard. “This system is broken,” says Max Thomas, who helps to run the Ipswich Windrush Society . He is protesting because he thinks “these decisions are stopping talent coming through” by removing grassroots funding. View image in fullscreen Protesters outside Endeavour House, Suffolk county council’s headquarters. Photograph: Jason Bye The earlier outcry over the cuts – powered in part by support from Andrew Lloyd Webber and Dame Judy Dench – did have an impact. The organisers of Tuesday’s protest had to confirm it was still going ahead after the council announced it wouldn’t be cutting the funding entirely, with news it secured an additional £7.2m from the government . But that reprieve came with strings attached. It wasn’t a reversal: instead of nine institutions sharing £528,000 of core funding, now a £500,000 pot would be open for applications from all of Suffolk’s arts organisations after the 2024-25 financial year, with no guarantee it would be repeated in further years. The council says it needs to find an extra £74m to protect the county’s most vulnerable adults and children and that there will be “ difficult financial decisions ” ahead. Council arts and culture spending in Suffolk has dropped 28% since 2010-11 One of the handmade placards at the protest was of an apple chomped down to its core, with the words “Arts Need [Core] Funding”. For many organisations, the image is a perfect metaphor for the council’s new funding pledge: their share of the money is being nibbled away as more mouths try to get a bite. Joanne Ooi, a festival organiser who helped arrange the protest, said: “There will be thousands of applicants for [the new money]. It’ll be divided up to extremely small pieces and an ad-hoc patchwork of short-term projects. They could have easily reinstated the original funding but they don’t take the long-term view.” For Ooi, the future of the arts in Suffolk is looking murky because of a lack of political leadership. “There’s this philosophy in place which accepts that these institutions can go defunct,” she said. “It’s ugly.” The situation in Suffolk mirrors the national one. Since 2010, arts development and support spending has been almost halved, from £3 to £1.52 a person. Theatres and public entertainment have been cut 38%, while council spending on heritage across England has fallen from 96p to 67p a head. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Council arts and culture spending in England The Guardian found 83% of council areas had cut their net spending on arts development, museums, theatres and galleries, and heritage since 2010-11. That is in addition to Arts Council funding being slashed by 30% during the start of the austerity era. A short drive away in Stowmarket, Jenny Cousins, the director of the Food Museum , is one of the people most affected by the Suffolk cuts. She manages a 34-hectare (84-acre) site, which sits behind the Asda in the town centre and welcomes 70,000 visitors a year to experience all aspects of food – from growing to agriculture. View image in fullscreen Jenny Cousins, director of the Food Museum in Stowmarket. Photograph: Jason Bye/The Guardian The council decision means the museum’s core funding of £102,500 – about 13% – is now in jeopardy. Cousins can’t say exactly what would have to go if they can’t replace the money but whether it is jobs or service – for example the 60-plus free school visits they do annually – something will have to give. The core funding allows them to do what she calls “the unsexy stuff”. “It’s paying the insurance bill, paying the utility bill. It’s doing the cleaning, it’s doing the maintenance that keeps the historic buildings in decent condition.” There’s also the knock-on effect to consider: the loss of core funding makes raising more money harder because it’s “an important marker of stability” for other funders. “Each year we have to put together a jigsaw of interlocking pieces of funding to enable us to stay open,” Cousins wrote in a blogpost when the cut was first announced. “Suffolk county council provides a critical piece which locks in others.” Arts leaders in Suffolk like Cousins are worried the reprieve from the council will be ephemeral. As one speaker said during the protest: they “will be back out here again next year”, fighting off yet more cuts. Explore more on these topics Arts funding Councils in crisis Suffolk Local government features Share Reuse this content Demonstrators protest against Suffolk county council’s proposed cuts to arts funding. Photograph: Jason Bye/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Demonstrators protest against Suffolk county council’s proposed cuts to arts funding. Photograph: Jason Bye/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old ‘This system is broken’: protesters say Suffolk cuts encapsulate UK arts crisis This article is more than 1 year old Council has found one-off funding pot after announcing 100% cut, but people in county say sector is being destroyed A s a chant of “Stop the cuts! Stop the cuts! Stop the cuts!” echoes off the exterior of Suffolk county council’s Endeavour House, protesters gather to rally against seismic changes to the way the arts is funded in the county. The 100% cut to Suffolk’s arts funding sent shock waves not just through the county but the country when it was announced at the start of January. Some called it a “ national emergency ” that could usher in a wave of closures as arts institutions can no longer afford to stay open. How a decade of austerity has squeezed council budgets in England Read more Outside Endeavour House there are the usual union representatives and opposition councillors, but there are also young fashion designers, business consultants and Windrush activists who want to make their voices heard. “This system is broken,” says Max Thomas, who helps to run the Ipswich Windrush Society . He is protesting because he thinks “these decisions are stopping talent coming through” by removing grassroots funding. View image in fullscreen Protesters outside Endeavour House, Suffolk county council’s headquarters. Photograph: Jason Bye The earlier outcry over the cuts – powered in part by support from Andrew Lloyd Webber and Dame Judy Dench – did have an impact. The organisers of Tuesday’s protest had to confirm it was still going ahead after the council announced it wouldn’t be cutting the funding entirely, with news it secured an additional £7.2m from the government . But that reprieve came with strings attached. It wasn’t a reversal: instead of nine institutions sharing £528,000 of core funding, now a £500,000 pot would be open for applications from all of Suffolk’s arts organisations after the 2024-25 financial year, with no guarantee it would be repeated in further years. The council says it needs to find an extra £74m to protect the county’s most vulnerable adults and children and that there will be “ difficult financial decisions ” ahead. Council arts and culture spending in Suffolk has dropped 28% since 2010-11 One of the handmade placards at the protest was of an apple chomped down to its core, with the words “Arts Need [Core] Funding”. For many organisations, the image is a perfect metaphor for the council’s new funding pledge: their share of the money is being nibbled away as more mouths try to get a bite. Joanne Ooi, a festival organiser who helped arrange the protest, said: “There will be thousands of applicants for [the new money]. It’ll be divided up to extremely small pieces and an ad-hoc patchwork of short-term projects. They could have easily reinstated the original funding but they don’t take the long-term view.” For Ooi, the future of the arts in Suffolk is looking murky because of a lack of political leadership. “There’s this philosophy in place which accepts that these institutions can go defunct,” she said. “It’s ugly.” The situation in Suffolk mirrors the national one. Since 2010, arts development and support spending has been almost halved, from £3 to £1.52 a person. Theatres and public entertainment have been cut 38%, while council spending on heritage across England has fallen from 96p to 67p a head. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Council arts and culture spending in England The Guardian found 83% of council areas had cut their net spending on arts development, museums, theatres and galleries, and heritage since 2010-11. That is in addition to Arts Council funding being slashed by 30% during the start of the austerity era. A short drive away in Stowmarket, Jenny Cousins, the director of the Food Museum , is one of the people most affected by the Suffolk cuts. She manages a 34-hectare (84-acre) site, which sits behind the Asda in the town centre and welcomes 70,000 visitors a year to experience all aspects of food – from growing to agriculture. View image in fullscreen Jenny Cousins, director of the Food Museum in Stowmarket. Photograph: Jason Bye/The Guardian The council decision means the museum’s core funding of £102,500 – about 13% – is now in jeopardy. Cousins can’t say exactly what would have to go if they can’t replace the money but whether it is jobs or service – for example the 60-plus free school visits they do annually – something will have to give. The core funding allows them to do what she calls “the unsexy stuff”. “It’s paying the insurance bill, paying the utility bill. It’s doing the cleaning, it’s doing the maintenance that keeps the historic buildings in decent condition.” There’s also the knock-on effect to consider: the loss of core funding makes raising more money harder because it’s “an important marker of stability” for other funders. “Each year we have to put together a jigsaw of interlocking pieces of funding to enable us to stay open,” Cousins wrote in a blogpost when the cut was first announced. “Suffolk county council provides a critical piece which locks in others.” Arts leaders in Suffolk like Cousins are worried the reprieve from the council will be ephemeral. As one speaker said during the protest: they “will be back out here again next year”, fighting off yet more cuts. Explore more on these topics Arts funding Councils in crisis Suffolk Local government features Share Reuse this content Demonstrators protest against Suffolk county council’s proposed cuts to arts funding. Photograph: Jason Bye/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Demonstrators protest against Suffolk county council’s proposed cuts to arts funding. Photograph: Jason Bye/The Guardian Demonstrators protest against Suffolk county council’s proposed cuts to arts funding. Photograph: Jason Bye/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Demonstrators protest against Suffolk county council’s proposed cuts to arts funding. Photograph: Jason Bye/The Guardian Demonstrators protest against Suffolk county council’s proposed cuts to arts funding. Photograph: Jason Bye/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Demonstrators protest against Suffolk county council’s proposed cuts to arts funding. Photograph: Jason Bye/The Guardian Demonstrators protest against Suffolk county council’s proposed cuts to arts funding. Photograph: Jason Bye/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Demonstrators protest against Suffolk county council’s proposed cuts to arts funding. Photograph: Jason Bye/The Guardian Demonstrators protest against Suffolk county council’s proposed cuts to arts funding. Photograph: Jason Bye/The Guardian Demonstrators protest against Suffolk county council’s proposed cuts to arts funding. Photograph: Jason Bye/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old ‘This system is broken’: protesters say Suffolk cuts encapsulate UK arts crisis This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘This system is broken’: protesters say Suffolk cuts encapsulate UK arts crisis This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘This system is broken’: protesters say Suffolk cuts encapsulate UK arts crisis 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 Council has found one-off funding pot after announcing 100% cut, but people in county say sector is being destroyed Council has found one-off funding pot after announcing 100% cut, but people in county say sector is being destroyed Council has found one-off funding pot after announcing 100% cut, but people in county say sector is being destroyed A s a chant of “Stop the cuts! Stop the cuts! Stop the cuts!” echoes off the exterior of Suffolk county council’s Endeavour House, protesters gather to rally against seismic changes to the way the arts is funded in the county. The 100% cut to Suffolk’s arts funding sent shock waves not just through the county but the country when it was announced at the start of January. Some called it a “ national emergency ” that could usher in a wave of closures as arts institutions can no longer afford to stay open. How a decade of austerity has squeezed council budgets in England Read more Outside Endeavour House there are the usual union representatives and opposition councillors, but there are also young fashion designers, business consultants and Windrush activists who want to make their voices heard. “This system is broken,” says Max Thomas, who helps to run the Ipswich Windrush Society . He is protesting because he thinks “these decisions are stopping talent coming through” by removing grassroots funding. View image in fullscreen Protesters outside Endeavour House, Suffolk county council’s headquarters. Photograph: Jason Bye The earlier outcry over the cuts – powered in part by support from Andrew Lloyd Webber and Dame Judy Dench – did have an impact. The organisers of Tuesday’s protest had to confirm it was still going ahead after the council announced it wouldn’t be cutting the funding entirely, with news it secured an additional £7.2m from the government . But that reprieve came with strings attached. It wasn’t a reversal: instead of nine institutions sharing £528,000 of core funding, now a £500,000 pot would be open for applications from all of Suffolk’s arts organisations after the 2024-25 financial year, with no guarantee it would be repeated in further years. The council says it needs to find an extra £74m to protect the county’s most vulnerable adults and children and that there will be “ difficult financial decisions ” ahead. Council arts and culture spending in Suffolk has dropped 28% since 2010-11 One of the handmade placards at the protest was of an apple chomped down to its core, with the words “Arts Need [Core] Funding”. For many organisations, the image is a perfect metaphor for the council’s new funding pledge: their share of the money is being nibbled away as more mouths try to get a bite. Joanne Ooi, a festival organiser who helped arrange the protest, said: “There will be thousands of applicants for [the new money]. It’ll be divided up to extremely small pieces and an ad-hoc patchwork of short-term projects. They could have easily reinstated the original funding but they don’t take the long-term view.” For Ooi, the future of the arts in Suffolk is looking murky because of a lack of political leadership. “There’s this philosophy in place which accepts that these institutions can go defunct,” she said. “It’s ugly.” The situation in Suffolk mirrors the national one. Since 2010, arts development and support spending has been almost halved, from £3 to £1.52 a person. Theatres and public entertainment have been cut 38%, while council spending on heritage across England has fallen from 96p to 67p a head. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Council arts and culture spending in England The Guardian found 83% of council areas had cut their net spending on arts development, museums, theatres and galleries, and heritage since 2010-11. That is in addition to Arts Council funding being slashed by 30% during the start of the austerity era. A short drive away in Stowmarket, Jenny Cousins, the director of the Food Museum , is one of the people most affected by the Suffolk cuts. She manages a 34-hectare (84-acre) site, which sits behind the Asda in the town centre and welcomes 70,000 visitors a year to experience all aspects of food – from growing to agriculture. View image in fullscreen Jenny Cousins, director of the Food Museum in Stowmarket. Photograph: Jason Bye/The Guardian The council decision means the museum’s core funding of £102,500 – about 13% – is now in jeopardy. Cousins can’t say exactly what would have to go if they can’t replace the money but whether it is jobs or service – for example the 60-plus free school visits they do annually – something will have to give. The core funding allows them to do what she calls “the unsexy stuff”. “It’s paying the insurance bill, paying the utility bill. It’s doing the cleaning, it’s doing the maintenance that keeps the historic buildings in decent condition.” There’s also the knock-on effect to consider: the loss of core funding makes raising more money harder because it’s “an important marker of stability” for other funders. “Each year we have to put together a jigsaw of interlocking pieces of funding to enable us to stay open,” Cousins wrote in a blogpost when the cut was first announced. “Suffolk county council provides a critical piece which locks in others.” Arts leaders in Suffolk like Cousins are worried the reprieve from the council will be ephemeral. As one speaker said during the protest: they “will be back out here again next year”, fighting off yet more cuts. Explore more on these topics Arts funding Councils in crisis Suffolk Local government features Share Reuse this content A s a chant of “Stop the cuts! Stop the cuts! Stop the cuts!” echoes off the exterior of Suffolk county council’s Endeavour House, protesters gather to rally against seismic changes to the way the arts is funded in the county. The 100% cut to Suffolk’s arts funding sent shock waves not just through the county but the country when it was announced at the start of January. Some called it a “ national emergency ” that could usher in a wave of closures as arts institutions can no longer afford to stay open. How a decade of austerity has squeezed council budgets in England Read more Outside Endeavour House there are the usual union representatives and opposition councillors, but there are also young fashion designers, business consultants and Windrush activists who want to make their voices heard. “This system is broken,” says Max Thomas, who helps to run the Ipswich Windrush Society . He is protesting because he thinks “these decisions are stopping talent coming through” by removing grassroots funding. View image in fullscreen Protesters outside Endeavour House, Suffolk county council’s headquarters. Photograph: Jason Bye The earlier outcry over the cuts – powered in part by support from Andrew Lloyd Webber and Dame Judy Dench – did have an impact. The organisers of Tuesday’s protest had to confirm it was still going ahead after the council announced it wouldn’t be cutting the funding entirely, with news it secured an additional £7.2m from the government . But that reprieve came with strings attached. It wasn’t a reversal: instead of nine institutions sharing £528,000 of core funding, now a £500,000 pot would be open for applications from all of Suffolk’s arts organisations after the 2024-25 financial year, with no guarantee it would be repeated in further years. The council says it needs to find an extra £74m to protect the county’s most vulnerable adults and children and that there will be “ difficult financial decisions ” ahead. Council arts and culture spending in Suffolk has dropped 28% since 2010-11 One of the handmade placards at the protest was of an apple chomped down to its core, with the words “Arts Need [Core] Funding”. For many organisations, the image is a perfect metaphor for the council’s new funding pledge: their share of the money is being nibbled away as more mouths try to get a bite. Joanne Ooi, a festival organiser who helped arrange the protest, said: “There will be thousands of applicants for [the new money]. It’ll be divided up to extremely small pieces and an ad-hoc patchwork of short-term projects. They could have easily reinstated the original funding but they don’t take the long-term view.” For Ooi, the future of the arts in Suffolk is looking murky because of a lack of political leadership. “There’s this philosophy in place which accepts that these institutions can go defunct,” she said. “It’s ugly.” The situation in Suffolk mirrors the national one. Since 2010, arts development and support spending has been almost halved, from £3 to £1.52 a person. Theatres and public entertainment have been cut 38%, while council spending on heritage across England has fallen from 96p to 67p a head. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Council arts and culture spending in England The Guardian found 83% of council areas had cut their net spending on arts development, museums, theatres and galleries, and heritage since 2010-11. That is in addition to Arts Council funding being slashed by 30% during the start of the austerity era. A short drive away in Stowmarket, Jenny Cousins, the director of the Food Museum , is one of the people most affected by the Suffolk cuts. She manages a 34-hectare (84-acre) site, which sits behind the Asda in the town centre and welcomes 70,000 visitors a year to experience all aspects of food – from growing to agriculture. View image in fullscreen Jenny Cousins, director of the Food Museum in Stowmarket. Photograph: Jason Bye/The Guardian The council decision means the museum’s core funding of £102,500 – about 13% – is now in jeopardy. Cousins can’t say exactly what would have to go if they can’t replace the money but whether it is jobs or service – for example the 60-plus free school visits they do annually – something will have to give. The core funding allows them to do what she calls “the unsexy stuff”. “It’s paying the insurance bill, paying the utility bill. It’s doing the cleaning, it’s doing the maintenance that keeps the historic buildings in decent condition.” There’s also the knock-on effect to consider: the loss of core funding makes raising more money harder because it’s “an important marker of stability” for other funders. “Each year we have to put together a jigsaw of interlocking pieces of funding to enable us to stay open,” Cousins wrote in a blogpost when the cut was first announced. “Suffolk county council provides a critical piece which locks in others.” Arts leaders in Suffolk like Cousins are worried the reprieve from the council will be ephemeral. As one speaker said during the protest: they “will be back out here again next year”, fighting off yet more cuts. Explore more on these topics Arts funding Councils in crisis Suffolk Local government features Share Reuse this content A s a chant of “Stop the cuts! Stop the cuts! Stop the cuts!” echoes off the exterior of Suffolk county council’s Endeavour House, protesters gather to rally against seismic changes to the way the arts is funded in the county. The 100% cut to Suffolk’s arts funding sent shock waves not just through the county but the country when it was announced at the start of January. Some called it a “ national emergency ” that could usher in a wave of closures as arts institutions can no longer afford to stay open. How a decade of austerity has squeezed council budgets in England Read more Outside Endeavour House there are the usual union representatives and opposition councillors, but there are also young fashion designers, business consultants and Windrush activists who want to make their voices heard. “This system is broken,” says Max Thomas, who helps to run the Ipswich Windrush Society . He is protesting because he thinks “these decisions are stopping talent coming through” by removing grassroots funding. View image in fullscreen Protesters outside Endeavour House, Suffolk county council’s headquarters. Photograph: Jason Bye The earlier outcry over the cuts – powered in part by support from Andrew Lloyd Webber and Dame Judy Dench – did have an impact. The organisers of Tuesday’s protest had to confirm it was still going ahead after the council announced it wouldn’t be cutting the funding entirely, with news it secured an additional £7.2m from the government . But that reprieve came with strings attached. It wasn’t a reversal: instead of nine institutions sharing £528,000 of core funding, now a £500,000 pot would be open for applications from all of Suffolk’s arts organisations after the 2024-25 financial year, with no guarantee it would be repeated in further years. The council says it needs to find an extra £74m to protect the county’s most vulnerable adults and children and that there will be “ difficult financial decisions ” ahead. Council arts and culture spending in Suffolk has dropped 28% since 2010-11 One of the handmade placards at the protest was of an apple chomped down to its core, with the words “Arts Need [Core] Funding”. For many organisations, the image is a perfect metaphor for the council’s new funding pledge: their share of the money is being nibbled away as more mouths try to get a bite. Joanne Ooi, a festival organiser who helped arrange the protest, said: “There will be thousands of applicants for [the new money]. It’ll be divided up to extremely small pieces and an ad-hoc patchwork of short-term projects. They could have easily reinstated the original funding but they don’t take the long-term view.” For Ooi, the future of the arts in Suffolk is looking murky because of a lack of political leadership. “There’s this philosophy in place which accepts that these institutions can go defunct,” she said. “It’s ugly.” The situation in Suffolk mirrors the national one. Since 2010, arts development and support spending has been almost halved, from £3 to £1.52 a person. Theatres and public entertainment have been cut 38%, while council spending on heritage across England has fallen from 96p to 67p a head. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Council arts and culture spending in England The Guardian found 83% of council areas had cut their net spending on arts development, museums, theatres and galleries, and heritage since 2010-11. That is in addition to Arts Council funding being slashed by 30% during the start of the austerity era. A short drive away in Stowmarket, Jenny Cousins, the director of the Food Museum , is one of the people most affected by the Suffolk cuts. She manages a 34-hectare (84-acre) site, which sits behind the Asda in the town centre and welcomes 70,000 visitors a year to experience all aspects of food – from growing to agriculture. View image in fullscreen Jenny Cousins, director of the Food Museum in Stowmarket. Photograph: Jason Bye/The Guardian The council decision means the museum’s core funding of £102,500 – about 13% – is now in jeopardy. Cousins can’t say exactly what would have to go if they can’t replace the money but whether it is jobs or service – for example the 60-plus free school visits they do annually – something will have to give. The core funding allows them to do what she calls “the unsexy stuff”. “It’s paying the insurance bill, paying the utility bill. It’s doing the cleaning, it’s doing the maintenance that keeps the historic buildings in decent condition.” There’s also the knock-on effect to consider: the loss of core funding makes raising more money harder because it’s “an important marker of stability” for other funders. “Each year we have to put together a jigsaw of interlocking pieces of funding to enable us to stay open,” Cousins wrote in a blogpost when the cut was first announced. “Suffolk county council provides a critical piece which locks in others.” Arts leaders in Suffolk like Cousins are worried the reprieve from the council will be ephemeral. As one speaker said during the protest: they “will be back out here again next year”, fighting off yet more cuts. A s a chant of “Stop the cuts! Stop the cuts! Stop the cuts!” echoes off the exterior of Suffolk county council’s Endeavour House, protesters gather to rally against seismic changes to the way the arts is funded in the county. The 100% cut to Suffolk’s arts funding sent shock waves not just through the county but the country when it was announced at the start of January. Some called it a “ national emergency ” that could usher in a wave of closures as arts institutions can no longer afford to stay open. How a decade of austerity has squeezed council budgets in England Read more Outside Endeavour House there are the usual union representatives and opposition councillors, but there are also young fashion designers, business consultants and Windrush activists who want to make their voices heard. “This system is broken,” says Max Thomas, who helps to run the Ipswich Windrush Society . He is protesting because he thinks “these decisions are stopping talent coming through” by removing grassroots funding. View image in fullscreen Protesters outside Endeavour House, Suffolk county council’s headquarters. Photograph: Jason Bye The earlier outcry over the cuts – powered in part by support from Andrew Lloyd Webber and Dame Judy Dench – did have an impact. The organisers of Tuesday’s protest had to confirm it was still going ahead after the council announced it wouldn’t be cutting the funding entirely, with news it secured an additional £7.2m from the government . But that reprieve came with strings attached. It wasn’t a reversal: instead of nine institutions sharing £528,000 of core funding, now a £500,000 pot would be open for applications from all of Suffolk’s arts organisations after the 2024-25 financial year, with no guarantee it would be repeated in further years. The council says it needs to find an extra £74m to protect the county’s most vulnerable adults and children and that there will be “ difficult financial decisions ” ahead. Council arts and culture spending in Suffolk has dropped 28% since 2010-11 One of the handmade placards at the protest was of an apple chomped down to its core, with the words “Arts Need [Core] Funding”. For many organisations, the image is a perfect metaphor for the council’s new funding pledge: their share of the money is being nibbled away as more mouths try to get a bite. Joanne Ooi, a festival organiser who helped arrange the protest, said: “There will be thousands of applicants for [the new money]. It’ll be divided up to extremely small pieces and an ad-hoc patchwork of short-term projects. They could have easily reinstated the original funding but they don’t take the long-term view.” For Ooi, the future of the arts in Suffolk is looking murky because of a lack of political leadership. “There’s this philosophy in place which accepts that these institutions can go defunct,” she said. “It’s ugly.” The situation in Suffolk mirrors the national one. Since 2010, arts development and support spending has been almost halved, from £3 to £1.52 a person. Theatres and public entertainment have been cut 38%, while council spending on heritage across England has fallen from 96p to 67p a head. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Council arts and culture spending in England The Guardian found 83% of council areas had cut their net spending on arts development, museums, theatres and galleries, and heritage since 2010-11. That is in addition to Arts Council funding being slashed by 30% during the start of the austerity era. A short drive away in Stowmarket, Jenny Cousins, the director of the Food Museum , is one of the people most affected by the Suffolk cuts. She manages a 34-hectare (84-acre) site, which sits behind the Asda in the town centre and welcomes 70,000 visitors a year to experience all aspects of food – from growing to agriculture. View image in fullscreen Jenny Cousins, director of the Food Museum in Stowmarket. Photograph: Jason Bye/The Guardian The council decision means the museum’s core funding of £102,500 – about 13% – is now in jeopardy. Cousins can’t say exactly what would have to go if they can’t replace the money but whether it is jobs or service – for example the 60-plus free school visits they do annually – something will have to give. The core funding allows them to do what she calls “the unsexy stuff”. “It’s paying the insurance bill, paying the utility bill. It’s doing the cleaning, it’s doing the maintenance that keeps the historic buildings in decent condition.” There’s also the knock-on effect to consider: the loss of core funding makes raising more money harder because it’s “an important marker of stability” for other funders. “Each year we have to put together a jigsaw of interlocking pieces of funding to enable us to stay open,” Cousins wrote in a blogpost when the cut was first announced. “Suffolk county council provides a critical piece which locks in others.” Arts leaders in Suffolk like Cousins are worried the reprieve from the council will be ephemeral. As one speaker said during the protest: they “will be back out here again next year”, fighting off yet more cuts. A s a chant of “Stop the cuts! Stop the cuts! Stop the cuts!” echoes off the exterior of Suffolk county council’s Endeavour House, protesters gather to rally against seismic changes to the way the arts is funded in the county. The 100% cut to Suffolk’s arts funding sent shock waves not just through the county but the country when it was announced at the start of January. Some called it a “ national emergency ” that could usher in a wave of closures as arts institutions can no longer afford to stay open. How a decade of austerity has squeezed council budgets in England Read more How a decade of austerity has squeezed council budgets in England Read more How a decade of austerity has squeezed council budgets in England Read more How a decade of austerity has squeezed council budgets in England How a decade of austerity has squeezed council budgets in England Outside Endeavour House there are the usual union representatives and opposition councillors, but there are also young fashion designers, business consultants and Windrush activists who want to make their voices heard. “This system is broken,” says Max Thomas, who helps to run the Ipswich Windrush Society . He is protesting because he thinks “these decisions are stopping talent coming through” by removing grassroots funding. The earlier outcry over the cuts – powered in part by support from Andrew Lloyd Webber and Dame Judy Dench – did have an impact. The organisers of Tuesday’s protest had to confirm it was still going ahead after the council announced it wouldn’t be cutting the funding entirely, with news it secured an additional £7.2m from the government . But that reprieve came with strings attached. It wasn’t a reversal: instead of nine institutions sharing £528,000 of core funding, now a £500,000 pot would be open for applications from all of Suffolk’s arts organisations after the 2024-25 financial year, with no guarantee it would be repeated in further years. The council says it needs to find an extra £74m to protect the county’s most vulnerable adults and children and that there will be “ difficult financial decisions ” ahead. One of the handmade placards at the protest was of an apple chomped down to its core, with the words “Arts Need [Core] Funding”. For many organisations, the image is a perfect metaphor for the council’s new funding pledge: their share of the money is being nibbled away as more mouths try to get a bite. Joanne Ooi, a festival organiser who helped arrange the protest, said: “There will be thousands of applicants for [the new money]. It’ll be divided up to extremely small pieces and an ad-hoc patchwork of short-term projects. They could have easily reinstated the original funding but they don’t take the long-term view.” For Ooi, the future of the arts in Suffolk is looking murky because of a lack of political leadership. “There’s this philosophy in place which accepts that these institutions can go defunct,” she said. “It’s ugly.” The situation in Suffolk mirrors the national one. Since 2010, arts development and support spending has been almost halved, from £3 to £1.52 a person. Theatres and public entertainment have been cut 38%, while council spending on heritage across England has fallen from 96p to 67p a head. The Guardian found 83% of council areas had cut their net spending on arts development, museums, theatres and galleries, and heritage since 2010-11. That is in addition to Arts Council funding being slashed by 30% during the start of the austerity era. A short drive away in Stowmarket, Jenny Cousins, the director of the Food Museum , is one of the people most affected by the Suffolk cuts. She manages a 34-hectare (84-acre) site, which sits behind the Asda in the town centre and welcomes 70,000 visitors a year to experience all aspects of food – from growing to agriculture. The council decision means the museum’s core funding of £102,500 – about 13% – is now in jeopardy. Cousins can’t say exactly what would have to go if they can’t replace the money but whether it is jobs or service – for example the 60-plus free school visits they do annually – something will have to give. The core funding allows them to do what she calls “the unsexy stuff”. “It’s paying the insurance bill, paying the utility bill. It’s doing the cleaning, it’s doing the maintenance that keeps the historic buildings in decent condition.” There’s also the knock-on effect to consider: the loss of core funding makes raising more money harder because it’s “an important marker of stability” for other funders. “Each year we have to put together a jigsaw of interlocking pieces of funding to enable us to stay open,” Cousins wrote in a blogpost when the cut was first announced. “Suffolk county council provides a critical piece which locks in others.” Arts leaders in Suffolk like Cousins are worried the reprieve from the council will be ephemeral. As one speaker said during the protest: they “will be back out here again next year”, fighting off yet more cuts. Explore more on these topics Arts funding Councils in crisis Suffolk Local government features Share Reuse this content Arts funding Councils in crisis Suffolk Local government features
|
‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests
Police officers and armoured vehicles deployed in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris, France, on 31 January as French farmers blocked the motorway with tractors. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Police officers and armoured vehicles deployed in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris, France, on 31 January as French farmers blocked the motorway with tractors. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Analysis ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests This article is more than 1 year old Ajit Niranjan European environment correspondent Under pressure from the far right in upcoming elections, environmental concessions being made across continent Exhausted by an energy crisis, burdened by bureaucracy and angry at efforts to curb their pollution, Europe’s farmers say people are not listening to their plight. “Over the last few years we’ve spoken out vigorously, but we haven’t been heard,” Europe’s biggest farming lobby, Copa Cogeca, said on Wednesday in an open letter to the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen. “The survival of European family farming as it is known today is in danger.” Watching tractors trundle through their cities , politicians in offices from Paris to Berlin have taken note of the fury. Farmers scored their first EU-wide win on Wednesday after weeks of demonstrations that have swept western Europe – cheered on by the far right – with Von der Leyen asking member states to delay by one year a key rule to encourage biodiversity and protect soil health. It follows other concessions to farmers from politicians in France and Germany that have so far done little to stop the unrest. The protests are the latest episode in a growing political backlash which has been brewing for months to the European green deal . Now, with European elections looming and the far right on the rise in several member states, green groups fear efforts to weaken environmental rules are meeting less and less resistance. Why Europe’s farmers are protesting – and the far right is taking note Read more Pieter de Pous, a nature expert at the climate thinktank E3G, said: “Macron, under the weight of Marine Le Pen’s pressure, and Von der Leyen, eyeing a second term, find themselves compelled to comply.” The decision to delay the rules did not stand up to scrutiny and raised concerns about the credibility of the EU’s farming policy, he added. The rules that are to be kicked back until 2025 require farmers to set aside at least 4% of their land for non-productive purposes, or for hedgerows and trees, in order to keep getting subsidies from the EU. Critics say the decision to delay them has less to do with substance of the policy and more to do with appeasing a key voter base. The commission has already delayed the rules once, after Russia invaded Ukraine and threw grain supplies into chaos, because farmers argued they would hurt food security. But now, as the war’s second anniversary nears, cheap grain from Ukraine is one of the main sources of the farmers’ frustration. “So basically, whether we have too much or too little, the solution is always to destroy nature and intensify production,” said Ariel Brunner, the director of Bird Life Europe. “The justification is openly hypocritical.” 1:15 Farmers 'besiege' Paris as protests spread to Brussels – video So far, farmers have been the most vocal group protesting against Europe’s climate policies, and governments have been eager to signal support for them – particularly in rural areas that are bleeding votes to far-right parties . The appeasement has led to accusations of hypocrisy in countries such as Germany, where politicians who have criticised climate activists for glueing themselves to roads have cheered on farmers for blocking traffic with their tractors. Analysts are divided over whether this “greenlash” against climate policy will spill into other sectors and gain widespread support from the public. In recent European elections, such as in the Netherlands and Poland, anti-environment policies played a small role on the campaign trail behind issues such as migration and jobs. Still, a shift to the right in the European parliament would mean more seats held by parties that deny climate change or oppose action to stop it. While most of the policies that make up the European green deal have already been passed, some in a watered-down form, elections in June could tilt the balance in favour of rolling back rules altogether. Explore more on these topics Farming Europe European Union Climate crisis Protest The far right Green politics analysis Share Reuse this content Police officers and armoured vehicles deployed in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris, France, on 31 January as French farmers blocked the motorway with tractors. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Police officers and armoured vehicles deployed in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris, France, on 31 January as French farmers blocked the motorway with tractors. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Analysis ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests This article is more than 1 year old Ajit Niranjan European environment correspondent Under pressure from the far right in upcoming elections, environmental concessions being made across continent Exhausted by an energy crisis, burdened by bureaucracy and angry at efforts to curb their pollution, Europe’s farmers say people are not listening to their plight. “Over the last few years we’ve spoken out vigorously, but we haven’t been heard,” Europe’s biggest farming lobby, Copa Cogeca, said on Wednesday in an open letter to the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen. “The survival of European family farming as it is known today is in danger.” Watching tractors trundle through their cities , politicians in offices from Paris to Berlin have taken note of the fury. Farmers scored their first EU-wide win on Wednesday after weeks of demonstrations that have swept western Europe – cheered on by the far right – with Von der Leyen asking member states to delay by one year a key rule to encourage biodiversity and protect soil health. It follows other concessions to farmers from politicians in France and Germany that have so far done little to stop the unrest. The protests are the latest episode in a growing political backlash which has been brewing for months to the European green deal . Now, with European elections looming and the far right on the rise in several member states, green groups fear efforts to weaken environmental rules are meeting less and less resistance. Why Europe’s farmers are protesting – and the far right is taking note Read more Pieter de Pous, a nature expert at the climate thinktank E3G, said: “Macron, under the weight of Marine Le Pen’s pressure, and Von der Leyen, eyeing a second term, find themselves compelled to comply.” The decision to delay the rules did not stand up to scrutiny and raised concerns about the credibility of the EU’s farming policy, he added. The rules that are to be kicked back until 2025 require farmers to set aside at least 4% of their land for non-productive purposes, or for hedgerows and trees, in order to keep getting subsidies from the EU. Critics say the decision to delay them has less to do with substance of the policy and more to do with appeasing a key voter base. The commission has already delayed the rules once, after Russia invaded Ukraine and threw grain supplies into chaos, because farmers argued they would hurt food security. But now, as the war’s second anniversary nears, cheap grain from Ukraine is one of the main sources of the farmers’ frustration. “So basically, whether we have too much or too little, the solution is always to destroy nature and intensify production,” said Ariel Brunner, the director of Bird Life Europe. “The justification is openly hypocritical.” 1:15 Farmers 'besiege' Paris as protests spread to Brussels – video So far, farmers have been the most vocal group protesting against Europe’s climate policies, and governments have been eager to signal support for them – particularly in rural areas that are bleeding votes to far-right parties . The appeasement has led to accusations of hypocrisy in countries such as Germany, where politicians who have criticised climate activists for glueing themselves to roads have cheered on farmers for blocking traffic with their tractors. Analysts are divided over whether this “greenlash” against climate policy will spill into other sectors and gain widespread support from the public. In recent European elections, such as in the Netherlands and Poland, anti-environment policies played a small role on the campaign trail behind issues such as migration and jobs. Still, a shift to the right in the European parliament would mean more seats held by parties that deny climate change or oppose action to stop it. While most of the policies that make up the European green deal have already been passed, some in a watered-down form, elections in June could tilt the balance in favour of rolling back rules altogether. Explore more on these topics Farming Europe European Union Climate crisis Protest The far right Green politics analysis Share Reuse this content Police officers and armoured vehicles deployed in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris, France, on 31 January as French farmers blocked the motorway with tractors. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Police officers and armoured vehicles deployed in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris, France, on 31 January as French farmers blocked the motorway with tractors. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images Police officers and armoured vehicles deployed in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris, France, on 31 January as French farmers blocked the motorway with tractors. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Police officers and armoured vehicles deployed in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris, France, on 31 January as French farmers blocked the motorway with tractors. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images Police officers and armoured vehicles deployed in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris, France, on 31 January as French farmers blocked the motorway with tractors. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Police officers and armoured vehicles deployed in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris, France, on 31 January as French farmers blocked the motorway with tractors. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images Police officers and armoured vehicles deployed in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris, France, on 31 January as French farmers blocked the motorway with tractors. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Police officers and armoured vehicles deployed in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris, France, on 31 January as French farmers blocked the motorway with tractors. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images Police officers and armoured vehicles deployed in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris, France, on 31 January as French farmers blocked the motorway with tractors. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images Police officers and armoured vehicles deployed in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris, France, on 31 January as French farmers blocked the motorway with tractors. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Analysis ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests This article is more than 1 year old Ajit Niranjan European environment correspondent This article is more than 1 year old Analysis ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests This article is more than 1 year old Ajit Niranjan European environment correspondent This article is more than 1 year old Analysis ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests This article is more than 1 year old Ajit Niranjan European environment 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 Ajit Niranjan European environment correspondent Ajit Niranjan European environment correspondent Under pressure from the far right in upcoming elections, environmental concessions being made across continent Under pressure from the far right in upcoming elections, environmental concessions being made across continent Under pressure from the far right in upcoming elections, environmental concessions being made across continent Exhausted by an energy crisis, burdened by bureaucracy and angry at efforts to curb their pollution, Europe’s farmers say people are not listening to their plight. “Over the last few years we’ve spoken out vigorously, but we haven’t been heard,” Europe’s biggest farming lobby, Copa Cogeca, said on Wednesday in an open letter to the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen. “The survival of European family farming as it is known today is in danger.” Watching tractors trundle through their cities , politicians in offices from Paris to Berlin have taken note of the fury. Farmers scored their first EU-wide win on Wednesday after weeks of demonstrations that have swept western Europe – cheered on by the far right – with Von der Leyen asking member states to delay by one year a key rule to encourage biodiversity and protect soil health. It follows other concessions to farmers from politicians in France and Germany that have so far done little to stop the unrest. The protests are the latest episode in a growing political backlash which has been brewing for months to the European green deal . Now, with European elections looming and the far right on the rise in several member states, green groups fear efforts to weaken environmental rules are meeting less and less resistance. Why Europe’s farmers are protesting – and the far right is taking note Read more Pieter de Pous, a nature expert at the climate thinktank E3G, said: “Macron, under the weight of Marine Le Pen’s pressure, and Von der Leyen, eyeing a second term, find themselves compelled to comply.” The decision to delay the rules did not stand up to scrutiny and raised concerns about the credibility of the EU’s farming policy, he added. The rules that are to be kicked back until 2025 require farmers to set aside at least 4% of their land for non-productive purposes, or for hedgerows and trees, in order to keep getting subsidies from the EU. Critics say the decision to delay them has less to do with substance of the policy and more to do with appeasing a key voter base. The commission has already delayed the rules once, after Russia invaded Ukraine and threw grain supplies into chaos, because farmers argued they would hurt food security. But now, as the war’s second anniversary nears, cheap grain from Ukraine is one of the main sources of the farmers’ frustration. “So basically, whether we have too much or too little, the solution is always to destroy nature and intensify production,” said Ariel Brunner, the director of Bird Life Europe. “The justification is openly hypocritical.” 1:15 Farmers 'besiege' Paris as protests spread to Brussels – video So far, farmers have been the most vocal group protesting against Europe’s climate policies, and governments have been eager to signal support for them – particularly in rural areas that are bleeding votes to far-right parties . The appeasement has led to accusations of hypocrisy in countries such as Germany, where politicians who have criticised climate activists for glueing themselves to roads have cheered on farmers for blocking traffic with their tractors. Analysts are divided over whether this “greenlash” against climate policy will spill into other sectors and gain widespread support from the public. In recent European elections, such as in the Netherlands and Poland, anti-environment policies played a small role on the campaign trail behind issues such as migration and jobs. Still, a shift to the right in the European parliament would mean more seats held by parties that deny climate change or oppose action to stop it. While most of the policies that make up the European green deal have already been passed, some in a watered-down form, elections in June could tilt the balance in favour of rolling back rules altogether. Explore more on these topics Farming Europe European Union Climate crisis Protest The far right Green politics analysis Share Reuse this content Exhausted by an energy crisis, burdened by bureaucracy and angry at efforts to curb their pollution, Europe’s farmers say people are not listening to their plight. “Over the last few years we’ve spoken out vigorously, but we haven’t been heard,” Europe’s biggest farming lobby, Copa Cogeca, said on Wednesday in an open letter to the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen. “The survival of European family farming as it is known today is in danger.” Watching tractors trundle through their cities , politicians in offices from Paris to Berlin have taken note of the fury. Farmers scored their first EU-wide win on Wednesday after weeks of demonstrations that have swept western Europe – cheered on by the far right – with Von der Leyen asking member states to delay by one year a key rule to encourage biodiversity and protect soil health. It follows other concessions to farmers from politicians in France and Germany that have so far done little to stop the unrest. The protests are the latest episode in a growing political backlash which has been brewing for months to the European green deal . Now, with European elections looming and the far right on the rise in several member states, green groups fear efforts to weaken environmental rules are meeting less and less resistance. Why Europe’s farmers are protesting – and the far right is taking note Read more Pieter de Pous, a nature expert at the climate thinktank E3G, said: “Macron, under the weight of Marine Le Pen’s pressure, and Von der Leyen, eyeing a second term, find themselves compelled to comply.” The decision to delay the rules did not stand up to scrutiny and raised concerns about the credibility of the EU’s farming policy, he added. The rules that are to be kicked back until 2025 require farmers to set aside at least 4% of their land for non-productive purposes, or for hedgerows and trees, in order to keep getting subsidies from the EU. Critics say the decision to delay them has less to do with substance of the policy and more to do with appeasing a key voter base. The commission has already delayed the rules once, after Russia invaded Ukraine and threw grain supplies into chaos, because farmers argued they would hurt food security. But now, as the war’s second anniversary nears, cheap grain from Ukraine is one of the main sources of the farmers’ frustration. “So basically, whether we have too much or too little, the solution is always to destroy nature and intensify production,” said Ariel Brunner, the director of Bird Life Europe. “The justification is openly hypocritical.” 1:15 Farmers 'besiege' Paris as protests spread to Brussels – video So far, farmers have been the most vocal group protesting against Europe’s climate policies, and governments have been eager to signal support for them – particularly in rural areas that are bleeding votes to far-right parties . The appeasement has led to accusations of hypocrisy in countries such as Germany, where politicians who have criticised climate activists for glueing themselves to roads have cheered on farmers for blocking traffic with their tractors. Analysts are divided over whether this “greenlash” against climate policy will spill into other sectors and gain widespread support from the public. In recent European elections, such as in the Netherlands and Poland, anti-environment policies played a small role on the campaign trail behind issues such as migration and jobs. Still, a shift to the right in the European parliament would mean more seats held by parties that deny climate change or oppose action to stop it. While most of the policies that make up the European green deal have already been passed, some in a watered-down form, elections in June could tilt the balance in favour of rolling back rules altogether. Explore more on these topics Farming Europe European Union Climate crisis Protest The far right Green politics analysis Share Reuse this content Exhausted by an energy crisis, burdened by bureaucracy and angry at efforts to curb their pollution, Europe’s farmers say people are not listening to their plight. “Over the last few years we’ve spoken out vigorously, but we haven’t been heard,” Europe’s biggest farming lobby, Copa Cogeca, said on Wednesday in an open letter to the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen. “The survival of European family farming as it is known today is in danger.” Watching tractors trundle through their cities , politicians in offices from Paris to Berlin have taken note of the fury. Farmers scored their first EU-wide win on Wednesday after weeks of demonstrations that have swept western Europe – cheered on by the far right – with Von der Leyen asking member states to delay by one year a key rule to encourage biodiversity and protect soil health. It follows other concessions to farmers from politicians in France and Germany that have so far done little to stop the unrest. The protests are the latest episode in a growing political backlash which has been brewing for months to the European green deal . Now, with European elections looming and the far right on the rise in several member states, green groups fear efforts to weaken environmental rules are meeting less and less resistance. Why Europe’s farmers are protesting – and the far right is taking note Read more Pieter de Pous, a nature expert at the climate thinktank E3G, said: “Macron, under the weight of Marine Le Pen’s pressure, and Von der Leyen, eyeing a second term, find themselves compelled to comply.” The decision to delay the rules did not stand up to scrutiny and raised concerns about the credibility of the EU’s farming policy, he added. The rules that are to be kicked back until 2025 require farmers to set aside at least 4% of their land for non-productive purposes, or for hedgerows and trees, in order to keep getting subsidies from the EU. Critics say the decision to delay them has less to do with substance of the policy and more to do with appeasing a key voter base. The commission has already delayed the rules once, after Russia invaded Ukraine and threw grain supplies into chaos, because farmers argued they would hurt food security. But now, as the war’s second anniversary nears, cheap grain from Ukraine is one of the main sources of the farmers’ frustration. “So basically, whether we have too much or too little, the solution is always to destroy nature and intensify production,” said Ariel Brunner, the director of Bird Life Europe. “The justification is openly hypocritical.” 1:15 Farmers 'besiege' Paris as protests spread to Brussels – video So far, farmers have been the most vocal group protesting against Europe’s climate policies, and governments have been eager to signal support for them – particularly in rural areas that are bleeding votes to far-right parties . The appeasement has led to accusations of hypocrisy in countries such as Germany, where politicians who have criticised climate activists for glueing themselves to roads have cheered on farmers for blocking traffic with their tractors. Analysts are divided over whether this “greenlash” against climate policy will spill into other sectors and gain widespread support from the public. In recent European elections, such as in the Netherlands and Poland, anti-environment policies played a small role on the campaign trail behind issues such as migration and jobs. Still, a shift to the right in the European parliament would mean more seats held by parties that deny climate change or oppose action to stop it. While most of the policies that make up the European green deal have already been passed, some in a watered-down form, elections in June could tilt the balance in favour of rolling back rules altogether. Exhausted by an energy crisis, burdened by bureaucracy and angry at efforts to curb their pollution, Europe’s farmers say people are not listening to their plight. “Over the last few years we’ve spoken out vigorously, but we haven’t been heard,” Europe’s biggest farming lobby, Copa Cogeca, said on Wednesday in an open letter to the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen. “The survival of European family farming as it is known today is in danger.” Watching tractors trundle through their cities , politicians in offices from Paris to Berlin have taken note of the fury. Farmers scored their first EU-wide win on Wednesday after weeks of demonstrations that have swept western Europe – cheered on by the far right – with Von der Leyen asking member states to delay by one year a key rule to encourage biodiversity and protect soil health. It follows other concessions to farmers from politicians in France and Germany that have so far done little to stop the unrest. The protests are the latest episode in a growing political backlash which has been brewing for months to the European green deal . Now, with European elections looming and the far right on the rise in several member states, green groups fear efforts to weaken environmental rules are meeting less and less resistance. Why Europe’s farmers are protesting – and the far right is taking note Read more Pieter de Pous, a nature expert at the climate thinktank E3G, said: “Macron, under the weight of Marine Le Pen’s pressure, and Von der Leyen, eyeing a second term, find themselves compelled to comply.” The decision to delay the rules did not stand up to scrutiny and raised concerns about the credibility of the EU’s farming policy, he added. The rules that are to be kicked back until 2025 require farmers to set aside at least 4% of their land for non-productive purposes, or for hedgerows and trees, in order to keep getting subsidies from the EU. Critics say the decision to delay them has less to do with substance of the policy and more to do with appeasing a key voter base. The commission has already delayed the rules once, after Russia invaded Ukraine and threw grain supplies into chaos, because farmers argued they would hurt food security. But now, as the war’s second anniversary nears, cheap grain from Ukraine is one of the main sources of the farmers’ frustration. “So basically, whether we have too much or too little, the solution is always to destroy nature and intensify production,” said Ariel Brunner, the director of Bird Life Europe. “The justification is openly hypocritical.” 1:15 Farmers 'besiege' Paris as protests spread to Brussels – video So far, farmers have been the most vocal group protesting against Europe’s climate policies, and governments have been eager to signal support for them – particularly in rural areas that are bleeding votes to far-right parties . The appeasement has led to accusations of hypocrisy in countries such as Germany, where politicians who have criticised climate activists for glueing themselves to roads have cheered on farmers for blocking traffic with their tractors. Analysts are divided over whether this “greenlash” against climate policy will spill into other sectors and gain widespread support from the public. In recent European elections, such as in the Netherlands and Poland, anti-environment policies played a small role on the campaign trail behind issues such as migration and jobs. Still, a shift to the right in the European parliament would mean more seats held by parties that deny climate change or oppose action to stop it. While most of the policies that make up the European green deal have already been passed, some in a watered-down form, elections in June could tilt the balance in favour of rolling back rules altogether. Exhausted by an energy crisis, burdened by bureaucracy and angry at efforts to curb their pollution, Europe’s farmers say people are not listening to their plight. “Over the last few years we’ve spoken out vigorously, but we haven’t been heard,” Europe’s biggest farming lobby, Copa Cogeca, said on Wednesday in an open letter to the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen. “The survival of European family farming as it is known today is in danger.” Watching tractors trundle through their cities , politicians in offices from Paris to Berlin have taken note of the fury. Farmers scored their first EU-wide win on Wednesday after weeks of demonstrations that have swept western Europe – cheered on by the far right – with Von der Leyen asking member states to delay by one year a key rule to encourage biodiversity and protect soil health. It follows other concessions to farmers from politicians in France and Germany that have so far done little to stop the unrest. The protests are the latest episode in a growing political backlash which has been brewing for months to the European green deal . Now, with European elections looming and the far right on the rise in several member states, green groups fear efforts to weaken environmental rules are meeting less and less resistance. Why Europe’s farmers are protesting – and the far right is taking note Read more Why Europe’s farmers are protesting – and the far right is taking note Read more Why Europe’s farmers are protesting – and the far right is taking note Read more Why Europe’s farmers are protesting – and the far right is taking note Why Europe’s farmers are protesting – and the far right is taking note Pieter de Pous, a nature expert at the climate thinktank E3G, said: “Macron, under the weight of Marine Le Pen’s pressure, and Von der Leyen, eyeing a second term, find themselves compelled to comply.” The decision to delay the rules did not stand up to scrutiny and raised concerns about the credibility of the EU’s farming policy, he added. The rules that are to be kicked back until 2025 require farmers to set aside at least 4% of their land for non-productive purposes, or for hedgerows and trees, in order to keep getting subsidies from the EU. Critics say the decision to delay them has less to do with substance of the policy and more to do with appeasing a key voter base. The commission has already delayed the rules once, after Russia invaded Ukraine and threw grain supplies into chaos, because farmers argued they would hurt food security. But now, as the war’s second anniversary nears, cheap grain from Ukraine is one of the main sources of the farmers’ frustration. “So basically, whether we have too much or too little, the solution is always to destroy nature and intensify production,” said Ariel Brunner, the director of Bird Life Europe. “The justification is openly hypocritical.” 1:15 Farmers 'besiege' Paris as protests spread to Brussels – video So far, farmers have been the most vocal group protesting against Europe’s climate policies, and governments have been eager to signal support for them – particularly in rural areas that are bleeding votes to far-right parties . The appeasement has led to accusations of hypocrisy in countries such as Germany, where politicians who have criticised climate activists for glueing themselves to roads have cheered on farmers for blocking traffic with their tractors. Analysts are divided over whether this “greenlash” against climate policy will spill into other sectors and gain widespread support from the public. In recent European elections, such as in the Netherlands and Poland, anti-environment policies played a small role on the campaign trail behind issues such as migration and jobs. Still, a shift to the right in the European parliament would mean more seats held by parties that deny climate change or oppose action to stop it. While most of the policies that make up the European green deal have already been passed, some in a watered-down form, elections in June could tilt the balance in favour of rolling back rules altogether. Explore more on these topics Farming Europe European Union Climate crisis Protest The far right Green politics analysis Share Reuse this content Farming Europe European Union Climate crisis Protest The far right Green politics analysis
|
EU to delay new green rule in bid to appease protesting farmers
Farmers block the road in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris. Photograph: Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Farmers block the road in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris. Photograph: Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old EU to delay new green rule in bid to appease protesting farmers This article is more than 1 year old Delay to rules on setting aside land to encourage biodiversity offered as concession amid continuing protests Farmers protesting across Europe have won their first concession from Brussels, with the EU announcing a delay in rules that would have forced them to set aside land to encourage biodiversity and soil health. About 10,000 French farmers stepped up their protests on Wednesday, with at least 100 blockades on major roads across France, as 18 farmers were arrested for blocking traffic as they tried to reach the wholesale food market at Rungis, south-east of Paris and 79 others were detained after they managed to get inside. Belgian farmers joined protests at the French border and others blocked access roads to the Zeebrugge container port for a second day. Spanish and Italian farmers also demonstrated. View image in fullscreen Farmers drive tractors during a protest at Melegnano toll booth, near Milan, Italy. Photograph: Claudia Greco/Reuters The European Commission vice-president, Maroš Šefčovič, described Wednesday’s decision to delay rules on setting aside land, which is expected to be rubber-stamped by member states within 15 days, as “a helping hand” for the sector at a difficult time. Citing flooding, wildfires in Greece, heatwaves across southern Europe and drought in Spain which has left reservoirs in Andalucia at 20% normal levels, he said it was important to listen to farmers and “to avoid the polarisation which is making any good conversation and discussion more difficult. “We feel we are obliged to act under this pressure which the farming community [is feeling],” he said. “We have had a number of extreme meteorological events, droughts, flooding in various parts of Europe, and there was a clear negative effect on the output, on the revenue – and of course, decreased income – for the farmers.” Combined with higher energy prices, the weather-related risks to crops meant farmers were at a “persistent pain point” that was “driving up the cost of production and squeezing revenues”, Šefčovič said. ‘Everyone is affected’: Pressure grows on French government to strike deal with farmers Read more Under the rules, farmers were expected to keep 4% of their arable land free from crop production in an effort to regenerate the health of the soil and increase biodiversity, which is also in crisis. Alternatively, farmers could have got an exemption from this “set-aside” rule if they had used 7% of their land for “catch crops” such as clover, which provide cover for the soil after the main crop is harvested. However, under the new proposals, farmers will not be obliged to set aside fallow land, or any portion of land for catch crops, until 2025. The change comes as farm protests have been intensifying, in the past 24 hours. On Wednesday, French farmers from the south-west of the country managed to get around police barriers south of Paris by taking back-roads or switching from tractors to trucks in order to reach the area near the Rungis food market. The French interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, had warned that while farmers’ protests on motorways would be tolerated, police would not allow them to block airports or Rungis, Europe’s largest fresh food market. View image in fullscreen French farmers maintain roadblocks on key highways into Paris. Photograph: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images The Créteil prosecutor’s office outside Paris said that 15 of the 18 farmers arrested near Rungis were in custody being questioned by police. French farmers also blocked roads around Lyon. At a farmers’ roadblock in Cavaillon in the south, foreign produce, including Italian kiwifruit and pears, was unloaded from lorries. Virgile, a farmer demonstrating, told BFMTV: “This is about the anger of country people being treated by fools. We work like dogs. Our message is: Buy French produce, make that effort.” After days spent calling for higher incomes, less red tape and protection from foreign competition, “there are huge expectations” among farmers, said Arnaud Rousseau, the head of France’s largest agricultural union, the FNSEA. He added that not all of the demands could be immediately answered “so I’m trying to call for calm and reason”. Until now, farmers have not been impressed with the quick fixes offered by politicians or officials in Brussels. They have concerns about the high cost of land, the pressure from supermarkets to sell crops at near-cost prices, and the plethora of new environment rules coming in the form of EU nature restoration laws. Their critics say EU farmers are among the most cosseted sectors in the industry, with more than €307bn (£260bn) – 30% of the overall EU budget – earmarked for them between 2023 and 2027. Asked if Wednesday’s concession would be enough to quell the protests, Šefčovič admitted that the EU had to “intensify” the dialogue with farmers to make sure they were listened to. “We have to make sure that Europe will become a continent which will be habitable, also, in the future,” he added. The European Commission will also set up measures to limit market disruption from Ukrainian products entering the EU, after tariffs were lifted in response to Russia’s invasion. France will oppose a trade deal between the European Union and the South American Mercosur bloc – a key grievance for protesters – being signed in its current state. The French economy minister, Bruno Le Maire, said there would be closer surveillance of European food trading platforms to ensure that “farmers’ income is not the first thing to be sacrificed in trade negotiations”. View image in fullscreen Belgian farmers block the access roads to the port in Zeebruge. Photograph: Olivier Matthys/EPA Explore more on these topics Farming Conservation Biodiversity Agriculture European Union Europe Wildlife news Share Reuse this content Farmers block the road in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris. Photograph: Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Farmers block the road in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris. Photograph: Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old EU to delay new green rule in bid to appease protesting farmers This article is more than 1 year old Delay to rules on setting aside land to encourage biodiversity offered as concession amid continuing protests Farmers protesting across Europe have won their first concession from Brussels, with the EU announcing a delay in rules that would have forced them to set aside land to encourage biodiversity and soil health. About 10,000 French farmers stepped up their protests on Wednesday, with at least 100 blockades on major roads across France, as 18 farmers were arrested for blocking traffic as they tried to reach the wholesale food market at Rungis, south-east of Paris and 79 others were detained after they managed to get inside. Belgian farmers joined protests at the French border and others blocked access roads to the Zeebrugge container port for a second day. Spanish and Italian farmers also demonstrated. View image in fullscreen Farmers drive tractors during a protest at Melegnano toll booth, near Milan, Italy. Photograph: Claudia Greco/Reuters The European Commission vice-president, Maroš Šefčovič, described Wednesday’s decision to delay rules on setting aside land, which is expected to be rubber-stamped by member states within 15 days, as “a helping hand” for the sector at a difficult time. Citing flooding, wildfires in Greece, heatwaves across southern Europe and drought in Spain which has left reservoirs in Andalucia at 20% normal levels, he said it was important to listen to farmers and “to avoid the polarisation which is making any good conversation and discussion more difficult. “We feel we are obliged to act under this pressure which the farming community [is feeling],” he said. “We have had a number of extreme meteorological events, droughts, flooding in various parts of Europe, and there was a clear negative effect on the output, on the revenue – and of course, decreased income – for the farmers.” Combined with higher energy prices, the weather-related risks to crops meant farmers were at a “persistent pain point” that was “driving up the cost of production and squeezing revenues”, Šefčovič said. ‘Everyone is affected’: Pressure grows on French government to strike deal with farmers Read more Under the rules, farmers were expected to keep 4% of their arable land free from crop production in an effort to regenerate the health of the soil and increase biodiversity, which is also in crisis. Alternatively, farmers could have got an exemption from this “set-aside” rule if they had used 7% of their land for “catch crops” such as clover, which provide cover for the soil after the main crop is harvested. However, under the new proposals, farmers will not be obliged to set aside fallow land, or any portion of land for catch crops, until 2025. The change comes as farm protests have been intensifying, in the past 24 hours. On Wednesday, French farmers from the south-west of the country managed to get around police barriers south of Paris by taking back-roads or switching from tractors to trucks in order to reach the area near the Rungis food market. The French interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, had warned that while farmers’ protests on motorways would be tolerated, police would not allow them to block airports or Rungis, Europe’s largest fresh food market. View image in fullscreen French farmers maintain roadblocks on key highways into Paris. Photograph: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images The Créteil prosecutor’s office outside Paris said that 15 of the 18 farmers arrested near Rungis were in custody being questioned by police. French farmers also blocked roads around Lyon. At a farmers’ roadblock in Cavaillon in the south, foreign produce, including Italian kiwifruit and pears, was unloaded from lorries. Virgile, a farmer demonstrating, told BFMTV: “This is about the anger of country people being treated by fools. We work like dogs. Our message is: Buy French produce, make that effort.” After days spent calling for higher incomes, less red tape and protection from foreign competition, “there are huge expectations” among farmers, said Arnaud Rousseau, the head of France’s largest agricultural union, the FNSEA. He added that not all of the demands could be immediately answered “so I’m trying to call for calm and reason”. Until now, farmers have not been impressed with the quick fixes offered by politicians or officials in Brussels. They have concerns about the high cost of land, the pressure from supermarkets to sell crops at near-cost prices, and the plethora of new environment rules coming in the form of EU nature restoration laws. Their critics say EU farmers are among the most cosseted sectors in the industry, with more than €307bn (£260bn) – 30% of the overall EU budget – earmarked for them between 2023 and 2027. Asked if Wednesday’s concession would be enough to quell the protests, Šefčovič admitted that the EU had to “intensify” the dialogue with farmers to make sure they were listened to. “We have to make sure that Europe will become a continent which will be habitable, also, in the future,” he added. The European Commission will also set up measures to limit market disruption from Ukrainian products entering the EU, after tariffs were lifted in response to Russia’s invasion. France will oppose a trade deal between the European Union and the South American Mercosur bloc – a key grievance for protesters – being signed in its current state. The French economy minister, Bruno Le Maire, said there would be closer surveillance of European food trading platforms to ensure that “farmers’ income is not the first thing to be sacrificed in trade negotiations”. View image in fullscreen Belgian farmers block the access roads to the port in Zeebruge. Photograph: Olivier Matthys/EPA Explore more on these topics Farming Conservation Biodiversity Agriculture European Union Europe Wildlife news Share Reuse this content Farmers block the road in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris. Photograph: Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Farmers block the road in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris. Photograph: Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu/Getty Images Farmers block the road in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris. Photograph: Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Farmers block the road in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris. Photograph: Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu/Getty Images Farmers block the road in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris. Photograph: Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Farmers block the road in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris. Photograph: Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu/Getty Images Farmers block the road in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris. Photograph: Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Farmers block the road in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris. Photograph: Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu/Getty Images Farmers block the road in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris. Photograph: Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu/Getty Images Farmers block the road in the Chilly-Mazarin district of Paris. Photograph: Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old EU to delay new green rule in bid to appease protesting farmers This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old EU to delay new green rule in bid to appease protesting farmers This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old EU to delay new green rule in bid to appease protesting farmers 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 Delay to rules on setting aside land to encourage biodiversity offered as concession amid continuing protests Delay to rules on setting aside land to encourage biodiversity offered as concession amid continuing protests Delay to rules on setting aside land to encourage biodiversity offered as concession amid continuing protests Farmers protesting across Europe have won their first concession from Brussels, with the EU announcing a delay in rules that would have forced them to set aside land to encourage biodiversity and soil health. About 10,000 French farmers stepped up their protests on Wednesday, with at least 100 blockades on major roads across France, as 18 farmers were arrested for blocking traffic as they tried to reach the wholesale food market at Rungis, south-east of Paris and 79 others were detained after they managed to get inside. Belgian farmers joined protests at the French border and others blocked access roads to the Zeebrugge container port for a second day. Spanish and Italian farmers also demonstrated. View image in fullscreen Farmers drive tractors during a protest at Melegnano toll booth, near Milan, Italy. Photograph: Claudia Greco/Reuters The European Commission vice-president, Maroš Šefčovič, described Wednesday’s decision to delay rules on setting aside land, which is expected to be rubber-stamped by member states within 15 days, as “a helping hand” for the sector at a difficult time. Citing flooding, wildfires in Greece, heatwaves across southern Europe and drought in Spain which has left reservoirs in Andalucia at 20% normal levels, he said it was important to listen to farmers and “to avoid the polarisation which is making any good conversation and discussion more difficult. “We feel we are obliged to act under this pressure which the farming community [is feeling],” he said. “We have had a number of extreme meteorological events, droughts, flooding in various parts of Europe, and there was a clear negative effect on the output, on the revenue – and of course, decreased income – for the farmers.” Combined with higher energy prices, the weather-related risks to crops meant farmers were at a “persistent pain point” that was “driving up the cost of production and squeezing revenues”, Šefčovič said. ‘Everyone is affected’: Pressure grows on French government to strike deal with farmers Read more Under the rules, farmers were expected to keep 4% of their arable land free from crop production in an effort to regenerate the health of the soil and increase biodiversity, which is also in crisis. Alternatively, farmers could have got an exemption from this “set-aside” rule if they had used 7% of their land for “catch crops” such as clover, which provide cover for the soil after the main crop is harvested. However, under the new proposals, farmers will not be obliged to set aside fallow land, or any portion of land for catch crops, until 2025. The change comes as farm protests have been intensifying, in the past 24 hours. On Wednesday, French farmers from the south-west of the country managed to get around police barriers south of Paris by taking back-roads or switching from tractors to trucks in order to reach the area near the Rungis food market. The French interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, had warned that while farmers’ protests on motorways would be tolerated, police would not allow them to block airports or Rungis, Europe’s largest fresh food market. View image in fullscreen French farmers maintain roadblocks on key highways into Paris. Photograph: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images The Créteil prosecutor’s office outside Paris said that 15 of the 18 farmers arrested near Rungis were in custody being questioned by police. French farmers also blocked roads around Lyon. At a farmers’ roadblock in Cavaillon in the south, foreign produce, including Italian kiwifruit and pears, was unloaded from lorries. Virgile, a farmer demonstrating, told BFMTV: “This is about the anger of country people being treated by fools. We work like dogs. Our message is: Buy French produce, make that effort.” After days spent calling for higher incomes, less red tape and protection from foreign competition, “there are huge expectations” among farmers, said Arnaud Rousseau, the head of France’s largest agricultural union, the FNSEA. He added that not all of the demands could be immediately answered “so I’m trying to call for calm and reason”. Until now, farmers have not been impressed with the quick fixes offered by politicians or officials in Brussels. They have concerns about the high cost of land, the pressure from supermarkets to sell crops at near-cost prices, and the plethora of new environment rules coming in the form of EU nature restoration laws. Their critics say EU farmers are among the most cosseted sectors in the industry, with more than €307bn (£260bn) – 30% of the overall EU budget – earmarked for them between 2023 and 2027. Asked if Wednesday’s concession would be enough to quell the protests, Šefčovič admitted that the EU had to “intensify” the dialogue with farmers to make sure they were listened to. “We have to make sure that Europe will become a continent which will be habitable, also, in the future,” he added. The European Commission will also set up measures to limit market disruption from Ukrainian products entering the EU, after tariffs were lifted in response to Russia’s invasion. France will oppose a trade deal between the European Union and the South American Mercosur bloc – a key grievance for protesters – being signed in its current state. The French economy minister, Bruno Le Maire, said there would be closer surveillance of European food trading platforms to ensure that “farmers’ income is not the first thing to be sacrificed in trade negotiations”. View image in fullscreen Belgian farmers block the access roads to the port in Zeebruge. Photograph: Olivier Matthys/EPA Explore more on these topics Farming Conservation Biodiversity Agriculture European Union Europe Wildlife news Share Reuse this content Farmers protesting across Europe have won their first concession from Brussels, with the EU announcing a delay in rules that would have forced them to set aside land to encourage biodiversity and soil health. About 10,000 French farmers stepped up their protests on Wednesday, with at least 100 blockades on major roads across France, as 18 farmers were arrested for blocking traffic as they tried to reach the wholesale food market at Rungis, south-east of Paris and 79 others were detained after they managed to get inside. Belgian farmers joined protests at the French border and others blocked access roads to the Zeebrugge container port for a second day. Spanish and Italian farmers also demonstrated. View image in fullscreen Farmers drive tractors during a protest at Melegnano toll booth, near Milan, Italy. Photograph: Claudia Greco/Reuters The European Commission vice-president, Maroš Šefčovič, described Wednesday’s decision to delay rules on setting aside land, which is expected to be rubber-stamped by member states within 15 days, as “a helping hand” for the sector at a difficult time. Citing flooding, wildfires in Greece, heatwaves across southern Europe and drought in Spain which has left reservoirs in Andalucia at 20% normal levels, he said it was important to listen to farmers and “to avoid the polarisation which is making any good conversation and discussion more difficult. “We feel we are obliged to act under this pressure which the farming community [is feeling],” he said. “We have had a number of extreme meteorological events, droughts, flooding in various parts of Europe, and there was a clear negative effect on the output, on the revenue – and of course, decreased income – for the farmers.” Combined with higher energy prices, the weather-related risks to crops meant farmers were at a “persistent pain point” that was “driving up the cost of production and squeezing revenues”, Šefčovič said. ‘Everyone is affected’: Pressure grows on French government to strike deal with farmers Read more Under the rules, farmers were expected to keep 4% of their arable land free from crop production in an effort to regenerate the health of the soil and increase biodiversity, which is also in crisis. Alternatively, farmers could have got an exemption from this “set-aside” rule if they had used 7% of their land for “catch crops” such as clover, which provide cover for the soil after the main crop is harvested. However, under the new proposals, farmers will not be obliged to set aside fallow land, or any portion of land for catch crops, until 2025. The change comes as farm protests have been intensifying, in the past 24 hours. On Wednesday, French farmers from the south-west of the country managed to get around police barriers south of Paris by taking back-roads or switching from tractors to trucks in order to reach the area near the Rungis food market. The French interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, had warned that while farmers’ protests on motorways would be tolerated, police would not allow them to block airports or Rungis, Europe’s largest fresh food market. View image in fullscreen French farmers maintain roadblocks on key highways into Paris. Photograph: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images The Créteil prosecutor’s office outside Paris said that 15 of the 18 farmers arrested near Rungis were in custody being questioned by police. French farmers also blocked roads around Lyon. At a farmers’ roadblock in Cavaillon in the south, foreign produce, including Italian kiwifruit and pears, was unloaded from lorries. Virgile, a farmer demonstrating, told BFMTV: “This is about the anger of country people being treated by fools. We work like dogs. Our message is: Buy French produce, make that effort.” After days spent calling for higher incomes, less red tape and protection from foreign competition, “there are huge expectations” among farmers, said Arnaud Rousseau, the head of France’s largest agricultural union, the FNSEA. He added that not all of the demands could be immediately answered “so I’m trying to call for calm and reason”. Until now, farmers have not been impressed with the quick fixes offered by politicians or officials in Brussels. They have concerns about the high cost of land, the pressure from supermarkets to sell crops at near-cost prices, and the plethora of new environment rules coming in the form of EU nature restoration laws. Their critics say EU farmers are among the most cosseted sectors in the industry, with more than €307bn (£260bn) – 30% of the overall EU budget – earmarked for them between 2023 and 2027. Asked if Wednesday’s concession would be enough to quell the protests, Šefčovič admitted that the EU had to “intensify” the dialogue with farmers to make sure they were listened to. “We have to make sure that Europe will become a continent which will be habitable, also, in the future,” he added. The European Commission will also set up measures to limit market disruption from Ukrainian products entering the EU, after tariffs were lifted in response to Russia’s invasion. France will oppose a trade deal between the European Union and the South American Mercosur bloc – a key grievance for protesters – being signed in its current state. The French economy minister, Bruno Le Maire, said there would be closer surveillance of European food trading platforms to ensure that “farmers’ income is not the first thing to be sacrificed in trade negotiations”. View image in fullscreen Belgian farmers block the access roads to the port in Zeebruge. Photograph: Olivier Matthys/EPA Explore more on these topics Farming Conservation Biodiversity Agriculture European Union Europe Wildlife news Share Reuse this content Farmers protesting across Europe have won their first concession from Brussels, with the EU announcing a delay in rules that would have forced them to set aside land to encourage biodiversity and soil health. About 10,000 French farmers stepped up their protests on Wednesday, with at least 100 blockades on major roads across France, as 18 farmers were arrested for blocking traffic as they tried to reach the wholesale food market at Rungis, south-east of Paris and 79 others were detained after they managed to get inside. Belgian farmers joined protests at the French border and others blocked access roads to the Zeebrugge container port for a second day. Spanish and Italian farmers also demonstrated. View image in fullscreen Farmers drive tractors during a protest at Melegnano toll booth, near Milan, Italy. Photograph: Claudia Greco/Reuters The European Commission vice-president, Maroš Šefčovič, described Wednesday’s decision to delay rules on setting aside land, which is expected to be rubber-stamped by member states within 15 days, as “a helping hand” for the sector at a difficult time. Citing flooding, wildfires in Greece, heatwaves across southern Europe and drought in Spain which has left reservoirs in Andalucia at 20% normal levels, he said it was important to listen to farmers and “to avoid the polarisation which is making any good conversation and discussion more difficult. “We feel we are obliged to act under this pressure which the farming community [is feeling],” he said. “We have had a number of extreme meteorological events, droughts, flooding in various parts of Europe, and there was a clear negative effect on the output, on the revenue – and of course, decreased income – for the farmers.” Combined with higher energy prices, the weather-related risks to crops meant farmers were at a “persistent pain point” that was “driving up the cost of production and squeezing revenues”, Šefčovič said. ‘Everyone is affected’: Pressure grows on French government to strike deal with farmers Read more Under the rules, farmers were expected to keep 4% of their arable land free from crop production in an effort to regenerate the health of the soil and increase biodiversity, which is also in crisis. Alternatively, farmers could have got an exemption from this “set-aside” rule if they had used 7% of their land for “catch crops” such as clover, which provide cover for the soil after the main crop is harvested. However, under the new proposals, farmers will not be obliged to set aside fallow land, or any portion of land for catch crops, until 2025. The change comes as farm protests have been intensifying, in the past 24 hours. On Wednesday, French farmers from the south-west of the country managed to get around police barriers south of Paris by taking back-roads or switching from tractors to trucks in order to reach the area near the Rungis food market. The French interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, had warned that while farmers’ protests on motorways would be tolerated, police would not allow them to block airports or Rungis, Europe’s largest fresh food market. View image in fullscreen French farmers maintain roadblocks on key highways into Paris. Photograph: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images The Créteil prosecutor’s office outside Paris said that 15 of the 18 farmers arrested near Rungis were in custody being questioned by police. French farmers also blocked roads around Lyon. At a farmers’ roadblock in Cavaillon in the south, foreign produce, including Italian kiwifruit and pears, was unloaded from lorries. Virgile, a farmer demonstrating, told BFMTV: “This is about the anger of country people being treated by fools. We work like dogs. Our message is: Buy French produce, make that effort.” After days spent calling for higher incomes, less red tape and protection from foreign competition, “there are huge expectations” among farmers, said Arnaud Rousseau, the head of France’s largest agricultural union, the FNSEA. He added that not all of the demands could be immediately answered “so I’m trying to call for calm and reason”. Until now, farmers have not been impressed with the quick fixes offered by politicians or officials in Brussels. They have concerns about the high cost of land, the pressure from supermarkets to sell crops at near-cost prices, and the plethora of new environment rules coming in the form of EU nature restoration laws. Their critics say EU farmers are among the most cosseted sectors in the industry, with more than €307bn (£260bn) – 30% of the overall EU budget – earmarked for them between 2023 and 2027. Asked if Wednesday’s concession would be enough to quell the protests, Šefčovič admitted that the EU had to “intensify” the dialogue with farmers to make sure they were listened to. “We have to make sure that Europe will become a continent which will be habitable, also, in the future,” he added. The European Commission will also set up measures to limit market disruption from Ukrainian products entering the EU, after tariffs were lifted in response to Russia’s invasion. France will oppose a trade deal between the European Union and the South American Mercosur bloc – a key grievance for protesters – being signed in its current state. The French economy minister, Bruno Le Maire, said there would be closer surveillance of European food trading platforms to ensure that “farmers’ income is not the first thing to be sacrificed in trade negotiations”. View image in fullscreen Belgian farmers block the access roads to the port in Zeebruge. Photograph: Olivier Matthys/EPA Farmers protesting across Europe have won their first concession from Brussels, with the EU announcing a delay in rules that would have forced them to set aside land to encourage biodiversity and soil health. About 10,000 French farmers stepped up their protests on Wednesday, with at least 100 blockades on major roads across France, as 18 farmers were arrested for blocking traffic as they tried to reach the wholesale food market at Rungis, south-east of Paris and 79 others were detained after they managed to get inside. Belgian farmers joined protests at the French border and others blocked access roads to the Zeebrugge container port for a second day. Spanish and Italian farmers also demonstrated. View image in fullscreen Farmers drive tractors during a protest at Melegnano toll booth, near Milan, Italy. Photograph: Claudia Greco/Reuters The European Commission vice-president, Maroš Šefčovič, described Wednesday’s decision to delay rules on setting aside land, which is expected to be rubber-stamped by member states within 15 days, as “a helping hand” for the sector at a difficult time. Citing flooding, wildfires in Greece, heatwaves across southern Europe and drought in Spain which has left reservoirs in Andalucia at 20% normal levels, he said it was important to listen to farmers and “to avoid the polarisation which is making any good conversation and discussion more difficult. “We feel we are obliged to act under this pressure which the farming community [is feeling],” he said. “We have had a number of extreme meteorological events, droughts, flooding in various parts of Europe, and there was a clear negative effect on the output, on the revenue – and of course, decreased income – for the farmers.” Combined with higher energy prices, the weather-related risks to crops meant farmers were at a “persistent pain point” that was “driving up the cost of production and squeezing revenues”, Šefčovič said. ‘Everyone is affected’: Pressure grows on French government to strike deal with farmers Read more Under the rules, farmers were expected to keep 4% of their arable land free from crop production in an effort to regenerate the health of the soil and increase biodiversity, which is also in crisis. Alternatively, farmers could have got an exemption from this “set-aside” rule if they had used 7% of their land for “catch crops” such as clover, which provide cover for the soil after the main crop is harvested. However, under the new proposals, farmers will not be obliged to set aside fallow land, or any portion of land for catch crops, until 2025. The change comes as farm protests have been intensifying, in the past 24 hours. On Wednesday, French farmers from the south-west of the country managed to get around police barriers south of Paris by taking back-roads or switching from tractors to trucks in order to reach the area near the Rungis food market. The French interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, had warned that while farmers’ protests on motorways would be tolerated, police would not allow them to block airports or Rungis, Europe’s largest fresh food market. View image in fullscreen French farmers maintain roadblocks on key highways into Paris. Photograph: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images The Créteil prosecutor’s office outside Paris said that 15 of the 18 farmers arrested near Rungis were in custody being questioned by police. French farmers also blocked roads around Lyon. At a farmers’ roadblock in Cavaillon in the south, foreign produce, including Italian kiwifruit and pears, was unloaded from lorries. Virgile, a farmer demonstrating, told BFMTV: “This is about the anger of country people being treated by fools. We work like dogs. Our message is: Buy French produce, make that effort.” After days spent calling for higher incomes, less red tape and protection from foreign competition, “there are huge expectations” among farmers, said Arnaud Rousseau, the head of France’s largest agricultural union, the FNSEA. He added that not all of the demands could be immediately answered “so I’m trying to call for calm and reason”. Until now, farmers have not been impressed with the quick fixes offered by politicians or officials in Brussels. They have concerns about the high cost of land, the pressure from supermarkets to sell crops at near-cost prices, and the plethora of new environment rules coming in the form of EU nature restoration laws. Their critics say EU farmers are among the most cosseted sectors in the industry, with more than €307bn (£260bn) – 30% of the overall EU budget – earmarked for them between 2023 and 2027. Asked if Wednesday’s concession would be enough to quell the protests, Šefčovič admitted that the EU had to “intensify” the dialogue with farmers to make sure they were listened to. “We have to make sure that Europe will become a continent which will be habitable, also, in the future,” he added. The European Commission will also set up measures to limit market disruption from Ukrainian products entering the EU, after tariffs were lifted in response to Russia’s invasion. France will oppose a trade deal between the European Union and the South American Mercosur bloc – a key grievance for protesters – being signed in its current state. The French economy minister, Bruno Le Maire, said there would be closer surveillance of European food trading platforms to ensure that “farmers’ income is not the first thing to be sacrificed in trade negotiations”. View image in fullscreen Belgian farmers block the access roads to the port in Zeebruge. Photograph: Olivier Matthys/EPA Farmers protesting across Europe have won their first concession from Brussels, with the EU announcing a delay in rules that would have forced them to set aside land to encourage biodiversity and soil health. About 10,000 French farmers stepped up their protests on Wednesday, with at least 100 blockades on major roads across France, as 18 farmers were arrested for blocking traffic as they tried to reach the wholesale food market at Rungis, south-east of Paris and 79 others were detained after they managed to get inside. Belgian farmers joined protests at the French border and others blocked access roads to the Zeebrugge container port for a second day. Spanish and Italian farmers also demonstrated. The European Commission vice-president, Maroš Šefčovič, described Wednesday’s decision to delay rules on setting aside land, which is expected to be rubber-stamped by member states within 15 days, as “a helping hand” for the sector at a difficult time. Citing flooding, wildfires in Greece, heatwaves across southern Europe and drought in Spain which has left reservoirs in Andalucia at 20% normal levels, he said it was important to listen to farmers and “to avoid the polarisation which is making any good conversation and discussion more difficult. “We feel we are obliged to act under this pressure which the farming community [is feeling],” he said. “We have had a number of extreme meteorological events, droughts, flooding in various parts of Europe, and there was a clear negative effect on the output, on the revenue – and of course, decreased income – for the farmers.” Combined with higher energy prices, the weather-related risks to crops meant farmers were at a “persistent pain point” that was “driving up the cost of production and squeezing revenues”, Šefčovič said. ‘Everyone is affected’: Pressure grows on French government to strike deal with farmers Read more ‘Everyone is affected’: Pressure grows on French government to strike deal with farmers Read more ‘Everyone is affected’: Pressure grows on French government to strike deal with farmers Read more ‘Everyone is affected’: Pressure grows on French government to strike deal with farmers ‘Everyone is affected’: Pressure grows on French government to strike deal with farmers Under the rules, farmers were expected to keep 4% of their arable land free from crop production in an effort to regenerate the health of the soil and increase biodiversity, which is also in crisis. Alternatively, farmers could have got an exemption from this “set-aside” rule if they had used 7% of their land for “catch crops” such as clover, which provide cover for the soil after the main crop is harvested. However, under the new proposals, farmers will not be obliged to set aside fallow land, or any portion of land for catch crops, until 2025. The change comes as farm protests have been intensifying, in the past 24 hours. On Wednesday, French farmers from the south-west of the country managed to get around police barriers south of Paris by taking back-roads or switching from tractors to trucks in order to reach the area near the Rungis food market. The French interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, had warned that while farmers’ protests on motorways would be tolerated, police would not allow them to block airports or Rungis, Europe’s largest fresh food market. The Créteil prosecutor’s office outside Paris said that 15 of the 18 farmers arrested near Rungis were in custody being questioned by police. French farmers also blocked roads around Lyon. At a farmers’ roadblock in Cavaillon in the south, foreign produce, including Italian kiwifruit and pears, was unloaded from lorries. Virgile, a farmer demonstrating, told BFMTV: “This is about the anger of country people being treated by fools. We work like dogs. Our message is: Buy French produce, make that effort.” After days spent calling for higher incomes, less red tape and protection from foreign competition, “there are huge expectations” among farmers, said Arnaud Rousseau, the head of France’s largest agricultural union, the FNSEA. He added that not all of the demands could be immediately answered “so I’m trying to call for calm and reason”. Until now, farmers have not been impressed with the quick fixes offered by politicians or officials in Brussels. They have concerns about the high cost of land, the pressure from supermarkets to sell crops at near-cost prices, and the plethora of new environment rules coming in the form of EU nature restoration laws. Their critics say EU farmers are among the most cosseted sectors in the industry, with more than €307bn (£260bn) – 30% of the overall EU budget – earmarked for them between 2023 and 2027. Asked if Wednesday’s concession would be enough to quell the protests, Šefčovič admitted that the EU had to “intensify” the dialogue with farmers to make sure they were listened to. “We have to make sure that Europe will become a continent which will be habitable, also, in the future,” he added. The European Commission will also set up measures to limit market disruption from Ukrainian products entering the EU, after tariffs were lifted in response to Russia’s invasion. France will oppose a trade deal between the European Union and the South American Mercosur bloc – a key grievance for protesters – being signed in its current state. The French economy minister, Bruno Le Maire, said there would be closer surveillance of European food trading platforms to ensure that “farmers’ income is not the first thing to be sacrificed in trade negotiations”. Explore more on these topics Farming Conservation Biodiversity Agriculture European Union Europe Wildlife news Share Reuse this content Farming Conservation Biodiversity Agriculture European Union Europe Wildlife news
|
‘They were dying, and they’d not had their money’: Britain’s multibillion-pound equal pay scandal
Campaigner Frances Stojilkovic outside City Chambers in Glasgow. Photograph: Katherine Anne Rose/The Observer In 2005, Glasgow council offered to compensate women for historic pay inequality. But it sold them short again – and soon workers all over the UK started fighting for what they were owed By Samira Shackle J ust before Christmas 2005, Frances Stojilkovic was offered what sounded like free money. She was working as a carer, providing in-home assistance to elderly and disabled people. The letter she received, along with 11,000 other women working for Glasgow city council, told Stojilkovic she was entitled to compensation resulting from wage disparity between men and women. This was the first time most of the women had heard that they were being paid less than their male counterparts – but what drew the attention of Stojilkovic and her friends was the promise of a cash injection. “It was a carrot dangling before Christmas. Everyone wanted to have something for their kids,” she told me recently. Stojilkovic is a no-nonsense woman, born and bred in Glasgow. When she got the letter, she was in her early 40s, and had been working as a home carer for about a year. She loved the job, and was conscious of its importance – sometimes she was the only person someone spoke to that day. But it did not pay well. Many of Stojilkovic’s colleagues, especially the single mothers, worked multiple jobs to make ends meet: night shifts cleaning or weekends in retail. She considered herself lucky because she and her husband both had jobs – he worked in restaurants – so they had two incomes. But she still worked a lot of overtime, and weeks would go by when she and her husband saw little of each other. Stojilkovic was excited at the prospect of a payout. Having done the job for a year, she was told, she was entitled to £2,800. “I just thought – £2,800! I’m rich!” she recalled. ‘They were dying, and they’d not had their money’: Britain’s multibillion-pound equal pay scandal – podcast Read more The compensation package, negotiated behind the scenes between Glasgow city council and the unions, had strict limits. The maximum amount anyone would receive was £9,000. “At the time, that sounded to me like winning the lottery,” Stojilkovic said. But some of her colleagues who had worked as carers for 10 or 20 years wondered if this sold them short. Stojilkovic remembers that their managers always had the same response: “Yous are being greedy. It’s a lot of money.” The letter told the women that if they didn’t take the money, they had the right to pursue claims through employment tribunals with private lawyers, but warned “you could end up with nothing”. As instructed by the letter, Stojilkovic made her way to a leisure centre in town where she would receive “independent, impartial legal advice”. In return for the one-off lump sum, the women, who mostly worked in care and education, were required to sign paperwork giving up their right to make further equal pay claims. The leisure centre was hectic, and Stojilkovic queued with two friends who were entitled to the maximum payment. The two women debated whether to sign, wondering if they could get more money if they held out. When they reached the front of the queue, they spoke with council lawyers and union lawyers, who sat side by side and gave the same advice: sign the document and take the money. One of Stojilkovic’s colleagues signed, and got her £9,000 shortly afterwards; the other didn’t and left the leisure centre empty-handed. Instead, she filed a claim with a private law firm called Fox Cross. For Stojilkovic, it was a no-brainer. She signed, got her cash, and went back to day-to-day life. The £2,800 provided a cushion, but it was soon gone. The payments did not put an end to sex discrimination within the council. In fact, the gulf between women’s and men’s pay was getting bigger. In the years that followed the settlements, Fox Cross (which was later replaced by Action 4 Equality Scotland) sought out women in Glasgow to inform them that because of this ongoing discrimination, they could have a new claim. The lawyers leafleted, took out ads in papers and called public meetings. In 2007, Stojilkovic attended one of these meetings and put in a claim with Action 4 Equality Scotland . Thousands of carers and women in other female-dominated roles such as catering made the same decision. Care work – involving at-home, one-on-one visits – can be lonely. To offset this, Stojilkovic and a few of her colleagues met up regularly between shifts in the cafe in a Morrisons supermarket. In 2008, at one of these gatherings, they heard the news. The woman who hadn’t signed the document at the leisure centre had won her employment tribunal. She had been awarded £27,000: three times the maximum the council had offered. Her story wasn’t unusual. “In some cases, the settlements were worth 10% of what they were entitled to,” Stefan Cross KC, the founder of Action 4 Equality Scotland, told me recently. The fact that the women could have been short-changed by the 2005 payout, and that they could put in new claims because of ongoing discrimination, spread through word of mouth. These conversations signalled the start of a fight that would take almost 20 years, and end with the council paying more than £760m to women who had been systematically underpaid. What happened in Glasgow has changed the way unions and councils around the country treat low-paid female workers. In September 2023, Birmingham city council effectively filed for bankruptcy, in part due to its enormous liability on equal pay. Sheffield city council is facing thousands of equal pay claims from women who were allegedly paid up to £11,000 a year less than men. There are disputes in councils from Coventry to Fife; the GMB alone, one of the main public sector unions, is gathering evidence in 20 different local authorities . But working out what women are owed, and finding the money to pay them, is far from straightforward. Councils around the country are beset by financial problems stemming from funding cuts imposed by Conservative-led governments since 2010. Central government grants to local councils were cut by 40% in real terms between 2009/10 and 2019/20, at the same time as demand for services like child social care increased. (In 2012, two years into austerity, a graph called the “ jaws of doom ” did the rounds at councils, one line showing steeply rising demand and another showing crashing funds.) Deprived areas were worst affected, because they received less money from council tax and relied more on this grant funding. The impact of these cuts is visible every day across Britain: in the loss of libraries, swimming pools and children’s centres, in deteriorating conditions in parks and other public spaces, in overwhelmed social care services. After 14 years of this drastically reduced funding, one in five councils now believes it is “ fairly or very likely ” they will become insolvent in the next 18 months. All this makes local authorities particularly badly placed to deal with this new wave of equal pay claims. “In my view it’s a matter of when, not if, more councils go bankrupt,” a policy adviser from the Local Government Association told me. “It’s a timebomb – and no one got out ahead of it.” Amid this web of financial challenges, councils are facing up to the uncomfortable truth that for many years, the books have been balanced on the backs of women. S tojilkovic never imagined she would end up leading a protest movement. She was born Frances Mowat, and grew up in the Gorbals, a deprived area of Glasgow. Her parents split up when she was one, and her mum brought up seven children alone, working long hours as a bus conductor. Stojilkovic hated school and, after leaving at 16 with no qualifications, she got a job at the high court, where she served lunch to the judges and jury. She stayed there for 12 years – during which time she met her husband, Colin Stojilkovic, and had two daughters – before going back to college to study catering. For a few years, she ran a cafe with her sister, and when that shut down, she worked in her brother-in-law’s restaurant, before she fell out with him. (“I told him where to go,” she said.) Having nursed her father-in-law through dementia, care work felt like a natural step. In 2004, Stojilkovic joined the council’s rapid response team, going to people’s homes to provide care after they had been discharged from hospital. She didn’t think much about her own working conditions, or pay disparities. “We didn’t question stuff like that at the time,” she said. Life was busy, the job was satisfying, and there were bills to pay. “Then, later, you think, ‘Hang on a minute. We’ve got rights.’” Equal pay is a simple idea, but making it a reality is surprisingly difficult, especially across large, sprawling organisations such as local government. “Men and women essentially don’t do the same work most of the time,” said Hazel Conley, professor of human resource management at the University of the West of England. Caring professions, for instance, are dominated by women, and construction work by men. As a result, the definition of equal pay has expanded to include different jobs that are considered equally valuable within an organisation. To quantify this, employers must do a “job evaluation”, which ranks jobs in terms of importance. But there is no objective way to compare, say, a classroom assistant and a gravedigger . “This is a huge problem at the heart of equal value,” said Conley. “You have to rely on a tool that is ultimately very subjective and open to manoeuvring.” This is a particularly acute problem for councils, which are responsible for everything from collecting bins and repairing roads to providing social care and schooling. In the mid-1980s, local authorities carried out a national job evaluation scheme, which awarded all manual workers, from carers to refuse collectors, the same basic pay. But local authorities failed to address the many added perks for male-dominated jobs, such as bonuses and generous allowances for overtime. “Each local authority developed its own way of enhancing the pay of the men – and they were very creative in the way they did it,” said Cross. Glasgow had more than 120 bonus schemes for its employees, and every single one benefited jobs dominated by men. Often these schemes were the direct result of trade unions, which are traditionally male-dominated, lobbying hard for particular groups of employees. The following decade, a further assessment of council jobs across Britain, including all the bonuses and perks that benefited male-dominated jobs, revealed that sex discrimination was endemic. The unions agreed to give the councils a year to address the situation before taking any action. The year passed, and Cross – who was working as a trade union lawyer – saw that the unions were still not pursuing cases. “I’d had enough,” he told me. He left his job as a partner at one of the biggest trade union law firms, and set up his own firm to pursue equal pay litigation. Trade unions are proprietorial, competing with one another and suspicious of outsiders, and many trade union lawyers and organisers felt he was stepping on their toes. Even today, Cross is a divisive figure; when we spoke, he immediately, almost proudly, said he’d been described in the press as “ the most hated lawyer in Britain ”. I spoke to several people within the trade union movement who referred disparagingly to “no-win, no-fee lawyers”, while others commented on how personally wealthy Cross has become from his work on equal pay. Yet numerous women represented by Action 4 Equality Scotland spoke highly of Cross and his colleagues, and it is clear that he is passionate about the cause. View image in fullscreen Stefan Cross of Action 4 Equality Scotland. Photograph: Action 4 Equality Scotland Cross’s new firm started litigating around the UK, not just in Scotland, starting with the north-east of England. It won some early victories. Many councils opted to settle, rather than fighting lengthy court battles. Cross hired a few other disillusioned ex-trade union lawyers and organisers, and his firm filed its first Birmingham case and their first Glasgow case in the same month, June 2005. Not long after that, Stojilkovic and the other women got the letter calling them into the leisure centre. Something very similar happened in Birmingham. “A lot of councils did something like this, where employees were expected to sign away their rights,” said Paul Savage, who worked for Cross’s firm in Birmingham. “Women were often told: ‘Don’t be greedy, take it or you’ll lose your job.’ And the unions sat with the bosses, encouraging women to sign.” Things got even worse for female employees in 2009, when Glasgow city council transferred the employment of carers away from the council itself, to a company called Cordia. Almost every other female-dominated job at the council was similarly outsourced. “It’s our belief that they did that thinking that if they outsourced the women, they wouldn’t be able to compare themselves back to the men who were still in-house,” said Rhea Wolfson, head of internal and industrial relations at GMB, one of the UK’s biggest unions. The employment terms of the women working for Cordia were protected for three years, but after that the workload increased and employees no longer earned double pay for weekend shifts. Once again, the gulf between the working conditions of male-dominated and female-dominated careers widened. There are two ways for employees to fight unequal pay. One is collective bargaining, when unions use their leverage to negotiate on behalf of a particular group. That wasn’t happening; unions weren’t doing much to lobby for women or even inform them they might have a claim. The other is for individuals to file legal claims and pursue personal compensation through tribunals. In Glasgow, a series of complicated points of law had to be decided before individual claims could even be heard, which meant that as far as the women who had filed claims in 2007 were concerned, nothing much was happening. In 2012, Birmingham city council lost an equal pay hearing at the supreme court, and ended up paying out an astonishing £1.1bn to female workers . In Glasgow, even in the wake of this historic ruling, progress was slow. But that was about to change. B y 2014, it had been seven years since Stojilkovic put her claim in with Action 4 Equality Scotland, and she had heard little about it. During those years, the women in her area continued to meet in Morrisons between shifts. On one of these tea breaks, someone told Stojilkovic that her husband worked as a cleansing worker, a council job that had historically been paid the same as the carers. He was now getting £9 an hour, while they only got £6 – and he still had all his overtime payments, bonuses and other enhancements. “It was a massive shock,” Stojilkovic said. It threw into relief what equal pay actually meant. She thought of what a difference an extra £3 an hour would make. “We had to work every hour, just to make ends meet. If you had a proper wage, you could spend more time with your family, or take care of yourself. We were just working constantly. It wasn’t right.” This conversation renewed Stojilkovic’s interest in equal pay. She started sending emails to councillors to demand answers about the disparities. They ignored her messages or sent dismissive, vague responses, and she grew angrier. “They thought we’re just low-paid workers, and we don’t mean anything,” she told me. As she told me about this, Stojilkovic grabbed her phone and read out an email from Frank McAveety, the Labour leader of the council between 2015 and 2017: “A number of colleagues have written in about equal pay and have been asking when the council will settle. In fact, the council settled equal pay in 2006.” She shook her head. “It’s a load of shite.” (McAveety did not respond to a request for interview.) In 2016, after a couple of years of trying and failing to get responses, Stojilkovic’s daughter helped her set up a Facebook page to spread the word about equal pay and let women know they should file a claim. “I was fed up waiting,” Stojilkovic said. At first, there were about 30 carers in Stojilkovic’s Facebook group, all of whom she knew personally. Then others started joining – not just carers but caterers, teaching assistants, cleaners. Mark Irvine, an organiser for Action 4 Equality Scotland, got in touch with Stojilkovic and started giving her regular updates on the legal fight, which she in turn posted to the group. The equal pay claims were inching their way through the employment tribunal system. There were setbacks and wins for each side over the years, and the council was fighting back hard. “To be perfectly honest, there was a degree of fear,” one Glasgow council officer told me. “There was a sense that we’d probably end up having to settle some of the claims, but certainly not all of them, if we kept fighting it.” View image in fullscreen Current and former Birmingham council workers and supporters, from left: Maggie Roche, whose mother worked for BCC, Pam Sanders, Susan Clare, Joan Clulow and Mary Roche after a court judgement in 2012. Photograph: David Jones/PA By this time, Stojilkovic was working as a care coordinator, managing carers and covering if someone was off sick. Her shifts were intense, so she managed the Facebook group at night and the weekend, responding to requests for advice. “I was just on it constant,” Stojilkovic said. This was hard on her family. “She never complained, but I worried about her health,” said her husband, Colin. “You don’t want to be selfish, but you feel you’re being left aside. I know she had me in her heart. But equal pay was 99% of her life, and mine as well.” Colin thought of how accepting Stojilkovic had been of his unsociable work hours in the restaurant industry, and knew he wanted to “support her 100%”. Both of their daughters worked in care, too, but, Stojilkovic said, got “sick of hearing about equal pay”. Her grandchildren didn’t know another version of her. “She was always on her phone, always going to meetings,” said her granddaughter Toni Smith, now aged 18. In late 2016, Stojilkovic decided it was time to take to the streets. She posted to tell women to gather on George Square, near the city chambers. “I knew my wee pals would turn up, even if no one else did,” she said. But when she got there, she was amazed at the turnout. The women stood outside the town hall and shouted “Where’s my money?” at the councillors coming in and out. It was thrilling. They started protesting every other week. The unions had been reluctant to fight for equal pay, but gradually the strength of feeling was impossible to ignore: GMB, Unison and Unite joined protests and started informing their members about the issue. “The campaign Frances ran in Glasgow made the unions take equal pay seriously,” Wolfson, the GMB head of internal and industrial relations, told me. I n 2016, as Stojilkovic’s Facebook group and protests took off, the SNP was gaining ground in local polls ahead of an election for Glasgow city council the following year. Equal pay was a major issue, and the SNP’s leaders tried to get to grips with it. “There was a genuine fear of what the consequences would be financially,” Susan Aitken, the SNP leader of the council since 2017, told me. “But it seemed to me that the longer we let it go on, the worse those consequences would be.” The council fighting back – what Cross called “litigation poker” – was dramatically increasing the amount of money it could owe if it lost. (In an employment tribunal in Scotland, an employee can claim for up to five years of back pay, but they can also claim for the duration of the legal process.) Aitken made it a manifesto commitment that if the SNP won the leadership of Glasgow city council, it would stop fighting in court and negotiate a settlement. Both Aitken and first minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, met with Stojilkovic – a sign of how quickly her equal pay campaign had progressed. In spring 2017, the SNP won enough seats to form a minority administration in Glasgow. Aitken became leader of the council. But changing direction on equal pay after more than a decade wasn’t easy. Council staff had been working on this issue for years, and some chafed at the new approach, preferring to keep litigating and fighting off any claims. While Aitken worked to get council colleagues onside, the court of session, Scotland’s highest court, returned two key verdicts, referred to within the council as “the wee case” and “the big case”. In May 2017, it ruled that the bonuses that had been the norm in male-dominated jobs were discriminatory and that women were entitled to compensation. This was “the wee case”, and the council accepted the finding. In August, the court of session ruled that Glasgow city council had failed to prove that its job evaluation scheme was fair. This was “the big case”, because it involved all 30,000 people employed by the council. In January 2018, the council voted to abandon litigation and pursue a settlement with people working female-dominated roles. Soon after, negotiations began to determine what this settlement would look like. The atmosphere was extremely tense. Given the scale of the dispute, Aitken thought it was inevitable that the process would be slow, but the Action 4 Equality Scotland team were frustrated by the lack of progress. Irvine wrote on his blog that the talks were a “complete sham”. Women who were still waiting for their compensation had started dying. Elaine Russell, a home care coordinator who worked all hours to support her family, died when she was just 55. Margaret Gorman, who spent 16 years as a home carer, died at 60. Maureen McDonald, a council catering manager for 13 years, died at 56. “They were overworked, their bodies didn’t get a chance to recuperate,” Stojilkovic said. “They were all dying, and they’ve not had their money.” Many women felt they were being fobbed off yet again as the council fell behind on the timetable for negotiations. “It was really pissing me off,” said Stojilkovic. On the Facebook group, frustration was boiling over. Shona Thomson, who was an active member of the group, was also a GMB branch secretary. She and Stojilkovic started lobbying their respective unions for a strike. View image in fullscreen Demonstrators during the 2018 equal pay strike in Glasgow. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images On 21 October 2018, 8,000 women employed by Glasgow city council – classroom assistants, carers, caterers – went on strike for two days . The picket lines started at midnight, women bearing placards that read: “I care for your parents. I clean your school. I feed your kids. Women make Glasgow”. Stojilkovic was flying to Tenerife in the afternoon for her annual holiday. She had booked it months before the strike was confirmed, and hadn’t been able to move the flights. (She even told her husband that she didn’t want to go. “I says to her, ‘Are you joking?’” he recalled.) She stayed up all night, showing journalists around, rushing around different sites. Her phone didn’t stop ringing all day. “We were just pure buzzing,” she told me. In the early afternoon, she picked up her suitcases and went straight to the airport, unslept and with her strike T-shirt still on. Thomson was also up at midnight, going between picket lines. She joined a big parade through the city centre, and stood on stage to address the crowd. “It was the proudest moment of my life,” she told me. “I’d always been treated unfairly by men, but standing up there I realised this fight made me stronger as a person.” They held a minute’s silence for the women who had died. When Stojilkovic told me about the strike day, sitting in her living room with her dogs yapping around her feet, her whole face lit up. “The strike gave us our power back,” she said. “All these years they treated us like we were just daft lasses, talking nonsense, only good for wiping bums. But we had a voice.” It was believed to be the UK’s biggest ever strike over equal pay, and the disruption was enormous. Schools and nurseries closed, and home-care services were largely suspended. Many refuse workers – overwhelmingly men – did not cross the picket line, forgoing two days of pay. From social care to homelessness, what are the cost pressures facing English councils? Read more While Aitken and others at the council maintain that the strike had no bearing on the settlement, it is clear that afterwards talks moved more quickly. In January 2019, a settlement was reached. The council would pay a total of £550m to about 15,000 female employees and undertake an entirely new job evaluation, reassessing which roles within the council were comparable. Glasgow city council funded the compensation through a complicated financial arrangement that included selling off some council-owned buildings and leasing them back. In 2019, 11 buildings – mostly sports and leisure centres – were sold off in this way. In meetings with council officials, Thomson and Stojilkovic sometimes felt that the women were being blamed for the council’s financial difficulties. “It’s our money that should have been in our purses, and they kept it in their purses,” Thomson said. “They should have treated us with respect, and this would never have happened.” In May 2019, soon after the settlement was reached, a bench was installed, facing the council’s City Chambers, a grand Victorian building that runs along one side of George Square. Stojilkovic had crowdfunded for it: she wanted it to be seen by the councillors and officials who still work here every day. On a cold autumn day, with rain sheeting down, I found it, and wiped away the rain to read the plaque: “In loving memory of the 163 Glasgow claimants who passed away during the long fight for equal pay with Glasgow city council.” O ver the course of 2019, Stojilkovic, Thomson and thousands of other women got their money. Under the terms of the settlement, they are not allowed to speak about how much they were awarded. But, after 13 long years, it was a victory. “The day we all got our letters I think it was the first time in my life I couldn’t even speak,” said Yvonne Crawford, a care coordinator who campaigned with Stojilkovic. “It was such an overwhelming delight.” Stojilkovic was inundated with messages from women telling her how their lives had changed. “We can do stuff other families do … go out for meals, take an unexpected weekend away. I can get my boys the trainers they want without having to save up and get them one at a time,” one woman wrote on the Facebook group. Another posted: “I am now totally debt-free first time in over 25 years and I am taking my family off to Mexico in a few weeks, which is a dream come true for us.” Others paid off mortgages or bought cars. One woman used it to pay for a gravestone for her son, who had been murdered. Many of them thanked Stojilkovic for all her efforts. Stojillkovic told them: “That’s your money that you worked for.” She gave some of the money from her settlement to her kids, and renovated her home. Soon after the settlement came through, she started to work full-time for the GMB as an equalities rep. Stojilkovic’s campaign in Glasgow changed how the big trade unions treated equal pay. The GMB took up the cause with particular enthusiasm, training staff around the country to spot discrimination and bring claims. In 2021, a Birmingham-based GMB officer called Michelle McCrossen – who had been to one of these training sessions – sounded the alarm. Birmingham city council was asking unions to sign a document that encouraged employees to give up their right to an equal pay claim in return for as little as a few hundred pounds. “Councils don’t generally hand out free money, so we were concerned,” Wolfson said. Although Birmingham city council had paid out £1.1bn to female workers in 2012, it had not adequately addressed the underlying problems, and some of the worst practices were reinstated during the pandemic. “When we looked into what the male comparators were earning, it was beyond the pale,” said Paul Savage, the Action 4 Equality lawyer in Birmingham. “For instance, refuse workers only had to work four days a week, and if they worked on a Friday, it was classed as overtime. None of those terms and conditions were available to women.” The GMB offered to represent its members in equal pay cases, and about 3,000 of them filed claims. This proactive approach from the union was a huge change from previous years. “Birmingham wouldn’t have happened without Glasgow,” said Wolfson. In Birmingham, things unravelled quickly. In September 2023, the council effectively announced bankruptcy. It had estimated that it could owe up to £760m in equal pay claims . While local authorities can’t go bankrupt in the same way that a business can, this has a serious impact: the council will halt all spending other than services that it must provide by law, like social care and waste collection. This can mean closures of libraries or leisure centres, cuts to local arts organisations or sports clubs, and so on. Equal pay wasn’t the only problem – the council also spent about £100m on an IT system that didn’t work, and, most importantly, like every council in England, had its funding from central government cut by more than a third since 2010 – but it was a major contributing factor to its financial collapse. It is an uncomfortable reality that if councils go bankrupt, the people who lose out the most are its own low-paid workers – many of whom are women – as well as poor people dependent on their services. But the responsibility for this cannot fall on the shoulders of female council workers. “Can we really have a welfare state that only survives if it pays its women unequally and unlawfully?” said Conley, the professor of human resources management. Birmingham is a cautionary tale for what can happen if councils pay out without making meaningful change. “Equal pay is a living and breathing thing,” said Wolfson. “If we don’t maintain it, we lose it.” Almost five years after the settlement, women in Glasgow are – somewhat incredibly – still being paid less than their male counterparts. A new job evaluation was delayed by the pandemic and is yet to be completed. In 2022, several more buildings, including the iconic Kelvingrove Art Gallery and the City Chambers – the main council building – were sold off to fund a second set of payments. The total paid out so far is around £760m, and the council will spend around £30m every year on leasing the buildings back. While the council is not making people redundant, it is looking at ways to reduce the workforce, such as not rehiring when people retire or leave. “It’s a sad irony that the consequence of us compensating for discrimination is that we’ll ultimately employ fewer people,” Aitken said. Many other local authorities will face serious equal pay claims in the coming years. The GMB is collecting evidence in 20 areas, and has already filed hundreds of claims in Cumbria, Dundee and Coventry. Given the financial catastrophe unfolding at many councils after years of cuts, “there is no alternative” to central government stepping in to settle the bills, said Wolfson. People I spoke to at councils around the country feel beleaguered; under intense budgetary pressure after years of slashed funding, and now pursued through the courts by the very same unions who are partially responsible for discriminatory pay arrangements. Not only did unions sign off on earlier job evaluation schemes, but some of the worst disparities came about as a result of union pressure that prioritised men over women. “Obviously they’re meant to go hell for leather on getting the best possible deal in every dispute,” said one London-based council officer. “But this is the public purse, and getting insanely preferential deals for refuse workers, which then means home carers are discriminated against, opens the door to public sector layoffs. So where does your socialism start and finish?” How much is an hour worth? The war over the minimum wage Read more In Glasgow, Stojilkovic is frustrated that pay inequality hasn’t been addressed. “We’re still being cheated,” she said. But, now in her 60s, she feels changed by her experience leading the campaign. “When you’re younger, you don’t realise you can fight for better things. But now I know, if you can get united, it’s the most powerful thing ever.” Stojilkovic’s granddaughter Toni Smith was born soon after Stojilkovic received the 2005 payout. The fight for equal pay has lasted her entire life. It is only in the past few years that Smith has started to understand why her grandmother was always so stressed and busy for all those years. “It gives me a wee spring in my step whenever I go on social media and see something about my nana and everything she’s fought for,” she told me. “I’m like – I want to be like that one day.” This article was amended on 1 February 2024. Owing to an editing error, Susan Aitken was described as Glasgow council mayor, rather than leader of the council. In addition, Mark Irvine of Action 4 Equality Scotland was incorrectly described as a lawyer, rather than an organiser. These have been corrected. Explore more on these topics The long read Equal pay Local government Glasgow Protest Industrial action GMB union features Share Reuse this content Campaigner Frances Stojilkovic outside City Chambers in Glasgow. Photograph: Katherine Anne Rose/The Observer In 2005, Glasgow council offered to compensate women for historic pay inequality. But it sold them short again – and soon workers all over the UK started fighting for what they were owed By Samira Shackle J ust before Christmas 2005, Frances Stojilkovic was offered what sounded like free money. She was working as a carer, providing in-home assistance to elderly and disabled people. The letter she received, along with 11,000 other women working for Glasgow city council, told Stojilkovic she was entitled to compensation resulting from wage disparity between men and women. This was the first time most of the women had heard that they were being paid less than their male counterparts – but what drew the attention of Stojilkovic and her friends was the promise of a cash injection. “It was a carrot dangling before Christmas. Everyone wanted to have something for their kids,” she told me recently. Stojilkovic is a no-nonsense woman, born and bred in Glasgow. When she got the letter, she was in her early 40s, and had been working as a home carer for about a year. She loved the job, and was conscious of its importance – sometimes she was the only person someone spoke to that day. But it did not pay well. Many of Stojilkovic’s colleagues, especially the single mothers, worked multiple jobs to make ends meet: night shifts cleaning or weekends in retail. She considered herself lucky because she and her husband both had jobs – he worked in restaurants – so they had two incomes. But she still worked a lot of overtime, and weeks would go by when she and her husband saw little of each other. Stojilkovic was excited at the prospect of a payout. Having done the job for a year, she was told, she was entitled to £2,800. “I just thought – £2,800! I’m rich!” she recalled. ‘They were dying, and they’d not had their money’: Britain’s multibillion-pound equal pay scandal – podcast Read more The compensation package, negotiated behind the scenes between Glasgow city council and the unions, had strict limits. The maximum amount anyone would receive was £9,000. “At the time, that sounded to me like winning the lottery,” Stojilkovic said. But some of her colleagues who had worked as carers for 10 or 20 years wondered if this sold them short. Stojilkovic remembers that their managers always had the same response: “Yous are being greedy. It’s a lot of money.” The letter told the women that if they didn’t take the money, they had the right to pursue claims through employment tribunals with private lawyers, but warned “you could end up with nothing”. As instructed by the letter, Stojilkovic made her way to a leisure centre in town where she would receive “independent, impartial legal advice”. In return for the one-off lump sum, the women, who mostly worked in care and education, were required to sign paperwork giving up their right to make further equal pay claims. The leisure centre was hectic, and Stojilkovic queued with two friends who were entitled to the maximum payment. The two women debated whether to sign, wondering if they could get more money if they held out. When they reached the front of the queue, they spoke with council lawyers and union lawyers, who sat side by side and gave the same advice: sign the document and take the money. One of Stojilkovic’s colleagues signed, and got her £9,000 shortly afterwards; the other didn’t and left the leisure centre empty-handed. Instead, she filed a claim with a private law firm called Fox Cross. For Stojilkovic, it was a no-brainer. She signed, got her cash, and went back to day-to-day life. The £2,800 provided a cushion, but it was soon gone. The payments did not put an end to sex discrimination within the council. In fact, the gulf between women’s and men’s pay was getting bigger. In the years that followed the settlements, Fox Cross (which was later replaced by Action 4 Equality Scotland) sought out women in Glasgow to inform them that because of this ongoing discrimination, they could have a new claim. The lawyers leafleted, took out ads in papers and called public meetings. In 2007, Stojilkovic attended one of these meetings and put in a claim with Action 4 Equality Scotland . Thousands of carers and women in other female-dominated roles such as catering made the same decision. Care work – involving at-home, one-on-one visits – can be lonely. To offset this, Stojilkovic and a few of her colleagues met up regularly between shifts in the cafe in a Morrisons supermarket. In 2008, at one of these gatherings, they heard the news. The woman who hadn’t signed the document at the leisure centre had won her employment tribunal. She had been awarded £27,000: three times the maximum the council had offered. Her story wasn’t unusual. “In some cases, the settlements were worth 10% of what they were entitled to,” Stefan Cross KC, the founder of Action 4 Equality Scotland, told me recently. The fact that the women could have been short-changed by the 2005 payout, and that they could put in new claims because of ongoing discrimination, spread through word of mouth. These conversations signalled the start of a fight that would take almost 20 years, and end with the council paying more than £760m to women who had been systematically underpaid. What happened in Glasgow has changed the way unions and councils around the country treat low-paid female workers. In September 2023, Birmingham city council effectively filed for bankruptcy, in part due to its enormous liability on equal pay. Sheffield city council is facing thousands of equal pay claims from women who were allegedly paid up to £11,000 a year less than men. There are disputes in councils from Coventry to Fife; the GMB alone, one of the main public sector unions, is gathering evidence in 20 different local authorities . But working out what women are owed, and finding the money to pay them, is far from straightforward. Councils around the country are beset by financial problems stemming from funding cuts imposed by Conservative-led governments since 2010. Central government grants to local councils were cut by 40% in real terms between 2009/10 and 2019/20, at the same time as demand for services like child social care increased. (In 2012, two years into austerity, a graph called the “ jaws of doom ” did the rounds at councils, one line showing steeply rising demand and another showing crashing funds.) Deprived areas were worst affected, because they received less money from council tax and relied more on this grant funding. The impact of these cuts is visible every day across Britain: in the loss of libraries, swimming pools and children’s centres, in deteriorating conditions in parks and other public spaces, in overwhelmed social care services. After 14 years of this drastically reduced funding, one in five councils now believes it is “ fairly or very likely ” they will become insolvent in the next 18 months. All this makes local authorities particularly badly placed to deal with this new wave of equal pay claims. “In my view it’s a matter of when, not if, more councils go bankrupt,” a policy adviser from the Local Government Association told me. “It’s a timebomb – and no one got out ahead of it.” Amid this web of financial challenges, councils are facing up to the uncomfortable truth that for many years, the books have been balanced on the backs of women. S tojilkovic never imagined she would end up leading a protest movement. She was born Frances Mowat, and grew up in the Gorbals, a deprived area of Glasgow. Her parents split up when she was one, and her mum brought up seven children alone, working long hours as a bus conductor. Stojilkovic hated school and, after leaving at 16 with no qualifications, she got a job at the high court, where she served lunch to the judges and jury. She stayed there for 12 years – during which time she met her husband, Colin Stojilkovic, and had two daughters – before going back to college to study catering. For a few years, she ran a cafe with her sister, and when that shut down, she worked in her brother-in-law’s restaurant, before she fell out with him. (“I told him where to go,” she said.) Having nursed her father-in-law through dementia, care work felt like a natural step. In 2004, Stojilkovic joined the council’s rapid response team, going to people’s homes to provide care after they had been discharged from hospital. She didn’t think much about her own working conditions, or pay disparities. “We didn’t question stuff like that at the time,” she said. Life was busy, the job was satisfying, and there were bills to pay. “Then, later, you think, ‘Hang on a minute. We’ve got rights.’” Equal pay is a simple idea, but making it a reality is surprisingly difficult, especially across large, sprawling organisations such as local government. “Men and women essentially don’t do the same work most of the time,” said Hazel Conley, professor of human resource management at the University of the West of England. Caring professions, for instance, are dominated by women, and construction work by men. As a result, the definition of equal pay has expanded to include different jobs that are considered equally valuable within an organisation. To quantify this, employers must do a “job evaluation”, which ranks jobs in terms of importance. But there is no objective way to compare, say, a classroom assistant and a gravedigger . “This is a huge problem at the heart of equal value,” said Conley. “You have to rely on a tool that is ultimately very subjective and open to manoeuvring.” This is a particularly acute problem for councils, which are responsible for everything from collecting bins and repairing roads to providing social care and schooling. In the mid-1980s, local authorities carried out a national job evaluation scheme, which awarded all manual workers, from carers to refuse collectors, the same basic pay. But local authorities failed to address the many added perks for male-dominated jobs, such as bonuses and generous allowances for overtime. “Each local authority developed its own way of enhancing the pay of the men – and they were very creative in the way they did it,” said Cross. Glasgow had more than 120 bonus schemes for its employees, and every single one benefited jobs dominated by men. Often these schemes were the direct result of trade unions, which are traditionally male-dominated, lobbying hard for particular groups of employees. The following decade, a further assessment of council jobs across Britain, including all the bonuses and perks that benefited male-dominated jobs, revealed that sex discrimination was endemic. The unions agreed to give the councils a year to address the situation before taking any action. The year passed, and Cross – who was working as a trade union lawyer – saw that the unions were still not pursuing cases. “I’d had enough,” he told me. He left his job as a partner at one of the biggest trade union law firms, and set up his own firm to pursue equal pay litigation. Trade unions are proprietorial, competing with one another and suspicious of outsiders, and many trade union lawyers and organisers felt he was stepping on their toes. Even today, Cross is a divisive figure; when we spoke, he immediately, almost proudly, said he’d been described in the press as “ the most hated lawyer in Britain ”. I spoke to several people within the trade union movement who referred disparagingly to “no-win, no-fee lawyers”, while others commented on how personally wealthy Cross has become from his work on equal pay. Yet numerous women represented by Action 4 Equality Scotland spoke highly of Cross and his colleagues, and it is clear that he is passionate about the cause. View image in fullscreen Stefan Cross of Action 4 Equality Scotland. Photograph: Action 4 Equality Scotland Cross’s new firm started litigating around the UK, not just in Scotland, starting with the north-east of England. It won some early victories. Many councils opted to settle, rather than fighting lengthy court battles. Cross hired a few other disillusioned ex-trade union lawyers and organisers, and his firm filed its first Birmingham case and their first Glasgow case in the same month, June 2005. Not long after that, Stojilkovic and the other women got the letter calling them into the leisure centre. Something very similar happened in Birmingham. “A lot of councils did something like this, where employees were expected to sign away their rights,” said Paul Savage, who worked for Cross’s firm in Birmingham. “Women were often told: ‘Don’t be greedy, take it or you’ll lose your job.’ And the unions sat with the bosses, encouraging women to sign.” Things got even worse for female employees in 2009, when Glasgow city council transferred the employment of carers away from the council itself, to a company called Cordia. Almost every other female-dominated job at the council was similarly outsourced. “It’s our belief that they did that thinking that if they outsourced the women, they wouldn’t be able to compare themselves back to the men who were still in-house,” said Rhea Wolfson, head of internal and industrial relations at GMB, one of the UK’s biggest unions. The employment terms of the women working for Cordia were protected for three years, but after that the workload increased and employees no longer earned double pay for weekend shifts. Once again, the gulf between the working conditions of male-dominated and female-dominated careers widened. There are two ways for employees to fight unequal pay. One is collective bargaining, when unions use their leverage to negotiate on behalf of a particular group. That wasn’t happening; unions weren’t doing much to lobby for women or even inform them they might have a claim. The other is for individuals to file legal claims and pursue personal compensation through tribunals. In Glasgow, a series of complicated points of law had to be decided before individual claims could even be heard, which meant that as far as the women who had filed claims in 2007 were concerned, nothing much was happening. In 2012, Birmingham city council lost an equal pay hearing at the supreme court, and ended up paying out an astonishing £1.1bn to female workers . In Glasgow, even in the wake of this historic ruling, progress was slow. But that was about to change. B y 2014, it had been seven years since Stojilkovic put her claim in with Action 4 Equality Scotland, and she had heard little about it. During those years, the women in her area continued to meet in Morrisons between shifts. On one of these tea breaks, someone told Stojilkovic that her husband worked as a cleansing worker, a council job that had historically been paid the same as the carers. He was now getting £9 an hour, while they only got £6 – and he still had all his overtime payments, bonuses and other enhancements. “It was a massive shock,” Stojilkovic said. It threw into relief what equal pay actually meant. She thought of what a difference an extra £3 an hour would make. “We had to work every hour, just to make ends meet. If you had a proper wage, you could spend more time with your family, or take care of yourself. We were just working constantly. It wasn’t right.” This conversation renewed Stojilkovic’s
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
‘Everyone’s second preference’: could James Cleverly be the next Tory leader?
‘His instinct is to be a glass-three-quarters-full guy’ … James Cleverly. Photograph: Getty Images View image in fullscreen ‘His instinct is to be a glass-three-quarters-full guy’ … James Cleverly. Photograph: Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old ‘Everyone’s second preference’: could James Cleverly be the next Tory leader? This article is more than 1 year old The right wing of the party is talking up Kemi Badenoch. But the gaffe-prone home secretary might have the last laugh L ast March, James Cleverly returned to the town in Sierra Leone where his late mother, Evelyn, was born. Having visited the country as a child, he was coming back as foreign secretary to launch his gender equality strategy in a place that clearly meant something to him. “I think of her all the time in the work we do,” he said. Nine months later, Cleverly returned to Africa for very different reasons. Now home secretary, he was promoting plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, plans he is said to have described privately as “batshit” . A few weeks after that, the man who once professed himself “absolutely” a feminist would find himself apologising for joking at a Downing Street party that “a little bit of [the “date rape” drug] Rohypnol in her drink every night” was “not really illegal if it’s only a little bit”. Britain’s current home secretary can be difficult to pigeonhole. He is the product of private schooling, the army reserve (in which he has served for decades) and Brexit-era politics, but also of childhood hardship and a mission to make his party more inclusive in which he still passionately believes. This is why – despite the enthusiasm in some quarters for Kemi Badenoch – his name is increasingly mentioned by moderate Tories seeking someone to back in the next leadership contest. View image in fullscreen Cleverly visiting a school in Sierra Leone when he was foreign secretary, in March 2023. Photograph: Michael Duff/The Guardian Civil servants rate his willingness to listen; at the Home Office, he is rebuilding fences trampled by his sacked predecessor, Suella Braverman . “He’s never going to be an angry politician. He’s got the brief he’s got, but that, I think, is the big change,” says Sunder Katwala, the director of the identity and immigration thinktank British Future. Rugby-loving, sociable and relaxed – sometimes to a fault (he once said: “I talk too much and sometimes I speak a bit too frankly, which I think people like until they don’t like it”) – Cleverly is unusually well liked at Westminster. “He’s not out for his own ends and his rise wasn’t due to any unfair clambering over the top of other people. He was there at the right time in the right place, being a safe pair of hands,” says a former colleague, who attributes Cleverly’s survival under four Tory prime ministers to his old-fashioned approach of reliably executing the brief. He has made remarkably few enemies and caused no great disasters. But there have been no great triumphs, either. Although he is thoughtful on some complex topics, from terrorism to Black Lives Matter, he has yet to reveal a wider political vision or the strategic ruthlessness to defeat highly organised rivals. One ex-minister who praises him as “moderate and sensible” says: “Whether he would be eaten alive in a leadership contest by people who would be seen as more aggressive and challenging, I can’t say.” Another describes him as “everyone’s second preference” – the candidate no one hates, but who has yet to cultivate a following of ardent true believers. C leverly was born in 1969 in Lewisham hospital, where his mother was a midwife. She had immigrated to Britain to work for the NHS in 1960, following her sister. The women then met and married brothers from Wiltshire. Cleverly grew up in south London in the 1970s and has recalled National Front marches in nearby streets, as well as kids teasing him for being mixed race. (When the Duchess of Sussex gave birth in 2019, he tweeted that the welcome afforded a mixed-race royal baby made him feel “a bit emotional”.) Whereas Braverman provoked and polarised with her attacks on multiculturalism , Cleverly’s instincts are to unify. “If we turn on ourselves, seek scapegoats, go into hiding or lash out it will only amplify what is already a sad and terrible thing,” he wrote on his blog in 2013, when the soldier Lee Rigby was murdered by terrorists not far from Cleverly’s family home. “But if we refuse to cast blame on an entire religion, make a point of standing shoulder to shoulder with our neighbours and continue to wear our military uniforms with pride, we shall have denied these thugs what they crave.” Yet Cleverly is also the kind of Tory that most confounds the left: one whose own experience of childhood hardship seems to harden their belief in fiscal austerity. He once defended the two-child benefit cap on the grounds that his parents couldn’t afford two sets of private education and so decided he would be an only child; even then, the family shared a one-bed flat to afford the school fees (for Riverston first, then Colfe’s, both in south London). “To my mother, education is taken incredibly seriously,” he has said . “They lived on a fold-out bed in the living room [to do it] … So when the left [talk about hardship], I’m sitting there very quietly, saying to myself: ‘Fuck off – you have no idea what you’re talking about.’’’ View image in fullscreen At the launch of Boris Johnson’s general election campaign in November 2019. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images The young Cleverly was heavily into Dungeons & Dragons and also inherited his grandfather’s artistic streak. But he decided against going to art school after his father, a surveyor, told him he would never make any money. He chose instead to join the army and thereafter put minimal effort into his A-levels. When a bad injury at Sandhurst ended his army career, he was left with two poor A-level grades and no backup plan. “That was a change in my life, realising you can’t just bet the farm on one outcome and expect the world is going to lay rose petals on your path to greatness,” he has said. He got into Ealing College of Higher Education (now the University of West London) to study hospitality management, emerging with a job in business publishing. (It was at college that he met his wife, Susie; the couple, who have two sons, are known for their devotion to each other.) Cleverly’s friends describe him as self-deprecating, readily admitting what he doesn’t know, but not lacking confidence. Knocking on doors as a new Tory activist before the 2001 election, he was struck by black voters’ hostility to voting Conservative. The memo he wrote about how to overcome that found its way via friends of friends to Oliver Letwin, then a policy adviser to the Tory leader, Iain Duncan Smith. Despite his political inexperience, Cleverly found himself in Duncan Smith’s office explaining his ideas for detoxifying the Tory brand. He worked with the then shadow cabinet minister Dominic Grieve, building links with faith groups and community associations, and was elected to the London assembly in 2008. View image in fullscreen With his wife Susie at the Conservative party conference in Manchester, on 2 October 2023. Photograph: Ian Forsyth/Getty Images The businessman and former Tory mayoral contender Steven Norris sat on the London Development Agency board with Cleverly and instantly took to him. “He’s such an easy man to like – he’s not pompous, he’s great company,” says Norris, who praises the “brilliant” job Cleverly did as foreign secretary in projecting a more affable impression of Britain abroad. But he didn’t come across as an embryonic party leader. “There’s no great Cleverly philosophy. He’s a man who has got where he probably never dreamed he would get in a British government, but has done so on the basis of just being a really nice guy, somebody who could disarm the most unwilling and aggressive recipient of his glad-handing.” This disarming quality has made him useful to four successive prime ministers. The close partnership Cleverly and Boris Johnson forged at City Hall endured well into parliament, after Cleverly won the safe seat of Braintree in Essex in 2015. Although they are very different in some ways, both are incurable optimists. “His instinct is to be a glass-three-quarters-full guy,” says Katwala, who notes that while Cleverly often describes Britain as the best country in the world in which to be black, and emphasises progress made over his lifetime, he doesn’t deny the continued existence of racism. “He has a lot of empathy with younger people [who feel differently].” Like Johnson, he is also a natural communicator, but sometimes careless with it. He once had to apologise for calling the Lib Dem Simon Hughes a “dick” on his blog ; as a new MP, he was drawn into a game of “snog, marry, avoid” on the radio in which he said he would choose to snog the then home secretary, Theresa May. Aides say he will often end a meeting with a joke, usually at his own expense. But the tasteless “date rape” remark, plus an incident where he was forced to deny calling the Stockton North constituency “a shit-hole” in parliament, suggest he has yet to learn when to keep it for the officers’ mess. His politics are, however, less crude than his language. His backing for Brexit in 2016 seemingly stemmed from his enthusiasm for free markets and free trade, but he was never “wild-eyed” about it, says a fellow MP. That flexibility made him useful to May, who made him deputy party chair in 2018 before sending him to the Department for Exiting the EU in 2019 for one last doomed attempt to push through her Brexit deal. In the ensuing leadership contest, Cleverly precociously announced that he would run before swiftly withdrawing and backing his old ally Johnson – who duly made him co-chair of the party (alongside Queen Camilla’s nephew, Ben Elliot.) But the partnership didn’t work out. After the 2019 election, he was demoted to the Foreign Office, serving under Dominic Raab and then Liz Truss. He returned to cabinet as a caretaker education secretary after Boris Johnson resigned in July 2022, holding the fort through a leadership contest. When Truss won, she made him foreign secretary, a job he initially kept under Rishi Sunak and didn’t want to leave , at first, for the Home Office. Civil servants, aides and ministers describe a diligent and popular minister, if not a particularly visionary one. “He gets on with people, praises them and works with them, rather than shouting at them,” says one former colleague of Cleverly at the Foreign Office. “How much original thought there is there, I don’t know. But when you’re looking for a steady pair of hands, that’s what he was.” Having covered policing during his London assembly days, he has worked hard in recent weeks to heal a rift with the Metropolitan police caused by his predecessor accusing them of going soft on leftwing protesters. But an early attempt to cool the anti-immigrant rhetoric, in an interview where he cautioned against getting fixated on the Rwanda policy, went down badly with MPs worried about a resurgent Nigel Farage – and hasn’t been repeated. It was a reminder that, whatever his instincts, ultimately he serves a prime minister running out of political room to manoeuvre. Cleverly has been through similarly challenging times perhaps once before, at the Foreign Office. He wasn’t the lead minister on Afghanistan during Britain’s shambolic 2021 retreat from Kabul, which saw Afghans who had worked closely with British troops abandoned to their fate, and a subsequent select committee report (which blamed Foreign Office failure to anticipate a Taliban resurgence, plus ministers’ failure to challenge the assurances they were given) did not attach blame to him. But it was a chastening time for the department as a whole – and one from which he may have learned lessons. “He knew what his job was, which was to ask the best questions he could of officials and try to make sure that what they were telling him was OK actually was,” says one source who worked with Cleverly subsequently and describes him as charming but “very directional – not afraid to tell people what he wants”. James Cleverly facing calls to resign after joke about date rape drug Read more That period was also tough for more personal reasons: in December 2021, his wife was diagnosed with breast cancer, leaving him openly distraught. For much of 2022, he supported her through gruelling treatment while his day job became a dizzying carousel of leadership contests. Although loyal to Johnson until the end, Cleverly was by then also part of the “Greenwich set” of free-market Tories all living near each other in south London, including his Foreign Office boss Truss and her old friend Kwasi Kwarteng. After Johnson resigned in July 2022, Cleverly set up camp in Truss’s kitchen to work the phones for her leadership bid. Although the recent parliamentary revolt against his Rwanda bill ultimately fizzled out, he cannot have enjoyed seeing Truss join the rebels on an issue fast becoming a test run for the next leadership contest. Facing down the revolt is likely to cost Cleverly support on the right. But can he manage not to alienate the moderate MPs now considering supporting him while overseeing the most toxic issue in government? “Ultimately, it will depend what the choices are. Colleagues recognise that if you are in the Home Office it’s a rotten place to be: you are going to have to take some difficult decisions,” says one likely supporter. “If, however, you’re better than the worst choice, you get a tick in the box for that.” Careers in politics were founded on less. Explore more on these topics James Cleverly Conservative leadership Conservatives features Share Reuse this content ‘His instinct is to be a glass-three-quarters-full guy’ … James Cleverly. Photograph: Getty Images View image in fullscreen ‘His instinct is to be a glass-three-quarters-full guy’ … James Cleverly. Photograph: Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old ‘Everyone’s second preference’: could James Cleverly be the next Tory leader? This article is more than 1 year old The right wing of the party is talking up Kemi Badenoch. But the gaffe-prone home secretary might have the last laugh L ast March, James Cleverly returned to the town in Sierra Leone where his late mother, Evelyn, was born. Having visited the country as a child, he was coming back as foreign secretary to launch his gender equality strategy in a place that clearly meant something to him. “I think of her all the time in the work we do,” he said. Nine months later, Cleverly returned to Africa for very different reasons. Now home secretary, he was promoting plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, plans he is said to have described privately as “batshit” . A few weeks after that, the man who once professed himself “absolutely” a feminist would find himself apologising for joking at a Downing Street party that “a little bit of [the “date rape” drug] Rohypnol in her drink every night” was “not really illegal if it’s only a little bit”. Britain’s current home secretary can be difficult to pigeonhole. He is the product of private schooling, the army reserve (in which he has served for decades) and Brexit-era politics, but also of childhood hardship and a mission to make his party more inclusive in which he still passionately believes. This is why – despite the enthusiasm in some quarters for Kemi Badenoch – his name is increasingly mentioned by moderate Tories seeking someone to back in the next leadership contest. View image in fullscreen Cleverly visiting a school in Sierra Leone when he was foreign secretary, in March 2023. Photograph: Michael Duff/The Guardian Civil servants rate his willingness to listen; at the Home Office, he is rebuilding fences trampled by his sacked predecessor, Suella Braverman . “He’s never going to be an angry politician. He’s got the brief he’s got, but that, I think, is the big change,” says Sunder Katwala, the director of the identity and immigration thinktank British Future. Rugby-loving, sociable and relaxed – sometimes to a fault (he once said: “I talk too much and sometimes I speak a bit too frankly, which I think people like until they don’t like it”) – Cleverly is unusually well liked at Westminster. “He’s not out for his own ends and his rise wasn’t due to any unfair clambering over the top of other people. He was there at the right time in the right place, being a safe pair of hands,” says a former colleague, who attributes Cleverly’s survival under four Tory prime ministers to his old-fashioned approach of reliably executing the brief. He has made remarkably few enemies and caused no great disasters. But there have been no great triumphs, either. Although he is thoughtful on some complex topics, from terrorism to Black Lives Matter, he has yet to reveal a wider political vision or the strategic ruthlessness to defeat highly organised rivals. One ex-minister who praises him as “moderate and sensible” says: “Whether he would be eaten alive in a leadership contest by people who would be seen as more aggressive and challenging, I can’t say.” Another describes him as “everyone’s second preference” – the candidate no one hates, but who has yet to cultivate a following of ardent true believers. C leverly was born in 1969 in Lewisham hospital, where his mother was a midwife. She had immigrated to Britain to work for the NHS in 1960, following her sister. The women then met and married brothers from Wiltshire. Cleverly grew up in south London in the 1970s and has recalled National Front marches in nearby streets, as well as kids teasing him for being mixed race. (When the Duchess of Sussex gave birth in 2019, he tweeted that the welcome afforded a mixed-race royal baby made him feel “a bit emotional”.) Whereas Braverman provoked and polarised with her attacks on multiculturalism , Cleverly’s instincts are to unify. “If we turn on ourselves, seek scapegoats, go into hiding or lash out it will only amplify what is already a sad and terrible thing,” he wrote on his blog in 2013, when the soldier Lee Rigby was murdered by terrorists not far from Cleverly’s family home. “But if we refuse to cast blame on an entire religion, make a point of standing shoulder to shoulder with our neighbours and continue to wear our military uniforms with pride, we shall have denied these thugs what they crave.” Yet Cleverly is also the kind of Tory that most confounds the left: one whose own experience of childhood hardship seems to harden their belief in fiscal austerity. He once defended the two-child benefit cap on the grounds that his parents couldn’t afford two sets of private education and so decided he would be an only child; even then, the family shared a one-bed flat to afford the school fees (for Riverston first, then Colfe’s, both in south London). “To my mother, education is taken incredibly seriously,” he has said . “They lived on a fold-out bed in the living room [to do it] … So when the left [talk about hardship], I’m sitting there very quietly, saying to myself: ‘Fuck off – you have no idea what you’re talking about.’’’ View image in fullscreen At the launch of Boris Johnson’s general election campaign in November 2019. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images The young Cleverly was heavily into Dungeons & Dragons and also inherited his grandfather’s artistic streak. But he decided against going to art school after his father, a surveyor, told him he would never make any money. He chose instead to join the army and thereafter put minimal effort into his A-levels. When a bad injury at Sandhurst ended his army career, he was left with two poor A-level grades and no backup plan. “That was a change in my life, realising you can’t just bet the farm on one outcome and expect the world is going to lay rose petals on your path to greatness,” he has said. He got into Ealing College of Higher Education (now the University of West London) to study hospitality management, emerging with a job in business publishing. (It was at college that he met his wife, Susie; the couple, who have two sons, are known for their devotion to each other.) Cleverly’s friends describe him as self-deprecating, readily admitting what he doesn’t know, but not lacking confidence. Knocking on doors as a new Tory activist before the 2001 election, he was struck by black voters’ hostility to voting Conservative. The memo he wrote about how to overcome that found its way via friends of friends to Oliver Letwin, then a policy adviser to the Tory leader, Iain Duncan Smith. Despite his political inexperience, Cleverly found himself in Duncan Smith’s office explaining his ideas for detoxifying the Tory brand. He worked with the then shadow cabinet minister Dominic Grieve, building links with faith groups and community associations, and was elected to the London assembly in 2008. View image in fullscreen With his wife Susie at the Conservative party conference in Manchester, on 2 October 2023. Photograph: Ian Forsyth/Getty Images The businessman and former Tory mayoral contender Steven Norris sat on the London Development Agency board with Cleverly and instantly took to him. “He’s such an easy man to like – he’s not pompous, he’s great company,” says Norris, who praises the “brilliant” job Cleverly did as foreign secretary in projecting a more affable impression of Britain abroad. But he didn’t come across as an embryonic party leader. “There’s no great Cleverly philosophy. He’s a man who has got where he probably never dreamed he would get in a British government, but has done so on the basis of just being a really nice guy, somebody who could disarm the most unwilling and aggressive recipient of his glad-handing.” This disarming quality has made him useful to four successive prime ministers. The close partnership Cleverly and Boris Johnson forged at City Hall endured well into parliament, after Cleverly won the safe seat of Braintree in Essex in 2015. Although they are very different in some ways, both are incurable optimists. “His instinct is to be a glass-three-quarters-full guy,” says Katwala, who notes that while Cleverly often describes Britain as the best country in the world in which to be black, and emphasises progress made over his lifetime, he doesn’t deny the continued existence of racism. “He has a lot of empathy with younger people [who feel differently].” Like Johnson, he is also a natural communicator, but sometimes careless with it. He once had to apologise for calling the Lib Dem Simon Hughes a “dick” on his blog ; as a new MP, he was drawn into a game of “snog, marry, avoid” on the radio in which he said he would choose to snog the then home secretary, Theresa May. Aides say he will often end a meeting with a joke, usually at his own expense. But the tasteless “date rape” remark, plus an incident where he was forced to deny calling the Stockton North constituency “a shit-hole” in parliament, suggest he has yet to learn when to keep it for the officers’ mess. His politics are, however, less crude than his language. His backing for Brexit in 2016 seemingly stemmed from his enthusiasm for free markets and free trade, but he was never “wild-eyed” about it, says a fellow MP. That flexibility made him useful to May, who made him deputy party chair in 2018 before sending him to the Department for Exiting the EU in 2019 for one last doomed attempt to push through her Brexit deal. In the ensuing leadership contest, Cleverly precociously announced that he would run before swiftly withdrawing and backing his old ally Johnson – who duly made him co-chair of the party (alongside Queen Camilla’s nephew, Ben Elliot.) But the partnership didn’t work out. After the 2019 election, he was demoted to the Foreign Office, serving under Dominic Raab and then Liz Truss. He returned to cabinet as a caretaker education secretary after Boris Johnson resigned in July 2022, holding the fort through a leadership contest. When Truss won, she made him foreign secretary, a job he initially kept under Rishi Sunak and didn’t want to leave , at first, for the Home Office. Civil servants, aides and ministers describe a diligent and popular minister, if not a particularly visionary one. “He gets on with people, praises them and works with them, rather than shouting at them,” says one former colleague of Cleverly at the Foreign Office. “How much original thought there is there, I don’t know. But when you’re looking for a steady pair of hands, that’s what he was.” Having covered policing during his London assembly days, he has worked hard in recent weeks to heal a rift with the Metropolitan police caused by his predecessor accusing them of going soft on leftwing protesters. But an early attempt to cool the anti-immigrant rhetoric, in an interview where he cautioned against getting fixated on the Rwanda policy, went down badly with MPs worried about a resurgent Nigel Farage – and hasn’t been repeated. It was a reminder that, whatever his instincts, ultimately he serves a prime minister running out of political room to manoeuvre. Cleverly has been through similarly challenging times perhaps once before, at the Foreign Office. He wasn’t the lead minister on Afghanistan during Britain’s shambolic 2021 retreat from Kabul, which saw Afghans who had worked closely with British troops abandoned to their fate, and a subsequent select committee report (which blamed Foreign Office failure to anticipate a Taliban resurgence, plus ministers’ failure to challenge the assurances they were given) did not attach blame to him. But it was a chastening time for the department as a whole – and one from which he may have learned lessons. “He knew what his job was, which was to ask the best questions he could of officials and try to make sure that what they were telling him was OK actually was,” says one source who worked with Cleverly subsequently and describes him as charming but “very directional – not afraid to tell people what he wants”. James Cleverly facing calls to resign after joke about date rape drug Read more That period was also tough for more personal reasons: in December 2021, his wife was diagnosed with breast cancer, leaving him openly distraught. For much of 2022, he supported her through gruelling treatment while his day job became a dizzying carousel of leadership contests. Although loyal to Johnson until the end, Cleverly was by then also part of the “Greenwich set” of free-market Tories all living near each other in south London, including his Foreign Office boss Truss and her old friend Kwasi Kwarteng. After Johnson resigned in July 2022, Cleverly set up camp in Truss’s kitchen to work the phones for her leadership bid. Although the recent parliamentary revolt against his Rwanda bill ultimately fizzled out, he cannot have enjoyed seeing Truss join the rebels on an issue fast becoming a test run for the next leadership contest. Facing down the revolt is likely to cost Cleverly support on the right. But can he manage not to alienate the moderate MPs now considering supporting him while overseeing the most toxic issue in government? “Ultimately, it will depend what the choices are. Colleagues recognise that if you are in the Home Office it’s a rotten place to be: you are going to have to take some difficult decisions,” says one likely supporter. “If, however, you’re better than the worst choice, you get a tick in the box for that.” Careers in politics were founded on less. Explore more on these topics James Cleverly Conservative leadership Conservatives features Share Reuse this content ‘His instinct is to be a glass-three-quarters-full guy’ … James Cleverly. Photograph: Getty Images View image in fullscreen ‘His instinct is to be a glass-three-quarters-full guy’ … James Cleverly. Photograph: Getty Images ‘His instinct is to be a glass-three-quarters-full guy’ … James Cleverly. Photograph: Getty Images View image in fullscreen ‘His instinct is to be a glass-three-quarters-full guy’ … James Cleverly. Photograph: Getty Images ‘His instinct is to be a glass-three-quarters-full guy’ … James Cleverly. Photograph: Getty Images View image in fullscreen ‘His instinct is to be a glass-three-quarters-full guy’ … James Cleverly. Photograph: Getty Images ‘His instinct is to be a glass-three-quarters-full guy’ … James Cleverly. Photograph: Getty Images View image in fullscreen ‘His instinct is to be a glass-three-quarters-full guy’ … James Cleverly. Photograph: Getty Images ‘His instinct is to be a glass-three-quarters-full guy’ … James Cleverly. Photograph: Getty Images ‘His instinct is to be a glass-three-quarters-full guy’ … James Cleverly. Photograph: Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old ‘Everyone’s second preference’: could James Cleverly be the next Tory leader? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘Everyone’s second preference’: could James Cleverly be the next Tory leader? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘Everyone’s second preference’: could James Cleverly be the next Tory leader? 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 right wing of the party is talking up Kemi Badenoch. But the gaffe-prone home secretary might have the last laugh The right wing of the party is talking up Kemi Badenoch. But the gaffe-prone home secretary might have the last laugh The right wing of the party is talking up Kemi Badenoch. But the gaffe-prone home secretary might have the last laugh L ast March, James Cleverly returned to the town in Sierra Leone where his late mother, Evelyn, was born. Having visited the country as a child, he was coming back as foreign secretary to launch his gender equality strategy in a place that clearly meant something to him. “I think of her all the time in the work we do,” he said. Nine months later, Cleverly returned to Africa for very different reasons. Now home secretary, he was promoting plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, plans he is said to have described privately as “batshit” . A few weeks after that, the man who once professed himself “absolutely” a feminist would find himself apologising for joking at a Downing Street party that “a little bit of [the “date rape” drug] Rohypnol in her drink every night” was “not really illegal if it’s only a little bit”. Britain’s current home secretary can be difficult to pigeonhole. He is the product of private schooling, the army reserve (in which he has served for decades) and Brexit-era politics, but also of childhood hardship and a mission to make his party more inclusive in which he still passionately believes. This is why – despite the enthusiasm in some quarters for Kemi Badenoch – his name is increasingly mentioned by moderate Tories seeking someone to back in the next leadership contest. View image in fullscreen Cleverly visiting a school in Sierra Leone when he was foreign secretary, in March 2023. Photograph: Michael Duff/The Guardian Civil servants rate his willingness to listen; at the Home Office, he is rebuilding fences trampled by his sacked predecessor, Suella Braverman . “He’s never going to be an angry politician. He’s got the brief he’s got, but that, I think, is the big change,” says Sunder Katwala, the director of the identity and immigration thinktank British Future. Rugby-loving, sociable and relaxed – sometimes to a fault (he once said: “I talk too much and sometimes I speak a bit too frankly, which I think people like until they don’t like it”) – Cleverly is unusually well liked at Westminster. “He’s not out for his own ends and his rise wasn’t due to any unfair clambering over the top of other people. He was there at the right time in the right place, being a safe pair of hands,” says a former colleague, who attributes Cleverly’s survival under four Tory prime ministers to his old-fashioned approach of reliably executing the brief. He has made remarkably few enemies and caused no great disasters. But there have been no great triumphs, either. Although he is thoughtful on some complex topics, from terrorism to Black Lives Matter, he has yet to reveal a wider political vision or the strategic ruthlessness to defeat highly organised rivals. One ex-minister who praises him as “moderate and sensible” says: “Whether he would be eaten alive in a leadership contest by people who would be seen as more aggressive and challenging, I can’t say.” Another describes him as “everyone’s second preference” – the candidate no one hates, but who has yet to cultivate a following of ardent true believers. C leverly was born in 1969 in Lewisham hospital, where his mother was a midwife. She had immigrated to Britain to work for the NHS in 1960, following her sister. The women then met and married brothers from Wiltshire. Cleverly grew up in south London in the 1970s and has recalled National Front marches in nearby streets, as well as kids teasing him for being mixed race. (When the Duchess of Sussex gave birth in 2019, he tweeted that the welcome afforded a mixed-race royal baby made him feel “a bit emotional”.) Whereas Braverman provoked and polarised with her attacks on multiculturalism , Cleverly’s instincts are to unify. “If we turn on ourselves, seek scapegoats, go into hiding or lash out it will only amplify what is already a sad and terrible thing,” he wrote on his blog in 2013, when the soldier Lee Rigby was murdered by terrorists not far from Cleverly’s family home. “But if we refuse to cast blame on an entire religion, make a point of standing shoulder to shoulder with our neighbours and continue to wear our military uniforms with pride, we shall have denied these thugs what they crave.” Yet Cleverly is also the kind of Tory that most confounds the left: one whose own experience of childhood hardship seems to harden their belief in fiscal austerity. He once defended the two-child benefit cap on the grounds that his parents couldn’t afford two sets of private education and so decided he would be an only child; even then, the family shared a one-bed flat to afford the school fees (for Riverston first, then Colfe’s, both in south London). “To my mother, education is taken incredibly seriously,” he has said . “They lived on a fold-out bed in the living room [to do it] … So when the left [talk about hardship], I’m sitting there very quietly, saying to myself: ‘Fuck off – you have no idea what you’re talking about.’’’ View image in fullscreen At the launch of Boris Johnson’s general election campaign in November 2019. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images The young Cleverly was heavily into Dungeons & Dragons and also inherited his grandfather’s artistic streak. But he decided against going to art school after his father, a surveyor, told him he would never make any money. He chose instead to join the army and thereafter put minimal effort into his A-levels. When a bad injury at Sandhurst ended his army career, he was left with two poor A-level grades and no backup plan. “That was a change in my life, realising you can’t just bet the farm on one outcome and expect the world is going to lay rose petals on your path to greatness,” he has said. He got into Ealing College of Higher Education (now the University of West London) to study hospitality management, emerging with a job in business publishing. (It was at college that he met his wife, Susie; the couple, who have two sons, are known for their devotion to each other.) Cleverly’s friends describe him as self-deprecating, readily admitting what he doesn’t know, but not lacking confidence. Knocking on doors as a new Tory activist before the 2001 election, he was struck by black voters’ hostility to voting Conservative. The memo he wrote about how to overcome that found its way via friends of friends to Oliver Letwin, then a policy adviser to the Tory leader, Iain Duncan Smith. Despite his political inexperience, Cleverly found himself in Duncan Smith’s office explaining his ideas for detoxifying the Tory brand. He worked with the then shadow cabinet minister Dominic Grieve, building links with faith groups and community associations, and was elected to the London assembly in 2008. View image in fullscreen With his wife Susie at the Conservative party conference in Manchester, on 2 October 2023. Photograph: Ian Forsyth/Getty Images The businessman and former Tory mayoral contender Steven Norris sat on the London Development Agency board with Cleverly and instantly took to him. “He’s such an easy man to like – he’s not pompous, he’s great company,” says Norris, who praises the “brilliant” job Cleverly did as foreign secretary in projecting a more affable impression of Britain abroad. But he didn’t come across as an embryonic party leader. “There’s no great Cleverly philosophy. He’s a man who has got where he probably never dreamed he would get in a British government, but has done so on the basis of just being a really nice guy, somebody who could disarm the most unwilling and aggressive recipient of his glad-handing.” This disarming quality has made him useful to four successive prime ministers. The close partnership Cleverly and Boris Johnson forged at City Hall endured well into parliament, after Cleverly won the safe seat of Braintree in Essex in 2015. Although they are very different in some ways, both are incurable optimists. “His instinct is to be a glass-three-quarters-full guy,” says Katwala, who notes that while Cleverly often describes Britain as the best country in the world in which to be black, and emphasises progress made over his lifetime, he doesn’t deny the continued existence of racism. “He has a lot of empathy with younger people [who feel differently].” Like Johnson, he is also a natural communicator, but sometimes careless with it. He once had to apologise for calling the Lib Dem Simon Hughes a “dick” on his blog ; as a new MP, he was drawn into a game of “snog, marry, avoid” on the radio in which he said he would choose to snog the then home secretary, Theresa May. Aides say he will often end a meeting with a joke, usually at his own expense. But the tasteless “date rape” remark, plus an incident where he was forced to deny calling the Stockton North constituency “a shit-hole” in parliament, suggest he has yet to learn when to keep it for the officers’ mess. His politics are, however, less crude than his language. His backing for Brexit in 2016 seemingly stemmed from his enthusiasm for free markets and free trade, but he was never “wild-eyed” about it, says a fellow MP. That flexibility made him useful to May, who made him deputy party chair in 2018 before sending him to the Department for Exiting the EU in 2019 for one last doomed attempt to push through her Brexit deal. In the ensuing leadership contest, Cleverly precociously announced that he would run before swiftly withdrawing and backing his old ally Johnson – who duly made him co-chair of the party (alongside Queen Camilla’s nephew, Ben Elliot.) But the partnership didn’t work out. After the 2019 election, he was demoted to the Foreign Office, serving under Dominic Raab and then Liz Truss. He returned to cabinet as a caretaker education secretary after Boris Johnson resigned in July 2022, holding the fort through a leadership contest. When Truss won, she made him foreign secretary, a job he initially kept under Rishi Sunak and didn’t want to leave , at first, for the Home Office. Civil servants, aides and ministers describe a diligent and popular minister, if not a particularly visionary one. “He gets on with people, praises them and works with them, rather than shouting at them,” says one former colleague of Cleverly at the Foreign Office. “How much original thought there is there, I don’t know. But when you’re looking for a steady pair of hands, that’s what he was.” Having covered policing during his London assembly days, he has worked hard in recent weeks to heal a rift with the Metropolitan police caused by his predecessor accusing them of going soft on leftwing protesters. But an early attempt to cool the anti-immigrant rhetoric, in an interview where he cautioned against getting fixated on the Rwanda policy, went down badly with MPs worried about a resurgent Nigel Farage – and hasn’t been repeated. It was a reminder that, whatever his instincts, ultimately he serves a prime minister running out of political room to manoeuvre. Cleverly has been through similarly challenging times perhaps once before, at the Foreign Office. He wasn’t the lead minister on Afghanistan during Britain’s shambolic 2021 retreat from Kabul, which saw Afghans who had worked closely with British troops abandoned to their fate, and a subsequent select committee report (which blamed Foreign Office failure to anticipate a Taliban resurgence, plus ministers’ failure to challenge the assurances they were given) did not attach blame to him. But it was a chastening time for the department as a whole – and one from which he may have learned lessons. “He knew what his job was, which was to ask the best questions he could of officials and try to make sure that what they were telling him was OK actually was,” says one source who worked with Cleverly subsequently and describes him as charming but “very directional – not afraid to tell people what he wants”. James Cleverly facing calls to resign after joke about date rape drug Read more That period was also tough for more personal reasons: in December 2021, his wife was diagnosed with breast cancer, leaving him openly distraught. For much of 2022, he supported her through gruelling treatment while his day job became a dizzying carousel of leadership contests. Although loyal to Johnson until the end, Cleverly was by then also part of the “Greenwich set” of free-market Tories all living near each other in south London, including his Foreign Office boss Truss and her old friend Kwasi Kwarteng. After Johnson resigned in July 2022, Cleverly set up camp in Truss’s kitchen to work the phones for her leadership bid. Although the recent parliamentary revolt against his Rwanda bill ultimately fizzled out, he cannot have enjoyed seeing Truss join the rebels on an issue fast becoming a test run for the next leadership contest. Facing down the revolt is likely to cost Cleverly support on the right. But can he manage not to alienate the moderate MPs now considering supporting him while overseeing the most toxic issue in government? “Ultimately, it will depend what the choices are. Colleagues recognise that if you are in the Home Office it’s a rotten place to be: you are going to have to take some difficult decisions,” says one likely supporter. “If, however, you’re better than the worst choice, you get a tick in the box for that.” Careers in politics were founded on less. Explore more on these topics James Cleverly Conservative leadership Conservatives features Share Reuse this content L ast March, James Cleverly returned to the town in Sierra Leone where his late mother, Evelyn, was born. Having visited the country as a child, he was coming back as foreign secretary to launch his gender equality strategy in a place that clearly meant something to him. “I think of her all the time in the work we do,” he said. Nine months later, Cleverly returned to Africa for very different reasons. Now home secretary, he was promoting plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, plans he is said to have described privately as “batshit” . A few weeks after that, the man who once professed himself “absolutely” a feminist would find himself apologising for joking at a Downing Street party that “a little bit of [the “date rape” drug] Rohypnol in her drink every night” was “not really illegal if it’s only a little bit”. Britain’s current home secretary can be difficult to pigeonhole. He is the product of private schooling, the army reserve (in which he has served for decades) and Brexit-era politics, but also of childhood hardship and a mission to make his party more inclusive in which he still passionately believes. This is why – despite the enthusiasm in some quarters for Kemi Badenoch – his name is increasingly mentioned by moderate Tories seeking someone to back in the next leadership contest. View image in fullscreen Cleverly visiting a school in Sierra Leone when he was foreign secretary, in March 2023. Photograph: Michael Duff/The Guardian Civil servants rate his willingness to listen; at the Home Office, he is rebuilding fences trampled by his sacked predecessor, Suella Braverman . “He’s never going to be an angry politician. He’s got the brief he’s got, but that, I think, is the big change,” says Sunder Katwala, the director of the identity and immigration thinktank British Future. Rugby-loving, sociable and relaxed – sometimes to a fault (he once said: “I talk too much and sometimes I speak a bit too frankly, which I think people like until they don’t like it”) – Cleverly is unusually well liked at Westminster. “He’s not out for his own ends and his rise wasn’t due to any unfair clambering over the top of other people. He was there at the right time in the right place, being a safe pair of hands,” says a former colleague, who attributes Cleverly’s survival under four Tory prime ministers to his old-fashioned approach of reliably executing the brief. He has made remarkably few enemies and caused no great disasters. But there have been no great triumphs, either. Although he is thoughtful on some complex topics, from terrorism to Black Lives Matter, he has yet to reveal a wider political vision or the strategic ruthlessness to defeat highly organised rivals. One ex-minister who praises him as “moderate and sensible” says: “Whether he would be eaten alive in a leadership contest by people who would be seen as more aggressive and challenging, I can’t say.” Another describes him as “everyone’s second preference” – the candidate no one hates, but who has yet to cultivate a following of ardent true believers. C leverly was born in 1969 in Lewisham hospital, where his mother was a midwife. She had immigrated to Britain to work for the NHS in 1960, following her sister. The women then met and married brothers from Wiltshire. Cleverly grew up in south London in the 1970s and has recalled National Front marches in nearby streets, as well as kids teasing him for being mixed race. (When the Duchess of Sussex gave birth in 2019, he tweeted that the welcome afforded a mixed-race royal baby made him feel “a bit emotional”.) Whereas Braverman provoked and polarised with her attacks on multiculturalism , Cleverly’s instincts are to unify. “If we turn on ourselves, seek scapegoats, go into hiding or lash out it will only amplify what is already a sad and terrible thing,” he wrote on his blog in 2013, when the soldier Lee Rigby was murdered by terrorists not far from Cleverly’s family home. “But if we refuse to cast blame on an entire religion, make a point of standing shoulder to shoulder with our neighbours and continue to wear our military uniforms with pride, we shall have denied these thugs what they crave.” Yet Cleverly is also the kind of Tory that most confounds the left: one whose own experience of childhood hardship seems to harden their belief in fiscal austerity. He once defended the two-child benefit cap on the grounds that his parents couldn’t afford two sets of private education and so decided he would be an only child; even then, the family shared a one-bed flat to afford the school fees (for Riverston first, then Colfe’s, both in south London). “To my mother, education is taken incredibly seriously,” he has said . “They lived on a fold-out bed in the living room [to do it] … So when the left [talk about hardship], I’m sitting there very quietly, saying to myself: ‘Fuck off – you have no idea what you’re talking about.’’’ View image in fullscreen At the launch of Boris Johnson’s general election campaign in November 2019. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images The young Cleverly was heavily into Dungeons & Dragons and also inherited his grandfather’s artistic streak. But he decided against going to art school after his father, a surveyor, told him he would never make any money. He chose instead to join the army and thereafter put minimal effort into his A-levels. When a bad injury at Sandhurst ended his army career, he was left with two poor A-level grades and no backup plan. “That was a change in my life, realising you can’t just bet the farm on one outcome and expect the world is going to lay rose petals on your path to greatness,” he has said. He got into Ealing College of Higher Education (now the University of West London) to study hospitality management, emerging with a job in business publishing. (It was at college that he met his wife, Susie; the couple, who have two so
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
Labour’s pro-business lullaby sends movers and shakers into a blissful sleep
Keir Starmer and his loyal lieutenants were out to prove that Labour is the party of business. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer and his loyal lieutenants were out to prove that Labour is the party of business. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA This article is more than 1 year old Labour’s pro-business lullaby sends movers and shakers into a blissful sleep This article is more than 1 year old John Crace Toxic Tories have run themselves out as Starmer brings out the big hitters for a day at the Oval I t was the hottest gig in town. Within hours of the event being announced all the £1,000-a-head tickets had gone. Thank God for those uncapped bonuses . Anyone who was anyone in the business world was here. Executives from Goldman Sachs, Google, Mastercard, HSBC and countless more besides. Not because they especially wanted to be there. More because they were desperate to not miss out on being there. There were FTSE 100 bosses in tears not to have made the cut. This was an event like no other. Twenty-first century Britain at its most postmodern. Its most meta. For the importance lay not in what anyone might say, but in that it was happening at all. No one had come to hear anything of real interest. Or to be informed or entertained. That was very much not the point. Rather it was a celebration of a marriage. One that had started as an arrangement but had developed into love. And mutual trust. A day to luxuriate in one another. A wellness spa for the soul. And not a little self-congratulation. Welcome to Labour’s second annual business conference. The first – still quite grand – was a much smaller affair in Canary Wharf. Thursday’s event, in a cavernous executive suite at the Oval cricket ground, felt far more corporate. Those who had bought the premium tickets on tables nearer to the front. The media excluded from many sessions. And the breakfast bacon baguettes. Though there was some continuity. The freebies of branded pen and notebook looked like they had been repurposed from last year. Maybe Labour had bought a job lot. A good investment. Five years ago all this would have been an impossibility. Back then, Labour was perceived as a bad joke to business leaders. Positively dangerous even. The idea of them cosying up to one another would have been anathema to both groups. Now they can’t get enough of each other. The Public Displays of Affection becoming increasingly X-rated. Soon they will need their own Only Fans profile. Now it is the Conservatives who are seen as toxic. Tory ministers may like to repeat their tired mantra that they are the party of business, but that’s not how the corporate world sees it. They have had enough. Only the odd debt collector and insolvency firm would sign up for a Tory business conference these days. First a Brexit most of them didn’t want and from which they are still trying to recover. Then a Liz Truss budget that crashed the economy and sent interest rates rocketing. Now a Rishi Sunak government dedicated only to futile efforts to ensure its own survival. And still the Tories don’t get it. Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, celebrated four years since Brexit with a tweet saying: “People said we would fall off a cliff”. Was that really the bar? How tin eared can you get? We haven’t fallen off a cliff. Bring it on! It also helps that there is almost no one in business who doesn’t think Labour will win the next election. So business gravitates to where the power is. No one wants to waste time schmoozing a bunch of losers who aren’t going to be around to alter any economic outcomes. Labour stresses stability and no surprises as it courts business leaders Read more But Labour has been an open door since Keir Starmer changed the party. No one has actually gone as far as repeating the Peter Mandelson line about being “intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes” but it’s more or less implicit. Perhaps with a tad more corporate responsibility on the side. Labour is not just happy to meet business halfway, it will go as far as is required. So business doesn’t just see Labour as a threat neutered but as a genuine opportunity. After a meet and greet breakfast session with Anneliese Dodds, the conference properly got under way with a brief introduction from Angela Rayner, who managed to awkwardly cram in four crap cricket gags into her opening few sentences. She said she felt completely at home in her surroundings, but she didn’t sound wholly convinced. Almost as if she needed more stardust to fully believe she was there. Maybe she was a hologram. Then came a few words from the day’s lead sponsor. Step forward Erin Platts, chief exec of HSBC Innovation Banking . I literally have no idea what she said. Or rather I do, because I did manage to stay awake. Just. Must have been why they didn’t feed the media beforehand. But Platts’ sentences just merged into each other, never properly making complete sense. Perhaps this is how you get to have a stellar career in the City. Fluent in something, if not English. But she seemed quite chipper and optimistic about something. Life. View image in fullscreen The shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, was the main attraction. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA For the main attraction we got the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves . She too started off somewhat awkwardly, as if she was nervous. Weird, because she’s far brighter than most of the people who were in the room. But after a few minutes, she hit her stride and you could feel the entire room breathe deeply and relax. She began to talk about her “securonomics” and it was like being bathed in liquid Valium. You could sense all the tension dissipate as you blissed out into a semi-conscious trance-like state. This is the effect chancellors are meant to have. They aren’t there to be funny or to show off their brilliance. They are there to do the grunt work of the important, boring stuff so the rest of us can get on with our lives. We’ve had enough of attention-seeking chancellors fucking things up. We don’t want to be up half the night wondering what Jeremy Hunt or his half-witted side-kick Laura Trott might do next. Every time Jezza appears in public, he inspires panic. A man so clearly out of his depth. Reeves is totally at home in this environment. She lives and breathes it so we don’t have to. The audience seemed to love her. She was one of them. She wasn’t going to inflict new traumas on them. The closest she came to committing news was to say she would cap corporation tax at 25%. Hardly the biggest of deals, but that’s the way the City likes it. Not someone hopping up and down like an out of control Duracell bunny changing his mind on tax cuts. We still didn’t learn if the £28bn green energy was a goer or not. But time will tell, I guess. Then the media were led away as the roundtable sessions took place behind closed doors. Almost certainly nothing of any interest happened. And after lunch, Starmer gave another honeyed-toned address to close a few more eyes in slumber. “You might not like this,” he said as he talked of workers’ rights. But they did. Of course they did. Starmer doth protest too much. Everyone is in this marriage together. The boat that cannot be rocked. So everyone left happy. Blissed out. Labour was in its heaven. As was the City. And the bonuses were in their pockets. Explore more on these topics Labour The politics sketch Banking Rachel Reeves Keir Starmer comment Share Reuse this content Keir Starmer and his loyal lieutenants were out to prove that Labour is the party of business. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer and his loyal lieutenants were out to prove that Labour is the party of business. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA This article is more than 1 year old Labour’s pro-business lullaby sends movers and shakers into a blissful sleep This article is more than 1 year old John Crace Toxic Tories have run themselves out as Starmer brings out the big hitters for a day at the Oval I t was the hottest gig in town. Within hours of the event being announced all the £1,000-a-head tickets had gone. Thank God for those uncapped bonuses . Anyone who was anyone in the business world was here. Executives from Goldman Sachs, Google, Mastercard, HSBC and countless more besides. Not because they especially wanted to be there. More because they were desperate to not miss out on being there. There were FTSE 100 bosses in tears not to have made the cut. This was an event like no other. Twenty-first century Britain at its most postmodern. Its most meta. For the importance lay not in what anyone might say, but in that it was happening at all. No one had come to hear anything of real interest. Or to be informed or entertained. That was very much not the point. Rather it was a celebration of a marriage. One that had started as an arrangement but had developed into love. And mutual trust. A day to luxuriate in one another. A wellness spa for the soul. And not a little self-congratulation. Welcome to Labour’s second annual business conference. The first – still quite grand – was a much smaller affair in Canary Wharf. Thursday’s event, in a cavernous executive suite at the Oval cricket ground, felt far more corporate. Those who had bought the premium tickets on tables nearer to the front. The media excluded from many sessions. And the breakfast bacon baguettes. Though there was some continuity. The freebies of branded pen and notebook looked like they had been repurposed from last year. Maybe Labour had bought a job lot. A good investment. Five years ago all this would have been an impossibility. Back then, Labour was perceived as a bad joke to business leaders. Positively dangerous even. The idea of them cosying up to one another would have been anathema to both groups. Now they can’t get enough of each other. The Public Displays of Affection becoming increasingly X-rated. Soon they will need their own Only Fans profile. Now it is the Conservatives who are seen as toxic. Tory ministers may like to repeat their tired mantra that they are the party of business, but that’s not how the corporate world sees it. They have had enough. Only the odd debt collector and insolvency firm would sign up for a Tory business conference these days. First a Brexit most of them didn’t want and from which they are still trying to recover. Then a Liz Truss budget that crashed the economy and sent interest rates rocketing. Now a Rishi Sunak government dedicated only to futile efforts to ensure its own survival. And still the Tories don’t get it. Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, celebrated four years since Brexit with a tweet saying: “People said we would fall off a cliff”. Was that really the bar? How tin eared can you get? We haven’t fallen off a cliff. Bring it on! It also helps that there is almost no one in business who doesn’t think Labour will win the next election. So business gravitates to where the power is. No one wants to waste time schmoozing a bunch of losers who aren’t going to be around to alter any economic outcomes. Labour stresses stability and no surprises as it courts business leaders Read more But Labour has been an open door since Keir Starmer changed the party. No one has actually gone as far as repeating the Peter Mandelson line about being “intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes” but it’s more or less implicit. Perhaps with a tad more corporate responsibility on the side. Labour is not just happy to meet business halfway, it will go as far as is required. So business doesn’t just see Labour as a threat neutered but as a genuine opportunity. After a meet and greet breakfast session with Anneliese Dodds, the conference properly got under way with a brief introduction from Angela Rayner, who managed to awkwardly cram in four crap cricket gags into her opening few sentences. She said she felt completely at home in her surroundings, but she didn’t sound wholly convinced. Almost as if she needed more stardust to fully believe she was there. Maybe she was a hologram. Then came a few words from the day’s lead sponsor. Step forward Erin Platts, chief exec of HSBC Innovation Banking . I literally have no idea what she said. Or rather I do, because I did manage to stay awake. Just. Must have been why they didn’t feed the media beforehand. But Platts’ sentences just merged into each other, never properly making complete sense. Perhaps this is how you get to have a stellar career in the City. Fluent in something, if not English. But she seemed quite chipper and optimistic about something. Life. View image in fullscreen The shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, was the main attraction. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA For the main attraction we got the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves . She too started off somewhat awkwardly, as if she was nervous. Weird, because she’s far brighter than most of the people who were in the room. But after a few minutes, she hit her stride and you could feel the entire room breathe deeply and relax. She began to talk about her “securonomics” and it was like being bathed in liquid Valium. You could sense all the tension dissipate as you blissed out into a semi-conscious trance-like state. This is the effect chancellors are meant to have. They aren’t there to be funny or to show off their brilliance. They are there to do the grunt work of the important, boring stuff so the rest of us can get on with our lives. We’ve had enough of attention-seeking chancellors fucking things up. We don’t want to be up half the night wondering what Jeremy Hunt or his half-witted side-kick Laura Trott might do next. Every time Jezza appears in public, he inspires panic. A man so clearly out of his depth. Reeves is totally at home in this environment. She lives and breathes it so we don’t have to. The audience seemed to love her. She was one of them. She wasn’t going to inflict new traumas on them. The closest she came to committing news was to say she would cap corporation tax at 25%. Hardly the biggest of deals, but that’s the way the City likes it. Not someone hopping up and down like an out of control Duracell bunny changing his mind on tax cuts. We still didn’t learn if the £28bn green energy was a goer or not. But time will tell, I guess. Then the media were led away as the roundtable sessions took place behind closed doors. Almost certainly nothing of any interest happened. And after lunch, Starmer gave another honeyed-toned address to close a few more eyes in slumber. “You might not like this,” he said as he talked of workers’ rights. But they did. Of course they did. Starmer doth protest too much. Everyone is in this marriage together. The boat that cannot be rocked. So everyone left happy. Blissed out. Labour was in its heaven. As was the City. And the bonuses were in their pockets. Explore more on these topics Labour The politics sketch Banking Rachel Reeves Keir Starmer comment Share Reuse this content Keir Starmer and his loyal lieutenants were out to prove that Labour is the party of business. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer and his loyal lieutenants were out to prove that Labour is the party of business. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA Keir Starmer and his loyal lieutenants were out to prove that Labour is the party of business. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer and his loyal lieutenants were out to prove that Labour is the party of business. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA Keir Starmer and his loyal lieutenants were out to prove that Labour is the party of business. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer and his loyal lieutenants were out to prove that Labour is the party of business. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA Keir Starmer and his loyal lieutenants were out to prove that Labour is the party of business. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer and his loyal lieutenants were out to prove that Labour is the party of business. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA Keir Starmer and his loyal lieutenants were out to prove that Labour is the party of business. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA Keir Starmer and his loyal lieutenants were out to prove that Labour is the party of business. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA This article is more than 1 year old Labour’s pro-business lullaby sends movers and shakers into a blissful sleep This article is more than 1 year old John Crace This article is more than 1 year old Labour’s pro-business lullaby sends movers and shakers into a blissful sleep This article is more than 1 year old John Crace This article is more than 1 year old Labour’s pro-business lullaby sends movers and shakers into a blissful sleep This article is more than 1 year old John Crace This article is more than 1 year old Labour’s pro-business lullaby sends movers and shakers into a blissful sleep 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 Toxic Tories have run themselves out as Starmer brings out the big hitters for a day at the Oval Toxic Tories have run themselves out as Starmer brings out the big hitters for a day at the Oval Toxic Tories have run themselves out as Starmer brings out the big hitters for a day at the Oval I t was the hottest gig in town. Within hours of the event being announced all the £1,000-a-head tickets had gone. Thank God for those uncapped bonuses . Anyone who was anyone in the business world was here. Executives from Goldman Sachs, Google, Mastercard, HSBC and countless more besides. Not because they especially wanted to be there. More because they were desperate to not miss out on being there. There were FTSE 100 bosses in tears not to have made the cut. This was an event like no other. Twenty-first century Britain at its most postmodern. Its most meta. For the importance lay not in what anyone might say, but in that it was happening at all. No one had come to hear anything of real interest. Or to be informed or entertained. That was very much not the point. Rather it was a celebration of a marriage. One that had started as an arrangement but had developed into love. And mutual trust. A day to luxuriate in one another. A wellness spa for the soul. And not a little self-congratulation. Welcome to Labour’s second annual business conference. The first – still quite grand – was a much smaller affair in Canary Wharf. Thursday’s event, in a cavernous executive suite at the Oval cricket ground, felt far more corporate. Those who had bought the premium tickets on tables nearer to the front. The media excluded from many sessions. And the breakfast bacon baguettes. Though there was some continuity. The freebies of branded pen and notebook looked like they had been repurposed from last year. Maybe Labour had bought a job lot. A good investment. Five years ago all this would have been an impossibility. Back then, Labour was perceived as a bad joke to business leaders. Positively dangerous even. The idea of them cosying up to one another would have been anathema to both groups. Now they can’t get enough of each other. The Public Displays of Affection becoming increasingly X-rated. Soon they will need their own Only Fans profile. Now it is the Conservatives who are seen as toxic. Tory ministers may like to repeat their tired mantra that they are the party of business, but that’s not how the corporate world sees it. They have had enough. Only the odd debt collector and insolvency firm would sign up for a Tory business conference these days. First a Brexit most of them didn’t want and from which they are still trying to recover. Then a Liz Truss budget that crashed the economy and sent interest rates rocketing. Now a Rishi Sunak government dedicated only to futile efforts to ensure its own survival. And still the Tories don’t get it. Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, celebrated four years since Brexit with a tweet saying: “People said we would fall off a cliff”. Was that really the bar? How tin eared can you get? We haven’t fallen off a cliff. Bring it on! It also helps that there is almost no one in business who doesn’t think Labour will win the next election. So business gravitates to where the power is. No one wants to waste time schmoozing a bunch of losers who aren’t going to be around to alter any economic outcomes. Labour stresses stability and no surprises as it courts business leaders Read more But Labour has been an open door since Keir Starmer changed the party. No one has actually gone as far as repeating the Peter Mandelson line about being “intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes” but it’s more or less implicit. Perhaps with a tad more corporate responsibility on the side. Labour is not just happy to meet business halfway, it will go as far as is required. So business doesn’t just see Labour as a threat neutered but as a genuine opportunity. After a meet and greet breakfast session with Anneliese Dodds, the conference properly got under way with a brief introduction from Angela Rayner, who managed to awkwardly cram in four crap cricket gags into her opening few sentences. She said she felt completely at home in her surroundings, but she didn’t sound wholly convinced. Almost as if she needed more stardust to fully believe she was there. Maybe she was a hologram. Then came a few words from the day’s lead sponsor. Step forward Erin Platts, chief exec of HSBC Innovation Banking . I literally have no idea what she said. Or rather I do, because I did manage to stay awake. Just. Must have been why they didn’t feed the media beforehand. But Platts’ sentences just merged into each other, never properly making complete sense. Perhaps this is how you get to have a stellar career in the City. Fluent in something, if not English. But she seemed quite chipper and optimistic about something. Life. View image in fullscreen The shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, was the main attraction. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA For the main attraction we got the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves . She too started off somewhat awkwardly, as if she was nervous. Weird, because she’s far brighter than most of the people who were in the room. But after a few minutes, she hit her stride and you could feel the entire room breathe deeply and relax. She began to talk about her “securonomics” and it was like being bathed in liquid Valium. You could sense all the tension dissipate as you blissed out into a semi-conscious trance-like state. This is the effect chancellors are meant to have. They aren’t there to be funny or to show off their brilliance. They are there to do the grunt work of the important, boring stuff so the rest of us can get on with our lives. We’ve had enough of attention-seeking chancellors fucking things up. We don’t want to be up half the night wondering what Jeremy Hunt or his half-witted side-kick Laura Trott might do next. Every time Jezza appears in public, he inspires panic. A man so clearly out of his depth. Reeves is totally at home in this environment. She lives and breathes it so we don’t have to. The audience seemed to love her. She was one of them. She wasn’t going to inflict new traumas on them. The closest she came to committing news was to say she would cap corporation tax at 25%. Hardly the biggest of deals, but that’s the way the City likes it. Not someone hopping up and down like an out of control Duracell bunny changing his mind on tax cuts. We still didn’t learn if the £28bn green energy was a goer or not. But time will tell, I guess. Then the media were led away as the roundtable sessions took place behind closed doors. Almost certainly nothing of any interest happened. And after lunch, Starmer gave another honeyed-toned address to close a few more eyes in slumber. “You might not like this,” he said as he talked of workers’ rights. But they did. Of course they did. Starmer doth protest too much. Everyone is in this marriage together. The boat that cannot be rocked. So everyone left happy. Blissed out. Labour was in its heaven. As was the City. And the bonuses were in their pockets. Explore more on these topics Labour The politics sketch Banking Rachel Reeves Keir Starmer comment Share Reuse this content I t was the hottest gig in town. Within hours of the event being announced all the £1,000-a-head tickets had gone. Thank God for those uncapped bonuses . Anyone who was anyone in the business world was here. Executives from Goldman Sachs, Google, Mastercard, HSBC and countless more besides. Not because they especially wanted to be there. More because they were desperate to not miss out on being there. There were FTSE 100 bosses in tears not to have made the cut. This was an event like no other. Twenty-first century Britain at its most postmodern. Its most meta. For the importance lay not in what anyone might say, but in that it was happening at all. No one had come to hear anything of real interest. Or to be informed or entertained. That was very much not the point. Rather it was a celebration of a marriage. One that had started as an arrangement but had developed into love. And mutual trust. A day to luxuriate in one another. A wellness spa for the soul. And not a little self-congratulation. Welcome to Labour’s second annual business conference. The first – still quite grand – was a much smaller affair in Canary Wharf. Thursday’s event, in a cavernous executive suite at the Oval cricket ground, felt far more corporate. Those who had bought the premium tickets on tables nearer to the front. The media excluded from many sessions. And the breakfast bacon baguettes. Though there was some continuity. The freebies of branded pen and notebook looked like they had been repurposed from last year. Maybe Labour had bought a job lot. A good investment. Five years ago all this would have been an impossibility. Back then, Labour was perceived as a bad joke to business leaders. Positively dangerous even. The idea of them cosying up to one another would have been anathema to both groups. Now they can’t get enough of each other. The Public Displays of Affection becoming increasingly X-rated. Soon they will need their own Only Fans profile. Now it is the Conservatives who are seen as toxic. Tory ministers may like to repeat their tired mantra that they are the party of business, but that’s not how the corporate world sees it. They have had enough. Only the odd debt collector and insolvency firm would sign up for a Tory business conference these days. First a Brexit most of them didn’t want and from which they are still trying to recover. Then a Liz Truss budget that crashed the economy and sent interest rates rocketing. Now a Rishi Sunak government dedicated only to futile efforts to ensure its own survival. And still the Tories don’t get it. Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, celebrated four years since Brexit with a tweet saying: “People said we would fall off a cliff”. Was that really the bar? How tin eared can you get? We haven’t fallen off a cliff. Bring it on! It also helps that there is almost no one in business who doesn’t think Labour will win the next election. So business gravitates to where the power is. No one wants to waste time schmoozing a bunch of losers who aren’t going to be around to alter any economic outcomes. Labour stresses stability and no surprises as it courts business leaders Read more But Labour has been an open door since Keir Starmer changed the party. No one has actually gone as far as repeating the Peter Mandelson line about being “intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes” but it’s more or less implicit. Perhaps with a tad more corporate responsibility on the side. Labour is not just happy to meet business halfway, it will go as far as is required. So business doesn’t just see Labour as a threat neutered but as a genuine opportunity. After a meet and greet breakfast session with Anneliese Dodds, the conference properly got under way with a brief introduction from Angela Rayner, who managed to awkwardly cram in four crap cricket gags into her opening few sentences. She said she felt completely at home in her surroundings, but she didn’t sound wholly convinced. Almost as if she needed more stardust to fully believe she was there. Maybe she was a hologram. Then came a few words from the day’s lead sponsor. Step forward Erin Platts, chief exec of HSBC Innovation Banking . I literally have no idea what she said. Or rather I do, because I did manage to stay awake. Just. Must have been why they didn’t feed the media beforehand. But Platts’ sentences just merged into each other, never properly making complete sense. Perhaps this is how you get to have a stellar career in the City. Fluent in something, if not English. But she seemed quite chipper and optimistic about something. Life. View image in fullscreen The shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, was the main attraction. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA For the main attraction we got the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves . She too started off somewhat awkwardly, as if she was nervous. Weird, because she’s far brighter than most of the people who were in the room. But after a few minutes, she hit her stride and you could feel the entire room breathe deeply and relax. She began to talk about her “securonomics” and it was like being bathed in liquid Valium. You could sense all the tension dissipate as you blissed out into a semi-conscious trance-like state. This is the effect chancellors are meant to have. They aren’t there to be funny or to show off their brilliance. They are there to do the grunt work of the important, boring stuff so the rest of us can get on with our lives. We’ve had enough of attention-seeking chancellors fucking things up. We don’t want to be up half the night wondering what Jeremy Hunt or his half-witted side-kick Laura Trott might do next. Every time Jezza appears in public, he inspires panic. A man so clearly out of his depth. Reeves is totally at home in this environment. She lives and breathes it so we don’t have to. The audience seemed to love her. She was one of them. She wasn’t going to inflict new traumas on them. The closest she came to committing news was to say she would cap corporation tax at 25%. Hardly the biggest of deals, but that’s the way the City likes it. Not someone hopping up and down like an out of control Duracell bunny changing his mind on tax cuts. We still didn’t learn if the £28bn green energy was a goer or not. But time will tell, I guess. Then the media were led away as the roundtable sessions took place behind closed doors. Almost certainly nothing of any interest happened. And after lunch, Starmer gave another honeyed-toned address to close a few more eyes in slumber. “You might not like this,” he said as he talked of workers’ rights. But they did. Of course they did. Starmer doth protest too much. Everyone is in this marriage together. The boat that cannot be rocked. So everyone left happy. Blissed out. Labour was in its heaven. As was the City. And the bonuses were in their pockets. Explore more on these topics Labour The politics sketch Banking Rachel Reeves Keir Starmer comment Share Reuse this content I t was the hottest gig in town. Within hours of the event being announced all the £1,000-a-head tickets had gone. Thank God for those uncapped bonuses . Anyone who was anyone in the business world was here. Executives from Goldman Sachs, Google, Mastercard, HSBC and countless more besides. Not because they especially wanted to be there. More because they were desperate to not miss out on being there. There were FTSE 100 bosses in tears not to have made the cut. This was an event like no other. Twenty-first century Britain at its most postmodern. Its most meta. For the importance lay not in what anyone might say, but in that it was happening at all. No one had come to hear anything of real interest. Or to be informed or entertained. That was very much not the point. Rather it was a celebration of a marriage. One that had started as an arrangement but had developed into love. And mutual trust. A day to luxuriate in one another. A wellness spa for the soul. And not a little self-congratulation. Welcome to Labour’s second annual business conference. The first – still quite grand – was a much smaller affair in Canary Wharf. Thursday’s event, in a cavernous executive suite at the Oval cricket ground, felt far more corporate. Those who had bought the premium tickets on tables nearer to the front. The media excluded from many sessions. And the breakfast bacon baguettes. Though there was some continuity. The freebies of branded pen and notebook looked like they had been repurposed from last year. Maybe Labour had bought a job lot. A good investment. Five years ago all this would have been an impossibility. Back then, Labour was perceived as a bad joke to business leaders. Positively dangerous even. The idea of them cosying up to one another would have been anathema to both groups. Now they can’t get enough of each other. The Public Displays of Affection becoming increasingly X-rated. Soon they will need their own Only Fans profile. Now it is the Conservatives who are seen as toxic. Tory ministers may like to repeat their tired mantra that they are the party of business, but that’s not how the corporate world sees it. They have had enough. Only the odd debt collector and insolvency firm would sign up for a Tory business conference these days. First a Brexit most of them didn’t want and from which they are still trying to recover. Then a Liz Truss budget that crashed the economy and sent interest rates rocketing. Now a Rishi Sunak government dedicated only to futile efforts to ensure its own survival. And still the Tories don’t get it. Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, celebrated four years since Brexit with a tweet saying: “People said we would fall off a cliff”. Was that really the bar? How tin eared can you get? We haven’t fallen off a cliff. Bring it on! It also helps that there is almost no one in business who doesn’t think Labour will win the next election. So business gravitates to where the power is. No one wants to waste time schmoozing a bunch of losers who aren’t going to be around to alter any economic outcomes. Labour stresses stability and no surprises as it courts business leaders Read more But Labour has been an open door since Keir Starmer changed the party. No one has actually gone as far as repeating the Peter Mandelson line about being “intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes” but it’s more or less implicit. Perhaps with a tad more corporate responsibility on the side. Labour is not just happy to meet business halfway, it will go as far as is required. So business doesn’t just see Labour as a threat neutered but as a genuine opportunity. After a meet and greet breakfast session with Anneliese Dodds, the conference properly got under way with a brief introduction from Angela Rayner, who managed to awkwardly cram in four crap cricket gags into her opening few sentences. She said she felt completely at home in her surroundings, but she didn’t sound wholly convinced. Almost as if she needed more stardust to fully believe she was there. Maybe she was a hologram. Then came a few words from the day’s lead sponsor. Step forward Erin Platts, chief exec of HSBC Innovation Banking . I literally have no idea what she said. Or rather I do, because I did manage to stay awake. Just. Must have been why they didn’t feed the media beforehand. But Platts’ sentences just merged into each other, never properly making complete sense. Perhaps this is how you get to have a stellar career in the City. Fluent in something, if not English. But she seemed quite chipper and optimistic about something. Life. View image in fullscreen The shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, was the main attraction. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA For the main attraction we got the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves . She too started off somewhat awkwardly, as if she was nervous. Weird, because she’s far brighter than most of the people who were in the room. But after a few minutes, she hit her stride and you could feel the entire room breathe deeply and relax. She began to talk about her “securonomics” and it was like being bathed in liquid Valium. You could sense all the tension dissipate as you blissed out into a semi-conscious trance-like state. This is the effect chancellors are meant to have. They aren’t there to be funny or to show off their brilliance. They are there to do the grunt work of the important, boring stuff so the rest of us can get on with our lives. We’ve had enough of attention-seeking chancellors fucking things up. We don’t want to be up half the night wondering what Jeremy Hunt or his half-witted side-kick Laura Trott might do next. Every time Jezza appears in public, he inspires panic. A man so clearly out of his depth. Reeves is totally at home in this environment. She lives and breathes it so we don’t have to. The audience seemed to love her. She was one of them. She wasn’t going to inflict new traumas on them. The closest she came to committing news was to say she would cap corporation tax at 25%. Hardly the biggest of deals, but that’s the way the City likes it. Not someone hopping up and down like an out of control Duracell bunny changing his mind on tax cuts. We still didn’t learn if the £28bn green energy was a goer or not. But time will tell, I guess. Then the media were led away as the roundtable sessions took place behind closed doors. Almost certainly nothing of any interest happened. And after lunch, Starmer gave another honeyed-toned address to close a few more eyes in slumber. “You might not like this,” he said as he talked of workers’ rights. But they did. Of course they did. Starmer doth protest too much. Everyone is in this marriage together. The boat that cannot be rocked. So everyone left happy. Blissed out. Labour was in its heaven. As was the City. And the bonuses were in their pockets. Explore more on these topics Labour The politics sketch Banking Rachel Reeves Keir Starmer comment Share Reuse this content I t was the hottest gig in town. Within hours of the event being announced all the £1,000-a-head tickets had gone. Thank God for those uncapped bonuses . Anyone who was anyone in the business world was here. Executives from Goldman Sachs, Google, Mastercard, HSBC and countless more besides. Not because they especially wanted to be there. More because they were desperate to not miss out on being there. There were FTSE 100 bosses in tears not to have made the cut. This was an event like no other. Twenty-first century Britain at its most postmodern. Its most meta. For the importance lay not in what anyone might say, but in that it was happening at all. No one had come to hear anything of real interest. Or to be informed or entertained. That was very much not the point. Rather it was a celebration of a marriage. One that had started as an arrangement but had developed into love. And mutual trust. A day to luxuriate in one another. A wellness spa for the soul. And not a little self-congratulation. Welcome to Labour’s second annual business conference. The first – still quite grand – was a much smaller affair in Canary Wharf. Thursday’s event, in a cavernous executive suite at the Oval cricket ground, felt far more corporate. Those who had bought the premium tickets on tables nearer to the front. The media excluded from many sessions. And the breakfast bacon baguettes. Though there was some continuity. The freebies of branded pen and notebook looked like they had been repurposed from last year. Maybe Labour had bought a job lot. A good investment. Five years ago all this would have been an impossibility. Back then, Labour was perceived as a bad joke to business leaders. Positively dangerous even. The idea of them cosying up to one another would have been anathema to both groups. Now they can’t get enough of each other. The Public Displays of Affection becoming increasingly X-rated. Soon they will need their own Only Fans profile. Now it is the Conservatives who are seen as toxic. Tory ministers may like to repeat their tired mantra that they are the party of business, but that’s not how the corporate world sees it. They have had enough. Only the odd debt collector and insolvency firm would sign up for a Tory business conference these days. First a Brexit most of them didn’t want and from which they are still trying to recover. Then a Liz Truss budget that crashed the economy and sent interest rates rocketing. Now a Rishi Sunak government dedicated only to futile efforts to ensure its own survival. And still the Tories don’t get it. Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, celebrated four years since Brexit with a tweet saying: “People said we would fall off a cliff”. Was that really the bar? How tin eared can you get? We haven’t fallen off a cliff. Bring it on! It also helps that there is almost no one in business who doesn’t think Labour will win the next election. So business gravitates to where the power is. No one wants to waste time schmoozing a bunch of losers who aren’t going to be around to alter any economic outcomes. Labour stresses stability and no surprises as it courts business leaders Read more But Labour has been an open door since Keir Starmer changed the party. No one has actually gone as far as repeating the Peter Mandelson line about being “intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes” but it’s more or less implicit. Perhaps with a tad more corporate responsibility on the side. Labour is not just happy to meet business halfway, it will go as far as is required. So business doesn’t just see Labour as a threat neutered but as a genuine opportunity. After a meet and greet breakfast session with Anneliese Dodds, the conference properly got under way with a brief introduction from Angela Rayner, who managed to awkwardly cram in four crap cricket gags into her opening few sentences. She said she felt completely at home in her surroundings, but she didn’t sound wholly convinced. Almost as if she needed more stardust to fully believe she was there. Maybe she was a hologram. Then came a few words from the day’s lead sponsor. Step forward Erin Platts, chief exec of HSBC Innovation Banking . I literally have no idea what she said. Or rather I do, because I did manage to stay awake. Just. Must have been why they didn’t feed the media beforehand. But Platts’ sentences just merged into each other, never properly making complete sense. Perhaps this is how you get to have a stellar career in the City. Fluent in something, if not English. But she seemed quite chipper and optimistic about something. Life. View image in fullscreen The shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, was the main attraction. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA For the main attraction we got the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves . She too started off somewhat awkwardly, as if she was nervous. Weird, because she’s far brighter than most of the people who were in the room. But after a few minutes, she hit her stride and you could feel the entire room breathe deeply and relax. She began to talk about her “securonomics” and it was like being bathed in liquid Valium. You could sense all the tension dissipate as you blissed out into a semi-conscious trance-like state. This is the effect chancellors are meant to have. They aren’t there to be funny or to show off their brilliance. They are there to do the grunt work of the important, boring stuff so the rest of us can get on with our lives. We’ve had enough of attention-seeking chancellors fucking things up. We don’t want to be up half the night wondering what Jeremy Hunt or his half-witted side-kick Laura Trott might do next. Every time Jezza appears in public, he inspires panic. A man so clearly out of his depth. Reeves is totally at home in this environment. She lives and breathes it so we don’t have to. The audience seemed to love her. She was one of them. She wasn’t going to inflict new traumas on them. The closest she came to committing news was to say she would cap corporation tax at 25%. Hardly the biggest of deals, but that’s the way the City likes it. Not someone hopping up and down like an out of control Duracell bunny changing his mind on tax cuts. We still didn’t learn if the £28bn green energy was a goer or not. But time will tell, I guess. Then the media were led away as the roundtable sessions took place behind closed doors. Almost certainly nothing of any interest happened. And after lunch, Starmer gave another honeyed-toned address to close a few more eyes in slumber. “You might not like this,” he said as he talked of workers’ rights. But they did. Of course they did. Starmer doth protest too much. Everyone is in this marriage together. The boat that cannot be rocked. So everyone left happy. Blissed out. Labour was in its heaven. As was the City. And the bonuses were in their pockets. I t was the hottest gig in town. Within hours of the event being announced all the £1,000-a-head tickets had gone. Thank God for those uncapped bonuses . Anyone who was anyone in the business world was here. Executives from Goldman Sachs, Google, Mastercard, HSBC and countless more besides. Not because they especially wanted to be there. More because they were desperate to not miss out on being there. There were FTSE 100 bosses in tears not to have made the cut. This was an event like no other. Twenty-first century Britain at its most postmodern. Its most meta. For the importance lay not in what anyone might say, but in that it was happening at all. No one had come to hear anything of real interest. Or to be informed or entertained. That was very much not the point. Rather it was a celebration of a marriage. One that had started as an arrangement but had developed into love. And mutual trust. A day to luxuriate in one another. A wellness spa for the soul. And not a little self-congratulation. Welcome to Labour’s second annual business conference. The first – still quite grand – was a much smaller affair in Canary Wharf. Thursday’s event, in a cavernous executive suite at the Oval cricket ground, felt far more corporate. Those who had bought the premium tickets on tables nearer to the front. The media excluded from many sessions. And the breakfast bacon baguettes. Though there was some continuity. The freebies of branded pen and notebook looked like they had been repurposed from last year. Maybe Labour had bought a job lot. A good investment. Five years ago all this would have been an impossibility. Back then, Labour was perceived as a bad joke to business leaders. Positively dangerous even. The idea of them cosying up to one another would have been anathema to both groups. Now they can’t get enough of each other. The Public Displays of Affection becoming increasingly X-rated. Soon they will need their own Only Fans profile. Now it is the Conservatives who are seen as toxic. Tory ministers may like to repeat their tired mantra that they are the party of business, but that’s not how the corporate world sees it. They have had enough. Only the odd debt collector and insolvency firm would sign up for a Tory business conference these days. First a Brexit most of them didn’t want and from which they are still trying to recover. Then a Liz Truss budget that crashed the economy and sent interest rates rocketing. Now a Rishi Sunak government dedicated only to futile efforts to ensure its own survival. And still the Tories don’t get it. Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, celebrated four years since Brexit with a tweet saying: “People said we would fall off a cliff”. Was that really the bar? How tin eared can you get? We haven’t fallen off a cliff. Bring it on! It also helps that there is almost no one in business who doesn’t think Labour will win the next election. So business gravitates to where the power is. No one wants to waste time schmoozing a bunch of losers who aren’t going to be around to alter any economic outcomes. Labour stresses stability and no surprises as it courts business leaders Read more But Labour has been an open door since Keir Starmer changed the party. No one has actually gone as far as repeating the Peter Mandelson line about being “intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes” but it’s more or less implicit. Perhaps with a tad more corporate responsibility on the side. Labour is not just happy to meet business halfway, it will go as far as is required. So business doesn’t just see Labour as a threat neutered but as a genuine opportunity. After a meet and greet breakfast sessio
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
Greta Thunberg goes on trial over London oil industry protests
Greta Thunberg arriving at Westminster magistrates court with the other activists on trial. Photograph: Henry Nicholls/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Greta Thunberg arriving at Westminster magistrates court with the other activists on trial. Photograph: Henry Nicholls/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Greta Thunberg goes on trial over London oil industry protests This article is more than 1 year old Swedish climate campaigner among five arrested outside conference for oil bosses and government ministers Greta Thunberg defied a police officer’s instruction to comply with an order to stop protesting outside an oil industry summit in central London last year, a court has heard. The Swedish climate campaigner was one of five activists appearing at Westminster magistrates court on Thursday charged with “failing to comply with a condition imposed under section 14 of the Public Order Act” after they were told to leave the area. Facing trial with her were Christofer Kebbon, Joshua James Unwin, Jeff Rice and Peter Barker. They face fines of up to £2,500 if found guilty. They were arrested after taking part in protests organised by Fossil Free London and Greenpeace last October that blocked the entrances of the InterContinental hotel in Mayfair, the venue for the Energy Intelligence Forum (EIF) attended by fossil fuel executives and government ministers. Critics called the event the “oily money conference” in a sardonic nod to its previous name, the Oil and Money conference. The chief executives of Aramco, Repsol, Shell, TotalEnergies and the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation were among the people lined up to speak and to hand out awards, including “energy executive of the year”. Luke Staton, prosecuting, described the moment Thunberg was arrested. “Miss Thunberg was stood outside the hotel entrance,” he said. “She was approached at around 1.12pm by [two police officers who] informed her of the condition and warned her that failure to comply would lead to her arrest. “She said she was staying where she was, and she was arrested at 1.15pm.” The arrests were made after Suella Braverman, the then home secretary, used a statutory instrument to lower the threshold at which police could enforce public order restrictions on protests to anything causing “more than minor” disruption. Giving evidence, Supt Matthew Cox, the Met’s on-the-ground commander for the protest, described it as a “rapidly evolving situation” involving about 1,000 people at its height. He said he was forced to call for a “force mobilisation”, pulling officers from local duties, to gather enough personnel to police the incident. Cox described how protesters used their bodies and banners to block the hotel’s entrances. “It looked as a deliberate attempt to stop people coming into and coming out of the hotel,” Cox said. “It was a slow build but essentially the delegates were not able to get in or out of the hotel. It was relayed to me on a number of occasions by [hotel] security that guests were unable to get out as well. “Essentially, people were really restricted on how they could access the hotel.” After trying to persuade protesters to move away from the entrances, and unsuccessfully deploying a unit of specialist public order officers to try to physically clear them, Cox decided to issue an order under section 14 of the Public Order Act. This restricted protesters to an area away from the entrances and south of the hotel, adjacent to Piccadilly. “I based it on the fact that the disruption to the life of the community was more than minor,” he said. “The definition of the legislation had changed recently, in that year: significant disruption had been clarified to now ‘more than minor disruption to the life of the community’. I took the community at that point to be the people using the hotel.” Cox said he chose to make the specific order “for a number of reasons”. “It was a very straightforward condition that was understandable,” he said. “More important, the condition alleviated the problem of access to the hotel and, in my personal view, it maintained the right to assemble and have that freedom of expression right up close to the proximity of the hotel. “I was trying to balance the desire to get that cause across against the need to access the hotel for all the users who wanted to use it.” Police bodyworn video played to the court showed Thunberg standing silent, surrounded by chanting protesters, as a police officer set out to her the conditions of the section 14 order imposed on the protest. “Can you please leave?” it recorded him asking, to which Thunberg replies: “No.” “Do you understand that you will be arrested for it?” he asks her. “Yes,” she answers. Giving evidence, Sgt Tony Sothinathan of the Met police said Thunberg was standing near to the entrance of the InterContinental Hotel with her arms linked with other protesters. “I explained to Miss Thunberg that Supt Cox, who was the chief constable, had directed the protest to move off and not cause any disruption as it was causing a serious disruption to the community. “I explained to Miss Thunberg to move away on to Hamilton Place, junction with Piccadilly, where she could continue her protest peacefully. I then asked Miss Thunberg to leave, to which she refused. I explained to Miss Thunberg then that if she failed to comply with the directions she would be liable for arrest. She didn’t respond to me.” Thunberg was subsequently arrested by another officer, PC David Lawrence. On Thursday morning, climate activists protested outside the court in solidarity with those on trial, holding placards saying: “Climate protest is not a crime” and “Who are the real criminals?” Joanna Warrington, an organiser with Fossil Free London, said: “The UK criminalises peaceful climate activists like Greta whilst rolling out the red carpet for climate criminals in Mayfair hotels. “Fossil fuel corporations are most responsible for the climate crisis, and we will continue to hold them to account no matter what the state throws at us. We have to, because nothing is worse than losing everything.” Explore more on these topics England news Share Reuse this content Greta Thunberg arriving at Westminster magistrates court with the other activists on trial. Photograph: Henry Nicholls/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Greta Thunberg arriving at Westminster magistrates court with the other activists on trial. Photograph: Henry Nicholls/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Greta Thunberg goes on trial over London oil industry protests This article is more than 1 year old Swedish climate campaigner among five arrested outside conference for oil bosses and government ministers Greta Thunberg defied a police officer’s instruction to comply with an order to stop protesting outside an oil industry summit in central London last year, a court has heard. The Swedish climate campaigner was one of five activists appearing at Westminster magistrates court on Thursday charged with “failing to comply with a condition imposed under section 14 of the Public Order Act” after they were told to leave the area. Facing trial with her were Christofer Kebbon, Joshua James Unwin, Jeff Rice and Peter Barker. They face fines of up to £2,500 if found guilty. They were arrested after taking part in protests organised by Fossil Free London and Greenpeace last October that blocked the entrances of the InterContinental hotel in Mayfair, the venue for the Energy Intelligence Forum (EIF) attended by fossil fuel executives and government ministers. Critics called the event the “oily money conference” in a sardonic nod to its previous name, the Oil and Money conference. The chief executives of Aramco, Repsol, Shell, TotalEnergies and the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation were among the people lined up to speak and to hand out awards, including “energy executive of the year”. Luke Staton, prosecuting, described the moment Thunberg was arrested. “Miss Thunberg was stood outside the hotel entrance,” he said. “She was approached at around 1.12pm by [two police officers who] informed her of the condition and warned her that failure to comply would lead to her arrest. “She said she was staying where she was, and she was arrested at 1.15pm.” The arrests were made after Suella Braverman, the then home secretary, used a statutory instrument to lower the threshold at which police could enforce public order restrictions on protests to anything causing “more than minor” disruption. Giving evidence, Supt Matthew Cox, the Met’s on-the-ground commander for the protest, described it as a “rapidly evolving situation” involving about 1,000 people at its height. He said he was forced to call for a “force mobilisation”, pulling officers from local duties, to gather enough personnel to police the incident. Cox described how protesters used their bodies and banners to block the hotel’s entrances. “It looked as a deliberate attempt to stop people coming into and coming out of the hotel,” Cox said. “It was a slow build but essentially the delegates were not able to get in or out of the hotel. It was relayed to me on a number of occasions by [hotel] security that guests were unable to get out as well. “Essentially, people were really restricted on how they could access the hotel.” After trying to persuade protesters to move away from the entrances, and unsuccessfully deploying a unit of specialist public order officers to try to physically clear them, Cox decided to issue an order under section 14 of the Public Order Act. This restricted protesters to an area away from the entrances and south of the hotel, adjacent to Piccadilly. “I based it on the fact that the disruption to the life of the community was more than minor,” he said. “The definition of the legislation had changed recently, in that year: significant disruption had been clarified to now ‘more than minor disruption to the life of the community’. I took the community at that point to be the people using the hotel.” Cox said he chose to make the specific order “for a number of reasons”. “It was a very straightforward condition that was understandable,” he said. “More important, the condition alleviated the problem of access to the hotel and, in my personal view, it maintained the right to assemble and have that freedom of expression right up close to the proximity of the hotel. “I was trying to balance the desire to get that cause across against the need to access the hotel for all the users who wanted to use it.” Police bodyworn video played to the court showed Thunberg standing silent, surrounded by chanting protesters, as a police officer set out to her the conditions of the section 14 order imposed on the protest. “Can you please leave?” it recorded him asking, to which Thunberg replies: “No.” “Do you understand that you will be arrested for it?” he asks her. “Yes,” she answers. Giving evidence, Sgt Tony Sothinathan of the Met police said Thunberg was standing near to the entrance of the InterContinental Hotel with her arms linked with other protesters. “I explained to Miss Thunberg that Supt Cox, who was the chief constable, had directed the protest to move off and not cause any disruption as it was causing a serious disruption to the community. “I explained to Miss Thunberg to move away on to Hamilton Place, junction with Piccadilly, where she could continue her protest peacefully. I then asked Miss Thunberg to leave, to which she refused. I explained to Miss Thunberg then that if she failed to comply with the directions she would be liable for arrest. She didn’t respond to me.” Thunberg was subsequently arrested by another officer, PC David Lawrence. On Thursday morning, climate activists protested outside the court in solidarity with those on trial, holding placards saying: “Climate protest is not a crime” and “Who are the real criminals?” Joanna Warrington, an organiser with Fossil Free London, said: “The UK criminalises peaceful climate activists like Greta whilst rolling out the red carpet for climate criminals in Mayfair hotels. “Fossil fuel corporations are most responsible for the climate crisis, and we will continue to hold them to account no matter what the state throws at us. We have to, because nothing is worse than losing everything.” Explore more on these topics England news Share Reuse this content Greta Thunberg arriving at Westminster magistrates court with the other activists on trial. Photograph: Henry Nicholls/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Greta Thunberg arriving at Westminster magistrates court with the other activists on trial. Photograph: Henry Nicholls/AFP/Getty Images Greta Thunberg arriving at Westminster magistrates court with the other activists on trial. Photograph: Henry Nicholls/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Greta Thunberg arriving at Westminster magistrates court with the other activists on trial. Photograph: Henry Nicholls/AFP/Getty Images Greta Thunberg arriving at Westminster magistrates court with the other activists on trial. Photograph: Henry Nicholls/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Greta Thunberg arriving at Westminster magistrates court with the other activists on trial. Photograph: Henry Nicholls/AFP/Getty Images Greta Thunberg arriving at Westminster magistrates court with the other activists on trial. Photograph: Henry Nicholls/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Greta Thunberg arriving at Westminster magistrates court with the other activists on trial. Photograph: Henry Nicholls/AFP/Getty Images Greta Thunberg arriving at Westminster magistrates court with the other activists on trial. Photograph: Henry Nicholls/AFP/Getty Images Greta Thunberg arriving at Westminster magistrates court with the other activists on trial. Photograph: Henry Nicholls/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Greta Thunberg goes on trial over London oil industry protests This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Greta Thunberg goes on trial over London oil industry protests This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Greta Thunberg goes on trial over London oil industry protests 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 climate campaigner among five arrested outside conference for oil bosses and government ministers Swedish climate campaigner among five arrested outside conference for oil bosses and government ministers Swedish climate campaigner among five arrested outside conference for oil bosses and government ministers Greta Thunberg defied a police officer’s instruction to comply with an order to stop protesting outside an oil industry summit in central London last year, a court has heard. The Swedish climate campaigner was one of five activists appearing at Westminster magistrates court on Thursday charged with “failing to comply with a condition imposed under section 14 of the Public Order Act” after they were told to leave the area. Facing trial with her were Christofer Kebbon, Joshua James Unwin, Jeff Rice and Peter Barker. They face fines of up to £2,500 if found guilty. They were arrested after taking part in protests organised by Fossil Free London and Greenpeace last October that blocked the entrances of the InterContinental hotel in Mayfair, the venue for the Energy Intelligence Forum (EIF) attended by fossil fuel executives and government ministers. Critics called the event the “oily money conference” in a sardonic nod to its previous name, the Oil and Money conference. The chief executives of Aramco, Repsol, Shell, TotalEnergies and the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation were among the people lined up to speak and to hand out awards, including “energy executive of the year”. Luke Staton, prosecuting, described the moment Thunberg was arrested. “Miss Thunberg was stood outside the hotel entrance,” he said. “She was approached at around 1.12pm by [two police officers who] informed her of the condition and warned her that failure to comply would lead to her arrest. “She said she was staying where she was, and she was arrested at 1.15pm.” The arrests were made after Suella Braverman, the then home secretary, used a statutory instrument to lower the threshold at which police could enforce public order restrictions on protests to anything causing “more than minor” disruption. Giving evidence, Supt Matthew Cox, the Met’s on-the-ground commander for the protest, described it as a “rapidly evolving situation” involving about 1,000 people at its height. He said he was forced to call for a “force mobilisation”, pulling officers from local duties, to gather enough personnel to police the incident. Cox described how protesters used their bodies and banners to block the hotel’s entrances. “It looked as a deliberate attempt to stop people coming into and coming out of the hotel,” Cox said. “It was a slow build but essentially the delegates were not able to get in or out of the hotel. It was relayed to me on a number of occasions by [hotel] security that guests were unable to get out as well. “Essentially, people were really restricted on how they could access the hotel.” After trying to persuade protesters to move away from the entrances, and unsuccessfully deploying a unit of specialist public order officers to try to physically clear them, Cox decided to issue an order under section 14 of the Public Order Act. This restricted protesters to an area away from the entrances and south of the hotel, adjacent to Piccadilly. “I based it on the fact that the disruption to the life of the community was more than minor,” he said. “The definition of the legislation had changed recently, in that year: significant disruption had been clarified to now ‘more than minor disruption to the life of the community’. I took the community at that point to be the people using the hotel.” Cox said he chose to make the specific order “for a number of reasons”. “It was a very straightforward condition that was understandable,” he said. “More important, the condition alleviated the problem of access to the hotel and, in my personal view, it maintained the right to assemble and have that freedom of expression right up close to the proximity of the hotel. “I was trying to balance the desire to get that cause across against the need to access the hotel for all the users who wanted to use it.” Police bodyworn video played to the court showed Thunberg standing silent, surrounded by chanting protesters, as a police officer set out to her the conditions of the section 14 order imposed on the protest. “Can you please leave?” it recorded him asking, to which Thunberg replies: “No.” “Do you understand that you will be arrested for it?” he asks her. “Yes,” she answers. Giving evidence, Sgt Tony Sothinathan of the Met police said Thunberg was standing near to the entrance of the InterContinental Hotel with her arms linked with other protesters. “I explained to Miss Thunberg that Supt Cox, who was the chief constable, had directed the protest to move off and not cause any disruption as it was causing a serious disruption to the community. “I explained to Miss Thunberg to move away on to Hamilton Place, junction with Piccadilly, where she could continue her protest peacefully. I then asked Miss Thunberg to leave, to which she refused. I explained to Miss Thunberg then that if she failed to comply with the directions she would be liable for arrest. She didn’t respond to me.” Thunberg was subsequently arrested by another officer, PC David Lawrence. On Thursday morning, climate activists protested outside the court in solidarity with those on trial, holding placards saying: “Climate protest is not a crime” and “Who are the real criminals?” Joanna Warrington, an organiser with Fossil Free London, said: “The UK criminalises peaceful climate activists like Greta whilst rolling out the red carpet for climate criminals in Mayfair hotels. “Fossil fuel corporations are most responsible for the climate crisis, and we will continue to hold them to account no matter what the state throws at us. We have to, because nothing is worse than losing everything.” Explore more on these topics England news Share Reuse this content Greta Thunberg defied a police officer’s instruction to comply with an order to stop protesting outside an oil industry summit in central London last year, a court has heard. The Swedish climate campaigner was one of five activists appearing at Westminster magistrates court on Thursday charged with “failing to comply with a condition imposed under section 14 of the Public Order Act” after they were told to leave the area. Facing trial with her were Christofer Kebbon, Joshua James Unwin, Jeff Rice and Peter Barker. They face fines of up to £2,500 if found guilty. They were arrested after taking part in protests organised by Fossil Free London and Greenpeace last October that blocked the entrances of the InterContinental hotel in Mayfair, the venue for the Energy Intelligence Forum (EIF) attended by fossil fuel executives and government ministers. Critics called the event the “oily money conference” in a sardonic nod to its previous name, the Oil and Money conference. The chief executives of Aramco, Repsol, Shell, TotalEnergies and the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation were among the people lined up to speak and to hand out awards, including “energy executive of the year”. Luke Staton, prosecuting, described the moment Thunberg was arrested. “Miss Thunberg was stood outside the hotel entrance,” he said. “She was approached at around 1.12pm by [two police officers who] informed her of the condition and warned her that failure to comply would lead to her arrest. “She said she was staying where she was, and she was arrested at 1.15pm.” The arrests were made after Suella Braverman, the then home secretary, used a statutory instrument to lower the threshold at which police could enforce public order restrictions on protests to anything causing “more than minor” disruption. Giving evidence, Supt Matthew Cox, the Met’s on-the-ground commander for the protest, described it as a “rapidly evolving situation” involving about 1,000 people at its height. He said he was forced to call for a “force mobilisation”, pulling officers from local duties, to gather enough personnel to police the incident. Cox described how protesters used their bodies and banners to block the hotel’s entrances. “It looked as a deliberate attempt to stop people coming into and coming out of the hotel,” Cox said. “It was a slow build but essentially the delegates were not able to get in or out of the hotel. It was relayed to me on a number of occasions by [hotel] security that guests were unable to get out as well. “Essentially, people were really restricted on how they could access the hotel.” After trying to persuade protesters to move away from the entrances, and unsuccessfully deploying a unit of specialist public order officers to try to physically clear them, Cox decided to issue an order under section 14 of the Public Order Act. This restricted protesters to an area away from the entrances and south of the hotel, adjacent to Piccadilly. “I based it on the fact that the disruption to the life of the community was more than minor,” he said. “The definition of the legislation had changed recently, in that year: significant disruption had been clarified to now ‘more than minor disruption to the life of the community’. I took the community at that point to be the people using the hotel.” Cox said he chose to make the specific order “for a number of reasons”. “It was a very straightforward condition that was understandable,” he said. “More important, the condition alleviated the problem of access to the hotel and, in my personal view, it maintained the right to assemble and have that freedom of expression right up close to the proximity of the hotel. “I was trying to balance the desire to get that cause across against the need to access the hotel for all the users who wanted to use it.” Police bodyworn video played to the court showed Thunberg standing silent, surrounded by chanting protesters, as a police officer set out to her the conditions of the section 14 order imposed on the protest. “Can you please leave?” it recorded him asking, to which Thunberg replies: “No.” “Do you understand that you will be arrested for it?” he asks her. “Yes,” she answers. Giving evidence, Sgt Tony Sothinathan of the Met police said Thunberg was standing near to the entrance of the InterContinental Hotel with her arms linked with other protesters. “I explained to Miss Thunberg that Supt Cox, who was the chief constable, had directed the protest to move off and not cause any disruption as it was causing a serious disruption to the community. “I explained to Miss Thunberg to move away on to Hamilton Place, junction with Piccadilly, where she could continue her protest peacefully. I then asked Miss Thunberg to leave, to which she refused. I explained to Miss Thunberg then that if she failed to comply with the directions she would be liable for arrest. She didn’t respond to me.” Thunberg was subsequently arrested by another officer, PC David Lawrence. On Thursday morning, climate activists protested outside the court in solidarity with those on trial, holding placards saying: “Climate protest is not a crime” and “Who are the real criminals?” Joanna Warrington, an organiser with Fossil Free London, said: “The UK criminalises peaceful climate activists like Greta whilst rolling out the red carpet for climate criminals in Mayfair hotels. “Fossil fuel corporations are most responsible for the climate crisis, and we will continue to hold them to account no matter what the state throws at us. We have to, because nothing is worse than losing everything.” Explore more on these topics England news Share Reuse this content Greta Thunberg defied a police officer’s instruction to comply with an order to stop protesting outside an oil industry summit in central London last year, a court has heard. The Swedish climate campaigner was one of five activists appearing at Westminster magistrates court on Thursday charged with “failing to comply with a condition imposed under section 14 of the Public Order Act” after they were told to leave the area. Facing trial with her were Christofer Kebbon, Joshua James Unwin, Jeff Rice and Peter Barker. They face fines of up to £2,500 if found guilty. They were arrested after taking part in protests organised by Fossil Free London and Greenpeace last October that blocked the entrances of the InterContinental hotel in Mayfair, the venue for the Energy Intelligence Forum (EIF) attended by fossil fuel executives and government ministers. Critics called the event the “oily money conference” in a sardonic nod to its previous name, the Oil and Money conference. The chief executives of Aramco, Repsol, Shell, TotalEnergies and the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation were among the people lined up to speak and to hand out awards, including “energy executive of the year”. Luke Staton, prosecuting, described the moment Thunberg was arrested. “Miss Thunberg was stood outside the hotel entrance,” he said. “She was approached at around 1.12pm by [two police officers who] informed her of the condition and warned her that failure to comply would lead to her arrest. “She said she was staying where she was, and she was arrested at 1.15pm.” The arrests were made after Suella Braverman, the then home secretary, used a statutory instrument to lower the threshold at which police could enforce public order restrictions on protests to anything causing “more than minor” disruption. Giving evidence, Supt Matthew Cox, the Met’s on-the-ground commander for the protest, described it as a “rapidly evolving situation” involving about 1,000 people at its height. He said he was forced to call for a “force mobilisation”, pulling officers from local duties, to gather enough personnel to police the incident. Cox described how protesters used their bodies and banners to block the hotel’s entrances. “It looked as a deliberate attempt to stop people coming into and coming out of the hotel,” Cox said. “It was a slow build but essentially the delegates were not able to get in or out of the hotel. It was relayed to me on a number of occasions by [hotel] security that guests were unable to get out as well. “Essentially, people were really restricted on how they could access the hotel.” After trying to persuade protesters to move away from the entrances, and unsuccessfully deploying a unit of specialist public order officers to try to physically clear them, Cox decided to issue an order under section 14 of the Public Order Act. This restricted protesters to an area away from the entrances and south of the hotel, adjacent to Piccadilly. “I based it on the fact that the disruption to the life of the community was more than minor,” he said. “The definition of the legislation had changed recently, in that year: significant disruption had been clarified to now ‘more than minor disruption to the life of the community’. I took the community at that point to be the people using the hotel.” Cox said he chose to make the specific order “for a number of reasons”. “It was a very straightforward condition that was understandable,” he said. “More important, the condition alleviated the problem of access to the hotel and, in my personal view, it maintained the right to assemble and have that freedom of expression right up close to the proximity of the hotel. “I was trying to balance the desire to get that cause across against the need to access the hotel for all the users who wanted to use it.” Police bodyworn video played to the court showed Thunberg standing silent, surrounded by chanting protesters, as a police officer set out to her the conditions of the section 14 order imposed on the protest. “Can you please leave?” it recorded him asking, to which Thunberg replies: “No.” “Do you understand that you will be arrested for it?” he asks her. “Yes,” she answers. Giving evidence, Sgt Tony Sothinathan of the Met police said Thunberg was standing near to the entrance of the InterContinental Hotel with her arms linked with other protesters. “I explained to Miss Thunberg that Supt Cox, who was the chief constable, had directed the protest to move off and not cause any disruption as it was causing a serious disruption to the community. “I explained to Miss Thunberg to move away on to Hamilton Place, junction with Piccadilly, where she could continue her protest peacefully. I then asked Miss Thunberg to leave, to which she refused. I explained to Miss Thunberg then that if she failed to comply with the directions she would be liable for arrest. She didn’t respond to me.” Thunberg was subsequently arrested by another officer, PC David Lawrence. On Thursday morning, climate activists protested outside the court in solidarity with those on trial, holding placards saying: “Climate protest is not a crime” and “Who are the real criminals?” Joanna Warrington, an organiser with Fossil Free London, said: “The UK criminalises peaceful climate activists like Greta whilst rolling out the red carpet for climate criminals in Mayfair hotels. “Fossil fuel corporations are most responsible for the climate crisis, and we will continue to hold them to account no matter what the state throws at us. We have to, because nothing is worse than losing everything.” Greta Thunberg defied a police officer’s instruction to comply with an order to stop protesting outside an oil industry summit in central London last year, a court has heard. The Swedish climate campaigner was one of five activists appearing at Westminster magistrates court on Thursday charged with “failing to comply with a condition imposed under section 14 of the Public Order Act” after they were told to leave the area. Facing trial with her were Christofer Kebbon, Joshua James Unwin, Jeff Rice and Peter Barker. They face fines of up to £2,500 if found guilty. They were arrested after taking part in protests organised by Fossil Free London and Greenpeace last October that blocked the entrances of the InterContinental hotel in Mayfair, the venue for the Energy Intelligence Forum (EIF) attended by fossil fuel executives and government ministers. Critics called the event the “oily money conference” in a sardonic nod to its previous name, the Oil and Money conference. The chief executives of Aramco, Repsol, Shell, TotalEnergies and the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation were among the people lined up to speak and to hand out awards, including “energy executive of the year”. Luke Staton, prosecuting, described the moment Thunberg was arrested. “Miss Thunberg was stood outside the hotel entrance,” he said. “She was approached at around 1.12pm by [two police officers who] informed her of the condition and warned her that failure to comply would lead to her arrest. “She said she was staying where she was, and she was arrested at 1.15pm.” The arrests were made after Suella Braverman, the then home secretary, used a statutory instrument to lower the threshold at which police could enforce public order restrictions on protests to anything causing “more than minor” disruption. Giving evidence, Supt Matthew Cox, the Met’s on-the-ground commander for the protest, described it as a “rapidly evolving situation” involving about 1,000 people at its height. He said he was forced to call for a “force mobilisation”, pulling officers from local duties, to gather enough personnel to police the incident. Cox described how protesters used their bodies and banners to block the hotel’s entrances. “It looked as a deliberate attempt to stop people coming into and coming out of the hotel,” Cox said. “It was a slow build but essentially the delegates were not able to get in or out of the hotel. It was relayed to me on a number of occasions by [hotel] security that guests were unable to get out as well. “Essentially, people were really restricted on how they could access the hotel.” After trying to persuade protesters to move away from the entrances, and unsuccessfully deploying a unit of specialist public order officers to try to physically clear them, Cox decided to issue an order under section 14 of the Public Order Act. This restricted protesters to an area away from the entrances and south of the hotel, adjacent to Piccadilly. “I based it on the fact that the disruption to the life of the community was more than minor,” he said. “The definition of the legislation had changed recently, in that year: significant disruption had been clarified to now ‘more than minor disruption to the life of the community’. I took the community at that point to be the people using the hotel.” Cox said he chose to make the specific order “for a number of reasons”. “It was a very straightforward condition that was understandable,” he said. “More important, the condition alleviated the problem of access to the hotel and, in my personal view, it maintained the right to assemble and have that freedom of expression right up close to the proximity of the hotel. “I was trying to balance the desire to get that cause across against the need to access the hotel for all the users who wanted to use it.” Police bodyworn video played to the court showed Thunberg standing silent, surrounded by chanting protesters, as a police officer set out to her the conditions of the section 14 order imposed on the protest. “Can you please leave?” it recorded him asking, to which Thunberg replies: “No.” “Do you understand that you will be arrested for it?” he asks her. “Yes,” she answers. Giving evidence, Sgt Tony Sothinathan of the Met police said Thunberg was standing near to the entrance of the InterContinental Hotel with her arms linked with other protesters. “I explained to Miss Thunberg that Supt Cox, who was the chief constable, had directed the protest to move off and not cause any disruption as it was causing a serious disruption to the community. “I explained to Miss Thunberg to move away on to Hamilton Place, junction with Piccadilly, where she could continue her protest peacefully. I then asked Miss Thunberg to leave, to which she refused. I explained to Miss Thunberg then that if she failed to comply with the directions she would be liable for arrest. She didn’t respond to me.” Thunberg was subsequently arrested by another officer, PC David Lawrence. On Thursday morning, climate activists protested outside the court in solidarity with those on trial, holding placards saying: “Climate protest is not a crime” and “Who are the real criminals?” Joanna Warrington, an organiser with Fossil Free London, said: “The UK criminalises peaceful climate activists like Greta whilst rolling out the red carpet for climate criminals in Mayfair hotels. “Fossil fuel corporations are most responsible for the climate crisis, and we will continue to hold them to account no matter what the state throws at us. We have to, because nothing is worse than losing everything.” Greta Thunberg defied a police officer’s instruction to comply with an order to stop protesting outside an oil industry summit in central London last year, a court has heard. The Swedish climate campaigner was one of five activists appearing at Westminster magistrates court on Thursday charged with “failing to comply with a condition imposed under section 14 of the Public Order Act” after they were told to leave the area. Facing trial with her were Christofer Kebbon, Joshua James Unwin, Jeff Rice and Peter Barker. They face fines of up to £2,500 if found guilty. They were arrested after taking part in protests organised by Fossil Free London and Greenpeace last October that blocked the entrances of the InterContinental hotel in Mayfair, the venue for the Energy Intelligence Forum (EIF) attended by fossil fuel executives and government ministers. Critics called the event the “oily money conference” in a sardonic nod to its previous name, the Oil and Money conference. The chief executives of Aramco, Repsol, Shell, TotalEnergies and the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation were among the people lined up to speak and to hand out awards, including “energy executive of the year”. Luke Staton, prosecuting, described the moment Thunberg was arrested. “Miss Thunberg was stood outside the hotel entrance,” he said. “She was approached at around 1.12pm by [two police officers who] informed her of the condition and warned her that failure to comply would lead to her arrest. “She said she was staying where she was, and she was arrested at 1.15pm.” The arrests were made after Suella Braverman, the then home secretary, used a statutory instrument to lower the threshold at which police could enforce public order restrictions on protests to anything causing “more than minor” disruption. Giving evidence, Supt Matthew Cox, the Met’s on-the-ground commander for the protest, described it as a “rapidly evolving situation” involving about 1,000 people at its height. He said he was forced to call for a “force mobilisation”, pulling officers from local duties, to gather enough personnel to police the incident. Cox described how protesters used their bodies and banners to block the hotel’s entrances. “It looked as a deliberate attempt to stop people coming into and coming out of the hotel,” Cox said. “It was a slow build but essentially the delegates were not able to get in or out of the hotel. It was relayed to me on a number of occasions by [hotel] security that guests were unable to get out as well. “Essentially, people were really restricted on how they could access the hotel.” After trying to persuade protesters to move away from the entrances, and unsuccessfully deploying a unit of specialist public order officers to try to physically clear them, Cox decided to issue an order under section 14 of the Public Order Act. This restricted protesters to an area away from the entrances and south of the hotel, adjacent to Piccadilly. “I based it on the fact that the disruption to the life of the community was more than minor,” he said. “The definition of the legislation had changed recently, in that year: significant disruption had been clarified to now ‘more than minor disruption to the life of the community’. I took the community at that point to be the people using the hotel.” Cox said he chose to make the specific order “for a number of reasons”. “It was a very straightforward condition that was understandable,” he said. “More important, the condition alleviated the problem of access to the hotel and, in my personal view, it maintained the right to assemble and have that freedom of expression right up close to the proximity of the hotel. “I was trying to balance the desire to get that cause across against the need to access the hotel for all the users who wanted to use it.” Police bodyworn video played to the court showed Thunberg standing silent, surrounded by chanting protesters, as a police officer set out to her the conditions of the section 14 order imposed on the protest. “Can you please leave?” it recorded him asking, to which Thunberg replies: “No.” “Do you understand that you will be arrested for it?” he asks her. “Yes,” she answers. Giving evidence, Sgt Tony Sothinathan of the Met police said Thunberg was standing near to the entrance of the InterContinental Hotel with her arms linked with other protesters. “I explained to Miss Thunberg that Supt Cox, who was the chief constable, had directed the protest to move off and not cause any disruption as it was causing a serious disruption to the community. “I explained to Miss Thunberg to move away on to Hamilton Place, junction with Piccadilly, where she could continue her protest peacefully. I then asked Miss Thunberg to leave, to which she refused. I explained to Miss Thunberg then that if she failed to comply with the directions she would be liable for arrest. She didn’t respond to me.” Thunberg was subsequently arrested by another officer, PC David Lawrence. On Thursday morning, climate activists protested outside the court in solidarity with those on trial, holding placards saying: “Climate protest is not a crime” and “Who are the real criminals?” Joanna Warrington, an organiser with Fossil Free London, said: “The UK criminalises peaceful climate activists like Greta whilst rolling out the red carpet for climate criminals in Mayfair hotels. “Fossil fuel corporations are most responsible for the climate crisis, and we will continue to hold them to account no matter what the state throws at us. We have to, because nothing is worse than losing everything.” Explore more on these topics England news Share Reuse this content
|
With Sinn Féin in first minister post, will republicans’ day have come at last?
Michelle O’Neill is in charge of a state designed in 1921 to enshrine a unionist majority in perpetuity. Photograph: Liam McBurney/PA View image in fullscreen Michelle O’Neill is in charge of a state designed in 1921 to enshrine a unionist majority in perpetuity. Photograph: Liam McBurney/PA This article is more than 1 year old Analysis With Sinn Féin in first minister post, has the republicans’ day come at last? This article is more than 1 year old Rory Carroll Ireland correspondent Michelle O’Neill has taken the top job but Irish unity is unlikely to be ‘within touching distance’ The elevation of Michelle O’Neill as Northern Ireland ’s first minister is a historic moment that breathes new life into the republican slogan “ tiocfaidh ár lá ” – “our day will come”. The Sinn Féin deputy leader, a working-class republican, has taken charge of a state that was designed in 1921 to enshrine a unionist majority in perpetuity, and that the IRA vowed to destroy. Even in 1998, when the Good Friday agreement drew a line under the Troubles, it seemed inconceivable that the IRA’s political wing, the fourth-biggest party, would one day claim the top post at the Stormont executive. New Northern Ireland Brexit trade rules approved paving way for power sharing Read more But the Democratic Unionist party’s decision to drop a boycott of power sharing in return for an easing of post-Brexit trade arrangements means that O’Neill, 47, has belatedly become first minister in accordance with the 2022 assembly election , when Sinn Féin pipped the DUP as the biggest party. The former deputy first minister – a post with equal power but less prestige that the DUP will now occupy – has been sworn in amid the marbled grandeur of an edifice once regarded as a Protestant assembly for a Protestant people. It could appear that nationalism’s day has finally come. Sinn Féin’s leader, Mary Lou McDonald, this week spoke of a “historical turning of the wheel” and said Irish unity was “ within touching distance ”. Except it’s not. Political and demographic winds blow favourably but the republican dream remains distant. The party’s breakthrough at Stormont has symbolic and psychological force but does not signify a looming united Ireland . Paradoxically, O’Neill’s ascent could cement Northern Ireland’s position in the UK by restoring stability and confidence in the status quo. The region divides roughly into three camps: 40% nationalist, 40% unionist and 20% non-aligned who tend to favour staying in the UK. Some change is under way. In local elections last year, first-preference votes for pro-unification parties for the first time outnumbered those who backed pro-union parties and candidates. But a recent Irish Times opinion poll found that 30% would vote for unification in a referendum versus 51% that would vote against, with the rest undecided or inclined to abstain. Other polls have consistently shown a clear majority favour remaining in the UK, albeit with fluctuating margins. This has endured despite Catholics now outnumbering Protestants ; despite Brexit, which most people opposed; despite crumbling public services; and despite the Republic of Ireland becoming wealthy, secular and pluralist. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Sinn Féin has advanced not by attracting centrist voters but by cannibalising its nationalist rival, the Social Democratic and Labour party (SDLP). The nationalist bloc is largely static and coalescing around one party while the unionist bloc is shrinking and more split, denting unionist parties but not necessarily their cause – a dynamic seen in Scotland. “I don’t think there ever will be a unionist first minister in Northern Ireland again. It’s over,” said Jon Tonge , a University of Liverpool politics professor and authority on unionism. “It’s not that the union is over but the unionist state is over.” Tonge notes that O’Neill shuns the name Northern Ireland in favour of the “north of Ireland”, a jab at partition. “It’s astonishing that Sinn Féin can ascend to such electoral heights while still refusing to recognise Northern Ireland as a political entity.” The republican party will continue to lobby for a referendum, which only a secretary of state can call, and project a sense of inevitability about unification. But to sustain support – and to show voters in the Irish republic it can be trusted with power – it must focus on improving Northern Ireland’s economy, public services and infrastructure. To show, in other words, that the state it wants to abolish works. Explore more on these topics Northern Irish politics Sinn Féin Northern Ireland Ireland Europe Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Michelle O'Neill analysis Share Reuse this content Michelle O’Neill is in charge of a state designed in 1921 to enshrine a unionist majority in perpetuity. Photograph: Liam McBurney/PA View image in fullscreen Michelle O’Neill is in charge of a state designed in 1921 to enshrine a unionist majority in perpetuity. Photograph: Liam McBurney/PA This article is more than 1 year old Analysis With Sinn Féin in first minister post, has the republicans’ day come at last? This article is more than 1 year old Rory Carroll Ireland correspondent Michelle O’Neill has taken the top job but Irish unity is unlikely to be ‘within touching distance’ The elevation of Michelle O’Neill as Northern Ireland ’s first minister is a historic moment that breathes new life into the republican slogan “ tiocfaidh ár lá ” – “our day will come”. The Sinn Féin deputy leader, a working-class republican, has taken charge of a state that was designed in 1921 to enshrine a unionist majority in perpetuity, and that the IRA vowed to destroy. Even in 1998, when the Good Friday agreement drew a line under the Troubles, it seemed inconceivable that the IRA’s political wing, the fourth-biggest party, would one day claim the top post at the Stormont executive. New Northern Ireland Brexit trade rules approved paving way for power sharing Read more But the Democratic Unionist party’s decision to drop a boycott of power sharing in return for an easing of post-Brexit trade arrangements means that O’Neill, 47, has belatedly become first minister in accordance with the 2022 assembly election , when Sinn Féin pipped the DUP as the biggest party. The former deputy first minister – a post with equal power but less prestige that the DUP will now occupy – has been sworn in amid the marbled grandeur of an edifice once regarded as a Protestant assembly for a Protestant people. It could appear that nationalism’s day has finally come. Sinn Féin’s leader, Mary Lou McDonald, this week spoke of a “historical turning of the wheel” and said Irish unity was “ within touching distance ”. Except it’s not. Political and demographic winds blow favourably but the republican dream remains distant. The party’s breakthrough at Stormont has symbolic and psychological force but does not signify a looming united Ireland . Paradoxically, O’Neill’s ascent could cement Northern Ireland’s position in the UK by restoring stability and confidence in the status quo. The region divides roughly into three camps: 40% nationalist, 40% unionist and 20% non-aligned who tend to favour staying in the UK. Some change is under way. In local elections last year, first-preference votes for pro-unification parties for the first time outnumbered those who backed pro-union parties and candidates. But a recent Irish Times opinion poll found that 30% would vote for unification in a referendum versus 51% that would vote against, with the rest undecided or inclined to abstain. Other polls have consistently shown a clear majority favour remaining in the UK, albeit with fluctuating margins. This has endured despite Catholics now outnumbering Protestants ; despite Brexit, which most people opposed; despite crumbling public services; and despite the Republic of Ireland becoming wealthy, secular and pluralist. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Sinn Féin has advanced not by attracting centrist voters but by cannibalising its nationalist rival, the Social Democratic and Labour party (SDLP). The nationalist bloc is largely static and coalescing around one party while the unionist bloc is shrinking and more split, denting unionist parties but not necessarily their cause – a dynamic seen in Scotland. “I don’t think there ever will be a unionist first minister in Northern Ireland again. It’s over,” said Jon Tonge , a University of Liverpool politics professor and authority on unionism. “It’s not that the union is over but the unionist state is over.” Tonge notes that O’Neill shuns the name Northern Ireland in favour of the “north of Ireland”, a jab at partition. “It’s astonishing that Sinn Féin can ascend to such electoral heights while still refusing to recognise Northern Ireland as a political entity.” The republican party will continue to lobby for a referendum, which only a secretary of state can call, and project a sense of inevitability about unification. But to sustain support – and to show voters in the Irish republic it can be trusted with power – it must focus on improving Northern Ireland’s economy, public services and infrastructure. To show, in other words, that the state it wants to abolish works. Explore more on these topics Northern Irish politics Sinn Féin Northern Ireland Ireland Europe Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Michelle O'Neill analysis Share Reuse this content Michelle O’Neill is in charge of a state designed in 1921 to enshrine a unionist majority in perpetuity. Photograph: Liam McBurney/PA View image in fullscreen Michelle O’Neill is in charge of a state designed in 1921 to enshrine a unionist majority in perpetuity. Photograph: Liam McBurney/PA Michelle O’Neill is in charge of a state designed in 1921 to enshrine a unionist majority in perpetuity. Photograph: Liam McBurney/PA View image in fullscreen Michelle O’Neill is in charge of a state designed in 1921 to enshrine a unionist majority in perpetuity. Photograph: Liam McBurney/PA Michelle O’Neill is in charge of a state designed in 1921 to enshrine a unionist majority in perpetuity. Photograph: Liam McBurney/PA View image in fullscreen Michelle O’Neill is in charge of a state designed in 1921 to enshrine a unionist majority in perpetuity. Photograph: Liam McBurney/PA Michelle O’Neill is in charge of a state designed in 1921 to enshrine a unionist majority in perpetuity. Photograph: Liam McBurney/PA View image in fullscreen Michelle O’Neill is in charge of a state designed in 1921 to enshrine a unionist majority in perpetuity. Photograph: Liam McBurney/PA Michelle O’Neill is in charge of a state designed in 1921 to enshrine a unionist majority in perpetuity. Photograph: Liam McBurney/PA Michelle O’Neill is in charge of a state designed in 1921 to enshrine a unionist majority in perpetuity. Photograph: Liam McBurney/PA This article is more than 1 year old Analysis With Sinn Féin in first minister post, has the republicans’ day come at last? This article is more than 1 year old Rory Carroll Ireland correspondent This article is more than 1 year old Analysis With Sinn Féin in first minister post, has the republicans’ day come at last? This article is more than 1 year old Rory Carroll Ireland correspondent This article is more than 1 year old Analysis With Sinn Féin in first minister post, has the republicans’ day come at last? This article is more than 1 year old Rory Carroll Ireland 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 Rory Carroll Ireland correspondent Rory Carroll Ireland correspondent Michelle O’Neill has taken the top job but Irish unity is unlikely to be ‘within touching distance’ Michelle O’Neill has taken the top job but Irish unity is unlikely to be ‘within touching distance’ Michelle O’Neill has taken the top job but Irish unity is unlikely to be ‘within touching distance’ The elevation of Michelle O’Neill as Northern Ireland ’s first minister is a historic moment that breathes new life into the republican slogan “ tiocfaidh ár lá ” – “our day will come”. The Sinn Féin deputy leader, a working-class republican, has taken charge of a state that was designed in 1921 to enshrine a unionist majority in perpetuity, and that the IRA vowed to destroy. Even in 1998, when the Good Friday agreement drew a line under the Troubles, it seemed inconceivable that the IRA’s political wing, the fourth-biggest party, would one day claim the top post at the Stormont executive. New Northern Ireland Brexit trade rules approved paving way for power sharing Read more But the Democratic Unionist party’s decision to drop a boycott of power sharing in return for an easing of post-Brexit trade arrangements means that O’Neill, 47, has belatedly become first minister in accordance with the 2022 assembly election , when Sinn Féin pipped the DUP as the biggest party. The former deputy first minister – a post with equal power but less prestige that the DUP will now occupy – has been sworn in amid the marbled grandeur of an edifice once regarded as a Protestant assembly for a Protestant people. It could appear that nationalism’s day has finally come. Sinn Féin’s leader, Mary Lou McDonald, this week spoke of a “historical turning of the wheel” and said Irish unity was “ within touching distance ”. Except it’s not. Political and demographic winds blow favourably but the republican dream remains distant. The party’s breakthrough at Stormont has symbolic and psychological force but does not signify a looming united Ireland . Paradoxically, O’Neill’s ascent could cement Northern Ireland’s position in the UK by restoring stability and confidence in the status quo. The region divides roughly into three camps: 40% nationalist, 40% unionist and 20% non-aligned who tend to favour staying in the UK. Some change is under way. In local elections last year, first-preference votes for pro-unification parties for the first time outnumbered those who backed pro-union parties and candidates. But a recent Irish Times opinion poll found that 30% would vote for unification in a referendum versus 51% that would vote against, with the rest undecided or inclined to abstain. Other polls have consistently shown a clear majority favour remaining in the UK, albeit with fluctuating margins. This has endured despite Catholics now outnumbering Protestants ; despite Brexit, which most people opposed; despite crumbling public services; and despite the Republic of Ireland becoming wealthy, secular and pluralist. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Sinn Féin has advanced not by attracting centrist voters but by cannibalising its nationalist rival, the Social Democratic and Labour party (SDLP). The nationalist bloc is largely static and coalescing around one party while the unionist bloc is shrinking and more split, denting unionist parties but not necessarily their cause – a dynamic seen in Scotland. “I don’t think there ever will be a unionist first minister in Northern Ireland again. It’s over,” said Jon Tonge , a University of Liverpool politics professor and authority on unionism. “It’s not that the union is over but the unionist state is over.” Tonge notes that O’Neill shuns the name Northern Ireland in favour of the “north of Ireland”, a jab at partition. “It’s astonishing that Sinn Féin can ascend to such electoral heights while still refusing to recognise Northern Ireland as a political entity.” The republican party will continue to lobby for a referendum, which only a secretary of state can call, and project a sense of inevitability about unification. But to sustain support – and to show voters in the Irish republic it can be trusted with power – it must focus on improving Northern Ireland’s economy, public services and infrastructure. To show, in other words, that the state it wants to abolish works. Explore more on these topics Northern Irish politics Sinn Féin Northern Ireland Ireland Europe Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Michelle O'Neill analysis Share Reuse this content The elevation of Michelle O’Neill as Northern Ireland ’s first minister is a historic moment that breathes new life into the republican slogan “ tiocfaidh ár lá ” – “our day will come”. The Sinn Féin deputy leader, a working-class republican, has taken charge of a state that was designed in 1921 to enshrine a unionist majority in perpetuity, and that the IRA vowed to destroy. Even in 1998, when the Good Friday agreement drew a line under the Troubles, it seemed inconceivable that the IRA’s political wing, the fourth-biggest party, would one day claim the top post at the Stormont executive. New Northern Ireland Brexit trade rules approved paving way for power sharing Read more But the Democratic Unionist party’s decision to drop a boycott of power sharing in return for an easing of post-Brexit trade arrangements means that O’Neill, 47, has belatedly become first minister in accordance with the 2022 assembly election , when Sinn Féin pipped the DUP as the biggest party. The former deputy first minister – a post with equal power but less prestige that the DUP will now occupy – has been sworn in amid the marbled grandeur of an edifice once regarded as a Protestant assembly for a Protestant people. It could appear that nationalism’s day has finally come. Sinn Féin’s leader, Mary Lou McDonald, this week spoke of a “historical turning of the wheel” and said Irish unity was “ within touching distance ”. Except it’s not. Political and demographic winds blow favourably but the republican dream remains distant. The party’s breakthrough at Stormont has symbolic and psychological force but does not signify a looming united Ireland . Paradoxically, O’Neill’s ascent could cement Northern Ireland’s position in the UK by restoring stability and confidence in the status quo. The region divides roughly into three camps: 40% nationalist, 40% unionist and 20% non-aligned who tend to favour staying in the UK. Some change is under way. In local elections last year, first-preference votes for pro-unification parties for the first time outnumbered those who backed pro-union parties and candidates. But a recent Irish Times opinion poll found that 30% would vote for unification in a referendum versus 51% that would vote against, with the rest undecided or inclined to abstain. Other polls have consistently shown a clear majority favour remaining in the UK, albeit with fluctuating margins. This has endured despite Catholics now outnumbering Protestants ; despite Brexit, which most people opposed; despite crumbling public services; and despite the Republic of Ireland becoming wealthy, secular and pluralist. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Sinn Féin has advanced not by attracting centrist voters but by cannibalising its nationalist rival, the Social Democratic and Labour party (SDLP). The nationalist bloc is largely static and coalescing around one party while the unionist bloc is shrinking and more split, denting unionist parties but not necessarily their cause – a dynamic seen in Scotland. “I don’t think there ever will be a unionist first minister in Northern Ireland again. It’s over,” said Jon Tonge , a University of Liverpool politics professor and authority on unionism. “It’s not that the union is over but the unionist state is over.” Tonge notes that O’Neill shuns the name Northern Ireland in favour of the “north of Ireland”, a jab at partition. “It’s astonishing that Sinn Féin can ascend to such electoral heights while still refusing to recognise Northern Ireland as a political entity.” The republican party will continue to lobby for a referendum, which only a secretary of state can call, and project a sense of inevitability about unification. But to sustain support – and to show voters in the Irish republic it can be trusted with power – it must focus on improving Northern Ireland’s economy, public services and infrastructure. To show, in other words, that the state it wants to abolish works. Explore more on these topics Northern Irish politics Sinn Féin Northern Ireland Ireland Europe Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Michelle O'Neill analysis Share Reuse this content The elevation of Michelle O’Neill as Northern Ireland ’s first minister is a historic moment that breathes new life into the republican slogan “ tiocfaidh ár lá ” – “our day will come”. The Sinn Féin deputy leader, a working-class republican, has taken charge of a state that was designed in 1921 to enshrine a unionist majority in perpetuity, and that the IRA vowed to destroy. Even in 1998, when the Good Friday agreement drew a line under the Troubles, it seemed inconceivable that the IRA’s political wing, the fourth-biggest party, would one day claim the top post at the Stormont executive. New Northern Ireland Brexit trade rules approved paving way for power sharing Read more But the Democratic Unionist party’s decision to drop a boycott of power sharing in return for an easing of post-Brexit trade arrangements means that O’Neill, 47, has belatedly become first minister in accordance with the 2022 assembly election , when Sinn Féin pipped the DUP as the biggest party. The former deputy first minister – a post with equal power but less prestige that the DUP will now occupy – has been sworn in amid the marbled grandeur of an edifice once regarded as a Protestant assembly for a Protestant people. It could appear that nationalism’s day has finally come. Sinn Féin’s leader, Mary Lou McDonald, this week spoke of a “historical turning of the wheel” and said Irish unity was “ within touching distance ”. Except it’s not. Political and demographic winds blow favourably but the republican dream remains distant. The party’s breakthrough at Stormont has symbolic and psychological force but does not signify a looming united Ireland . Paradoxically, O’Neill’s ascent could cement Northern Ireland’s position in the UK by restoring stability and confidence in the status quo. The region divides roughly into three camps: 40% nationalist, 40% unionist and 20% non-aligned who tend to favour staying in the UK. Some change is under way. In local elections last year, first-preference votes for pro-unification parties for the first time outnumbered those who backed pro-union parties and candidates. But a recent Irish Times opinion poll found that 30% would vote for unification in a referendum versus 51% that would vote against, with the rest undecided or inclined to abstain. Other polls have consistently shown a clear majority favour remaining in the UK, albeit with fluctuating margins. This has endured despite Catholics now outnumbering Protestants ; despite Brexit, which most people opposed; despite crumbling public services; and despite the Republic of Ireland becoming wealthy, secular and pluralist. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Sinn Féin has advanced not by attracting centrist voters but by cannibalising its nationalist rival, the Social Democratic and Labour party (SDLP). The nationalist bloc is largely static and coalescing around one party while the unionist bloc is shrinking and more split, denting unionist parties but not necessarily their cause – a dynamic seen in Scotland. “I don’t think there ever will be a unionist first minister in Northern Ireland again. It’s over,” said Jon Tonge , a University of Liverpool politics professor and authority on unionism. “It’s not that the union is over but the unionist state is over.” Tonge notes that O’Neill shuns the name Northern Ireland in favour of the “north of Ireland”, a jab at partition. “It’s astonishing that Sinn Féin can ascend to such electoral heights while still refusing to recognise Northern Ireland as a political entity.” The republican party will continue to lobby for a referendum, which only a secretary of state can call, and project a sense of inevitability about unification. But to sustain support – and to show voters in the Irish republic it can be trusted with power – it must focus on improving Northern Ireland’s economy, public services and infrastructure. To show, in other words, that the state it wants to abolish works. The elevation of Michelle O’Neill as Northern Ireland ’s first minister is a historic moment that breathes new life into the republican slogan “ tiocfaidh ár lá ” – “our day will come”. The Sinn Féin deputy leader, a working-class republican, has taken charge of a state that was designed in 1921 to enshrine a unionist majority in perpetuity, and that the IRA vowed to destroy. Even in 1998, when the Good Friday agreement drew a line under the Troubles, it seemed inconceivable that the IRA’s political wing, the fourth-biggest party, would one day claim the top post at the Stormont executive. New Northern Ireland Brexit trade rules approved paving way for power sharing Read more But the Democratic Unionist party’s decision to drop a boycott of power sharing in return for an easing of post-Brexit trade arrangements means that O’Neill, 47, has belatedly become first minister in accordance with the 2022 assembly election , when Sinn Féin pipped the DUP as the biggest party. The former deputy first minister – a post with equal power but less prestige that the DUP will now occupy – has been sworn in amid the marbled grandeur of an edifice once regarded as a Protestant assembly for a Protestant people. It could appear that nationalism’s day has finally come. Sinn Féin’s leader, Mary Lou McDonald, this week spoke of a “historical turning of the wheel” and said Irish unity was “ within touching distance ”. Except it’s not. Political and demographic winds blow favourably but the republican dream remains distant. The party’s breakthrough at Stormont has symbolic and psychological force but does not signify a looming united Ireland . Paradoxically, O’Neill’s ascent could cement Northern Ireland’s position in the UK by restoring stability and confidence in the status quo. The region divides roughly into three camps: 40% nationalist, 40% unionist and 20% non-aligned who tend to favour staying in the UK. Some change is under way. In local elections last year, first-preference votes for pro-unification parties for the first time outnumbered those who backed pro-union parties and candidates. But a recent Irish Times opinion poll found that 30% would vote for unification in a referendum versus 51% that would vote against, with the rest undecided or inclined to abstain. Other polls have consistently shown a clear majority favour remaining in the UK, albeit with fluctuating margins. This has endured despite Catholics now outnumbering Protestants ; despite Brexit, which most people opposed; despite crumbling public services; and despite the Republic of Ireland becoming wealthy, secular and pluralist. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Sinn Féin has advanced not by attracting centrist voters but by cannibalising its nationalist rival, the Social Democratic and Labour party (SDLP). The nationalist bloc is largely static and coalescing around one party while the unionist bloc is shrinking and more split, denting unionist parties but not necessarily their cause – a dynamic seen in Scotland. “I don’t think there ever will be a unionist first minister in Northern Ireland again. It’s over,” said Jon Tonge , a University of Liverpool politics professor and authority on unionism. “It’s not that the union is over but the unionist state is over.” Tonge notes that O’Neill shuns the name Northern Ireland in favour of the “north of Ireland”, a jab at partition. “It’s astonishing that Sinn Féin can ascend to such electoral heights while still refusing to recognise Northern Ireland as a political entity.” The republican party will continue to lobby for a referendum, which only a secretary of state can call, and project a sense of inevitability about unification. But to sustain support – and to show voters in the Irish republic it can be trusted with power – it must focus on improving Northern Ireland’s economy, public services and infrastructure. To show, in other words, that the state it wants to abolish works. The elevation of Michelle O’Neill as Northern Ireland ’s first minister is a historic moment that breathes new life into the republican slogan “ tiocfaidh ár lá ” – “our day will come”. The Sinn Féin deputy leader, a working-class republican, has taken charge of a state that was designed in 1921 to enshrine a unionist majority in perpetuity, and that the IRA vowed to destroy. Even in 1998, when the Good Friday agreement drew a line under the Troubles, it seemed inconceivable that the IRA’s political wing, the fourth-biggest party, would one day claim the top post at the Stormont executive. New Northern Ireland Brexit trade rules approved paving way for power sharing Read more New Northern Ireland Brexit trade rules approved paving way for power sharing Read more New Northern Ireland Brexit trade rules approved paving way for power sharing Read more New Northern Ireland Brexit trade rules approved paving way for power sharing New Northern Ireland Brexit trade rules approved paving way for power sharing But the Democratic Unionist party’s decision to drop a boycott of power sharing in return for an easing of post-Brexit trade arrangements means that O’Neill, 47, has belatedly become first minister in accordance with the 2022 assembly election , when Sinn Féin pipped the DUP as the biggest party. The former deputy first minister – a post with equal power but less prestige that the DUP will now occupy – has been sworn in amid the marbled grandeur of an edifice once regarded as a Protestant assembly for a Protestant people. It could appear that nationalism’s day has finally come. Sinn Féin’s leader, Mary Lou McDonald, this week spoke of a “historical turning of the wheel” and said Irish unity was “ within touching distance ”. Except it’s not. Political and demographic winds blow favourably but the republican dream remains distant. The party’s breakthrough at Stormont has symbolic and psychological force but does not signify a looming united Ireland . Paradoxically, O’Neill’s ascent could cement Northern Ireland’s position in the UK by restoring stability and confidence in the status quo. The region divides roughly into three camps: 40% nationalist, 40% unionist and 20% non-aligned who tend to favour staying in the UK. Some change is under way. In local elections last year, first-preference votes for pro-unification parties for the first time outnumbered those who backed pro-union parties and candidates. But a recent Irish Times opinion poll found that 30% would vote for unification in a referendum versus 51% that would vote against, with the rest undecided or inclined to abstain. Other polls have consistently shown a clear majority favour remaining in the UK, albeit with fluctuating margins. This has endured despite Catholics now outnumbering Protestants ; despite Brexit, which most people opposed; despite crumbling public services; and despite the Republic of Ireland becoming wealthy, secular and pluralist. Sinn Féin has advanced not by attracting centrist voters but by cannibalising its nationalist rival, the Social Democratic and Labour party (SDLP). The nationalist bloc is largely static and coalescing around one party while the unionist bloc is shrinking and more split, denting unionist parties but not necessarily their cause – a dynamic seen in Scotland. “I don’t think there ever will be a unionist first minister in Northern Ireland again. It’s over,” said Jon Tonge , a University of Liverpool politics professor and authority on unionism. “It’s not that the union is over but the unionist state is over.” Tonge notes that O’Neill shuns the name Northern Ireland in favour of the “north of Ireland”, a jab at partition. “It’s astonishing that Sinn Féin can ascend to such electoral heights while still refusing to recognise Northern Ireland as a political entity.” The republican party will continue to lobby for a referendum, which only a secretary of state can call, and project a sense of inevitability about unification. But to sustain support – and to show voters in the Irish republic it can be trusted with power – it must focus on improving Northern Ireland’s economy, public services and infrastructure. To show, in other words, that the state it wants to abolish works. Explore more on these topics Northern Irish politics Sinn Féin Northern Ireland Ireland Europe Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Michelle O'Neill analysis Share Reuse this content Northern Irish politics Sinn Féin Northern Ireland Ireland Europe Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Michelle O'Neill analysis
|
Why are farmers protesting across the EU and what can the bloc do about it?
A tractor blockade by angry farmers brought Brussels to a standstill on Thursday. Photograph: Xinhua/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen A tractor blockade by angry farmers brought Brussels to a standstill on Thursday. Photograph: Xinhua/Rex/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Why are farmers protesting across the EU and what can the bloc do about it? This article is more than 1 year old Food producers say increasing costs, tiny margins and climate policies leave livelihoods in peril Disaffected farmers hurl eggs at European parliament Hundreds of tractors choked Brussels city centre on Thursday and angry farmers pelted the European parliament with eggs. Although agriculture was not on the agenda for EU leaders meeting just up the road, politicians may find that they ignore these grievances at their peril. Here is a look at what lies behind the farmers’ protests that have been sweeping Europe for months – in countries such as Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France, where the government was taken by surprise this week by a motorway blockade of Paris. Some concerns, such as a plan by Berlin to phase out tax breaks on agricultural diesel to balance the budget, or a requirement in the Netherlands to reduce nitrogen emissions – are country-specific. But many are shared continent-wide. Farmers have said they face falling sale prices, rising costs, heavy regulation, powerful and domineering retailers, debt, climate change and cheap foreign imports, all within an EU agricultural system based on the premise that “bigger is better”. Costs are up, prices are down Farmers’ costs – notably for energy, fertiliser and transport – have risen in many EU countries, particularly since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. At the same time, governments and retailers, mindful of the cost of living crisis’s effect on consumers, have moved to reduce rising food prices. Farm-gate prices – the base price farmers receive for their produce – dropped by almost 9% on average between the third quarter of 2022 and the same period last year, according to Eurostat data analysed by Politico , with only a few products – including olive oil, hit by shortages – bucking the trend. Imports are also a bugbear, particularly in central and eastern Europe, where a flood of cheap agricultural produce from Ukraine – on which the EU waived quotas and duties following Russia’s invasion – has depressed prices and increased resentment about unfair competition. View image in fullscreen Farmers in the EU were angered by the removal of quotas on grain from Ukraine, meaning that the bloc was flooded with cheap produce. Photograph: Igor Tkachenko/Reuters Polish farmers began blocking roads from Ukraine in protest as early as last spring, and although Brussels soon imposed restrictions on Kyiv’s exports to its near neighbours, as soon as they expired Hungary, Poland and Slovakia each announced their own. “Ukrainian grain should go where it belongs, to the Asian or African markets, not to Europe,” the Polish farmers’ trade union said last month. Elsewhere in Europe, notably in France , cheap imports from farther afield are a source of mounting anger. Produce from countries such as New Zealand and Chile is resented for not having to comply with the same strict regulations as EU farmers. Negotiations to conclude a wide-ranging trade deal between the EU and South America’s Mercosur trading bloc have been a target of particular anger, with European farmers unhappy at the prospect of unfair competition in sugar, grain and meat. Rising temperatures, rising tensions Extreme weather events due to climate change are increasingly affecting production: some water reservoirs in southern Spain stand at only 4% capacity, while wildfires wiped out about 20% of Greek annual farm revenue last year. Southern Europe has so far seen relatively few protests, but that could change as governments, notably in Spain and Portugal, consider emergency water restrictions amid record-breaking droughts . More widely, besides feeling persecuted by what they see as a Brussels bureaucracy that knows little about their business, many farmers complain they feel caught between apparently conflicting public demands for cheap food and climate-friendly processes. ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests Read more And to CAP it all off … The common agricultural policy (CAP), the €55bn-a-year subsidy system on which Europe’s food security has rested for more than 60 years, has historically been based on economy of scale: bigger farms, bigger holdings, common standards. That has encouraged consolidation – the number of farms in the EU has fallen by more than a third since 2005 – leaving many larger farms with high levels of debt in a low-margin business and smaller ones increasingly uncompetitive. More recently, the farming sector, which accounts for 11% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions, is increasingly alarmed by rules in the EU’s “farm to fork” strategy, part of the key European green deal aimed at making the bloc climate-neutral by 2050. Targets include halving pesticides by 2030, cutting fertiliser use by 20%, devoting more land to non-agricultural use – for example, by leaving it fallow or planting non-productive trees – and doubling organic production to 25% of all EU farmland. Many farmers already complain that existing EU rules in areas such as irrigation and animal welfare are interpreted too strictly. They argue incoming green policies are unfair, unrealistic, economically unviable and will ultimately be self-defeating . What are politicians doing to try to quell the protests – and will they succeed? National governments have taken steps: Berlin watered down its plans to cut diesel subsidies; Paris scrapped a diesel tax increase, delayed other measures and pledged €150m in help, prompting farmers’ unions to call on members to suspend their protest. “Everywhere in Europe the same question arises: how do we continue to produce more but better? How can we continue to tackle climate change? How can we avoid unfair competition from foreign countries?”, said Gabriel Attal, the French prime minister on Thursday. View image in fullscreen Farmers in France reminded the president of their struggles with a surprise motorway blockade near Paris. Photograph: Matthieu Mirville/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock At the EU level, the European Commission has proposed limiting agricultural imports from Ukraine via an “emergency brake”, and exempting farmers for 2024 from an obligation to keep 4% of their land fallow while still receiving EU subsidies. Anxious not to further upset an already rebellious sector, Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, and Leo Varadkar, Ireland’s prime minister, have said the proposed EU-Mercosur trade deal should not be signed in its present form. With the farmers increasingly drawing support from Europe’s far-right parties , which are expected to make significant gains in European parliament elections due in June, further concessions seem more than likely. Explore more on these topics Farming European Union Food (Environment) Food (global) France Belgium Poland explainers Share Reuse this content A tractor blockade by angry farmers brought Brussels to a standstill on Thursday. Photograph: Xinhua/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen A tractor blockade by angry farmers brought Brussels to a standstill on Thursday. Photograph: Xinhua/Rex/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Why are farmers protesting across the EU and what can the bloc do about it? This article is more than 1 year old Food producers say increasing costs, tiny margins and climate policies leave livelihoods in peril Disaffected farmers hurl eggs at European parliament Hundreds of tractors choked Brussels city centre on Thursday and angry farmers pelted the European parliament with eggs. Although agriculture was not on the agenda for EU leaders meeting just up the road, politicians may find that they ignore these grievances at their peril. Here is a look at what lies behind the farmers’ protests that have been sweeping Europe for months – in countries such as Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France, where the government was taken by surprise this week by a motorway blockade of Paris. Some concerns, such as a plan by Berlin to phase out tax breaks on agricultural diesel to balance the budget, or a requirement in the Netherlands to reduce nitrogen emissions – are country-specific. But many are shared continent-wide. Farmers have said they face falling sale prices, rising costs, heavy regulation, powerful and domineering retailers, debt, climate change and cheap foreign imports, all within an EU agricultural system based on the premise that “bigger is better”. Costs are up, prices are down Farmers’ costs – notably for energy, fertiliser and transport – have risen in many EU countries, particularly since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. At the same time, governments and retailers, mindful of the cost of living crisis’s effect on consumers, have moved to reduce rising food prices. Farm-gate prices – the base price farmers receive for their produce – dropped by almost 9% on average between the third quarter of 2022 and the same period last year, according to Eurostat data analysed by Politico , with only a few products – including olive oil, hit by shortages – bucking the trend. Imports are also a bugbear, particularly in central and eastern Europe, where a flood of cheap agricultural produce from Ukraine – on which the EU waived quotas and duties following Russia’s invasion – has depressed prices and increased resentment about unfair competition. View image in fullscreen Farmers in the EU were angered by the removal of quotas on grain from Ukraine, meaning that the bloc was flooded with cheap produce. Photograph: Igor Tkachenko/Reuters Polish farmers began blocking roads from Ukraine in protest as early as last spring, and although Brussels soon imposed restrictions on Kyiv’s exports to its near neighbours, as soon as they expired Hungary, Poland and Slovakia each announced their own. “Ukrainian grain should go where it belongs, to the Asian or African markets, not to Europe,” the Polish farmers’ trade union said last month. Elsewhere in Europe, notably in France , cheap imports from farther afield are a source of mounting anger. Produce from countries such as New Zealand and Chile is resented for not having to comply with the same strict regulations as EU farmers. Negotiations to conclude a wide-ranging trade deal between the EU and South America’s Mercosur trading bloc have been a target of particular anger, with European farmers unhappy at the prospect of unfair competition in sugar, grain and meat. Rising temperatures, rising tensions Extreme weather events due to climate change are increasingly affecting production: some water reservoirs in southern Spain stand at only 4% capacity, while wildfires wiped out about 20% of Greek annual farm revenue last year. Southern Europe has so far seen relatively few protests, but that could change as governments, notably in Spain and Portugal, consider emergency water restrictions amid record-breaking droughts . More widely, besides feeling persecuted by what they see as a Brussels bureaucracy that knows little about their business, many farmers complain they feel caught between apparently conflicting public demands for cheap food and climate-friendly processes. ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests Read more And to CAP it all off … The common agricultural policy (CAP), the €55bn-a-year subsidy system on which Europe’s food security has rested for more than 60 years, has historically been based on economy of scale: bigger farms, bigger holdings, common standards. That has encouraged consolidation – the number of farms in the EU has fallen by more than a third since 2005 – leaving many larger farms with high levels of debt in a low-margin business and smaller ones increasingly uncompetitive. More recently, the farming sector, which accounts for 11% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions, is increasingly alarmed by rules in the EU’s “farm to fork” strategy, part of the key European green deal aimed at making the bloc climate-neutral by 2050. Targets include halving pesticides by 2030, cutting fertiliser use by 20%, devoting more land to non-agricultural use – for example, by leaving it fallow or planting non-productive trees – and doubling organic production to 25% of all EU farmland. Many farmers already complain that existing EU rules in areas such as irrigation and animal welfare are interpreted too strictly. They argue incoming green policies are unfair, unrealistic, economically unviable and will ultimately be self-defeating . What are politicians doing to try to quell the protests – and will they succeed? National governments have taken steps: Berlin watered down its plans to cut diesel subsidies; Paris scrapped a diesel tax increase, delayed other measures and pledged €150m in help, prompting farmers’ unions to call on members to suspend their protest. “Everywhere in Europe the same question arises: how do we continue to produce more but better? How can we continue to tackle climate change? How can we avoid unfair competition from foreign countries?”, said Gabriel Attal, the French prime minister on Thursday. View image in fullscreen Farmers in France reminded the president of their struggles with a surprise motorway blockade near Paris. Photograph: Matthieu Mirville/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock At the EU level, the European Commission has proposed limiting agricultural imports from Ukraine via an “emergency brake”, and exempting farmers for 2024 from an obligation to keep 4% of their land fallow while still receiving EU subsidies. Anxious not to further upset an already rebellious sector, Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, and Leo Varadkar, Ireland’s prime minister, have said the proposed EU-Mercosur trade deal should not be signed in its present form. With the farmers increasingly drawing support from Europe’s far-right parties , which are expected to make significant gains in European parliament elections due in June, further concessions seem more than likely. Explore more on these topics Farming European Union Food (Environment) Food (global) France Belgium Poland explainers Share Reuse this content A tractor blockade by angry farmers brought Brussels to a standstill on Thursday. Photograph: Xinhua/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen A tractor blockade by angry farmers brought Brussels to a standstill on Thursday. Photograph: Xinhua/Rex/Shutterstock A tractor blockade by angry farmers brought Brussels to a standstill on Thursday. Photograph: Xinhua/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen A tractor blockade by angry farmers brought Brussels to a standstill on Thursday. Photograph: Xinhua/Rex/Shutterstock A tractor blockade by angry farmers brought Brussels to a standstill on Thursday. Photograph: Xinhua/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen A tractor blockade by angry farmers brought Brussels to a standstill on Thursday. Photograph: Xinhua/Rex/Shutterstock A tractor blockade by angry farmers brought Brussels to a standstill on Thursday. Photograph: Xinhua/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen A tractor blockade by angry farmers brought Brussels to a standstill on Thursday. Photograph: Xinhua/Rex/Shutterstock A tractor blockade by angry farmers brought Brussels to a standstill on Thursday. Photograph: Xinhua/Rex/Shutterstock A tractor blockade by angry farmers brought Brussels to a standstill on Thursday. Photograph: Xinhua/Rex/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Why are farmers protesting across the EU and what can the bloc do about it? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Why are farmers protesting across the EU and what can the bloc do about it? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Why are farmers protesting across the EU and what can the bloc do about it? 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 Food producers say increasing costs, tiny margins and climate policies leave livelihoods in peril Disaffected farmers hurl eggs at European parliament Food producers say increasing costs, tiny margins and climate policies leave livelihoods in peril Disaffected farmers hurl eggs at European parliament Food producers say increasing costs, tiny margins and climate policies leave livelihoods in peril Hundreds of tractors choked Brussels city centre on Thursday and angry farmers pelted the European parliament with eggs. Although agriculture was not on the agenda for EU leaders meeting just up the road, politicians may find that they ignore these grievances at their peril. Here is a look at what lies behind the farmers’ protests that have been sweeping Europe for months – in countries such as Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France, where the government was taken by surprise this week by a motorway blockade of Paris. Some concerns, such as a plan by Berlin to phase out tax breaks on agricultural diesel to balance the budget, or a requirement in the Netherlands to reduce nitrogen emissions – are country-specific. But many are shared continent-wide. Farmers have said they face falling sale prices, rising costs, heavy regulation, powerful and domineering retailers, debt, climate change and cheap foreign imports, all within an EU agricultural system based on the premise that “bigger is better”. Costs are up, prices are down Farmers’ costs – notably for energy, fertiliser and transport – have risen in many EU countries, particularly since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. At the same time, governments and retailers, mindful of the cost of living crisis’s effect on consumers, have moved to reduce rising food prices. Farm-gate prices – the base price farmers receive for their produce – dropped by almost 9% on average between the third quarter of 2022 and the same period last year, according to Eurostat data analysed by Politico , with only a few products – including olive oil, hit by shortages – bucking the trend. Imports are also a bugbear, particularly in central and eastern Europe, where a flood of cheap agricultural produce from Ukraine – on which the EU waived quotas and duties following Russia’s invasion – has depressed prices and increased resentment about unfair competition. View image in fullscreen Farmers in the EU were angered by the removal of quotas on grain from Ukraine, meaning that the bloc was flooded with cheap produce. Photograph: Igor Tkachenko/Reuters Polish farmers began blocking roads from Ukraine in protest as early as last spring, and although Brussels soon imposed restrictions on Kyiv’s exports to its near neighbours, as soon as they expired Hungary, Poland and Slovakia each announced their own. “Ukrainian grain should go where it belongs, to the Asian or African markets, not to Europe,” the Polish farmers’ trade union said last month. Elsewhere in Europe, notably in France , cheap imports from farther afield are a source of mounting anger. Produce from countries such as New Zealand and Chile is resented for not having to comply with the same strict regulations as EU farmers. Negotiations to conclude a wide-ranging trade deal between the EU and South America’s Mercosur trading bloc have been a target of particular anger, with European farmers unhappy at the prospect of unfair competition in sugar, grain and meat. Rising temperatures, rising tensions Extreme weather events due to climate change are increasingly affecting production: some water reservoirs in southern Spain stand at only 4% capacity, while wildfires wiped out about 20% of Greek annual farm revenue last year. Southern Europe has so far seen relatively few protests, but that could change as governments, notably in Spain and Portugal, consider emergency water restrictions amid record-breaking droughts . More widely, besides feeling persecuted by what they see as a Brussels bureaucracy that knows little about their business, many farmers complain they feel caught between apparently conflicting public demands for cheap food and climate-friendly processes. ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests Read more And to CAP it all off … The common agricultural policy (CAP), the €55bn-a-year subsidy system on which Europe’s food security has rested for more than 60 years, has historically been based on economy of scale: bigger farms, bigger holdings, common standards. That has encouraged consolidation – the number of farms in the EU has fallen by more than a third since 2005 – leaving many larger farms with high levels of debt in a low-margin business and smaller ones increasingly uncompetitive. More recently, the farming sector, which accounts for 11% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions, is increasingly alarmed by rules in the EU’s “farm to fork” strategy, part of the key European green deal aimed at making the bloc climate-neutral by 2050. Targets include halving pesticides by 2030, cutting fertiliser use by 20%, devoting more land to non-agricultural use – for example, by leaving it fallow or planting non-productive trees – and doubling organic production to 25% of all EU farmland. Many farmers already complain that existing EU rules in areas such as irrigation and animal welfare are interpreted too strictly. They argue incoming green policies are unfair, unrealistic, economically unviable and will ultimately be self-defeating . What are politicians doing to try to quell the protests – and will they succeed? National governments have taken steps: Berlin watered down its plans to cut diesel subsidies; Paris scrapped a diesel tax increase, delayed other measures and pledged €150m in help, prompting farmers’ unions to call on members to suspend their protest. “Everywhere in Europe the same question arises: how do we continue to produce more but better? How can we continue to tackle climate change? How can we avoid unfair competition from foreign countries?”, said Gabriel Attal, the French prime minister on Thursday. View image in fullscreen Farmers in France reminded the president of their struggles with a surprise motorway blockade near Paris. Photograph: Matthieu Mirville/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock At the EU level, the European Commission has proposed limiting agricultural imports from Ukraine via an “emergency brake”, and exempting farmers for 2024 from an obligation to keep 4% of their land fallow while still receiving EU subsidies. Anxious not to further upset an already rebellious sector, Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, and Leo Varadkar, Ireland’s prime minister, have said the proposed EU-Mercosur trade deal should not be signed in its present form. With the farmers increasingly drawing support from Europe’s far-right parties , which are expected to make significant gains in European parliament elections due in June, further concessions seem more than likely. Explore more on these topics Farming European Union Food (Environment) Food (global) France Belgium Poland explainers Share Reuse this content Hundreds of tractors choked Brussels city centre on Thursday and angry farmers pelted the European parliament with eggs. Although agriculture was not on the agenda for EU leaders meeting just up the road, politicians may find that they ignore these grievances at their peril. Here is a look at what lies behind the farmers’ protests that have been sweeping Europe for months – in countries such as Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France, where the government was taken by surprise this week by a motorway blockade of Paris. Some concerns, such as a plan by Berlin to phase out tax breaks on agricultural diesel to balance the budget, or a requirement in the Netherlands to reduce nitrogen emissions – are country-specific. But many are shared continent-wide. Farmers have said they face falling sale prices, rising costs, heavy regulation, powerful and domineering retailers, debt, climate change and cheap foreign imports, all within an EU agricultural system based on the premise that “bigger is better”. Costs are up, prices are down Farmers’ costs – notably for energy, fertiliser and transport – have risen in many EU countries, particularly since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. At the same time, governments and retailers, mindful of the cost of living crisis’s effect on consumers, have moved to reduce rising food prices. Farm-gate prices – the base price farmers receive for their produce – dropped by almost 9% on average between the third quarter of 2022 and the same period last year, according to Eurostat data analysed by Politico , with only a few products – including olive oil, hit by shortages – bucking the trend. Imports are also a bugbear, particularly in central and eastern Europe, where a flood of cheap agricultural produce from Ukraine – on which the EU waived quotas and duties following Russia’s invasion – has depressed prices and increased resentment about unfair competition. View image in fullscreen Farmers in the EU were angered by the removal of quotas on grain from Ukraine, meaning that the bloc was flooded with cheap produce. Photograph: Igor Tkachenko/Reuters Polish farmers began blocking roads from Ukraine in protest as early as last spring, and although Brussels soon imposed restrictions on Kyiv’s exports to its near neighbours, as soon as they expired Hungary, Poland and Slovakia each announced their own. “Ukrainian grain should go where it belongs, to the Asian or African markets, not to Europe,” the Polish farmers’ trade union said last month. Elsewhere in Europe, notably in France , cheap imports from farther afield are a source of mounting anger. Produce from countries such as New Zealand and Chile is resented for not having to comply with the same strict regulations as EU farmers. Negotiations to conclude a wide-ranging trade deal between the EU and South America’s Mercosur trading bloc have been a target of particular anger, with European farmers unhappy at the prospect of unfair competition in sugar, grain and meat. Rising temperatures, rising tensions Extreme weather events due to climate change are increasingly affecting production: some water reservoirs in southern Spain stand at only 4% capacity, while wildfires wiped out about 20% of Greek annual farm revenue last year. Southern Europe has so far seen relatively few protests, but that could change as governments, notably in Spain and Portugal, consider emergency water restrictions amid record-breaking droughts . More widely, besides feeling persecuted by what they see as a Brussels bureaucracy that knows little about their business, many farmers complain they feel caught between apparently conflicting public demands for cheap food and climate-friendly processes. ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests Read more And to CAP it all off … The common agricultural policy (CAP), the €55bn-a-year subsidy system on which Europe’s food security has rested for more than 60 years, has historically been based on economy of scale: bigger farms, bigger holdings, common standards. That has encouraged consolidation – the number of farms in the EU has fallen by more than a third since 2005 – leaving many larger farms with high levels of debt in a low-margin business and smaller ones increasingly uncompetitive. More recently, the farming sector, which accounts for 11% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions, is increasingly alarmed by rules in the EU’s “farm to fork” strategy, part of the key European green deal aimed at making the bloc climate-neutral by 2050. Targets include halving pesticides by 2030, cutting fertiliser use by 20%, devoting more land to non-agricultural use – for example, by leaving it fallow or planting non-productive trees – and doubling organic production to 25% of all EU farmland. Many farmers already complain that existing EU rules in areas such as irrigation and animal welfare are interpreted too strictly. They argue incoming green policies are unfair, unrealistic, economically unviable and will ultimately be self-defeating . What are politicians doing to try to quell the protests – and will they succeed? National governments have taken steps: Berlin watered down its plans to cut diesel subsidies; Paris scrapped a diesel tax increase, delayed other measures and pledged €150m in help, prompting farmers’ unions to call on members to suspend their protest. “Everywhere in Europe the same question arises: how do we continue to produce more but better? How can we continue to tackle climate change? How can we avoid unfair competition from foreign countries?”, said Gabriel Attal, the French prime minister on Thursday. View image in fullscreen Farmers in France reminded the president of their struggles with a surprise motorway blockade near Paris. Photograph: Matthieu Mirville/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock At the EU level, the European Commission has proposed limiting agricultural imports from Ukraine via an “emergency brake”, and exempting farmers for 2024 from an obligation to keep 4% of their land fallow while still receiving EU subsidies. Anxious not to further upset an already rebellious sector, Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, and Leo Varadkar, Ireland’s prime minister, have said the proposed EU-Mercosur trade deal should not be signed in its present form. With the farmers increasingly drawing support from Europe’s far-right parties , which are expected to make significant gains in European parliament elections due in June, further concessions seem more than likely. Explore more on these topics Farming European Union Food (Environment) Food (global) France Belgium Poland explainers Share Reuse this content Hundreds of tractors choked Brussels city centre on Thursday and angry farmers pelted the European parliament with eggs. Although agriculture was not on the agenda for EU leaders meeting just up the road, politicians may find that they ignore these grievances at their peril. Here is a look at what lies behind the farmers’ protests that have been sweeping Europe for months – in countries such as Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France, where the government was taken by surprise this week by a motorway blockade of Paris. Some concerns, such as a plan by Berlin to phase out tax breaks on agricultural diesel to balance the budget, or a requirement in the Netherlands to reduce nitrogen emissions – are country-specific. But many are shared continent-wide. Farmers have said they face falling sale prices, rising costs, heavy regulation, powerful and domineering retailers, debt, climate change and cheap foreign imports, all within an EU agricultural system based on the premise that “bigger is better”. Costs are up, prices are down Farmers’ costs – notably for energy, fertiliser and transport – have risen in many EU countries, particularly since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. At the same time, governments and retailers, mindful of the cost of living crisis’s effect on consumers, have moved to reduce rising food prices. Farm-gate prices – the base price farmers receive for their produce – dropped by almost 9% on average between the third quarter of 2022 and the same period last year, according to Eurostat data analysed by Politico , with only a few products – including olive oil, hit by shortages – bucking the trend. Imports are also a bugbear, particularly in central and eastern Europe, where a flood of cheap agricultural produce from Ukraine – on which the EU waived quotas and duties following Russia’s invasion – has depressed prices and increased resentment about unfair competition. View image in fullscreen Farmers in the EU were angered by the removal of quotas on grain from Ukraine, meaning that the bloc was flooded with cheap produce. Photograph: Igor Tkachenko/Reuters Polish farmers began blocking roads from Ukraine in protest as early as last spring, and although Brussels soon imposed restrictions on Kyiv’s exports to its near neighbours, as soon as they expired Hungary, Poland and Slovakia each announced their own. “Ukrainian grain should go where it belongs, to the Asian or African markets, not to Europe,” the Polish farmers’ trade union said last month. Elsewhere in Europe, notably in France , cheap imports from farther afield are a source of mounting anger. Produce from countries such as New Zealand and Chile is resented for not having to comply with the same strict regulations as EU farmers. Negotiations to conclude a wide-ranging trade deal between the EU and South America’s Mercosur trading bloc have been a target of particular anger, with European farmers unhappy at the prospect of unfair competition in sugar, grain and meat. Rising temperatures, rising tensions Extreme weather events due to climate change are increasingly affecting production: some water reservoirs in southern Spain stand at only 4% capacity, while wildfires wiped out about 20% of Greek annual farm revenue last year. Southern Europe has so far seen relatively few protests, but that could change as governments, notably in Spain and Portugal, consider emergency water restrictions amid record-breaking droughts . More widely, besides feeling persecuted by what they see as a Brussels bureaucracy that knows little about their business, many farmers complain they feel caught between apparently conflicting public demands for cheap food and climate-friendly processes. ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests Read more And to CAP it all off … The common agricultural policy (CAP), the €55bn-a-year subsidy system on which Europe’s food security has rested for more than 60 years, has historically been based on economy of scale: bigger farms, bigger holdings, common standards. That has encouraged consolidation – the number of farms in the EU has fallen by more than a third since 2005 – leaving many larger farms with high levels of debt in a low-margin business and smaller ones increasingly uncompetitive. More recently, the farming sector, which accounts for 11% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions, is increasingly alarmed by rules in the EU’s “farm to fork” strategy, part of the key European green deal aimed at making the bloc climate-neutral by 2050. Targets include halving pesticides by 2030, cutting fertiliser use by 20%, devoting more land to non-agricultural use – for example, by leaving it fallow or planting non-productive trees – and doubling organic production to 25% of all EU farmland. Many farmers already complain that existing EU rules in areas such as irrigation and animal welfare are interpreted too strictly. They argue incoming green policies are unfair, unrealistic, economically unviable and will ultimately be self-defeating . What are politicians doing to try to quell the protests – and will they succeed? National governments have taken steps: Berlin watered down its plans to cut diesel subsidies; Paris scrapped a diesel tax increase, delayed other measures and pledged €150m in help, prompting farmers’ unions to call on members to suspend their protest. “Everywhere in Europe the same question arises: how do we continue to produce more but better? How can we continue to tackle climate change? How can we avoid unfair competition from foreign countries?”, said Gabriel Attal, the French prime minister on Thursday. View image in fullscreen Farmers in France reminded the president of their struggles with a surprise motorway blockade near Paris. Photograph: Matthieu Mirville/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock At the EU level, the European Commission has proposed limiting agricultural imports from Ukraine via an “emergency brake”, and exempting farmers for 2024 from an obligation to keep 4% of their land fallow while still receiving EU subsidies. Anxious not to further upset an already rebellious sector, Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, and Leo Varadkar, Ireland’s prime minister, have said the proposed EU-Mercosur trade deal should not be signed in its present form. With the farmers increasingly drawing support from Europe’s far-right parties , which are expected to make significant gains in European parliament elections due in June, further concessions seem more than likely. Hundreds of tractors choked Brussels city centre on Thursday and angry farmers pelted the European parliament with eggs. Although agriculture was not on the agenda for EU leaders meeting just up the road, politicians may find that they ignore these grievances at their peril. Here is a look at what lies behind the farmers’ protests that have been sweeping Europe for months – in countries such as Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France, where the government was taken by surprise this week by a motorway blockade of Paris. Some concerns, such as a plan by Berlin to phase out tax breaks on agricultural diesel to balance the budget, or a requirement in the Netherlands to reduce nitrogen emissions – are country-specific. But many are shared continent-wide. Farmers have said they face falling sale prices, rising costs, heavy regulation, powerful and domineering retailers, debt, climate change and cheap foreign imports, all within an EU agricultural system based on the premise that “bigger is better”. Costs are up, prices are down Farmers’ costs – notably for energy, fertiliser and transport – have risen in many EU countries, particularly since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. At the same time, governments and retailers, mindful of the cost of living crisis’s effect on consumers, have moved to reduce rising food prices. Farm-gate prices – the base price farmers receive for their produce – dropped by almost 9% on average between the third quarter of 2022 and the same period last year, according to Eurostat data analysed by Politico , with only a few products – including olive oil, hit by shortages – bucking the trend. Imports are also a bugbear, particularly in central and eastern Europe, where a flood of cheap agricultural produce from Ukraine – on which the EU waived quotas and duties following Russia’s invasion – has depressed prices and increased resentment about unfair competition. View image in fullscreen Farmers in the EU were angered by the removal of quotas on grain from Ukraine, meaning that the bloc was flooded with cheap produce. Photograph: Igor Tkachenko/Reuters Polish farmers began blocking roads from Ukraine in protest as early as last spring, and although Brussels soon imposed restrictions on Kyiv’s exports to its near neighbours, as soon as they expired Hungary, Poland and Slovakia each announced their own. “Ukrainian grain should go where it belongs, to the Asian or African markets, not to Europe,” the Polish farmers’ trade union said last month. Elsewhere in Europe, notably in France , cheap imports from farther afield are a source of mounting anger. Produce from countries such as New Zealand and Chile is resented for not having to comply with the same strict regulations as EU farmers. Negotiations to conclude a wide-ranging trade deal between the EU and South America’s Mercosur trading bloc have been a target of particular anger, with European farmers unhappy at the prospect of unfair competition in sugar, grain and meat. Rising temperatures, rising tensions Extreme weather events due to climate change are increasingly affecting production: some water reservoirs in southern Spain stand at only 4% capacity, while wildfires wiped out about 20% of Greek annual farm revenue last year. Southern Europe has so far seen relatively few protests, but that could change as governments, notably in Spain and Portugal, consider emergency water restrictions amid record-breaking droughts . More widely, besides feeling persecuted by what they see as a Brussels bureaucracy that knows little about their business, many farmers complain they feel caught between apparently conflicting public demands for cheap food and climate-friendly processes. ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests Read more And to CAP it all off … The common agricultural policy (CAP), the €55bn-a-year subsidy system on which Europe’s food security has rested for more than 60 years, has historically been based on economy of scale: bigger farms, bigger holdings, common standards. That has encouraged consolidation – the number of farms in the EU has fallen by more than a third since 2005 – leaving many larger farms with high levels of debt in a low-margin business and smaller ones increasingly uncompetitive. More recently, the farming sector, which accounts for 11% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions, is increasingly alarmed by rules in the EU’s “farm to fork” strategy, part of the key European green deal aimed at making the bloc climate-neutral by 2050. Targets include halving pesticides by 2030, cutting fertiliser use by 20%, devoting more land to non-agricultural use – for example, by leaving it fallow or planting non-productive trees – and doubling organic production to 25% of all EU farmland. Many farmers already complain that existing EU rules in areas such as irrigation and animal welfare are interpreted too strictly. They argue incoming green policies are unfair, unrealistic, economically unviable and will ultimately be self-defeating . What are politicians doing to try to quell the protests – and will they succeed? National governments have taken steps: Berlin watered down its plans to cut diesel subsidies; Paris scrapped a diesel tax increase, delayed other measures and pledged €150m in help, prompting farmers’ unions to call on members to suspend their protest. “Everywhere in Europe the same question arises: how do we continue to produce more but better? How can we continue to tackle climate change? How can we avoid unfair competition from foreign countries?”, said Gabriel Attal, the French prime minister on Thursday. View image in fullscreen Farmers in France reminded the president of their struggles with a surprise motorway blockade near Paris. Photograph: Matthieu Mirville/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock At the EU level, the European Commission has proposed limiting agricultural imports from Ukraine via an “emergency brake”, and exempting farmers for 2024 from an obligation to keep 4% of their land fallow while still receiving EU subsidies. Anxious not to further upset an already rebellious sector, Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, and Leo Varadkar, Ireland’s prime minister, have said the proposed EU-Mercosur trade deal should not be signed in its present form. With the farmers increasingly drawing support from Europe’s far-right parties , which are expected to make significant gains in European parliament elections due in June, further concessions seem more than likely. Hundreds of tractors choked Brussels city centre on Thursday and angry farmers pelted the European parliament with eggs. Although agriculture was not on the agenda for EU leaders meeting just up the road, politicians may find that they ignore these grievances at their peril. Here is a look at what lies behind the farmers’ protests that have been sweeping Europe for months – in countries such as Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France, where the government was taken by surprise this week by a motorway blockade of Paris. Some concerns, such as a plan by Berlin to phase out tax breaks on agricultural diesel to balance the budget, or a requirement in the Netherlands to reduce nitrogen emissions – are country-specific. But many are shared continent-wide. Farmers have said they face falling sale prices, rising costs, heavy regulation, powerful and domineering retailers, debt, climate change and cheap foreign imports, all within an EU agricultural system based on the premise that “bigger is better”. Farmers’ costs – notably for energy, fertiliser and transport – have risen in many EU countries, particularly since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. At the same time, governments and retailers, mindful of the cost of living crisis’s effect on consumers, have moved to reduce rising food prices. Farm-gate prices – the base price farmers receive for their produce – dropped by almost 9% on average between the third quarter of 2022 and the same period last year, according to Eurostat data analysed by Politico , with only a few products – including olive oil, hit by shortages – bucking the trend. Imports are also a bugbear, particularly in central and eastern Europe, where a flood of cheap agricultural produce from Ukraine – on which the EU waived quotas and duties following Russia’s invasion – has depressed prices and increased resentment about unfair competition. Polish farmers began blocking roads from Ukraine in protest as early as last spring, and although Brussels soon imposed restrictions on Kyiv’s exports to its near neighbours, as soon as they expired Hungary, Poland and Slovakia each announced their own. “Ukrainian grain should go where it belongs, to the Asian or African markets, not to Europe,” the Polish farmers’ trade union said last month. Elsewhere in Europe, notably in France , cheap imports from farther afield are a source of mounting anger. Produce from countries such as New Zealand and Chile is resented for not having to comply with the same strict regulations as EU farmers. Negotiations to conclude a wide-ranging trade deal between the EU and South America’s Mercosur trading bloc have been a target of particular anger, with European farmers unhappy at the prospect of unfair competition in sugar, grain and meat. Extreme weather events due to climate change are increasingly affecting production: some water reservoirs in southern Spain stand at only 4% capacity, while wildfires wiped out about 20% of Greek annual farm revenue last year. Southern Europe has so far seen relatively few protests, but that could change as governments, notably in Spain and Portugal, consider emergency water restrictions amid record-breaking droughts . More widely, besides feeling persecuted by what they see as a Brussels bureaucracy that knows little about their business, many farmers complain they feel caught between apparently conflicting public demands for cheap food and climate-friendly processes. ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests Read more ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests Read more ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests Read more ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests The common agricultural policy (CAP), the €55bn-a-year subsidy system on which Europe’s food security has rested for more than 60 years, has historically been based on economy of scale: bigger farms, bigger holdings, common standards. That has encouraged consolidation – the number of farms in the EU has fallen by more than a third since 2005 – leaving many larger farms with high levels of debt in a low-margin business and smaller ones increasingly uncompetitive. More recently, the farming sector, which accounts for 11% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions, is increasingly alarmed by rules in the EU’s “farm to fork” strategy, part of the key European green deal aimed at making the bloc climate-neutral by 2050. Targets include halving pesticides by 2030, cutting fertiliser use by 20%, devoting more land to non-agricultural use – for example, by leaving it fallow or planting non-productive trees – and doubling organic production to 25% of all EU farmland. Many farmers already complain that existing EU rules in areas such as irrigation and animal welfare are interpreted too strictly. They argue incoming green policies are unfair, unrealistic, economically unviable and will ultimately be self-defeating . National governments have taken steps: Berlin watered down its plans to cut diesel subsidies; Paris scrapped a diesel tax increase, delayed other measures and pledged €150m in help, prompting farmers’ unions to call on members to suspend their protest. “Everywhere in Europe the same question arises: how do we continue to produce more but better? How can we continue to tackle climate change? How can we avoid unfair competition from foreign countries?”, said Gabriel Attal, the French prime minister on Thursday. At the EU level, the European Commission has proposed limiting agricultural imports from Ukraine via an “emergency brake”, and exempting farmers for 2024 from an obligation to keep 4% of their land fallow while stil
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
Police lacked knowledge to spot danger signs in Newport death, inquest finds
Mouayed Bashir died after being restrained by police in Newport in 2021. Mouayed Bashir died after being restrained by police in Newport in 2021. This article is more than 1 year old Police lacked knowledge to spot danger signs in Newport death, inquest finds This article is more than 1 year old Mouayed Bashir was showing symptoms of acute behavioural disturbance before he was restrained and had a cardiac arrest Police officers who restrained a highly agitated man before he had a cardiac arrest had “insufficient knowledge” of acute behavioural disturbance (ABD), an inquest has concluded. Mouayed Bashir, 29, who had mental health issues, died after being restrained with his hands cuffed behind his back and his legs bound together at his family’s house in Newport, south Wales. ABD, which presents with symptoms such as extreme agitation, paranoia, rapid breathing and sweating, is a state that can be exacerbated by restraint and can lead to cardiac arrest. A string of officers told the inquest that though Bashir, a registered carer, was exhibiting a number of telltale symptoms of ABD – and they had been trained to spot it – they did not recognise it. The jury said: “We believe from the evidence we heard that there was insufficient knowledge and understanding around identifying some of the signs of acute behavioural disturbance.” In a narrative conclusion, the jury said Bashir had taken an unknown quantity of cocaine that resulted in him developing symptoms “in keeping” with ABD. They gave the medical cause of death as “intoxication with cocaine and the effects of cocaine, following a period of restraint”. They said he was restrained “for his safety and the safety of others”. Caroline Saunders, the senior coroner for Gwent, said she would write to the police to ask about ABD training, in particular a package from the College of Policing that instructs officers to “speak up, speak out” if they observe that a restrained person is in distress. Outside court, Bashir’s brother Mohannad Bashir said: “We want ABD to be recognised and taken seriously. The family believe police training needs to be modernised, overhauled and updated.” A second brother, Mohamed Bashir, said the family had had to move because they could not bear to be in the house where their loved one had been restrained. Lucy McKay, from the charity Inquest, which has supported the family, said: “Mouayed’s family called for help for a mental health crisis. Police responded by restraining Mouayed without even attempting de-escalation or support.” On 17 February 2021, Bashir’s parents became concerned about his behaviour. He had barricaded himself in his room and was smashing furniture and shouting. They dialled 999 and pleaded for help. A Gwent police officer arrived at 9.01am and requested backup and an ambulance. The call was categorised by Wales ambulance service as amber 2 – serious but not life-threatening. Officers managed to get into Bashir’s room at 9.07am. He was on the floor, thrashing about and making growling noises, the inquest heard . The police decided to restrain him. At 9.27am a police medic arrived in the room. She was deeply concerned at Bashir’s condition. She told the jury: “I had never seen oxygen [levels] that low. I had never seen anyone sweat as much as Mr Bashir. He was clammy, chill to the touch.” Concerns about his oxygen levels, his breathing and sweating were relayed to the ambulance service at about 9.31am and its response was changed to amber 1 – life-threatening. Twenty minutes later Bashir’s parents called the ambulance service themselves and said their son was unconscious. The call was upgraded to red – immediately life-threatening. The paramedics reached Bashir’s side until 10.08am. He was finally transferred into an ambulance at about 10.37am, where he had a cardiac arrest. Bashir was taken to hospital and died that morning. During a two-week inquest in Newport, the jury was told by experts that Bashir had been exhibiting signs of ABD and Gwent police had undergone training on recognising it. The officers said they did not spot that Bashir had ABD. The police medic, asked if she thought at the time that she may have been dealing with ABD, said: “It did not cross my mind.” In their submissions to the inquest, Bashir’s family said that when police decided to restrain Bashir, they did not consider they could be putting his life at risk. After Bashir’s death, protests were held in Newport led by members of his family and Black Lives Matter activists . Gwent police said evidence that emerged during the inquest showed that more knowledge of ABD would not have saved Bashir’s life as he was already beyond help when they arrived. The deputy chief constable, Rachel Williams, said the restraint was proportional and added: “We will continue to develop our knowledge, understanding and training of ABD in line with national policing guidance.” Liam Williams, the Welsh ambulance service’s executive director of quality and nursing, said: “We will be contacting the family again in the near future to ensure we have been able to answer any outstanding concerns or questions.” Bashir was of Sudanese heritage and arrived in the UK when he was nine. His family said he was easygoing and popular but as an adult had mental health issues. After the inquest, the Independent Office for Police Conduct said it was concerning that ABD “was not communicated as a potential impact factor in [Bashir’s] ill health to the ambulance service”. It also said communication with Bashir’s parents by some officers at times “lacked empathy and compassion”, but did not find that the family was treated less favourably by police because of their race. Explore more on these topics Police Newport Wales Mental health Health news Share Reuse this content Mouayed Bashir died after being restrained by police in Newport in 2021. Mouayed Bashir died after being restrained by police in Newport in 2021. This article is more than 1 year old Police lacked knowledge to spot danger signs in Newport death, inquest finds This article is more than 1 year old Mouayed Bashir was showing symptoms of acute behavioural disturbance before he was restrained and had a cardiac arrest Police officers who restrained a highly agitated man before he had a cardiac arrest had “insufficient knowledge” of acute behavioural disturbance (ABD), an inquest has concluded. Mouayed Bashir, 29, who had mental health issues, died after being restrained with his hands cuffed behind his back and his legs bound together at his family’s house in Newport, south Wales. ABD, which presents with symptoms such as extreme agitation, paranoia, rapid breathing and sweating, is a state that can be exacerbated by restraint and can lead to cardiac arrest. A string of officers told the inquest that though Bashir, a registered carer, was exhibiting a number of telltale symptoms of ABD – and they had been trained to spot it – they did not recognise it. The jury said: “We believe from the evidence we heard that there was insufficient knowledge and understanding around identifying some of the signs of acute behavioural disturbance.” In a narrative conclusion, the jury said Bashir had taken an unknown quantity of cocaine that resulted in him developing symptoms “in keeping” with ABD. They gave the medical cause of death as “intoxication with cocaine and the effects of cocaine, following a period of restraint”. They said he was restrained “for his safety and the safety of others”. Caroline Saunders, the senior coroner for Gwent, said she would write to the police to ask about ABD training, in particular a package from the College of Policing that instructs officers to “speak up, speak out” if they observe that a restrained person is in distress. Outside court, Bashir’s brother Mohannad Bashir said: “We want ABD to be recognised and taken seriously. The family believe police training needs to be modernised, overhauled and updated.” A second brother, Mohamed Bashir, said the family had had to move because they could not bear to be in the house where their loved one had been restrained. Lucy McKay, from the charity Inquest, which has supported the family, said: “Mouayed’s family called for help for a mental health crisis. Police responded by restraining Mouayed without even attempting de-escalation or support.” On 17 February 2021, Bashir’s parents became concerned about his behaviour. He had barricaded himself in his room and was smashing furniture and shouting. They dialled 999 and pleaded for help. A Gwent police officer arrived at 9.01am and requested backup and an ambulance. The call was categorised by Wales ambulance service as amber 2 – serious but not life-threatening. Officers managed to get into Bashir’s room at 9.07am. He was on the floor, thrashing about and making growling noises, the inquest heard . The police decided to restrain him. At 9.27am a police medic arrived in the room. She was deeply concerned at Bashir’s condition. She told the jury: “I had never seen oxygen [levels] that low. I had never seen anyone sweat as much as Mr Bashir. He was clammy, chill to the touch.” Concerns about his oxygen levels, his breathing and sweating were relayed to the ambulance service at about 9.31am and its response was changed to amber 1 – life-threatening. Twenty minutes later Bashir’s parents called the ambulance service themselves and said their son was unconscious. The call was upgraded to red – immediately life-threatening. The paramedics reached Bashir’s side until 10.08am. He was finally transferred into an ambulance at about 10.37am, where he had a cardiac arrest. Bashir was taken to hospital and died that morning. During a two-week inquest in Newport, the jury was told by experts that Bashir had been exhibiting signs of ABD and Gwent police had undergone training on recognising it. The officers said they did not spot that Bashir had ABD. The police medic, asked if she thought at the time that she may have been dealing with ABD, said: “It did not cross my mind.” In their submissions to the inquest, Bashir’s family said that when police decided to restrain Bashir, they did not consider they could be putting his life at risk. After Bashir’s death, protests were held in Newport led by members of his family and Black Lives Matter activists . Gwent police said evidence that emerged during the inquest showed that more knowledge of ABD would not have saved Bashir’s life as he was already beyond help when they arrived. The deputy chief constable, Rachel Williams, said the restraint was proportional and added: “We will continue to develop our knowledge, understanding and training of ABD in line with national policing guidance.” Liam Williams, the Welsh ambulance service’s executive director of quality and nursing, said: “We will be contacting the family again in the near future to ensure we have been able to answer any outstanding concerns or questions.” Bashir was of Sudanese heritage and arrived in the UK when he was nine. His family said he was easygoing and popular but as an adult had mental health issues. After the inquest, the Independent Office for Police Conduct said it was concerning that ABD “was not communicated as a potential impact factor in [Bashir’s] ill health to the ambulance service”. It also said communication with Bashir’s parents by some officers at times “lacked empathy and compassion”, but did not find that the family was treated less favourably by police because of their race. Explore more on these topics Police Newport Wales Mental health Health news Share Reuse this content Mouayed Bashir died after being restrained by police in Newport in 2021. Mouayed Bashir died after being restrained by police in Newport in 2021. Mouayed Bashir died after being restrained by police in Newport in 2021. Mouayed Bashir died after being restrained by police in Newport in 2021. Mouayed Bashir died after being restrained by police in Newport in 2021. Mouayed Bashir died after being restrained by police in Newport in 2021. Mouayed Bashir died after being restrained by police in Newport in 2021. Mouayed Bashir died after being restrained by police in Newport in 2021. Mouayed Bashir died after being restrained by police in Newport in 2021. Mouayed Bashir died after being restrained by police in Newport in 2021. This article is more than 1 year old Police lacked knowledge to spot danger signs in Newport death, inquest finds This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Police lacked knowledge to spot danger signs in Newport death, inquest finds This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Police lacked knowledge to spot danger signs in Newport death, inquest finds 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 Mouayed Bashir was showing symptoms of acute behavioural disturbance before he was restrained and had a cardiac arrest Mouayed Bashir was showing symptoms of acute behavioural disturbance before he was restrained and had a cardiac arrest Mouayed Bashir was showing symptoms of acute behavioural disturbance before he was restrained and had a cardiac arrest Police officers who restrained a highly agitated man before he had a cardiac arrest had “insufficient knowledge” of acute behavioural disturbance (ABD), an inquest has concluded. Mouayed Bashir, 29, who had mental health issues, died after being restrained with his hands cuffed behind his back and his legs bound together at his family’s house in Newport, south Wales. ABD, which presents with symptoms such as extreme agitation, paranoia, rapid breathing and sweating, is a state that can be exacerbated by restraint and can lead to cardiac arrest. A string of officers told the inquest that though Bashir, a registered carer, was exhibiting a number of telltale symptoms of ABD – and they had been trained to spot it – they did not recognise it. The jury said: “We believe from the evidence we heard that there was insufficient knowledge and understanding around identifying some of the signs of acute behavioural disturbance.” In a narrative conclusion, the jury said Bashir had taken an unknown quantity of cocaine that resulted in him developing symptoms “in keeping” with ABD. They gave the medical cause of death as “intoxication with cocaine and the effects of cocaine, following a period of restraint”. They said he was restrained “for his safety and the safety of others”. Caroline Saunders, the senior coroner for Gwent, said she would write to the police to ask about ABD training, in particular a package from the College of Policing that instructs officers to “speak up, speak out” if they observe that a restrained person is in distress. Outside court, Bashir’s brother Mohannad Bashir said: “We want ABD to be recognised and taken seriously. The family believe police training needs to be modernised, overhauled and updated.” A second brother, Mohamed Bashir, said the family had had to move because they could not bear to be in the house where their loved one had been restrained. Lucy McKay, from the charity Inquest, which has supported the family, said: “Mouayed’s family called for help for a mental health crisis. Police responded by restraining Mouayed without even attempting de-escalation or support.” On 17 February 2021, Bashir’s parents became concerned about his behaviour. He had barricaded himself in his room and was smashing furniture and shouting. They dialled 999 and pleaded for help. A Gwent police officer arrived at 9.01am and requested backup and an ambulance. The call was categorised by Wales ambulance service as amber 2 – serious but not life-threatening. Officers managed to get into Bashir’s room at 9.07am. He was on the floor, thrashing about and making growling noises, the inquest heard . The police decided to restrain him. At 9.27am a police medic arrived in the room. She was deeply concerned at Bashir’s condition. She told the jury: “I had never seen oxygen [levels] that low. I had never seen anyone sweat as much as Mr Bashir. He was clammy, chill to the touch.” Concerns about his oxygen levels, his breathing and sweating were relayed to the ambulance service at about 9.31am and its response was changed to amber 1 – life-threatening. Twenty minutes later Bashir’s parents called the ambulance service themselves and said their son was unconscious. The call was upgraded to red – immediately life-threatening. The paramedics reached Bashir’s side until 10.08am. He was finally transferred into an ambulance at about 10.37am, where he had a cardiac arrest. Bashir was taken to hospital and died that morning. During a two-week inquest in Newport, the jury was told by experts that Bashir had been exhibiting signs of ABD and Gwent police had undergone training on recognising it. The officers said they did not spot that Bashir had ABD. The police medic, asked if she thought at the time that she may have been dealing with ABD, said: “It did not cross my mind.” In their submissions to the inquest, Bashir’s family said that when police decided to restrain Bashir, they did not consider they could be putting his life at risk. After Bashir’s death, protests were held in Newport led by members of his family and Black Lives Matter activists . Gwent police said evidence that emerged during the inquest showed that more knowledge of ABD would not have saved Bashir’s life as he was already beyond help when they arrived. The deputy chief constable, Rachel Williams, said the restraint was proportional and added: “We will continue to develop our knowledge, understanding and training of ABD in line with national policing guidance.” Liam Williams, the Welsh ambulance service’s executive director of quality and nursing, said: “We will be contacting the family again in the near future to ensure we have been able to answer any outstanding concerns or questions.” Bashir was of Sudanese heritage and arrived in the UK when he was nine. His family said he was easygoing and popular but as an adult had mental health issues. After the inquest, the Independent Office for Police Conduct said it was concerning that ABD “was not communicated as a potential impact factor in [Bashir’s] ill health to the ambulance service”. It also said communication with Bashir’s parents by some officers at times “lacked empathy and compassion”, but did not find that the family was treated less favourably by police because of their race. Explore more on these topics Police Newport Wales Mental health Health news Share Reuse this content Police officers who restrained a highly agitated man before he had a cardiac arrest had “insufficient knowledge” of acute behavioural disturbance (ABD), an inquest has concluded. Mouayed Bashir, 29, who had mental health issues, died after being restrained with his hands cuffed behind his back and his legs bound together at his family’s house in Newport, south Wales. ABD, which presents with symptoms such as extreme agitation, paranoia, rapid breathing and sweating, is a state that can be exacerbated by restraint and can lead to cardiac arrest. A string of officers told the inquest that though Bashir, a registered carer, was exhibiting a number of telltale symptoms of ABD – and they had been trained to spot it – they did not recognise it. The jury said: “We believe from the evidence we heard that there was insufficient knowledge and understanding around identifying some of the signs of acute behavioural disturbance.” In a narrative conclusion, the jury said Bashir had taken an unknown quantity of cocaine that resulted in him developing symptoms “in keeping” with ABD. They gave the medical cause of death as “intoxication with cocaine and the effects of cocaine, following a period of restraint”. They said he was restrained “for his safety and the safety of others”. Caroline Saunders, the senior coroner for Gwent, said she would write to the police to ask about ABD training, in particular a package from the College of Policing that instructs officers to “speak up, speak out” if they observe that a restrained person is in distress. Outside court, Bashir’s brother Mohannad Bashir said: “We want ABD to be recognised and taken seriously. The family believe police training needs to be modernised, overhauled and updated.” A second brother, Mohamed Bashir, said the family had had to move because they could not bear to be in the house where their loved one had been restrained. Lucy McKay, from the charity Inquest, which has supported the family, said: “Mouayed’s family called for help for a mental health crisis. Police responded by restraining Mouayed without even attempting de-escalation or support.” On 17 February 2021, Bashir’s parents became concerned about his behaviour. He had barricaded himself in his room and was smashing furniture and shouting. They dialled 999 and pleaded for help. A Gwent police officer arrived at 9.01am and requested backup and an ambulance. The call was categorised by Wales ambulance service as amber 2 – serious but not life-threatening. Officers managed to get into Bashir’s room at 9.07am. He was on the floor, thrashing about and making growling noises, the inquest heard . The police decided to restrain him. At 9.27am a police medic arrived in the room. She was deeply concerned at Bashir’s condition. She told the jury: “I had never seen oxygen [levels] that low. I had never seen anyone sweat as much as Mr Bashir. He was clammy, chill to the touch.” Concerns about his oxygen levels, his breathing and sweating were relayed to the ambulance service at about 9.31am and its response was changed to amber 1 – life-threatening. Twenty minutes later Bashir’s parents called the ambulance service themselves and said their son was unconscious. The call was upgraded to red – immediately life-threatening. The paramedics reached Bashir’s side until 10.08am. He was finally transferred into an ambulance at about 10.37am, where he had a cardiac arrest. Bashir was taken to hospital and died that morning. During a two-week inquest in Newport, the jury was told by experts that Bashir had been exhibiting signs of ABD and Gwent police had undergone training on recognising it. The officers said they did not spot that Bashir had ABD. The police medic, asked if she thought at the time that she may have been dealing with ABD, said: “It did not cross my mind.” In their submissions to the inquest, Bashir’s family said that when police decided to restrain Bashir, they did not consider they could be putting his life at risk. After Bashir’s death, protests were held in Newport led by members of his family and Black Lives Matter activists . Gwent police said evidence that emerged during the inquest showed that more knowledge of ABD would not have saved Bashir’s life as he was already beyond help when they arrived. The deputy chief constable, Rachel Williams, said the restraint was proportional and added: “We will continue to develop our knowledge, understanding and training of ABD in line with national policing guidance.” Liam Williams, the Welsh ambulance service’s executive director of quality and nursing, said: “We will be contacting the family again in the near future to ensure we have been able to answer any outstanding concerns or questions.” Bashir was of Sudanese heritage and arrived in the UK when he was nine. His family said he was easygoing and popular but as an adult had mental health issues. After the inquest, the Independent Office for Police Conduct said it was concerning that ABD “was not communicated as a potential impact factor in [Bashir’s] ill health to the ambulance service”. It also said communication with Bashir’s parents by some officers at times “lacked empathy and compassion”, but did not find that the family was treated less favourably by police because of their race. Explore more on these topics Police Newport Wales Mental health Health news Share Reuse this content Police officers who restrained a highly agitated man before he had a cardiac arrest had “insufficient knowledge” of acute behavioural disturbance (ABD), an inquest has concluded. Mouayed Bashir, 29, who had mental health issues, died after being restrained with his hands cuffed behind his back and his legs bound together at his family’s house in Newport, south Wales. ABD, which presents with symptoms such as extreme agitation, paranoia, rapid breathing and sweating, is a state that can be exacerbated by restraint and can lead to cardiac arrest. A string of officers told the inquest that though Bashir, a registered carer, was exhibiting a number of telltale symptoms of ABD – and they had been trained to spot it – they did not recognise it. The jury said: “We believe from the evidence we heard that there was insufficient knowledge and understanding around identifying some of the signs of acute behavioural disturbance.” In a narrative conclusion, the jury said Bashir had taken an unknown quantity of cocaine that resulted in him developing symptoms “in keeping” with ABD. They gave the medical cause of death as “intoxication with cocaine and the effects of cocaine, following a period of restraint”. They said he was restrained “for his safety and the safety of others”. Caroline Saunders, the senior coroner for Gwent, said she would write to the police to ask about ABD training, in particular a package from the College of Policing that instructs officers to “speak up, speak out” if they observe that a restrained person is in distress. Outside court, Bashir’s brother Mohannad Bashir said: “We want ABD to be recognised and taken seriously. The family believe police training needs to be modernised, overhauled and updated.” A second brother, Mohamed Bashir, said the family had had to move because they could not bear to be in the house where their loved one had been restrained. Lucy McKay, from the charity Inquest, which has supported the family, said: “Mouayed’s family called for help for a mental health crisis. Police responded by restraining Mouayed without even attempting de-escalation or support.” On 17 February 2021, Bashir’s parents became concerned about his behaviour. He had barricaded himself in his room and was smashing furniture and shouting. They dialled 999 and pleaded for help. A Gwent police officer arrived at 9.01am and requested backup and an ambulance. The call was categorised by Wales ambulance service as amber 2 – serious but not life-threatening. Officers managed to get into Bashir’s room at 9.07am. He was on the floor, thrashing about and making growling noises, the inquest heard . The police decided to restrain him. At 9.27am a police medic arrived in the room. She was deeply concerned at Bashir’s condition. She told the jury: “I had never seen oxygen [levels] that low. I had never seen anyone sweat as much as Mr Bashir. He was clammy, chill to the touch.” Concerns about his oxygen levels, his breathing and sweating were relayed to the ambulance service at about 9.31am and its response was changed to amber 1 – life-threatening. Twenty minutes later Bashir’s parents called the ambulance service themselves and said their son was unconscious. The call was upgraded to red – immediately life-threatening. The paramedics reached Bashir’s side until 10.08am. He was finally transferred into an ambulance at about 10.37am, where he had a cardiac arrest. Bashir was taken to hospital and died that morning. During a two-week inquest in Newport, the jury was told by experts that Bashir had been exhibiting signs of ABD and Gwent police had undergone training on recognising it. The officers said they did not spot that Bashir had ABD. The police medic, asked if she thought at the time that she may have been dealing with ABD, said: “It did not cross my mind.” In their submissions to the inquest, Bashir’s family said that when police decided to restrain Bashir, they did not consider they could be putting his life at risk. After Bashir’s death, protests were held in Newport led by members of his family and Black Lives Matter activists . Gwent police said evidence that emerged during the inquest showed that more knowledge of ABD would not have saved Bashir’s life as he was already beyond help when they arrived. The deputy chief constable, Rachel Williams, said the restraint was proportional and added: “We will continue to develop our knowledge, understanding and training of ABD in line with national policing guidance.” Liam Williams, the Welsh ambulance service’s executive director of quality and nursing, said: “We will be contacting the family again in the near future to ensure we have been able to answer any outstanding concerns or questions.” Bashir was of Sudanese heritage and arrived in the UK when he was nine. His family said he was easygoing and popular but as an adult had mental health issues. After the inquest, the Independent Office for Police Conduct said it was concerning that ABD “was not communicated as a potential impact factor in [Bashir’s] ill health to the ambulance service”. It also said communication with Bashir’s parents by some officers at times “lacked empathy and compassion”, but did not find that the family was treated less favourably by police because of their race. Police officers who restrained a highly agitated man before he had a cardiac arrest had “insufficient knowledge” of acute behavioural disturbance (ABD), an inquest has concluded. Mouayed Bashir, 29, who had mental health issues, died after being restrained with his hands cuffed behind his back and his legs bound together at his family’s house in Newport, south Wales. ABD, which presents with symptoms such as extreme agitation, paranoia, rapid breathing and sweating, is a state that can be exacerbated by restraint and can lead to cardiac arrest. A string of officers told the inquest that though Bashir, a registered carer, was exhibiting a number of telltale symptoms of ABD – and they had been trained to spot it – they did not recognise it. The jury said: “We believe from the evidence we heard that there was insufficient knowledge and understanding around identifying some of the signs of acute behavioural disturbance.” In a narrative conclusion, the jury said Bashir had taken an unknown quantity of cocaine that resulted in him developing symptoms “in keeping” with ABD. They gave the medical cause of death as “intoxication with cocaine and the effects of cocaine, following a period of restraint”. They said he was restrained “for his safety and the safety of others”. Caroline Saunders, the senior coroner for Gwent, said she would write to the police to ask about ABD training, in particular a package from the College of Policing that instructs officers to “speak up, speak out” if they observe that a restrained person is in distress. Outside court, Bashir’s brother Mohannad Bashir said: “We want ABD to be recognised and taken seriously. The family believe police training needs to be modernised, overhauled and updated.” A second brother, Mohamed Bashir, said the family had had to move because they could not bear to be in the house where their loved one had been restrained. Lucy McKay, from the charity Inquest, which has supported the family, said: “Mouayed’s family called for help for a mental health crisis. Police responded by restraining Mouayed without even attempting de-escalation or support.” On 17 February 2021, Bashir’s parents became concerned about his behaviour. He had barricaded himself in his room and was smashing furniture and shouting. They dialled 999 and pleaded for help. A Gwent police officer arrived at 9.01am and requested backup and an ambulance. The call was categorised by Wales ambulance service as amber 2 – serious but not life-threatening. Officers managed to get into Bashir’s room at 9.07am. He was on the floor, thrashing about and making growling noises, the inquest heard . The police decided to restrain him. At 9.27am a police medic arrived in the room. She was deeply concerned at Bashir’s condition. She told the jury: “I had never seen oxygen [levels] that low. I had never seen anyone sweat as much as Mr Bashir. He was clammy, chill to the touch.” Concerns about his oxygen levels, his breathing and sweating were relayed to the ambulance service at about 9.31am and its response was changed to amber 1 – life-threatening. Twenty minutes later Bashir’s parents called the ambulance service themselves and said their son was unconscious. The call was upgraded to red – immediately life-threatening. The paramedics reached Bashir’s side until 10.08am. He was finally transferred into an ambulance at about 10.37am, where he had a cardiac arrest. Bashir was taken to hospital and died that morning. During a two-week inquest in Newport, the jury was told by experts that Bashir had been exhibiting signs of ABD and Gwent police had undergone training on recognising it. The officers said they did not spot that Bashir had ABD. The police medic, asked if she thought at the time that she may have been dealing with ABD, said: “It did not cross my mind.” In their submissions to the inquest, Bashir’s family said that when police decided to restrain Bashir, they did not consider they could be putting his life at risk. After Bashir’s death, protests were held in Newport led by members of his family and Black Lives Matter activists . Gwent police said evidence that emerged during the inquest showed that more knowledge of ABD would not have saved Bashir’s life as he was already beyond help when they arrived. The deputy chief constable, Rachel Williams, said the restraint was proportional and added: “We will continue to develop our knowledge, understanding and training of ABD in line with national policing guidance.” Liam Williams, the Welsh ambulance service’s executive director of quality and nursing, said: “We will be contacting the family again in the near future to ensure we have been able to answer any outstanding concerns or questions.” Bashir was of Sudanese heritage and arrived in the UK when he was nine. His family said he was easygoing and popular but as an adult had mental health issues. After the inquest, the Independent Office for Police Conduct said it was concerning that ABD “was not communicated as a potential impact factor in [Bashir’s] ill health to the ambulance service”. It also said communication with Bashir’s parents by some officers at times “lacked empathy and compassion”, but did not find that the family was treated less favourably by police because of their race. Police officers who restrained a highly agitated man before he had a cardiac arrest had “insufficient knowledge” of acute behavioural disturbance (ABD), an inquest has concluded. Mouayed Bashir, 29, who had mental health issues, died after being restrained with his hands cuffed behind his back and his legs bound together at his family’s house in Newport, south Wales. ABD, which presents with symptoms such as extreme agitation, paranoia, rapid breathing and sweating, is a state that can be exacerbated by restraint and can lead to cardiac arrest. A string of officers told the inquest that though Bashir, a registered carer, was exhibiting a number of telltale symptoms of ABD – and they had been trained to spot it – they did not recognise it. The jury said: “We believe from the evidence we heard that there was insufficient knowledge and understanding around identifying some of the signs of acute behavioural disturbance.” In a narrative conclusion, the jury said Bashir had taken an unknown quantity of cocaine that resulted in him developing symptoms “in keeping” with ABD. They gave the medical cause of death as “intoxication with cocaine and the effects of cocaine, following a period of restraint”. They said he was restrained “for his safety and the safety of others”. Caroline Saunders, the senior coroner for Gwent, said she would write to the police to ask about ABD training, in particular a package from the College of Policing that instructs officers to “speak up, speak out” if they observe that a restrained person is in distress. Outside court, Bashir’s brother Mohannad Bashir said: “We want ABD to be recognised and taken seriously. The family believe police training needs to be modernised, overhauled and updated.” A second brother, Mohamed Bashir, said the family had had to move because they could not bear to be in the house where their loved one had been restrained. Lucy McKay, from the charity Inquest, which has supported the family, said: “Mouayed’s family called for help for a mental health crisis. Police responded by restraining Mouayed without even attempting de-escalation or support.” On 17 February 2021, Bashir’s parents became concerned about his behaviour. He had barricaded himself in his room and was smashing furniture and shouting. They dialled 999 and pleaded for help. A Gwent police officer arrived at 9.01am and requested backup and an ambulance. The call was categorised by Wales ambulance service as amber 2 – serious but not life-threatening. Officers managed to get into Bashir’s room at 9.07am. He was on the floor, thrashing about and making growling noises, the inquest heard . The police decided to restrain him. At 9.27am a police medic arrived in the room. She was deeply concerned at Bashir’s condition. She told the jury: “I had never seen oxygen [levels] that low. I had never seen anyone sweat as much as Mr Bashir. He was clammy, chill to the touch.” Concerns about his oxygen levels, his breathing and sweating were relayed to the ambulance service at about 9.31am and its response was changed to amber 1 – life-threatening. Twenty minutes later Bashir’s parents called the ambulance service themselves and said their son was unconscious. The call was upgraded to red – immediately life-threatening. The paramedics reached Bashir’s side until 10.08am. He was finally transferred into an ambulance at about 10.37am, where he had a cardiac arrest. Bashir was taken to hospital and died that morning. During a two-week inquest in Newport, the jury was told by experts that Bashir had been exhibiting signs of ABD and Gwent police had undergone training on recognising it. The officers said they did not spot that Bashir had ABD. The police medic, asked if she thought at the time that she may have been dealing with ABD, said: “It did not cross my mind.” In their submissions to the inquest, Bashir’s family said that when police decided to restrain Bashir, they did not consider they could be putting his life at risk. After Bashir’s death, protests were held in Newport led by members of his family and Black Lives Matter activists . Gwent police said evidence that emerged during the inquest showed that more knowledge of ABD would not have saved Bashir’s life as he was already beyond help when they arrived. The deputy chief constable, Rachel Williams, said the restraint was proportional and added: “We will continue to develop our knowledge, understanding and training of ABD in line with national policing guidance.” Liam Williams, the Welsh ambulance service’s executive director of quality and nursing, said: “We will be contacting the family again in the near future to ensure we have been able to answer any outstanding concerns or questions.” Bashir was of Sudanese heritage and arrived in the UK when he was nine. His family said he was easygoing and popular but as an adult had mental health issues. After the inquest, the Independent Office for Police Conduct said it was concerning that ABD “was not communicated as a potential impact factor in [Bashir’s] ill health to the ambulance service”. It also said communication with Bashir’s parents by some officers at times “lacked empathy and compassion”, but did not find that the family was treated less favourably by police because of their race. Explore more on these topics Police Newport Wales Mental health Health news Share Reuse this content Police Newport Wales Mental health Health news
|
Tasmania hails Australia’s first colonial statue as a piss-take – and an ‘extraordinary political statement’
Tasmania’s Maritime Museum has released images of a 1.3-metre sandstone statue believed to be of Lieutenant Governor George Arthur. Photograph: Maritime Museum of Tasmania View image in fullscreen Tasmania’s Maritime Museum has released images of a 1.3-metre sandstone statue believed to be of Lieutenant Governor George Arthur. Photograph: Maritime Museum of Tasmania This article is more than 1 year old Tasmania hails Australia’s first colonial statue as a piss-take – and an ‘extraordinary political statement’ This article is more than 1 year old Research shows the statue held by Tasmania’s Maritime Museum was created in the 1830s, likely as a satirical depiction of George Arthur, the fourth governor of Van Diemen’s Land Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates Get our morning and afternoon news emails , free app or daily news podcast A surprise discovery in Tasmania of a historic sculpture may also be the country’s first example of political – and quite rude – protest art. Tasmania’s Maritime Museum has released images of a 1.3-metre sandstone statue of a well-dressed colonial gentleman, apparently designed as part of a fountain to show him behaving in a decidedly ungentlemanly way. View image in fullscreen The statue believed to be of Lieutenant Governor George Arthur. Photograph: Maritime Museum Tasmania The statue, created by a convict in the 1830s, depicts what researchers say is very probably Lieutenant Governor George Arthur, the fourth governor of Van Diemen’s Land (as Tasmania was then known) and creator of the notorious penal settlement Port Arthur. His penis protrudes from his button fly and evidence of 19th-century internal plumbing suggests the artist’s original brief was to create colonial Australia’s first urinating human fountain. But Chris Tassell, the museum’s president and a former managing director at the National Trust of Australia (Tasmania), insisted this was by no means a mere whimsical – and somewhat crude – garden ornament. “We’re talking about a most extraordinary political statement here,” he said. “The first freestanding western-style sculpture created in Australia, and what is it but a statement about the contempt held towards the government of the day? It’s pretty amazing. There’s nothing to compare it with.” The statue, nicknamed George by museum staff, has been dated to about 1836 and predates what had been thought to be colonial Australia’s oldest full-length statue – that of General Sir Richard Bourke, a contemporary of Arthur’s and governor of New South Wales in the 1830s. That bronze statue was cast in England and erected in 1842. It stands to this day outside the State Library of NSW in Sydney. George, with his disproportionately large caricaturesque head and slightly alarmed looking facial expression, possesses none of Bourke’s imposing dignity. When the museum took possession of George in 2023, little was known about the statue’s origins or age. The piece was donated by “a prominent Hobart family” who wished to remain anonymous, Tassell said. It is believed the family had held the statue for seven decades. A year on, research has established that the sandstone used for the sculpture was quarried in Ross, in Tasmania’s midlands, and the style of dress George sports – carved in intricate detail by the artist – dates the work to between 1820 and 1840. View image in fullscreen Maritime Museum Tasmania curator Camille Reynes and the museum’s president, Chris Tassell, with the statue staff have nicknamed George. Photograph: Maritime Museum Tasmania Two convict master stonemasons were known to have worked on Ross’s famous bridge around this time. By matching the style of the bridge carvings and another work known to have been created by one of these artists, George’s creator has been identified as Daniel Herbert, an English stonemason whose death sentence for highway robbery was commuted to transportation for life in 1827. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Daniel Herbert. Photograph: Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office “The style is totally consistent with Herbert’s in terms of the absolute exquisite detail that you find on the sculpture,” Tassell said. “When you start to get to the folds and creases in the clothing, the detail is just quite remarkable.” Researchers have concluded that the benefactor most likely to have commissioned the work was William Kermode, a wealthy Tasmanian maritime merchant and midlands landowner. He had the financial means – and the technical nous to make George pee. Kermode was a prominent pioneer of irrigation in Australia and one of the few landholders in the midlands operating a pressurised water system large enough to supply a fountain with George as its outlet. Kermode also had a motive – he loathed Arthur. Soon after the latter took up his posting in Van Diemen’s Land in 1823, the pair clashed over land ownership and the use of convict labour. So deep and public was Kermode’s animosity that he petitioned London to have the governor recalled, and when Her Majesty obliged in June 1836, the landowner announced in The True Colonist: Van Diemen’s Land Political Despatch that he would gift land at Hobart’s Battery Point for the erection of “a substantial public memorial of the joy of the Colonists at the recall of Colonel Arthur”. A posthumous portrait of Major General Sir George Arthur, c 1887. Photograph: Archives of Ontario “Given the depth of ill-feeling between Kermode and Arthur, it is feasible to consider that Kermode might commission a functioning statue of Governor Arthur urinating over the people of the colony,” Tassell concluded in a recent article published in the heritage magazine Australiana. “He had ready access to the most accomplished stone masons of the day, and a reliable supply of water.” And, it appears, an insatiable need to have the last laugh. The statue is now on display in the museum’s Carnegie Gallery. Museum staff have invited anyone who might shed more light on the statue’s provenance to contact them. Explore more on these topics Tasmania Australian arts in focus Statues Sculpture news Share Reuse this content Tasmania’s Maritime Museum has released images of a 1.3-metre sandstone statue believed to be of Lieutenant Governor George Arthur. Photograph: Maritime Museum of Tasmania View image in fullscreen Tasmania’s Maritime Museum has released images of a 1.3-metre sandstone statue believed to be of Lieutenant Governor George Arthur. Photograph: Maritime Museum of Tasmania This article is more than 1 year old Tasmania hails Australia’s first colonial statue as a piss-take – and an ‘extraordinary political statement’ This article is more than 1 year old Research shows the statue held by Tasmania’s Maritime Museum was created in the 1830s, likely as a satirical depiction of George Arthur, the fourth governor of Van Diemen’s Land Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates Get our morning and afternoon news emails , free app or daily news podcast A surprise discovery in Tasmania of a historic sculpture may also be the country’s first example of political – and quite rude – protest art. Tasmania’s Maritime Museum has released images of a 1.3-metre sandstone statue of a well-dressed colonial gentleman, apparently designed as part of a fountain to show him behaving in a decidedly ungentlemanly way. View image in fullscreen The statue believed to be of Lieutenant Governor George Arthur. Photograph: Maritime Museum Tasmania The statue, created by a convict in the 1830s, depicts what researchers say is very probably Lieutenant Governor George Arthur, the fourth governor of Van Diemen’s Land (as Tasmania was then known) and creator of the notorious penal settlement Port Arthur. His penis protrudes from his button fly and evidence of 19th-century internal plumbing suggests the artist’s original brief was to create colonial Australia’s first urinating human fountain. But Chris Tassell, the museum’s president and a former managing director at the National Trust of Australia (Tasmania), insisted this was by no means a mere whimsical – and somewhat crude – garden ornament. “We’re talking about a most extraordinary political statement here,” he said. “The first freestanding western-style sculpture created in Australia, and what is it but a statement about the contempt held towards the government of the day? It’s pretty amazing. There’s nothing to compare it with.” The statue, nicknamed George by museum staff, has been dated to about 1836 and predates what had been thought to be colonial Australia’s oldest full-length statue – that of General Sir Richard Bourke, a contemporary of Arthur’s and governor of New South Wales in the 1830s. That bronze statue was cast in England and erected in 1842. It stands to this day outside the State Library of NSW in Sydney. George, with his disproportionately large caricaturesque head and slightly alarmed looking facial expression, possesses none of Bourke’s imposing dignity. When the museum took possession of George in 2023, little was known about the statue’s origins or age. The piece was donated by “a prominent Hobart family” who wished to remain anonymous, Tassell said. It is believed the family had held the statue for seven decades. A year on, research has established that the sandstone used for the sculpture was quarried in Ross, in Tasmania’s midlands, and the style of dress George sports – carved in intricate detail by the artist – dates the work to between 1820 and 1840. View image in fullscreen Maritime Museum Tasmania curator Camille Reynes and the museum’s president, Chris Tassell, with the statue staff have nicknamed George. Photograph: Maritime Museum Tasmania Two convict master stonemasons were known to have worked on Ross’s famous bridge around this time. By matching the style of the bridge carvings and another work known to have been created by one of these artists, George’s creator has been identified as Daniel Herbert, an English stonemason whose death sentence for highway robbery was commuted to transportation for life in 1827. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Daniel Herbert. Photograph: Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office “The style is totally consistent with Herbert’s in terms of the absolute exquisite detail that you find on the sculpture,” Tassell said. “When you start to get to the folds and creases in the clothing, the detail is just quite remarkable.” Researchers have concluded that the benefactor most likely to have commissioned the work was William Kermode, a wealthy Tasmanian maritime merchant and midlands landowner. He had the financial means – and the technical nous to make George pee. Kermode was a prominent pioneer of irrigation in Australia and one of the few landholders in the midlands operating a pressurised water system large enough to supply a fountain with George as its outlet. Kermode also had a motive – he loathed Arthur. Soon after the latter took up his posting in Van Diemen’s Land in 1823, the pair clashed over land ownership and the use of convict labour. So deep and public was Kermode’s animosity that he petitioned London to have the governor recalled, and when Her Majesty obliged in June 1836, the landowner announced in The True Colonist: Van Diemen’s Land Political Despatch that he would gift land at Hobart’s Battery Point for the erection of “a substantial public memorial of the joy of the Colonists at the recall of Colonel Arthur”. A posthumous portrait of Major General Sir George Arthur, c 1887. Photograph: Archives of Ontario “Given the depth of ill-feeling between Kermode and Arthur, it is feasible to consider that Kermode might commission a functioning statue of Governor Arthur urinating over the people of the colony,” Tassell concluded in a recent article published in the heritage magazine Australiana. “He had ready access to the most accomplished stone masons of the day, and a reliable supply of water.” And, it appears, an insatiable need to have the last laugh. The statue is now on display in the museum’s Carnegie Gallery. Museum staff have invited anyone who might shed more light on the statue’s provenance to contact them. Explore more on these topics Tasmania Australian arts in focus Statues Sculpture news Share Reuse this content Tasmania’s Maritime Museum has released images of a 1.3-metre sandstone statue believed to be of Lieutenant Governor George Arthur. Photograph: Maritime Museum of Tasmania View image in fullscreen Tasmania’s Maritime Museum has released images of a 1.3-metre sandstone statue believed to be of Lieutenant Governor George Arthur. Photograph: Maritime Museum of Tasmania Tasmania’s Maritime Museum has released images of a 1.3-metre sandstone statue believed to be of Lieutenant Governor George Arthur. Photograph: Maritime Museum of Tasmania View image in fullscreen Tasmania’s Maritime Museum has released images of a 1.3-metre sandstone statue believed to be of Lieutenant Governor George Arthur. Photograph: Maritime Museum of Tasmania Tasmania’s Maritime Museum has released images of a 1.3-metre sandstone statue believed to be of Lieutenant Governor George Arthur. Photograph: Maritime Museum of Tasmania View image in fullscreen Tasmania’s Maritime Museum has released images of a 1.3-metre sandstone statue believed to be of Lieutenant Governor George Arthur. Photograph: Maritime Museum of Tasmania Tasmania’s Maritime Museum has released images of a 1.3-metre sandstone statue believed to be of Lieutenant Governor George Arthur. Photograph: Maritime Museum of Tasmania View image in fullscreen Tasmania’s Maritime Museum has released images of a 1.3-metre sandstone statue believed to be of Lieutenant Governor George Arthur. Photograph: Maritime Museum of Tasmania Tasmania’s Maritime Museum has released images of a 1.3-metre sandstone statue believed to be of Lieutenant Governor George Arthur. Photograph: Maritime Museum of Tasmania Tasmania’s Maritime Museum has released images of a 1.3-metre sandstone statue believed to be of Lieutenant Governor George Arthur. Photograph: Maritime Museum of Tasmania This article is more than 1 year old Tasmania hails Australia’s first colonial statue as a piss-take – and an ‘extraordinary political statement’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Tasmania hails Australia’s first colonial statue as a piss-take – and an ‘extraordinary political statement’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Tasmania hails Australia’s first colonial statue as a piss-take – and an ‘extraordinary political statement’ 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 the statue held by Tasmania’s Maritime Museum was created in the 1830s, likely as a satirical depiction of George Arthur, the fourth governor of Van Diemen’s Land Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates Get our morning and afternoon news emails , free app or daily news podcast Research shows the statue held by Tasmania’s Maritime Museum was created in the 1830s, likely as a satirical depiction of George Arthur, the fourth governor of Van Diemen’s Land Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates Get our morning and afternoon news emails , free app or daily news podcast Research shows the statue held by Tasmania’s Maritime Museum was created in the 1830s, likely as a satirical depiction of George Arthur, the fourth governor of Van Diemen’s Land A surprise discovery in Tasmania of a historic sculpture may also be the country’s first example of political – and quite rude – protest art. Tasmania’s Maritime Museum has released images of a 1.3-metre sandstone statue of a well-dressed colonial gentleman, apparently designed as part of a fountain to show him behaving in a decidedly ungentlemanly way. View image in fullscreen The statue believed to be of Lieutenant Governor George Arthur. Photograph: Maritime Museum Tasmania The statue, created by a convict in the 1830s, depicts what researchers say is very probably Lieutenant Governor George Arthur, the fourth governor of Van Diemen’s Land (as Tasmania was then known) and creator of the notorious penal settlement Port Arthur. His penis protrudes from his button fly and evidence of 19th-century internal plumbing suggests the artist’s original brief was to create colonial Australia’s first urinating human fountain. But Chris Tassell, the museum’s president and a former managing director at the National Trust of Australia (Tasmania), insisted this was by no means a mere whimsical – and somewhat crude – garden ornament. “We’re talking about a most extraordinary political statement here,” he said. “The first freestanding western-style sculpture created in Australia, and what is it but a statement about the contempt held towards the government of the day? It’s pretty amazing. There’s nothing to compare it with.” The statue, nicknamed George by museum staff, has been dated to about 1836 and predates what had been thought to be colonial Australia’s oldest full-length statue – that of General Sir Richard Bourke, a contemporary of Arthur’s and governor of New South Wales in the 1830s. That bronze statue was cast in England and erected in 1842. It stands to this day outside the State Library of NSW in Sydney. George, with his disproportionately large caricaturesque head and slightly alarmed looking facial expression, possesses none of Bourke’s imposing dignity. When the museum took possession of George in 2023, little was known about the statue’s origins or age. The piece was donated by “a prominent Hobart family” who wished to remain anonymous, Tassell said. It is believed the family had held the statue for seven decades. A year on, research has established that the sandstone used for the sculpture was quarried in Ross, in Tasmania’s midlands, and the style of dress George sports – carved in intricate detail by the artist – dates the work to between 1820 and 1840. View image in fullscreen Maritime Museum Tasmania curator Camille Reynes and the museum’s president, Chris Tassell, with the statue staff have nicknamed George. Photograph: Maritime Museum Tasmania Two convict master stonemasons were known to have worked on Ross’s famous bridge around this time. By matching the style of the bridge carvings and another work known to have been created by one of these artists, George’s creator has been identified as Daniel Herbert, an English stonemason whose death sentence for highway robbery was commuted to transportation for life in 1827. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Daniel Herbert. Photograph: Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office “The style is totally consistent with Herbert’s in terms of the absolute exquisite detail that you find on the sculpture,” Tassell said. “When you start to get to the folds and creases in the clothing, the detail is just quite remarkable.” Researchers have concluded that the benefactor most likely to have commissioned the work was William Kermode, a wealthy Tasmanian maritime merchant and midlands landowner. He had the financial means – and the technical nous to make George pee. Kermode was a prominent pioneer of irrigation in Australia and one of the few landholders in the midlands operating a pressurised water system large enough to supply a fountain with George as its outlet. Kermode also had a motive – he loathed Arthur. Soon after the latter took up his posting in Van Diemen’s Land in 1823, the pair clashed over land ownership and the use of convict labour. So deep and public was Kermode’s animosity that he petitioned London to have the governor recalled, and when Her Majesty obliged in June 1836, the landowner announced in The True Colonist: Van Diemen’s Land Political Despatch that he would gift land at Hobart’s Battery Point for the erection of “a substantial public memorial of the joy of the Colonists at the recall of Colonel Arthur”. A posthumous portrait of Major General Sir George Arthur, c 1887. Photograph: Archives of Ontario “Given the depth of ill-feeling between Kermode and Arthur, it is feasible to consider that Kermode might commission a functioning statue of Governor Arthur urinating over the people of the colony,” Tassell concluded in a recent article published in the heritage magazine Australiana. “He had ready access to the most accomplished stone masons of the day, and a reliable supply of water.” And, it appears, an insatiable need to have the last laugh. The statue is now on display in the museum’s Carnegie Gallery. Museum staff have invited anyone who might shed more light on the statue’s provenance to contact them. Explore more on these topics Tasmania Australian arts in focus Statues Sculpture news Share Reuse this content A surprise discovery in Tasmania of a historic sculpture may also be the country’s first example of political – and quite rude – protest art. Tasmania’s Maritime Museum has released images of a 1.3-metre sandstone statue of a well-dressed colonial gentleman, apparently designed as part of a fountain to show him behaving in a decidedly ungentlemanly way. View image in fullscreen The statue believed to be of Lieutenant Governor George Arthur. Photograph: Maritime Museum Tasmania The statue, created by a convict in the 1830s, depicts what researchers say is very probably Lieutenant Governor George Arthur, the fourth governor of Van Diemen’s Land (as Tasmania was then known) and creator of the notorious penal settlement Port Arthur. His penis protrudes from his button fly and evidence of 19th-century internal plumbing suggests the artist’s original brief was to create colonial Australia’s first urinating human fountain. But Chris Tassell, the museum’s president and a former managing director at the National Trust of Australia (Tasmania), insisted this was by no means a mere whimsical – and somewhat crude – garden ornament. “We’re talking about a most extraordinary political statement here,” he said. “The first freestanding western-style sculpture created in Australia, and what is it but a statement about the contempt held towards the government of the day? It’s pretty amazing. There’s nothing to compare it with.” The statue, nicknamed George by museum staff, has been dated to about 1836 and predates what had been thought to be colonial Australia’s oldest full-length statue – that of General Sir Richard Bourke, a contemporary of Arthur’s and governor of New South Wales in the 1830s. That bronze statue was cast in England and erected in 1842. It stands to this day outside the State Library of NSW in Sydney. George, with his disproportionately large caricaturesque head and slightly alarmed looking facial expression, possesses none of Bourke’s imposing dignity. When the museum took possession of George in 2023, little was known about the statue’s origins or age. The piece was donated by “a prominent Hobart family” who wished to remain anonymous, Tassell said. It is believed the family had held the statue for seven decades. A year on, research has established that the sandstone used for the sculpture was quarried in Ross, in Tasmania’s midlands, and the style of dress George sports – carved in intricate detail by the artist – dates the work to between 1820 and 1840. View image in fullscreen Maritime Museum Tasmania curator Camille Reynes and the museum’s president, Chris Tassell, with the statue staff have nicknamed George. Photograph: Maritime Museum Tasmania Two convict master stonemasons were known to have worked on Ross’s famous bridge around this time. By matching the style of the bridge carvings and another work known to have been created by one of these artists, George’s creator has been identified as Daniel Herbert, an English stonemason whose death sentence for highway robbery was commuted to transportation for life in 1827. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Daniel Herbert. Photograph: Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office “The style is totally consistent with Herbert’s in terms of the absolute exquisite detail that you find on the sculpture,” Tassell said. “When you start to get to the folds and creases in the clothing, the detail is just quite remarkable.” Researchers have concluded that the benefactor most likely to have commissioned the work was William Kermode, a wealthy Tasmanian maritime merchant and midlands landowner. He had the financial means – and the technical nous to make George pee. Kermode was a prominent pioneer of irrigation in Australia and one of the few landholders in the midlands operating a pressurised water system large enough to supply a fountain with George as its outlet. Kermode also had a motive – he loathed Arthur. Soon after the latter took up his posting in Van Diemen’s Land in 1823, the pair clashed over land ownership and the use of convict labour. So deep and public was Kermode’s animosity that he petitioned London to have the governor recalled, and when Her Majesty obliged in June 1836, the landowner announced in The True Colonist: Van Diemen’s Land Political Despatch that he would gift land at Hobart’s Battery Point for the erection of “a substantial public memorial of the joy of the Colonists at the recall of Colonel Arthur”. A posthumous portrait of Major General Sir George Arthur, c 1887. Photograph: Archives of Ontario “Given the depth of ill-feeling between Kermode and Arthur, it is feasible to consider that Kermode might commission a functioning statue of Governor Arthur urinating over the people of the colony,” Tassell concluded in a recent article published in the heritage magazine Australiana. “He had ready access to the most accomplished stone masons of the day, and a reliable supply of water.” And, it appears, an insatiable need to have the last laugh. The statue is now on display in the museum’s Carnegie Gallery. Museum staff have invited anyone who might shed more light on the statue’s provenance to contact them. Explore more on these topics Tasmania Australian arts in focus Statues Sculpture news Share Reuse this content A surprise discovery in Tasmania of a historic sculpture may also be the country’s first example of political – and quite rude – protest art. Tasmania’s Maritime Museum has released images of a 1.3-metre sandstone statue of a well-dressed colonial gentleman, apparently designed as part of a fountain to show him behaving in a decidedly ungentlemanly way. View image in fullscreen The statue believed to be of Lieutenant Governor George Arthur. Photograph: Maritime Museum Tasmania The statue, created by a convict in the 1830s, depicts what researchers say is very probably Lieutenant Governor George Arthur, the fourth governor of Van Diemen’s Land (as Tasmania was then known) and creator of the notorious penal settlement Port Arthur. His penis protrudes from his button fly and evidence of 19th-century internal plumbing suggests the artist’s original brief was to create colonial Australia’s first urinating human fountain. But Chris Tassell, the museum’s president and a former managing director at the National Trust of Australia (Tasmania), insisted this was by no means a mere whimsical – and somewhat crude – garden ornament. “We’re talking about a most extraordinary political statement here,” he said. “The first freestanding western-style sculpture created in Australia, and what is it but a statement about the contempt held towards the government of the day? It’s pretty amazing. There’s nothing to compare it with.” The statue, nicknamed George by museum staff, has been dated to about 1836 and predates what had been thought to be colonial Australia’s oldest full-length statue – that of General Sir Richard Bourke, a contemporary of Arthur’s and governor of New South Wales in the 1830s. That bronze statue was cast in England and erected in 1842. It stands to this day outside the State Library of NSW in Sydney. George, with his disproportionately large caricaturesque head and slightly alarmed looking facial expression, possesses none of Bourke’s imposing dignity. When the museum took possession of George in 2023, little was known about the statue’s origins or age. The piece was donated by “a prominent Hobart family” who wished to remain anonymous, Tassell said. It is believed the family had held the statue for seven decades. A year on, research has established that the sandstone used for the sculpture was quarried in Ross, in Tasmania’s midlands, and the style of dress George sports – carved in intricate detail by the artist – dates the work to between 1820 and 1840. View image in fullscreen Maritime Museum Tasmania curator Camille Reynes and the museum’s president, Chris Tassell, with the statue staff have nicknamed George. Photograph: Maritime Museum Tasmania Two convict master stonemasons were known to have worked on Ross’s famous bridge around this time. By matching the style of the bridge carvings and another work known to have been created by one of these artists, George’s creator has been identified as Daniel Herbert, an English stonemason whose death sentence for highway robbery was commuted to transportation for life in 1827. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Daniel Herbert. Photograph: Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office “The style is totally consistent with Herbert’s in terms of the absolute exquisite detail that you find on the sculpture,” Tassell said. “When you start to get to the folds and creases in the clothing, the detail is just quite remarkable.” Researchers have concluded that the benefactor most likely to have commissioned the work was William Kermode, a wealthy Tasmanian maritime merchant and midlands landowner. He had the financial means – and the technical nous to make George pee. Kermode was a prominent pioneer of irrigation in Australia and one of the few landholders in the midlands operating a pressurised water system large enough to supply a fountain with George as its outlet. Kermode also had a motive – he loathed Arthur. Soon after the latter took up his posting in Van Diemen’s Land in 1823, the pair clashed over land ownership and the use of convict labour. So deep and public was Kermode’s animosity that he petitioned London to have the governor recalled, and when Her Majesty obliged in June 1836, the landowner announced in The True Colonist: Van Diemen’s Land Political Despatch that he would gift land at Hobart’s Battery Point for the erection of “a substantial public memorial of the joy of the Colonists at the recall of Colonel Arthur”. A posthumous portrait of Major General Sir George Arthur, c 1887. Photograph: Archives of Ontario “Given the depth of ill-feeling between Kermode and Arthur, it is feasible to consider that Kermode might commission a functioning statue of Governor Arthur urinating over the people of the colony,” Tassell concluded in a recent article published in the heritage magazine Australiana. “He had ready access to the most accomplished stone masons of the day, and a reliable supply of water.” And, it appears, an insatiable need to have the last laugh. The statue is now on display in the museum’s Carnegie Gallery. Museum staff have invited anyone who might shed more light on the statue’s provenance to contact them. A surprise discovery in Tasmania of a historic sculpture may also be the country’s first example of political – and quite rude – protest art. Tasmania’s Maritime Museum has released images of a 1.3-metre sandstone statue of a well-dressed colonial gentleman, apparently designed as part of a fountain to show him behaving in a decidedly ungentlemanly way. View image in fullscreen The statue believed to be of Lieutenant Governor George Arthur. Photograph: Maritime Museum Tasmania The statue, created by a convict in the 1830s, depicts what researchers say is very probably Lieutenant Governor George Arthur, the fourth governor of Van Diemen’s Land (as Tasmania was then known) and creator of the notorious penal settlement Port Arthur. His penis protrudes from his button fly and evidence of 19th-century internal plumbing suggests the artist’s original brief was to create colonial Australia’s first urinating human fountain. But Chris Tassell, the museum’s president and a former managing director at the National Trust of Australia (Tasmania), insisted this was by no means a mere whimsical – and somewhat crude – garden ornament. “We’re talking about a most extraordinary political statement here,” he said. “The first freestanding western-style sculpture created in Australia, and what is it but a statement about the contempt held towards the government of the day? It’s pretty amazing. There’s nothing to compare it with.” The statue, nicknamed George by museum staff, has been dated to about 1836 and predates what had been thought to be colonial Australia’s oldest full-length statue – that of General Sir Richard Bourke, a contemporary of Arthur’s and governor of New South Wales in the 1830s. That bronze statue was cast in England and erected in 1842. It stands to this day outside the State Library of NSW in Sydney. George, with his disproportionately large caricaturesque head and slightly alarmed looking facial expression, possesses none of Bourke’s imposing dignity. When the museum took possession of George in 2023, little was known about the statue’s origins or age. The piece was donated by “a prominent Hobart family” who wished to remain anonymous, Tassell said. It is believed the family had held the statue for seven decades. A year on, research has established that the sandstone used for the sculpture was quarried in Ross, in Tasmania’s midlands, and the style of dress George sports – carved in intricate detail by the artist – dates the work to between 1820 and 1840. View image in fullscreen Maritime Museum Tasmania curator Camille Reynes and the museum’s president, Chris Tassell, with the statue staff have nicknamed George. Photograph: Maritime Museum Tasmania Two convict master stonemasons were known to have worked on Ross’s famous bridge around this time. By matching the style of the bridge carvings and another work known to have been created by one of these artists, George’s creator has been identified as Daniel Herbert, an English stonemason whose death sentence for highway robbery was commuted to transportation for life in 1827. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Daniel Herbert. Photograph: Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office “The style is totally consistent with Herbert’s in terms of the absolute exquisite detail that you find on the sculpture,” Tassell said. “When you start to get to the folds and creases in the clothing, the detail is just quite remarkable.” Researchers have concluded that the benefactor most likely to have commissioned the work was William Kermode, a wealthy Tasmanian maritime merchant and midlands landowner. He had the financial means – and the technical nous to make George pee. Kermode was a prominent pioneer of irrigation in Australia and one of the few landholders in the midlands operating a pressurised water system large enough to supply a fountain with George as its outlet. Kermode also had a motive – he loathed Arthur. Soon after the latter took up his posting in Van Diemen’s Land in 1823, the pair clashed over land ownership and the use of convict labour. So deep and public was Kermode’s animosity that he petitioned London to have the governor recalled, and when Her Majesty obliged in June 1836, the landowner announced in The True Colonist: Van Diemen’s Land Political Despatch that he would gift land at Hobart’s Battery Point for the erection of “a substantial public memorial of the joy of the Colonists at the recall of Colonel Arthur”. A posthumous portrait of Major General Sir George Arthur, c 1887. Photograph: Archives of Ontario “Given the depth of ill-feeling between Kermode and Arthur, it is feasible to consider that Kermode might commission a functioning statue of Governor Arthur urinating over the people of the colony,” Tassell concluded in a recent article published in the heritage magazine Australiana. “He had ready access to the most accomplished stone masons of the day, and a reliable supply of water.” And, it appears, an insatiable need to have the last laugh. The statue is now on display in the museum’s Carnegie Gallery. Museum staff have invited anyone who might shed more light on the statue’s provenance to contact them. A surprise discovery in Tasmania of a historic sculpture may also be the country’s first example of political – and quite rude – protest art. Tasmania’s Maritime Museum has released images of a 1.3-metre sandstone statue of a well-dressed colonial gentleman, apparently designed as part of a fountain to show him behaving in a decidedly ungentlemanly way. The statue, created by a convict in the 1830s, depicts what researchers say is very probably Lieutenant Governor George Arthur, the fourth governor of Van Diemen’s Land (as Tasmania was then known) and creator of the notorious penal settlement Port Arthur. His penis protrudes from his button fly and evidence of 19th-century internal plumbing suggests the artist’s original brief was to create colonial Australia’s first urinating human fountain. But Chris Tassell, the museum’s president and a former managing director at the National Trust of Australia (Tasmania), insisted this was by no means a mere whimsical – and somewhat crude – garden ornament. “We’re talking about a most extraordinary political statement here,” he said. “The first freestanding western-style sculpture created in Australia, and what is it but a statement about the contempt held towards the government of the day? It’s pretty amazing. There’s nothing to compare it with.” The statue, nicknamed George by museum staff, has been dated to about 1836 and predates what had been thought to be colonial Australia’s oldest full-length statue – that of General Sir Richard Bourke, a contemporary of Arthur’s and governor of New South Wales in the 1830s. That bronze statue was cast in England and erected in 1842. It stands to this day outside the State Library of NSW in Sydney. George, with his disproportionately large caricaturesque head and slightly alarmed looking facial expression, possesses none of Bourke’s imposing dignity. When the museum took possession of George in 2023, little was known about the statue’s origins or age. The piece was donated by “a prominent Hobart family” who wished to remain anonymous, Tassell said. It is believed the family had held the statue for seven decades. A year on, research has established that the sandstone used for the sculpture was quarried in Ross, in Tasmania’s midlands, and the style of dress George sports – carved in intricate detail by the artist – dates the work to between 1820 and 1840. Two convict master stonemasons were known to have worked on Ross’s famous bridge around this time. By matching the style of the bridge carvings and another work known to have been created by one of these artists, George’s creator has been identified as Daniel Herbert, an English stonemason whose death sentence for highway robbery was commuted to transportation for life in 1827. “The style is totally consistent with Herbert’s in terms of the absolute exquisite detail that you find on the sculpture,” Tassell said. “When you start to get to the folds and creases in the clothing, the detail is just quite remarkable.” Researchers have concluded that the benefactor most likely to have commissioned the work was William Kermode, a wealthy Tasmanian maritime merchant and midlands landowner. He had the financial means – and the technical nous to make George pee. Kermode was a prominent pioneer of irrigation in Australia and one of the few landholders in the midlands operating a pressurised water system large enough to supply a fountain with George as its outlet. Kermode also had a motive – he loathed Arthur. Soon after the latter took up his posting in Van Diemen’s Land in 1823, the pair clashed over land ownership and the use of convict labour. So deep and public was Kermode’s animosity that he petitioned London to have the governor recalled, and when Her Majesty obliged in June 1836, the landowner announced in The True Colonist: Van Diemen’s Land Political Despatch that he would gift land at Hobart’s Battery Point for the erection of “a substantial public memorial of the joy of the Colonists at the recall of Colonel Arthur”. “Given the depth of ill-feeling between Kermode and Arthur, it is feasible to consider that Kermode might commission a functioning statue of Governor Arthur urinating over the people of the colony,” Tassell concluded in a recent article published in the heritage magazine Australiana. “He had ready access to the most accomplished stone masons of the day, and a reliable supply of water.” And, it appears, an insatiable need to have the last laugh. The statue is now on display in the museum’s Carnegie Gallery. Museum staff have invited anyone who might shed more light on the statue’s provenance to contact them. Explore more on these topics Tasmania Australian arts in focus Statues Sculpture news Share Reuse this content Tasmania Australian arts in focus Statues Sculpture news
|
Judge throws out case against Greta Thunberg and other London protesters
1:33 Climate activists including Greta Thunberg acquitted over London protest – video This article is more than 1 year old Judge throws out case against Greta Thunberg and other London protesters This article is more than 1 year old Court rules not enough evidence provided to prove defendants failed to comply with section 14 order at anti-fossil fuel rally Greta Thunberg and four others charged with public order offences over a protest in London have been cleared after a judge ruled that they had no case to answer. Thunberg was charged alongside Christofer Kebbon, Joshua James Unwin, Jeff Rice and Peter Barker with “failing to comply with a condition imposed under section 14 of the Public Order Act”. They had been taking part in a protest outside the InterContinental hotel in Mayfair, the venue for the Energy Intelligence Forum (EIF), a fossil fuel industry summit attended by corporate executives and government ministers. All were arrested after the senior officer at the scene enacted the section 14 order to impose conditions on the protest, which had blocked access to and from the hotel for guests and EIF delegates. At the conclusion of the prosecution case on Friday, the second day of their trial at Westminster magistrates court, Judge Laws agreed that the crown had failed to present enough evidence to prove their case. 0:56 Greta Thunberg arrested after joining hundreds of climate protesters in London – video Laws said the conditions imposed on protesters were “so unclear that it is unlawful”, which meant “anyone failing to comply were actually committing no offence”. The judge said the protest was “throughout peaceful, civilised and non-violent” and he criticised evidence provided by the prosecution about the location the demonstrators should be moved to, saying the only helpful footage he received was “made by an abseiling protester”. He added: “It is quite striking to me that there were no witness statements taken from anyone in the hotel, approximately 1,000 people, or from anyone trying to get in. There was no evidence of any vehicles being impeded, no evidence of any interference with emergency services, or any risk to life.” Raj Chada, representing Thunberg, Kebbon and Unwin, had argued that his clients had not had the details of the section 14 order properly communicated to them by the arresting officers. In each case, Chada said, “It is unclear as to what the condition was or what was communicated, and so what the defendants should know or didn’t know; and so the prosecution case fails at this stage.” Going through the evidence of each arresting officer in turn, Chada argued that each had failed to properly communicate the details of the condition placed on the protest. In the case of Kebbon, the officer told him he was being arrested for section 14 “obstruction”; and in the cases of Unwin and Thunberg, officers gave incorrect details of the location to which the order redirected protesters. “In relation to Miss Thunberg, [the officer] was asked [while giving evidence] specifically about what the condition was, and he said Piccadilly Place,” said Chada. “Does that exist?” asked Laws. “Not on the map we have,” Chada replied. “It is not the condition. Whatever it is, it is not the condition. “We say for good measure that the condition that was in the charge is not the condition that was communicated to the officers’ supervisors. But our primary submission relates to that which was communicated to each of the three that I represent, which does not meet what the charge says, simple as that.” Earlier, the officer who arrested Thunberg told the court he did not take into account her media profile when giving her time to comply with a restriction placed on the protest she was attending. PC David Lawrence said he knew who the high-profile Swedish activist was when he approached her to instruct her to comply with the order. Lawrence said he had been called to the protest and asked to enforce the section 14 order that had been made by the senior officer at the scene. “We moved into the crowd and started telling people to move their protest on to the pavement,” he told the court. “I spoke to a few people initially, and then we approached a group in the centre of the crowd. I initially spoke to a female and she left; after that I spoke with Thunberg. I asked what her intentions were and asked if she wished to remain and she would be arrested, and if she wanted to leave and continue her protest on the pavement. “She replied in words, by saying: ‘I’m staying.’ I then informed her that she would be arrested and removed from the area.” Lawrence said he arrested Thunberg because “she was breaching a section 14 public order notice”. Under cross-examination by Chada, Lawrence admitted he did not know the precise location to which protesters were being asked to relocate. After Lawrence indicated that he knew who Thunberg was, Chada asked him: “Did you take into account the photographers and the ease with which she can move?” “We had officers moving them [the photographers] out of the way,” Lawrence replied, adding that another woman he had asked to move had been able to leave without difficulty. Pointing out that that individual did not have the same public profile as Thunberg, Chada asked Lawrence: “Did you give any account to that to allow her more opportunity to move, any further time?” “Any further time? No,” Lawrence replied. Laws said he would grant Chada’s request for the government to pay his legal fees and Thunberg’s travel costs. Explore more on these topics Greta Thunberg Fossil fuels Protest London Climate crisis England Sweden news Share Reuse this content 1:33 Climate activists including Greta Thunberg acquitted over London protest – video This article is more than 1 year old Judge throws out case against Greta Thunberg and other London protesters This article is more than 1 year old Court rules not enough evidence provided to prove defendants failed to comply with section 14 order at anti-fossil fuel rally Greta Thunberg and four others charged with public order offences over a protest in London have been cleared after a judge ruled that they had no case to answer. Thunberg was charged alongside Christofer Kebbon, Joshua James Unwin, Jeff Rice and Peter Barker with “failing to comply with a condition imposed under section 14 of the Public Order Act”. They had been taking part in a protest outside the InterContinental hotel in Mayfair, the venue for the Energy Intelligence Forum (EIF), a fossil fuel industry summit attended by corporate executives and government ministers. All were arrested after the senior officer at the scene enacted the section 14 order to impose conditions on the protest, which had blocked access to and from the hotel for guests and EIF delegates. At the conclusion of the prosecution case on Friday, the second day of their trial at Westminster magistrates court, Judge Laws agreed that the crown had failed to present enough evidence to prove their case. 0:56 Greta Thunberg arrested after joining hundreds of climate protesters in London – video Laws said the conditions imposed on protesters were “so unclear that it is unlawful”, which meant “anyone failing to comply were actually committing no offence”. The judge said the protest was “throughout peaceful, civilised and non-violent” and he criticised evidence provided by the prosecution about the location the demonstrators should be moved to, saying the only helpful footage he received was “made by an abseiling protester”. He added: “It is quite striking to me that there were no witness statements taken from anyone in the hotel, approximately 1,000 people, or from anyone trying to get in. There was no evidence of any vehicles being impeded, no evidence of any interference with emergency services, or any risk to life.” Raj Chada, representing Thunberg, Kebbon and Unwin, had argued that his clients had not had the details of the section 14 order properly communicated to them by the arresting officers. In each case, Chada said, “It is unclear as to what the condition was or what was communicated, and so what the defendants should know or didn’t know; and so the prosecution case fails at this stage.” Going through the evidence of each arresting officer in turn, Chada argued that each had failed to properly communicate the details of the condition placed on the protest. In the case of Kebbon, the officer told him he was being arrested for section 14 “obstruction”; and in the cases of Unwin and Thunberg, officers gave incorrect details of the location to which the order redirected protesters. “In relation to Miss Thunberg, [the officer] was asked [while giving evidence] specifically about what the condition was, and he said Piccadilly Place,” said Chada. “Does that exist?” asked Laws. “Not on the map we have,” Chada replied. “It is not the condition. Whatever it is, it is not the condition. “We say for good measure that the condition that was in the charge is not the condition that was communicated to the officers’ supervisors. But our primary submission relates to that which was communicated to each of the three that I represent, which does not meet what the charge says, simple as that.” Earlier, the officer who arrested Thunberg told the court he did not take into account her media profile when giving her time to comply with a restriction placed on the protest she was attending. PC David Lawrence said he knew who the high-profile Swedish activist was when he approached her to instruct her to comply with the order. Lawrence said he had been called to the protest and asked to enforce the section 14 order that had been made by the senior officer at the scene. “We moved into the crowd and started telling people to move their protest on to the pavement,” he told the court. “I spoke to a few people initially, and then we approached a group in the centre of the crowd. I initially spoke to a female and she left; after that I spoke with Thunberg. I asked what her intentions were and asked if she wished to remain and she would be arrested, and if she wanted to leave and continue her protest on the pavement. “She replied in words, by saying: ‘I’m staying.’ I then informed her that she would be arrested and removed from the area.” Lawrence said he arrested Thunberg because “she was breaching a section 14 public order notice”. Under cross-examination by Chada, Lawrence admitted he did not know the precise location to which protesters were being asked to relocate. After Lawrence indicated that he knew who Thunberg was, Chada asked him: “Did you take into account the photographers and the ease with which she can move?” “We had officers moving them [the photographers] out of the way,” Lawrence replied, adding that another woman he had asked to move had been able to leave without difficulty. Pointing out that that individual did not have the same public profile as Thunberg, Chada asked Lawrence: “Did you give any account to that to allow her more opportunity to move, any further time?” “Any further time? No,” Lawrence replied. Laws said he would grant Chada’s request for the government to pay his legal fees and Thunberg’s travel costs. Explore more on these topics Greta Thunberg Fossil fuels Protest London Climate crisis England Sweden news Share Reuse this content 1:33 Climate activists including Greta Thunberg acquitted over London protest – video 1:33 Climate activists including Greta Thunberg acquitted over London protest – video 1:33 Climate activists including Greta Thunberg acquitted over London protest – video 1:33 Climate activists including Greta Thunberg acquitted over London protest – video This article is more than 1 year old Judge throws out case against Greta Thunberg and other London protesters This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Judge throws out case against Greta Thunberg and other London protesters This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Judge throws out case against Greta Thunberg and other London 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 Court rules not enough evidence provided to prove defendants failed to comply with section 14 order at anti-fossil fuel rally Court rules not enough evidence provided to prove defendants failed to comply with section 14 order at anti-fossil fuel rally Court rules not enough evidence provided to prove defendants failed to comply with section 14 order at anti-fossil fuel rally Greta Thunberg and four others charged with public order offences over a protest in London have been cleared after a judge ruled that they had no case to answer. Thunberg was charged alongside Christofer Kebbon, Joshua James Unwin, Jeff Rice and Peter Barker with “failing to comply with a condition imposed under section 14 of the Public Order Act”. They had been taking part in a protest outside the InterContinental hotel in Mayfair, the venue for the Energy Intelligence Forum (EIF), a fossil fuel industry summit attended by corporate executives and government ministers. All were arrested after the senior officer at the scene enacted the section 14 order to impose conditions on the protest, which had blocked access to and from the hotel for guests and EIF delegates. At the conclusion of the prosecution case on Friday, the second day of their trial at Westminster magistrates court, Judge Laws agreed that the crown had failed to present enough evidence to prove their case. 0:56 Greta Thunberg arrested after joining hundreds of climate protesters in London – video Laws said the conditions imposed on protesters were “so unclear that it is unlawful”, which meant “anyone failing to comply were actually committing no offence”. The judge said the protest was “throughout peaceful, civilised and non-violent” and he criticised evidence provided by the prosecution about the location the demonstrators should be moved to, saying the only helpful footage he received was “made by an abseiling protester”. He added: “It is quite striking to me that there were no witness statements taken from anyone in the hotel, approximately 1,000 people, or from anyone trying to get in. There was no evidence of any vehicles being impeded, no evidence of any interference with emergency services, or any risk to life.” Raj Chada, representing Thunberg, Kebbon and Unwin, had argued that his clients had not had the details of the section 14 order properly communicated to them by the arresting officers. In each case, Chada said, “It is unclear as to what the condition was or what was communicated, and so what the defendants should know or didn’t know; and so the prosecution case fails at this stage.” Going through the evidence of each arresting officer in turn, Chada argued that each had failed to properly communicate the details of the condition placed on the protest. In the case of Kebbon, the officer told him he was being arrested for section 14 “obstruction”; and in the cases of Unwin and Thunberg, officers gave incorrect details of the location to which the order redirected protesters. “In relation to Miss Thunberg, [the officer] was asked [while giving evidence] specifically about what the condition was, and he said Piccadilly Place,” said Chada. “Does that exist?” asked Laws. “Not on the map we have,” Chada replied. “It is not the condition. Whatever it is, it is not the condition. “We say for good measure that the condition that was in the charge is not the condition that was communicated to the officers’ supervisors. But our primary submission relates to that which was communicated to each of the three that I represent, which does not meet what the charge says, simple as that.” Earlier, the officer who arrested Thunberg told the court he did not take into account her media profile when giving her time to comply with a restriction placed on the protest she was attending. PC David Lawrence said he knew who the high-profile Swedish activist was when he approached her to instruct her to comply with the order. Lawrence said he had been called to the protest and asked to enforce the section 14 order that had been made by the senior officer at the scene. “We moved into the crowd and started telling people to move their protest on to the pavement,” he told the court. “I spoke to a few people initially, and then we approached a group in the centre of the crowd. I initially spoke to a female and she left; after that I spoke with Thunberg. I asked what her intentions were and asked if she wished to remain and she would be arrested, and if she wanted to leave and continue her protest on the pavement. “She replied in words, by saying: ‘I’m staying.’ I then informed her that she would be arrested and removed from the area.” Lawrence said he arrested Thunberg because “she was breaching a section 14 public order notice”. Under cross-examination by Chada, Lawrence admitted he did not know the precise location to which protesters were being asked to relocate. After Lawrence indicated that he knew who Thunberg was, Chada asked him: “Did you take into account the photographers and the ease with which she can move?” “We had officers moving them [the photographers] out of the way,” Lawrence replied, adding that another woman he had asked to move had been able to leave without difficulty. Pointing out that that individual did not have the same public profile as Thunberg, Chada asked Lawrence: “Did you give any account to that to allow her more opportunity to move, any further time?” “Any further time? No,” Lawrence replied. Laws said he would grant Chada’s request for the government to pay his legal fees and Thunberg’s travel costs. Explore more on these topics Greta Thunberg Fossil fuels Protest London Climate crisis England Sweden news Share Reuse this content Greta Thunberg and four others charged with public order offences over a protest in London have been cleared after a judge ruled that they had no case to answer. Thunberg was charged alongside Christofer Kebbon, Joshua James Unwin, Jeff Rice and Peter Barker with “failing to comply with a condition imposed under section 14 of the Public Order Act”. They had been taking part in a protest outside the InterContinental hotel in Mayfair, the venue for the Energy Intelligence Forum (EIF), a fossil fuel industry summit attended by corporate executives and government ministers. All were arrested after the senior officer at the scene enacted the section 14 order to impose conditions on the protest, which had blocked access to and from the hotel for guests and EIF delegates. At the conclusion of the prosecution case on Friday, the second day of their trial at Westminster magistrates court, Judge Laws agreed that the crown had failed to present enough evidence to prove their case. 0:56 Greta Thunberg arrested after joining hundreds of climate protesters in London – video Laws said the conditions imposed on protesters were “so unclear that it is unlawful”, which meant “anyone failing to comply were actually committing no offence”. The judge said the protest was “throughout peaceful, civilised and non-violent” and he criticised evidence provided by the prosecution about the location the demonstrators should be moved to, saying the only helpful footage he received was “made by an abseiling protester”. He added: “It is quite striking to me that there were no witness statements taken from anyone in the hotel, approximately 1,000 people, or from anyone trying to get in. There was no evidence of any vehicles being impeded, no evidence of any interference with emergency services, or any risk to life.” Raj Chada, representing Thunberg, Kebbon and Unwin, had argued that his clients had not had the details of the section 14 order properly communicated to them by the arresting officers. In each case, Chada said, “It is unclear as to what the condition was or what was communicated, and so what the defendants should know or didn’t know; and so the prosecution case fails at this stage.” Going through the evidence of each arresting officer in turn, Chada argued that each had failed to properly communicate the details of the condition placed on the protest. In the case of Kebbon, the officer told him he was being arrested for section 14 “obstruction”; and in the cases of Unwin and Thunberg, officers gave incorrect details of the location to which the order redirected protesters. “In relation to Miss Thunberg, [the officer] was asked [while giving evidence] specifically about what the condition was, and he said Piccadilly Place,” said Chada. “Does that exist?” asked Laws. “Not on the map we have,” Chada replied. “It is not the condition. Whatever it is, it is not the condition. “We say for good measure that the condition that was in the charge is not the condition that was communicated to the officers’ supervisors. But our primary submission relates to that which was communicated to each of the three that I represent, which does not meet what the charge says, simple as that.” Earlier, the officer who arrested Thunberg told the court he did not take into account her media profile when giving her time to comply with a restriction placed on the protest she was attending. PC David Lawrence said he knew who the high-profile Swedish activist was when he approached her to instruct her to comply with the order. Lawrence said he had been called to the protest and asked to enforce the section 14 order that had been made by the senior officer at the scene. “We moved into the crowd and started telling people to move their protest on to the pavement,” he told the court. “I spoke to a few people initially, and then we approached a group in the centre of the crowd. I initially spoke to a female and she left; after that I spoke with Thunberg. I asked what her intentions were and asked if she wished to remain and she would be arrested, and if she wanted to leave and continue her protest on the pavement. “She replied in words, by saying: ‘I’m staying.’ I then informed her that she would be arrested and removed from the area.” Lawrence said he arrested Thunberg because “she was breaching a section 14 public order notice”. Under cross-examination by Chada, Lawrence admitted he did not know the precise location to which protesters were being asked to relocate. After Lawrence indicated that he knew who Thunberg was, Chada asked him: “Did you take into account the photographers and the ease with which she can move?” “We had officers moving them [the photographers] out of the way,” Lawrence replied, adding that another woman he had asked to move had been able to leave without difficulty. Pointing out that that individual did not have the same public profile as Thunberg, Chada asked Lawrence: “Did you give any account to that to allow her more opportunity to move, any further time?” “Any further time? No,” Lawrence replied. Laws said he would grant Chada’s request for the government to pay his legal fees and Thunberg’s travel costs. Explore more on these topics Greta Thunberg Fossil fuels Protest London Climate crisis England Sweden news Share Reuse this content Greta Thunberg and four others charged with public order offences over a protest in London have been cleared after a judge ruled that they had no case to answer. Thunberg was charged alongside Christofer Kebbon, Joshua James Unwin, Jeff Rice and Peter Barker with “failing to comply with a condition imposed under section 14 of the Public Order Act”. They had been taking part in a protest outside the InterContinental hotel in Mayfair, the venue for the Energy Intelligence Forum (EIF), a fossil fuel industry summit attended by corporate executives and government ministers. All were arrested after the senior officer at the scene enacted the section 14 order to impose conditions on the protest, which had blocked access to and from the hotel for guests and EIF delegates. At the conclusion of the prosecution case on Friday, the second day of their trial at Westminster magistrates court, Judge Laws agreed that the crown had failed to present enough evidence to prove their case. 0:56 Greta Thunberg arrested after joining hundreds of climate protesters in London – video Laws said the conditions imposed on protesters were “so unclear that it is unlawful”, which meant “anyone failing to comply were actually committing no offence”. The judge said the protest was “throughout peaceful, civilised and non-violent” and he criticised evidence provided by the prosecution about the location the demonstrators should be moved to, saying the only helpful footage he received was “made by an abseiling protester”. He added: “It is quite striking to me that there were no witness statements taken from anyone in the hotel, approximately 1,000 people, or from anyone trying to get in. There was no evidence of any vehicles being impeded, no evidence of any interference with emergency services, or any risk to life.” Raj Chada, representing Thunberg, Kebbon and Unwin, had argued that his clients had not had the details of the section 14 order properly communicated to them by the arresting officers. In each case, Chada said, “It is unclear as to what the condition was or what was communicated, and so what the defendants should know or didn’t know; and so the prosecution case fails at this stage.” Going through the evidence of each arresting officer in turn, Chada argued that each had failed to properly communicate the details of the condition placed on the protest. In the case of Kebbon, the officer told him he was being arrested for section 14 “obstruction”; and in the cases of Unwin and Thunberg, officers gave incorrect details of the location to which the order redirected protesters. “In relation to Miss Thunberg, [the officer] was asked [while giving evidence] specifically about what the condition was, and he said Piccadilly Place,” said Chada. “Does that exist?” asked Laws. “Not on the map we have,” Chada replied. “It is not the condition. Whatever it is, it is not the condition. “We say for good measure that the condition that was in the charge is not the condition that was communicated to the officers’ supervisors. But our primary submission relates to that which was communicated to each of the three that I represent, which does not meet what the charge says, simple as that.” Earlier, the officer who arrested Thunberg told the court he did not take into account her media profile when giving her time to comply with a restriction placed on the protest she was attending. PC David Lawrence said he knew who the high-profile Swedish activist was when he approached her to instruct her to comply with the order. Lawrence said he had been called to the protest and asked to enforce the section 14 order that had been made by the senior officer at the scene. “We moved into the crowd and started telling people to move their protest on to the pavement,” he told the court. “I spoke to a few people initially, and then we approached a group in the centre of the crowd. I initially spoke to a female and she left; after that I spoke with Thunberg. I asked what her intentions were and asked if she wished to remain and she would be arrested, and if she wanted to leave and continue her protest on the pavement. “She replied in words, by saying: ‘I’m staying.’ I then informed her that she would be arrested and removed from the area.” Lawrence said he arrested Thunberg because “she was breaching a section 14 public order notice”. Under cross-examination by Chada, Lawrence admitted he did not know the precise location to which protesters were being asked to relocate. After Lawrence indicated that he knew who Thunberg was, Chada asked him: “Did you take into account the photographers and the ease with which she can move?” “We had officers moving them [the photographers] out of the way,” Lawrence replied, adding that another woman he had asked to move had been able to leave without difficulty. Pointing out that that individual did not have the same public profile as Thunberg, Chada asked Lawrence: “Did you give any account to that to allow her more opportunity to move, any further time?” “Any further time? No,” Lawrence replied. Laws said he would grant Chada’s request for the government to pay his legal fees and Thunberg’s travel costs. Greta Thunberg and four others charged with public order offences over a protest in London have been cleared after a judge ruled that they had no case to answer. Thunberg was charged alongside Christofer Kebbon, Joshua James Unwin, Jeff Rice and Peter Barker with “failing to comply with a condition imposed under section 14 of the Public Order Act”. They had been taking part in a protest outside the InterContinental hotel in Mayfair, the venue for the Energy Intelligence Forum (EIF), a fossil fuel industry summit attended by corporate executives and government ministers. All were arrested after the senior officer at the scene enacted the section 14 order to impose conditions on the protest, which had blocked access to and from the hotel for guests and EIF delegates. At the conclusion of the prosecution case on Friday, the second day of their trial at Westminster magistrates court, Judge Laws agreed that the crown had failed to present enough evidence to prove their case. 0:56 Greta Thunberg arrested after joining hundreds of climate protesters in London – video Laws said the conditions imposed on protesters were “so unclear that it is unlawful”, which meant “anyone failing to comply were actually committing no offence”. The judge said the protest was “throughout peaceful, civilised and non-violent” and he criticised evidence provided by the prosecution about the location the demonstrators should be moved to, saying the only helpful footage he received was “made by an abseiling protester”. He added: “It is quite striking to me that there were no witness statements taken from anyone in the hotel, approximately 1,000 people, or from anyone trying to get in. There was no evidence of any vehicles being impeded, no evidence of any interference with emergency services, or any risk to life.” Raj Chada, representing Thunberg, Kebbon and Unwin, had argued that his clients had not had the details of the section 14 order properly communicated to them by the arresting officers. In each case, Chada said, “It is unclear as to what the condition was or what was communicated, and so what the defendants should know or didn’t know; and so the prosecution case fails at this stage.” Going through the evidence of each arresting officer in turn, Chada argued that each had failed to properly communicate the details of the condition placed on the protest. In the case of Kebbon, the officer told him he was being arrested for section 14 “obstruction”; and in the cases of Unwin and Thunberg, officers gave incorrect details of the location to which the order redirected protesters. “In relation to Miss Thunberg, [the officer] was asked [while giving evidence] specifically about what the condition was, and he said Piccadilly Place,” said Chada. “Does that exist?” asked Laws. “Not on the map we have,” Chada replied. “It is not the condition. Whatever it is, it is not the condition. “We say for good measure that the condition that was in the charge is not the condition that was communicated to the officers’ supervisors. But our primary submission relates to that which was communicated to each of the three that I represent, which does not meet what the charge says, simple as that.” Earlier, the officer who arrested Thunberg told the court he did not take into account her media profile when giving her time to comply with a restriction placed on the protest she was attending. PC David Lawrence said he knew who the high-profile Swedish activist was when he approached her to instruct her to comply with the order. Lawrence said he had been called to the protest and asked to enforce the section 14 order that had been made by the senior officer at the scene. “We moved into the crowd and started telling people to move their protest on to the pavement,” he told the court. “I spoke to a few people initially, and then we approached a group in the centre of the crowd. I initially spoke to a female and she left; after that I spoke with Thunberg. I asked what her intentions were and asked if she wished to remain and she would be arrested, and if she wanted to leave and continue her protest on the pavement. “She replied in words, by saying: ‘I’m staying.’ I then informed her that she would be arrested and removed from the area.” Lawrence said he arrested Thunberg because “she was breaching a section 14 public order notice”. Under cross-examination by Chada, Lawrence admitted he did not know the precise location to which protesters were being asked to relocate. After Lawrence indicated that he knew who Thunberg was, Chada asked him: “Did you take into account the photographers and the ease with which she can move?” “We had officers moving them [the photographers] out of the way,” Lawrence replied, adding that another woman he had asked to move had been able to leave without difficulty. Pointing out that that individual did not have the same public profile as Thunberg, Chada asked Lawrence: “Did you give any account to that to allow her more opportunity to move, any further time?” “Any further time? No,” Lawrence replied. Laws said he would grant Chada’s request for the government to pay his legal fees and Thunberg’s travel costs. Greta Thunberg and four others charged with public order offences over a protest in London have been cleared after a judge ruled that they had no case to answer. Thunberg was charged alongside Christofer Kebbon, Joshua James Unwin, Jeff Rice and Peter Barker with “failing to comply with a condition imposed under section 14 of the Public Order Act”. They had been taking part in a protest outside the InterContinental hotel in Mayfair, the venue for the Energy Intelligence Forum (EIF), a fossil fuel industry summit attended by corporate executives and government ministers. All were arrested after the senior officer at the scene enacted the section 14 order to impose conditions on the protest, which had blocked access to and from the hotel for guests and EIF delegates. At the conclusion of the prosecution case on Friday, the second day of their trial at Westminster magistrates court, Judge Laws agreed that the crown had failed to present enough evidence to prove their case. 0:56 Greta Thunberg arrested after joining hundreds of climate protesters in London – video Laws said the conditions imposed on protesters were “so unclear that it is unlawful”, which meant “anyone failing to comply were actually committing no offence”. The judge said the protest was “throughout peaceful, civilised and non-violent” and he criticised evidence provided by the prosecution about the location the demonstrators should be moved to, saying the only helpful footage he received was “made by an abseiling protester”. He added: “It is quite striking to me that there were no witness statements taken from anyone in the hotel, approximately 1,000 people, or from anyone trying to get in. There was no evidence of any vehicles being impeded, no evidence of any interference with emergency services, or any risk to life.” Raj Chada, representing Thunberg, Kebbon and Unwin, had argued that his clients had not had the details of the section 14 order properly communicated to them by the arresting officers. In each case, Chada said, “It is unclear as to what the condition was or what was communicated, and so what the defendants should know or didn’t know; and so the prosecution case fails at this stage.” Going through the evidence of each arresting officer in turn, Chada argued that each had failed to properly communicate the details of the condition placed on the protest. In the case of Kebbon, the officer told him he was being arrested for section 14 “obstruction”; and in the cases of Unwin and Thunberg, officers gave incorrect details of the location to which the order redirected protesters. “In relation to Miss Thunberg, [the officer] was asked [while giving evidence] specifically about what the condition was, and he said Piccadilly Place,” said Chada. “Not on the map we have,” Chada replied. “It is not the condition. Whatever it is, it is not the condition. “We say for good measure that the condition that was in the charge is not the condition that was communicated to the officers’ supervisors. But our primary submission relates to that which was communicated to each of the three that I represent, which does not meet what the charge says, simple as that.” Earlier, the officer who arrested Thunberg told the court he did not take into account her media profile when giving her time to comply with a restriction placed on the protest she was attending. PC David Lawrence said he knew who the high-profile Swedish activist was when he approached her to instruct her to comply with the order. Lawrence said he had been called to the protest and asked to enforce the section 14 order that had been made by the senior officer at the scene. “We moved into the crowd and started telling people to move their protest on to the pavement,” he told the court. “I spoke to a few people initially, and then we approached a group in the centre of the crowd. I initially spoke to a female and she left; after that I spoke with Thunberg. I asked what her intentions were and asked if she wished to remain and she would be arrested, and if she wanted to leave and continue her protest on the pavement. “She replied in words, by saying: ‘I’m staying.’ I then informed her that she would be arrested and removed from the area.” Lawrence said he arrested Thunberg because “she was breaching a section 14 public order notice”. Under cross-examination by Chada, Lawrence admitted he did not know the precise location to which protesters were being asked to relocate. After Lawrence indicated that he knew who Thunberg was, Chada asked him: “Did you take into account the photographers and the ease with which she can move?” “We had officers moving them [the photographers] out of the way,” Lawrence replied, adding that another woman he had asked to move had been able to leave without difficulty. Pointing out that that individual did not have the same public profile as Thunberg, Chada asked Lawrence: “Did you give any account to that to allow her more opportunity to move, any further time?” “Any further time? No,” Lawrence replied. Laws said he would grant Chada’s request for the government to pay his legal fees and Thunberg’s travel costs. Explore more on these topics Greta Thunberg Fossil fuels Protest London Climate crisis England Sweden news Share Reuse this content Greta Thunberg Fossil fuels Protest London Climate crisis England Sweden news
|
Thousands join pro-Palestine marches in London and Edinburgh
Pro-Palestine demonstrators march through London on Saturday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Pro-Palestine demonstrators march through London on Saturday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old Thousands join pro-Palestine marches in London and Edinburgh This article is more than 1 year old Demonstrations first in UK since UN’s international court of justice ordered Israel to ensure acts of genocide not committed in Gaza Middle East crisis – live updates Thousands have marched in London and Edinburgh as pro-Palestine demonstrators called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Saturday’s marches were the UK’s first national demonstrations since the UN’s international court of justice ordered Israel to ensure acts of genocide are not committed in Gaza. About 10,000 marched in London on Saturday. Along with other protesters, Jewish groups backed calls for a ceasefire, displaying banners calling for the Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, to secure a hostage deal and chanting: “Netanyahu, shame, shame, not in our name.” Other protesters carried banners that read: “End the killing”, “Free the children”, “Freedom to Palestine” and “Boycott Israel”. View image in fullscreen Tens of thousands of protesters in London demand an immediate ceasefire to end the war on Gaza. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images Thousands of pro-Palestine supporters also gathered in Edinburgh on Saturday in support of an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Arranged by the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, spokesperson Mick Napier said: “Israel needs to act on last week’s Order of the World Court, which requires that it take measures to prevent further genocide, and stop preventing aid getting to the 2 million people of Gaza. The only way that is possible is with an immediate ceasefire, which is what we are calling for. While the Scottish Parliament has at least called for a ceasefire, the UK government, as usual, has been entirely complicit in Israel’s crimes.” In London, Scotland Yard estimated about 10,000 demonstrators had marched through the West End, with the crowd swelling to 20,000 for the speeches in Whitehall. BBC reports described the atmosphere as “peaceful”. Police said people were seen trying to disrupt the protest in Haymarket and a woman was arrested on suspicion of setting off a smoke bomb or flare. A second woman, who was allegedly chanting slogans that may incite racial hatred, was arrested over a suspected public order offence. Organisers had expressed concerns that the Metropolitan police would take a harsher approach compared with previous demonstrations, accusing the force of bowing to political pressure from the government to restrict the marches. The Met said officers monitored the march for offensive placards, chants and banners and that it used CCTV to spot other offences and find suspects. It had previously announced officers would be authorised to demand the removal of face coverings they believed were being worn to conceal a person’s identity, throughout the borough of Westminster, from 10am on Saturday to 1am on Sunday. The force said this measure would not apply to religious face coverings. Chris Nineham, the vice-chair of Stop the War, said: “This is yet another example of the police attempting to criminalise Palestine protests and in the process chipping away at civil liberties. They are deliberately trying to raise tensions and to create the impression that people marching for peace and an end to a genocide are a threat to society. It’s an absolute disgrace.” View image in fullscreen Pro-Palestine protesters marching in Edinburgh on Saturday. Photograph: Lauren Gilmour/PA After having told organisers on Wednesday the Met would not allow demonstrators to end with a rally on Whitehall, where marches have regularly ended, the force made a U-turn on Thursday and said the march could end near Downing Street . A request for two end rallies, including one in Trafalgar Square, was denied, however, with the Met saying they would have hundreds of officers on duty but fewer resources than on previous march days to police the protests. In a statement, the force said: “The vast majority of those joining protests have done so in a lawful and peaceful way but a minority have broken the law and arrests have been made [at previous marches].” Deputy assistant commissioner Matt Ward, who is leading the policing operation, said: “We respect the right of people to protest, but other Londoners and visitors have rights as well. “I understand the cumulative impact of repeated protests since October on businesses, residents and those who want to travel into the West End. Getting the balance between competing rights can be difficult, but we will do it independently, impartially and always within the law.” View image in fullscreen Jewish groups on the march made their desire for a ceasefire clear in London. Photograph: Vuk Valcic/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock Just over a week ago, the international court of justice ordered Israel to ensure its forces did not commit acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza . In an interim judgment, the president of the court, Joan Donoghue, said Israel must “take all measures within its power” to prevent acts that fall within the scope of the genocide convention and must ensure “with immediate effect” that its forces do not commit any of the acts covered by the convention. Earlier in January, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign organised a march of hundreds of thousands of people through central London. Little Amal, a 4-metre puppet of a Syrian child refugee, accompanied protesters as they marched towards Parliament Square. The following weekend, hundreds joined a multi-faith peace march in solidarity with people affected by the conflict. The Gaza health ministry says at least 27,131 Palestinians have been killed and 66,287 have been injured in Israeli strikes on Gaza since the 7 October Hamas attack on Israel, in which 1,200 people were killed and about 250 abducted. Satellite images analysed by the UN Satellite Centre show that 30% of Gaza Strip’s buildings have been destroyed or damaged. Unicef estimated on Friday that 170,000 children in Gaza were unaccompanied or had been separated from their families. Saturday’s demonstration was the eighth National March for Palestine organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign since October. Explore more on these topics London Protest Metropolitan police Police Palestine news Share Reuse this content Pro-Palestine demonstrators march through London on Saturday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Pro-Palestine demonstrators march through London on Saturday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old Thousands join pro-Palestine marches in London and Edinburgh This article is more than 1 year old Demonstrations first in UK since UN’s international court of justice ordered Israel to ensure acts of genocide not committed in Gaza Middle East crisis – live updates Thousands have marched in London and Edinburgh as pro-Palestine demonstrators called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Saturday’s marches were the UK’s first national demonstrations since the UN’s international court of justice ordered Israel to ensure acts of genocide are not committed in Gaza. About 10,000 marched in London on Saturday. Along with other protesters, Jewish groups backed calls for a ceasefire, displaying banners calling for the Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, to secure a hostage deal and chanting: “Netanyahu, shame, shame, not in our name.” Other protesters carried banners that read: “End the killing”, “Free the children”, “Freedom to Palestine” and “Boycott Israel”. View image in fullscreen Tens of thousands of protesters in London demand an immediate ceasefire to end the war on Gaza. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images Thousands of pro-Palestine supporters also gathered in Edinburgh on Saturday in support of an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Arranged by the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, spokesperson Mick Napier said: “Israel needs to act on last week’s Order of the World Court, which requires that it take measures to prevent further genocide, and stop preventing aid getting to the 2 million people of Gaza. The only way that is possible is with an immediate ceasefire, which is what we are calling for. While the Scottish Parliament has at least called for a ceasefire, the UK government, as usual, has been entirely complicit in Israel’s crimes.” In London, Scotland Yard estimated about 10,000 demonstrators had marched through the West End, with the crowd swelling to 20,000 for the speeches in Whitehall. BBC reports described the atmosphere as “peaceful”. Police said people were seen trying to disrupt the protest in Haymarket and a woman was arrested on suspicion of setting off a smoke bomb or flare. A second woman, who was allegedly chanting slogans that may incite racial hatred, was arrested over a suspected public order offence. Organisers had expressed concerns that the Metropolitan police would take a harsher approach compared with previous demonstrations, accusing the force of bowing to political pressure from the government to restrict the marches. The Met said officers monitored the march for offensive placards, chants and banners and that it used CCTV to spot other offences and find suspects. It had previously announced officers would be authorised to demand the removal of face coverings they believed were being worn to conceal a person’s identity, throughout the borough of Westminster, from 10am on Saturday to 1am on Sunday. The force said this measure would not apply to religious face coverings. Chris Nineham, the vice-chair of Stop the War, said: “This is yet another example of the police attempting to criminalise Palestine protests and in the process chipping away at civil liberties. They are deliberately trying to raise tensions and to create the impression that people marching for peace and an end to a genocide are a threat to society. It’s an absolute disgrace.” View image in fullscreen Pro-Palestine protesters marching in Edinburgh on Saturday. Photograph: Lauren Gilmour/PA After having told organisers on Wednesday the Met would not allow demonstrators to end with a rally on Whitehall, where marches have regularly ended, the force made a U-turn on Thursday and said the march could end near Downing Street . A request for two end rallies, including one in Trafalgar Square, was denied, however, with the Met saying they would have hundreds of officers on duty but fewer resources than on previous march days to police the protests. In a statement, the force said: “The vast majority of those joining protests have done so in a lawful and peaceful way but a minority have broken the law and arrests have been made [at previous marches].” Deputy assistant commissioner Matt Ward, who is leading the policing operation, said: “We respect the right of people to protest, but other Londoners and visitors have rights as well. “I understand the cumulative impact of repeated protests since October on businesses, residents and those who want to travel into the West End. Getting the balance between competing rights can be difficult, but we will do it independently, impartially and always within the law.” View image in fullscreen Jewish groups on the march made their desire for a ceasefire clear in London. Photograph: Vuk Valcic/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock Just over a week ago, the international court of justice ordered Israel to ensure its forces did not commit acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza . In an interim judgment, the president of the court, Joan Donoghue, said Israel must “take all measures within its power” to prevent acts that fall within the scope of the genocide convention and must ensure “with immediate effect” that its forces do not commit any of the acts covered by the convention. Earlier in January, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign organised a march of hundreds of thousands of people through central London. Little Amal, a 4-metre puppet of a Syrian child refugee, accompanied protesters as they marched towards Parliament Square. The following weekend, hundreds joined a multi-faith peace march in solidarity with people affected by the conflict. The Gaza health ministry says at least 27,131 Palestinians have been killed and 66,287 have been injured in Israeli strikes on Gaza since the 7 October Hamas attack on Israel, in which 1,200 people were killed and about 250 abducted. Satellite images analysed by the UN Satellite Centre show that 30% of Gaza Strip’s buildings have been destroyed or damaged. Unicef estimated on Friday that 170,000 children in Gaza were unaccompanied or had been separated from their families. Saturday’s demonstration was the eighth National March for Palestine organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign since October. Explore more on these topics London Protest Metropolitan police Police Palestine news Share Reuse this content Pro-Palestine demonstrators march through London on Saturday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Pro-Palestine demonstrators march through London on Saturday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock Pro-Palestine demonstrators march through London on Saturday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Pro-Palestine demonstrators march through London on Saturday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock Pro-Palestine demonstrators march through London on Saturday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Pro-Palestine demonstrators march through London on Saturday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock Pro-Palestine demonstrators march through London on Saturday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Pro-Palestine demonstrators march through London on Saturday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock Pro-Palestine demonstrators march through London on Saturday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock Pro-Palestine demonstrators march through London on Saturday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old Thousands join pro-Palestine marches in London and Edinburgh This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Thousands join pro-Palestine marches in London and Edinburgh This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Thousands join pro-Palestine marches in London and Edinburgh 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 Demonstrations first in UK since UN’s international court of justice ordered Israel to ensure acts of genocide not committed in Gaza Middle East crisis – live updates Demonstrations first in UK since UN’s international court of justice ordered Israel to ensure acts of genocide not committed in Gaza Middle East crisis – live updates Demonstrations first in UK since UN’s international court of justice ordered Israel to ensure acts of genocide not committed in Gaza Thousands have marched in London and Edinburgh as pro-Palestine demonstrators called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Saturday’s marches were the UK’s first national demonstrations since the UN’s international court of justice ordered Israel to ensure acts of genocide are not committed in Gaza. About 10,000 marched in London on Saturday. Along with other protesters, Jewish groups backed calls for a ceasefire, displaying banners calling for the Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, to secure a hostage deal and chanting: “Netanyahu, shame, shame, not in our name.” Other protesters carried banners that read: “End the killing”, “Free the children”, “Freedom to Palestine” and “Boycott Israel”. View image in fullscreen Tens of thousands of protesters in London demand an immediate ceasefire to end the war on Gaza. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images Thousands of pro-Palestine supporters also gathered in Edinburgh on Saturday in support of an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Arranged by the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, spokesperson Mick Napier said: “Israel needs to act on last week’s Order of the World Court, which requires that it take measures to prevent further genocide, and stop preventing aid getting to the 2 million people of Gaza. The only way that is possible is with an immediate ceasefire, which is what we are calling for. While the Scottish Parliament has at least called for a ceasefire, the UK government, as usual, has been entirely complicit in Israel’s crimes.” In London, Scotland Yard estimated about 10,000 demonstrators had marched through the West End, with the crowd swelling to 20,000 for the speeches in Whitehall. BBC reports described the atmosphere as “peaceful”. Police said people were seen trying to disrupt the protest in Haymarket and a woman was arrested on suspicion of setting off a smoke bomb or flare. A second woman, who was allegedly chanting slogans that may incite racial hatred, was arrested over a suspected public order offence. Organisers had expressed concerns that the Metropolitan police would take a harsher approach compared with previous demonstrations, accusing the force of bowing to political pressure from the government to restrict the marches. The Met said officers monitored the march for offensive placards, chants and banners and that it used CCTV to spot other offences and find suspects. It had previously announced officers would be authorised to demand the removal of face coverings they believed were being worn to conceal a person’s identity, throughout the borough of Westminster, from 10am on Saturday to 1am on Sunday. The force said this measure would not apply to religious face coverings. Chris Nineham, the vice-chair of Stop the War, said: “This is yet another example of the police attempting to criminalise Palestine protests and in the process chipping away at civil liberties. They are deliberately trying to raise tensions and to create the impression that people marching for peace and an end to a genocide are a threat to society. It’s an absolute disgrace.” View image in fullscreen Pro-Palestine protesters marching in Edinburgh on Saturday. Photograph: Lauren Gilmour/PA After having told organisers on Wednesday the Met would not allow demonstrators to end with a rally on Whitehall, where marches have regularly ended, the force made a U-turn on Thursday and said the march could end near Downing Street . A request for two end rallies, including one in Trafalgar Square, was denied, however, with the Met saying they would have hundreds of officers on duty but fewer resources than on previous march days to police the protests. In a statement, the force said: “The vast majority of those joining protests have done so in a lawful and peaceful way but a minority have broken the law and arrests have been made [at previous marches].” Deputy assistant commissioner Matt Ward, who is leading the policing operation, said: “We respect the right of people to protest, but other Londoners and visitors have rights as well. “I understand the cumulative impact of repeated protests since October on businesses, residents and those who want to travel into the West End. Getting the balance between competing rights can be difficult, but we will do it independently, impartially and always within the law.” View image in fullscreen Jewish groups on the march made their desire for a ceasefire clear in London. Photograph: Vuk Valcic/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock Just over a week ago, the international court of justice ordered Israel to ensure its forces did not commit acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza . In an interim judgment, the president of the court, Joan Donoghue, said Israel must “take all measures within its power” to prevent acts that fall within the scope of the genocide convention and must ensure “with immediate effect” that its forces do not commit any of the acts covered by the convention. Earlier in January, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign organised a march of hundreds of thousands of people through central London. Little Amal, a 4-metre puppet of a Syrian child refugee, accompanied protesters as they marched towards Parliament Square. The following weekend, hundreds joined a multi-faith peace march in solidarity with people affected by the conflict. The Gaza health ministry says at least 27,131 Palestinians have been killed and 66,287 have been injured in Israeli strikes on Gaza since the 7 October Hamas attack on Israel, in which 1,200 people were killed and about 250 abducted. Satellite images analysed by the UN Satellite Centre show that 30% of Gaza Strip’s buildings have been destroyed or damaged. Unicef estimated on Friday that 170,000 children in Gaza were unaccompanied or had been separated from their families. Saturday’s demonstration was the eighth National March for Palestine organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign since October. Explore more on these topics London Protest Metropolitan police Police Palestine news Share Reuse this content Thousands have marched in London and Edinburgh as pro-Palestine demonstrators called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Saturday’s marches were the UK’s first national demonstrations since the UN’s international court of justice ordered Israel to ensure acts of genocide are not committed in Gaza. About 10,000 marched in London on Saturday. Along with other protesters, Jewish groups backed calls for a ceasefire, displaying banners calling for the Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, to secure a hostage deal and chanting: “Netanyahu, shame, shame, not in our name.” Other protesters carried banners that read: “End the killing”, “Free the children”, “Freedom to Palestine” and “Boycott Israel”. View image in fullscreen Tens of thousands of protesters in London demand an immediate ceasefire to end the war on Gaza. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images Thousands of pro-Palestine supporters also gathered in Edinburgh on Saturday in support of an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Arranged by the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, spokesperson Mick Napier said: “Israel needs to act on last week’s Order of the World Court, which requires that it take measures to prevent further genocide, and stop preventing aid getting to the 2 million people of Gaza. The only way that is possible is with an immediate ceasefire, which is what we are calling for. While the Scottish Parliament has at least called for a ceasefire, the UK government, as usual, has been entirely complicit in Israel’s crimes.” In London, Scotland Yard estimated about 10,000 demonstrators had marched through the West End, with the crowd swelling to 20,000 for the speeches in Whitehall. BBC reports described the atmosphere as “peaceful”. Police said people were seen trying to disrupt the protest in Haymarket and a woman was arrested on suspicion of setting off a smoke bomb or flare. A second woman, who was allegedly chanting slogans that may incite racial hatred, was arrested over a suspected public order offence. Organisers had expressed concerns that the Metropolitan police would take a harsher approach compared with previous demonstrations, accusing the force of bowing to political pressure from the government to restrict the marches. The Met said officers monitored the march for offensive placards, chants and banners and that it used CCTV to spot other offences and find suspects. It had previously announced officers would be authorised to demand the removal of face coverings they believed were being worn to conceal a person’s identity, throughout the borough of Westminster, from 10am on Saturday to 1am on Sunday. The force said this measure would not apply to religious face coverings. Chris Nineham, the vice-chair of Stop the War, said: “This is yet another example of the police attempting to criminalise Palestine protests and in the process chipping away at civil liberties. They are deliberately trying to raise tensions and to create the impression that people marching for peace and an end to a genocide are a threat to society. It’s an absolute disgrace.” View image in fullscreen Pro-Palestine protesters marching in Edinburgh on Saturday. Photograph: Lauren Gilmour/PA After having told organisers on Wednesday the Met would not allow demonstrators to end with a rally on Whitehall, where marches have regularly ended, the force made a U-turn on Thursday and said the march could end near Downing Street . A request for two end rallies, including one in Trafalgar Square, was denied, however, with the Met saying they would have hundreds of officers on duty but fewer resources than on previous march days to police the protests. In a statement, the force said: “The vast majority of those joining protests have done so in a lawful and peaceful way but a minority have broken the law and arrests have been made [at previous marches].” Deputy assistant commissioner Matt Ward, who is leading the policing operation, said: “We respect the right of people to protest, but other Londoners and visitors have rights as well. “I understand the cumulative impact of repeated protests since October on businesses, residents and those who want to travel into the West End. Getting the balance between competing rights can be difficult, but we will do it independently, impartially and always within the law.” View image in fullscreen Jewish groups on the march made their desire for a ceasefire clear in London. Photograph: Vuk Valcic/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock Just over a week ago, the international court of justice ordered Israel to ensure its forces did not commit acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza . In an interim judgment, the president of the court, Joan Donoghue, said Israel must “take all measures within its power” to prevent acts that fall within the scope of the genocide convention and must ensure “with immediate effect” that its forces do not commit any of the acts covered by the convention. Earlier in January, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign organised a march of hundreds of thousands of people through central London. Little Amal, a 4-metre puppet of a Syrian child refugee, accompanied protesters as they marched towards Parliament Square. The following weekend, hundreds joined a multi-faith peace march in solidarity with people affected by the conflict. The Gaza health ministry says at least 27,131 Palestinians have been killed and 66,287 have been injured in Israeli strikes on Gaza since the 7 October Hamas attack on Israel, in which 1,200 people were killed and about 250 abducted. Satellite images analysed by the UN Satellite Centre show that 30% of Gaza Strip’s buildings have been destroyed or damaged. Unicef estimated on Friday that 170,000 children in Gaza were unaccompanied or had been separated from their families. Saturday’s demonstration was the eighth National March for Palestine organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign since October. Explore more on these topics London Protest Metropolitan police Police Palestine news Share Reuse this content Thousands have marched in London and Edinburgh as pro-Palestine demonstrators called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Saturday’s marches were the UK’s first national demonstrations since the UN’s international court of justice ordered Israel to ensure acts of genocide are not committed in Gaza. About 10,000 marched in London on Saturday. Along with other protesters, Jewish groups backed calls for a ceasefire, displaying banners calling for the Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, to secure a hostage deal and chanting: “Netanyahu, shame, shame, not in our name.” Other protesters carried banners that read: “End the killing”, “Free the children”, “Freedom to Palestine” and “Boycott Israel”. View image in fullscreen Tens of thousands of protesters in London demand an immediate ceasefire to end the war on Gaza. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images Thousands of pro-Palestine supporters also gathered in Edinburgh on Saturday in support of an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Arranged by the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, spokesperson Mick Napier said: “Israel needs to act on last week’s Order of the World Court, which requires that it take measures to prevent further genocide, and stop preventing aid getting to the 2 million people of Gaza. The only way that is possible is with an immediate ceasefire, which is what we are calling for. While the Scottish Parliament has at least called for a ceasefire, the UK government, as usual, has been entirely complicit in Israel’s crimes.” In London, Scotland Yard estimated about 10,000 demonstrators had marched through the West End, with the crowd swelling to 20,000 for the speeches in Whitehall. BBC reports described the atmosphere as “peaceful”. Police said people were seen trying to disrupt the protest in Haymarket and a woman was arrested on suspicion of setting off a smoke bomb or flare. A second woman, who was allegedly chanting slogans that may incite racial hatred, was arrested over a suspected public order offence. Organisers had expressed concerns that the Metropolitan police would take a harsher approach compared with previous demonstrations, accusing the force of bowing to political pressure from the government to restrict the marches. The Met said officers monitored the march for offensive placards, chants and banners and that it used CCTV to spot other offences and find suspects. It had previously announced officers would be authorised to demand the removal of face coverings they believed were being worn to conceal a person’s identity, throughout the borough of Westminster, from 10am on Saturday to 1am on Sunday. The force said this measure would not apply to religious face coverings. Chris Nineham, the vice-chair of Stop the War, said: “This is yet another example of the police attempting to criminalise Palestine protests and in the process chipping away at civil liberties. They are deliberately trying to raise tensions and to create the impression that people marching for peace and an end to a genocide are a threat to society. It’s an absolute disgrace.” View image in fullscreen Pro-Palestine protesters marching in Edinburgh on Saturday. Photograph: Lauren Gilmour/PA After having told organisers on Wednesday the Met would not allow demonstrators to end with a rally on Whitehall, where marches have regularly ended, the force made a U-turn on Thursday and said the march could end near Downing Street . A request for two end rallies, including one in Trafalgar Square, was denied, however, with the Met saying they would have hundreds of officers on duty but fewer resources than on previous march days to police the protests. In a statement, the force said: “The vast majority of those joining protests have done so in a lawful and peaceful way but a minority have broken the law and arrests have been made [at previous marches].” Deputy assistant commissioner Matt Ward, who is leading the policing operation, said: “We respect the right of people to protest, but other Londoners and visitors have rights as well. “I understand the cumulative impact of repeated protests since October on businesses, residents and those who want to travel into the West End. Getting the balance between competing rights can be difficult, but we will do it independently, impartially and always within the law.” View image in fullscreen Jewish groups on the march made their desire for a ceasefire clear in London. Photograph: Vuk Valcic/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock Just over a week ago, the international court of justice ordered Israel to ensure its forces did not commit acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza . In an interim judgment, the president of the court, Joan Donoghue, said Israel must “take all measures within its power” to prevent acts that fall within the scope of the genocide convention and must ensure “with immediate effect” that its forces do not commit any of the acts covered by the convention. Earlier in January, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign organised a march of hundreds of thousands of people through central London. Little Amal, a 4-metre puppet of a Syrian child refugee, accompanied protesters as they marched towards Parliament Square. The following weekend, hundreds joined a multi-faith peace march in solidarity with people affected by the conflict. The Gaza health ministry says at least 27,131 Palestinians have been killed and 66,287 have been injured in Israeli strikes on Gaza since the 7 October Hamas attack on Israel, in which 1,200 people were killed and about 250 abducted. Satellite images analysed by the UN Satellite Centre show that 30% of Gaza Strip’s buildings have been destroyed or damaged. Unicef estimated on Friday that 170,000 children in Gaza were unaccompanied or had been separated from their families. Saturday’s demonstration was the eighth National March for Palestine organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign since October. Thousands have marched in London and Edinburgh as pro-Palestine demonstrators called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Saturday’s marches were the UK’s first national demonstrations since the UN’s international court of justice ordered Israel to ensure acts of genocide are not committed in Gaza. About 10,000 marched in London on Saturday. Along with other protesters, Jewish groups backed calls for a ceasefire, displaying banners calling for the Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, to secure a hostage deal and chanting: “Netanyahu, shame, shame, not in our name.” Other protesters carried banners that read: “End the killing”, “Free the children”, “Freedom to Palestine” and “Boycott Israel”. View image in fullscreen Tens of thousands of protesters in London demand an immediate ceasefire to end the war on Gaza. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images Thousands of pro-Palestine supporters also gathered in Edinburgh on Saturday in support of an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Arranged by the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, spokesperson Mick Napier said: “Israel needs to act on last week’s Order of the World Court, which requires that it take measures to prevent further genocide, and stop preventing aid getting to the 2 million people of Gaza. The only way that is possible is with an immediate ceasefire, which is what we are calling for. While the Scottish Parliament has at least called for a ceasefire, the UK government, as usual, has been entirely complicit in Israel’s crimes.” In London, Scotland Yard estimated about 10,000 demonstrators had marched through the West End, with the crowd swelling to 20,000 for the speeches in Whitehall. BBC reports described the atmosphere as “peaceful”. Police said people were seen trying to disrupt the protest in Haymarket and a woman was arrested on suspicion of setting off a smoke bomb or flare. A second woman, who was allegedly chanting slogans that may incite racial hatred, was arrested over a suspected public order offence. Organisers had expressed concerns that the Metropolitan police would take a harsher approach compared with previous demonstrations, accusing the force of bowing to political pressure from the government to restrict the marches. The Met said officers monitored the march for offensive placards, chants and banners and that it used CCTV to spot other offences and find suspects. It had previously announced officers would be authorised to demand the removal of face coverings they believed were being worn to conceal a person’s identity, throughout the borough of Westminster, from 10am on Saturday to 1am on Sunday. The force said this measure would not apply to religious face coverings. Chris Nineham, the vice-chair of Stop the War, said: “This is yet another example of the police attempting to criminalise Palestine protests and in the process chipping away at civil liberties. They are deliberately trying to raise tensions and to create the impression that people marching for peace and an end to a genocide are a threat to society. It’s an absolute disgrace.” View image in fullscreen Pro-Palestine protesters marching in Edinburgh on Saturday. Photograph: Lauren Gilmour/PA After having told organisers on Wednesday the Met would not allow demonstrators to end with a rally on Whitehall, where marches have regularly ended, the force made a U-turn on Thursday and said the march could end near Downing Street . A request for two end rallies, including one in Trafalgar Square, was denied, however, with the Met saying they would have hundreds of officers on duty but fewer resources than on previous march days to police the protests. In a statement, the force said: “The vast majority of those joining protests have done so in a lawful and peaceful way but a minority have broken the law and arrests have been made [at previous marches].” Deputy assistant commissioner Matt Ward, who is leading the policing operation, said: “We respect the right of people to protest, but other Londoners and visitors have rights as well. “I understand the cumulative impact of repeated protests since October on businesses, residents and those who want to travel into the West End. Getting the balance between competing rights can be difficult, but we will do it independently, impartially and always within the law.” View image in fullscreen Jewish groups on the march made their desire for a ceasefire clear in London. Photograph: Vuk Valcic/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock Just over a week ago, the international court of justice ordered Israel to ensure its forces did not commit acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza . In an interim judgment, the president of the court, Joan Donoghue, said Israel must “take all measures within its power” to prevent acts that fall within the scope of the genocide convention and must ensure “with immediate effect” that its forces do not commit any of the acts covered by the convention. Earlier in January, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign organised a march of hundreds of thousands of people through central London. Little Amal, a 4-metre puppet of a Syrian child refugee, accompanied protesters as they marched towards Parliament Square. The following weekend, hundreds joined a multi-faith peace march in solidarity with people affected by the conflict. The Gaza health ministry says at least 27,131 Palestinians have been killed and 66,287 have been injured in Israeli strikes on Gaza since the 7 October Hamas attack on Israel, in which 1,200 people were killed and about 250 abducted. Satellite images analysed by the UN Satellite Centre show that 30% of Gaza Strip’s buildings have been destroyed or damaged. Unicef estimated on Friday that 170,000 children in Gaza were unaccompanied or had been separated from their families. Saturday’s demonstration was the eighth National March for Palestine organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign since October. Thousands have marched in London and Edinburgh as pro-Palestine demonstrators called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Saturday’s marches were the UK’s first national demonstrations since the UN’s international court of justice ordered Israel to ensure acts of genocide are not committed in Gaza. About 10,000 marched in London on Saturday. Along with other protesters, Jewish groups backed calls for a ceasefire, displaying banners calling for the Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, to secure a hostage deal and chanting: “Netanyahu, shame, shame, not in our name.” Other protesters carried banners that read: “End the killing”, “Free the children”, “Freedom to Palestine” and “Boycott Israel”. Thousands of pro-Palestine supporters also gathered in Edinburgh on Saturday in support of an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Arranged by the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, spokesperson Mick Napier said: “Israel needs to act on last week’s Order of the World Court, which requires that it take measures to prevent further genocide, and stop preventing aid getting to the 2 million people of Gaza. The only way that is possible is with an immediate ceasefire, which is what we are calling for. While the Scottish Parliament has at least called for a ceasefire, the UK government, as usual, has been entirely complicit in Israel’s crimes.” In London, Scotland Yard estimated about 10,000 demonstrators had marched through the West End, with the crowd swelling to 20,000 for the speeches in Whitehall. BBC reports described the atmosphere as “peaceful”. Police said people were seen trying to disrupt the protest in Haymarket and a woman was arrested on suspicion of setting off a smoke bomb or flare. A second woman, who was allegedly chanting slogans that may incite racial hatred, was arrested over a suspected public order offence. Organisers had expressed concerns that the Metropolitan police would take a harsher approach compared with previous demonstrations, accusing the force of bowing to political pressure from the government to restrict the marches. The Met said officers monitored the march for offensive placards, chants and banners and that it used CCTV to spot other offences and find suspects. It had previously announced officers would be authorised to demand the removal of face coverings they believed were being worn to conceal a person’s identity, throughout the borough of Westminster, from 10am on Saturday to 1am on Sunday. The force said this measure would not apply to religious face coverings. Chris Nineham, the vice-chair of Stop the War, said: “This is yet another example of the police attempting to criminalise Palestine protests and in the process chipping away at civil liberties. They are deliberately trying to raise tensions and to create the impression that people marching for peace and an end to a genocide are a threat to society. It’s an absolute disgrace.” After having told organisers on Wednesday the Met would not allow demonstrators to end with a rally on Whitehall, where marches have regularly ended, the force made a U-turn on Thursday and said the march could end near Downing Street . A request for two end rallies, including one in Trafalgar Square, was denied, however, with the Met saying they would have hundreds of officers on duty but fewer resources than on previous march days to police the protests. In a statement, the force said: “The vast majority of those joining protests have done so in a lawful and peaceful way but a minority have broken the law and arrests have been made [at previous marches].” Deputy assistant commissioner Matt Ward, who is leading the policing operation, said: “We respect the right of people to protest, but other Londoners and visitors have rights as well. “I understand the cumulative impact of repeated protests since October on businesses, residents and those who want to travel into the West End. Getting the balance between competing rights can be difficult, but we will do it independently, impartially and always within the law.” Just over a week ago, the international court of justice ordered Israel to ensure its forces did not commit acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza . In an interim judgment, the president of the court, Joan Donoghue, said Israel must “take all measures within its power” to prevent acts that fall within the scope of the genocide convention and must ensure “with immediate effect” that its forces do not commit any of the acts covered by the convention. Earlier in January, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign organised a march of hundreds of thousands of people through central London. Little Amal, a 4-metre puppet of a Syrian child refugee, accompanied protesters as they marched towards Parliament Square. The following weekend, hundreds joined a multi-faith peace march in solidarity with people affected by the conflict. The Gaza health ministry says at least 27,131 Palestinians have been killed and 66,287 have been injured in Israeli strikes on Gaza since the 7 October Hamas attack on Israel, in which 1,200 people were killed and about 250 abducted. Satellite images analysed by the UN Satellite Centre show that 30% of Gaza Strip’s buildings have been destroyed or damaged. Unicef estimated on Friday that 170,000 children in Gaza were unaccompanied or had been separated from their families. Saturday’s demonstration was the eighth National March for Palestine organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign since October. Explore more on these topics London Protest Metropolitan police Police Palestine news Share Reuse this content London Protest Metropolitan police Police Palestine news
|
Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill appointed first minister as Stormont reconvenes
1:07 Historic moment as Michelle O'Neill becomes Northern Ireland's first minister – video This article is more than 1 year old Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill appointed first minister as Stormont reconvenes This article is more than 1 year old Northern Ireland assembly members gather to restore power sharing after two-year DUP boycott Northern Ireland’s devolved government has reconvened and appointed Michelle O’Neill as first minister in a historic moment for Sinn Féin and Irish nationalism. The Stormont assembly nominated the County Tyrone republican as the region’s first nationalist first minister – and the first non-unionist executive leader since the partition of Ireland in 1921. O’Neill avoided triumphalism and made no explicit mention of Irish unity in an inaugural address that focused on reconciliation and bread-and-butter issues. “Wherever we come from, whatever our aspirations, we can and must build our future together,” she said. “We must make power sharing work because collectively, we are charged with leading and delivering for all our people, for every community.” The appointment of a republican first minister represented “a new dawn” unimaginable to previous generations that grew up with discrimination against Catholics, said O’Neill. “That state is now gone.” O’Neill will jointly lead the executive with Emma Little-Pengelly, a Democratic Unionist who was nominated deputy first minister, a post with equal power but less prestige. View image in fullscreen The newly appointed first minister, Michelle O'Neill (left), and deputy first minister, Emma Little-Pengelly. Photograph: Northern Ireland Executive/PA The devolved government reconvened after the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) walked out of Stormont on 3 February 2022 in protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements that it said undermined the region’s place in the UK. The party agreed to end the boycott this week after its leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, wrung concessions from the UK government that smoothed the so-called Irish Sea border. O’Neill, Sinn Féin’s deputy leader, became first minister in accordance with a May 2022 assembly election in which the republican party overtook the DUP as the biggest party, a seismic symbolic and psychological shift. The former DUP leader, Edwin Poots, was elected as speaker by members. O’Neill had played down constitutional issues in the run-up to the sitting but earlier this week Sinn Féin’s leader, Mary Lou McDonald, said Irish unity was now within “touching distance”. Sinn Féin, the DUP, the Alliance and the Ulster Unionist party will share ministerial positions using the D’Hondt mechanism based on party strengths, with the exception of the justice ministry, which is decided using a cross-community vote. The Social Democratic and Labour party will form the executive’s opposition. The executive faces a daunting list of problems including a fiscal crisis, crumbling public services and eroded faith in democracy. Stormont’s restoration will release a £3.3bn package – including pay rises for public sector workers who have staged multiple strikes – that the UK government had made available, conditional on the revival of institutions set up under the 1998 Good Friday agreement. Donaldson said the parties would seek additional funding from the Treasury. “The finance piece is unfinished business which we intend to finish.” Business leaders and the Irish government have welcomed the return of power sharing, saying it should provide stability after years of Brexit-related convulsions. The new rules to smooth trade across the Irish Sea were unveiled by the government on Wednesday. The measures remove routine checks on goods from Great Britain that are destined to remain in Northern Ireland and replace them with a “UK internal market system” for goods that remain within the UK. The House of Commons approved the changes on Thursday without a formal vote, despite Brexiters’ concerns about the region remaining under EU law. Explore more on these topics Northern Irish politics Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Brexit Northern Ireland news Share Reuse this content 1:07 Historic moment as Michelle O'Neill becomes Northern Ireland's first minister – video This article is more than 1 year old Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill appointed first minister as Stormont reconvenes This article is more than 1 year old Northern Ireland assembly members gather to restore power sharing after two-year DUP boycott Northern Ireland’s devolved government has reconvened and appointed Michelle O’Neill as first minister in a historic moment for Sinn Féin and Irish nationalism. The Stormont assembly nominated the County Tyrone republican as the region’s first nationalist first minister – and the first non-unionist executive leader since the partition of Ireland in 1921. O’Neill avoided triumphalism and made no explicit mention of Irish unity in an inaugural address that focused on reconciliation and bread-and-butter issues. “Wherever we come from, whatever our aspirations, we can and must build our future together,” she said. “We must make power sharing work because collectively, we are charged with leading and delivering for all our people, for every community.” The appointment of a republican first minister represented “a new dawn” unimaginable to previous generations that grew up with discrimination against Catholics, said O’Neill. “That state is now gone.” O’Neill will jointly lead the executive with Emma Little-Pengelly, a Democratic Unionist who was nominated deputy first minister, a post with equal power but less prestige. View image in fullscreen The newly appointed first minister, Michelle O'Neill (left), and deputy first minister, Emma Little-Pengelly. Photograph: Northern Ireland Executive/PA The devolved government reconvened after the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) walked out of Stormont on 3 February 2022 in protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements that it said undermined the region’s place in the UK. The party agreed to end the boycott this week after its leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, wrung concessions from the UK government that smoothed the so-called Irish Sea border. O’Neill, Sinn Féin’s deputy leader, became first minister in accordance with a May 2022 assembly election in which the republican party overtook the DUP as the biggest party, a seismic symbolic and psychological shift. The former DUP leader, Edwin Poots, was elected as speaker by members. O’Neill had played down constitutional issues in the run-up to the sitting but earlier this week Sinn Féin’s leader, Mary Lou McDonald, said Irish unity was now within “touching distance”. Sinn Féin, the DUP, the Alliance and the Ulster Unionist party will share ministerial positions using the D’Hondt mechanism based on party strengths, with the exception of the justice ministry, which is decided using a cross-community vote. The Social Democratic and Labour party will form the executive’s opposition. The executive faces a daunting list of problems including a fiscal crisis, crumbling public services and eroded faith in democracy. Stormont’s restoration will release a £3.3bn package – including pay rises for public sector workers who have staged multiple strikes – that the UK government had made available, conditional on the revival of institutions set up under the 1998 Good Friday agreement. Donaldson said the parties would seek additional funding from the Treasury. “The finance piece is unfinished business which we intend to finish.” Business leaders and the Irish government have welcomed the return of power sharing, saying it should provide stability after years of Brexit-related convulsions. The new rules to smooth trade across the Irish Sea were unveiled by the government on Wednesday. The measures remove routine checks on goods from Great Britain that are destined to remain in Northern Ireland and replace them with a “UK internal market system” for goods that remain within the UK. The House of Commons approved the changes on Thursday without a formal vote, despite Brexiters’ concerns about the region remaining under EU law. Explore more on these topics Northern Irish politics Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Brexit Northern Ireland news Share Reuse this content 1:07 Historic moment as Michelle O'Neill becomes Northern Ireland's first minister – video 1:07 Historic moment as Michelle O'Neill becomes Northern Ireland's first minister – video 1:07 Historic moment as Michelle O'Neill becomes Northern Ireland's first minister – video 1:07 Historic moment as Michelle O'Neill becomes Northern Ireland's first minister – video This article is more than 1 year old Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill appointed first minister as Stormont reconvenes This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill appointed first minister as Stormont reconvenes This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill appointed first minister as Stormont reconvenes 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 Northern Ireland assembly members gather to restore power sharing after two-year DUP boycott Northern Ireland assembly members gather to restore power sharing after two-year DUP boycott Northern Ireland assembly members gather to restore power sharing after two-year DUP boycott Northern Ireland’s devolved government has reconvened and appointed Michelle O’Neill as first minister in a historic moment for Sinn Féin and Irish nationalism. The Stormont assembly nominated the County Tyrone republican as the region’s first nationalist first minister – and the first non-unionist executive leader since the partition of Ireland in 1921. O’Neill avoided triumphalism and made no explicit mention of Irish unity in an inaugural address that focused on reconciliation and bread-and-butter issues. “Wherever we come from, whatever our aspirations, we can and must build our future together,” she said. “We must make power sharing work because collectively, we are charged with leading and delivering for all our people, for every community.” The appointment of a republican first minister represented “a new dawn” unimaginable to previous generations that grew up with discrimination against Catholics, said O’Neill. “That state is now gone.” O’Neill will jointly lead the executive with Emma Little-Pengelly, a Democratic Unionist who was nominated deputy first minister, a post with equal power but less prestige. View image in fullscreen The newly appointed first minister, Michelle O'Neill (left), and deputy first minister, Emma Little-Pengelly. Photograph: Northern Ireland Executive/PA The devolved government reconvened after the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) walked out of Stormont on 3 February 2022 in protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements that it said undermined the region’s place in the UK. The party agreed to end the boycott this week after its leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, wrung concessions from the UK government that smoothed the so-called Irish Sea border. O’Neill, Sinn Féin’s deputy leader, became first minister in accordance with a May 2022 assembly election in which the republican party overtook the DUP as the biggest party, a seismic symbolic and psychological shift. The former DUP leader, Edwin Poots, was elected as speaker by members. O’Neill had played down constitutional issues in the run-up to the sitting but earlier this week Sinn Féin’s leader, Mary Lou McDonald, said Irish unity was now within “touching distance”. Sinn Féin, the DUP, the Alliance and the Ulster Unionist party will share ministerial positions using the D’Hondt mechanism based on party strengths, with the exception of the justice ministry, which is decided using a cross-community vote. The Social Democratic and Labour party will form the executive’s opposition. The executive faces a daunting list of problems including a fiscal crisis, crumbling public services and eroded faith in democracy. Stormont’s restoration will release a £3.3bn package – including pay rises for public sector workers who have staged multiple strikes – that the UK government had made available, conditional on the revival of institutions set up under the 1998 Good Friday agreement. Donaldson said the parties would seek additional funding from the Treasury. “The finance piece is unfinished business which we intend to finish.” Business leaders and the Irish government have welcomed the return of power sharing, saying it should provide stability after years of Brexit-related convulsions. The new rules to smooth trade across the Irish Sea were unveiled by the government on Wednesday. The measures remove routine checks on goods from Great Britain that are destined to remain in Northern Ireland and replace them with a “UK internal market system” for goods that remain within the UK. The House of Commons approved the changes on Thursday without a formal vote, despite Brexiters’ concerns about the region remaining under EU law. Explore more on these topics Northern Irish politics Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Brexit Northern Ireland news Share Reuse this content Northern Ireland’s devolved government has reconvened and appointed Michelle O’Neill as first minister in a historic moment for Sinn Féin and Irish nationalism. The Stormont assembly nominated the County Tyrone republican as the region’s first nationalist first minister – and the first non-unionist executive leader since the partition of Ireland in 1921. O’Neill avoided triumphalism and made no explicit mention of Irish unity in an inaugural address that focused on reconciliation and bread-and-butter issues. “Wherever we come from, whatever our aspirations, we can and must build our future together,” she said. “We must make power sharing work because collectively, we are charged with leading and delivering for all our people, for every community.” The appointment of a republican first minister represented “a new dawn” unimaginable to previous generations that grew up with discrimination against Catholics, said O’Neill. “That state is now gone.” O’Neill will jointly lead the executive with Emma Little-Pengelly, a Democratic Unionist who was nominated deputy first minister, a post with equal power but less prestige. View image in fullscreen The newly appointed first minister, Michelle O'Neill (left), and deputy first minister, Emma Little-Pengelly. Photograph: Northern Ireland Executive/PA The devolved government reconvened after the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) walked out of Stormont on 3 February 2022 in protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements that it said undermined the region’s place in the UK. The party agreed to end the boycott this week after its leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, wrung concessions from the UK government that smoothed the so-called Irish Sea border. O’Neill, Sinn Féin’s deputy leader, became first minister in accordance with a May 2022 assembly election in which the republican party overtook the DUP as the biggest party, a seismic symbolic and psychological shift. The former DUP leader, Edwin Poots, was elected as speaker by members. O’Neill had played down constitutional issues in the run-up to the sitting but earlier this week Sinn Féin’s leader, Mary Lou McDonald, said Irish unity was now within “touching distance”. Sinn Féin, the DUP, the Alliance and the Ulster Unionist party will share ministerial positions using the D’Hondt mechanism based on party strengths, with the exception of the justice ministry, which is decided using a cross-community vote. The Social Democratic and Labour party will form the executive’s opposition. The executive faces a daunting list of problems including a fiscal crisis, crumbling public services and eroded faith in democracy. Stormont’s restoration will release a £3.3bn package – including pay rises for public sector workers who have staged multiple strikes – that the UK government had made available, conditional on the revival of institutions set up under the 1998 Good Friday agreement. Donaldson said the parties would seek additional funding from the Treasury. “The finance piece is unfinished business which we intend to finish.” Business leaders and the Irish government have welcomed the return of power sharing, saying it should provide stability after years of Brexit-related convulsions. The new rules to smooth trade across the Irish Sea were unveiled by the government on Wednesday. The measures remove routine checks on goods from Great Britain that are destined to remain in Northern Ireland and replace them with a “UK internal market system” for goods that remain within the UK. The House of Commons approved the changes on Thursday without a formal vote, despite Brexiters’ concerns about the region remaining under EU law. Explore more on these topics Northern Irish politics Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Brexit Northern Ireland news Share Reuse this content Northern Ireland’s devolved government has reconvened and appointed Michelle O’Neill as first minister in a historic moment for Sinn Féin and Irish nationalism. The Stormont assembly nominated the County Tyrone republican as the region’s first nationalist first minister – and the first non-unionist executive leader since the partition of Ireland in 1921. O’Neill avoided triumphalism and made no explicit mention of Irish unity in an inaugural address that focused on reconciliation and bread-and-butter issues. “Wherever we come from, whatever our aspirations, we can and must build our future together,” she said. “We must make power sharing work because collectively, we are charged with leading and delivering for all our people, for every community.” The appointment of a republican first minister represented “a new dawn” unimaginable to previous generations that grew up with discrimination against Catholics, said O’Neill. “That state is now gone.” O’Neill will jointly lead the executive with Emma Little-Pengelly, a Democratic Unionist who was nominated deputy first minister, a post with equal power but less prestige. View image in fullscreen The newly appointed first minister, Michelle O'Neill (left), and deputy first minister, Emma Little-Pengelly. Photograph: Northern Ireland Executive/PA The devolved government reconvened after the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) walked out of Stormont on 3 February 2022 in protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements that it said undermined the region’s place in the UK. The party agreed to end the boycott this week after its leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, wrung concessions from the UK government that smoothed the so-called Irish Sea border. O’Neill, Sinn Féin’s deputy leader, became first minister in accordance with a May 2022 assembly election in which the republican party overtook the DUP as the biggest party, a seismic symbolic and psychological shift. The former DUP leader, Edwin Poots, was elected as speaker by members. O’Neill had played down constitutional issues in the run-up to the sitting but earlier this week Sinn Féin’s leader, Mary Lou McDonald, said Irish unity was now within “touching distance”. Sinn Féin, the DUP, the Alliance and the Ulster Unionist party will share ministerial positions using the D’Hondt mechanism based on party strengths, with the exception of the justice ministry, which is decided using a cross-community vote. The Social Democratic and Labour party will form the executive’s opposition. The executive faces a daunting list of problems including a fiscal crisis, crumbling public services and eroded faith in democracy. Stormont’s restoration will release a £3.3bn package – including pay rises for public sector workers who have staged multiple strikes – that the UK government had made available, conditional on the revival of institutions set up under the 1998 Good Friday agreement. Donaldson said the parties would seek additional funding from the Treasury. “The finance piece is unfinished business which we intend to finish.” Business leaders and the Irish government have welcomed the return of power sharing, saying it should provide stability after years of Brexit-related convulsions. The new rules to smooth trade across the Irish Sea were unveiled by the government on Wednesday. The measures remove routine checks on goods from Great Britain that are destined to remain in Northern Ireland and replace them with a “UK internal market system” for goods that remain within the UK. The House of Commons approved the changes on Thursday without a formal vote, despite Brexiters’ concerns about the region remaining under EU law. Northern Ireland’s devolved government has reconvened and appointed Michelle O’Neill as first minister in a historic moment for Sinn Féin and Irish nationalism. The Stormont assembly nominated the County Tyrone republican as the region’s first nationalist first minister – and the first non-unionist executive leader since the partition of Ireland in 1921. O’Neill avoided triumphalism and made no explicit mention of Irish unity in an inaugural address that focused on reconciliation and bread-and-butter issues. “Wherever we come from, whatever our aspirations, we can and must build our future together,” she said. “We must make power sharing work because collectively, we are charged with leading and delivering for all our people, for every community.” The appointment of a republican first minister represented “a new dawn” unimaginable to previous generations that grew up with discrimination against Catholics, said O’Neill. “That state is now gone.” O’Neill will jointly lead the executive with Emma Little-Pengelly, a Democratic Unionist who was nominated deputy first minister, a post with equal power but less prestige. View image in fullscreen The newly appointed first minister, Michelle O'Neill (left), and deputy first minister, Emma Little-Pengelly. Photograph: Northern Ireland Executive/PA The devolved government reconvened after the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) walked out of Stormont on 3 February 2022 in protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements that it said undermined the region’s place in the UK. The party agreed to end the boycott this week after its leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, wrung concessions from the UK government that smoothed the so-called Irish Sea border. O’Neill, Sinn Féin’s deputy leader, became first minister in accordance with a May 2022 assembly election in which the republican party overtook the DUP as the biggest party, a seismic symbolic and psychological shift. The former DUP leader, Edwin Poots, was elected as speaker by members. O’Neill had played down constitutional issues in the run-up to the sitting but earlier this week Sinn Féin’s leader, Mary Lou McDonald, said Irish unity was now within “touching distance”. Sinn Féin, the DUP, the Alliance and the Ulster Unionist party will share ministerial positions using the D’Hondt mechanism based on party strengths, with the exception of the justice ministry, which is decided using a cross-community vote. The Social Democratic and Labour party will form the executive’s opposition. The executive faces a daunting list of problems including a fiscal crisis, crumbling public services and eroded faith in democracy. Stormont’s restoration will release a £3.3bn package – including pay rises for public sector workers who have staged multiple strikes – that the UK government had made available, conditional on the revival of institutions set up under the 1998 Good Friday agreement. Donaldson said the parties would seek additional funding from the Treasury. “The finance piece is unfinished business which we intend to finish.” Business leaders and the Irish government have welcomed the return of power sharing, saying it should provide stability after years of Brexit-related convulsions. The new rules to smooth trade across the Irish Sea were unveiled by the government on Wednesday. The measures remove routine checks on goods from Great Britain that are destined to remain in Northern Ireland and replace them with a “UK internal market system” for goods that remain within the UK. The House of Commons approved the changes on Thursday without a formal vote, despite Brexiters’ concerns about the region remaining under EU law. Northern Ireland’s devolved government has reconvened and appointed Michelle O’Neill as first minister in a historic moment for Sinn Féin and Irish nationalism. The Stormont assembly nominated the County Tyrone republican as the region’s first nationalist first minister – and the first non-unionist executive leader since the partition of Ireland in 1921. O’Neill avoided triumphalism and made no explicit mention of Irish unity in an inaugural address that focused on reconciliation and bread-and-butter issues. “Wherever we come from, whatever our aspirations, we can and must build our future together,” she said. “We must make power sharing work because collectively, we are charged with leading and delivering for all our people, for every community.” The appointment of a republican first minister represented “a new dawn” unimaginable to previous generations that grew up with discrimination against Catholics, said O’Neill. “That state is now gone.” O’Neill will jointly lead the executive with Emma Little-Pengelly, a Democratic Unionist who was nominated deputy first minister, a post with equal power but less prestige. The devolved government reconvened after the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) walked out of Stormont on 3 February 2022 in protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements that it said undermined the region’s place in the UK. The party agreed to end the boycott this week after its leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, wrung concessions from the UK government that smoothed the so-called Irish Sea border. O’Neill, Sinn Féin’s deputy leader, became first minister in accordance with a May 2022 assembly election in which the republican party overtook the DUP as the biggest party, a seismic symbolic and psychological shift. The former DUP leader, Edwin Poots, was elected as speaker by members. O’Neill had played down constitutional issues in the run-up to the sitting but earlier this week Sinn Féin’s leader, Mary Lou McDonald, said Irish unity was now within “touching distance”. Sinn Féin, the DUP, the Alliance and the Ulster Unionist party will share ministerial positions using the D’Hondt mechanism based on party strengths, with the exception of the justice ministry, which is decided using a cross-community vote. The Social Democratic and Labour party will form the executive’s opposition. The executive faces a daunting list of problems including a fiscal crisis, crumbling public services and eroded faith in democracy. Stormont’s restoration will release a £3.3bn package – including pay rises for public sector workers who have staged multiple strikes – that the UK government had made available, conditional on the revival of institutions set up under the 1998 Good Friday agreement. Donaldson said the parties would seek additional funding from the Treasury. “The finance piece is unfinished business which we intend to finish.” Business leaders and the Irish government have welcomed the return of power sharing, saying it should provide stability after years of Brexit-related convulsions. The new rules to smooth trade across the Irish Sea were unveiled by the government on Wednesday. The measures remove routine checks on goods from Great Britain that are destined to remain in Northern Ireland and replace them with a “UK internal market system” for goods that remain within the UK. The House of Commons approved the changes on Thursday without a formal vote, despite Brexiters’ concerns about the region remaining under EU law. Explore more on these topics Northern Irish politics Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Brexit Northern Ireland news Share Reuse this content Northern Irish politics Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Brexit Northern Ireland news
|
‘I will be a first minister for all’: Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill marks historic moment for once unionist state
1:07 Historic moment as Michelle O'Neill becomes Northern Ireland's first minister – video This article is more than 1 year old ‘I will be a first minister for all’: Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill marks historic moment for once unionist state This article is more than 1 year old Countdown for republicans to potential Irish unification ticks louder as new first minister pledges to ‘serve everyone equally’ at Stormont The chamber’s ornate ceiling remained blue, red and gold, and Portland stone still held up the Stormont edifice, but the beaming Sinn Féin faces declared this was a historic moment for Irish nationalism. Michelle O’Neill became Northern Ireland ’s first nationalist first minister in a day of symbolism and pomp that restored devolved government and etched an epitaph on the tomb of what was once a unionist state. The union endured – Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and a referendum on Irish unity is not on the horizon – but when the assembly nominated O’Neill at 2.33pm yesterday for republicans the countdown to potential unification ticked louder. O’Neill avoided triumphalism and made no explicit mention of constitutional change in an inaugural address that focused on reconciliation and bread-and-butter issues. “I will serve everyone equally and be a first minister for all,” she said. “Wherever we come from, whatever our aspirations, we can and must build our future together. We must make power-sharing work because collectively, we are charged with leading and delivering for all our people, for every community.” The appointment of a republican first minister represented “a new dawn” unimaginable to past generations of Catholics who experienced discrimination, said O’Neill, 47. “That state is now gone.” For all the conciliatory words, the County Tyrone republican comes from an IRA family, defends the legitimacy of IRA violence and honours IRA members. She tacitly disputes Northern Ireland’s legitimacy by referring to it as the “north of Ireland”. Stormont’s architects represented the six counties by building six floors and erecting six pillars, all mounted on a granite base, but Sinn Féin, ascendant north and south of the border, has its eyes on all 32 counties. O’Neill will lead the executive with Emma Little-Pengelly, a Democratic Unionist (DUP) who was nominated deputy first minister, a post with equal power but less prestige. Little-Pengelly, 44, recalled witnessing the aftermath of an IRA bomb as a girl but vowed to work with O’Neill to improve public services. “Michelle is an Irish republican, and I am a very proud unionist. We will never agree on those issues, but what we can agree on is that cancer doesn’t discriminate and our hospitals need to be fixed. Let us be a source of hope to those young people watching today, not one of despair.” Several unionist assembly members congratulated O’Neill but others wore funereal expressions that betrayed the psychological blow – a state designed in 1921 to enshrine a permanent unionist majority, with a Protestant assembly for a Protestant people, was no more. Demographic and political changes eroded that hegemony, and at the 2022 assembly election Sinn Féin overtook the DUP as the biggest party. A DUP boycott in protest at post-Brexit trading arrangements mothballed Stormont until this past week when the UK government tweaked the Windsor framework and smoothed the so-called Irish Sea border. The secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris , called it a great day for Northern Ireland and expressed optimism Stormont will break a stop-start cycle that has plagued it since the 1998 Good Friday agreement ushered in mandatory power-sharing. During the second world war Stormont was daubed with cow manure to camouflage it from German bombers. Jim Allister of the hardline Traditional Unionist Voice suggested the place still stank. “We have a Sinn Féin first minister, but not in my name, nor in the name of thousands of unionists who will never bow the knee to IRA-Sinn Féin,” he said. Allister accused the DUP of selling out and said Northern Ireland remained under EU customs rules, weakening its position in the UK. Rumoured loyalist protests at Stormont, an estate outside Belfast, failed to materialise. Instead health and transport workers brought banners to denounce crumbling public services and delayed pay rises. The assembly’s revival will unlock a £3.3bn financial package from London that should be enough to avert planned strikes but not solve a fiscal crisis worsened by two years of stalemate. Sinn Féin, the DUP, Alliance and the Ulster Unionist party (UUP) shared ministerial positions using the D’Hondt mechanism based on party strengths, except for justice, which Alliance leader Naomi Long filled on a cross-community vote. Sinn Fein nominated Conor Murphy as economy minister, John O’Dowd as infrastructure minister and Caoimhe Archibald as finance minister. The DUP nominated Paul Givan to education and Gordon Lyons to communities. Robin Swann of the UUP regained the health portfolio and Alliance’s Andrew Muir took agriculture, the environment and rural affairs. Edwin Poots, a former DUP leader, became assembly speaker. Matthew O’Toole leads the Social Democratic and Labour party (SDLP), which failed to qualify for the executive, as the opposition. His first act was to ask the DUP and Sinn Féin to commit to not walking out. “If we are to achieve anything we cannot continue with the threat of collapse looming over Stormont,” he said. 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 Northern Ireland The Observer Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Chris Heaton-Harris news Share Reuse this content 1:07 Historic moment as Michelle O'Neill becomes Northern Ireland's first minister – video This article is more than 1 year old ‘I will be a first minister for all’: Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill marks historic moment for once unionist state This article is more than 1 year old Countdown for republicans to potential Irish unification ticks louder as new first minister pledges to ‘serve everyone equally’ at Stormont The chamber’s ornate ceiling remained blue, red and gold, and Portland stone still held up the Stormont edifice, but the beaming Sinn Féin faces declared this was a historic moment for Irish nationalism. Michelle O’Neill became Northern Ireland ’s first nationalist first minister in a day of symbolism and pomp that restored devolved government and etched an epitaph on the tomb of what was once a unionist state. The union endured – Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and a referendum on Irish unity is not on the horizon – but when the assembly nominated O’Neill at 2.33pm yesterday for republicans the countdown to potential unification ticked louder. O’Neill avoided triumphalism and made no explicit mention of constitutional change in an inaugural address that focused on reconciliation and bread-and-butter issues. “I will serve everyone equally and be a first minister for all,” she said. “Wherever we come from, whatever our aspirations, we can and must build our future together. We must make power-sharing work because collectively, we are charged with leading and delivering for all our people, for every community.” The appointment of a republican first minister represented “a new dawn” unimaginable to past generations of Catholics who experienced discrimination, said O’Neill, 47. “That state is now gone.” For all the conciliatory words, the County Tyrone republican comes from an IRA family, defends the legitimacy of IRA violence and honours IRA members. She tacitly disputes Northern Ireland’s legitimacy by referring to it as the “north of Ireland”. Stormont’s architects represented the six counties by building six floors and erecting six pillars, all mounted on a granite base, but Sinn Féin, ascendant north and south of the border, has its eyes on all 32 counties. O’Neill will lead the executive with Emma Little-Pengelly, a Democratic Unionist (DUP) who was nominated deputy first minister, a post with equal power but less prestige. Little-Pengelly, 44, recalled witnessing the aftermath of an IRA bomb as a girl but vowed to work with O’Neill to improve public services. “Michelle is an Irish republican, and I am a very proud unionist. We will never agree on those issues, but what we can agree on is that cancer doesn’t discriminate and our hospitals need to be fixed. Let us be a source of hope to those young people watching today, not one of despair.” Several unionist assembly members congratulated O’Neill but others wore funereal expressions that betrayed the psychological blow – a state designed in 1921 to enshrine a permanent unionist majority, with a Protestant assembly for a Protestant people, was no more. Demographic and political changes eroded that hegemony, and at the 2022 assembly election Sinn Féin overtook the DUP as the biggest party. A DUP boycott in protest at post-Brexit trading arrangements mothballed Stormont until this past week when the UK government tweaked the Windsor framework and smoothed the so-called Irish Sea border. The secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris , called it a great day for Northern Ireland and expressed optimism Stormont will break a stop-start cycle that has plagued it since the 1998 Good Friday agreement ushered in mandatory power-sharing. During the second world war Stormont was daubed with cow manure to camouflage it from German bombers. Jim Allister of the hardline Traditional Unionist Voice suggested the place still stank. “We have a Sinn Féin first minister, but not in my name, nor in the name of thousands of unionists who will never bow the knee to IRA-Sinn Féin,” he said. Allister accused the DUP of selling out and said Northern Ireland remained under EU customs rules, weakening its position in the UK. Rumoured loyalist protests at Stormont, an estate outside Belfast, failed to materialise. Instead health and transport workers brought banners to denounce crumbling public services and delayed pay rises. The assembly’s revival will unlock a £3.3bn financial package from London that should be enough to avert planned strikes but not solve a fiscal crisis worsened by two years of stalemate. Sinn Féin, the DUP, Alliance and the Ulster Unionist party (UUP) shared ministerial positions using the D’Hondt mechanism based on party strengths, except for justice, which Alliance leader Naomi Long filled on a cross-community vote. Sinn Fein nominated Conor Murphy as economy minister, John O’Dowd as infrastructure minister and Caoimhe Archibald as finance minister. The DUP nominated Paul Givan to education and Gordon Lyons to communities. Robin Swann of the UUP regained the health portfolio and Alliance’s Andrew Muir took agriculture, the environment and rural affairs. Edwin Poots, a former DUP leader, became assembly speaker. Matthew O’Toole leads the Social Democratic and Labour party (SDLP), which failed to qualify for the executive, as the opposition. His first act was to ask the DUP and Sinn Féin to commit to not walking out. “If we are to achieve anything we cannot continue with the threat of collapse looming over Stormont,” he said. 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 Northern Ireland The Observer Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Chris Heaton-Harris news Share Reuse this content 1:07 Historic moment as Michelle O'Neill becomes Northern Ireland's first minister – video 1:07 Historic moment as Michelle O'Neill becomes Northern Ireland's first minister – video 1:07 Historic moment as Michelle O'Neill becomes Northern Ireland's first minister – video 1:07 Historic moment as Michelle O'Neill becomes Northern Ireland's first minister – video This article is more than 1 year old ‘I will be a first minister for all’: Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill marks historic moment for once unionist state This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘I will be a first minister for all’: Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill marks historic moment for once unionist state This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘I will be a first minister for all’: Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill marks historic moment for once unionist state 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 Countdown for republicans to potential Irish unification ticks louder as new first minister pledges to ‘serve everyone equally’ at Stormont Countdown for republicans to potential Irish unification ticks louder as new first minister pledges to ‘serve everyone equally’ at Stormont Countdown for republicans to potential Irish unification ticks louder as new first minister pledges to ‘serve everyone equally’ at Stormont The chamber’s ornate ceiling remained blue, red and gold, and Portland stone still held up the Stormont edifice, but the beaming Sinn Féin faces declared this was a historic moment for Irish nationalism. Michelle O’Neill became Northern Ireland ’s first nationalist first minister in a day of symbolism and pomp that restored devolved government and etched an epitaph on the tomb of what was once a unionist state. The union endured – Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and a referendum on Irish unity is not on the horizon – but when the assembly nominated O’Neill at 2.33pm yesterday for republicans the countdown to potential unification ticked louder. O’Neill avoided triumphalism and made no explicit mention of constitutional change in an inaugural address that focused on reconciliation and bread-and-butter issues. “I will serve everyone equally and be a first minister for all,” she said. “Wherever we come from, whatever our aspirations, we can and must build our future together. We must make power-sharing work because collectively, we are charged with leading and delivering for all our people, for every community.” The appointment of a republican first minister represented “a new dawn” unimaginable to past generations of Catholics who experienced discrimination, said O’Neill, 47. “That state is now gone.” For all the conciliatory words, the County Tyrone republican comes from an IRA family, defends the legitimacy of IRA violence and honours IRA members. She tacitly disputes Northern Ireland’s legitimacy by referring to it as the “north of Ireland”. Stormont’s architects represented the six counties by building six floors and erecting six pillars, all mounted on a granite base, but Sinn Féin, ascendant north and south of the border, has its eyes on all 32 counties. O’Neill will lead the executive with Emma Little-Pengelly, a Democratic Unionist (DUP) who was nominated deputy first minister, a post with equal power but less prestige. Little-Pengelly, 44, recalled witnessing the aftermath of an IRA bomb as a girl but vowed to work with O’Neill to improve public services. “Michelle is an Irish republican, and I am a very proud unionist. We will never agree on those issues, but what we can agree on is that cancer doesn’t discriminate and our hospitals need to be fixed. Let us be a source of hope to those young people watching today, not one of despair.” Several unionist assembly members congratulated O’Neill but others wore funereal expressions that betrayed the psychological blow – a state designed in 1921 to enshrine a permanent unionist majority, with a Protestant assembly for a Protestant people, was no more. Demographic and political changes eroded that hegemony, and at the 2022 assembly election Sinn Féin overtook the DUP as the biggest party. A DUP boycott in protest at post-Brexit trading arrangements mothballed Stormont until this past week when the UK government tweaked the Windsor framework and smoothed the so-called Irish Sea border. The secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris , called it a great day for Northern Ireland and expressed optimism Stormont will break a stop-start cycle that has plagued it since the 1998 Good Friday agreement ushered in mandatory power-sharing. During the second world war Stormont was daubed with cow manure to camouflage it from German bombers. Jim Allister of the hardline Traditional Unionist Voice suggested the place still stank. “We have a Sinn Féin first minister, but not in my name, nor in the name of thousands of unionists who will never bow the knee to IRA-Sinn Féin,” he said. Allister accused the DUP of selling out and said Northern Ireland remained under EU customs rules, weakening its position in the UK. Rumoured loyalist protests at Stormont, an estate outside Belfast, failed to materialise. Instead health and transport workers brought banners to denounce crumbling public services and delayed pay rises. The assembly’s revival will unlock a £3.3bn financial package from London that should be enough to avert planned strikes but not solve a fiscal crisis worsened by two years of stalemate. Sinn Féin, the DUP, Alliance and the Ulster Unionist party (UUP) shared ministerial positions using the D’Hondt mechanism based on party strengths, except for justice, which Alliance leader Naomi Long filled on a cross-community vote. Sinn Fein nominated Conor Murphy as economy minister, John O’Dowd as infrastructure minister and Caoimhe Archibald as finance minister. The DUP nominated Paul Givan to education and Gordon Lyons to communities. Robin Swann of the UUP regained the health portfolio and Alliance’s Andrew Muir took agriculture, the environment and rural affairs. Edwin Poots, a former DUP leader, became assembly speaker. Matthew O’Toole leads the Social Democratic and Labour party (SDLP), which failed to qualify for the executive, as the opposition. His first act was to ask the DUP and Sinn Féin to commit to not walking out. “If we are to achieve anything we cannot continue with the threat of collapse looming over Stormont,” he said. 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 Northern Ireland The Observer Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Chris Heaton-Harris news Share Reuse this content The chamber’s ornate ceiling remained blue, red and gold, and Portland stone still held up the Stormont edifice, but the beaming Sinn Féin faces declared this was a historic moment for Irish nationalism. Michelle O’Neill became Northern Ireland ’s first nationalist first minister in a day of symbolism and pomp that restored devolved government and etched an epitaph on the tomb of what was once a unionist state. The union endured – Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and a referendum on Irish unity is not on the horizon – but when the assembly nominated O’Neill at 2.33pm yesterday for republicans the countdown to potential unification ticked louder. O’Neill avoided triumphalism and made no explicit mention of constitutional change in an inaugural address that focused on reconciliation and bread-and-butter issues. “I will serve everyone equally and be a first minister for all,” she said. “Wherever we come from, whatever our aspirations, we can and must build our future together. We must make power-sharing work because collectively, we are charged with leading and delivering for all our people, for every community.” The appointment of a republican first minister represented “a new dawn” unimaginable to past generations of Catholics who experienced discrimination, said O’Neill, 47. “That state is now gone.” For all the conciliatory words, the County Tyrone republican comes from an IRA family, defends the legitimacy of IRA violence and honours IRA members. She tacitly disputes Northern Ireland’s legitimacy by referring to it as the “north of Ireland”. Stormont’s architects represented the six counties by building six floors and erecting six pillars, all mounted on a granite base, but Sinn Féin, ascendant north and south of the border, has its eyes on all 32 counties. O’Neill will lead the executive with Emma Little-Pengelly, a Democratic Unionist (DUP) who was nominated deputy first minister, a post with equal power but less prestige. Little-Pengelly, 44, recalled witnessing the aftermath of an IRA bomb as a girl but vowed to work with O’Neill to improve public services. “Michelle is an Irish republican, and I am a very proud unionist. We will never agree on those issues, but what we can agree on is that cancer doesn’t discriminate and our hospitals need to be fixed. Let us be a source of hope to those young people watching today, not one of despair.” Several unionist assembly members congratulated O’Neill but others wore funereal expressions that betrayed the psychological blow – a state designed in 1921 to enshrine a permanent unionist majority, with a Protestant assembly for a Protestant people, was no more. Demographic and political changes eroded that hegemony, and at the 2022 assembly election Sinn Féin overtook the DUP as the biggest party. A DUP boycott in protest at post-Brexit trading arrangements mothballed Stormont until this past week when the UK government tweaked the Windsor framework and smoothed the so-called Irish Sea border. The secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris , called it a great day for Northern Ireland and expressed optimism Stormont will break a stop-start cycle that has plagued it since the 1998 Good Friday agreement ushered in mandatory power-sharing. During the second world war Stormont was daubed with cow manure to camouflage it from German bombers. Jim Allister of the hardline Traditional Unionist Voice suggested the place still stank. “We have a Sinn Féin first minister, but not in my name, nor in the name of thousands of unionists who will never bow the knee to IRA-Sinn Féin,” he said. Allister accused the DUP of selling out and said Northern Ireland remained under EU customs rules, weakening its position in the UK. Rumoured loyalist protests at Stormont, an estate outside Belfast, failed to materialise. Instead health and transport workers brought banners to denounce crumbling public services and delayed pay rises. The assembly’s revival will unlock a £3.3bn financial package from London that should be enough to avert planned strikes but not solve a fiscal crisis worsened by two years of stalemate. Sinn Féin, the DUP, Alliance and the Ulster Unionist party (UUP) shared ministerial positions using the D’Hondt mechanism based on party strengths, except for justice, which Alliance leader Naomi Long filled on a cross-community vote. Sinn Fein nominated Conor Murphy as economy minister, John O’Dowd as infrastructure minister and Caoimhe Archibald as finance minister. The DUP nominated Paul Givan to education and Gordon Lyons to communities. Robin Swann of the UUP regained the health portfolio and Alliance’s Andrew Muir took agriculture, the environment and rural affairs. Edwin Poots, a former DUP leader, became assembly speaker. Matthew O’Toole leads the Social Democratic and Labour party (SDLP), which failed to qualify for the executive, as the opposition. His first act was to ask the DUP and Sinn Féin to commit to not walking out. “If we are to achieve anything we cannot continue with the threat of collapse looming over Stormont,” he said. 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 Northern Ireland The Observer Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Chris Heaton-Harris news Share Reuse this content The chamber’s ornate ceiling remained blue, red and gold, and Portland stone still held up the Stormont edifice, but the beaming Sinn Féin faces declared this was a historic moment for Irish nationalism. Michelle O’Neill became Northern Ireland ’s first nationalist first minister in a day of symbolism and pomp that restored devolved government and etched an epitaph on the tomb of what was once a unionist state. The union endured – Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and a referendum on Irish unity is not on the horizon – but when the assembly nominated O’Neill at 2.33pm yesterday for republicans the countdown to potential unification ticked louder. O’Neill avoided triumphalism and made no explicit mention of constitutional change in an inaugural address that focused on reconciliation and bread-and-butter issues. “I will serve everyone equally and be a first minister for all,” she said. “Wherever we come from, whatever our aspirations, we can and must build our future together. We must make power-sharing work because collectively, we are charged with leading and delivering for all our people, for every community.” The appointment of a republican first minister represented “a new dawn” unimaginable to past generations of Catholics who experienced discrimination, said O’Neill, 47. “That state is now gone.” For all the conciliatory words, the County Tyrone republican comes from an IRA family, defends the legitimacy of IRA violence and honours IRA members. She tacitly disputes Northern Ireland’s legitimacy by referring to it as the “north of Ireland”. Stormont’s architects represented the six counties by building six floors and erecting six pillars, all mounted on a granite base, but Sinn Féin, ascendant north and south of the border, has its eyes on all 32 counties. O’Neill will lead the executive with Emma Little-Pengelly, a Democratic Unionist (DUP) who was nominated deputy first minister, a post with equal power but less prestige. Little-Pengelly, 44, recalled witnessing the aftermath of an IRA bomb as a girl but vowed to work with O’Neill to improve public services. “Michelle is an Irish republican, and I am a very proud unionist. We will never agree on those issues, but what we can agree on is that cancer doesn’t discriminate and our hospitals need to be fixed. Let us be a source of hope to those young people watching today, not one of despair.” Several unionist assembly members congratulated O’Neill but others wore funereal expressions that betrayed the psychological blow – a state designed in 1921 to enshrine a permanent unionist majority, with a Protestant assembly for a Protestant people, was no more. Demographic and political changes eroded that hegemony, and at the 2022 assembly election Sinn Féin overtook the DUP as the biggest party. A DUP boycott in protest at post-Brexit trading arrangements mothballed Stormont until this past week when the UK government tweaked the Windsor framework and smoothed the so-called Irish Sea border. The secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris , called it a great day for Northern Ireland and expressed optimism Stormont will break a stop-start cycle that has plagued it since the 1998 Good Friday agreement ushered in mandatory power-sharing. During the second world war Stormont was daubed with cow manure to camouflage it from German bombers. Jim Allister of the hardline Traditional Unionist Voice suggested the place still stank. “We have a Sinn Féin first minister, but not in my name, nor in the name of thousands of unionists who will never bow the knee to IRA-Sinn Féin,” he said. Allister accused the DUP of selling out and said Northern Ireland remained under EU customs rules, weakening its position in the UK. Rumoured loyalist protests at Stormont, an estate outside Belfast, failed to materialise. Instead health and transport workers brought banners to denounce crumbling public services and delayed pay rises. The assembly’s revival will unlock a £3.3bn financial package from London that should be enough to avert planned strikes but not solve a fiscal crisis worsened by two years of stalemate. Sinn Féin, the DUP, Alliance and the Ulster Unionist party (UUP) shared ministerial positions using the D’Hondt mechanism based on party strengths, except for justice, which Alliance leader Naomi Long filled on a cross-community vote. Sinn Fein nominated Conor Murphy as economy minister, John O’Dowd as infrastructure minister and Caoimhe Archibald as finance minister. The DUP nominated Paul Givan to education and Gordon Lyons to communities. Robin Swann of the UUP regained the health portfolio and Alliance’s Andrew Muir took agriculture, the environment and rural affairs. Edwin Poots, a former DUP leader, became assembly speaker. Matthew O’Toole leads the Social Democratic and Labour party (SDLP), which failed to qualify for the executive, as the opposition. His first act was to ask the DUP and Sinn Féin to commit to not walking out. “If we are to achieve anything we cannot continue with the threat of collapse looming over Stormont,” he said. The chamber’s ornate ceiling remained blue, red and gold, and Portland stone still held up the Stormont edifice, but the beaming Sinn Féin faces declared this was a historic moment for Irish nationalism. Michelle O’Neill became Northern Ireland ’s first nationalist first minister in a day of symbolism and pomp that restored devolved government and etched an epitaph on the tomb of what was once a unionist state. The union endured – Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and a referendum on Irish unity is not on the horizon – but when the assembly nominated O’Neill at 2.33pm yesterday for republicans the countdown to potential unification ticked louder. O’Neill avoided triumphalism and made no explicit mention of constitutional change in an inaugural address that focused on reconciliation and bread-and-butter issues. “I will serve everyone equally and be a first minister for all,” she said. “Wherever we come from, whatever our aspirations, we can and must build our future together. We must make power-sharing work because collectively, we are charged with leading and delivering for all our people, for every community.” The appointment of a republican first minister represented “a new dawn” unimaginable to past generations of Catholics who experienced discrimination, said O’Neill, 47. “That state is now gone.” For all the conciliatory words, the County Tyrone republican comes from an IRA family, defends the legitimacy of IRA violence and honours IRA members. She tacitly disputes Northern Ireland’s legitimacy by referring to it as the “north of Ireland”. Stormont’s architects represented the six counties by building six floors and erecting six pillars, all mounted on a granite base, but Sinn Féin, ascendant north and south of the border, has its eyes on all 32 counties. O’Neill will lead the executive with Emma Little-Pengelly, a Democratic Unionist (DUP) who was nominated deputy first minister, a post with equal power but less prestige. Little-Pengelly, 44, recalled witnessing the aftermath of an IRA bomb as a girl but vowed to work with O’Neill to improve public services. “Michelle is an Irish republican, and I am a very proud unionist. We will never agree on those issues, but what we can agree on is that cancer doesn’t discriminate and our hospitals need to be fixed. Let us be a source of hope to those young people watching today, not one of despair.” Several unionist assembly members congratulated O’Neill but others wore funereal expressions that betrayed the psychological blow – a state designed in 1921 to enshrine a permanent unionist majority, with a Protestant assembly for a Protestant people, was no more. Demographic and political changes eroded that hegemony, and at the 2022 assembly election Sinn Féin overtook the DUP as the biggest party. A DUP boycott in protest at post-Brexit trading arrangements mothballed Stormont until this past week when the UK government tweaked the Windsor framework and smoothed the so-called Irish Sea border. The secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris , called it a great day for Northern Ireland and expressed optimism Stormont will break a stop-start cycle that has plagued it since the 1998 Good Friday agreement ushered in mandatory power-sharing. During the second world war Stormont was daubed with cow manure to camouflage it from German bombers. Jim Allister of the hardline Traditional Unionist Voice suggested the place still stank. “We have a Sinn Féin first minister, but not in my name, nor in the name of thousands of unionists who will never bow the knee to IRA-Sinn Féin,” he said. Allister accused the DUP of selling out and said Northern Ireland remained under EU customs rules, weakening its position in the UK. Rumoured loyalist protests at Stormont, an estate outside Belfast, failed to materialise. Instead health and transport workers brought banners to denounce crumbling public services and delayed pay rises. The assembly’s revival will unlock a £3.3bn financial package from London that should be enough to avert planned strikes but not solve a fiscal crisis worsened by two years of stalemate. Sinn Féin, the DUP, Alliance and the Ulster Unionist party (UUP) shared ministerial positions using the D’Hondt mechanism based on party strengths, except for justice, which Alliance leader Naomi Long filled on a cross-community vote. Sinn Fein nominated Conor Murphy as economy minister, John O’Dowd as infrastructure minister and Caoimhe Archibald as finance minister. The DUP nominated Paul Givan to education and Gordon Lyons to communities. Robin Swann of the UUP regained the health portfolio and Alliance’s Andrew Muir took agriculture, the environment and rural affairs. Edwin Poots, a former DUP leader, became assembly speaker. Matthew O’Toole leads the Social Democratic and Labour party (SDLP), which failed to qualify for the executive, as the opposition. His first act was to ask the DUP and Sinn Féin to commit to not walking out. “If we are to achieve anything we cannot continue with the threat of collapse looming over Stormont,” he said. The chamber’s ornate ceiling remained blue, red and gold, and Portland stone still held up the Stormont edifice, but the beaming Sinn Féin faces declared this was a historic moment for Irish nationalism. Michelle O’Neill became Northern Ireland ’s first nationalist first minister in a day of symbolism and pomp that restored devolved government and etched an epitaph on the tomb of what was once a unionist state. The union endured – Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and a referendum on Irish unity is not on the horizon – but when the assembly nominated O’Neill at 2.33pm yesterday for republicans the countdown to potential unification ticked louder. O’Neill avoided triumphalism and made no explicit mention of constitutional change in an inaugural address that focused on reconciliation and bread-and-butter issues. “I will serve everyone equally and be a first minister for all,” she said. “Wherever we come from, whatever our aspirations, we can and must build our future together. We must make power-sharing work because collectively, we are charged with leading and delivering for all our people, for every community.” The appointment of a republican first minister represented “a new dawn” unimaginable to past generations of Catholics who experienced discrimination, said O’Neill, 47. “That state is now gone.” For all the conciliatory words, the County Tyrone republican comes from an IRA family, defends the legitimacy of IRA violence and honours IRA members. She tacitly disputes Northern Ireland’s legitimacy by referring to it as the “north of Ireland”. Stormont’s architects represented the six counties by building six floors and erecting six pillars, all mounted on a granite base, but Sinn Féin, ascendant north and south of the border, has its eyes on all 32 counties. O’Neill will lead the executive with Emma Little-Pengelly, a Democratic Unionist (DUP) who was nominated deputy first minister, a post with equal power but less prestige. Little-Pengelly, 44, recalled witnessing the aftermath of an IRA bomb as a girl but vowed to work with O’Neill to improve public services. “Michelle is an Irish republican, and I am a very proud unionist. We will never agree on those issues, but what we can agree on is that cancer doesn’t discriminate and our hospitals need to be fixed. Let us be a source of hope to those young people watching today, not one of despair.” Several unionist assembly members congratulated O’Neill but others wore funereal expressions that betrayed the psychological blow – a state designed in 1921 to enshrine a permanent unionist majority, with a Protestant assembly for a Protestant people, was no more. Demographic and political changes eroded that hegemony, and at the 2022 assembly election Sinn Féin overtook the DUP as the biggest party. A DUP boycott in protest at post-Brexit trading arrangements mothballed Stormont until this past week when the UK government tweaked the Windsor framework and smoothed the so-called Irish Sea border. The secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris , called it a great day for Northern Ireland and expressed optimism Stormont will break a stop-start cycle that has plagued it since the 1998 Good Friday agreement ushered in mandatory power-sharing. During the second world war Stormont was daubed with cow manure to camouflage it from German bombers. Jim Allister of the hardline Traditional Unionist Voice suggested the place still stank. “We have a Sinn Féin first minister, but not in my name, nor in the name of thousands of unionists who will never bow the knee to IRA-Sinn Féin,” he said. Allister accused the DUP of selling out and said Northern Ireland remained under EU customs rules, weakening its position in the UK. Rumoured loyalist protests at Stormont, an estate outside Belfast, failed to materialise. Instead health and transport workers brought banners to denounce crumbling public services and delayed pay rises. The assembly’s revival will unlock a £3.3bn financial package from London that should be enough to avert planned strikes but not solve a fiscal crisis worsened by two years of stalemate. Sinn Féin, the DUP, Alliance and the Ulster Unionist party (UUP) shared ministerial positions using the D’Hondt mechanism based on party strengths, except for justice, which Alliance leader Naomi Long filled on a cross-community vote. Sinn Fein nominated Conor Murphy as economy minister, John O’Dowd as infrastructure minister and Caoimhe Archibald as finance minister. The DUP nominated Paul Givan to education and Gordon Lyons to communities. Robin Swann of the UUP regained the health portfolio and Alliance’s Andrew Muir took agriculture, the environment and rural affairs. Edwin Poots, a former DUP leader, became assembly speaker. Matthew O’Toole leads the Social Democratic and Labour party (SDLP), which failed to qualify for the executive, as the opposition. His first act was to ask the DUP and Sinn Féin to commit to not walking out. “If we are to achieve anything we cannot continue with the threat of collapse looming over Stormont,” he said. 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 Northern Ireland The Observer Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Chris Heaton-Harris news Share Reuse this content Northern Ireland The Observer Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) Chris Heaton-Harris news
|
Rishi Sunak visits Northern Ireland to meet new power-sharing executive
Rishi Sunak speaks to members of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland in Lisburn. Photograph: Carrie Davenport/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak speaks to members of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland in Lisburn. Photograph: Carrie Davenport/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Rishi Sunak visits Northern Ireland to meet new power-sharing executive This article is more than 1 year old PM hails ‘fantastic cause for optimism’ as he seeks to put his stamp on success of Stormont reconvening Rishi Sunak has said there is “fantastic cause for optimism” after arriving in Northern Ireland to meet the leaders of a new power-sharing executive that ended two years of political deadlock. The prime minister arrived in Belfast on Sunday evening in advance of a meeting on Monday with Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill , who has made history by becoming the first nationalist first minister at Stormont. During a visit to the headquarters of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland in Lisburn, Sunak said political leaders had a “special opportunity” and the focus should now be on “delivering for families and businesses”. “It is great to be back in Northern Ireland this evening, a special part of our United Kingdom,” he added. ‘I will be a first minister for all’: Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill marks historic moment for once unionist state Read more “In the last few days, we have made significant progress towards a brighter future for people here. Yesterday, the assembly sat for the first time in two years. Tomorrow, the executive will meet. “Tonight, I have been meeting with volunteers and the crew at the air ambulance. It is people and services like this, and many more, that the executive can now focus on, delivering for families and businesses across Northern Ireland. And with the new deal that we have agreed, they will have both the funding and the powers to do exactly that.” Sunak’s trip caps a whirlwind week in Northern Ireland that restored devolved government after Downing Street persuaded the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) to end a boycott that had paralysed power sharing. Sunak will seek to put his stamp on that success, but any hope of a victory lap will be peppered by demands from O’Neill and other local leaders for urgent funding from London to shore up crumbling public services and infrastructure. What does return to power sharing mean for Northern Ireland? Read more The prime minister is also expected to meet the taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, amid tension with the Irish government over its legal challenge to the UK’s policy on Troubles-related offences. Stormont’s assembly reconvened on Saturday and appointed an executive exactly two years after the DUP collapsed the institution in protest over post-Brexit trading arrangements that unionists said undermined Northern Ireland’s position in the UK. Downing Street clinched a deal last week that assuaged DUP concerns and led to the belated formation of a devolved government based on a May 2022 assembly election in which Sinn Féin emerged as the biggest party – a milestone for Irish nationalism. Sunak’s seventh visit to Belfast will let him showcase a political win and offer some respite from bruising battles over childcare, Rwanda deportations and Conservative party divisions. On Monday he will meet O’Neill, as well as the DUP’s deputy first minister, Emma Little-Pengelly, and other members of the executive. It will be the first test of a ministerial group drawn from Sinn Féin , the DUP, Alliance and the Ulster Unionists. The executive faces crises in healthcare, the environment and other sectors. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The UK government has pledged £3.3bn to stabilise finances, including £600m to settle pay claims in a public sector bedevilled by strikes. O’Neill told the Press Association: “This place has been starved of public services funding for over a decade because of the Tories in London; we can do much better than that. With Sinn Féin in first minister post, has the republicans’ day come at last? Read more “That’s a fight I think we have to fight together and I think there’s a combined effort across the executive to have a proper funding model for here so we actually can do better public services and invest in the public sector workers.” The first minister said her election showed change was unfolding across Ireland and expressed hope that there would be a referendum on Irish unity within a decade. This need not destabilise Stormont, she told Sky News. “We can do two things at once: we can have power sharing, we can make it stable, we can work together every day in terms of public services while we also pursue our equally legitimate aspirations,” she said. Under the Good Friday agreement, a secretary of state should call a referendum if a majority in Northern Ireland appears to favour unification. O’Neill said this was “a decade of opportunity” to transform the status quo. “All the old norms, the nature of this state, the fact that a nationalist republican was never supposed to be first minister.” Explore more on these topics Northern Ireland Rishi Sunak Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak speaks to members of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland in Lisburn. Photograph: Carrie Davenport/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak speaks to members of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland in Lisburn. Photograph: Carrie Davenport/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Rishi Sunak visits Northern Ireland to meet new power-sharing executive This article is more than 1 year old PM hails ‘fantastic cause for optimism’ as he seeks to put his stamp on success of Stormont reconvening Rishi Sunak has said there is “fantastic cause for optimism” after arriving in Northern Ireland to meet the leaders of a new power-sharing executive that ended two years of political deadlock. The prime minister arrived in Belfast on Sunday evening in advance of a meeting on Monday with Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill , who has made history by becoming the first nationalist first minister at Stormont. During a visit to the headquarters of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland in Lisburn, Sunak said political leaders had a “special opportunity” and the focus should now be on “delivering for families and businesses”. “It is great to be back in Northern Ireland this evening, a special part of our United Kingdom,” he added. ‘I will be a first minister for all’: Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill marks historic moment for once unionist state Read more “In the last few days, we have made significant progress towards a brighter future for people here. Yesterday, the assembly sat for the first time in two years. Tomorrow, the executive will meet. “Tonight, I have been meeting with volunteers and the crew at the air ambulance. It is people and services like this, and many more, that the executive can now focus on, delivering for families and businesses across Northern Ireland. And with the new deal that we have agreed, they will have both the funding and the powers to do exactly that.” Sunak’s trip caps a whirlwind week in Northern Ireland that restored devolved government after Downing Street persuaded the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) to end a boycott that had paralysed power sharing. Sunak will seek to put his stamp on that success, but any hope of a victory lap will be peppered by demands from O’Neill and other local leaders for urgent funding from London to shore up crumbling public services and infrastructure. What does return to power sharing mean for Northern Ireland? Read more The prime minister is also expected to meet the taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, amid tension with the Irish government over its legal challenge to the UK’s policy on Troubles-related offences. Stormont’s assembly reconvened on Saturday and appointed an executive exactly two years after the DUP collapsed the institution in protest over post-Brexit trading arrangements that unionists said undermined Northern Ireland’s position in the UK. Downing Street clinched a deal last week that assuaged DUP concerns and led to the belated formation of a devolved government based on a May 2022 assembly election in which Sinn Féin emerged as the biggest party – a milestone for Irish nationalism. Sunak’s seventh visit to Belfast will let him showcase a political win and offer some respite from bruising battles over childcare, Rwanda deportations and Conservative party divisions. On Monday he will meet O’Neill, as well as the DUP’s deputy first minister, Emma Little-Pengelly, and other members of the executive. It will be the first test of a ministerial group drawn from Sinn Féin , the DUP, Alliance and the Ulster Unionists. The executive faces crises in healthcare, the environment and other sectors. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The UK government has pledged £3.3bn to stabilise finances, including £600m to settle pay claims in a public sector bedevilled by strikes. O’Neill told the Press Association: “This place has been starved of public services funding for over a decade because of the Tories in London; we can do much better than that. With Sinn Féin in first minister post, has the republicans’ day come at last? Read more “That’s a fight I think we have to fight together and I think there’s a combined effort across the executive to have a proper funding model for here so we actually can do better public services and invest in the public sector workers.” The first minister said her election showed change was unfolding across Ireland and expressed hope that there would be a referendum on Irish unity within a decade. This need not destabilise Stormont, she told Sky News. “We can do two things at once: we can have power sharing, we can make it stable, we can work together every day in terms of public services while we also pursue our equally legitimate aspirations,” she said. Under the Good Friday agreement, a secretary of state should call a referendum if a majority in Northern Ireland appears to favour unification. O’Neill said this was “a decade of opportunity” to transform the status quo. “All the old norms, the nature of this state, the fact that a nationalist republican was never supposed to be first minister.” Explore more on these topics Northern Ireland Rishi Sunak Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak speaks to members of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland in Lisburn. Photograph: Carrie Davenport/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak speaks to members of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland in Lisburn. Photograph: Carrie Davenport/AFP/Getty Images Rishi Sunak speaks to members of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland in Lisburn. Photograph: Carrie Davenport/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak speaks to members of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland in Lisburn. Photograph: Carrie Davenport/AFP/Getty Images Rishi Sunak speaks to members of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland in Lisburn. Photograph: Carrie Davenport/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak speaks to members of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland in Lisburn. Photograph: Carrie Davenport/AFP/Getty Images Rishi Sunak speaks to members of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland in Lisburn. Photograph: Carrie Davenport/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak speaks to members of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland in Lisburn. Photograph: Carrie Davenport/AFP/Getty Images Rishi Sunak speaks to members of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland in Lisburn. Photograph: Carrie Davenport/AFP/Getty Images Rishi Sunak speaks to members of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland in Lisburn. Photograph: Carrie Davenport/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Rishi Sunak visits Northern Ireland to meet new power-sharing executive This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Rishi Sunak visits Northern Ireland to meet new power-sharing executive This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Rishi Sunak visits Northern Ireland to meet new power-sharing executive 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 hails ‘fantastic cause for optimism’ as he seeks to put his stamp on success of Stormont reconvening PM hails ‘fantastic cause for optimism’ as he seeks to put his stamp on success of Stormont reconvening PM hails ‘fantastic cause for optimism’ as he seeks to put his stamp on success of Stormont reconvening Rishi Sunak has said there is “fantastic cause for optimism” after arriving in Northern Ireland to meet the leaders of a new power-sharing executive that ended two years of political deadlock. The prime minister arrived in Belfast on Sunday evening in advance of a meeting on Monday with Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill , who has made history by becoming the first nationalist first minister at Stormont. During a visit to the headquarters of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland in Lisburn, Sunak said political leaders had a “special opportunity” and the focus should now be on “delivering for families and businesses”. “It is great to be back in Northern Ireland this evening, a special part of our United Kingdom,” he added. ‘I will be a first minister for all’: Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill marks historic moment for once unionist state Read more “In the last few days, we have made significant progress towards a brighter future for people here. Yesterday, the assembly sat for the first time in two years. Tomorrow, the executive will meet. “Tonight, I have been meeting with volunteers and the crew at the air ambulance. It is people and services like this, and many more, that the executive can now focus on, delivering for families and businesses across Northern Ireland. And with the new deal that we have agreed, they will have both the funding and the powers to do exactly that.” Sunak’s trip caps a whirlwind week in Northern Ireland that restored devolved government after Downing Street persuaded the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) to end a boycott that had paralysed power sharing. Sunak will seek to put his stamp on that success, but any hope of a victory lap will be peppered by demands from O’Neill and other local leaders for urgent funding from London to shore up crumbling public services and infrastructure. What does return to power sharing mean for Northern Ireland? Read more The prime minister is also expected to meet the taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, amid tension with the Irish government over its legal challenge to the UK’s policy on Troubles-related offences. Stormont’s assembly reconvened on Saturday and appointed an executive exactly two years after the DUP collapsed the institution in protest over post-Brexit trading arrangements that unionists said undermined Northern Ireland’s position in the UK. Downing Street clinched a deal last week that assuaged DUP concerns and led to the belated formation of a devolved government based on a May 2022 assembly election in which Sinn Féin emerged as the biggest party – a milestone for Irish nationalism. Sunak’s seventh visit to Belfast will let him showcase a political win and offer some respite from bruising battles over childcare, Rwanda deportations and Conservative party divisions. On Monday he will meet O’Neill, as well as the DUP’s deputy first minister, Emma Little-Pengelly, and other members of the executive. It will be the first test of a ministerial group drawn from Sinn Féin , the DUP, Alliance and the Ulster Unionists. The executive faces crises in healthcare, the environment and other sectors. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The UK government has pledged £3.3bn to stabilise finances, including £600m to settle pay claims in a public sector bedevilled by strikes. O’Neill told the Press Association: “This place has been starved of public services funding for over a decade because of the Tories in London; we can do much better than that. With Sinn Féin in first minister post, has the republicans’ day come at last? Read more “That’s a fight I think we have to fight together and I think there’s a combined effort across the executive to have a proper funding model for here so we actually can do better public services and invest in the public sector workers.” The first minister said her election showed change was unfolding across Ireland and expressed hope that there would be a referendum on Irish unity within a decade. This need not destabilise Stormont, she told Sky News. “We can do two things at once: we can have power sharing, we can make it stable, we can work together every day in terms of public services while we also pursue our equally legitimate aspirations,” she said. Under the Good Friday agreement, a secretary of state should call a referendum if a majority in Northern Ireland appears to favour unification. O’Neill said this was “a decade of opportunity” to transform the status quo. “All the old norms, the nature of this state, the fact that a nationalist republican was never supposed to be first minister.” Explore more on these topics Northern Ireland Rishi Sunak Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak has said there is “fantastic cause for optimism” after arriving in Northern Ireland to meet the leaders of a new power-sharing executive that ended two years of political deadlock. The prime minister arrived in Belfast on Sunday evening in advance of a meeting on Monday with Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill , who has made history by becoming the first nationalist first minister at Stormont. During a visit to the headquarters of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland in Lisburn, Sunak said political leaders had a “special opportunity” and the focus should now be on “delivering for families and businesses”. “It is great to be back in Northern Ireland this evening, a special part of our United Kingdom,” he added. ‘I will be a first minister for all’: Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill marks historic moment for once unionist state Read more “In the last few days, we have made significant progress towards a brighter future for people here. Yesterday, the assembly sat for the first time in two years. Tomorrow, the executive will meet. “Tonight, I have been meeting with volunteers and the crew at the air ambulance. It is people and services like this, and many more, that the executive can now focus on, delivering for families and businesses across Northern Ireland. And with the new deal that we have agreed, they will have both the funding and the powers to do exactly that.” Sunak’s trip caps a whirlwind week in Northern Ireland that restored devolved government after Downing Street persuaded the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) to end a boycott that had paralysed power sharing. Sunak will seek to put his stamp on that success, but any hope of a victory lap will be peppered by demands from O’Neill and other local leaders for urgent funding from London to shore up crumbling public services and infrastructure. What does return to power sharing mean for Northern Ireland? Read more The prime minister is also expected to meet the taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, amid tension with the Irish government over its legal challenge to the UK’s policy on Troubles-related offences. Stormont’s assembly reconvened on Saturday and appointed an executive exactly two years after the DUP collapsed the institution in protest over post-Brexit trading arrangements that unionists said undermined Northern Ireland’s position in the UK. Downing Street clinched a deal last week that assuaged DUP concerns and led to the belated formation of a devolved government based on a May 2022 assembly election in which Sinn Féin emerged as the biggest party – a milestone for Irish nationalism. Sunak’s seventh visit to Belfast will let him showcase a political win and offer some respite from bruising battles over childcare, Rwanda deportations and Conservative party divisions. On Monday he will meet O’Neill, as well as the DUP’s deputy first minister, Emma Little-Pengelly, and other members of the executive. It will be the first test of a ministerial group drawn from Sinn Féin , the DUP, Alliance and the Ulster Unionists. The executive faces crises in healthcare, the environment and other sectors. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The UK government has pledged £3.3bn to stabilise finances, including £600m to settle pay claims in a public sector bedevilled by strikes. O’Neill told the Press Association: “This place has been starved of public services funding for over a decade because of the Tories in London; we can do much better than that. With Sinn Féin in first minister post, has the republicans’ day come at last? Read more “That’s a fight I think we have to fight together and I think there’s a combined effort across the executive to have a proper funding model for here so we actually can do better public services and invest in the public sector workers.” The first minister said her election showed change was unfolding across Ireland and expressed hope that there would be a referendum on Irish unity within a decade. This need not destabilise Stormont, she told Sky News. “We can do two things at once: we can have power sharing, we can make it stable, we can work together every day in terms of public services while we also pursue our equally legitimate aspirations,” she said. Under the Good Friday agreement, a secretary of state should call a referendum if a majority in Northern Ireland appears to favour unification. O’Neill said this was “a decade of opportunity” to transform the status quo. “All the old norms, the nature of this state, the fact that a nationalist republican was never supposed to be first minister.” Explore more on these topics Northern Ireland Rishi Sunak Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak has said there is “fantastic cause for optimism” after arriving in Northern Ireland to meet the leaders of a new power-sharing executive that ended two years of political deadlock. The prime minister arrived in Belfast on Sunday evening in advance of a meeting on Monday with Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill , who has made history by becoming the first nationalist first minister at Stormont. During a visit to the headquarters of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland in Lisburn, Sunak said political leaders had a “special opportunity” and the focus should now be on “delivering for families and businesses”. “It is great to be back in Northern Ireland this evening, a special part of our United Kingdom,” he added. ‘I will be a first minister for all’: Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill marks historic moment for once unionist state Read more “In the last few days, we have made significant progress towards a brighter future for people here. Yesterday, the assembly sat for the first time in two years. Tomorrow, the executive will meet. “Tonight, I have been meeting with volunteers and the crew at the air ambulance. It is people and services like this, and many more, that the executive can now focus on, delivering for families and businesses across Northern Ireland. And with the new deal that we have agreed, they will have both the funding and the powers to do exactly that.” Sunak’s trip caps a whirlwind week in Northern Ireland that restored devolved government after Downing Street persuaded the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) to end a boycott that had paralysed power sharing. Sunak will seek to put his stamp on that success, but any hope of a victory lap will be peppered by demands from O’Neill and other local leaders for urgent funding from London to shore up crumbling public services and infrastructure. What does return to power sharing mean for Northern Ireland? Read more The prime minister is also expected to meet the taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, amid tension with the Irish government over its legal challenge to the UK’s policy on Troubles-related offences. Stormont’s assembly reconvened on Saturday and appointed an executive exactly two years after the DUP collapsed the institution in protest over post-Brexit trading arrangements that unionists said undermined Northern Ireland’s position in the UK. Downing Street clinched a deal last week that assuaged DUP concerns and led to the belated formation of a devolved government based on a May 2022 assembly election in which Sinn Féin emerged as the biggest party – a milestone for Irish nationalism. Sunak’s seventh visit to Belfast will let him showcase a political win and offer some respite from bruising battles over childcare, Rwanda deportations and Conservative party divisions. On Monday he will meet O’Neill, as well as the DUP’s deputy first minister, Emma Little-Pengelly, and other members of the executive. It will be the first test of a ministerial group drawn from Sinn Féin , the DUP, Alliance and the Ulster Unionists. The executive faces crises in healthcare, the environment and other sectors. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The UK government has pledged £3.3bn to stabilise finances, including £600m to settle pay claims in a public sector bedevilled by strikes. O’Neill told the Press Association: “This place has been starved of public services funding for over a decade because of the Tories in London; we can do much better than that. With Sinn Féin in first minister post, has the republicans’ day come at last? Read more “That’s a fight I think we have to fight together and I think there’s a combined effort across the executive to have a proper funding model for here so we actually can do better public services and invest in the public sector workers.” The first minister said her election showed change was unfolding across Ireland and expressed hope that there would be a referendum on Irish unity within a decade. This need not destabilise Stormont, she told Sky News. “We can do two things at once: we can have power sharing, we can make it stable, we can work together every day in terms of public services while we also pursue our equally legitimate aspirations,” she said. Under the Good Friday agreement, a secretary of state should call a referendum if a majority in Northern Ireland appears to favour unification. O’Neill said this was “a decade of opportunity” to transform the status quo. “All the old norms, the nature of this state, the fact that a nationalist republican was never supposed to be first minister.” Rishi Sunak has said there is “fantastic cause for optimism” after arriving in Northern Ireland to meet the leaders of a new power-sharing executive that ended two years of political deadlock. The prime minister arrived in Belfast on Sunday evening in advance of a meeting on Monday with Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill , who has made history by becoming the first nationalist first minister at Stormont. During a visit to the headquarters of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland in Lisburn, Sunak said political leaders had a “special opportunity” and the focus should now be on “delivering for families and businesses”. “It is great to be back in Northern Ireland this evening, a special part of our United Kingdom,” he added. ‘I will be a first minister for all’: Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill marks historic moment for once unionist state Read more “In the last few days, we have made significant progress towards a brighter future for people here. Yesterday, the assembly sat for the first time in two years. Tomorrow, the executive will meet. “Tonight, I have been meeting with volunteers and the crew at the air ambulance. It is people and services like this, and many more, that the executive can now focus on, delivering for families and businesses across Northern Ireland. And with the new deal that we have agreed, they will have both the funding and the powers to do exactly that.” Sunak’s trip caps a whirlwind week in Northern Ireland that restored devolved government after Downing Street persuaded the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) to end a boycott that had paralysed power sharing. Sunak will seek to put his stamp on that success, but any hope of a victory lap will be peppered by demands from O’Neill and other local leaders for urgent funding from London to shore up crumbling public services and infrastructure. What does return to power sharing mean for Northern Ireland? Read more The prime minister is also expected to meet the taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, amid tension with the Irish government over its legal challenge to the UK’s policy on Troubles-related offences. Stormont’s assembly reconvened on Saturday and appointed an executive exactly two years after the DUP collapsed the institution in protest over post-Brexit trading arrangements that unionists said undermined Northern Ireland’s position in the UK. Downing Street clinched a deal last week that assuaged DUP concerns and led to the belated formation of a devolved government based on a May 2022 assembly election in which Sinn Féin emerged as the biggest party – a milestone for Irish nationalism. Sunak’s seventh visit to Belfast will let him showcase a political win and offer some respite from bruising battles over childcare, Rwanda deportations and Conservative party divisions. On Monday he will meet O’Neill, as well as the DUP’s deputy first minister, Emma Little-Pengelly, and other members of the executive. It will be the first test of a ministerial group drawn from Sinn Féin , the DUP, Alliance and the Ulster Unionists. The executive faces crises in healthcare, the environment and other sectors. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The UK government has pledged £3.3bn to stabilise finances, including £600m to settle pay claims in a public sector bedevilled by strikes. O’Neill told the Press Association: “This place has been starved of public services funding for over a decade because of the Tories in London; we can do much better than that. With Sinn Féin in first minister post, has the republicans’ day come at last? Read more “That’s a fight I think we have to fight together and I think there’s a combined effort across the executive to have a proper funding model for here so we actually can do better public services and invest in the public sector workers.” The first minister said her election showed change was unfolding across Ireland and expressed hope that there would be a referendum on Irish unity within a decade. This need not destabilise Stormont, she told Sky News. “We can do two things at once: we can have power sharing, we can make it stable, we can work together every day in terms of public services while we also pursue our equally legitimate aspirations,” she said. Under the Good Friday agreement, a secretary of state should call a referendum if a majority in Northern Ireland appears to favour unification. O’Neill said this was “a decade of opportunity” to transform the status quo. “All the old norms, the nature of this state, the fact that a nationalist republican was never supposed to be first minister.” Rishi Sunak has said there is “fantastic cause for optimism” after arriving in Northern Ireland to meet the leaders of a new power-sharing executive that ended two years of political deadlock. The prime minister arrived in Belfast on Sunday evening in advance of a meeting on Monday with Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill , who has made history by becoming the first nationalist first minister at Stormont. During a visit to the headquarters of Air Ambulance Northern Ireland in Lisburn, Sunak said political leaders had a “special opportunity” and the focus should now be on “delivering for families and businesses”. “It is great to be back in Northern Ireland this evening, a special part of our United Kingdom,” he added. ‘I will be a first minister for all’: Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill marks historic moment for once unionist state Read more ‘I will be a first minister for all’: Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill marks historic moment for once unionist state Read more ‘I will be a first minister for all’: Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill marks historic moment for once unionist state Read more ‘I will be a first minister for all’: Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill marks historic moment for once unionist state ‘I will be a first minister for all’: Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill marks historic moment for once unionist state “In the last few days, we have made significant progress towards a brighter future for people here. Yesterday, the assembly sat for the first time in two years. Tomorrow, the executive will meet. “Tonight, I have been meeting with volunteers and the crew at the air ambulance. It is people and services like this, and many more, that the executive can now focus on, delivering for families and businesses across Northern Ireland. And with the new deal that we have agreed, they will have both the funding and the powers to do exactly that.” Sunak’s trip caps a whirlwind week in Northern Ireland that restored devolved government after Downing Street persuaded the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) to end a boycott that had paralysed power sharing. Sunak will seek to put his stamp on that success, but any hope of a victory lap will be peppered by demands from O’Neill and other local leaders for urgent funding from London to shore up crumbling public services and infrastructure. What does return to power sharing mean for Northern Ireland? Read more What does return to power sharing mean for Northern Ireland? Read more What does return to power sharing mean for Northern Ireland? Read more What does return to power sharing mean for Northern Ireland? What does return to power sharing mean for Northern Ireland? The prime minister is also expected to meet the taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, amid tension with the Irish government over its legal challenge to the UK’s policy on Troubles-related offences. Stormont’s assembly reconvened on Saturday and appointed an executive exactly two years after the DUP collapsed the institution in protest over post-Brexit trading arrangements that unionists said undermined Northern Ireland’s position in the UK. Downing Street clinched a deal last week that assuaged DUP concerns and led to the belated formation of a devolved government based on a May 2022 assembly election in which Sinn Féin emerged as the biggest party – a milestone for Irish nationalism. Sunak’s seventh visit to Belfast will let him showcase a political win and offer some respite from bruising battles over childcare, Rwanda deportations and Conservative party divisions. On Monday he will meet O’Neill, as well as the DUP’s deputy first minister, Emma Little-Pengelly, and other members of the executive. It will be the first test of a ministerial group drawn from Sinn Féin , the DUP, Alliance and the Ulster Unionists. The executive faces crises in healthcare, the environment and other sectors. The UK government has pledged £3.3bn to stabilise finances, including £600m to settle pay claims in a public sector bedevilled by strikes. O’Neill told the Press Association: “This place has been starved of public services funding for over a decade because of the Tories in London; we can do much better than that. With Sinn Féin in first minister post, has the republicans’ day come at last? Read more With Sinn Féin in first minister post, has the republicans’ day come at last? Read more With Sinn Féin in first minister post, has the republicans’ day come at last? Read more With Sinn Féin in first minister post, has the republicans’ day come at last? With Sinn Féin in first minister post, has the republicans’ day come at last? “That’s a fight I think we have to fight together and I think there’s a combined effort across the executive to have a proper funding model for here so we actually can do better public services and invest in the public sector workers.” The first minister said her election showed change was unfolding across Ireland and expressed hope that there would be a referendum on Irish unity within a decade. This need not destabilise Stormont, she told Sky News. “We can do two things at once: we can have power sharing, we can make it stable, we can work together every day in terms of public services while we also pursue our equally legitimate aspirations,” she said. Under the Good Friday agreement, a secretary of state should call a referendum if a majority in Northern Ireland appears to favour unification. O’Neill said this was “a decade of opportunity” to transform the status quo. “All the old norms, the nature of this state, the fact that a nationalist republican was never supposed to be first minister.” Explore more on these topics Northern Ireland Rishi Sunak Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) news Share Reuse this content Northern Ireland Rishi Sunak Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin Democratic Unionist party (DUP) news
|
Minister consulted BP over incentives to maximise oil production, FoI reveals
Graham Stuart speaking to members of the press at the Cop28 climate summit last year. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP View image in fullscreen Graham Stuart speaking to members of the press at the Cop28 climate summit last year. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP This article is more than 1 year old Minister consulted BP over incentives to maximise oil production, FoI reveals This article is more than 1 year old Exclusive: Meeting took place days after BP reported record profits while households were squeezed by high energy bills The energy and climate minister Graham Stuart asked BP about the incentives required to “maximise” extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea, documents released under freedom of information rules have revealed. Stuart’s meeting with the corporation’s UK boss, Louise Kingham, last year came days after BP had announced a record profit of $28bn (£23bn) for 2022, raised its dividend to shareholders, and rowed back on its aim to cut its carbon emissions by 2030 . Households were also enduring very high energy bills. BP will report its profits for 2023 on Tuesday. Stuart also asked for advice from Kingham about winning the argument that UK oil production was “good” and part of the net zero transition. Experts have repeatedly refuted arguments that new oil and gas production can increase UK energy security or lower prices. The UK’s oil and gas body granted 24 new drilling licences to BP and other companies last Wednesday, following 27 licences in October and with more to follow in the coming months. The chair of the UK’s official climate advisers said in January that “further licensing [is] inconsistent with climate goals”. The International Energy Agency said in 2021 that any new fossil fuel developments were incompatible with reaching net zero emissions by 2050. “Drilling for new North Sea oil will undermine the UK’s climate commitments and won’t ensure energy security, yet the minister cynically sought BP’s help to try and ‘win’ the opposite argument,” said Chris Garrard, of the campaigns and research organisation Culture Unstained, which made the FoI request. “What’s more disturbing though, is that days after BP had announced record profits, he seems to assure BP that there are incentives and money to keep its polluting fossil fuels flowing, all while the public struggled to pay their energy bills,” he said. The documents released include a heavily redacted readout of a meeting between Stuart and Kingham on 17 February 2023. Stuart asked: “Where do you think we are in terms of having the right incentives in place to maximise recovery from [the] North Sea and keep making the case to win the argument why producing it in the UK is good, and is part of the net zero transition, to make sure we minimise our imports?” He said: “The money is there, making incentives and structures to allow it to flow.” Stuart also asked Kingham for information to use in making the argument for new North Sea production: “We will be using oil and gas and, if we don’t do it ourselves, we will be spending that money elsewhere. Adding that up I would like a number saying do we really want to spend x billions relying on foreign imports.” Large sections of Kingham’s responses are redacted, with government officials citing “commercially confidential information”. But she said: “Ideologically, you need to think where to do tax or incentives, because you won’t get the investment.” She also said BP was “proud of [its] work and the jobs it creates and ever cleaner barrels”, adding that the argument would be “amplified by some social media and ads”. Tessa Khan, at the campaign group Uplift, said: “BP’s got a nerve telling our government that the industry needs more tax breaks and subsidies or they won’t invest, in the middle of a cost of living crisis driven by energy bills and when it’s just announced $28bn in profit.” “What’s really egregious, though, is the minister responding that ‘the money is there’ for profiteering oil giants at the same time as it’s just cut off vital support to millions of households who literally can’t afford to heat their homes,” she said. “There’s no question at all about whose side this government is on.” A government spokesperson said: “Minister Stuart is absolutely right to be backing domestic oil and gas, as the UK will still be using oil and gas even when we reach net zero in 2050. It is good for our energy security, supports up to 200,000 jobs and has brought in £400bn in tax revenue to date [over the past 50 years] which has been used to help families with the cost of living and fund public services. The £6bn raised by our energy profits levy on oil and gas producers alone helped us pay around half a typical household’s energy bill last winter.” “Ministers will continue to meet with energy companies to encourage investment into the UK and end reliance on costly foreign imports of liquefied natural gas with higher emissions ,” she said. A spokesperson for BP said: “BP is a major UK-headquartered company with plans to invest significantly in the UK’s energy systems and transition. As such, we have regular meetings with government departments. This discussion focused on how the UK could continue to attract investment and maintain pace after the US Inflation Reduction Act in both today’s oil and gas system and in renewable and low carbon projects.” The act supports renewable energy . Fossil fuel companies have received £80bn in UK government support since 2015. Most of the 24 new drilling licences were granted to foreign companies . On Friday it was revealed that an oil and gas company owned by a major Tory donor , which had previously been fined for illegal flaring, was awarded one of the drilling licences. In January, the former Conservative energy minister Chris Skidmore resigned as an MP in protest at the party’s dash for oil and gas, calling the policy a “tragedy” that is “wrong and will cause future harm”. Explore more on these topics Oil Fossil fuels Energy Climate crisis BP Energy industry Oil and gas companies news Share Reuse this content Graham Stuart speaking to members of the press at the Cop28 climate summit last year. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP View image in fullscreen Graham Stuart speaking to members of the press at the Cop28 climate summit last year. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP This article is more than 1 year old Minister consulted BP over incentives to maximise oil production, FoI reveals This article is more than 1 year old Exclusive: Meeting took place days after BP reported record profits while households were squeezed by high energy bills The energy and climate minister Graham Stuart asked BP about the incentives required to “maximise” extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea, documents released under freedom of information rules have revealed. Stuart’s meeting with the corporation’s UK boss, Louise Kingham, last year came days after BP had announced a record profit of $28bn (£23bn) for 2022, raised its dividend to shareholders, and rowed back on its aim to cut its carbon emissions by 2030 . Households were also enduring very high energy bills. BP will report its profits for 2023 on Tuesday. Stuart also asked for advice from Kingham about winning the argument that UK oil production was “good” and part of the net zero transition. Experts have repeatedly refuted arguments that new oil and gas production can increase UK energy security or lower prices. The UK’s oil and gas body granted 24 new drilling licences to BP and other companies last Wednesday, following 27 licences in October and with more to follow in the coming months. The chair of the UK’s official climate advisers said in January that “further licensing [is] inconsistent with climate goals”. The International Energy Agency said in 2021 that any new fossil fuel developments were incompatible with reaching net zero emissions by 2050. “Drilling for new North Sea oil will undermine the UK’s climate commitments and won’t ensure energy security, yet the minister cynically sought BP’s help to try and ‘win’ the opposite argument,” said Chris Garrard, of the campaigns and research organisation Culture Unstained, which made the FoI request. “What’s more disturbing though, is that days after BP had announced record profits, he seems to assure BP that there are incentives and money to keep its polluting fossil fuels flowing, all while the public struggled to pay their energy bills,” he said. The documents released include a heavily redacted readout of a meeting between Stuart and Kingham on 17 February 2023. Stuart asked: “Where do you think we are in terms of having the right incentives in place to maximise recovery from [the] North Sea and keep making the case to win the argument why producing it in the UK is good, and is part of the net zero transition, to make sure we minimise our imports?” He said: “The money is there, making incentives and structures to allow it to flow.” Stuart also asked Kingham for information to use in making the argument for new North Sea production: “We will be using oil and gas and, if we don’t do it ourselves, we will be spending that money elsewhere. Adding that up I would like a number saying do we really want to spend x billions relying on foreign imports.” Large sections of Kingham’s responses are redacted, with government officials citing “commercially confidential information”. But she said: “Ideologically, you need to think where to do tax or incentives, because you won’t get the investment.” She also said BP was “proud of [its] work and the jobs it creates and ever cleaner barrels”, adding that the argument would be “amplified by some social media and ads”. Tessa Khan, at the campaign group Uplift, said: “BP’s got a nerve telling our government that the industry needs more tax breaks and subsidies or they won’t invest, in the middle of a cost of living crisis driven by energy bills and when it’s just announced $28bn in profit.” “What’s really egregious, though, is the minister responding that ‘the money is there’ for profiteering oil giants at the same time as it’s just cut off vital support to millions of households who literally can’t afford to heat their homes,” she said. “There’s no question at all about whose side this government is on.” A government spokesperson said: “Minister Stuart is absolutely right to be backing domestic oil and gas, as the UK will still be using oil and gas even when we reach net zero in 2050. It is good for our energy security, supports up to 200,000 jobs and has brought in £400bn in tax revenue to date [over the past 50 years] which has been used to help families with the cost of living and fund public services. The £6bn raised by our energy profits levy on oil and gas producers alone helped us pay around half a typical household’s energy bill last winter.” “Ministers will continue to meet with energy companies to encourage investment into the UK and end reliance on costly foreign imports of liquefied natural gas with higher emissions ,” she said. A spokesperson for BP said: “BP is a major UK-headquartered company with plans to invest significantly in the UK’s energy systems and transition. As such, we have regular meetings with government departments. This discussion focused on how the UK could continue to attract investment and maintain pace after the US Inflation Reduction Act in both today’s oil and gas system and in renewable and low carbon projects.” The act supports renewable energy . Fossil fuel companies have received £80bn in UK government support since 2015. Most of the 24 new drilling licences were granted to foreign companies . On Friday it was revealed that an oil and gas company owned by a major Tory donor , which had previously been fined for illegal flaring, was awarded one of the drilling licences. In January, the former Conservative energy minister Chris Skidmore resigned as an MP in protest at the party’s dash for oil and gas, calling the policy a “tragedy” that is “wrong and will cause future harm”. Explore more on these topics Oil Fossil fuels Energy Climate crisis BP Energy industry Oil and gas companies news Share Reuse this content Graham Stuart speaking to members of the press at the Cop28 climate summit last year. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP View image in fullscreen Graham Stuart speaking to members of the press at the Cop28 climate summit last year. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP Graham Stuart speaking to members of the press at the Cop28 climate summit last year. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP View image in fullscreen Graham Stuart speaking to members of the press at the Cop28 climate summit last year. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP Graham Stuart speaking to members of the press at the Cop28 climate summit last year. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP View image in fullscreen Graham Stuart speaking to members of the press at the Cop28 climate summit last year. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP Graham Stuart speaking to members of the press at the Cop28 climate summit last year. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP View image in fullscreen Graham Stuart speaking to members of the press at the Cop28 climate summit last year. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP Graham Stuart speaking to members of the press at the Cop28 climate summit last year. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP Graham Stuart speaking to members of the press at the Cop28 climate summit last year. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP This article is more than 1 year old Minister consulted BP over incentives to maximise oil production, FoI reveals This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Minister consulted BP over incentives to maximise oil production, FoI reveals This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Minister consulted BP over incentives to maximise oil production, FoI reveals 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: Meeting took place days after BP reported record profits while households were squeezed by high energy bills Exclusive: Meeting took place days after BP reported record profits while households were squeezed by high energy bills Exclusive: Meeting took place days after BP reported record profits while households were squeezed by high energy bills The energy and climate minister Graham Stuart asked BP about the incentives required to “maximise” extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea, documents released under freedom of information rules have revealed. Stuart’s meeting with the corporation’s UK boss, Louise Kingham, last year came days after BP had announced a record profit of $28bn (£23bn) for 2022, raised its dividend to shareholders, and rowed back on its aim to cut its carbon emissions by 2030 . Households were also enduring very high energy bills. BP will report its profits for 2023 on Tuesday. Stuart also asked for advice from Kingham about winning the argument that UK oil production was “good” and part of the net zero transition. Experts have repeatedly refuted arguments that new oil and gas production can increase UK energy security or lower prices. The UK’s oil and gas body granted 24 new drilling licences to BP and other companies last Wednesday, following 27 licences in October and with more to follow in the coming months. The chair of the UK’s official climate advisers said in January that “further licensing [is] inconsistent with climate goals”. The International Energy Agency said in 2021 that any new fossil fuel developments were incompatible with reaching net zero emissions by 2050. “Drilling for new North Sea oil will undermine the UK’s climate commitments and won’t ensure energy security, yet the minister cynically sought BP’s help to try and ‘win’ the opposite argument,” said Chris Garrard, of the campaigns and research organisation Culture Unstained, which made the FoI request. “What’s more disturbing though, is that days after BP had announced record profits, he seems to assure BP that there are incentives and money to keep its polluting fossil fuels flowing, all while the public struggled to pay their energy bills,” he said. The documents released include a heavily redacted readout of a meeting between Stuart and Kingham on 17 February 2023. Stuart asked: “Where do you think we are in terms of having the right incentives in place to maximise recovery from [the] North Sea and keep making the case to win the argument why producing it in the UK is good, and is part of the net zero transition, to make sure we minimise our imports?” He said: “The money is there, making incentives and structures to allow it to flow.” Stuart also asked Kingham for information to use in making the argument for new North Sea production: “We will be using oil and gas and, if we don’t do it ourselves, we will be spending that money elsewhere. Adding that up I would like a number saying do we really want to spend x billions relying on foreign imports.” Large sections of Kingham’s responses are redacted, with government officials citing “commercially confidential information”. But she said: “Ideologically, you need to think where to do tax or incentives, because you won’t get the investment.” She also said BP was “proud of [its] work and the jobs it creates and ever cleaner barrels”, adding that the argument would be “amplified by some social media and ads”. Tessa Khan, at the campaign group Uplift, said: “BP’s got a nerve telling our government that the industry needs more tax breaks and subsidies or they won’t invest, in the middle of a cost of living crisis driven by energy bills and when it’s just announced $28bn in profit.” “What’s really egregious, though, is the minister responding that ‘the money is there’ for profiteering oil giants at the same time as it’s just cut off vital support to millions of households who literally can’t afford to heat their homes,” she said. “There’s no question at all about whose side this government is on.” A government spokesperson said: “Minister Stuart is absolutely right to be backing domestic oil and gas, as the UK will still be using oil and gas even when we reach net zero in 2050. It is good for our energy security, supports up to 200,000 jobs and has brought in £400bn in tax revenue to date [over the past 50 years] which has been used to help families with the cost of living and fund public services. The £6bn raised by our energy profits levy on oil and gas producers alone helped us pay around half a typical household’s energy bill last winter.” “Ministers will continue to meet with energy companies to encourage investment into the UK and end reliance on costly foreign imports of liquefied natural gas with higher emissions ,” she said. A spokesperson for BP said: “BP is a major UK-headquartered company with plans to invest significantly in the UK’s energy systems and transition. As such, we have regular meetings with government departments. This discussion focused on how the UK could continue to attract investment and maintain pace after the US Inflation Reduction Act in both today’s oil and gas system and in renewable and low carbon projects.” The act supports renewable energy . Fossil fuel companies have received £80bn in UK government support since 2015. Most of the 24 new drilling licences were granted to foreign companies . On Friday it was revealed that an oil and gas company owned by a major Tory donor , which had previously been fined for illegal flaring, was awarded one of the drilling licences. In January, the former Conservative energy minister Chris Skidmore resigned as an MP in protest at the party’s dash for oil and gas, calling the policy a “tragedy” that is “wrong and will cause future harm”. Explore more on these topics Oil Fossil fuels Energy Climate crisis BP Energy industry Oil and gas companies news Share Reuse this content The energy and climate minister Graham Stuart asked BP about the incentives required to “maximise” extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea, documents released under freedom of information rules have revealed. Stuart’s meeting with the corporation’s UK boss, Louise Kingham, last year came days after BP had announced a record profit of $28bn (£23bn) for 2022, raised its dividend to shareholders, and rowed back on its aim to cut its carbon emissions by 2030 . Households were also enduring very high energy bills. BP will report its profits for 2023 on Tuesday. Stuart also asked for advice from Kingham about winning the argument that UK oil production was “good” and part of the net zero transition. Experts have repeatedly refuted arguments that new oil and gas production can increase UK energy security or lower prices. The UK’s oil and gas body granted 24 new drilling licences to BP and other companies last Wednesday, following 27 licences in October and with more to follow in the coming months. The chair of the UK’s official climate advisers said in January that “further licensing [is] inconsistent with climate goals”. The International Energy Agency said in 2021 that any new fossil fuel developments were incompatible with reaching net zero emissions by 2050. “Drilling for new North Sea oil will undermine the UK’s climate commitments and won’t ensure energy security, yet the minister cynically sought BP’s help to try and ‘win’ the opposite argument,” said Chris Garrard, of the campaigns and research organisation Culture Unstained, which made the FoI request. “What’s more disturbing though, is that days after BP had announced record profits, he seems to assure BP that there are incentives and money to keep its polluting fossil fuels flowing, all while the public struggled to pay their energy bills,” he said. The documents released include a heavily redacted readout of a meeting between Stuart and Kingham on 17 February 2023. Stuart asked: “Where do you think we are in terms of having the right incentives in place to maximise recovery from [the] North Sea and keep making the case to win the argument why producing it in the UK is good, and is part of the net zero transition, to make sure we minimise our imports?” He said: “The money is there, making incentives and structures to allow it to flow.” Stuart also asked Kingham for information to use in making the argument for new North Sea production: “We will be using oil and gas and, if we don’t do it ourselves, we will be spending that money elsewhere. Adding that up I would like a number saying do we really want to spend x billions relying on foreign imports.” Large sections of Kingham’s responses are redacted, with government officials citing “commercially confidential information”. But she said: “Ideologically, you need to think where to do tax or incentives, because you won’t get the investment.” She also said BP was “proud of [its] work and the jobs it creates and ever cleaner barrels”, adding that the argument would be “amplified by some social media and ads”. Tessa Khan, at the campaign group Uplift, said: “BP’s got a nerve telling our government that the industry needs more tax breaks and subsidies or they won’t invest, in the middle of a cost of living crisis driven by energy bills and when it’s just announced $28bn in profit.” “What’s really egregious, though, is the minister responding that ‘the money is there’ for profiteering oil giants at the same time as it’s just cut off vital support to millions of households who literally can’t afford to heat their homes,” she said. “There’s no question at all about whose side this government is on.” A government spokesperson said: “Minister Stuart is absolutely right to be backing domestic oil and gas, as the UK will still be using oil and gas even when we reach net zero in 2050. It is good for our energy security, supports up to 200,000 jobs and has brought in £400bn in tax revenue to date [over the past 50 years] which has been used to help families with the cost of living and fund public services. The £6bn raised by our energy profits levy on oil and gas producers alone helped us pay around half a typical household’s energy bill last winter.” “Ministers will continue to meet with energy companies to encourage investment into the UK and end reliance on costly foreign imports of liquefied natural gas with higher emissions ,” she said. A spokesperson for BP said: “BP is a major UK-headquartered company with plans to invest significantly in the UK’s energy systems and transition. As such, we have regular meetings with government departments. This discussion focused on how the UK could continue to attract investment and maintain pace after the US Inflation Reduction Act in both today’s oil and gas system and in renewable and low carbon projects.” The act supports renewable energy . Fossil fuel companies have received £80bn in UK government support since 2015. Most of the 24 new drilling licences were granted to foreign companies . On Friday it was revealed that an oil and gas company owned by a major Tory donor , which had previously been fined for illegal flaring, was awarded one of the drilling licences. In January, the former Conservative energy minister Chris Skidmore resigned as an MP in protest at the party’s dash for oil and gas, calling the policy a “tragedy” that is “wrong and will cause future harm”. Explore more on these topics Oil Fossil fuels Energy Climate crisis BP Energy industry Oil and gas companies news Share Reuse this content The energy and climate minister Graham Stuart asked BP about the incentives required to “maximise” extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea, documents released under freedom of information rules have revealed. Stuart’s meeting with the corporation’s UK boss, Louise Kingham, last year came days after BP had announced a record profit of $28bn (£23bn) for 2022, raised its dividend to shareholders, and rowed back on its aim to cut its carbon emissions by 2030 . Households were also enduring very high energy bills. BP will report its profits for 2023 on Tuesday. Stuart also asked for advice from Kingham about winning the argument that UK oil production was “good” and part of the net zero transition. Experts have repeatedly refuted arguments that new oil and gas production can increase UK energy security or lower prices. The UK’s oil and gas body granted 24 new drilling licences to BP and other companies last Wednesday, following 27 licences in October and with more to follow in the coming months. The chair of the UK’s official climate advisers said in January that “further licensing [is] inconsistent with climate goals”. The International Energy Agency said in 2021 that any new fossil fuel developments were incompatible with reaching net zero emissions by 2050. “Drilling for new North Sea oil will undermine the UK’s climate commitments and won’t ensure energy security, yet the minister cynically sought BP’s help to try and ‘win’ the opposite argument,” said Chris Garrard, of the campaigns and research organisation Culture Unstained, which made the FoI request. “What’s more disturbing though, is that days after BP had announced record profits, he seems to assure BP that there are incentives and money to keep its polluting fossil fuels flowing, all while the public struggled to pay their energy bills,” he said. The documents released include a heavily redacted readout of a meeting between Stuart and Kingham on 17 February 2023. Stuart asked: “Where do you think we are in terms of having the right incentives in place to maximise recovery from [the] North Sea and keep making the case to win the argument why producing it in the UK is good, and is part of the net zero transition, to make sure we minimise our imports?” He said: “The money is there, making incentives and structures to allow it to flow.” Stuart also asked Kingham for information to use in making the argument for new North Sea production: “We will be using oil and gas and, if we don’t do it ourselves, we will be spending that money elsewhere. Adding that up I would like a number saying do we really want to spend x billions relying on foreign imports.” Large sections of Kingham’s responses are redacted, with government officials citing “commercially confidential information”. But she said: “Ideologically, you need to think where to do tax or incentives, because you won’t get the investment.” She also said BP was “proud of [its] work and the jobs it creates and ever cleaner barrels”, adding that the argument would be “amplified by some social media and ads”. Tessa Khan, at the campaign group Uplift, said: “BP’s got a nerve telling our government that the industry needs more tax breaks and subsidies or they won’t invest, in the middle of a cost of living crisis driven by energy bills and when it’s just announced $28bn in profit.” “What’s really egregious, though, is the minister responding that ‘the money is there’ for profiteering oil giants at the same time as it’s just cut off vital support to millions of households who literally can’t afford to heat their homes,” she said. “There’s no question at all about whose side this government is on.” A government spokesperson said: “Minister Stuart is absolutely right to be backing domestic oil and gas, as the UK will still be using oil and gas even when we reach net zero in 2050. It is good for our energy security, supports up to 200,000 jobs and has brought in £400bn in tax revenue to date [over the past 50 years] which has been used to help families with the cost of living and fund public services. The £6bn raised by our energy profits levy on oil and gas producers alone helped us pay around half a typical household’s energy bill last winter.” “Ministers will continue to meet with energy companies to encourage investment into the UK and end reliance on costly foreign imports of liquefied natural gas with higher emissions ,” she said. A spokesperson for BP said: “BP is a major UK-headquartered company with plans to invest significantly in the UK’s energy systems and transition. As such, we have regular meetings with government departments. This discussion focused on how the UK could continue to attract investment and maintain pace after the US Inflation Reduction Act in both today’s oil and gas system and in renewable and low carbon projects.” The act supports renewable energy . Fossil fuel companies have received £80bn in UK government support since 2015. Most of the 24 new drilling licences were granted to foreign companies . On Friday it was revealed that an oil and gas company owned by a major Tory donor , which had previously been fined for illegal flaring, was awarded one of the drilling licences. In January, the former Conservative energy minister Chris Skidmore resigned as an MP in protest at the party’s dash for oil and gas, calling the policy a “tragedy” that is “wrong and will cause future harm”. The energy and climate minister Graham Stuart asked BP about the incentives required to “maximise” extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea, documents released under freedom of information rules have revealed. Stuart’s meeting with the corporation’s UK boss, Louise Kingham, last year came days after BP had announced a record profit of $28bn (£23bn) for 2022, raised its dividend to shareholders, and rowed back on its aim to cut its carbon emissions by 2030 . Households were also enduring very high energy bills. BP will report its profits for 2023 on Tuesday. Stuart also asked for advice from Kingham about winning the argument that UK oil production was “good” and part of the net zero transition. Experts have repeatedly refuted arguments that new oil and gas production can increase UK energy security or lower prices. The UK’s oil and gas body granted 24 new drilling licences to BP and other companies last Wednesday, following 27 licences in October and with more to follow in the coming months. The chair of the UK’s official climate advisers said in January that “further licensing [is] inconsistent with climate goals”. The International Energy Agency said in 2021 that any new fossil fuel developments were incompatible with reaching net zero emissions by 2050. “Drilling for new North Sea oil will undermine the UK’s climate commitments and won’t ensure energy security, yet the minister cynically sought BP’s help to try and ‘win’ the opposite argument,” said Chris Garrard, of the campaigns and research organisation Culture Unstained, which made the FoI request. “What’s more disturbing though, is that days after BP had announced record profits, he seems to assure BP that there are incentives and money to keep its polluting fossil fuels flowing, all while the public struggled to pay their energy bills,” he said. The documents released include a heavily redacted readout of a meeting between Stuart and Kingham on 17 February 2023. Stuart asked: “Where do you think we are in terms of having the right incentives in place to maximise recovery from [the] North Sea and keep making the case to win the argument why producing it in the UK is good, and is part of the net zero transition, to make sure we minimise our imports?” He said: “The money is there, making incentives and structures to allow it to flow.” Stuart also asked Kingham for information to use in making the argument for new North Sea production: “We will be using oil and gas and, if we don’t do it ourselves, we will be spending that money elsewhere. Adding that up I would like a number saying do we really want to spend x billions relying on foreign imports.” Large sections of Kingham’s responses are redacted, with government officials citing “commercially confidential information”. But she said: “Ideologically, you need to think where to do tax or incentives, because you won’t get the investment.” She also said BP was “proud of [its] work and the jobs it creates and ever cleaner barrels”, adding that the argument would be “amplified by some social media and ads”. Tessa Khan, at the campaign group Uplift, said: “BP’s got a nerve telling our government that the industry needs more tax breaks and subsidies or they won’t invest, in the middle of a cost of living crisis driven by energy bills and when it’s just announced $28bn in profit.” “What’s really egregious, though, is the minister responding that ‘the money is there’ for profiteering oil giants at the same time as it’s just cut off vital support to millions of households who literally can’t afford to heat their homes,” she said. “There’s no question at all about whose side this government is on.” A government spokesperson said: “Minister Stuart is absolutely right to be backing domestic oil and gas, as the UK will still be using oil and gas even when we reach net zero in 2050. It is good for our energy security, supports up to 200,000 jobs and has brought in £400bn in tax revenue to date [over the past 50 years] which has been used to help families with the cost of living and fund public services. The £6bn raised by our energy profits levy on oil and gas producers alone helped us pay around half a typical household’s energy bill last winter.” “Ministers will continue to meet with energy companies to encourage investment into the UK and end reliance on costly foreign imports of liquefied natural gas with higher emissions ,” she said. A spokesperson for BP said: “BP is a major UK-headquartered company with plans to invest significantly in the UK’s energy systems and transition. As such, we have regular meetings with government departments. This discussion focused on how the UK could continue to attract investment and maintain pace after the US Inflation Reduction Act in both today’s oil and gas system and in renewable and low carbon projects.” The act supports renewable energy . Fossil fuel companies have received £80bn in UK government support since 2015. Most of the 24 new drilling licences were granted to foreign companies . On Friday it was revealed that an oil and gas company owned by a major Tory donor , which had previously been fined for illegal flaring, was awarded one of the drilling licences. In January, the former Conservative energy minister Chris Skidmore resigned as an MP in protest at the party’s dash for oil and gas, calling the policy a “tragedy” that is “wrong and will cause future harm”. The energy and climate minister Graham Stuart asked BP about the incentives required to “maximise” extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea, documents released under freedom of information rules have revealed. Stuart’s meeting with the corporation’s UK boss, Louise Kingham, last year came days after BP had announced a record profit of $28bn (£23bn) for 2022, raised its dividend to shareholders, and rowed back on its aim to cut its carbon emissions by 2030 . Households were also enduring very high energy bills. BP will report its profits for 2023 on Tuesday. Stuart also asked for advice from Kingham about winning the argument that UK oil production was “good” and part of the net zero transition. Experts have repeatedly refuted arguments that new oil and gas production can increase UK energy security or lower prices. The UK’s oil and gas body granted 24 new drilling licences to BP and other companies last Wednesday, following 27 licences in October and with more to follow in the coming months. The chair of the UK’s official climate advisers said in January that “further licensing [is] inconsistent with climate goals”. The International Energy Agency said in 2021 that any new fossil fuel developments were incompatible with reaching net zero emissions by 2050. “Drilling for new North Sea oil will undermine the UK’s climate commitments and won’t ensure energy security, yet the minister cynically sought BP’s help to try and ‘win’ the opposite argument,” said Chris Garrard, of the campaigns and research organisation Culture Unstained, which made the FoI request. “What’s more disturbing though, is that days after BP had announced record profits, he seems to assure BP that there are incentives and money to keep its polluting fossil fuels flowing, all while the public struggled to pay their energy bills,” he said. The documents released include a heavily redacted readout of a meeting between Stuart and Kingham on 17 February 2023. Stuart asked: “Where do you think we are in terms of having the right incentives in place to maximise recovery from [the] North Sea and keep making the case to win the argument why producing it in the UK is good, and is part of the net zero transition, to make sure we minimise our imports?” He said: “The money is there, making incentives and structures to allow it to flow.” Stuart also asked Kingham for information to use in making the argument for new North Sea production: “We will be using oil and gas and, if we don’t do it ourselves, we will be spending that money elsewhere. Adding that up I would like a number saying do we really want to spend x billions relying on foreign imports.” Large sections of Kingham’s responses are redacted, with government officials citing “commercially confidential information”. But she said: “Ideologically, you need to think where to do tax or incentives, because you won’t get the investment.” She also said BP was “proud of [its] work and the jobs it creates and ever cleaner barrels”, adding that the argument would be “amplified by some social media and ads”. Tessa Khan, at the campaign group Uplift, said: “BP’s got a nerve telling our government that the industry needs more tax breaks and subsidies or they won’t invest, in the middle of a cost of living crisis driven by energy bills and when it’s just announced $28bn in profit.” “What’s really egregious, though, is the minister responding that ‘the money is there’ for profiteering oil giants at the same time as it’s just cut off vital support to millions of households who literally can’t afford to heat their homes,” she said. “There’s no question at all about whose side this government is on.” A government spokesperson said: “Minister Stuart is absolutely right to be backing domestic oil and gas, as the UK will still be using oil and gas even when we reach net zero in 2050. It is good for our energy security, supports up to 200,000 jobs and has brought in £400bn in tax revenue to date [over the past 50 years] which has been used to help families with the cost of living and fund public services. The £6bn raised by our energy profits levy on oil and gas producers alone helped us pay around half a typical household’s energy bill last winter.” “Ministers will continue to meet with energy companies to encourage investment into the UK and end reliance on costly foreign imports of liquefied natural gas with higher emissions ,” she said. A spokesperson for BP said: “BP is a major UK-headquartered company with plans to invest significantly in the UK’s energy systems and transition. As such, we have regular meetings with government departments. This discussion focused on how the UK could continue to attract investment and maintain pace after the US Inflation Reduction Act in both today’s oil and gas system and in renewable and low carbon projects.” The act supports renewable energy . Fossil fuel companies have received £80bn in UK government support since 2015. Most of the 24 new drilling licences were granted to foreign companies . On Friday it was revealed that an oil and gas company owned by a major Tory donor , which had previously been fined for illegal flaring, was awarded one of the drilling licences. In January, the former Conservative energy minister Chris Skidmore resigned as an MP in protest at the party’s dash for oil and gas, calling the policy a “tragedy” that is “wrong and will cause future harm”. Explore more on these topics Oil Fossil fuels Energy Climate crisis BP Energy industry Oil and gas companies news Share Reuse this content Oil Fossil fuels Energy Climate crisis BP Energy industry Oil and gas companies news
|
School motto that scummed it all up
Iain Duncan Smith, a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: PA View image in fullscreen Iain Duncan Smith, a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: PA This article is more than 1 year old Letters School motto that scummed it all up This article is more than 1 year old Iain Duncan Smith | Too much tofu | Labour’s £28bn | Pavement problem | Belfast banter The “Tory scum” case ( DPP appeals to supreme court in case of protesters who called MP ‘Tory scum’, 31 January ) reminds me that some of the sixth form classical scholars at my school produced a short-lived news sheet with the title Scum. For the paper’s motto they adopted the phrase Scum semper surgit (Scum always rises). Perhaps that explains everything. Eric Crouch Thame, Oxfordshire Please can we get a little more balance in the recipe section? So many vegetarian and vegan recipes , but a sad lack of anything containing meat. Are you deliberately appeasing the “tofu‑eating wokerati” fan base and neglecting your liberal omnivores? Marilyn Downs Hale, Greater Manchester So an incoming Labour government can’t afford to invest £28bn combatting the climate crisis ( Labour to ditch £28bn annual green investment pledge, party sources say, 1 February ). But can it afford not to? Clifton Melvin Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire Gillian Bassett ( Letters, 4 February ) has a wonderful explanation of why Dutch showers are too cold. My mother was told by her older siblings to complain to the council, because it built the pavement too near her bottom. Alyson Elliman Carshalton Beeches, London Growing up in an estate in 1970s Belfast, when someone looked in through the window, my mother used to shout: “Do you want to come in and look out?” ( Letters, 4 February ). James Scott Limington, Somerset Explore more on these topics Iain Duncan Smith Brief letters Conservatives Food Veganism Labour Green politics Belfast letters Share Reuse this content Iain Duncan Smith, a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: PA View image in fullscreen Iain Duncan Smith, a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: PA This article is more than 1 year old Letters School motto that scummed it all up This article is more than 1 year old Iain Duncan Smith | Too much tofu | Labour’s £28bn | Pavement problem | Belfast banter The “Tory scum” case ( DPP appeals to supreme court in case of protesters who called MP ‘Tory scum’, 31 January ) reminds me that some of the sixth form classical scholars at my school produced a short-lived news sheet with the title Scum. For the paper’s motto they adopted the phrase Scum semper surgit (Scum always rises). Perhaps that explains everything. Eric Crouch Thame, Oxfordshire Please can we get a little more balance in the recipe section? So many vegetarian and vegan recipes , but a sad lack of anything containing meat. Are you deliberately appeasing the “tofu‑eating wokerati” fan base and neglecting your liberal omnivores? Marilyn Downs Hale, Greater Manchester So an incoming Labour government can’t afford to invest £28bn combatting the climate crisis ( Labour to ditch £28bn annual green investment pledge, party sources say, 1 February ). But can it afford not to? Clifton Melvin Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire Gillian Bassett ( Letters, 4 February ) has a wonderful explanation of why Dutch showers are too cold. My mother was told by her older siblings to complain to the council, because it built the pavement too near her bottom. Alyson Elliman Carshalton Beeches, London Growing up in an estate in 1970s Belfast, when someone looked in through the window, my mother used to shout: “Do you want to come in and look out?” ( Letters, 4 February ). James Scott Limington, Somerset Explore more on these topics Iain Duncan Smith Brief letters Conservatives Food Veganism Labour Green politics Belfast letters Share Reuse this content Iain Duncan Smith, a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: PA View image in fullscreen Iain Duncan Smith, a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: PA Iain Duncan Smith, a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: PA View image in fullscreen Iain Duncan Smith, a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: PA Iain Duncan Smith, a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: PA View image in fullscreen Iain Duncan Smith, a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: PA Iain Duncan Smith, a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: PA View image in fullscreen Iain Duncan Smith, a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: PA Iain Duncan Smith, a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: PA Iain Duncan Smith, a former Conservative party leader and work and pensions secretary. Photograph: PA This article is more than 1 year old Letters School motto that scummed it all up This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Letters School motto that scummed it all up This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Letters School motto that scummed it all up This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Letters School motto that scummed it all up 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 Iain Duncan Smith | Too much tofu | Labour’s £28bn | Pavement problem | Belfast banter Iain Duncan Smith | Too much tofu | Labour’s £28bn | Pavement problem | Belfast banter Iain Duncan Smith | Too much tofu | Labour’s £28bn | Pavement problem | Belfast banter The “Tory scum” case ( DPP appeals to supreme court in case of protesters who called MP ‘Tory scum’, 31 January ) reminds me that some of the sixth form classical scholars at my school produced a short-lived news sheet with the title Scum. For the paper’s motto they adopted the phrase Scum semper surgit (Scum always rises). Perhaps that explains everything. Eric Crouch Thame, Oxfordshire Please can we get a little more balance in the recipe section? So many vegetarian and vegan recipes , but a sad lack of anything containing meat. Are you deliberately appeasing the “tofu‑eating wokerati” fan base and neglecting your liberal omnivores? Marilyn Downs Hale, Greater Manchester So an incoming Labour government can’t afford to invest £28bn combatting the climate crisis ( Labour to ditch £28bn annual green investment pledge, party sources say, 1 February ). But can it afford not to? Clifton Melvin Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire Gillian Bassett ( Letters, 4 February ) has a wonderful explanation of why Dutch showers are too cold. My mother was told by her older siblings to complain to the council, because it built the pavement too near her bottom. Alyson Elliman Carshalton Beeches, London Growing up in an estate in 1970s Belfast, when someone looked in through the window, my mother used to shout: “Do you want to come in and look out?” ( Letters, 4 February ). James Scott Limington, Somerset Explore more on these topics Iain Duncan Smith Brief letters Conservatives Food Veganism Labour Green politics Belfast letters Share Reuse this content The “Tory scum” case ( DPP appeals to supreme court in case of protesters who called MP ‘Tory scum’, 31 January ) reminds me that some of the sixth form classical scholars at my school produced a short-lived news sheet with the title Scum. For the paper’s motto they adopted the phrase Scum semper surgit (Scum always rises). Perhaps that explains everything. Eric Crouch Thame, Oxfordshire Please can we get a little more balance in the recipe section? So many vegetarian and vegan recipes , but a sad lack of anything containing meat. Are you deliberately appeasing the “tofu‑eating wokerati” fan base and neglecting your liberal omnivores? Marilyn Downs Hale, Greater Manchester So an incoming Labour government can’t afford to invest £28bn combatting the climate crisis ( Labour to ditch £28bn annual green investment pledge, party sources say, 1 February ). But can it afford not to? Clifton Melvin Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire Gillian Bassett ( Letters, 4 February ) has a wonderful explanation of why Dutch showers are too cold. My mother was told by her older siblings to complain to the council, because it built the pavement too near her bottom. Alyson Elliman Carshalton Beeches, London Growing up in an estate in 1970s Belfast, when someone looked in through the window, my mother used to shout: “Do you want to come in and look out?” ( Letters, 4 February ). James Scott Limington, Somerset Explore more on these topics Iain Duncan Smith Brief letters Conservatives Food Veganism Labour Green politics Belfast letters Share Reuse this content The “Tory scum” case ( DPP appeals to supreme court in case of protesters who called MP ‘Tory scum’, 31 January ) reminds me that some of the sixth form classical scholars at my school produced a short-lived news sheet with the title Scum. For the paper’s motto they adopted the phrase Scum semper surgit (Scum always rises). Perhaps that explains everything. Eric Crouch Thame, Oxfordshire Please can we get a little more balance in the recipe section? So many vegetarian and vegan recipes , but a sad lack of anything containing meat. Are you deliberately appeasing the “tofu‑eating wokerati” fan base and neglecting your liberal omnivores? Marilyn Downs Hale, Greater Manchester So an incoming Labour government can’t afford to invest £28bn combatting the climate crisis ( Labour to ditch £28bn annual green investment pledge, party sources say, 1 February ). But can it afford not to? Clifton Melvin Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire Gillian Bassett ( Letters, 4 February ) has a wonderful explanation of why Dutch showers are too cold. My mother was told by her older siblings to complain to the council, because it built the pavement too near her bottom. Alyson Elliman Carshalton Beeches, London Growing up in an estate in 1970s Belfast, when someone looked in through the window, my mother used to shout: “Do you want to come in and look out?” ( Letters, 4 February ). James Scott Limington, Somerset Explore more on these topics Iain Duncan Smith Brief letters Conservatives Food Veganism Labour Green politics Belfast letters Share Reuse this content The “Tory scum” case ( DPP appeals to supreme court in case of protesters who called MP ‘Tory scum’, 31 January ) reminds me that some of the sixth form classical scholars at my school produced a short-lived news sheet with the title Scum. For the paper’s motto they adopted the phrase Scum semper surgit (Scum always rises). Perhaps that explains everything. Eric Crouch Thame, Oxfordshire Please can we get a little more balance in the recipe section? So many vegetarian and vegan recipes , but a sad lack of anything containing meat. Are you deliberately appeasing the “tofu‑eating wokerati” fan base and neglecting your liberal omnivores? Marilyn Downs Hale, Greater Manchester So an incoming Labour government can’t afford to invest £28bn combatting the climate crisis ( Labour to ditch £28bn annual green investment pledge, party sources say, 1 February ). But can it afford not to? Clifton Melvin Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire Gillian Bassett ( Letters, 4 February ) has a wonderful explanation of why Dutch showers are too cold. My mother was told by her older siblings to complain to the council, because it built the pavement too near her bottom. Alyson Elliman Carshalton Beeches, London Growing up in an estate in 1970s Belfast, when someone looked in through the window, my mother used to shout: “Do you want to come in and look out?” ( Letters, 4 February ). James Scott Limington, Somerset The “Tory scum” case ( DPP appeals to supreme court in case of protesters who called MP ‘Tory scum’, 31 January ) reminds me that some of the sixth form classical scholars at my school produced a short-lived news sheet with the title Scum. For the paper’s motto they adopted the phrase Scum semper surgit (Scum always rises). Perhaps that explains everything. Eric Crouch Thame, Oxfordshire Please can we get a little more balance in the recipe section? So many vegetarian and vegan recipes , but a sad lack of anything containing meat. Are you deliberately appeasing the “tofu‑eating wokerati” fan base and neglecting your liberal omnivores? Marilyn Downs Hale, Greater Manchester So an incoming Labour government can’t afford to invest £28bn combatting the climate crisis ( Labour to ditch £28bn annual green investment pledge, party sources say, 1 February ). But can it afford not to? Clifton Melvin Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire Gillian Bassett ( Letters, 4 February ) has a wonderful explanation of why Dutch showers are too cold. My mother was told by her older siblings to complain to the council, because it built the pavement too near her bottom. Alyson Elliman Carshalton Beeches, London Growing up in an estate in 1970s Belfast, when someone looked in through the window, my mother used to shout: “Do you want to come in and look out?” ( Letters, 4 February ). James Scott Limington, Somerset The “Tory scum” case ( DPP appeals to supreme court in case of protesters who called MP ‘Tory scum’, 31 January ) reminds me that some of the sixth form classical scholars at my school produced a short-lived news sheet with the title Scum. For the paper’s motto they adopted the phrase Scum semper surgit (Scum always rises). Perhaps that explains everything. Eric Crouch Thame, Oxfordshire Please can we get a little more balance in the recipe section? So many vegetarian and vegan recipes , but a sad lack of anything containing meat. Are you deliberately appeasing the “tofu‑eating wokerati” fan base and neglecting your liberal omnivores? Marilyn Downs Hale, Greater Manchester So an incoming Labour government can’t afford to invest £28bn combatting the climate crisis ( Labour to ditch £28bn annual green investment pledge, party sources say, 1 February ). But can it afford not to? Clifton Melvin Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire Gillian Bassett ( Letters, 4 February ) has a wonderful explanation of why Dutch showers are too cold. My mother was told by her older siblings to complain to the council, because it built the pavement too near her bottom. Alyson Elliman Carshalton Beeches, London Growing up in an estate in 1970s Belfast, when someone looked in through the window, my mother used to shout: “Do you want to come in and look out?” ( Letters, 4 February ). James Scott Limington, Somerset Explore more on these topics Iain Duncan Smith Brief letters Conservatives Food Veganism Labour Green politics Belfast letters Share Reuse this content Iain Duncan Smith Brief letters Conservatives Food Veganism Labour Green politics Belfast letters
|
‘Symbol of polarisation’: EU scraps plans to halve use of pesticides
As farmers’ protests gather impetus, the EU makes further concessions after weeks of protests block economic lifelines. Photograph: Jean-François Badias/AP View image in fullscreen As farmers’ protests gather impetus, the EU makes further concessions after weeks of protests block economic lifelines. Photograph: Jean-François Badias/AP This article is more than 1 year old ‘Symbol of polarisation’: EU scraps plans to halve use of pesticides This article is more than 1 year old Move is among bloc’s latest environmental concessions to farmers as protests continue across Europe The European Commission is shelving plans to cut pesticide use and is taking the pressure off agriculture in its latest emissions recommendations, as farmers around Europe continue protests demanding higher prices for their products and an easing of EU environment rules. The original proposal to halve chemical pesticide use in the EU by the end of the decade – part of the EU’s green transition – “has become a symbol of polarisation”, said the commission president, Ursula von der Leyen . She added that she would ask the commission to withdraw the proposal. Separately on Tuesday, the commission recommended that the EU slash net greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040 but without the stipulation from previous drafts that farming would need to cut non-CO 2 emissions by 30% from 2015 levels in order to comply. The moves mark the bloc’s latest environmental concessions to farmers, whose recent protests across Europe in countries including France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands , Poland and Greece spread this week to Spain and Italy. Last week, in response to the protests, the bloc announced plans to limit market disruption from Ukrainian products entering the EU and delayed rules on setting aside more land to promote soil health and encourage biodiversity. Protests continued to spread on Tuesday. In Spain , thousands of farmers used WhatsApp groups to stage a series of informal protests, blocking off major roads around the country. Among the signs displayed by the tractors was one that read: “Our end will mean your hunger!” Demonstrations cut off roads in the regions of Madrid, Catalonia, Andalucía, Valencia, La Rioja, Castilla-La Mancha and Castilla y León. They also blockaded the port of Málaga and obstructed access to a massive wholesale market in Valladolid. Greek farmers also said on Tuesday they would block motorways and converge on Athens in their tractors after dozens of farmers’ federations voted to take concerted action at a meeting in the central city of Larissa, the state news agency ANA said. In Italy , farmers from argricultural regions protesting about red tape and cheap non-EU imports have begun converging on Rome, with tractors sporting the Italian flag and banners with slogans such as “No farmer, no food.” 1:10 Protesting farmers light fires and clash with police at European parliament – video Farmers say they face a storm of challenges , including falling product prices, rising energy, fertiliser and transport costs, cheap foreign imports, all-powerful retailers and excessive European and national regulations. Individual member states have also taken steps to appease angry farmers, with Germany watering down plans to cut diesel subsidies. Meanwhile, Paris is scrapping a planned diesel tax increase and promising more than €400m (£342m) in targeted help. The task of drafting proposals on pesticide legislation is likely to fall to the next commission. Von der Leyen said on Tuesday they had made little progress over the past two years in the European parliament or the European Council, representing EU member states. Far-right and anti-establishment parties, which are projected to make major gains in June’s European parliamentary elections , have picked up on farmers’ grievances as part of a wider drive against EU influence, pushing them to the top of the bloc’s agenda. A new commission will be formed after the June vote. “Many [farmers feel] pushed into a corner,” von der Leyen acknowledged, adding that farmers “deserve to be listened to”. But Europe’s agriculture needed to move to a more sustainable model of production that was more eco-friendly, she said. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Farmers use their tractors to block a highway near the border with the Netherlands in Arendonk. Photograph: Christian Levaux/Reuters Unions in Spain said more widespread protests would begin on Thursday and would last until 22 February. “We’re trying to explain our grievances in a concrete, concise and unanimous way,” said Donanciano Dujo , the vice-president of the Asaja farming association. “Once we’ve gone beyond the provincial and regional level, we’ll take the protests national and then we’ll go to Brussels.” Among the farmers’ demands is a revision of the European green deal, which they say “forces us to abandon productive lands, to drastically reduce pesticides and fertilisers, and is an attack on meat consumption”. Italian farmers also want the reinstatement of an income tax exemption scrapped in the government’s 2024 budget. “Our vehicles will converge around the capital,” said Danilo Calvani, one of their leaders. “Next week, there will be a big demonstration in Rome.” In the financial hub of Milan, farmers paraded a cow during a demonstration outside the offices of the Lombardy regional government. The prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, has said Italy had outperformed some of its EU counterparts in supporting farmers. In the Netherlands, hundreds of Dutch farmers blocked motorways, dumped rubbish on main roads and started fires in protests around the country that began late on Monday and in some places continued on Tuesday, police and Dutch media reported. Several people were injured in traffic accidents related to the protests, according to De Telegraaf , including two who needed hospital treatment after collisions that local authorities blamed on thick smoke from burning hay bales and wooden pallets. “Fires have been lit, fireworks set off and agricultural vehicles are driving on the highway,” police in the central Gelderland region said, adding that “action has been taken”. Several access ramps to the main A1 motorway remained blocked on Tuesday. Tractors also blocked the A7 motorway at several points and rubble was dumped on slip roads, the public broadcaster NOS said. Press photographers at one protest near Groningen told local media they were subjected to threats and intimidation. Explore more on these topics Pesticides European Commission Ursula von der Leyen Farming Food Food security European Union news Share Reuse this content As farmers’ protests gather impetus, the EU makes further concessions after weeks of protests block economic lifelines. Photograph: Jean-François Badias/AP View image in fullscreen As farmers’ protests gather impetus, the EU makes further concessions after weeks of protests block economic lifelines. Photograph: Jean-François Badias/AP This article is more than 1 year old ‘Symbol of polarisation’: EU scraps plans to halve use of pesticides This article is more than 1 year old Move is among bloc’s latest environmental concessions to farmers as protests continue across Europe The European Commission is shelving plans to cut pesticide use and is taking the pressure off agriculture in its latest emissions recommendations, as farmers around Europe continue protests demanding higher prices for their products and an easing of EU environment rules. The original proposal to halve chemical pesticide use in the EU by the end of the decade – part of the EU’s green transition – “has become a symbol of polarisation”, said the commission president, Ursula von der Leyen . She added that she would ask the commission to withdraw the proposal. Separately on Tuesday, the commission recommended that the EU slash net greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040 but without the stipulation from previous drafts that farming would need to cut non-CO 2 emissions by 30% from 2015 levels in order to comply. The moves mark the bloc’s latest environmental concessions to farmers, whose recent protests across Europe in countries including France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands , Poland and Greece spread this week to Spain and Italy. Last week, in response to the protests, the bloc announced plans to limit market disruption from Ukrainian products entering the EU and delayed rules on setting aside more land to promote soil health and encourage biodiversity. Protests continued to spread on Tuesday. In Spain , thousands of farmers used WhatsApp groups to stage a series of informal protests, blocking off major roads around the country. Among the signs displayed by the tractors was one that read: “Our end will mean your hunger!” Demonstrations cut off roads in the regions of Madrid, Catalonia, Andalucía, Valencia, La Rioja, Castilla-La Mancha and Castilla y León. They also blockaded the port of Málaga and obstructed access to a massive wholesale market in Valladolid. Greek farmers also said on Tuesday they would block motorways and converge on Athens in their tractors after dozens of farmers’ federations voted to take concerted action at a meeting in the central city of Larissa, the state news agency ANA said. In Italy , farmers from argricultural regions protesting about red tape and cheap non-EU imports have begun converging on Rome, with tractors sporting the Italian flag and banners with slogans such as “No farmer, no food.” 1:10 Protesting farmers light fires and clash with police at European parliament – video Farmers say they face a storm of challenges , including falling product prices, rising energy, fertiliser and transport costs, cheap foreign imports, all-powerful retailers and excessive European and national regulations. Individual member states have also taken steps to appease angry farmers, with Germany watering down plans to cut diesel subsidies. Meanwhile, Paris is scrapping a planned diesel tax increase and promising more than €400m (£342m) in targeted help. The task of drafting proposals on pesticide legislation is likely to fall to the next commission. Von der Leyen said on Tuesday they had made little progress over the past two years in the European parliament or the European Council, representing EU member states. Far-right and anti-establishment parties, which are projected to make major gains in June’s European parliamentary elections , have picked up on farmers’ grievances as part of a wider drive against EU influence, pushing them to the top of the bloc’s agenda. A new commission will be formed after the June vote. “Many [farmers feel] pushed into a corner,” von der Leyen acknowledged, adding that farmers “deserve to be listened to”. But Europe’s agriculture needed to move to a more sustainable model of production that was more eco-friendly, she said. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Farmers use their tractors to block a highway near the border with the Netherlands in Arendonk. Photograph: Christian Levaux/Reuters Unions in Spain said more widespread protests would begin on Thursday and would last until 22 February. “We’re trying to explain our grievances in a concrete, concise and unanimous way,” said Donanciano Dujo , the vice-president of the Asaja farming association. “Once we’ve gone beyond the provincial and regional level, we’ll take the protests national and then we’ll go to Brussels.” Among the farmers’ demands is a revision of the European green deal, which they say “forces us to abandon productive lands, to drastically reduce pesticides and fertilisers, and is an attack on meat consumption”. Italian farmers also want the reinstatement of an income tax exemption scrapped in the government’s 2024 budget. “Our vehicles will converge around the capital,” said Danilo Calvani, one of their leaders. “Next week, there will be a big demonstration in Rome.” In the financial hub of Milan, farmers paraded a cow during a demonstration outside the offices of the Lombardy regional government. The prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, has said Italy had outperformed some of its EU counterparts in supporting farmers. In the Netherlands, hundreds of Dutch farmers blocked motorways, dumped rubbish on main roads and started fires in protests around the country that began late on Monday and in some places continued on Tuesday, police and Dutch media reported. Several people were injured in traffic accidents related to the protests, according to De Telegraaf , including two who needed hospital treatment after collisions that local authorities blamed on thick smoke from burning hay bales and wooden pallets. “Fires have been lit, fireworks set off and agricultural vehicles are driving on the highway,” police in the central Gelderland region said, adding that “action has been taken”. Several access ramps to the main A1 motorway remained blocked on Tuesday. Tractors also blocked the A7 motorway at several points and rubble was dumped on slip roads, the public broadcaster NOS said. Press photographers at one protest near Groningen told local media they were subjected to threats and intimidation. Explore more on these topics Pesticides European Commission Ursula von der Leyen Farming Food Food security European Union news Share Reuse this content As farmers’ protests gather impetus, the EU makes further concessions after weeks of protests block economic lifelines. Photograph: Jean-François Badias/AP View image in fullscreen As farmers’ protests gather impetus, the EU makes further concessions after weeks of protests block economic lifelines. Photograph: Jean-François Badias/AP As farmers’ protests gather impetus, the EU makes further concessions after weeks of protests block economic lifelines. Photograph: Jean-François Badias/AP View image in fullscreen As farmers’ protests gather impetus, the EU makes further concessions after weeks of protests block economic lifelines. Photograph: Jean-François Badias/AP As farmers’ protests gather impetus, the EU makes further concessions after weeks of protests block economic lifelines. Photograph: Jean-François Badias/AP View image in fullscreen As farmers’ protests gather impetus, the EU makes further concessions after weeks of protests block economic lifelines. Photograph: Jean-François Badias/AP As farmers’ protests gather impetus, the EU makes further concessions after weeks of protests block economic lifelines. Photograph: Jean-François Badias/AP View image in fullscreen As farmers’ protests gather impetus, the EU makes further concessions after weeks of protests block economic lifelines. Photograph: Jean-François Badias/AP As farmers’ protests gather impetus, the EU makes further concessions after weeks of protests block economic lifelines. Photograph: Jean-François Badias/AP As farmers’ protests gather impetus, the EU makes further concessions after weeks of protests block economic lifelines. Photograph: Jean-François Badias/AP This article is more than 1 year old ‘Symbol of polarisation’: EU scraps plans to halve use of pesticides This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘Symbol of polarisation’: EU scraps plans to halve use of pesticides This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘Symbol of polarisation’: EU scraps plans to halve use of pesticides 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 Move is among bloc’s latest environmental concessions to farmers as protests continue across Europe Move is among bloc’s latest environmental concessions to farmers as protests continue across Europe Move is among bloc’s latest environmental concessions to farmers as protests continue across Europe The European Commission is shelving plans to cut pesticide use and is taking the pressure off agriculture in its latest emissions recommendations, as farmers around Europe continue protests demanding higher prices for their products and an easing of EU environment rules. The original proposal to halve chemical pesticide use in the EU by the end of the decade – part of the EU’s green transition – “has become a symbol of polarisation”, said the commission president, Ursula von der Leyen . She added that she would ask the commission to withdraw the proposal. Separately on Tuesday, the commission recommended that the EU slash net greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040 but without the stipulation from previous drafts that farming would need to cut non-CO 2 emissions by 30% from 2015 levels in order to comply. The moves mark the bloc’s latest environmental concessions to farmers, whose recent protests across Europe in countries including France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands , Poland and Greece spread this week to Spain and Italy. Last week, in response to the protests, the bloc announced plans to limit market disruption from Ukrainian products entering the EU and delayed rules on setting aside more land to promote soil health and encourage biodiversity. Protests continued to spread on Tuesday. In Spain , thousands of farmers used WhatsApp groups to stage a series of informal protests, blocking off major roads around the country. Among the signs displayed by the tractors was one that read: “Our end will mean your hunger!” Demonstrations cut off roads in the regions of Madrid, Catalonia, Andalucía, Valencia, La Rioja, Castilla-La Mancha and Castilla y León. They also blockaded the port of Málaga and obstructed access to a massive wholesale market in Valladolid. Greek farmers also said on Tuesday they would block motorways and converge on Athens in their tractors after dozens of farmers’ federations voted to take concerted action at a meeting in the central city of Larissa, the state news agency ANA said. In Italy , farmers from argricultural regions protesting about red tape and cheap non-EU imports have begun converging on Rome, with tractors sporting the Italian flag and banners with slogans such as “No farmer, no food.” 1:10 Protesting farmers light fires and clash with police at European parliament – video Farmers say they face a storm of challenges , including falling product prices, rising energy, fertiliser and transport costs, cheap foreign imports, all-powerful retailers and excessive European and national regulations. Individual member states have also taken steps to appease angry farmers, with Germany watering down plans to cut diesel subsidies. Meanwhile, Paris is scrapping a planned diesel tax increase and promising more than €400m (£342m) in targeted help. The task of drafting proposals on pesticide legislation is likely to fall to the next commission. Von der Leyen said on Tuesday they had made little progress over the past two years in the European parliament or the European Council, representing EU member states. Far-right and anti-establishment parties, which are projected to make major gains in June’s European parliamentary elections , have picked up on farmers’ grievances as part of a wider drive against EU influence, pushing them to the top of the bloc’s agenda. A new commission will be formed after the June vote. “Many [farmers feel] pushed into a corner,” von der Leyen acknowledged, adding that farmers “deserve to be listened to”. But Europe’s agriculture needed to move to a more sustainable model of production that was more eco-friendly, she said. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Farmers use their tractors to block a highway near the border with the Netherlands in Arendonk. Photograph: Christian Levaux/Reuters Unions in Spain said more widespread protests would begin on Thursday and would last until 22 February. “We’re trying to explain our grievances in a concrete, concise and unanimous way,” said Donanciano Dujo , the vice-president of the Asaja farming association. “Once we’ve gone beyond the provincial and regional level, we’ll take the protests national and then we’ll go to Brussels.” Among the farmers’ demands is a revision of the European green deal, which they say “forces us to abandon productive lands, to drastically reduce pesticides and fertilisers, and is an attack on meat consumption”. Italian farmers also want the reinstatement of an income tax exemption scrapped in the government’s 2024 budget. “Our vehicles will converge around the capital,” said Danilo Calvani, one of their leaders. “Next week, there will be a big demonstration in Rome.” In the financial hub of Milan, farmers paraded a cow during a demonstration outside the offices of the Lombardy regional government. The prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, has said Italy had outperformed some of its EU counterparts in supporting farmers. In the Netherlands, hundreds of Dutch farmers blocked motorways, dumped rubbish on main roads and started fires in protests around the country that began late on Monday and in some places continued on Tuesday, police and Dutch media reported. Several people were injured in traffic accidents related to the protests, according to De Telegraaf , including two who needed hospital treatment after collisions that local authorities blamed on thick smoke from burning hay bales and wooden pallets. “Fires have been lit, fireworks set off and agricultural vehicles are driving on the highway,” police in the central Gelderland region said, adding that “action has been taken”. Several access ramps to the main A1 motorway remained blocked on Tuesday. Tractors also blocked the A7 motorway at several points and rubble was dumped on slip roads, the public broadcaster NOS said. Press photographers at one protest near Groningen told local media they were subjected to threats and intimidation. Explore more on these topics Pesticides European Commission Ursula von der Leyen Farming Food Food security European Union news Share Reuse this content The European Commission is shelving plans to cut pesticide use and is taking the pressure off agriculture in its latest emissions recommendations, as farmers around Europe continue protests demanding higher prices for their products and an easing of EU environment rules. The original proposal to halve chemical pesticide use in the EU by the end of the decade – part of the EU’s green transition – “has become a symbol of polarisation”, said the commission president, Ursula von der Leyen . She added that she would ask the commission to withdraw the proposal. Separately on Tuesday, the commission recommended that the EU slash net greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040 but without the stipulation from previous drafts that farming would need to cut non-CO 2 emissions by 30% from 2015 levels in order to comply. The moves mark the bloc’s latest environmental concessions to farmers, whose recent protests across Europe in countries including France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands , Poland and Greece spread this week to Spain and Italy. Last week, in response to the protests, the bloc announced plans to limit market disruption from Ukrainian products entering the EU and delayed rules on setting aside more land to promote soil health and encourage biodiversity. Protests continued to spread on Tuesday. In Spain , thousands of farmers used WhatsApp groups to stage a series of informal protests, blocking off major roads around the country. Among the signs displayed by the tractors was one that read: “Our end will mean your hunger!” Demonstrations cut off roads in the regions of Madrid, Catalonia, Andalucía, Valencia, La Rioja, Castilla-La Mancha and Castilla y León. They also blockaded the port of Málaga and obstructed access to a massive wholesale market in Valladolid. Greek farmers also said on Tuesday they would block motorways and converge on Athens in their tractors after dozens of farmers’ federations voted to take concerted action at a meeting in the central city of Larissa, the state news agency ANA said. In Italy , farmers from argricultural regions protesting about red tape and cheap non-EU imports have begun converging on Rome, with tractors sporting the Italian flag and banners with slogans such as “No farmer, no food.” 1:10 Protesting farmers light fires and clash with police at European parliament – video Farmers say they face a storm of challenges , including falling product prices, rising energy, fertiliser and transport costs, cheap foreign imports, all-powerful retailers and excessive European and national regulations. Individual member states have also taken steps to appease angry farmers, with Germany watering down plans to cut diesel subsidies. Meanwhile, Paris is scrapping a planned diesel tax increase and promising more than €400m (£342m) in targeted help. The task of drafting proposals on pesticide legislation is likely to fall to the next commission. Von der Leyen said on Tuesday they had made little progress over the past two years in the European parliament or the European Council, representing EU member states. Far-right and anti-establishment parties, which are projected to make major gains in June’s European parliamentary elections , have picked up on farmers’ grievances as part of a wider drive against EU influence, pushing them to the top of the bloc’s agenda. A new commission will be formed after the June vote. “Many [farmers feel] pushed into a corner,” von der Leyen acknowledged, adding that farmers “deserve to be listened to”. But Europe’s agriculture needed to move to a more sustainable model of production that was more eco-friendly, she said. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Farmers use their tractors to block a highway near the border with the Netherlands in Arendonk. Photograph: Christian Levaux/Reuters Unions in Spain said more widespread protests would begin on Thursday and would last until 22 February. “We’re trying to explain our grievances in a concrete, concise and unanimous way,” said Donanciano Dujo , the vice-president of the Asaja farming association. “Once we’ve gone beyond the provincial and regional level, we’ll take the protests national and then we’ll go to Brussels.” Among the farmers’ demands is a revision of the European green deal, which they say “forces us to abandon productive lands, to drastically reduce pesticides and fertilisers, and is an attack on meat consumption”. Italian farmers also want the reinstatement of an income tax exemption scrapped in the government’s 2024 budget. “Our vehicles will converge around the capital,” said Danilo Calvani, one of their leaders. “Next week, there will be a big demonstration in Rome.” In the financial hub of Milan, farmers paraded a cow during a demonstration outside the offices of the Lombardy regional government. The prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, has said Italy had outperformed some of its EU counterparts in supporting farmers. In the Netherlands, hundreds of Dutch farmers blocked motorways, dumped rubbish on main roads and started fires in protests around the country that began late on Monday and in some places continued on Tuesday, police and Dutch media reported. Several people were injured in traffic accidents related to the protests, according to De Telegraaf , including two who needed hospital treatment after collisions that local authorities blamed on thick smoke from burning hay bales and wooden pallets. “Fires have been lit, fireworks set off and agricultural vehicles are driving on the highway,” police in the central Gelderland region said, adding that “action has been taken”. Several access ramps to the main A1 motorway remained blocked on Tuesday. Tractors also blocked the A7 motorway at several points and rubble was dumped on slip roads, the public broadcaster NOS said. Press photographers at one protest near Groningen told local media they were subjected to threats and intimidation. Explore more on these topics Pesticides European Commission Ursula von der Leyen Farming Food Food security European Union news Share Reuse this content The European Commission is shelving plans to cut pesticide use and is taking the pressure off agriculture in its latest emissions recommendations, as farmers around Europe continue protests demanding higher prices for their products and an easing of EU environment rules. The original proposal to halve chemical pesticide use in the EU by the end of the decade – part of the EU’s green transition – “has become a symbol of polarisation”, said the commission president, Ursula von der Leyen . She added that she would ask the commission to withdraw the proposal. Separately on Tuesday, the commission recommended that the EU slash net greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040 but without the stipulation from previous drafts that farming would need to cut non-CO 2 emissions by 30% from 2015 levels in order to comply. The moves mark the bloc’s latest environmental concessions to farmers, whose recent protests across Europe in countries including France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands , Poland and Greece spread this week to Spain and Italy. Last week, in response to the protests, the bloc announced plans to limit market disruption from Ukrainian products entering the EU and delayed rules on setting aside more land to promote soil health and encourage biodiversity. Protests continued to spread on Tuesday. In Spain , thousands of farmers used WhatsApp groups to stage a series of informal protests, blocking off major roads around the country. Among the signs displayed by the tractors was one that read: “Our end will mean your hunger!” Demonstrations cut off roads in the regions of Madrid, Catalonia, Andalucía, Valencia, La Rioja, Castilla-La Mancha and Castilla y León. They also blockaded the port of Málaga and obstructed access to a massive wholesale market in Valladolid. Greek farmers also said on Tuesday they would block motorways and converge on Athens in their tractors after dozens of farmers’ federations voted to take concerted action at a meeting in the central city of Larissa, the state news agency ANA said. In Italy , farmers from argricultural regions protesting about red tape and cheap non-EU imports have begun converging on Rome, with tractors sporting the Italian flag and banners with slogans such as “No farmer, no food.” 1:10 Protesting farmers light fires and clash with police at European parliament – video Farmers say they face a storm of challenges , including falling product prices, rising energy, fertiliser and transport costs, cheap foreign imports, all-powerful retailers and excessive European and national regulations. Individual member states have also taken steps to appease angry farmers, with Germany watering down plans to cut diesel subsidies. Meanwhile, Paris is scrapping a planned diesel tax increase and promising more than €400m (£342m) in targeted help. The task of drafting proposals on pesticide legislation is likely to fall to the next commission. Von der Leyen said on Tuesday they had made little progress over the past two years in the European parliament or the European Council, representing EU member states. Far-right and anti-establishment parties, which are projected to make major gains in June’s European parliamentary elections , have picked up on farmers’ grievances as part of a wider drive against EU influence, pushing them to the top of the bloc’s agenda. A new commission will be formed after the June vote. “Many [farmers feel] pushed into a corner,” von der Leyen acknowledged, adding that farmers “deserve to be listened to”. But Europe’s agriculture needed to move to a more sustainable model of production that was more eco-friendly, she said. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Farmers use their tractors to block a highway near the border with the Netherlands in Arendonk. Photograph: Christian Levaux/Reuters Unions in Spain said more widespread protests would begin on Thursday and would last until 22 February. “We’re trying to explain our grievances in a concrete, concise and unanimous way,” said Donanciano Dujo , the vice-president of the Asaja farming association. “Once we’ve gone beyond the provincial and regional level, we’ll take the protests national and then we’ll go to Brussels.” Among the farmers’ demands is a revision of the European green deal, which they say “forces us to abandon productive lands, to drastically reduce pesticides and fertilisers, and is an attack on meat consumption”. Italian farmers also want the reinstatement of an income tax exemption scrapped in the government’s 2024 budget. “Our vehicles will converge around the capital,” said Danilo Calvani, one of their leaders. “Next week, there will be a big demonstration in Rome.” In the financial hub of Milan, farmers paraded a cow during a demonstration outside the offices of the Lombardy regional government. The prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, has said Italy had outperformed some of its EU counterparts in supporting farmers. In the Netherlands, hundreds of Dutch farmers blocked motorways, dumped rubbish on main roads and started fires in protests around the country that began late on Monday and in some places continued on Tuesday, police and Dutch media reported. Several people were injured in traffic accidents related to the protests, according to De Telegraaf , including two who needed hospital treatment after collisions that local authorities blamed on thick smoke from burning hay bales and wooden pallets. “Fires have been lit, fireworks set off and agricultural vehicles are driving on the highway,” police in the central Gelderland region said, adding that “action has been taken”. Several access ramps to the main A1 motorway remained blocked on Tuesday. Tractors also blocked the A7 motorway at several points and rubble was dumped on slip roads, the public broadcaster NOS said. Press photographers at one protest near Groningen told local media they were subjected to threats and intimidation. The European Commission is shelving plans to cut pesticide use and is taking the pressure off agriculture in its latest emissions recommendations, as farmers around Europe continue protests demanding higher prices for their products and an easing of EU environment rules. The original proposal to halve chemical pesticide use in the EU by the end of the decade – part of the EU’s green transition – “has become a symbol of polarisation”, said the commission president, Ursula von der Leyen . She added that she would ask the commission to withdraw the proposal. Separately on Tuesday, the commission recommended that the EU slash net greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040 but without the stipulation from previous drafts that farming would need to cut non-CO 2 emissions by 30% from 2015 levels in order to comply. The moves mark the bloc’s latest environmental concessions to farmers, whose recent protests across Europe in countries including France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands , Poland and Greece spread this week to Spain and Italy. Last week, in response to the protests, the bloc announced plans to limit market disruption from Ukrainian products entering the EU and delayed rules on setting aside more land to promote soil health and encourage biodiversity. Protests continued to spread on Tuesday. In Spain , thousands of farmers used WhatsApp groups to stage a series of informal protests, blocking off major roads around the country. Among the signs displayed by the tractors was one that read: “Our end will mean your hunger!” Demonstrations cut off roads in the regions of Madrid, Catalonia, Andalucía, Valencia, La Rioja, Castilla-La Mancha and Castilla y León. They also blockaded the port of Málaga and obstructed access to a massive wholesale market in Valladolid. Greek farmers also said on Tuesday they would block motorways and converge on Athens in their tractors after dozens of farmers’ federations voted to take concerted action at a meeting in the central city of Larissa, the state news agency ANA said. In Italy , farmers from argricultural regions protesting about red tape and cheap non-EU imports have begun converging on Rome, with tractors sporting the Italian flag and banners with slogans such as “No farmer, no food.” 1:10 Protesting farmers light fires and clash with police at European parliament – video Farmers say they face a storm of challenges , including falling product prices, rising energy, fertiliser and transport costs, cheap foreign imports, all-powerful retailers and excessive European and national regulations. Individual member states have also taken steps to appease angry farmers, with Germany watering down plans to cut diesel subsidies. Meanwhile, Paris is scrapping a planned diesel tax increase and promising more than €400m (£342m) in targeted help. The task of drafting proposals on pesticide legislation is likely to fall to the next commission. Von der Leyen said on Tuesday they had made little progress over the past two years in the European parliament or the European Council, representing EU member states. Far-right and anti-establishment parties, which are projected to make major gains in June’s European parliamentary elections , have picked up on farmers’ grievances as part of a wider drive against EU influence, pushing them to the top of the bloc’s agenda. A new commission will be formed after the June vote. “Many [farmers feel] pushed into a corner,” von der Leyen acknowledged, adding that farmers “deserve to be listened to”. But Europe’s agriculture needed to move to a more sustainable model of production that was more eco-friendly, she said. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Farmers use their tractors to block a highway near the border with the Netherlands in Arendonk. Photograph: Christian Levaux/Reuters Unions in Spain said more widespread protests would begin on Thursday and would last until 22 February. “We’re trying to explain our grievances in a concrete, concise and unanimous way,” said Donanciano Dujo , the vice-president of the Asaja farming association. “Once we’ve gone beyond the provincial and regional level, we’ll take the protests national and then we’ll go to Brussels.” Among the farmers’ demands is a revision of the European green deal, which they say “forces us to abandon productive lands, to drastically reduce pesticides and fertilisers, and is an attack on meat consumption”. Italian farmers also want the reinstatement of an income tax exemption scrapped in the government’s 2024 budget. “Our vehicles will converge around the capital,” said Danilo Calvani, one of their leaders. “Next week, there will be a big demonstration in Rome.” In the financial hub of Milan, farmers paraded a cow during a demonstration outside the offices of the Lombardy regional government. The prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, has said Italy had outperformed some of its EU counterparts in supporting farmers. In the Netherlands, hundreds of Dutch farmers blocked motorways, dumped rubbish on main roads and started fires in protests around the country that began late on Monday and in some places continued on Tuesday, police and Dutch media reported. Several people were injured in traffic accidents related to the protests, according to De Telegraaf , including two who needed hospital treatment after collisions that local authorities blamed on thick smoke from burning hay bales and wooden pallets. “Fires have been lit, fireworks set off and agricultural vehicles are driving on the highway,” police in the central Gelderland region said, adding that “action has been taken”. Several access ramps to the main A1 motorway remained blocked on Tuesday. Tractors also blocked the A7 motorway at several points and rubble was dumped on slip roads, the public broadcaster NOS said. Press photographers at one protest near Groningen told local media they were subjected to threats and intimidation. The European Commission is shelving plans to cut pesticide use and is taking the pressure off agriculture in its latest emissions recommendations, as farmers around Europe continue protests demanding higher prices for their products and an easing of EU environment rules. The original proposal to halve chemical pesticide use in the EU by the end of the decade – part of the EU’s green transition – “has become a symbol of polarisation”, said the commission president, Ursula von der Leyen . She added that she would ask the commission to withdraw the proposal. Separately on Tuesday, the commission recommended that the EU slash net greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040 but without the stipulation from previous drafts that farming would need to cut non-CO 2 emissions by 30% from 2015 levels in order to comply. The moves mark the bloc’s latest environmental concessions to farmers, whose recent protests across Europe in countries including France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands , Poland and Greece spread this week to Spain and Italy. Last week, in response to the protests, the bloc announced plans to limit market disruption from Ukrainian products entering the EU and delayed rules on setting aside more land to promote soil health and encourage biodiversity. Protests continued to spread on Tuesday. In Spain , thousands of farmers used WhatsApp groups to stage a series of informal protests, blocking off major roads around the country. Among the signs displayed by the tractors was one that read: “Our end will mean your hunger!” Demonstrations cut off roads in the regions of Madrid, Catalonia, Andalucía, Valencia, La Rioja, Castilla-La Mancha and Castilla y León. They also blockaded the port of Málaga and obstructed access to a massive wholesale market in Valladolid. Greek farmers also said on Tuesday they would block motorways and converge on Athens in their tractors after dozens of farmers’ federations voted to take concerted action at a meeting in the central city of Larissa, the state news agency ANA said. In Italy , farmers from argricultural regions protesting about red tape and cheap non-EU imports have begun converging on Rome, with tractors sporting the Italian flag and banners with slogans such as “No farmer, no food.” 1:10 Protesting farmers light fires and clash with police at European parliament – video Farmers say they face a storm of challenges , including falling product prices, rising energy, fertiliser and transport costs, cheap foreign imports, all-powerful retailers and excessive European and national regulations. Individual member states have also taken steps to appease angry farmers, with Germany watering down plans to cut diesel subsidies. Meanwhile, Paris is scrapping a planned diesel tax increase and promising more than €400m (£342m) in targeted help. The task of drafting proposals on pesticide legislation is likely to fall to the next commission. Von der Leyen said on Tuesday they had made little progress over the past two years in the European parliament or the European Council, representing EU member states. Far-right and anti-establishment parties, which are projected to make major gains in June’s European parliamentary elections , have picked up on farmers’ grievances as part of a wider drive against EU influence, pushing them to the top of the bloc’s agenda. A new commission will be formed after the June vote. “Many [farmers feel] pushed into a corner,” von der Leyen acknowledged, adding that farmers “deserve to be listened to”. But Europe’s agriculture needed to move to a more sustainable model of production that was more eco-friendly, she said. Unions in Spain said more widespread protests would begin on Thursday and would last until 22 February. “We’re trying to explain our grievances in a concrete, concise and unanimous way,” said Donanciano Dujo , the vice-president of the Asaja farming association. “Once we’ve gone beyond the provincial and regional level, we’ll take the protests national and then we’ll go to Brussels.” Among the farmers’ demands is a revision of the European green deal, which they say “forces us to abandon productive lands, to drastically reduce pesticides and fertilisers, and is an attack on meat consumption”. Italian farmers also want the reinstatement of an income tax exemption scrapped in the government’s 2024 budget. “Our vehicles will converge around the capital,” said Danilo Calvani, one of their leaders. “Next week, there will be a big demonstration in Rome.” In the financial hub of Milan, farmers paraded a cow during a demonstration outside the offices of the Lombardy regional government. The prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, has said Italy had outperformed some of its EU counterparts in supporting farmers. In the Netherlands, hundreds of Dutch farmers blocked motorways, dumped rubbish on main roads and started fires in protests around the country that began late on Monday and in some places continued on Tuesday, police and Dutch media reported. Several people were injured in traffic accidents related to the protests, according to De Telegraaf , including two who needed hospital treatment after collisions that local authorities blamed on thick smoke from burning hay bales and wooden pallets. “Fires have been lit, fireworks set off and agricultural vehicles are driving on the highway,” police in the central Gelderland region said, adding that “action has been taken”. Several access ramps to the main A1 motorway remained blocked on Tuesday. Tractors also blocked the A7 motorway at several points and rubble was dumped on slip roads, the public broadcaster NOS said. Press photographers at one protest near Groningen told local media they were subjected to threats and intimidation. Explore more on these topics Pesticides European Commission Ursula von der Leyen Farming Food Food security European Union news Share Reuse this content Pesticides European Commission Ursula von der Leyen Farming Food Food security European Union news
|
EU lays out plan to cut greenhouse emissions by 90% by 2040
A fireman douses a wildfire in Greece last year. Photograph: Valérie Gache/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen A fireman douses a wildfire in Greece last year. Photograph: Valérie Gache/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old EU lays out plan to cut greenhouse emissions by 90% by 2040 This article is more than 1 year old Proposal is part of European Commission’s aim to become world’s first climate-neutral continent The EU aims to slash its net greenhouse gas pollution by 90% by 2040 as part of its push to become the world’s first climate-neutral continent, the European Commission has announced before elections in June. Under a landmark proposal laid out by its executive body on Tuesday, the bloc will have to pump 90% less planet-heating gas into the air by 2040 than it did in 1990, a figure which includes the carbon it removes from the atmosphere. The target is at the bottom end of the 90-95% net cuts that the EU’s scientific watchdog recommended in June, and meeting it would require a much faster shift to a clean economy. In the three decades between 1990 and 2021, the EU’s 27 member states cut their emissions by just 30%, according to the European Environment Agency, leaving them half as long to do twice the work. Wopke Hoekstra, the EU climate commissioner, said the target sent a message to the world that Europe “continues to lead the way” on climate action. “Tackling the climate crisis is a marathon, not a sprint. We need to make sure everyone crosses the finish line and nobody is left behind,” he said. The target, which is a recommendation for the next commission after European elections in June, is part of a bid to stop extreme weather from growing more violent. But some of the individual targets were scrapped at the last minute because of protests from farmers that have seen politicians in the EU and its member states row back on plans to make farms pollute less. Pieter de Pous, a nature policy expert at the climate thinktank E3G, said: “It’s hard to find a more fitting use of the metaphor ‘cutting off the branch you sit on’ than witnessing farmers unite in efforts to undermine the very climate policies designed to protect them from the devastating impacts of climate change.” The final document no longer refers to cutting agricultural emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas belched out by cows, or nitrogen, a pollutant in fertiliser and manure that reacts to form heat-trapping gases. The text instead states that its purpose is to launch the political debate. “It does not propose new policy measures or set new sector-specific targets.” The scrapped farming target is the third concession to farmers in the last week, after Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, told lawmakers on Tuesday morning that she would take back a proposal to use fewer pesticides . Last week she asked member states to delay a key rule to save wildlife and protect soils. ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests Read more The EU has sped up its energy transition in recent years by building sources of clean electricity, such as wind turbines and solar panels, at a faster pace. Under the new proposal, it plans to use 80% less fossil fuels in the energy sector by 2040 than it did in 2021. But it has made little progress in cleaning up sectors like food and transport. Keeping the exemption in the agriculture sector “sets a worrisome precedent as negotiations on climate ambition begin”, said De Pous. The 2040 target was announced on Tuesday in the European parliament alongside a new strategy to capture carbon. The commission had previously proposed a target to capture 50m tonnes of CO2 a year by 2030 and wants that to rise to 280m tonnes by 2040. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion By then, the commission has suggested, the EU should emit less than 850 megatonnes of CO2e and remove up to 400 megatonnes from land and industry. Kadri Simon, the EU energy commissioner, said renewables and energy efficiency were still “central” to climate neutrality but that reaching net zero emissions also meant using technologies to manage carbon. Environmental groups and scientists are divided on how big a role capturing carbon from factories and removing it from the atmosphere should play in the energy transition. Experts have said that the technology is the most promising way to clean up some heavy industries like cement, and it could also compensate for leftover emissions from sectors that are hard to clean up. But the promise of carbon capture in the future is also used by governments and oil companies to keep burning fuels that pollute the air with other toxic particles, and to allow them to cut emissions more slowly today. Silvia Pastorelli, a climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace, said the commission’s plans did not meet the EU’s responsibility to fight climate breakdown. “While it sounds like a big number, this target uses some creative accounting with promised carbon capture to hide much lower actual emission cuts.” She added: “Without honesty about an end to fossil fuels and finally tackling farming emissions, it’s hard to see how the EU will even clear this too-low bar it’s setting itself.” Explore more on these topics Greenhouse gas emissions European Union Climate crisis Europe European Commission news Share Reuse this content A fireman douses a wildfire in Greece last year. Photograph: Valérie Gache/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen A fireman douses a wildfire in Greece last year. Photograph: Valérie Gache/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old EU lays out plan to cut greenhouse emissions by 90% by 2040 This article is more than 1 year old Proposal is part of European Commission’s aim to become world’s first climate-neutral continent The EU aims to slash its net greenhouse gas pollution by 90% by 2040 as part of its push to become the world’s first climate-neutral continent, the European Commission has announced before elections in June. Under a landmark proposal laid out by its executive body on Tuesday, the bloc will have to pump 90% less planet-heating gas into the air by 2040 than it did in 1990, a figure which includes the carbon it removes from the atmosphere. The target is at the bottom end of the 90-95% net cuts that the EU’s scientific watchdog recommended in June, and meeting it would require a much faster shift to a clean economy. In the three decades between 1990 and 2021, the EU’s 27 member states cut their emissions by just 30%, according to the European Environment Agency, leaving them half as long to do twice the work. Wopke Hoekstra, the EU climate commissioner, said the target sent a message to the world that Europe “continues to lead the way” on climate action. “Tackling the climate crisis is a marathon, not a sprint. We need to make sure everyone crosses the finish line and nobody is left behind,” he said. The target, which is a recommendation for the next commission after European elections in June, is part of a bid to stop extreme weather from growing more violent. But some of the individual targets were scrapped at the last minute because of protests from farmers that have seen politicians in the EU and its member states row back on plans to make farms pollute less. Pieter de Pous, a nature policy expert at the climate thinktank E3G, said: “It’s hard to find a more fitting use of the metaphor ‘cutting off the branch you sit on’ than witnessing farmers unite in efforts to undermine the very climate policies designed to protect them from the devastating impacts of climate change.” The final document no longer refers to cutting agricultural emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas belched out by cows, or nitrogen, a pollutant in fertiliser and manure that reacts to form heat-trapping gases. The text instead states that its purpose is to launch the political debate. “It does not propose new policy measures or set new sector-specific targets.” The scrapped farming target is the third concession to farmers in the last week, after Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, told lawmakers on Tuesday morning that she would take back a proposal to use fewer pesticides . Last week she asked member states to delay a key rule to save wildlife and protect soils. ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests Read more The EU has sped up its energy transition in recent years by building sources of clean electricity, such as wind turbines and solar panels, at a faster pace. Under the new proposal, it plans to use 80% less fossil fuels in the energy sector by 2040 than it did in 2021. But it has made little progress in cleaning up sectors like food and transport. Keeping the exemption in the agriculture sector “sets a worrisome precedent as negotiations on climate ambition begin”, said De Pous. The 2040 target was announced on Tuesday in the European parliament alongside a new strategy to capture carbon. The commission had previously proposed a target to capture 50m tonnes of CO2 a year by 2030 and wants that to rise to 280m tonnes by 2040. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion By then, the commission has suggested, the EU should emit less than 850 megatonnes of CO2e and remove up to 400 megatonnes from land and industry. Kadri Simon, the EU energy commissioner, said renewables and energy efficiency were still “central” to climate neutrality but that reaching net zero emissions also meant using technologies to manage carbon. Environmental groups and scientists are divided on how big a role capturing carbon from factories and removing it from the atmosphere should play in the energy transition. Experts have said that the technology is the most promising way to clean up some heavy industries like cement, and it could also compensate for leftover emissions from sectors that are hard to clean up. But the promise of carbon capture in the future is also used by governments and oil companies to keep burning fuels that pollute the air with other toxic particles, and to allow them to cut emissions more slowly today. Silvia Pastorelli, a climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace, said the commission’s plans did not meet the EU’s responsibility to fight climate breakdown. “While it sounds like a big number, this target uses some creative accounting with promised carbon capture to hide much lower actual emission cuts.” She added: “Without honesty about an end to fossil fuels and finally tackling farming emissions, it’s hard to see how the EU will even clear this too-low bar it’s setting itself.” Explore more on these topics Greenhouse gas emissions European Union Climate crisis Europe European Commission news Share Reuse this content A fireman douses a wildfire in Greece last year. Photograph: Valérie Gache/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen A fireman douses a wildfire in Greece last year. Photograph: Valérie Gache/AFP/Getty Images A fireman douses a wildfire in Greece last year. Photograph: Valérie Gache/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen A fireman douses a wildfire in Greece last year. Photograph: Valérie Gache/AFP/Getty Images A fireman douses a wildfire in Greece last year. Photograph: Valérie Gache/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen A fireman douses a wildfire in Greece last year. Photograph: Valérie Gache/AFP/Getty Images A fireman douses a wildfire in Greece last year. Photograph: Valérie Gache/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen A fireman douses a wildfire in Greece last year. Photograph: Valérie Gache/AFP/Getty Images A fireman douses a wildfire in Greece last year. Photograph: Valérie Gache/AFP/Getty Images A fireman douses a wildfire in Greece last year. Photograph: Valérie Gache/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old EU lays out plan to cut greenhouse emissions by 90% by 2040 This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old EU lays out plan to cut greenhouse emissions by 90% by 2040 This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old EU lays out plan to cut greenhouse emissions by 90% by 2040 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 Proposal is part of European Commission’s aim to become world’s first climate-neutral continent Proposal is part of European Commission’s aim to become world’s first climate-neutral continent Proposal is part of European Commission’s aim to become world’s first climate-neutral continent The EU aims to slash its net greenhouse gas pollution by 90% by 2040 as part of its push to become the world’s first climate-neutral continent, the European Commission has announced before elections in June. Under a landmark proposal laid out by its executive body on Tuesday, the bloc will have to pump 90% less planet-heating gas into the air by 2040 than it did in 1990, a figure which includes the carbon it removes from the atmosphere. The target is at the bottom end of the 90-95% net cuts that the EU’s scientific watchdog recommended in June, and meeting it would require a much faster shift to a clean economy. In the three decades between 1990 and 2021, the EU’s 27 member states cut their emissions by just 30%, according to the European Environment Agency, leaving them half as long to do twice the work. Wopke Hoekstra, the EU climate commissioner, said the target sent a message to the world that Europe “continues to lead the way” on climate action. “Tackling the climate crisis is a marathon, not a sprint. We need to make sure everyone crosses the finish line and nobody is left behind,” he said. The target, which is a recommendation for the next commission after European elections in June, is part of a bid to stop extreme weather from growing more violent. But some of the individual targets were scrapped at the last minute because of protests from farmers that have seen politicians in the EU and its member states row back on plans to make farms pollute less. Pieter de Pous, a nature policy expert at the climate thinktank E3G, said: “It’s hard to find a more fitting use of the metaphor ‘cutting off the branch you sit on’ than witnessing farmers unite in efforts to undermine the very climate policies designed to protect them from the devastating impacts of climate change.” The final document no longer refers to cutting agricultural emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas belched out by cows, or nitrogen, a pollutant in fertiliser and manure that reacts to form heat-trapping gases. The text instead states that its purpose is to launch the political debate. “It does not propose new policy measures or set new sector-specific targets.” The scrapped farming target is the third concession to farmers in the last week, after Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, told lawmakers on Tuesday morning that she would take back a proposal to use fewer pesticides . Last week she asked member states to delay a key rule to save wildlife and protect soils. ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests Read more The EU has sped up its energy transition in recent years by building sources of clean electricity, such as wind turbines and solar panels, at a faster pace. Under the new proposal, it plans to use 80% less fossil fuels in the energy sector by 2040 than it did in 2021. But it has made little progress in cleaning up sectors like food and transport. Keeping the exemption in the agriculture sector “sets a worrisome precedent as negotiations on climate ambition begin”, said De Pous. The 2040 target was announced on Tuesday in the European parliament alongside a new strategy to capture carbon. The commission had previously proposed a target to capture 50m tonnes of CO2 a year by 2030 and wants that to rise to 280m tonnes by 2040. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion By then, the commission has suggested, the EU should emit less than 850 megatonnes of CO2e and remove up to 400 megatonnes from land and industry. Kadri Simon, the EU energy commissioner, said renewables and energy efficiency were still “central” to climate neutrality but that reaching net zero emissions also meant using technologies to manage carbon. Environmental groups and scientists are divided on how big a role capturing carbon from factories and removing it from the atmosphere should play in the energy transition. Experts have said that the technology is the most promising way to clean up some heavy industries like cement, and it could also compensate for leftover emissions from sectors that are hard to clean up. But the promise of carbon capture in the future is also used by governments and oil companies to keep burning fuels that pollute the air with other toxic particles, and to allow them to cut emissions more slowly today. Silvia Pastorelli, a climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace, said the commission’s plans did not meet the EU’s responsibility to fight climate breakdown. “While it sounds like a big number, this target uses some creative accounting with promised carbon capture to hide much lower actual emission cuts.” She added: “Without honesty about an end to fossil fuels and finally tackling farming emissions, it’s hard to see how the EU will even clear this too-low bar it’s setting itself.” Explore more on these topics Greenhouse gas emissions European Union Climate crisis Europe European Commission news Share Reuse this content The EU aims to slash its net greenhouse gas pollution by 90% by 2040 as part of its push to become the world’s first climate-neutral continent, the European Commission has announced before elections in June. Under a landmark proposal laid out by its executive body on Tuesday, the bloc will have to pump 90% less planet-heating gas into the air by 2040 than it did in 1990, a figure which includes the carbon it removes from the atmosphere. The target is at the bottom end of the 90-95% net cuts that the EU’s scientific watchdog recommended in June, and meeting it would require a much faster shift to a clean economy. In the three decades between 1990 and 2021, the EU’s 27 member states cut their emissions by just 30%, according to the European Environment Agency, leaving them half as long to do twice the work. Wopke Hoekstra, the EU climate commissioner, said the target sent a message to the world that Europe “continues to lead the way” on climate action. “Tackling the climate crisis is a marathon, not a sprint. We need to make sure everyone crosses the finish line and nobody is left behind,” he said. The target, which is a recommendation for the next commission after European elections in June, is part of a bid to stop extreme weather from growing more violent. But some of the individual targets were scrapped at the last minute because of protests from farmers that have seen politicians in the EU and its member states row back on plans to make farms pollute less. Pieter de Pous, a nature policy expert at the climate thinktank E3G, said: “It’s hard to find a more fitting use of the metaphor ‘cutting off the branch you sit on’ than witnessing farmers unite in efforts to undermine the very climate policies designed to protect them from the devastating impacts of climate change.” The final document no longer refers to cutting agricultural emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas belched out by cows, or nitrogen, a pollutant in fertiliser and manure that reacts to form heat-trapping gases. The text instead states that its purpose is to launch the political debate. “It does not propose new policy measures or set new sector-specific targets.” The scrapped farming target is the third concession to farmers in the last week, after Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, told lawmakers on Tuesday morning that she would take back a proposal to use fewer pesticides . Last week she asked member states to delay a key rule to save wildlife and protect soils. ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests Read more The EU has sped up its energy transition in recent years by building sources of clean electricity, such as wind turbines and solar panels, at a faster pace. Under the new proposal, it plans to use 80% less fossil fuels in the energy sector by 2040 than it did in 2021. But it has made little progress in cleaning up sectors like food and transport. Keeping the exemption in the agriculture sector “sets a worrisome precedent as negotiations on climate ambition begin”, said De Pous. The 2040 target was announced on Tuesday in the European parliament alongside a new strategy to capture carbon. The commission had previously proposed a target to capture 50m tonnes of CO2 a year by 2030 and wants that to rise to 280m tonnes by 2040. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion By then, the commission has suggested, the EU should emit less than 850 megatonnes of CO2e and remove up to 400 megatonnes from land and industry. Kadri Simon, the EU energy commissioner, said renewables and energy efficiency were still “central” to climate neutrality but that reaching net zero emissions also meant using technologies to manage carbon. Environmental groups and scientists are divided on how big a role capturing carbon from factories and removing it from the atmosphere should play in the energy transition. Experts have said that the technology is the most promising way to clean up some heavy industries like cement, and it could also compensate for leftover emissions from sectors that are hard to clean up. But the promise of carbon capture in the future is also used by governments and oil companies to keep burning fuels that pollute the air with other toxic particles, and to allow them to cut emissions more slowly today. Silvia Pastorelli, a climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace, said the commission’s plans did not meet the EU’s responsibility to fight climate breakdown. “While it sounds like a big number, this target uses some creative accounting with promised carbon capture to hide much lower actual emission cuts.” She added: “Without honesty about an end to fossil fuels and finally tackling farming emissions, it’s hard to see how the EU will even clear this too-low bar it’s setting itself.” Explore more on these topics Greenhouse gas emissions European Union Climate crisis Europe European Commission news Share Reuse this content The EU aims to slash its net greenhouse gas pollution by 90% by 2040 as part of its push to become the world’s first climate-neutral continent, the European Commission has announced before elections in June. Under a landmark proposal laid out by its executive body on Tuesday, the bloc will have to pump 90% less planet-heating gas into the air by 2040 than it did in 1990, a figure which includes the carbon it removes from the atmosphere. The target is at the bottom end of the 90-95% net cuts that the EU’s scientific watchdog recommended in June, and meeting it would require a much faster shift to a clean economy. In the three decades between 1990 and 2021, the EU’s 27 member states cut their emissions by just 30%, according to the European Environment Agency, leaving them half as long to do twice the work. Wopke Hoekstra, the EU climate commissioner, said the target sent a message to the world that Europe “continues to lead the way” on climate action. “Tackling the climate crisis is a marathon, not a sprint. We need to make sure everyone crosses the finish line and nobody is left behind,” he said. The target, which is a recommendation for the next commission after European elections in June, is part of a bid to stop extreme weather from growing more violent. But some of the individual targets were scrapped at the last minute because of protests from farmers that have seen politicians in the EU and its member states row back on plans to make farms pollute less. Pieter de Pous, a nature policy expert at the climate thinktank E3G, said: “It’s hard to find a more fitting use of the metaphor ‘cutting off the branch you sit on’ than witnessing farmers unite in efforts to undermine the very climate policies designed to protect them from the devastating impacts of climate change.” The final document no longer refers to cutting agricultural emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas belched out by cows, or nitrogen, a pollutant in fertiliser and manure that reacts to form heat-trapping gases. The text instead states that its purpose is to launch the political debate. “It does not propose new policy measures or set new sector-specific targets.” The scrapped farming target is the third concession to farmers in the last week, after Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, told lawmakers on Tuesday morning that she would take back a proposal to use fewer pesticides . Last week she asked member states to delay a key rule to save wildlife and protect soils. ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests Read more The EU has sped up its energy transition in recent years by building sources of clean electricity, such as wind turbines and solar panels, at a faster pace. Under the new proposal, it plans to use 80% less fossil fuels in the energy sector by 2040 than it did in 2021. But it has made little progress in cleaning up sectors like food and transport. Keeping the exemption in the agriculture sector “sets a worrisome precedent as negotiations on climate ambition begin”, said De Pous. The 2040 target was announced on Tuesday in the European parliament alongside a new strategy to capture carbon. The commission had previously proposed a target to capture 50m tonnes of CO2 a year by 2030 and wants that to rise to 280m tonnes by 2040. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion By then, the commission has suggested, the EU should emit less than 850 megatonnes of CO2e and remove up to 400 megatonnes from land and industry. Kadri Simon, the EU energy commissioner, said renewables and energy efficiency were still “central” to climate neutrality but that reaching net zero emissions also meant using technologies to manage carbon. Environmental groups and scientists are divided on how big a role capturing carbon from factories and removing it from the atmosphere should play in the energy transition. Experts have said that the technology is the most promising way to clean up some heavy industries like cement, and it could also compensate for leftover emissions from sectors that are hard to clean up. But the promise of carbon capture in the future is also used by governments and oil companies to keep burning fuels that pollute the air with other toxic particles, and to allow them to cut emissions more slowly today. Silvia Pastorelli, a climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace, said the commission’s plans did not meet the EU’s responsibility to fight climate breakdown. “While it sounds like a big number, this target uses some creative accounting with promised carbon capture to hide much lower actual emission cuts.” She added: “Without honesty about an end to fossil fuels and finally tackling farming emissions, it’s hard to see how the EU will even clear this too-low bar it’s setting itself.” The EU aims to slash its net greenhouse gas pollution by 90% by 2040 as part of its push to become the world’s first climate-neutral continent, the European Commission has announced before elections in June. Under a landmark proposal laid out by its executive body on Tuesday, the bloc will have to pump 90% less planet-heating gas into the air by 2040 than it did in 1990, a figure which includes the carbon it removes from the atmosphere. The target is at the bottom end of the 90-95% net cuts that the EU’s scientific watchdog recommended in June, and meeting it would require a much faster shift to a clean economy. In the three decades between 1990 and 2021, the EU’s 27 member states cut their emissions by just 30%, according to the European Environment Agency, leaving them half as long to do twice the work. Wopke Hoekstra, the EU climate commissioner, said the target sent a message to the world that Europe “continues to lead the way” on climate action. “Tackling the climate crisis is a marathon, not a sprint. We need to make sure everyone crosses the finish line and nobody is left behind,” he said. The target, which is a recommendation for the next commission after European elections in June, is part of a bid to stop extreme weather from growing more violent. But some of the individual targets were scrapped at the last minute because of protests from farmers that have seen politicians in the EU and its member states row back on plans to make farms pollute less. Pieter de Pous, a nature policy expert at the climate thinktank E3G, said: “It’s hard to find a more fitting use of the metaphor ‘cutting off the branch you sit on’ than witnessing farmers unite in efforts to undermine the very climate policies designed to protect them from the devastating impacts of climate change.” The final document no longer refers to cutting agricultural emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas belched out by cows, or nitrogen, a pollutant in fertiliser and manure that reacts to form heat-trapping gases. The text instead states that its purpose is to launch the political debate. “It does not propose new policy measures or set new sector-specific targets.” The scrapped farming target is the third concession to farmers in the last week, after Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, told lawmakers on Tuesday morning that she would take back a proposal to use fewer pesticides . Last week she asked member states to delay a key rule to save wildlife and protect soils. ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests Read more The EU has sped up its energy transition in recent years by building sources of clean electricity, such as wind turbines and solar panels, at a faster pace. Under the new proposal, it plans to use 80% less fossil fuels in the energy sector by 2040 than it did in 2021. But it has made little progress in cleaning up sectors like food and transport. Keeping the exemption in the agriculture sector “sets a worrisome precedent as negotiations on climate ambition begin”, said De Pous. The 2040 target was announced on Tuesday in the European parliament alongside a new strategy to capture carbon. The commission had previously proposed a target to capture 50m tonnes of CO2 a year by 2030 and wants that to rise to 280m tonnes by 2040. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion By then, the commission has suggested, the EU should emit less than 850 megatonnes of CO2e and remove up to 400 megatonnes from land and industry. Kadri Simon, the EU energy commissioner, said renewables and energy efficiency were still “central” to climate neutrality but that reaching net zero emissions also meant using technologies to manage carbon. Environmental groups and scientists are divided on how big a role capturing carbon from factories and removing it from the atmosphere should play in the energy transition. Experts have said that the technology is the most promising way to clean up some heavy industries like cement, and it could also compensate for leftover emissions from sectors that are hard to clean up. But the promise of carbon capture in the future is also used by governments and oil companies to keep burning fuels that pollute the air with other toxic particles, and to allow them to cut emissions more slowly today. Silvia Pastorelli, a climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace, said the commission’s plans did not meet the EU’s responsibility to fight climate breakdown. “While it sounds like a big number, this target uses some creative accounting with promised carbon capture to hide much lower actual emission cuts.” She added: “Without honesty about an end to fossil fuels and finally tackling farming emissions, it’s hard to see how the EU will even clear this too-low bar it’s setting itself.” The EU aims to slash its net greenhouse gas pollution by 90% by 2040 as part of its push to become the world’s first climate-neutral continent, the European Commission has announced before elections in June. Under a landmark proposal laid out by its executive body on Tuesday, the bloc will have to pump 90% less planet-heating gas into the air by 2040 than it did in 1990, a figure which includes the carbon it removes from the atmosphere. The target is at the bottom end of the 90-95% net cuts that the EU’s scientific watchdog recommended in June, and meeting it would require a much faster shift to a clean economy. In the three decades between 1990 and 2021, the EU’s 27 member states cut their emissions by just 30%, according to the European Environment Agency, leaving them half as long to do twice the work. Wopke Hoekstra, the EU climate commissioner, said the target sent a message to the world that Europe “continues to lead the way” on climate action. “Tackling the climate crisis is a marathon, not a sprint. We need to make sure everyone crosses the finish line and nobody is left behind,” he said. The target, which is a recommendation for the next commission after European elections in June, is part of a bid to stop extreme weather from growing more violent. But some of the individual targets were scrapped at the last minute because of protests from farmers that have seen politicians in the EU and its member states row back on plans to make farms pollute less. Pieter de Pous, a nature policy expert at the climate thinktank E3G, said: “It’s hard to find a more fitting use of the metaphor ‘cutting off the branch you sit on’ than witnessing farmers unite in efforts to undermine the very climate policies designed to protect them from the devastating impacts of climate change.” The final document no longer refers to cutting agricultural emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas belched out by cows, or nitrogen, a pollutant in fertiliser and manure that reacts to form heat-trapping gases. The text instead states that its purpose is to launch the political debate. “It does not propose new policy measures or set new sector-specific targets.” The scrapped farming target is the third concession to farmers in the last week, after Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, told lawmakers on Tuesday morning that she would take back a proposal to use fewer pesticides . Last week she asked member states to delay a key rule to save wildlife and protect soils. ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests Read more ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests Read more ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests Read more ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests ‘Hypocritical’ European politicians weaken climate policies amid farmer protests The EU has sped up its energy transition in recent years by building sources of clean electricity, such as wind turbines and solar panels, at a faster pace. Under the new proposal, it plans to use 80% less fossil fuels in the energy sector by 2040 than it did in 2021. But it has made little progress in cleaning up sectors like food and transport. Keeping the exemption in the agriculture sector “sets a worrisome precedent as negotiations on climate ambition begin”, said De Pous. The 2040 target was announced on Tuesday in the European parliament alongside a new strategy to capture carbon. The commission had previously proposed a target to capture 50m tonnes of CO2 a year by 2030 and wants that to rise to 280m tonnes by 2040. By then, the commission has suggested, the EU should emit less than 850 megatonnes of CO2e and remove up to 400 megatonnes from land and industry. Kadri Simon, the EU energy commissioner, said renewables and energy efficiency were still “central” to climate neutrality but that reaching net zero emissions also meant using technologies to manage carbon. Environmental groups and scientists are divided on how big a role capturing carbon from factories and removing it from the atmosphere should play in the energy transition. Experts have said that the technology is the most promising way to clean up some heavy industries like cement, and it could also compensate for leftover emissions from sectors that are hard to clean up. But the promise of carbon capture in the future is also used by governments and oil companies to keep burning fuels that pollute the air with other toxic particles, and to allow them to cut emissions more slowly today. Silvia Pastorelli, a climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace, said the commission’s plans did not meet the EU’s responsibility to fight climate breakdown. “While it sounds like a big number, this target uses some creative accounting with promised carbon capture to hide much lower actual emission cuts.” She added: “Without honesty about an end to fossil fuels and finally tackling farming emissions, it’s hard to see how the EU will even clear this too-low bar it’s setting itself.” Explore more on these topics Greenhouse gas emissions European Union Climate crisis Europe European Commission news Share Reuse this content Greenhouse gas emissions European Union Climate crisis Europe European Commission news
|
Suncoast review – Laura Linney helps lift adequate family saga
Laura Linney and Nico Parker in Suncoast. Photograph: Eric Zachanowich View image in fullscreen Laura Linney and Nico Parker in Suncoast. Photograph: Eric Zachanowich This article is more than 1 year old Review Suncoast review – Laura Linney helps lift adequate family saga This article is more than 1 year old The Oscar nominee does her brittle shtick well enough as a mother caring for her dying son in a so-so comedy drama P remiering at Sundance 2024 yet assembled as if it were primed for the festival two or three decades earlier, Suncoast is the kind of broad, sunny Searchlight crowd-pleaser that aims to make up for its lack of originality with an abundance of heavily shoveled charm. It’s a strategy that just about works when the stakes are low and soapy but films in this subgenre ultimately demand a full-on assault to the heartstrings and the first-time writer-director Laura Chinn can’t quite muster enough genuine emotion to get us there, her so-so debut working best when investment is at its lowest. It’s a busy patchwork of dynamics we loosely know from Searchlight indies all too well. There’s the coming-of-age narrative of a girl named Doris (played by Thandiwe Newton’s daughter Nico Parker) who is pushing herself out of the shadows at school to become more seen, making friends with the girls who had previously ignored her and flirting with the guy she’d never thought herself good enough for. There’s the family drama that sees her clash with a difficult mother (played by Laura Linney) who spends her time caring for a non-communicative son dying of cancer, letting their relationship suffer in the process. Then there’s the most superfluous element as Doris strikes an unlikely friendship with an eccentric grieving husband (Woody Harrelson) protesting outside the hospice where her brother is being cared for. Loosely based on Chinn’s experiences as a teen growing up in the mid-00s, Suncoast feels influenced less by what it was really like in 2005 and more by the kinds of earnestly made dramedies that were being released at the time. Linney is incapable of a truly bad performance and watching her do her brittle, one rant away from having a heart attack shtick is forever watchable but it’s hard to fully buy her as a working-class Floridian waiting tables, never not seeming like she’s a lost Upper East Sider. Parker is a charming young actor but she’s similarly too refined to sell girl from the wrong side of the tracks who no one has noticed at school. The pair do a decent amount of lifting, Linney especially, but we’re never immersed enough in their world to believe them as anything but actors doing a bit, adding another level of artifice to something that is in need of more reality. Harrelson is in full sleepwalk mode, grouching and quipping like he could be in any one of his films from the last 20 years, and it’s not really his fault, his very inclusion never making any narrative sense other than to help pad out a slight story with a sellable name. None of the threads are able to poke themselves out of the murk of familiarity enough to truly pierce (the high school drama is too unspecific to do anything but amble along) but it’s the mother-daughter conflict that almost gets there. Linney’s struggle – knowing your child is slowly dying and being unable to let that thought not utterly consume and destroy you – is often played a little too cartoonishly but it’s also affecting and difficult in moments, as the long march of pre-grief transforms a person into someone who can be unpleasant to be around. It’s this knottier character that ends up feeling the most authentic in a film that can struggle with authenticity. Never quite landing with enough of an impact for it to stick around in our heads after the sun has gone in, Suncoast settles for amiable competency. Suncoast is available on Hulu in the US and Disney+ in the UK on 9 February Explore more on these topics Laura Linney Woody Harrelson Comedy films Drama films reviews Share Reuse this content Laura Linney and Nico Parker in Suncoast. Photograph: Eric Zachanowich View image in fullscreen Laura Linney and Nico Parker in Suncoast. Photograph: Eric Zachanowich This article is more than 1 year old Review Suncoast review – Laura Linney helps lift adequate family saga This article is more than 1 year old The Oscar nominee does her brittle shtick well enough as a mother caring for her dying son in a so-so comedy drama P remiering at Sundance 2024 yet assembled as if it were primed for the festival two or three decades earlier, Suncoast is the kind of broad, sunny Searchlight crowd-pleaser that aims to make up for its lack of originality with an abundance of heavily shoveled charm. It’s a strategy that just about works when the stakes are low and soapy but films in this subgenre ultimately demand a full-on assault to the heartstrings and the first-time writer-director Laura Chinn can’t quite muster enough genuine emotion to get us there, her so-so debut working best when investment is at its lowest. It’s a busy patchwork of dynamics we loosely know from Searchlight indies all too well. There’s the coming-of-age narrative of a girl named Doris (played by Thandiwe Newton’s daughter Nico Parker) who is pushing herself out of the shadows at school to become more seen, making friends with the girls who had previously ignored her and flirting with the guy she’d never thought herself good enough for. There’s the family drama that sees her clash with a difficult mother (played by Laura Linney) who spends her time caring for a non-communicative son dying of cancer, letting their relationship suffer in the process. Then there’s the most superfluous element as Doris strikes an unlikely friendship with an eccentric grieving husband (Woody Harrelson) protesting outside the hospice where her brother is being cared for. Loosely based on Chinn’s experiences as a teen growing up in the mid-00s, Suncoast feels influenced less by what it was really like in 2005 and more by the kinds of earnestly made dramedies that were being released at the time. Linney is incapable of a truly bad performance and watching her do her brittle, one rant away from having a heart attack shtick is forever watchable but it’s hard to fully buy her as a working-class Floridian waiting tables, never not seeming like she’s a lost Upper East Sider. Parker is a charming young actor but she’s similarly too refined to sell girl from the wrong side of the tracks who no one has noticed at school. The pair do a decent amount of lifting, Linney especially, but we’re never immersed enough in their world to believe them as anything but actors doing a bit, adding another level of artifice to something that is in need of more reality. Harrelson is in full sleepwalk mode, grouching and quipping like he could be in any one of his films from the last 20 years, and it’s not really his fault, his very inclusion never making any narrative sense other than to help pad out a slight story with a sellable name. None of the threads are able to poke themselves out of the murk of familiarity enough to truly pierce (the high school drama is too unspecific to do anything but amble along) but it’s the mother-daughter conflict that almost gets there. Linney’s struggle – knowing your child is slowly dying and being unable to let that thought not utterly consume and destroy you – is often played a little too cartoonishly but it’s also affecting and difficult in moments, as the long march of pre-grief transforms a person into someone who can be unpleasant to be around. It’s this knottier character that ends up feeling the most authentic in a film that can struggle with authenticity. Never quite landing with enough of an impact for it to stick around in our heads after the sun has gone in, Suncoast settles for amiable competency. Suncoast is available on Hulu in the US and Disney+ in the UK on 9 February Explore more on these topics Laura Linney Woody Harrelson Comedy films Drama films reviews Share Reuse this content Laura Linney and Nico Parker in Suncoast. Photograph: Eric Zachanowich View image in fullscreen Laura Linney and Nico Parker in Suncoast. Photograph: Eric Zachanowich Laura Linney and Nico Parker in Suncoast. Photograph: Eric Zachanowich View image in fullscreen Laura Linney and Nico Parker in Suncoast. Photograph: Eric Zachanowich Laura Linney and Nico Parker in Suncoast. Photograph: Eric Zachanowich View image in fullscreen Laura Linney and Nico Parker in Suncoast. Photograph: Eric Zachanowich Laura Linney and Nico Parker in Suncoast. Photograph: Eric Zachanowich View image in fullscreen Laura Linney and Nico Parker in Suncoast. Photograph: Eric Zachanowich Laura Linney and Nico Parker in Suncoast. Photograph: Eric Zachanowich Laura Linney and Nico Parker in Suncoast. Photograph: Eric Zachanowich This article is more than 1 year old Review Suncoast review – Laura Linney helps lift adequate family saga This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Review Suncoast review – Laura Linney helps lift adequate family saga This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Review Suncoast review – Laura Linney helps lift adequate family saga 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 Oscar nominee does her brittle shtick well enough as a mother caring for her dying son in a so-so comedy drama The Oscar nominee does her brittle shtick well enough as a mother caring for her dying son in a so-so comedy drama The Oscar nominee does her brittle shtick well enough as a mother caring for her dying son in a so-so comedy drama P remiering at Sundance 2024 yet assembled as if it were primed for the festival two or three decades earlier, Suncoast is the kind of broad, sunny Searchlight crowd-pleaser that aims to make up for its lack of originality with an abundance of heavily shoveled charm. It’s a strategy that just about works when the stakes are low and soapy but films in this subgenre ultimately demand a full-on assault to the heartstrings and the first-time writer-director Laura Chinn can’t quite muster enough genuine emotion to get us there, her so-so debut working best when investment is at its lowest. It’s a busy patchwork of dynamics we loosely know from Searchlight indies all too well. There’s the coming-of-age narrative of a girl named Doris (played by Thandiwe Newton’s daughter Nico Parker) who is pushing herself out of the shadows at school to become more seen, making friends with the girls who had previously ignored her and flirting with the guy she’d never thought herself good enough for. There’s the family drama that sees her clash with a difficult mother (played by Laura Linney) who spends her time caring for a non-communicative son dying of cancer, letting their relationship suffer in the process. Then there’s the most superfluous element as Doris strikes an unlikely friendship with an eccentric grieving husband (Woody Harrelson) protesting outside the hospice where her brother is being cared for. Loosely based on Chinn’s experiences as a teen growing up in the mid-00s, Suncoast feels influenced less by what it was really like in 2005 and more by the kinds of earnestly made dramedies that were being released at the time. Linney is incapable of a truly bad performance and watching her do her brittle, one rant away from having a heart attack shtick is forever watchable but it’s hard to fully buy her as a working-class Floridian waiting tables, never not seeming like she’s a lost Upper East Sider. Parker is a charming young actor but she’s similarly too refined to sell girl from the wrong side of the tracks who no one has noticed at school. The pair do a decent amount of lifting, Linney especially, but we’re never immersed enough in their world to believe them as anything but actors doing a bit, adding another level of artifice to something that is in need of more reality. Harrelson is in full sleepwalk mode, grouching and quipping like he could be in any one of his films from the last 20 years, and it’s not really his fault, his very inclusion never making any narrative sense other than to help pad out a slight story with a sellable name. None of the threads are able to poke themselves out of the murk of familiarity enough to truly pierce (the high school drama is too unspecific to do anything but amble along) but it’s the mother-daughter conflict that almost gets there. Linney’s struggle – knowing your child is slowly dying and being unable to let that thought not utterly consume and destroy you – is often played a little too cartoonishly but it’s also affecting and difficult in moments, as the long march of pre-grief transforms a person into someone who can be unpleasant to be around. It’s this knottier character that ends up feeling the most authentic in a film that can struggle with authenticity. Never quite landing with enough of an impact for it to stick around in our heads after the sun has gone in, Suncoast settles for amiable competency. Suncoast is available on Hulu in the US and Disney+ in the UK on 9 February Explore more on these topics Laura Linney Woody Harrelson Comedy films Drama films reviews Share Reuse this content P remiering at Sundance 2024 yet assembled as if it were primed for the festival two or three decades earlier, Suncoast is the kind of broad, sunny Searchlight crowd-pleaser that aims to make up for its lack of originality with an abundance of heavily shoveled charm. It’s a strategy that just about works when the stakes are low and soapy but films in this subgenre ultimately demand a full-on assault to the heartstrings and the first-time writer-director Laura Chinn can’t quite muster enough genuine emotion to get us there, her so-so debut working best when investment is at its lowest. It’s a busy patchwork of dynamics we loosely know from Searchlight indies all too well. There’s the coming-of-age narrative of a girl named Doris (played by Thandiwe Newton’s daughter Nico Parker) who is pushing herself out of the shadows at school to become more seen, making friends with the girls who had previously ignored her and flirting with the guy she’d never thought herself good enough for. There’s the family drama that sees her clash with a difficult mother (played by Laura Linney) who spends her time caring for a non-communicative son dying of cancer, letting their relationship suffer in the process. Then there’s the most superfluous element as Doris strikes an unlikely friendship with an eccentric grieving husband (Woody Harrelson) protesting outside the hospice where her brother is being cared for. Loosely based on Chinn’s experiences as a teen growing up in the mid-00s, Suncoast feels influenced less by what it was really like in 2005 and more by the kinds of earnestly made dramedies that were being released at the time. Linney is incapable of a truly bad performance and watching her do her brittle, one rant away from having a heart attack shtick is forever watchable but it’s hard to fully buy her as a working-class Floridian waiting tables, never not seeming like she’s a lost Upper East Sider. Parker is a charming young actor but she’s similarly too refined to sell girl from the wrong side of the tracks who no one has noticed at school. The pair do a decent amount of lifting, Linney especially, but we’re never immersed enough in their world to believe them as anything but actors doing a bit, adding another level of artifice to something that is in need of more reality. Harrelson is in full sleepwalk mode, grouching and quipping like he could be in any one of his films from the last 20 years, and it’s not really his fault, his very inclusion never making any narrative sense other than to help pad out a slight story with a sellable name. None of the threads are able to poke themselves out of the murk of familiarity enough to truly pierce (the high school drama is too unspecific to do anything but amble along) but it’s the mother-daughter conflict that almost gets there. Linney’s struggle – knowing your child is slowly dying and being unable to let that thought not utterly consume and destroy you – is often played a little too cartoonishly but it’s also affecting and difficult in moments, as the long march of pre-grief transforms a person into someone who can be unpleasant to be around. It’s this knottier character that ends up feeling the most authentic in a film that can struggle with authenticity. Never quite landing with enough of an impact for it to stick around in our heads after the sun has gone in, Suncoast settles for amiable competency. Suncoast is available on Hulu in the US and Disney+ in the UK on 9 February Explore more on these topics Laura Linney Woody Harrelson Comedy films Drama films reviews Share Reuse this content P remiering at Sundance 2024 yet assembled as if it were primed for the festival two or three decades earlier, Suncoast is the kind of broad, sunny Searchlight crowd-pleaser that aims to make up for its lack of originality with an abundance of heavily shoveled charm. It’s a strategy that just about works when the stakes are low and soapy but films in this subgenre ultimately demand a full-on assault to the heartstrings and the first-time writer-director Laura Chinn can’t quite muster enough genuine emotion to get us there, her so-so debut working best when investment is at its lowest. It’s a busy patchwork of dynamics we loosely know from Searchlight indies all too well. There’s the coming-of-age narrative of a girl named Doris (played by Thandiwe Newton’s daughter Nico Parker) who is pushing herself out of the shadows at school to become more seen, making friends with the girls who had previously ignored her and flirting with the guy she’d never thought herself good enough for. There’s the family drama that sees her clash with a difficult mother (played by Laura Linney) who spends her time caring for a non-communicative son dying of cancer, letting their relationship suffer in the process. Then there’s the most superfluous element as Doris strikes an unlikely friendship with an eccentric grieving husband (Woody Harrelson) protesting outside the hospice where her brother is being cared for. Loosely based on Chinn’s experiences as a teen growing up in the mid-00s, Suncoast feels influenced less by what it was really like in 2005 and more by the kinds of earnestly made dramedies that were being released at the time. Linney is incapable of a truly bad performance and watching her do her brittle, one rant away from having a heart attack shtick is forever watchable but it’s hard to fully buy her as a working-class Floridian waiting tables, never not seeming like she’s a lost Upper East Sider. Parker is a charming young actor but she’s similarly too refined to sell girl from the wrong side of the tracks who no one has noticed at school. The pair do a decent amount of lifting, Linney especially, but we’re never immersed enough in their world to believe them as anything but actors doing a bit, adding another level of artifice to something that is in need of more reality. Harrelson is in full sleepwalk mode, grouching and quipping like he could be in any one of his films from the last 20 years, and it’s not really his fault, his very inclusion never making any narrative sense other than to help pad out a slight story with a sellable name. None of the threads are able to poke themselves out of the murk of familiarity enough to truly pierce (the high school drama is too unspecific to do anything but amble along) but it’s the mother-daughter conflict that almost gets there. Linney’s struggle – knowing your child is slowly dying and being unable to let that thought not utterly consume and destroy you – is often played a little too cartoonishly but it’s also affecting and difficult in moments, as the long march of pre-grief transforms a person into someone who can be unpleasant to be around. It’s this knottier character that ends up feeling the most authentic in a film that can struggle with authenticity. Never quite landing with enough of an impact for it to stick around in our heads after the sun has gone in, Suncoast settles for amiable competency. Suncoast is available on Hulu in the US and Disney+ in the UK on 9 February P remiering at Sundance 2024 yet assembled as if it were primed for the festival two or three decades earlier, Suncoast is the kind of broad, sunny Searchlight crowd-pleaser that aims to make up for its lack of originality with an abundance of heavily shoveled charm. It’s a strategy that just about works when the stakes are low and soapy but films in this subgenre ultimately demand a full-on assault to the heartstrings and the first-time writer-director Laura Chinn can’t quite muster enough genuine emotion to get us there, her so-so debut working best when investment is at its lowest. It’s a busy patchwork of dynamics we loosely know from Searchlight indies all too well. There’s the coming-of-age narrative of a girl named Doris (played by Thandiwe Newton’s daughter Nico Parker) who is pushing herself out of the shadows at school to become more seen, making friends with the girls who had previously ignored her and flirting with the guy she’d never thought herself good enough for. There’s the family drama that sees her clash with a difficult mother (played by Laura Linney) who spends her time caring for a non-communicative son dying of cancer, letting their relationship suffer in the process. Then there’s the most superfluous element as Doris strikes an unlikely friendship with an eccentric grieving husband (Woody Harrelson) protesting outside the hospice where her brother is being cared for. Loosely based on Chinn’s experiences as a teen growing up in the mid-00s, Suncoast feels influenced less by what it was really like in 2005 and more by the kinds of earnestly made dramedies that were being released at the time. Linney is incapable of a truly bad performance and watching her do her brittle, one rant away from having a heart attack shtick is forever watchable but it’s hard to fully buy her as a working-class Floridian waiting tables, never not seeming like she’s a lost Upper East Sider. Parker is a charming young actor but she’s similarly too refined to sell girl from the wrong side of the tracks who no one has noticed at school. The pair do a decent amount of lifting, Linney especially, but we’re never immersed enough in their world to believe them as anything but actors doing a bit, adding another level of artifice to something that is in need of more reality. Harrelson is in full sleepwalk mode, grouching and quipping like he could be in any one of his films from the last 20 years, and it’s not really his fault, his very inclusion never making any narrative sense other than to help pad out a slight story with a sellable name. None of the threads are able to poke themselves out of the murk of familiarity enough to truly pierce (the high school drama is too unspecific to do anything but amble along) but it’s the mother-daughter conflict that almost gets there. Linney’s struggle – knowing your child is slowly dying and being unable to let that thought not utterly consume and destroy you – is often played a little too cartoonishly but it’s also affecting and difficult in moments, as the long march of pre-grief transforms a person into someone who can be unpleasant to be around. It’s this knottier character that ends up feeling the most authentic in a film that can struggle with authenticity. Never quite landing with enough of an impact for it to stick around in our heads after the sun has gone in, Suncoast settles for amiable competency. Suncoast is available on Hulu in the US and Disney+ in the UK on 9 February P remiering at Sundance 2024 yet assembled as if it were primed for the festival two or three decades earlier, Suncoast is the kind of broad, sunny Searchlight crowd-pleaser that aims to make up for its lack of originality with an abundance of heavily shoveled charm. It’s a strategy that just about works when the stakes are low and soapy but films in this subgenre ultimately demand a full-on assault to the heartstrings and the first-time writer-director Laura Chinn can’t quite muster enough genuine emotion to get us there, her so-so debut working best when investment is at its lowest. It’s a busy patchwork of dynamics we loosely know from Searchlight indies all too well. There’s the coming-of-age narrative of a girl named Doris (played by Thandiwe Newton’s daughter Nico Parker) who is pushing herself out of the shadows at school to become more seen, making friends with the girls who had previously ignored her and flirting with the guy she’d never thought herself good enough for. There’s the family drama that sees her clash with a difficult mother (played by Laura Linney) who spends her time caring for a non-communicative son dying of cancer, letting their relationship suffer in the process. Then there’s the most superfluous element as Doris strikes an unlikely friendship with an eccentric grieving husband (Woody Harrelson) protesting outside the hospice where her brother is being cared for. Loosely based on Chinn’s experiences as a teen growing up in the mid-00s, Suncoast feels influenced less by what it was really like in 2005 and more by the kinds of earnestly made dramedies that were being released at the time. Linney is incapable of a truly bad performance and watching her do her brittle, one rant away from having a heart attack shtick is forever watchable but it’s hard to fully buy her as a working-class Floridian waiting tables, never not seeming like she’s a lost Upper East Sider. Parker is a charming young actor but she’s similarly too refined to sell girl from the wrong side of the tracks who no one has noticed at school. The pair do a decent amount of lifting, Linney especially, but we’re never immersed enough in their world to believe them as anything but actors doing a bit, adding another level of artifice to something that is in need of more reality. Harrelson is in full sleepwalk mode, grouching and quipping like he could be in any one of his films from the last 20 years, and it’s not really his fault, his very inclusion never making any narrative sense other than to help pad out a slight story with a sellable name. None of the threads are able to poke themselves out of the murk of familiarity enough to truly pierce (the high school drama is too unspecific to do anything but amble along) but it’s the mother-daughter conflict that almost gets there. Linney’s struggle – knowing your child is slowly dying and being unable to let that thought not utterly consume and destroy you – is often played a little too cartoonishly but it’s also affecting and difficult in moments, as the long march of pre-grief transforms a person into someone who can be unpleasant to be around. It’s this knottier character that ends up feeling the most authentic in a film that can struggle with authenticity. Never quite landing with enough of an impact for it to stick around in our heads after the sun has gone in, Suncoast settles for amiable competency. Suncoast is available on Hulu in the US and Disney+ in the UK on 9 February Explore more on these topics Laura Linney Woody Harrelson Comedy films Drama films reviews Share Reuse this content Laura Linney Woody Harrelson Comedy films Drama films reviews
|
Reckless or reasonable? Factchecking the claims of anti-renewable activists
An anti-renewable energy rally on the front lawns of Parliament House in Canberra on Tuesday. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian View image in fullscreen An anti-renewable energy rally on the front lawns of Parliament House in Canberra on Tuesday. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Reckless or reasonable? Factchecking the claims of anti-renewable activists This article is more than 1 year old A protest at Parliament House featured claims about higher bills and dystopian images of disused turbines. But is there any basis for this? Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates Get our morning and afternoon news emails , free app or daily news podcast Community groups, activists and politicians rallied on the lawns of Parliament House on Tuesday in opposition to the federal government’s plan for the energy grid to run on 82% renewable energy by 2030. How a false claim about wind turbines killing whales is spinning out of control in coastal Australia Read more Dubbed the “Reckless Renewables Rally”, the protest saw familiar opponents of action on climate change, including the Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce, One Nation’s leader, Pauline Hanson, the Nationals senator Matt Canavan and the former Liberal MP Craig Kelly. The anti-renewables movement has already been caught spreading misinformation. Guardian Australia reported in November how a false claim about wind turbines killing whales had ripped through the group’s discussions on social media. Here are some of the key claims made throughout the rally and the facts behind them. Claim: renewables don’t produce reliable energy A common myth spread by renewable energy opponents is solar and windfarms are unreliable because they can only generate electricity when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Solar and wind energy are known as variable sources of electricity, because they vary depending on the weather conditions. But that does not mean these sources are unreliable. Energy system experts point out these issues are overcome by connecting many sources of wind and solar that are geographically spread around the country to the grid. Excess electricity generated by wind and solar will also be stored in batteries, or used to pump water uphill at hydroelectric plants. That energy can be released later when it is needed, such as during times of peak demand. The Australian Energy Market Operator consults with the energy industry to produce a plan for the most reliable electricity system that will meet climate targets. The latest draft of that plan says the electricity grid will need very large increases in storage – such as batteries and hydroelectric projects. But there will also be an increase in gas-fired plants that will sit as backup. View image in fullscreen A Victorian solar farm. The CSIRO has found solar and wind are projected to be among the cheapest forms of power by 2030. Photograph: Charlie Rogers/Getty Images Dr Dylan McConnell, an energy systems expert at UNSW, says focusing on the reliability of a single generating technology is “missing the point”. He said: “Coal power is sometimes unreliable too and [power plants] trip out often. Reliability is actually a characteristic of the entire system. The idea is that we are building a system that’s reliable.” How the wind blows in Walcha: a community divided over renewable energy Read more Claim: decommissioned windfarms will end up in landfill Some rally attenders expressed concern over how windfarms would be decommissioned, with some speakers evoking imagery of Mad Max-like wastelands filled with rusting machinery. Others have said wind turbines and blades will end up in landfill. According to a Clean Energy Council report released last year , around 85% to 94% of a wind turbine’s mass is recyclable. Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup The report also discusses alternative options for windfarms due for decommissioning after an expected 25-year lifespan, including an extension of life or upgrading parts. Major global windfarm operator Acciona runs five windfarms in Australia and is building a sixth, with about 400 turbines and 1,200 blades under its portfolio. An Acciona spokesperson said: “The argument that projects would be abandoned and left to rust is an invention.” They said rather than energy producers abandoning sites, in Europe – where the industry is mature – operators were “repowering sites” and replacing turbines to continue to generate electricity. In Spain, Acciona is building a recycling facility for turbine blades which is expected to open next year. “We’re looking at options here in Australia to set up similar capability for us and the industry,” the spokesperson added. Claim: more than 60% of your power bill is transmission power line costs which will increase substantially with renewables A common claim, including by Joyce, was that 60% of a power bill’s costs is due to the transmission between a power generator and homes or businesses. The claim then suggests thousands of kilometres of transmission towers and power lines will need to be built to connect wind and solar farms to consumers. But the claim appears to be exaggerated, according to fact sheets and reports by the Australian Energy Regulator. In November 2023 it found that around 8% of a retail electricity bill’s cost is transmission while 35% is related to distribution expenses. Together, the costs are less than half of the average national energy bill. McConnell said it was possible that the proportion of bills related to transmission costs may rise slightly, but he added: “The flip side is that you will allow more lower-cost renewables into the system.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Claim: the renewables rollout is a $121bn threat to the economy Another claim focused on “excessive” economic costs associated with the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. In a rally press release , it was claimed the rollout is “posing a threat to our economy, costing over $121bn”. The figure comes from a December report from the Australian Energy Market Operator , which stated the annualised capital cost of all generation, storage, firming and transmission infrastructure under the “optimal development path” to decarbonise the electricity system had a present value of $121bn. Those figures relate to the National Electricity Market covering all states and territories except WA and the NT. About $16.4bn of that amount was related to transmission projects, which AEMO said would “pay themselves back and deliver the additional $17bn net market benefit noted above.” But Alison Reeve, an energy expert at the Grattan Institute, said claiming the $121bn was a “cost” was a misrepresentation. “It’s actually $121bn of economic activity,” she said. “That’s jobs and materials. It’s not a threat to the economy. It is part of the economy. The much bigger threat would be an electricity system that doesn’t work.” Even if there was no need to decarbonise the electricity grid, Reeve said there would still have to be major investments in the electricity system. “We would still have to replace coal fired power stations – which are not cheap – and would probably be replaced with renewables and gas anyway. Avoiding spending money would mean accepting the lights would go out more often and would mean we can’t use any more electricity than we do now.” Claim: Australians will pay more for renewables rather than just sticking with fossil fuels Another repeated claim was that there would be an increase in bills because of the commitment to 82% renewable energy by 2030. For example, transmission lines and batteries would need to be built over the next six years, costing more than just sticking with coal and gas power. But the latest figures in CSIRO’s GenCost report counter those claims. The report has found that even when the costs of integrating renewables into the system are accounted for , solar and wind remain the cheapest form of electricity. CSIRO’s report found the cheapest form of electricity for 2023 is still a mix of wind and solar power coming in at between $94 and $134 per megawatt hour. It forecasts the price to fall between $69 and $101 per megawatt hour by 2030. In comparison, black coal in 2023 is between $110 and $217 per megawatt hour and forecasted to drop to $86 to $137 per megawatt hour by 2030. View image in fullscreen A wind farm near Wellington, NSW. The agriculture commissioner says less than 0.1% of the state’s rural land will be converted to produce renewable energy. Photograph: Carly Earl/The Guardian Black coal power, using carbon capture and storage techniques, in 2023 was costed between $193 and $364 per megawatt hour. In 2030, it drops to between $161 and $256. Small modular nuclear reactors are yet to be developed commercially but are advocated by the Coalition and were promoted at the anti-renewables rally. The GenCost report found even if they were to become commercially available, they would likely be the most expensive form of electricity. Claim: renewables will take up prime agricultural land Some farmers at the rally complained that renewables were taking away “prime agricultural land”, threatening food production. This is a variation on a claim promoted by mining magnate Gina Rinehart and the Institute for Public Affairs that up to one-third of agricultural land in Australia was under threat from renewables. But renewable energy supporters have said this is a gross exaggeration. The NSW agriculture commissioner has said the total area of rural land to be converted to renewable energy production was likely to be about 55,000ha – or 0.1% of rural land in the state. The Clean Energy Council has said if you were to theoretically replace all the country’s coal fired power plants with solar farms, this would require about 0.016% of the country’s land area, equivalent to 0.027% of agricultural land. In a statement, Acciona said its projects were on farm properties “with the agreement and support of the host landowner” and typically only about 3% of a property was actually used, mostly by access roads. The spokesperson said: “Farmers freely and happily use the access roads to traverse the property and muster livestock. Our landowners have welcomed our projects to diversify their incomes and get better yields from their property. “We’ve never had complaints from turbine hosts that the windfarm has compromised their existing farming operations.” Explore more on these topics Energy Renewable energy Australian politics National party Wind power Solar power Rural Australia explainers Share Reuse this content An anti-renewable energy rally on the front lawns of Parliament House in Canberra on Tuesday. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian View image in fullscreen An anti-renewable energy rally on the front lawns of Parliament House in Canberra on Tuesday. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Reckless or reasonable? Factchecking the claims of anti-renewable activists This article is more than 1 year old A protest at Parliament House featured claims about higher bills and dystopian images of disused turbines. But is there any basis for this? Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates Get our morning and afternoon news emails , free app or daily news podcast Community groups, activists and politicians rallied on the lawns of Parliament House on Tuesday in opposition to the federal government’s plan for the energy grid to run on 82% renewable energy by 2030. How a false claim about wind turbines killing whales is spinning out of control in coastal Australia Read more Dubbed the “Reckless Renewables Rally”, the protest saw familiar opponents of action on climate change, including the Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce, One Nation’s leader, Pauline Hanson, the Nationals senator Matt Canavan and the former Liberal MP Craig Kelly. The anti-renewables movement has already been caught spreading misinformation. Guardian Australia reported in November how a false claim about wind turbines killing whales had ripped through the group’s discussions on social media. Here are some of the key claims made throughout the rally and the facts behind them. Claim: renewables don’t produce reliable energy A common myth spread by renewable energy opponents is solar and windfarms are unreliable because they can only generate electricity when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Solar and wind energy are known as variable sources of electricity, because they vary depending on the weather conditions. But that does not mean these sources are unreliable. Energy system experts point out these issues are overcome by connecting many sources of wind and solar that are geographically spread around the country to the grid. Excess electricity generated by wind and solar will also be stored in batteries, or used to pump water uphill at hydroelectric plants. That energy can be released later when it is needed, such as during times of peak demand. The Australian Energy Market Operator consults with the energy industry to produce a plan for the most reliable electricity system that will meet climate targets. The latest draft of that plan says the electricity grid will need very large increases in storage – such as batteries and hydroelectric projects. But there will also be an increase in gas-fired plants that will sit as backup. View image in fullscreen A Victorian solar farm. The CSIRO has found solar and wind are projected to be among the cheapest forms of power by 2030. Photograph: Charlie Rogers/Getty Images Dr Dylan McConnell, an energy systems expert at UNSW, says focusing on the reliability of a single generating technology is “missing the point”. He said: “Coal power is sometimes unreliable too and [power plants] trip out often. Reliability is actually a characteristic of the entire system. The idea is that we are building a system that’s reliable.” How the wind blows in Walcha: a community divided over renewable energy Read more Claim: decommissioned windfarms will end up in landfill Some rally attenders expressed concern over how windfarms would be decommissioned, with some speakers evoking imagery of Mad Max-like wastelands filled with rusting machinery. Others have said wind turbines and blades will end up in landfill. According to a Clean Energy Council report released last year , around 85% to 94% of a wind turbine’s mass is recyclable. Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup The report also discusses alternative options for windfarms due for decommissioning after an expected 25-year lifespan, including an extension of life or upgrading parts. Major global windfarm operator Acciona runs five windfarms in Australia and is building a sixth, with about 400 turbines and 1,200 blades under its portfolio. An Acciona spokesperson said: “The argument that projects would be abandoned and left to rust is an invention.” They said rather than energy producers abandoning sites, in Europe – where the industry is mature – operators were “repowering sites” and replacing turbines to continue to generate electricity. In Spain, Acciona is building a recycling facility for turbine blades which is expected to open next year. “We’re looking at options here in Australia to set up similar capability for us and the industry,” the spokesperson added. Claim: more than 60% of your power bill is transmission power line costs which will increase substantially with renewables A common claim, including by Joyce, was that 60% of a power bill’s costs is due to the transmission between a power generator and homes or businesses. The claim then suggests thousands of kilometres of transmission towers and power lines will need to be built to connect wind and solar farms to consumers. But the claim appears to be exaggerated, according to fact sheets and reports by the Australian Energy Regulator. In November 2023 it found that around 8% of a retail electricity bill’s cost is transmission while 35% is related to distribution expenses. Together, the costs are less than half of the average national energy bill. McConnell said it was possible that the proportion of bills related to transmission costs may rise slightly, but he added: “The flip side is that you will allow more lower-cost renewables into the system.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Claim: the renewables rollout is a $121bn threat to the economy Another claim focused on “excessive” economic costs associated with the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. In a rally press release , it was claimed the rollout is “posing a threat to our economy, costing over $121bn”. The figure comes from a December report from the Australian Energy Market Operator , which stated the annualised capital cost of all generation, storage, firming and transmission infrastructure under the “optimal development path” to decarbonise the electricity system had a present value of $121bn. Those figures relate to the National Electricity Market covering all states and territories except WA and the NT. About $16.4bn of that amount was related to transmission projects, which AEMO said would “pay themselves back and deliver the additional $17bn net market benefit noted above.” But Alison Reeve, an energy expert at the Grattan Institute, said claiming the $121bn was a “cost” was a misrepresentation. “It’s actually $121bn of economic activity,” she said. “That’s jobs and materials. It’s not a threat to the economy. It is part of the economy. The much bigger threat would be an electricity system that doesn’t work.” Even if there was no need to decarbonise the electricity grid, Reeve said there would still have to be major investments in the electricity system. “We would still have to replace coal fired power stations – which are not cheap – and would probably be replaced with renewables and gas anyway. Avoiding spending money would mean accepting the lights would go out more often and would mean we can’t use any more electricity than we do now.” Claim: Australians will pay more for renewables rather than just sticking with fossil fuels Another repeated claim was that there would be an increase in bills because of the commitment to 82% renewable energy by 2030. For example, transmission lines and batteries would need to be built over the next six years, costing more than just sticking with coal and gas power. But the latest figures in CSIRO’s GenCost report counter those claims. The report has found that even when the costs of integrating renewables into the system are accounted for , solar and wind remain the cheapest form of electricity. CSIRO’s report found the cheapest form of electricity for 2023 is still a mix of wind and solar power coming in at between $94 and $134 per megawatt hour. It forecasts the price to fall between $69 and $101 per megawatt hour by 2030. In comparison, black coal in 2023 is between $110 and $217 per megawatt hour and forecasted to drop to $86 to $137 per megawatt hour by 2030. View image in fullscreen A wind farm near Wellington, NSW. The agriculture commissioner says less than 0.1% of the state’s rural land will be converted to produce renewable energy. Photograph: Carly Earl/The Guardian Black coal power, using carbon capture and storage techniques, in 2023 was costed between $193 and $364 per megawatt hour. In 2030, it drops to between $161 and $256. Small modular nuclear reactors are yet to be developed commercially but are advocated by the Coalition and were promoted at the anti-renewables rally. The GenCost report found even if they were to become commercially available, they would likely be the most expensive form of electricity. Claim: renewables will take up prime agricultural land Some farmers at the rally complained that renewables were taking away “prime agricultural land”, threatening food production. This is a variation on a claim promoted by mining magnate Gina Rinehart and the Institute for Public Affairs that up to one-third of agricultural land in Australia was under threat from renewables. But renewable energy supporters have said this is a gross exaggeration. The NSW agriculture commissioner has said the total area of rural land to be converted to renewable energy production was likely to be about 55,000ha – or 0.1% of rural land in the state. The Clean Energy Council has said if you were to theoretically replace all the country’s coal fired power plants with solar farms, this would require about 0.016% of the country’s land area, equivalent to 0.027% of agricultural land. In a statement, Acciona said its projects were on farm properties “with the agreement and support of the host landowner” and typically only about 3% of a property was actually used, mostly by access roads. The spokesperson said: “Farmers freely and happily use the access roads to traverse the property and muster livestock. Our landowners have welcomed our projects to diversify their incomes and get better yields from their property. “We’ve never had complaints from turbine hosts that the windfarm has compromised their existing farming operations.” Explore more on these topics Energy Renewable energy Australian politics National party Wind power Solar power Rural Australia explainers Share Reuse this content An anti-renewable energy rally on the front lawns of Parliament House in Canberra on Tuesday. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian View image in fullscreen An anti-renewable energy rally on the front lawns of Parliament House in Canberra on Tuesday. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian An anti-renewable energy rally on the front lawns of Parliament House in Canberra on Tuesday. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian View image in fullscreen An anti-renewable energy rally on the front lawns of Parliament House in Canberra on Tuesday. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian An anti-renewable energy rally on the front lawns of Parliament House in Canberra on Tuesday. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian View image in fullscreen An anti-renewable energy rally on the front lawns of Parliament House in Canberra on Tuesday. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian An anti-renewable energy rally on the front lawns of Parliament House in Canberra on Tuesday. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian View image in fullscreen An anti-renewable energy rally on the front lawns of Parliament House in Canberra on Tuesday. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian An anti-renewable energy rally on the front lawns of Parliament House in Canberra on Tuesday. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian An anti-renewable energy rally on the front lawns of Parliament House in Canberra on Tuesday. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Reckless or reasonable? Factchecking the claims of anti-renewable activists This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Reckless or reasonable? Factchecking the claims of anti-renewable activists This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Reckless or reasonable? Factchecking the claims of anti-renewable activists 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 A protest at Parliament House featured claims about higher bills and dystopian images of disused turbines. But is there any basis for this? Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates Get our morning and afternoon news emails , free app or daily news podcast A protest at Parliament House featured claims about higher bills and dystopian images of disused turbines. But is there any basis for this? Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates Get our morning and afternoon news emails , free app or daily news podcast A protest at Parliament House featured claims about higher bills and dystopian images of disused turbines. But is there any basis for this? Community groups, activists and politicians rallied on the lawns of Parliament House on Tuesday in opposition to the federal government’s plan for the energy grid to run on 82% renewable energy by 2030. How a false claim about wind turbines killing whales is spinning out of control in coastal Australia Read more Dubbed the “Reckless Renewables Rally”, the protest saw familiar opponents of action on climate change, including the Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce, One Nation’s leader, Pauline Hanson, the Nationals senator Matt Canavan and the former Liberal MP Craig Kelly. The anti-renewables movement has already been caught spreading misinformation. Guardian Australia reported in November how a false claim about wind turbines killing whales had ripped through the group’s discussions on social media. Here are some of the key claims made throughout the rally and the facts behind them. Claim: renewables don’t produce reliable energy A common myth spread by renewable energy opponents is solar and windfarms are unreliable because they can only generate electricity when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Solar and wind energy are known as variable sources of electricity, because they vary depending on the weather conditions. But that does not mean these sources are unreliable. Energy system experts point out these issues are overcome by connecting many sources of wind and solar that are geographically spread around the country to the grid. Excess electricity generated by wind and solar will also be stored in batteries, or used to pump water uphill at hydroelectric plants. That energy can be released later when it is needed, such as during times of peak demand. The Australian Energy Market Operator consults with the energy industry to produce a plan for the most reliable electricity system that will meet climate targets. The latest draft of that plan says the electricity grid will need very large increases in storage – such as batteries and hydroelectric projects. But there will also be an increase in gas-fired plants that will sit as backup. View image in fullscreen A Victorian solar farm. The CSIRO has found solar and wind are projected to be among the cheapest forms of power by 2030. Photograph: Charlie Rogers/Getty Images Dr Dylan McConnell, an energy systems expert at UNSW, says focusing on the reliability of a single generating technology is “missing the point”. He said: “Coal power is sometimes unreliable too and [power plants] trip out often. Reliability is actually a characteristic of the entire system. The idea is that we are building a system that’s reliable.” How the wind blows in Walcha: a community divided over renewable energy Read more Claim: decommissioned windfarms will end up in landfill Some rally attenders expressed concern over how windfarms would be decommissioned, with some speakers evoking imagery of Mad Max-like wastelands filled with rusting machinery. Others have said wind turbines and blades will end up in landfill. According to a Clean Energy Council report released last year , around 85% to 94% of a wind turbine’s mass is recyclable. Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup The report also discusses alternative options for windfarms due for decommissioning after an expected 25-year lifespan, including an extension of life or upgrading parts. Major global windfarm operator Acciona runs five windfarms in Australia and is building a sixth, with about 400 turbines and 1,200 blades under its portfolio. An Acciona spokesperson said: “The argument that projects would be abandoned and left to rust is an invention.” They said rather than energy producers abandoning sites, in Europe – where the industry is mature – operators were “repowering sites” and replacing turbines to continue to generate electricity. In Spain, Acciona is building a recycling facility for turbine blades which is expected to open next year. “We’re looking at options here in Australia to set up similar capability for us and the industry,” the spokesperson added. Claim: more than 60% of your power bill is transmission power line costs which will increase substantially with renewables A common claim, including by Joyce, was that 60% of a power bill’s costs is due to the transmission between a power generator and homes or businesses. The claim then suggests thousands of kilometres of transmission towers and power lines will need to be built to connect wind and solar farms to consumers. But the claim appears to be exaggerated, according to fact sheets and reports by the Australian Energy Regulator. In November 2023 it found that around 8% of a retail electricity bill’s cost is transmission while 35% is related to distribution expenses. Together, the costs are less than half of the average national energy bill. McConnell said it was possible that the proportion of bills related to transmission costs may rise slightly, but he added: “The flip side is that you will allow more lower-cost renewables into the system.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Claim: the renewables rollout is a $121bn threat to the economy Another claim focused on “excessive” economic costs associated with the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. In a rally press release , it was claimed the rollout is “posing a threat to our economy, costing over $121bn”. The figure comes from a December report from the Australian Energy Market Operator , which stated the annualised capital cost of all generation, storage, firming and transmission infrastructure under the “optimal development path” to decarbonise the electricity system had a present value of $121bn. Those figures relate to the National Electricity Market covering all states and territories except WA and the NT. About $16.4bn of that amount was related to transmission projects, which AEMO said would “pay themselves back and deliver the additional $17bn net market benefit noted above.” But Alison Reeve, an energy expert at the Grattan Institute, said claiming the $121bn was a “cost” was a misrepresentation. “It’s actually $121bn of economic activity,” she said. “That’s jobs and materials. It’s not a threat to the economy. It is part of the economy. The much bigger threat would be an electricity system that doesn’t work.” Even if there was no need to decarbonise the electricity grid, Reeve said there would still have to be major investments in the electricity system. “We would still have to replace coal fired power stations – which are not cheap – and would probably be replaced with renewables and gas anyway. Avoiding spending money would mean accepting the lights would go out more often and would mean we can’t use any more electricity than we do now.” Claim: Australians will pay more for renewables rather than just sticking with fossil fuels Another repeated claim was that there would be an increase in bills because of the commitment to 82% renewable energy by 2030. For example, transmission lines and batteries would need to be built over the next six years, costing more than just sticking with coal and gas power. But the latest figures in CSIRO’s GenCost report counter those claims. The report has found that even when the costs of integrating renewables into the system are accounted for , solar and wind remain the cheapest form of electricity. CSIRO’s report found the cheapest form of electricity for 2023 is still a mix of wind and solar power coming in at between $94 and $134 per megawatt hour. It forecasts the price to fall between $69 and $101 per megawatt hour by 2030. In comparison, black coal in 2023 is between $110 and $217 per megawatt hour and forecasted to drop to $86 to $137 per megawatt hour by 2030. View image in fullscreen A wind farm near Wellington, NSW. The agriculture commissioner says less than 0.1% of the state’s rural land will be converted to produce renewable energy. Photograph: Carly Earl/The Guardian Black coal power, using carbon capture and storage techniques, in 2023 was costed between $193 and $364 per megawatt hour. In 2030, it drops to between $161 and $256. Small modular nuclear reactors are yet to be developed commercially but are advocated by the Coalition and were promoted at the anti-renewables rally. The GenCost report found even if they were to become commercially available, they would likely be the most expensive form of electricity. Claim: renewables will take up prime agricultural land Some farmers at the rally complained that renewables were taking away “prime agricultural land”, threatening food production. This is a variation on a claim promoted by mining magnate Gina Rinehart and the Institute for Public Affairs that up to one-third of agricultural land in Australia was under threat from renewables. But renewable energy supporters have said this is a gross exaggeration. The NSW agriculture commissioner has said the total area of rural land to be converted to renewable energy production was likely to be about 55,000ha – or 0.1% of rural land in the state. The Clean Energy Council has said if you were to theoretically replace all the country’s coal fired power plants with solar farms, this would require about 0.016% of the country’s land area, equivalent to 0.027% of agricultural land. In a statement, Acciona said its projects were on farm properties “with the agreement and support of the host landowner” and typically only about 3% of a property was actually used, mostly by access roads. The spokesperson said: “Farmers freely and happily use the access roads to traverse the property and muster livestock. Our landowners have welcomed our projects to diversify their incomes and get better yields from their property. “We’ve never had complaints from turbine hosts that the windfarm has compromised their existing farming operations.” Explore more on these topics Energy Renewable energy Australian politics National party Wind power Solar power Rural Australia explainers Share Reuse this content Community groups, activists and politicians rallied on the lawns of Parliament House on Tuesday in opposition to the federal government’s plan for the energy grid to run on 82% renewable energy by 2030. How a false claim about wind turbines killing whales is spinning out of control in coastal Australia Read more Dubbed the “Reckless Renewables Rally”, the protest saw familiar opponents of action on climate change, including the Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce, One Nation’s leader, Pauline Hanson, the Nationals senator Matt Canavan and the former Liberal MP Craig Kelly. The anti-renewables movement has already been caught spreading misinformation. Guardian Australia reported in November how a false claim about wind turbines killing whales had ripped through the group’s discussions on social media. Here are some of the key claims made throughout the rally and the facts behind them. Claim: renewables don’t produce reliable energy A common myth spread by renewable energy opponents is solar and windfarms are unreliable because they can only generate electricity when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Solar and wind energy are known as variable sources of electricity, because they vary depending on the weather conditions. But that does not mean these sources are unreliable. Energy system experts point out these issues are overcome by connecting many sources of wind and solar that are geographically spread around the country to the grid. Excess electricity generated by wind and solar will also be stored in batteries, or used to pump water uphill at hydroelectric plants. That energy can be released later when it is needed, such as during times of peak demand. The Australian Energy Market Operator consults with the energy industry to produce a plan for the most reliable electricity system that will meet climate targets. The latest draft of that plan says the electricity grid will need very large increases in storage – such as batteries and hydroelectric projects. But there will also be an increase in gas-fired plants that will sit as backup. View image in fullscreen A Victorian solar farm. The CSIRO has found solar and wind are projected to be among the cheapest forms of power by 2030. Photograph: Charlie Rogers/Getty Images Dr Dylan McConnell, an energy systems expert at UNSW, says focusing on the reliability of a single generating technology is “missing the point”. He said: “Coal power is sometimes unreliable too and [power plants] trip out often. Reliability is actually a characteristic of the entire system. The idea is that we are building a system that’s reliable.” How the wind blows in Walcha: a community divided over renewable energy Read more Claim: decommissioned windfarms will end up in landfill Some rally attenders expressed concern over how windfarms would be decommissioned, with some speakers evoking imagery of Mad Max-like wastelands filled with rusting machinery. Others have said wind turbines and blades will end up in landfill. According to a Clean Energy Council report released last year , around 85% to 94% of a wind turbine’s mass is recyclable. Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup The report also discusses alternative options for windfarms due for decommissioning after an expected 25-year lifespan, including an extension of life or upgrading parts. Major global windfarm operator Acciona runs five windfarms in Australia and is building a sixth, with about 400 turbines and 1,200 blades under its portfolio. An Acciona spokesperson said: “The argument that projects would be abandoned and left to rust is an invention.” They said rather than energy producers abandoning sites, in Europe – where the industry is mature – operators were “repowering sites” and replacing turbines to continue to generate electricity. In Spain, Acciona is building a recycling facility for turbine blades which is expected to open next year. “We’re looking at options here in Australia to set up similar capability for us and the industry,” the spokesperson added. Claim: more than 60% of your power bill is transmission power line costs which will increase substantially with renewables A common claim, including by Joyce, was that 60% of a power bill’s costs is due to the transmission between a power generator and homes or businesses. The claim then suggests thousands of kilometres of transmission towers and power lines will need to be built to connect wind and solar farms to consumers. But the claim appears to be exaggerated, according to fact sheets and reports by the Australian Energy Regulator. In November 2023 it found that around 8% of a retail electricity bill’s cost is transmission while 35% is related to distribution expenses. Together, the costs are less than half of the average national energy bill. McConnell said it was possible that the proportion of bills related to transmission costs may rise slightly, but he added: “The flip side is that you will allow more lower-cost renewables into the system.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Claim: the renewables rollout is a $121bn threat to the economy Another claim focused on “excessive” economic costs associated with the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. In a rally press release , it was claimed the rollout is “posing a threat to our economy, costing over $121bn”. The figure comes from a December report from the Australian Energy Market Operator , which stated the annualised capital cost of all generation, storage, firming and transmission infrastructure under the “optimal development path” to decarbonise the electricity system had a present value of $121bn. Those figures relate to the National Electricity Market covering all states and territories except WA and the NT. About $16.4bn of that amount was related to transmission projects, which AEMO said would “pay themselves back and deliver the additional $17bn net market benefit noted above.” But Alison Reeve, an energy expert at the Grattan Institute, said claiming the $121bn was a “cost” was a misrepresentation. “It’s actually $121bn of economic activity,” she said. “That’s jobs and materials. It’s not a threat to the economy. It is part of the economy. The much bigger threat would be an electricity system that doesn’t work.” Even if there was no need to decarbonise the electricity grid, Reeve said there would still have to be major investments in the electricity system. “We would still have to replace coal fired power stations – which are not cheap – and would probably be replaced with renewables and gas anyway. Avoiding spending money would mean accepting the lights would go out more often and would mean we can’t use any more electricity than we do now.” Claim: Australians will pay more for renewables rather than just sticking with fossil fuels Another repeated claim was that there would be an increase in bills because of the commitment to 82% renewable energy by 2030. For example, transmission lines and batteries would need to be built over the next six years, costing more than just sticking with coal and gas power. But the latest figures in CSIRO’s GenCost report counter those claims. The report has found that even when the costs of integrating renewables into the system are accounted for , solar and wind remain the cheapest form of electricity. CSIRO’s report found the cheapest form of electricity for 2023 is still a mix of wind and solar power coming in at between $94 and $134 per megawatt hour. It forecasts the price to fall between $69 and $101 per megawatt hour by 2030. In comparison, black coal in 2023 is between $110 and $217 per megawatt hour and forecasted to drop to $86 to $137 per megawatt hour by 2030. View image in fullscreen A wind farm near Wellington, NSW. The agriculture commissioner says less than 0.1% of the state’s rural land will be converted to produce renewable energy. Photograph: Carly Earl/The Guardian Black coal power, using carbon capture and storage techniques, in 2023 was costed between $193 and $364 per megawatt hour. In 2030, it drops to between $161 and $256. Small modular nuclear reactors are yet to be developed commercially but are advocated by the Coalition and were promoted at the anti-renewables rally. The GenCost report found even if they were to become commercially available, they would likely be the most expensive form of electricity. Claim: renewables will take up prime agricultural land Some farmers at the rally complained that renewables were taking away “prime agricultural land”, threatening food production. This is a variation on a claim promoted by mining magnate Gina Rinehart and the Institute for Public Affairs that up to one-third of agricultural land in Australia was under threat from renewables. But renewable energy supporters have said this is a gross exaggeration. The NSW agriculture commissioner has said the total area of rural land to be converted to renewable energy production was likely to be about 55,000ha – or 0.1% of rural land in the state. The Clean Energy Council has said if you were to theoretically replace all the country’s coal fired power plants with solar farms, this would require about 0.016% of the country’s land area, equivalent to 0.027% of agricultural land. In a statement, Acciona said its projects were on farm properties “with the agreement and support of the host landowner” and typically only about 3% of a property was actually used, mostly by access roads. The spokesperson said: “Farmers freely and happily use the access roads to traverse the property and muster livestock. Our landowners have welcomed our projects to diversify their incomes and get better yields from their property. “We’ve never had complaints from turbine hosts that the windfarm has compromised their existing farming operations.” Explore more on these topics Energy Renewable energy Australian politics National party Wind power Solar power Rural Australia explainers Share Reuse this content Community groups, activists and politicians rallied on the lawns of Parliament House on Tuesday in opposition to the federal government’s plan for the energy grid to run on 82% renewable energy by 2030. How a false claim about wind turbines killing whales is spinning out of control in coastal Australia Read more Dubbed the “Reckless Renewables Rally”, the protest saw familiar opponents of action on climate change, including the Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce, One Nation’s leader, Pauline Hanson, the Nationals senator Matt Canavan and the former Liberal MP Craig Kelly. The anti-renewables movement has already been caught spreading misinformation. Guardian Australia reported in November how a false claim about wind turbines killing whales had ripped through the group’s discussions on social media. Here are some of the key claims made throughout the rally and the facts behind them. Claim: renewables don’t produce reliable energy A common myth spread by renewable energy opponents is solar and windfarms are unreliable because they can only generate electricity when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Solar and wind energy are known as variable sources of electricity, because they vary depending on the weather conditions. But that does not mean these sources are unreliable. Energy system experts point out these issues are overcome by connecting many sources of wind and solar that are geographically spread around the country to the grid. Excess electricity generated by wind and solar will also be stored in batteries, or used to pump water uphill at hydroelectric plants. That energy can be released later when it is needed, such as during times of peak demand. The Australian Energy Market Operator consults with the energy industry to produce a plan for the most reliable electricity system that will meet climate targets. The latest draft of that plan says the electricity grid will need very large increases in storage – such as batteries and hydroelectric projects. But there will also be an increase in gas-fired plants that will sit as backup. View image in fullscreen A Victorian solar farm. The CSIRO has found solar and wind are projected to be among the cheapest forms of power by 2030. Photograph: Charlie Rogers/Getty Images Dr Dylan McConnell, an energy systems expert at UNSW, says focusing on the reliability of a single generating technology is “missing the point”. He said: “Coal power is sometimes unreliable too and [power plants] trip out often. Reliability is actually a characteristic of the entire system. The idea is that we are building a system that’s reliable.” How the wind blows in Walcha: a community divided over renewable energy Read more Claim: decommissioned windfarms will end up in landfill Some rally attenders expressed concern over how windfarms would be decommissioned, with some speakers evoking imagery of Mad Max-like wastelands filled with rusting machinery. Others have said wind turbines and blades will end up in landfill. According to a Clean Energy Council report released last year , around 85% to 94% of a wind turbine’s mass is recyclable. Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup The report also discusses alternative options for windfarms due for decommissioning after an expected 25-year lifespan, including an extension of life or upgrading parts. Major global windfarm operator Acciona runs five windfarms in Australia and is building a sixth, with about 400 turbines and 1,200 blades under its portfolio. An Acciona spokesperson said: “The argument that projects would be abandoned and left to rust is an invention.” They said rather than energy producers abandoning sites, in Europe – where the industry is mature – operators were “repowering sites” and replacing turbines to continue to generate electricity. In Spain, Acciona is building a recycling facility for turbine blades which is expected to open next year. “We’re looking at options here in Australia to set up similar capability for us and the industry,” the spokesperson added. Claim: more than 60% of your power bill is transmission power line costs which will increase substantially with renewables A common claim, including by Joyce, was that 60% of a power bill’s costs is due to the transmission between a power generator and homes or businesses. The claim then suggests thousands of kilometres of transmission towers and power lines will need to be built to connect wind and solar farms to consumers. But the claim appears to be exaggerated, according to fact sheets and reports by the Australian Energy Regulator. In November 2023 it found that around 8% of a retail electricity bill’s cost is transmission while 35% is related to distribution e
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
UK’s leading agricultural research facility facing funding crisis
The institution has been running at a loss and is also no longer in receipt of EU development funding. Photograph: Tim Scrivener/Alamy View image in fullscreen The institution has been running at a loss and is also no longer in receipt of EU development funding. Photograph: Tim Scrivener/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old UK’s leading agricultural research facility facing funding crisis This article is more than 1 year old Exclusive: Rothamsted Research is having to pause ‘non-essential’ work, according to a letter from its director The UK’s leading agricultural research facility is facing a funding crisis with part of its future work in jeopardy, it can be revealed. Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, is one of the oldest agricultural research institutions in the world, having been founded in 1843, and its research has been credited with preventing crop failures across the globe. A letter from Rothamsted’s director, Prof Angela Karp, seen by the Guardian, has warned staff they will have to pause “non-essential” work, announcing a hiring pause and warning of pay freezes. Worried scientists have said they fear for their work, which is dependent on funding. About 350 scientists and 60 PhD students work at the facility. Its research includes work into how farmers can be productive while growing trees in their fields , finding out how much carbon crops can store, and two national networks for monitoring insect populations in the UK. Rothamsted hit the headlines in 2012 when about 200 anti-genetic modification protesters occupied the site to campaign against their research into a wheat crop that would deter aphids. Rothamsted receives the majority of its funding as a core grant directly from the government’s UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) department, in five-year cycles. For the past two cycles the institute’s funding has included no inflation costs. For several years the institute has been running at a loss, with the government stepping in occasionally to top up funds. While the UK was in the EU, Rothamsted also benefited from funding from the European regional development fund, which it is no longer entitled to. Now, the situation is understood to be at crisis point, with future operations by the facility uncertain. Karp wrote: “I feel that it is important for me to inform staff that, after a promising start, unfortunately our financial position weakened in the latter part of last year. Despite all our ongoing efforts, including excellent successes from many staff that we can be proud of, our grant targets won for the whole year were not as we had budgeted for. “Whilst free reserves have been maintained, these still remain lower than we would like and highly susceptible to external factors, and we are currently considering how best to manage our operating model to put our longer-term future on a more secure footing. “To some extent we have managed the challenges we faced during 2023 through rebalancing funds within the IAE envelope. However, the mitigation steps we have been taking cannot be relied on from now onwards and we do not have enough reserves that we can access immediately.” Rothamsted has estimated its worth to the UK economy as £3bn a year because its work helps crop yields, both by determining which crops grow most efficiently and by developing plants which are tolerant to diseases and extreme weather. A large part of the government’s offer to farmers post-Brexit, as they struggle with a lack of workers and new environmental rules for government payments, is promised new research. This would make farmers be able to work more efficiently, using fewer inputs such as fertiliser, and also need fewer staff as innovations such as robotic vegetable pickers are developed. A UKRI spokesperson said: “Though a core funder of Rothamsted Research, the BBSRC (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council) recognises and upholds the institute’s legal and governance distinctiveness. We encourage our strategically supported institutes to seek research funding from a broad range of funders to support research beyond those activities which we fund through a range of schemes.” A spokesperson for Rothamsted Research said: “We are fully focussed on our scientific programme, generating impactful outcomes from our many research commitments, and remain very much ‘open for business’ for all our partners and collaborators.” They added that the research centre’s science “is in a great place” and had been “exhaustively peer reviewed for the next 5 years of BBSRC funding”. “We acknowledge the financial situation is challenging, as it is for many similar institutes and universities, and are working hard to implement necessary change as would be expected from any effective management team,” the spokesperson said. The top Rothamsted experiments The Park Grass experiment The Park Grass experiment is one of the longest-running experiments of modern science; it began in 1856 and has been going ever since. What it most vividly shows is how biodiversity plummets when you add fertiliser to hay meadows. The study is conducted in Rothamsted Park in Harpenden on 2.8 hectares (6.9 acres) of parkland that had been in permanent pasture for at least 100 years. The purpose was originally to find out how to improve hay yields by adding either inorganic fertiliser or organic manures. However, within a couple of years scientists noticed that wild species diversity massively decreased because the fertilisers changed the soil pH and nutrient composition. On the unfertilised spots, scientists noted 35-45 species, but there were only two or three on those treated with artificial fertiliser. Once established to help crop yields, park grass is now a very important source of evidence for ecologists and soil scientists. Artificial fertilisers Sir John Bennet Lawes, 1st Baronet, inherited the Rothamsted estate from his father. He founded the research centre, which first began with his own experiments on the effects of manures on potted plants and field crops in the grounds. He went on to patent treating phosphate rock with sulphuric acid to produce superphosphate, a fertiliser, before opening a fertiliser factory. Although they are a bete noir of environmentalists now, partly due to the park grass experiment which revealed their harm to nature, human-made fertilisers have helped feed the world. Revealing the insect apocalypse Rothamsted’s moth trap survey has been running since the 1960s. This provides the basis of moth data in the UK, which has revealed their decline. The moth traps provide the most comprehensive standardised long-term data on insects in the world. The 16 traps provide farmers with information on the timing and size of aphid migrations to prevent heavy prophylactic use of insecticides. Butterfly discoveries Rothamsted discovered the secrets of the painted lady migration – the fact that British-born butterflies return from northern Europe and the Arctic to Africa at the end of the summer. It was Rothamsted radar that got pictures of the butterflies high up in the air, far higher than people thought they flew. View image in fullscreen Rothamsted scientists found the painted lady makes a 9,000 mile round trip from tropical Africa to the Arctic Circle. Photograph: Buiten-Beeld/Alamy In one of the largest citizen science projects ever recorded, Rothamsted scientists found out where butterflies go when they migrate. It was known the butterfly migrated from the continent each summer to UK shores in varying numbers. But scientists did not previously know if the painted lady made the return journey at the end of the summer, like the closely related red admiral, or simply died in the UK. They found the painted lady did indeed migrate south each autumn – but mades this return journey at high altitudes, out of view of butterfly observers on the ground. Radar records revealed that painted ladies flew at an average altitude of more than 500 metres on their southbound trip and could clock up speeds of 30mph. Explore more on these topics Agriculture Agriculture and forestry Farming news Share Reuse this content The institution has been running at a loss and is also no longer in receipt of EU development funding. Photograph: Tim Scrivener/Alamy View image in fullscreen The institution has been running at a loss and is also no longer in receipt of EU development funding. Photograph: Tim Scrivener/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old UK’s leading agricultural research facility facing funding crisis This article is more than 1 year old Exclusive: Rothamsted Research is having to pause ‘non-essential’ work, according to a letter from its director The UK’s leading agricultural research facility is facing a funding crisis with part of its future work in jeopardy, it can be revealed. Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, is one of the oldest agricultural research institutions in the world, having been founded in 1843, and its research has been credited with preventing crop failures across the globe. A letter from Rothamsted’s director, Prof Angela Karp, seen by the Guardian, has warned staff they will have to pause “non-essential” work, announcing a hiring pause and warning of pay freezes. Worried scientists have said they fear for their work, which is dependent on funding. About 350 scientists and 60 PhD students work at the facility. Its research includes work into how farmers can be productive while growing trees in their fields , finding out how much carbon crops can store, and two national networks for monitoring insect populations in the UK. Rothamsted hit the headlines in 2012 when about 200 anti-genetic modification protesters occupied the site to campaign against their research into a wheat crop that would deter aphids. Rothamsted receives the majority of its funding as a core grant directly from the government’s UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) department, in five-year cycles. For the past two cycles the institute’s funding has included no inflation costs. For several years the institute has been running at a loss, with the government stepping in occasionally to top up funds. While the UK was in the EU, Rothamsted also benefited from funding from the European regional development fund, which it is no longer entitled to. Now, the situation is understood to be at crisis point, with future operations by the facility uncertain. Karp wrote: “I feel that it is important for me to inform staff that, after a promising start, unfortunately our financial position weakened in the latter part of last year. Despite all our ongoing efforts, including excellent successes from many staff that we can be proud of, our grant targets won for the whole year were not as we had budgeted for. “Whilst free reserves have been maintained, these still remain lower than we would like and highly susceptible to external factors, and we are currently considering how best to manage our operating model to put our longer-term future on a more secure footing. “To some extent we have managed the challenges we faced during 2023 through rebalancing funds within the IAE envelope. However, the mitigation steps we have been taking cannot be relied on from now onwards and we do not have enough reserves that we can access immediately.” Rothamsted has estimated its worth to the UK economy as £3bn a year because its work helps crop yields, both by determining which crops grow most efficiently and by developing plants which are tolerant to diseases and extreme weather. A large part of the government’s offer to farmers post-Brexit, as they struggle with a lack of workers and new environmental rules for government payments, is promised new research. This would make farmers be able to work more efficiently, using fewer inputs such as fertiliser, and also need fewer staff as innovations such as robotic vegetable pickers are developed. A UKRI spokesperson said: “Though a core funder of Rothamsted Research, the BBSRC (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council) recognises and upholds the institute’s legal and governance distinctiveness. We encourage our strategically supported institutes to seek research funding from a broad range of funders to support research beyond those activities which we fund through a range of schemes.” A spokesperson for Rothamsted Research said: “We are fully focussed on our scientific programme, generating impactful outcomes from our many research commitments, and remain very much ‘open for business’ for all our partners and collaborators.” They added that the research centre’s science “is in a great place” and had been “exhaustively peer reviewed for the next 5 years of BBSRC funding”. “We acknowledge the financial situation is challenging, as it is for many similar institutes and universities, and are working hard to implement necessary change as would be expected from any effective management team,” the spokesperson said. The top Rothamsted experiments The Park Grass experiment The Park Grass experiment is one of the longest-running experiments of modern science; it began in 1856 and has been going ever since. What it most vividly shows is how biodiversity plummets when you add fertiliser to hay meadows. The study is conducted in Rothamsted Park in Harpenden on 2.8 hectares (6.9 acres) of parkland that had been in permanent pasture for at least 100 years. The purpose was originally to find out how to improve hay yields by adding either inorganic fertiliser or organic manures. However, within a couple of years scientists noticed that wild species diversity massively decreased because the fertilisers changed the soil pH and nutrient composition. On the unfertilised spots, scientists noted 35-45 species, but there were only two or three on those treated with artificial fertiliser. Once established to help crop yields, park grass is now a very important source of evidence for ecologists and soil scientists. Artificial fertilisers Sir John Bennet Lawes, 1st Baronet, inherited the Rothamsted estate from his father. He founded the research centre, which first began with his own experiments on the effects of manures on potted plants and field crops in the grounds. He went on to patent treating phosphate rock with sulphuric acid to produce superphosphate, a fertiliser, before opening a fertiliser factory. Although they are a bete noir of environmentalists now, partly due to the park grass experiment which revealed their harm to nature, human-made fertilisers have helped feed the world. Revealing the insect apocalypse Rothamsted’s moth trap survey has been running since the 1960s. This provides the basis of moth data in the UK, which has revealed their decline. The moth traps provide the most comprehensive standardised long-term data on insects in the world. The 16 traps provide farmers with information on the timing and size of aphid migrations to prevent heavy prophylactic use of insecticides. Butterfly discoveries Rothamsted discovered the secrets of the painted lady migration – the fact that British-born butterflies return from northern Europe and the Arctic to Africa at the end of the summer. It was Rothamsted radar that got pictures of the butterflies high up in the air, far higher than people thought they flew. View image in fullscreen Rothamsted scientists found the painted lady makes a 9,000 mile round trip from tropical Africa to the Arctic Circle. Photograph: Buiten-Beeld/Alamy In one of the largest citizen science projects ever recorded, Rothamsted scientists found out where butterflies go when they migrate. It was known the butterfly migrated from the continent each summer to UK shores in varying numbers. But scientists did not previously know if the painted lady made the return journey at the end of the summer, like the closely related red admiral, or simply died in the UK. They found the painted lady did indeed migrate south each autumn – but mades this return journey at high altitudes, out of view of butterfly observers on the ground. Radar records revealed that painted ladies flew at an average altitude of more than 500 metres on their southbound trip and could clock up speeds of 30mph. Explore more on these topics Agriculture Agriculture and forestry Farming news Share Reuse this content The institution has been running at a loss and is also no longer in receipt of EU development funding. Photograph: Tim Scrivener/Alamy View image in fullscreen The institution has been running at a loss and is also no longer in receipt of EU development funding. Photograph: Tim Scrivener/Alamy The institution has been running at a loss and is also no longer in receipt of EU development funding. Photograph: Tim Scrivener/Alamy View image in fullscreen The institution has been running at a loss and is also no longer in receipt of EU development funding. Photograph: Tim Scrivener/Alamy The institution has been running at a loss and is also no longer in receipt of EU development funding. Photograph: Tim Scrivener/Alamy View image in fullscreen The institution has been running at a loss and is also no longer in receipt of EU development funding. Photograph: Tim Scrivener/Alamy The institution has been running at a loss and is also no longer in receipt of EU development funding. Photograph: Tim Scrivener/Alamy View image in fullscreen The institution has been running at a loss and is also no longer in receipt of EU development funding. Photograph: Tim Scrivener/Alamy The institution has been running at a loss and is also no longer in receipt of EU development funding. Photograph: Tim Scrivener/Alamy The institution has been running at a loss and is also no longer in receipt of EU development funding. Photograph: Tim Scrivener/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old UK’s leading agricultural research facility facing funding crisis This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old UK’s leading agricultural research facility facing funding crisis This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old UK’s leading agricultural research facility facing funding crisis 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: Rothamsted Research is having to pause ‘non-essential’ work, according to a letter from its director Exclusive: Rothamsted Research is having to pause ‘non-essential’ work, according to a letter from its director Exclusive: Rothamsted Research is having to pause ‘non-essential’ work, according to a letter from its director The UK’s leading agricultural research facility is facing a funding crisis with part of its future work in jeopardy, it can be revealed. Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, is one of the oldest agricultural research institutions in the world, having been founded in 1843, and its research has been credited with preventing crop failures across the globe. A letter from Rothamsted’s director, Prof Angela Karp, seen by the Guardian, has warned staff they will have to pause “non-essential” work, announcing a hiring pause and warning of pay freezes. Worried scientists have said they fear for their work, which is dependent on funding. About 350 scientists and 60 PhD students work at the facility. Its research includes work into how farmers can be productive while growing trees in their fields , finding out how much carbon crops can store, and two national networks for monitoring insect populations in the UK. Rothamsted hit the headlines in 2012 when about 200 anti-genetic modification protesters occupied the site to campaign against their research into a wheat crop that would deter aphids. Rothamsted receives the majority of its funding as a core grant directly from the government’s UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) department, in five-year cycles. For the past two cycles the institute’s funding has included no inflation costs. For several years the institute has been running at a loss, with the government stepping in occasionally to top up funds. While the UK was in the EU, Rothamsted also benefited from funding from the European regional development fund, which it is no longer entitled to. Now, the situation is understood to be at crisis point, with future operations by the facility uncertain. Karp wrote: “I feel that it is important for me to inform staff that, after a promising start, unfortunately our financial position weakened in the latter part of last year. Despite all our ongoing efforts, including excellent successes from many staff that we can be proud of, our grant targets won for the whole year were not as we had budgeted for. “Whilst free reserves have been maintained, these still remain lower than we would like and highly susceptible to external factors, and we are currently considering how best to manage our operating model to put our longer-term future on a more secure footing. “To some extent we have managed the challenges we faced during 2023 through rebalancing funds within the IAE envelope. However, the mitigation steps we have been taking cannot be relied on from now onwards and we do not have enough reserves that we can access immediately.” Rothamsted has estimated its worth to the UK economy as £3bn a year because its work helps crop yields, both by determining which crops grow most efficiently and by developing plants which are tolerant to diseases and extreme weather. A large part of the government’s offer to farmers post-Brexit, as they struggle with a lack of workers and new environmental rules for government payments, is promised new research. This would make farmers be able to work more efficiently, using fewer inputs such as fertiliser, and also need fewer staff as innovations such as robotic vegetable pickers are developed. A UKRI spokesperson said: “Though a core funder of Rothamsted Research, the BBSRC (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council) recognises and upholds the institute’s legal and governance distinctiveness. We encourage our strategically supported institutes to seek research funding from a broad range of funders to support research beyond those activities which we fund through a range of schemes.” A spokesperson for Rothamsted Research said: “We are fully focussed on our scientific programme, generating impactful outcomes from our many research commitments, and remain very much ‘open for business’ for all our partners and collaborators.” They added that the research centre’s science “is in a great place” and had been “exhaustively peer reviewed for the next 5 years of BBSRC funding”. “We acknowledge the financial situation is challenging, as it is for many similar institutes and universities, and are working hard to implement necessary change as would be expected from any effective management team,” the spokesperson said. The top Rothamsted experiments The Park Grass experiment The Park Grass experiment is one of the longest-running experiments of modern science; it began in 1856 and has been going ever since. What it most vividly shows is how biodiversity plummets when you add fertiliser to hay meadows. The study is conducted in Rothamsted Park in Harpenden on 2.8 hectares (6.9 acres) of parkland that had been in permanent pasture for at least 100 years. The purpose was originally to find out how to improve hay yields by adding either inorganic fertiliser or organic manures. However, within a couple of years scientists noticed that wild species diversity massively decreased because the fertilisers changed the soil pH and nutrient composition. On the unfertilised spots, scientists noted 35-45 species, but there were only two or three on those treated with artificial fertiliser. Once established to help crop yields, park grass is now a very important source of evidence for ecologists and soil scientists. Artificial fertilisers Sir John Bennet Lawes, 1st Baronet, inherited the Rothamsted estate from his father. He founded the research centre, which first began with his own experiments on the effects of manures on potted plants and field crops in the grounds. He went on to patent treating phosphate rock with sulphuric acid to produce superphosphate, a fertiliser, before opening a fertiliser factory. Although they are a bete noir of environmentalists now, partly due to the park grass experiment which revealed their harm to nature, human-made fertilisers have helped feed the world. Revealing the insect apocalypse Rothamsted’s moth trap survey has been running since the 1960s. This provides the basis of moth data in the UK, which has revealed their decline. The moth traps provide the most comprehensive standardised long-term data on insects in the world. The 16 traps provide farmers with information on the timing and size of aphid migrations to prevent heavy prophylactic use of insecticides. Butterfly discoveries Rothamsted discovered the secrets of the painted lady migration – the fact that British-born butterflies return from northern Europe and the Arctic to Africa at the end of the summer. It was Rothamsted radar that got pictures of the butterflies high up in the air, far higher than people thought they flew. View image in fullscreen Rothamsted scientists found the painted lady makes a 9,000 mile round trip from tropical Africa to the Arctic Circle. Photograph: Buiten-Beeld/Alamy In one of the largest citizen science projects ever recorded, Rothamsted scientists found out where butterflies go when they migrate. It was known the butterfly migrated from the continent each summer to UK shores in varying numbers. But scientists did not previously know if the painted lady made the return journey at the end of the summer, like the closely related red admiral, or simply died in the UK. They found the painted lady did indeed migrate south each autumn – but mades this return journey at high altitudes, out of view of butterfly observers on the ground. Radar records revealed that painted ladies flew at an average altitude of more than 500 metres on their southbound trip and could clock up speeds of 30mph. Explore more on these topics Agriculture Agriculture and forestry Farming news Share Reuse this content The UK’s leading agricultural research facility is facing a funding crisis with part of its future work in jeopardy, it can be revealed. Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, is one of the oldest agricultural research institutions in the world, having been founded in 1843, and its research has been credited with preventing crop failures across the globe. A letter from Rothamsted’s director, Prof Angela Karp, seen by the Guardian, has warned staff they will have to pause “non-essential” work, announcing a hiring pause and warning of pay freezes. Worried scientists have said they fear for their work, which is dependent on funding. About 350 scientists and 60 PhD students work at the facility. Its research includes work into how farmers can be productive while growing trees in their fields , finding out how much carbon crops can store, and two national networks for monitoring insect populations in the UK. Rothamsted hit the headlines in 2012 when about 200 anti-genetic modification protesters occupied the site to campaign against their research into a wheat crop that would deter aphids. Rothamsted receives the majority of its funding as a core grant directly from the government’s UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) department, in five-year cycles. For the past two cycles the institute’s funding has included no inflation costs. For several years the institute has been running at a loss, with the government stepping in occasionally to top up funds. While the UK was in the EU, Rothamsted also benefited from funding from the European regional development fund, which it is no longer entitled to. Now, the situation is understood to be at crisis point, with future operations by the facility uncertain. Karp wrote: “I feel that it is important for me to inform staff that, after a promising start, unfortunately our financial position weakened in the latter part of last year. Despite all our ongoing efforts, including excellent successes from many staff that we can be proud of, our grant targets won for the whole year were not as we had budgeted for. “Whilst free reserves have been maintained, these still remain lower than we would like and highly susceptible to external factors, and we are currently considering how best to manage our operating model to put our longer-term future on a more secure footing. “To some extent we have managed the challenges we faced during 2023 through rebalancing funds within the IAE envelope. However, the mitigation steps we have been taking cannot be relied on from now onwards and we do not have enough reserves that we can access immediately.” Rothamsted has estimated its worth to the UK economy as £3bn a year because its work helps crop yields, both by determining which crops grow most efficiently and by developing plants which are tolerant to diseases and extreme weather. A large part of the government’s offer to farmers post-Brexit, as they struggle with a lack of workers and new environmental rules for government payments, is promised new research. This would make farmers be able to work more efficiently, using fewer inputs such as fertiliser, and also need fewer staff as innovations such as robotic vegetable pickers are developed. A UKRI spokesperson said: “Though a core funder of Rothamsted Research, the BBSRC (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council) recognises and upholds the institute’s legal and governance distinctiveness. We encourage our strategically supported institutes to seek research funding from a broad range of funders to support research beyond those activities which we fund through a range of schemes.” A spokesperson for Rothamsted Research said: “We are fully focussed on our scientific programme, generating impactful outcomes from our many research commitments, and remain very much ‘open for business’ for all our partners and collaborators.” They added that the research centre’s science “is in a great place” and had been “exhaustively peer reviewed for the next 5 years of BBSRC funding”. “We acknowledge the financial situation is challenging, as it is for many similar institutes and universities, and are working hard to implement necessary change as would be expected from any effective management team,” the spokesperson said. The top Rothamsted experiments The Park Grass experiment The Park Grass experiment is one of the longest-running experiments of modern science; it began in 1856 and has been going ever since. What it most vividly shows is how biodiversity plummets when you add fertiliser to hay meadows. The study is conducted in Rothamsted Park in Harpenden on 2.8 hectares (6.9 acres) of parkland that had been in permanent pasture for at least 100 years. The purpose was originally to find out how to improve hay yields by adding either inorganic fertiliser or organic manures. However, within a couple of years scientists noticed that wild species diversity massively decreased because the fertilisers changed the soil pH and nutrient composition. On the unfertilised spots, scientists noted 35-45 species, but there were only two or three on those treated with artificial fertiliser. Once established to help crop yields, park grass is now a very important source of evidence for ecologists and soil scientists. Artificial fertilisers Sir John Bennet Lawes, 1st Baronet, inherited the Rothamsted estate from his father. He founded the research centre, which first began with his own experiments on the effects of manures on potted plants and field crops in the grounds. He went on to patent treating phosphate rock with sulphuric acid to produce superphosphate, a fertiliser, before opening a fertiliser factory. Although they are a bete noir of environmentalists now, partly due to the park grass experiment which revealed their harm to nature, human-made fertilisers have helped feed the world. Revealing the insect apocalypse Rothamsted’s moth trap survey has been running since the 1960s. This provides the basis of moth data in the UK, which has revealed their decline. The moth traps provide the most comprehensive standardised long-term data on insects in the world. The 16 traps provide farmers with information on the timing and size of aphid migrations to prevent heavy prophylactic use of insecticides. Butterfly discoveries Rothamsted discovered the secrets of the painted lady migration – the fact that British-born butterflies return from northern Europe and the Arctic to Africa at the end of the summer. It was Rothamsted radar that got pictures of the butterflies high up in the air, far higher than people thought they flew. View image in fullscreen Rothamsted scientists found the painted lady makes a 9,000 mile round trip from tropical Africa to the Arctic Circle. Photograph: Buiten-Beeld/Alamy In one of the largest citizen science projects ever recorded, Rothamsted scientists found out where butterflies go when they migrate. It was known the butterfly migrated from the continent each summer to UK shores in varying numbers. But scientists did not previously know if the painted lady made the return journey at the end of the summer, like the closely related red admiral, or simply died in the UK. They found the painted lady did indeed migrate south each autumn – but mades this return journey at high altitudes, out of view of butterfly observers on the ground. Radar records revealed that painted ladies flew at an average altitude of more than 500 metres on their southbound trip and could clock up speeds of 30mph. Explore more on these topics Agriculture Agriculture and forestry Farming news Share Reuse this content The UK’s leading agricultural research facility is facing a funding crisis with part of its future work in jeopardy, it can be revealed. Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, is one of the oldest agricultural research institutions in the world, having been founded in 1843, and its research has been credited with preventing crop failures across the globe. A letter from Rothamsted’s director, Prof Angela Karp, seen by the Guardian, has warned staff they will have to pause “non-essential” work, announcing a hiring pause and warning of pay freezes. Worried scientists have said they fear for their work, which is dependent on funding. About 350 scientists and 60 PhD students work at the facility. Its research includes work into how farmers can be productive while growing trees in their fields , finding out how much carbon crops can store, and two national networks for monitoring insect populations in the UK. Rothamsted hit the headlines in 2012 when about 200 anti-genetic modification protesters occupied the site to campaign against their research into a wheat crop that would deter aphids. Rothamsted receives the majority of its funding as a core grant directly from the government’s UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) department, in five-year cycles. For the past two cycles the institute’s funding has included no inflation costs. For several years the institute has been running at a loss, with the government stepping in occasionally to top up funds. While the UK was in the EU, Rothamsted also benefited from funding from the European regional development fund, which it is no longer entitled to. Now, the situation is understood to be at crisis point, with future operations by the facility uncertain. Karp wrote: “I feel that it is important for me to inform staff that, after a promising start, unfortunately our financial position weakened in the latter part of last year. Despite all our ongoing efforts, including excellent successes from many staff that we can be proud of, our grant targets won for the whole year were not as we had budgeted for. “Whilst free reserves have been maintained, these still remain lower than we would like and highly susceptible to external factors, and we are currently considering how best to manage our operating model to put our longer-term future on a more secure footing. “To some extent we have managed the challenges we faced during 2023 through rebalancing funds within the IAE envelope. However, the mitigation steps we have been taking cannot be relied on from now onwards and we do not have enough reserves that we can access immediately.” Rothamsted has estimated its worth to the UK economy as £3bn a year because its work helps crop yields, both by determining which crops grow most efficiently and by developing plants which are tolerant to diseases and extreme weather. A large part of the government’s offer to farmers post-Brexit, as they struggle with a lack of workers and new environmental rules for government payments, is promised new research. This would make farmers be able to work more efficiently, using fewer inputs such as fertiliser, and also need fewer staff as innovations such as robotic vegetable pickers are developed. A UKRI spokesperson said: “Though a core funder of Rothamsted Research, the BBSRC (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council) recognises and upholds the institute’s legal and governance distinctiveness. We encourage our strategically supported institutes to seek research funding from a broad range of funders to support research beyond those activities which we fund through a range of schemes.” A spokesperson for Rothamsted Research said: “We are fully focussed on our scientific programme, generating impactful outcomes from our many research commitments, and remain very much ‘open for business’ for all our partners and collaborators.” They added that the research centre’s science “is in a great place” and had been “exhaustively peer reviewed for the next 5 years of BBSRC funding”. “We acknowledge the financial situation is challenging, as it is for many similar institutes and universities, and are working hard to implement necessary change as would be expected from any effective management team,” the spokesperson said. The top Rothamsted experiments The Park Grass experiment The Park Grass experiment is one of the longest-running experiments of modern science; it began in 1856 and has been going ever since. What it most vividly shows is how biodiversity plummets when you add fertiliser to hay meadows. The study is conducted in Rothamsted Park in Harpenden on 2.8 hectares (6.9 acres) of parkland that had been in permanent pasture for at least 100 years. The purpose was originally to find out how to improve hay yields by adding either inorganic fertiliser or organic manures. However, within a couple of years scientists noticed that wild species diversity massively decreased because the fertilisers changed the soil pH and nutrient composition. On the unfertilised spots, scientists noted 35-45 species, but there were only two or three on those treated with artificial fertiliser. Once established to help crop yields, park grass is now a very important source of evidence for ecologists and soil scientists. Artificial fertilisers Sir John Bennet Lawes, 1st Baronet, inherited the Rothamsted estate from his father. He founded the research centre, which first began with his own experiments on the effects of manures on potted plants and field crops in the grounds. He went on to patent treating phosphate rock with sulphuric acid to produce superphosphate, a fertiliser, before opening a fertiliser factory. Although they are a bete noir of environmentalists now, partly due to the park grass experiment which revealed their harm to nature, human-made fertilisers have helped feed the world. Revealing the insect apocalypse Rothamsted’s moth trap survey has been running since the 1960s. This provides the basis of moth data in the UK, which has revealed their decline. The moth traps provide the most comprehensive standardised long-term data on insects in the world. The 16 traps provide farmers with information on the timing and size of aphid migrations to prevent heavy prophylactic use of insecticides. Butterfly discoveries Rothamsted discovered the secrets of the painted lady migration – the fact that British-born butterflies return from northern Europe and the Arctic to Africa at the end of the summer. It was Rothamsted radar that got pictures of the butterflies high up in the air, far higher than people thought they flew. View image in fullscreen Rothamsted scientists found the painted lady makes a 9,000 mile round trip from tropical Africa to the Arctic Circle. Photograph: Buiten-Beeld/Alamy In one of the largest citizen science projects ever recorded, Rothamsted scientists found out where butterflies go when they migrate. It was known the butterfly migrated from the continent each summer to UK shores in varying numbers. But scientists did not previously know if the painted lady made the return journey at the end of the summer, like the closely related red admiral, or simply died in the UK. They found the painted lady did indeed migrate south each autumn – but mades this return journey at high altitudes, out of view of butterfly observers on the ground. Radar records revealed that painted ladies flew at an average altitude of more than 500 metres on their southbound trip and could clock up speeds of 30mph. The UK’s leading agricultural research facility is facing a funding crisis with part of its future work in jeopardy, it can be revealed. Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, is one of the oldest agricultural research institutions in the world, having been founded in 1843, and its research has been credited with preventing crop failures across the globe. A letter from Rothamsted’s director, Prof Angela Karp, seen by the Guardian, has warned staff they will have to pause “non-essential” work, announcing a hiring pause and warning of pay freezes. Worried scientists have said they fear for their work, which is dependent on funding. About 350 scientists and 60 PhD students work at the facility. Its research includes work into how farmers can be productive while growing trees in their fields , finding out how much carbon crops can store, and two national networks for monitoring insect populations in the UK. Rothamsted hit the headlines in 2012 when about 200 anti-genetic modification protesters occupied the site to campaign against their research into a wheat crop that would deter aphids. Rothamsted receives the majority of its funding as a core grant directly from the government’s UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) department, in five-year cycles. For the past two cycles the institute’s funding has included no inflation costs. For several years the institute has been running at a loss, with the government stepping in occasionally to top up funds. While the UK was in the EU, Rothamsted also benefited from funding from the European regional development fund, which it is no longer entitled to. Now, the situation is understood to be at crisis point, with future operations by the facility uncertain. Karp wrote: “I feel that it is important for me to inform staff that, after a promising start, unfortunately our financial position weakened in the latter part of last year. Despite all our ongoing efforts, including excellent successes from many staff that we can be proud of, our grant targets won for the whole year were not as we had budgeted for. “Whilst free reserves have been maintained, these still remain lower than we would like and highly susceptible to external factors, and we are currently considering how best to manage our operating model to put our longer-term future on a more secure footing. “To some extent we have managed the challenges we faced during 2023 through rebalancing funds within the IAE envelope. However, the mitigation steps we have been taking cannot be relied on from now onwards and we do not have enough reserves that we can access immediately.” Rothamsted has estimated its worth to the UK economy as £3bn a year because its work helps crop yields, both by determining which crops grow most efficiently and by developing plants which are tolerant to diseases and extreme weather. A large part of the government’s offer to farmers post-Brexit, as they struggle with a lack of workers and new environmental rules for government payments, is promised new research. This would make farmers be able to work more efficiently, using fewer inputs such as fertiliser, and also need fewer staff as innovations such as robotic vegetable pickers are developed. A UKRI spokesperson said: “Though a core funder of Rothamsted Research, the BBSRC (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council) recognises and upholds the institute’s legal and governance distinctiveness. We encourage our strategically supported institutes to seek research funding from a broad range of funders to support research beyond those activities which we fund through a range of schemes.” A spokesperson for Rothamsted Research said: “We are fully focussed on our scientific programme, generating impactful outcomes from our many research commitments, and remain very much ‘open for business’ for all our partners and collaborators.” They added that the research centre’s science “is in a great place” and had been “exhaustively peer reviewed for the next 5 years of BBSRC funding”. “We acknowledge the financial situation is challenging, as it is for many similar institutes and universities, and are working hard to implement necessary change as would be expected from any effective management team,” the spokesperson said. The top Rothamsted experiments The Park Grass experiment The Park Grass experiment is one of the longest-running experiments of modern science; it began in 1856 and has been going ever since. What it most vividly shows is how biodiversity plummets when you add fertiliser to hay meadows. The study is conducted in Rothamsted Park in Harpenden on 2.8 hectares (6.9 acres) of parkland that had been in permanent pasture for at least 100 years. The purpose was originally to find out how to improve hay yields by adding either inorganic fertiliser or organic manures. However, within a couple of years scientists noticed that wild species diversity massively decreased because the fertilisers changed the soil pH and nutrient composition. On the unfertilised spots, scientists noted 35-45 species, but there were only two or three on those treated with artificial fertiliser. Once established to help crop yields, park grass is now a very important source of evidence for ecologists and soil scientists. Artificial fertilisers Sir John Bennet Lawes, 1st Baronet, inherited the Rothamsted estate from his father. He founded the research centre, which first began with his own experiments on the effects of manures on potted plants and field crops in the grounds. He went on to patent treating phosphate rock with sulphuric acid to produce superphosphate, a fertiliser, before opening a fertiliser factory. Although they are a bete noir of environmentalists now, partly due to the park grass experiment which revealed their harm to nature, human-made fertilisers have helped feed the world. Revealing the insect apocalypse Rothamsted’s moth trap survey has been running since the 1960s. This provides the basis of moth data in the UK, which has revealed their decline. The moth traps provide the most comprehensive standardised long-term data on insects in the world. The 16 traps provide farmers with information on the timing and size of aphid migrations to prevent heavy prophylactic use of insecticides. Butterfly discoveries Rothamsted discovered the secrets of the painted lady migration – the fact that British-born butterflies return from northern Europe and the Arctic to Africa at the end of the summer. It was Rothamsted radar that got pictures of the butterflies high up in the air, far higher than people thought they flew. View image in fullscreen Rothamsted scientists found the painted lady makes a 9,000 mile round trip from tropical Africa to the Arctic Circle. Photograph: Buiten-Beeld/Alamy In one of the largest citizen science projects ever recorded, Rothamsted scientists found out where butterflies go when they migrate. It was known the butterfly migrated from the continent each summer to UK shores in varying numbers. But scientists did not previously know if the painted lady made the return journey at the end of the summer, like the closely related red admiral, or simply died in the UK. They found the painted lady did indeed migrate south each autumn – but mades this return journey at high altitudes, out of view of butterfly observers on the ground. Radar records revealed that painted ladies flew at an average altitude of more than 500 metres on their southbound trip and could clock up speeds of 30mph. The UK’s leading agricultural research facility is facing a funding crisis with part of its future work in jeopardy, it can be revealed. Rothamsted Research in H
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
What the unrest in Leicester revealed about Britain – and Modi’s India
The Belgrave Road area of Leicester. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian A year and a half ago, Hindus and Muslims clashed in the streets of one of Britain’s most diverse cities. What lay behind the violence? By Yohann Koshy O n Saturday 17 September 2022, the weekend before the Queen’s funeral, 300 men marched through Leicester . Their faces were hidden by Covid masks and balaclavas as they made their way to Green Lane Road in Highfields, an area in east Leicester with a large Muslim population. On WhatsApp, it had been billed as a Hindu neighbourhood safety march. “It’s very important for every Hindu to attain [sic] this meeting,” an organiser wrote. “Otherwise in future, we will have to live in fear.” It was early evening, and as the men passed rows of terrace houses, redbrick warehouses and the Piccadilly Cinemas, which was advertising a Hindi-language epic set during the British Raj, they chanted “ Jai Shree Ram” ( “Victory to Lord Rama”). This phrase has long been an innocuous declaration of religious faith, but in recent decades, it has become associated with the politics of Hindu nationalism in India, where militants use it as a rallying cry in campaigns of intimidation and violence against minorities, particularly Muslims. The men also shouted other slogans that have become associated with the Hindu right: “ Bharat Mata Ki Jai” (“Victory to Mother India”) and “ Vande Mataram” (“Praise Mother [India]”). What the unrest in Leicester revealed about Britain – and Modi’s India – podcast Read more As word spread on WhatsApp, counter-demonstrations of mainly Muslim men soon formed. Many local police officers had been seconded to London for the state funeral, but those that remained were hastily scrambled to try to keep the crowds apart. One man, filming on his phone, appealed to a police officer to make arrests. “I don’t know what they’re saying,” the officer admitted. “The problem is if we arrest one person, the whole fucking lot go up.” What started as a group of Hindus marching to a “Muslim area” ended with groups of Muslims following them to the city’s “Hindu area” – Belgrave Road, about 1.5 miles north, a lively high street of jewellery shops and restaurants. By the time night fell, fights were breaking out. A young Hindu man driving a car was attacked, his head slashed, after a false rumour spread that he had tried to run people over. The chaos spilled over into local businesses. I spoke to someone who was having dinner at about 9pm in a dosa restaurant on Belgrave Road when a young man ran inside, barefoot, looking for shelter after he’d been attacked; a couple of other men who were bleeding tried to get in, too. Terrified, the restaurant owners brought down the shutters and turned off the lights. A standoff between the two groups formed across Belgrave Road, with bottles flying through the air, and lasted until the police dispersed them in the early hours of the morning. It was there that the most incendiary video from the night was captured: a man jumped up on the walls of a Hindu temple and tore down a saffron-coloured religious flag; another clip shows a flag being set alight. These images went viral, becoming a visual shorthand for the intensity of the religious discord. The next day, at about 4pm, a crowd of Muslim men tried to march down Belgrave Road, shouting “Allahu Akbar” against a line of police. Within a few days, the disorder seemed to be spreading across the Midlands: there was a rowdy protest outside a Hindu temple in Smethwick, just west of Birmingham, in response to (aborted) plans to host a talk by a Hindu nationalist ideologue from India. Speak to people in Leicester about why this all happened and you will hear different starting points. Even by beginning this story with the march on 17 September, I will have irked those who think a more appropriate starting point is late August, when a house in which Hindus were celebrating a religious festival was egged, or, a few days after that, when a Hindu man was stabbed in the arm, reportedly by a Muslim assailant. (The victim would go on to be one of the organisers of the march, though he later said that his aim had been just to organise “a normal protest”.) Or 28 August, when India beat Pakistan at cricket in the Asia Cup in Dubai and jubilant fans chanted “ Pakistan Murdabad ” – “Death to/Down with Pakistan” – in the streets and a fight broke out. Or even as far back as May, when a group of young men allegedly asked someone if he was Muslim before attacking him. But it was the violence of 17 and 18 September that turned a local story into something much bigger. About 370,000 people live in Leicester; according to data gathered in the 2021 census, 23.5% are Muslim and 17.9% are Hindu, and the majority of both groups have Indian heritage. With sizable Somali and eastern European populations, the city is what sociologists call “super-diverse”. After the 2021 census, Leicester became, alongside Birmingham, one of the first British cities to have a non-white majority. But while white racist politics have been a feature of Leicester’s history – from the National Front picking up thousands of votes in the 1970s to the English Defence League marching on the city in 2010 – this kind of large-scale violent enmity between Hindus and Muslims was new. “It’s not something we have ever seen on the streets of Leicester,” Sharmen Rahman, a former councillor, told me last June. Suddenly, politicians, diplomats, activists, influencers, pressure groups and the global media turned their attention to Leicester. To many observers, it seemed that India’s often violent, sectarian politics were playing out on Britain’s streets. On Monday 19 September, the Indian high commission in London released a remarkably undiplomatic statement condemning “the violence perpetrated against the Indian community in Leicester and vandalisation of premises and symbols of Hindu religion”. Although Leicester’s Pakistani population is small (3.4% in 2021), the Pakistan high commission saw fit to issue its own statement, condemning the “systematic campaign of violence and intimidation that has been unleashed against the Muslims of the area”. In India, a demonstration was held under the banner “UK Save Hindus”, while Indian newspapers reported on “communal clashes” in the UK and the hashtag #HindusUnderAttack trended on Twitter. India’s foreign affairs minister raised the issue with the UK government. The city was profoundly shaken, and the after-effects are still being felt. Last year, Britain’s then home secretary, Suella Braverman, gave a speech in which she cited Leicester as an example of the “failure” of multiculturalism. Two investigations are under way – one set up by communities secretary Michael Gove and chaired by Lord Ian Austin, who resigned from the Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn and was ennobled by Boris Johnson, and the other chaired by a former UN special rapporteur and based at Soas University of London. Leicester’s mayor, Peter Soulsby, has said that he worries neither “will be seen as being truly impartial”. Yet there is a striking – and under-remarked – aspect to what happened in Leicester: the events of that weekend were, at least on the surface, relatively minor. A year on, 32 people had been found guilty of crimes including public order offences, possessing weapons and affray. Nobody was killed or put in a critical condition. As one observer told me, there are more dangerous football matches. The sheer scale of the response, in other words, was not to do with the scale of the violence. What made the “disturbances”, “disorder”, “riots”, “unrest” – no one can agree on a single term – so potent is that they seemed to expose hidden fault lines running through England, not least the changing character of the country’s racial politics amid conditions of austerity, low economic growth and new migration flows. And beyond these national considerations lurks a bigger question: how the ultra-nationalist atmosphere of Narendra Modi’s India might be spreading beyond its borders. O n a quiet day last summer, Sanjay Modhwadia showed me around his garment factory in east Leicester. There was almost nobody inside, except for his business partner, Alkesh, who was working in an office perfumed by burning incense, and Alkesh’s young children, who were running around with mischievous, summer-holiday freedom. Sewing machines had been put away. Rolls of fabric lay in storage. Outside the entrance, a sign that used to note job vacancies – hemmers, lockstitchers, overlockers – was now covered up. Modhwadia embodies two trends that help make sense of what happened in Leicester: the struggling economy in the city’s east, and its factional local politics. Tall and easy-going, he drove me around the garment district near Green Lane Road in a white SUV. “The clothing business has totally dried up,” he said, speaking in confident but imperfect English. (Modhwadia came to Britain from Gujarat in the early 1990s.) There were 1,000 garment factories in Leicester in 2020 ; that number is now estimated to have halved. Industry insiders cite energy costs, outsourcing, a higher minimum wage and the effects of a major scandal in 2020, during the pandemic, when the “open secret” of minimum wage underpayment in the industry was brought into the open. Workers in some factories were being paid as little as £3.50 an hour; the fast-fashion brand Boohoo saw more than £1bn wiped off its value . I asked Modhwadia if he thought unemployment in the sector could have contributed to the unrest in 2022. He agreed that it was possible. “Every day more than 20 people are calling me for [a] job,” he said. Modhwadia is well placed to answer these questions because he is not just a local businessman. He is also a Conservative councillor. In fact, he was the Tory party’s candidate for city mayor in last year’s elections, attracting 26,422 votes and giving Peter Soulsby (35,002) a fright. Soulsby is a powerful figure in the city, having been Labour council leader, a member of parliament, and elected mayor over his several decades in Leicester politics. “I just missed little bit from city mayor,” Modhwadia told me, laughing at the improbability of it all. Modhwadia, who is Hindu, only entered politics recently. He became a councillor after winning a byelection in October 2022, one month after the violence. During the campaign, a photograph circulated on social media of his Labour rival standing next to a cardboard cut-out of Narendra Modi. The notion that Labour’s candidate was pro-Modi, or even a member of his Hindu nationalist party, the BJP, spread locally. (The candidate denied being a BJP member.) There was a 19-point swing in Modwadhia’s favour, and Labour dropped to third place, behind the Greens. The episode seemed to confirm a suspicion: Indian politics was a ghost at the table in Leicester. View image in fullscreen A garment factory in the Spinney Hills area of Leicester. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Then there was the run-up to local elections last year, when the Labour party told 19 of its own councillors that they wouldn’t be allowed to stand. The news was picked up by the Times of India and Indian TV news, which reported that all of the party’s Hindu councillors had been blocked. In parts of east Leicester, a leaflet with the words “Labour party removes all Hindu councillors” was distributed. Outside observers assumed the decision had something to do with the disorder of 2022, but it seems to have ultimately been a story familiar to followers of Labour party politics – one of centralism and control. The blocked councillors were from different religious backgrounds, but most of them had voted that same year to abolish the elected mayor post, going against Soulsby in a high-stakes vote. (Soulsby’s office did not respond to requests for comment.) When the local elections came, Labour paid the price. While the rest of England seemed to be voting against the Conservatives – the party lost more than 1,000 councillors – there was a blue wave in Leicester, with Tories winning 17 seats on the city council. The new councillors, many of them from a Hindu background, performed particularly well in wards with large Hindu populations. After the results, Soulsby told BBC Leicester that he believed religion had been “weaponised”. (Other observers told me the rift between Labour and Leicester’s Hindus could be traced back to 2019, when one of the city’s MPs chaired a party conference session that contested India’s claims to the disputed territory of Kashmir. During the general elections that year, the Overseas Friends of the BJP UK openly canvassed across the country, trying to tempt voters away from the “anti-India” Labour party.) Local politics can be brutal. It is where the political is always personal. But there is something else that makes it particularly fraught: austerity. Since 2010, council spending on services other than social care in Leicester has been cut by at least 50% . A small but telling example: if you had walked by the city’s customer service centre in 2019 and looked at the opening hours in the window, it would have said Monday to Friday. Now it is only open two days a week. Rita Patel, a former assistant mayor of Leicester, told me that cuts had reduced the city’s finances to the “bare bones” and that it was no longer able to help newly arrived migrants find their feet. She also spoke of Leicester’s bruising experience with the pandemic – it went through the country’s longest lockdown. Austerity has perverse consequences: when Labour-run councils administer the cuts, it can be local Tories who benefit. But it also has psychological effects. As public resources dwindle, politics acquires an edge of desperation. Communities compete for what remains. In June, Patel told me she believed the city was heading for a black hole in its finances. By October, I was reading that it was “almost inevitable” that Leicester would follow several other councils and effectively declare bankruptcy . All of this in a city that was once considered to be one of the richest in Europe. I t wasn’t until the second half of the century that Leicester acquired the badge it still wears today, as a bustling example of multicultural England. When the writer JB Priestley visited Leicester in the early 1930s, it struck him as rather dull. “It seemed,” he wrote, “to lack character, to be busy and cheerful and industrial and built of red brick, and to be nothing else.” The first significant cohort of Asian settlers came after the second world war. It was a relatively small community – less than 5,000 by 1961 – but it established itself socially and culturally. The major migration wave came in the late 60s and 70s and largely comprised Asian “twice migrants” – those who had settled in countries such as Kenya and Uganda under the auspices of British colonialism. When those countries gained independence and pursued “Africanisation” policies, many Asians left. In the case of Uganda, they were expelled with 90 days’ notice. There is a darkly funny story about why so many Ugandan Asians chose Leicester. In 1972, the city council took out an advert in the Uganda Argus telling people that the city was full and that conditions weren’t as good as when previous migrants had arrived. The joke is that rather than putting people off, it simply alerted them to the fact that there was already an Asian community in Leicester – and so they came. Residents I spoke to were full of piquant stories of settling in the city over the decades, from the first time they saw falling snow to the corner-shop owner who imported reels of Bollywood films for the homesick. Gurharpal Singh, a political scientist who has lived and studied the Asian settlement of Leicester, arrived from Punjab in 1964 when he was eight years old. “I’ve seen it move from very much a white city to now a melting pot,” he told me when we met at the University of Leicester campus. He remembers dreading school football matches in the whiter west of the city – because the Asians would get beaten up afterwards. “When I tell this to my kids, they say, ‘Oh, how traumatic,’ and I say: ‘Well, that was just part of the game.’” Over time, Leicester developed a reputation as being a “model” for multiculturalism, in part because it avoided strife such as the 2001 “race riots” in northern mill-towns – when the far-right provoked violence with British-Asians. In a 2003 paper for Unesco, Singh tried to work out why this was. He chalked it down to three factors. First, many of the migrants who came in the 60s and 70s were of professional backgrounds. They set up small businesses or they found jobs in a “buoyant” local economy that needed male and female workers. Second, they didn’t compete for social housing, as happened elsewhere, instead choosing cheap private housing in inner-city areas such as Belgrave and Highfields. Third, the local Labour party recognised the electoral value of the Asian vote, and the city council embraced multiculturalism as policy. The “Leicester model” was always somewhat illusory. “Because the underlying reality of Leicester was it was a partition city,” Singh told me. Asians tended to live in east Leicester, the white working class in the west and the more affluent in the south. But one thing that did unite south Asians of all faiths in Britain was a common enemy: racism. The National Front campaigned heavily in Leicester after the Ugandan Asians arrived, and often received sympathetic coverage in the local press. Joining the resistance were organisations from the Indian Workers’ Association to local outfits like the Highfields and Belgrave Defence Campaign. In the 70s and 80s, south Asians involved in organised anti-racism often identified as black, which connoted a political affiliation as much as a racial identity, and helped build bridges between disparate groups. In Leicester, people were doubly united by a regional ancestry and language, as many of them were originally from Gujarat. People in the city I spoke to said that, growing up in the 70s, 80s or 90s, religion was not a significant source of division. View image in fullscreen The Jame’ Masjid mosque in Spinney Hills. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian But communities were, slowly, drifting apart. After the 1981 riots across England – inner-city revolts against unemployment and police violence – central and local governments made funds available for ethnic minority groups; these paid for things like salaries, community outreach officers and religious festivals. Some believe that this was an imperfect but valuable response to the racism of the time. Others argue that these initiatives blunted the edges of anti-racist politics. The inner-city funds in Leicester, Singh wrote, “became the basis of establishing a patron-client relationship between the local authority and ethnic community groups”. This arrangement dissipated the unity that had once existed between minority groups, said Priya Thamotheram, who runs a community centre in Leicester. “Now,” he told me, “it’s not about what is common between us, what unifies us, it’s more about what’s unique about us that we can pitch in and get some funding.” These national trends were accelerated by global events. Various factors – the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, 9/11, the “war on terror”, the rise of Islamophobia – increased the salience of Muslim identities. Meanwhile, Hindu nationalist politics, with its master theme of asserting Hindu pride, took off electorally in India in the 90s with the success of the BJP, and rippled across the diaspora. The Muslim Council of Britain was formed in 1997; the Hindu Forum of Britain in 2004. Political blackness, and even the broader notion of “Asian” identity, receded into history as religion came to the fore. Something else has changed since the heyday of the Leicester model: more Indians have migrated to the city. This matters because many of the young men who marched to Green Lane Road in September 2022 were drawn from relatively new migrant communities. In particular, they hailed from Daman and Diu, two coastal territories next to Gujarat. These places were not colonised by Britain, but Portugal, which only relinquished its Indian colonies in 1961. Through this twist of history, many people from Daman and Diu are eligible for Portuguese citizenship. Some ended up settling in Britain as European citizens before Brexit. At the time of the 2021 census, there were 18,862 Portuguese passport holders in Leicester – that’s 5.1% of the city’s population, the largest such proportion in the UK . The Daman and Diu communities disturb the stereotypical image of Hindus in Britain as well-off professionals. Many work in Leicester’s garment sector or in warehouse jobs. (One of the city’s biggest employers is a company called Samworth Brothers, where staff and agency workers make salads and pastries for high-street brands.) It is not unusual for multiple families to live under one roof. Perhaps because of their hardship, Daman and Diu people are also culturally self-confident: they celebrate their Hinduism proudly. In the area around Green Lane Road, you can often tell which houses they live in because of the religious iconography in the windows and doors. (Crucifixes and verses from the Qur’an also adorn some house fronts.) Last summer, I visited an office on Belgrave Road called Daman and Diu NRI Services (NRI stands for Non-Resident Indian). I waited as the owner, Ashwin Patel, spoke in Gujarati to a young woman who needed help. Her husband had died, he later told me, and he was explaining available services such as bereavement support. I asked what was the main problem facing Daman and Diu people in Leicester. His answer was simple: “No jobs.” It struck me that these recent migrants had arrived in a very different country to their Asian forebears – one with less explicit racism, but with a threadbare public realm and an economy more suited to the interests of asset owners than people who have nothing but their labour to sell. One day, in the city centre, I met a Muslim man from Daman who had come over before Brexit and was now working as an UberEats delivery driver. He seemed bemused by my interest in him, and didn’t want me to quote him by name, because he thought his English wasn’t good enough. He spoke in an unvarnished, direct way about the violence. He said his friends had been involved in some fights, but that things have calmed down. He suggested that it was normal that the Hindus didn’t like them. It’s like in India, he said. “You can be friends growing up and then never speak as adults.” P erhaps the core disagreement about what actually happened in Leicester in September 2022 concerns the question of outside involvement. Faith groups and some councillors have referred to unnamed “outsiders” who they blame for stirring up discontent in an otherwise harmonious city. One common refrain after the violence was that the RSS was behind it. The uniformed, quasi-paramilitary group , which is the ideological parent of India’s ruling BJP, dreams of transforming secular India into an avowedly Hindu nation, in which minorities, particularly Muslims and Christians, pay fealty to Hindu supremacy as a condition of their continued presence. Although Indian secularism since independence has been less robust in practice than its liberal cheerleaders like to believe, under Modi – an RSS member since he was a teenager – the Hindu nationalist vision has been pursued with a zeal that would have once seemed unimaginable. The Daman and Diu marchers have been described by some Muslim activists as “RSS thugs”, adopting tactics familiar from India, where provocative marches are a staple of Hindu supremacist groups. The notion that the RSS were openly organising in Leicester does seem fanciful. But what is interesting – and has not been widely reported – is that Leicester houses the UK headquarters of a group that is widely understood to be the overseas arm of the RSS, the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh (HSS). “The HSS is organised in the exact same way as the RSS in India,” using the same titles and ranks, says Prof Christophe Jaffrelot, an expert in Hindu nationalism at King’s College London. Founded in 1966 by east African Asians, today the HSS UK claims to run more than 100 weekly shakhas , or branches, across Britain, attended by more than 2,000 people. There is a focus on yoga, games, youth activities, charity and active citizenship. Last summer, I visited a building near Belgrave Road that houses the group’s head office. On the ground floor is a bookshop that sells religious and pro-RSS literature, alongside colourful children’s books. I bought a copy of Delhi Riots: The Untold Story, which gives a revisionist account of communal violence that took place in Delhi in 2020 and left at least 53 dead , the majority Muslim. (The book argues that the violence was ultimately caused by jihadists in cahoots with the far left.) I started speaking to two men, perhaps in their 70s, who appeared to work there. One was friendly even after I told him I was writing about Leicester; he carried on speaking until the other man ever so gently raised his hand, indicating to his friend that he should stop. The HSS UK’s trustees have told the Charity Commission that there is no formal connection between it and the RSS, only an “ideological commonality” , as the commission put it. But the group’s relationship with the RSS is public and visible. Its Leicester headquarters were inaugurated in 1995 by the man who was then the RSS’s supreme chief. In 2016, the current RSS leader was the guest of honour at the HSS’s 50-year celebration in Hertfordshire. View image in fullscreen Police hold back Muslim protesters from marching along Belgrave Road in Leicester. Photograph: Andrew Fox/The Guardian The HSS UK has said that “to the best of [its] knowledge, none of those participating in HSS (UK) activity have been attacked nor involved in the unrest in Leicester”. But its presence in the city, and that of other groups, speaks to the existence of infrastructure and ideologues stretching back decades. And it serves as a corrective to the simplistic notion that such ideas were only recently “imported” into Leicester by “outsiders” or easily scapegoated migrants. A constellation of organisations that could be described as following Hindutva – the name given to the ideology of Hindu nationalism – exist in Britain, as the academic Edward TG Anderson explains in his new book, Hindu Nationalism in the Indian Diaspora . Their discourse has recurring themes: there are appeals to ideas of the model minority citizen (it is observed that Hindus are underrepresented in prison populations), a keen sense of victimhood (there is an effort to popularise the idea of “Hinduphobia”) and the notion the British Hindus have failed to organise themselves as effectively as other minority groups. The sense that Hindus are under threat is common. “There are many challenges that our community is facing,” the HSS UK’s president, Dhiraj Shah, is reported to have said at a 2020 conference. “Once I heard that in Leicester almost every week three or four Hindus are being converted. Now, I cannot confirm, but this gives the scale of things that are happening in our community.” The words reminded me of a poster I saw in the window of the Daman community centre in Leicester. Organised by a different group, it advertised a “Hindu Awareness Campaign” seminar on “grooming and religious conversion in the UK”. Talk of “grooming” is familiar on the British far right, but it has also long been a source of political anxiety for Hindu nationalists in India, where it takes the form of a great replacement-style conspiracy theory that frames Hindu women as the victims of a “ love jihad ”, seduced and converted by Muslim men. (The president of the community centre did not respond to requests for comment. The HSS UK did not agree to arrange an interview with Dhiraj Shah, and the organisation declined to respond to questions via email, stating that “given the narrow scope of the questioning and the track record of the Guardian coverage on issues such as the riots in Leicester we do not have any confidence that the Guardian will provide fair and holistic coverage of HSS (UK)”.) Hinduism is an astonishingly complex faith with numerous sects and traditions, and many Hindus I spoke to in Leicester had never even heard of these organisations. The claims of nationalist groups in the diaspora to speak for some kind of unified community ignore this irrepressible diversity. According to a 2021 YouGov survey, 37% of British Hindus said they approved of Modi’s performance as prime minister and 43% said they disapproved. Many simply won’t know that much or care about these kinds of issues at all. But size or support isn’t everything in politics: what matters is organisational nous. Some of these groups have patiently cultivated links with MPs and demonstrated their willingness to knock on doors. It has not been lost on the Labour party that its support among British Indians, particularly Hindus, has waned. Historically, British Indians were reliable Labour voters, but a recent survey suggested that only 30% of British Indians voted Labour in the 2019 general election and the majority of Hindu voters went Tory. Much of this will be down to secular processes, like increasing wealth, and its electoral significance can be overstated. But any Tory political strategist worth their wage will be thinking about how to take advantage of it. O n a grey November afternoon last year, I walked out of Leicester train station just as a huge, slow-moving crowd snaked into view. An estimated 5,000 people were marching in support for the people of Gaza. As the crowd turned on to the high street, a bucket’s worth of what appeared to be water was dropped from a balcony above, narrowly missing people. The crowd looked up with an air of bewilderment at the person on the balcony, who was now yelling at them, and carried on towards the clock tower in the city centre, where people were giving speeches. There were representatives from the Socialist party and the Greens, and Leicester East’s MP Claudia Webbe was there. (Formerly Labour, Webbe sits as an independent after she was convicted in 2021 of harassment of a love rival and ejected from the Labour party.) They spoke about Israel’s war in Gaza in a secular, humanitarian language. Then a man who was introduced as a “community activist, a social media activist” took up the microphone. Lots of people in Leicester have an opinion about Majid Freeman. Some see him as a troublemaker who stirred up enmity between Hindus and Muslims during those tense summer months in 2022. Others say that they don’t agree with everything he says, but recognise that he reaches people in the community that mainstream Muslim organisations don’t. With his trademark baseball cap and long beard, Freeman is a distinctive and ubiquitous presence in east Leicester. He has more than 43,000 Instagram followers – a lot when your focus is one city. Freeman’s politics are neither left nor right: what seems to motivate him is advancing the interests of Muslims. In his speech that day, Freeman castigated the Labour MP for Leicester South, Jonathan Ashworth, who abstained in the ceasefire vote at parliament. He then turned his attention to the city’s “Muslim organisations”, which he framed as aloof, timid and complicit. “We need to ask these organisations to stop having private meetings with [politicians],” Freeman said. “There’s no public accountability.” He didn’t mention any by name, but I took him to be referring to the Federation of Muslim Organisations (FMO), founded in 1983 and seen by Leicester officialdom as the main Muslim community organisation. He ended his speech with a call and response of “Takbir – Allahu Akbar.” People with an unfavourable view of Freeman will talk about his provocative social media posts in the run-up to the violence. In early September 2022, he shared a false rumour that a Muslim teenager had almost been kidnapped, though he deleted the posts and published a correction on Twitter when found out it wasn’t true. Later that month, he shared a video on Twitter that purported to show a recording of Daman and Diu people holding late-night religious festivities in mixed residential neighbourhoods, which was often cited that year as a source of inter-community tensions. “Is this normal acceptable behaviour?” he wrote. “Listen to the drunken mobs screaming at the end like hyenas at 3am. They felt invincible until now.” Things had only improved, he said, after Muslims started “patrolling the streets and making their presence known”. To those who see him as belligerent, though, Freeman might point out that as the violence peaked on the night of 17 September, he intervened to protect a Hindu man from a mob. Sky news ran a story about it: “Hindu man thanks Muslim activist who stepped in to save him during night of Leicester violence”. (Freeman declined to be interviewed on the record, but he sent me a statement, maintaining his “profound love for Leicester”, his “strong connections with my Hindu neighbours, rooted in mutual respect and understanding” and his efforts “to bridge divides and foster dialogue between disparate groups”.) View image in fullscreen Activist Majid Freeman. Photograph: Andrew Fox/The Guardian Freeman is part of a digital ecosystem of religious-activist “influencers”. On Sunday 18 September 2022, two men known as Ali Dawah and Mohammed Hijab travelled from London to Leicester, where they met him. They are well-known figures in online Muslim circles and were recognised by people on the ground. “Hijab and Dawah belong to the most conservative modern variant of Sunni Islam,” Ashraf Hoque, an anthropologist at University College London, told me. “For them, it is a fundamental religious obligation for all Muslims to spread and purify the faith.” Emerging from the debating culture of Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park, they are confident pundits, publishing an array of content on subjects like Islam, foreign affairs and Canadian culture warrior Jordan Peterson. The video Dawah posted on his YouTube channel (headline: MUSLIMS SEVERE MESSAGE TO HINDUTVA – THIS IS NOT INDIA!!!) is a fascinating insight into what happens when influencers meet real-world politics. A group of Muslim men stand at the bottom of Belgrave Road, against a line of riot police. Hijab, a commanding and bullish figure, pushes his way through the front and tries to address them. “They’re more likely to listen to me than you,” he tells a police officer. He tries to make a speech about “strategic goals” but struggles to get their undivided attention. One person in the crowd says that these people aren’t from Leicester and that they’re just here for social media “clout”. Dawah doesn’t disagree, arguing that publicising what is happening is exactly the point . Eventually, things fizzled out on that Sunday, but not before Hijab gave a speech in which he referred to the “Hindutva” marchers as “violent vegetarians”. In another clip, he appears to poke fun at Hindu beliefs, arguing that the marchers had been reincarnated as “cowardly” men. (He later said that his language was hyperbolic and that he did not intend to mock Hinduism as a religion.) There is some laughter from the crowd, but it seems unsure of itself. On YouTube, the top-rated comment below the video when I watched it appeared to document the creation of communal consciousness in real time: “I wasnt much religious before but after hearing this ... damn i am so proud of myself for being a hindu😊.” ‘L ong-distance nationalism” was the historian Benedict Anderson’s term for the patriotic activity of a diaspora. Writing in the 1990s, Anderson gave the example of Hindus in Britain and North America who raised funds for the campaign to build a temple in Ayodhya, India, in a location that many believe to be the birthplace of the deity Rama. Last month, Modi inaugurated that temple in a spectacular ceremony that was the culmination of a decades-long campaign, pivoting on the destruction of a mosque on the site in 1992. In Leicester, there was a peaceful march in which devotees chanted “Jai Shree Ram”. Keith Vaz, the former MP for Leicester East, who is still influential in his old constituency, gave a speech in a temple in which he paid tribute to prime minister Modi “for the work that he has done”. A fog of calm has descended over the city, but, every now and again, a potential flashpoint like this looms into view. During my several visits to the city last year, I asked people what, if anything, had really changed since September 2022. “I think we’d be better prepared from a policing perspective,” said Neil Chakraborti, a professor at Leicester University. “But in terms of thinking about the causes and digging more deeply, beyond the superficial ‘Let’s have dialogue with community leaders’ response? I’m not sure.” Last year, the government said it was expecting its review to be finished in 2024; now it is saying it might be early 2025. “Some people just want to forget about it,” said Rita Patel, the former assistant mayor. “There are other people who’ve been around a long time who see, like me, that unless you deal with the underlying issues, all that will happen is it’ll come back at the worst possible time.” Patel pointed out that Leicester’s women hardly seemed to feature in all this. Yes, it was men on the street. But “the women are the ones who have to provide the solutions and, you know, clear up in the aftermath”. One hopeful event that took place while I was reporting on the city was a protest in the garment sector . Organised by Labour Behind the Label, which campaigns for workers’ rights in the industry, it saw 500 people, mainly women, gathered in a park in east Leicester in October 2023. They condemned the industry’s low wages and demanded better conditions. I also came across a drive to unionise workers at Samworth Brothers, the food processing company where many migrants work. This is the kind of work that hints at a different way of living together, in which shared goals become more salient than religious differences. View image in fullscreen The strike by workers at the Imperial Typewriter Company in Leicester in May 1974. Photograph: Mirrorpix An iconic, influential strike was once led by Asian women in Leicester. In 1974, hundreds of Asian employees at the Imperial Typewriters Company walked off in protest at being denied the same promotions and bonuses as their white colleagues. The Transport and General Workers Union did not recognise the strike as official. Fighting the racism of their employer and union, the workers were assertive, overturning white prejudices about docile brown-skinned folk. “The strike at Imperial Typewriters,” a correspondent for Race Today wrote, “has, apart from anything else, put paid to certain myths.” The huge factory building is still there, near Green Lane Road, with its sans-serif sign saying IMPERIAL. When JB Priestley visited it in the 1930s, he noted the “enterprise and ingenuity” of the workers assembling the typewriters. The ground floor is now used for different things: there are kitchen supply shops and even a gym. One weekday morning in November, I let myself in and nervously climbed a staircase, finding a few padlocked, empty studios where garment producers once worked. With its broken windows and dirty corridors, the building felt like an abandoned monument. A man who looked after it told me much of the space is now used for storage, and that no more than 100 people work there on any given day. The building told a story of the trajectory of the British economy, from industries that needed masses of people in one physical space, toiling side by side, to smaller, siloed forms of working and being. How Hindu supremacists are tearing India apart Read more Afterwards I went across the road to a branch of Chaiiwalla, a chain of Indian cafes. As I sipped a hot, sweet cup of tea, a woman entered with her husband. They were looking for work. Years ago they might have been taken on by Imperial or the garment sector. There was no chance of that now. The man behind the counter said that there weren’t any vacancies here, but that she should try a branch elsewhere in town. The couple left and idled on the pavement outside. It was cold, about 6C, but the man was wearing sandals with no socks. He looked tired and a little lost. I asked him when he came to Britain. “Ten days ago,” he said. From where in India? “Tamil Nadu.” I told him that’s where my grandfather lives, and he nodded politely. What did they make of this country so far, I wondered, and how did they feel about the India they had left behind? I asked if they wanted a cup of tea, but his wife seemed suspicious. She said that they had to go, and so they did. Explore more on these topics The long read Leicester Religion Islam Hinduism Leicestershire Protest features Share Reuse this content The Belgrave Road area of Leicester. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian A year and a half ago, Hindus and Muslims clashed in the streets of one of Britain’s most diverse cities. What lay behind the violence? By Yohann Koshy O n Saturday 17 September 2022, the weekend before the Queen’s funeral, 300 men marched through Leicester . Their faces were hidden by Covid masks and balaclavas as they made their way to Green Lane Road in Highfields, an area in east Leicester with a large Muslim population. On WhatsApp, it had been billed as a Hindu neighbourhood safety march. “It’s very important for every Hindu to attain [sic] this meeting,” an organiser wrote. “Otherwise in future, we will have to live in fear.” It was early evening, and as the men passed rows of terrace houses, redbrick warehouses and the Piccadilly Cinemas, which was advertising a Hindi-language epic set during the British Raj, they chanted “ Jai Shree Ram” ( “Victory to Lord Rama”). This phrase has long been an innocuous declaration of religious faith, but in recent decades, it has become associated with the politics of Hindu nationalism in India, where militants use it as a rallying cry in campaigns of intimidation and violence against minorities, particularly Muslims. The men also shouted other slogans that have become associated with the Hindu right: “ Bharat Mata Ki Jai” (“Victory to Mother India”) and “ Vande Mataram” (“Praise Mother [India]”). What the unrest in Leicester revealed about Britain – and Modi’s India – podcast Read more As word spread on WhatsApp, counter-demonstrations of mainly Muslim men soon formed. Many local police officers had been seconded to London for the state funeral, but those that remained were hastily scrambled to try to keep the crowds apart. One man, filming on his phone, appealed to a police officer to make arrests. “I don’t know what they’re saying,” the officer admitted. “The problem is if we arrest one person, the whole fucking lot go up.” What started as a group of Hindus marching to a “Muslim area” ended with groups of Muslims following them to the city’s “Hindu area” – Belgrave Road, about 1.5 miles north, a lively high street of jewellery shops and restaurants. By the time night fell, fights were breaking out. A young Hindu man driving a car was attacked, his head slashed, after a false rumour spread that he had tried to run people over. The chaos spilled over into local businesses. I spoke to someone who was having dinner at about 9pm in a dosa restaurant on Belgrave Road when a young man ran inside, barefoot, looking for shelter after he’d been attacked; a couple of other men who were bleeding tried to get in, too. Terrified, the restaurant owners brought down the shutters and turned off the lights. A standoff between the two groups formed across Belgrave Road, with bottles flying through the air, and lasted until the police dispersed them in the early hours of the morning. It was there that the most incendiary video from the night was captured: a man jumped up on the walls of a Hindu temple and tore down a saffron-coloured religious flag; another clip shows a flag being set alight. These images went viral, becoming a visual shorthand for the intensity of the religious discord. The next day, at about 4pm, a crowd of Muslim men tried to march down Belgrave Road, shouting “Allahu Akbar” against a line of police. Within a few days, the disorder seemed to be spreading across the Midlands: there was a rowdy protest outside a Hindu temple in Smethwick, just west of Birmingham, in response to (aborted) plans to host a talk by a Hindu nationalist ideologue from India. Speak to people in Leicester about why this all happened and you will hear different starting points. Even by beginning this story with the march on 17 September, I will have irked those who think a more appropriate starting point is late August, when a house in which Hindus were celebrating a religious festival was egged, or, a few days after that, when a Hindu man was stabbed in the arm, reportedly by a Muslim assailant. (The victim would go on to be one of the organisers of the march, though he later said that his aim had been just to organise “a normal protest”.) Or 28 August, when India beat Pakistan at cricket in the Asia Cup in Dubai and jubilant fans chanted “ Pakistan Murdabad ” – “Death to/Down with Pakistan” – in the streets and a fight broke out. Or even as far back as May, when a group of young men allegedly asked someone if he was Muslim before attacking him. But it was the violence of 17 and 18 September that turned a local story into something much bigger. About 370,000 people live in Leicester; according to data gathered in the 2021 census, 23.5% are Muslim and 17.9% are Hindu, and the majority of both groups have Indian heritage. With sizable Somali and eastern European populations, the city is what sociologists call “super-diverse”. After the 2021 census, Leicester became, alongside Birmingham, one of the first British cities to have a non-white majority. But while white racist politics have been a feature of Leicester’s history – from the National Front picking up thousands of votes in the 1970s to the English Defence League marching on the city in 2010 – this kind of large-scale violent enmity between Hindus and Muslims was new. “It’s not something we have ever seen on the streets of Leicester,” Sharmen Rahman, a former councillor, told me last June. Suddenly, politicians, diplomats, activists, influencers, pressure groups and the global media turned their attention to Leicester. To many observers, it seemed that India’s often violent, sectarian politics were playing out on Britain’s streets. On Monday 19 September, the Indian high commission in London released a remarkably undiplomatic statement condemning “the violence perpetrated against the Indian community in Leicester and vandalisation of premises and symbols of Hindu religion”. Although Leicester’s Pakistani population is small (3.4% in 2021), the Pakistan high commission saw fit to issue its own statement, condemning the “systematic campaign of violence and intimidation that has been unleashed against the Muslims of the area”. In India, a demonstration was held under the banner “UK Save Hindus”, while Indian newspapers reported on “communal clashes” in the UK and the hashtag #HindusUnderAttack trended on Twitter. India’s foreign affairs minister raised the issue with the UK government. The city was profoundly shaken, and the after-effects are still being felt. Last year, Britain’s then home secretary, Suella Braverman, gave a speech in which she cited Leicester as an example of the “failure” of multiculturalism. Two investigations are under way – one set up by communities secretary Michael Gove and chaired by Lord Ian Austin, who resigned from the Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn and was ennobled by Boris Johnson, and the other chaired by a former UN special rapporteur and based at Soas University of London. Leicester’s mayor, Peter Soulsby, has said that he worries neither “will be seen as being truly impartial”. Yet there is a striking – and under-remarked – aspect to what happened in Leicester: the events of that weekend were, at least on the surface, relatively minor. A year on, 32 people had been found guilty of crimes including public order offences, possessing weapons and affray. Nobody was killed or put in a critical condition. As one observer told me, there are more dangerous football matches. The sheer scale of the response, in other words, was not to do with the scale of the violence. What made the “disturbances”, “disorder”, “riots”, “unrest” – no one can agree on a single term – so potent is that they seemed to expose hidden fault lines running through England, not least the
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
What’s eating Europe’s farmers? Inside the 9 February Guardian Weekly
The cover of the 9 February edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Neil Jamieson/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The cover of the 9 February edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Neil Jamieson/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old What’s eating Europe’s farmers? Inside the 9 February Guardian Weekly This article is more than 1 year old The final straw for farmers. Plus: Joe Biden’s Middle East masterplan Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address If you live in France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands , Poland or Greece, you may well have already run into one of the numerous roadblocks or protests formed in recent weeks by furious farmers. If you’re in Spain and Italy, take cover – because they are coming to you soon, if not already. In this week’s cover story, we explore what has proved to be the final straw for Europe’s farmers. A combination of rising costs, environmental rules and grievances over EU policies, coupled with more localised complaints, seem to be the factors driving the convoys of tractors. But far-right and anti-establishment parties, who could make major gains in forthcoming European parliament elections, have also picked up on the protests as part of their agenda against EU influence. Paris correspondent Angelique Chrisafis and Europe correspondent Jon Henley delve into the protests (if not the piles of steaming dung being dumped on the continent’s roads, as illustrated wonderfully by Neil Jamieson on this week’s cover), and ask what can be done to placate them. Five essential reads in this week’s edition View image in fullscreen Pet Shop Boys perform at the Primavera Sound Festival in Barcelona, Spain, last year. Photograph: Alejandro García/EPA 1 Middle East | Could a new region emerge? Julian Borger examines how US president Joe Biden hopes to recast the Middle East via diplomatic incentives, while gaining political capital at home in an election year 2 Europe | England’s councils in crisis A Guardian special investigation detailing the financial crisis hitting England’s local councils and what it means for the communities they serve 3 Feature | Can anything stop the AI deepfakes? With Taylor Swift the latest victim of AI-generated porn, Emine Saner asks whether renewed pressure on social media companies could force them to take it seriously. 4 Opinion | It’s a plutocrat’s world – and dissenters are swiftly crushed Around the world, those who challenge rich corporations are being hounded and crushed with ever-more inventive penalties, argues George Monbiot . (Do you agree? Tell us what you think on our Letters page .) 5 Culture | The triumphant return of the Pet Shop Boys After four decades at the pinnacle of pop, Neil Tennant and Chris Lowe talk to Laura Snapes about their forthcoming 15th album. What else we’ve been reading View image in fullscreen Belong Village resident Margaret Darby with nursery toddler Jacob Farrell-Ogunyemi in the repair shop class. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/The Guardian Since the start of the year, Guardian columnist Rhik Samadder has been charting his attempts to break his phone addiction . Looking back on his detox, he concludes: “The shiny, infinite-content machine is not a muse, cold lover or nemesis. It’s a tool. More than anything else, it’s a barometer of my discontent.” Clare Horton, Guardian Weekly assistant editor This thought-provoking feature on a successful intergenerational care facility in the north of England really brightened up my lunch break. Quite simply, older residents spending time with young nursery children has led to improvements in all of their lives and I hope it’s still up and running when it’s time for me to down tools! Emily El Nusairi, Guardian Weekly deputy production editor I greatly enjoyed Donald McRae ’s interview with Warrington darts wunderkind Luke Littler . It perfectly captured the bemusement and joy of a teenage prodigy upending the established pillars of a professional sport. Graham Snowdon, Guardian Weekly editor Other highlights from the Guardian website Audio | The disposable vape ban Video | Rowdy Flock: a daughter, her dreams, and a sheep farm in Norway Gallery | Ali Smith’s 90s New York punk scene – a photo essay Interactive | Men’s transfer window January 2024 – all deals from Europe’s top five football leagues *** Get in touch We’d love to hear your thoughts on the magazine: for submissions to our letters page, please email [email protected] . For anything else, it’s [email protected] Follow us X: https://twitter.com/guardianweekly Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/guardianweekly Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guardian_weekly/ Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Explore more on these topics Farming Inside Guardian Weekly European Union Europe Protest Food France Germany Share Reuse this content The cover of the 9 February edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Neil Jamieson/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The cover of the 9 February edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Neil Jamieson/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old What’s eating Europe’s farmers? Inside the 9 February Guardian Weekly This article is more than 1 year old The final straw for farmers. Plus: Joe Biden’s Middle East masterplan Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address If you live in France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands , Poland or Greece, you may well have already run into one of the numerous roadblocks or protests formed in recent weeks by furious farmers. If you’re in Spain and Italy, take cover – because they are coming to you soon, if not already. In this week’s cover story, we explore what has proved to be the final straw for Europe’s farmers. A combination of rising costs, environmental rules and grievances over EU policies, coupled with more localised complaints, seem to be the factors driving the convoys of tractors. But far-right and anti-establishment parties, who could make major gains in forthcoming European parliament elections, have also picked up on the protests as part of their agenda against EU influence. Paris correspondent Angelique Chrisafis and Europe correspondent Jon Henley delve into the protests (if not the piles of steaming dung being dumped on the continent’s roads, as illustrated wonderfully by Neil Jamieson on this week’s cover), and ask what can be done to placate them. Five essential reads in this week’s edition View image in fullscreen Pet Shop Boys perform at the Primavera Sound Festival in Barcelona, Spain, last year. Photograph: Alejandro García/EPA 1 Middle East | Could a new region emerge? Julian Borger examines how US president Joe Biden hopes to recast the Middle East via diplomatic incentives, while gaining political capital at home in an election year 2 Europe | England’s councils in crisis A Guardian special investigation detailing the financial crisis hitting England’s local councils and what it means for the communities they serve 3 Feature | Can anything stop the AI deepfakes? With Taylor Swift the latest victim of AI-generated porn, Emine Saner asks whether renewed pressure on social media companies could force them to take it seriously. 4 Opinion | It’s a plutocrat’s world – and dissenters are swiftly crushed Around the world, those who challenge rich corporations are being hounded and crushed with ever-more inventive penalties, argues George Monbiot . (Do you agree? Tell us what you think on our Letters page .) 5 Culture | The triumphant return of the Pet Shop Boys After four decades at the pinnacle of pop, Neil Tennant and Chris Lowe talk to Laura Snapes about their forthcoming 15th album. What else we’ve been reading View image in fullscreen Belong Village resident Margaret Darby with nursery toddler Jacob Farrell-Ogunyemi in the repair shop class. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/The Guardian Since the start of the year, Guardian columnist Rhik Samadder has been charting his attempts to break his phone addiction . Looking back on his detox, he concludes: “The shiny, infinite-content machine is not a muse, cold lover or nemesis. It’s a tool. More than anything else, it’s a barometer of my discontent.” Clare Horton, Guardian Weekly assistant editor This thought-provoking feature on a successful intergenerational care facility in the north of England really brightened up my lunch break. Quite simply, older residents spending time with young nursery children has led to improvements in all of their lives and I hope it’s still up and running when it’s time for me to down tools! Emily El Nusairi, Guardian Weekly deputy production editor I greatly enjoyed Donald McRae ’s interview with Warrington darts wunderkind Luke Littler . It perfectly captured the bemusement and joy of a teenage prodigy upending the established pillars of a professional sport. Graham Snowdon, Guardian Weekly editor Other highlights from the Guardian website Audio | The disposable vape ban Video | Rowdy Flock: a daughter, her dreams, and a sheep farm in Norway Gallery | Ali Smith’s 90s New York punk scene – a photo essay Interactive | Men’s transfer window January 2024 – all deals from Europe’s top five football leagues *** Get in touch We’d love to hear your thoughts on the magazine: for submissions to our letters page, please email [email protected] . For anything else, it’s [email protected] Follow us X: https://twitter.com/guardianweekly Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/guardianweekly Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guardian_weekly/ Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Explore more on these topics Farming Inside Guardian Weekly European Union Europe Protest Food France Germany Share Reuse this content The cover of the 9 February edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Neil Jamieson/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The cover of the 9 February edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Neil Jamieson/The Guardian The cover of the 9 February edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Neil Jamieson/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The cover of the 9 February edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Neil Jamieson/The Guardian The cover of the 9 February edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Neil Jamieson/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The cover of the 9 February edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Neil Jamieson/The Guardian The cover of the 9 February edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Neil Jamieson/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The cover of the 9 February edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Neil Jamieson/The Guardian The cover of the 9 February edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Neil Jamieson/The Guardian The cover of the 9 February edition of the Guardian Weekly. Illustration: Neil Jamieson/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old What’s eating Europe’s farmers? Inside the 9 February Guardian Weekly This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old What’s eating Europe’s farmers? Inside the 9 February Guardian Weekly This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old What’s eating Europe’s farmers? Inside the 9 February Guardian Weekly 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 final straw for farmers. Plus: Joe Biden’s Middle East masterplan Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address The final straw for farmers. Plus: Joe Biden’s Middle East masterplan Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address The final straw for farmers. Plus: Joe Biden’s Middle East masterplan Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address If you live in France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands , Poland or Greece, you may well have already run into one of the numerous roadblocks or protests formed in recent weeks by furious farmers. If you’re in Spain and Italy, take cover – because they are coming to you soon, if not already. In this week’s cover story, we explore what has proved to be the final straw for Europe’s farmers. A combination of rising costs, environmental rules and grievances over EU policies, coupled with more localised complaints, seem to be the factors driving the convoys of tractors. But far-right and anti-establishment parties, who could make major gains in forthcoming European parliament elections, have also picked up on the protests as part of their agenda against EU influence. Paris correspondent Angelique Chrisafis and Europe correspondent Jon Henley delve into the protests (if not the piles of steaming dung being dumped on the continent’s roads, as illustrated wonderfully by Neil Jamieson on this week’s cover), and ask what can be done to placate them. Five essential reads in this week’s edition View image in fullscreen Pet Shop Boys perform at the Primavera Sound Festival in Barcelona, Spain, last year. Photograph: Alejandro García/EPA 1 Middle East | Could a new region emerge? Julian Borger examines how US president Joe Biden hopes to recast the Middle East via diplomatic incentives, while gaining political capital at home in an election year 2 Europe | England’s councils in crisis A Guardian special investigation detailing the financial crisis hitting England’s local councils and what it means for the communities they serve 3 Feature | Can anything stop the AI deepfakes? With Taylor Swift the latest victim of AI-generated porn, Emine Saner asks whether renewed pressure on social media companies could force them to take it seriously. 4 Opinion | It’s a plutocrat’s world – and dissenters are swiftly crushed Around the world, those who challenge rich corporations are being hounded and crushed with ever-more inventive penalties, argues George Monbiot . (Do you agree? Tell us what you think on our Letters page .) 5 Culture | The triumphant return of the Pet Shop Boys After four decades at the pinnacle of pop, Neil Tennant and Chris Lowe talk to Laura Snapes about their forthcoming 15th album. What else we’ve been reading View image in fullscreen Belong Village resident Margaret Darby with nursery toddler Jacob Farrell-Ogunyemi in the repair shop class. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/The Guardian Since the start of the year, Guardian columnist Rhik Samadder has been charting his attempts to break his phone addiction . Looking back on his detox, he concludes: “The shiny, infinite-content machine is not a muse, cold lover or nemesis. It’s a tool. More than anything else, it’s a barometer of my discontent.” Clare Horton, Guardian Weekly assistant editor This thought-provoking feature on a successful intergenerational care facility in the north of England really brightened up my lunch break. Quite simply, older residents spending time with young nursery children has led to improvements in all of their lives and I hope it’s still up and running when it’s time for me to down tools! Emily El Nusairi, Guardian Weekly deputy production editor I greatly enjoyed Donald McRae ’s interview with Warrington darts wunderkind Luke Littler . It perfectly captured the bemusement and joy of a teenage prodigy upending the established pillars of a professional sport. Graham Snowdon, Guardian Weekly editor Other highlights from the Guardian website Audio | The disposable vape ban Video | Rowdy Flock: a daughter, her dreams, and a sheep farm in Norway Gallery | Ali Smith’s 90s New York punk scene – a photo essay Interactive | Men’s transfer window January 2024 – all deals from Europe’s top five football leagues *** Get in touch We’d love to hear your thoughts on the magazine: for submissions to our letters page, please email [email protected] . For anything else, it’s [email protected] Follow us X: https://twitter.com/guardianweekly Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/guardianweekly Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guardian_weekly/ Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Explore more on these topics Farming Inside Guardian Weekly European Union Europe Protest Food France Germany Share Reuse this content If you live in France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands , Poland or Greece, you may well have already run into one of the numerous roadblocks or protests formed in recent weeks by furious farmers. If you’re in Spain and Italy, take cover – because they are coming to you soon, if not already. In this week’s cover story, we explore what has proved to be the final straw for Europe’s farmers. A combination of rising costs, environmental rules and grievances over EU policies, coupled with more localised complaints, seem to be the factors driving the convoys of tractors. But far-right and anti-establishment parties, who could make major gains in forthcoming European parliament elections, have also picked up on the protests as part of their agenda against EU influence. Paris correspondent Angelique Chrisafis and Europe correspondent Jon Henley delve into the protests (if not the piles of steaming dung being dumped on the continent’s roads, as illustrated wonderfully by Neil Jamieson on this week’s cover), and ask what can be done to placate them. Five essential reads in this week’s edition View image in fullscreen Pet Shop Boys perform at the Primavera Sound Festival in Barcelona, Spain, last year. Photograph: Alejandro García/EPA 1 Middle East | Could a new region emerge? Julian Borger examines how US president Joe Biden hopes to recast the Middle East via diplomatic incentives, while gaining political capital at home in an election year 2 Europe | England’s councils in crisis A Guardian special investigation detailing the financial crisis hitting England’s local councils and what it means for the communities they serve 3 Feature | Can anything stop the AI deepfakes? With Taylor Swift the latest victim of AI-generated porn, Emine Saner asks whether renewed pressure on social media companies could force them to take it seriously. 4 Opinion | It’s a plutocrat’s world – and dissenters are swiftly crushed Around the world, those who challenge rich corporations are being hounded and crushed with ever-more inventive penalties, argues George Monbiot . (Do you agree? Tell us what you think on our Letters page .) 5 Culture | The triumphant return of the Pet Shop Boys After four decades at the pinnacle of pop, Neil Tennant and Chris Lowe talk to Laura Snapes about their forthcoming 15th album. What else we’ve been reading View image in fullscreen Belong Village resident Margaret Darby with nursery toddler Jacob Farrell-Ogunyemi in the repair shop class. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/The Guardian Since the start of the year, Guardian columnist Rhik Samadder has been charting his attempts to break his phone addiction . Looking back on his detox, he concludes: “The shiny, infinite-content machine is not a muse, cold lover or nemesis. It’s a tool. More than anything else, it’s a barometer of my discontent.” Clare Horton, Guardian Weekly assistant editor This thought-provoking feature on a successful intergenerational care facility in the north of England really brightened up my lunch break. Quite simply, older residents spending time with young nursery children has led to improvements in all of their lives and I hope it’s still up and running when it’s time for me to down tools! Emily El Nusairi, Guardian Weekly deputy production editor I greatly enjoyed Donald McRae ’s interview with Warrington darts wunderkind Luke Littler . It perfectly captured the bemusement and joy of a teenage prodigy upending the established pillars of a professional sport. Graham Snowdon, Guardian Weekly editor Other highlights from the Guardian website Audio | The disposable vape ban Video | Rowdy Flock: a daughter, her dreams, and a sheep farm in Norway Gallery | Ali Smith’s 90s New York punk scene – a photo essay Interactive | Men’s transfer window January 2024 – all deals from Europe’s top five football leagues *** Get in touch We’d love to hear your thoughts on the magazine: for submissions to our letters page, please email [email protected] . For anything else, it’s [email protected] Follow us X: https://twitter.com/guardianweekly Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/guardianweekly Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guardian_weekly/ Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Explore more on these topics Farming Inside Guardian Weekly European Union Europe Protest Food France Germany Share Reuse this content If you live in France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands , Poland or Greece, you may well have already run into one of the numerous roadblocks or protests formed in recent weeks by furious farmers. If you’re in Spain and Italy, take cover – because they are coming to you soon, if not already. In this week’s cover story, we explore what has proved to be the final straw for Europe’s farmers. A combination of rising costs, environmental rules and grievances over EU policies, coupled with more localised complaints, seem to be the factors driving the convoys of tractors. But far-right and anti-establishment parties, who could make major gains in forthcoming European parliament elections, have also picked up on the protests as part of their agenda against EU influence. Paris correspondent Angelique Chrisafis and Europe correspondent Jon Henley delve into the protests (if not the piles of steaming dung being dumped on the continent’s roads, as illustrated wonderfully by Neil Jamieson on this week’s cover), and ask what can be done to placate them. Five essential reads in this week’s edition View image in fullscreen Pet Shop Boys perform at the Primavera Sound Festival in Barcelona, Spain, last year. Photograph: Alejandro García/EPA 1 Middle East | Could a new region emerge? Julian Borger examines how US president Joe Biden hopes to recast the Middle East via diplomatic incentives, while gaining political capital at home in an election year 2 Europe | England’s councils in crisis A Guardian special investigation detailing the financial crisis hitting England’s local councils and what it means for the communities they serve 3 Feature | Can anything stop the AI deepfakes? With Taylor Swift the latest victim of AI-generated porn, Emine Saner asks whether renewed pressure on social media companies could force them to take it seriously. 4 Opinion | It’s a plutocrat’s world – and dissenters are swiftly crushed Around the world, those who challenge rich corporations are being hounded and crushed with ever-more inventive penalties, argues George Monbiot . (Do you agree? Tell us what you think on our Letters page .) 5 Culture | The triumphant return of the Pet Shop Boys After four decades at the pinnacle of pop, Neil Tennant and Chris Lowe talk to Laura Snapes about their forthcoming 15th album. What else we’ve been reading View image in fullscreen Belong Village resident Margaret Darby with nursery toddler Jacob Farrell-Ogunyemi in the repair shop class. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/The Guardian Since the start of the year, Guardian columnist Rhik Samadder has been charting his attempts to break his phone addiction . Looking back on his detox, he concludes: “The shiny, infinite-content machine is not a muse, cold lover or nemesis. It’s a tool. More than anything else, it’s a barometer of my discontent.” Clare Horton, Guardian Weekly assistant editor This thought-provoking feature on a successful intergenerational care facility in the north of England really brightened up my lunch break. Quite simply, older residents spending time with young nursery children has led to improvements in all of their lives and I hope it’s still up and running when it’s time for me to down tools! Emily El Nusairi, Guardian Weekly deputy production editor I greatly enjoyed Donald McRae ’s interview with Warrington darts wunderkind Luke Littler . It perfectly captured the bemusement and joy of a teenage prodigy upending the established pillars of a professional sport. Graham Snowdon, Guardian Weekly editor Other highlights from the Guardian website Audio | The disposable vape ban Video | Rowdy Flock: a daughter, her dreams, and a sheep farm in Norway Gallery | Ali Smith’s 90s New York punk scene – a photo essay Interactive | Men’s transfer window January 2024 – all deals from Europe’s top five football leagues *** Get in touch We’d love to hear your thoughts on the magazine: for submissions to our letters page, please email [email protected] . For anything else, it’s [email protected] Follow us X: https://twitter.com/guardianweekly Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/guardianweekly Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guardian_weekly/ Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address If you live in France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands , Poland or Greece, you may well have already run into one of the numerous roadblocks or protests formed in recent weeks by furious farmers. If you’re in Spain and Italy, take cover – because they are coming to you soon, if not already. In this week’s cover story, we explore what has proved to be the final straw for Europe’s farmers. A combination of rising costs, environmental rules and grievances over EU policies, coupled with more localised complaints, seem to be the factors driving the convoys of tractors. But far-right and anti-establishment parties, who could make major gains in forthcoming European parliament elections, have also picked up on the protests as part of their agenda against EU influence. Paris correspondent Angelique Chrisafis and Europe correspondent Jon Henley delve into the protests (if not the piles of steaming dung being dumped on the continent’s roads, as illustrated wonderfully by Neil Jamieson on this week’s cover), and ask what can be done to placate them. Five essential reads in this week’s edition View image in fullscreen Pet Shop Boys perform at the Primavera Sound Festival in Barcelona, Spain, last year. Photograph: Alejandro García/EPA 1 Middle East | Could a new region emerge? Julian Borger examines how US president Joe Biden hopes to recast the Middle East via diplomatic incentives, while gaining political capital at home in an election year 2 Europe | England’s councils in crisis A Guardian special investigation detailing the financial crisis hitting England’s local councils and what it means for the communities they serve 3 Feature | Can anything stop the AI deepfakes? With Taylor Swift the latest victim of AI-generated porn, Emine Saner asks whether renewed pressure on social media companies could force them to take it seriously. 4 Opinion | It’s a plutocrat’s world – and dissenters are swiftly crushed Around the world, those who challenge rich corporations are being hounded and crushed with ever-more inventive penalties, argues George Monbiot . (Do you agree? Tell us what you think on our Letters page .) 5 Culture | The triumphant return of the Pet Shop Boys After four decades at the pinnacle of pop, Neil Tennant and Chris Lowe talk to Laura Snapes about their forthcoming 15th album. What else we’ve been reading View image in fullscreen Belong Village resident Margaret Darby with nursery toddler Jacob Farrell-Ogunyemi in the repair shop class. Photograph: Fabio De Paola/The Guardian Since the start of the year, Guardian columnist Rhik Samadder has been charting his attempts to break his phone addiction . Looking back on his detox, he concludes: “The shiny, infinite-content machine is not a muse, cold lover or nemesis. It’s a tool. More than anything else, it’s a barometer of my discontent.” Clare Horton, Guardian Weekly assistant editor This thought-provoking feature on a successful intergenerational care facility in the north of England really brightened up my lunch break. Quite simply, older residents spending time with young nursery children has led to improvements in all of their lives and I hope it’s still up and running when it’s time for me to down tools! Emily El Nusairi, Guardian Weekly deputy production editor I greatly enjoyed Donald McRae ’s interview with Warrington darts wunderkind Luke Littler . It perfectly captured the bemusement and joy of a teenage prodigy upending the established pillars of a professional sport. Graham Snowdon, Guardian Weekly editor Other highlights from the Guardian website Audio | The disposable vape ban Video | Rowdy Flock: a daughter, her dreams, and a sheep farm in Norway Gallery | Ali Smith’s 90s New York punk scene – a photo essay Interactive | Men’s transfer window January 2024 – all deals from Europe’s top five football leagues *** Get in touch We’d love to hear your thoughts on the magazine: for submissions to our letters page, please email [email protected] . For anything else, it’s [email protected] Follow us X: https://twitter.com/guardianweekly Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/guardianweekly Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guardian_weekly/ Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address If you live in France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands , Poland or Greece, you may well have already run into one of the numerous roadblocks or protests formed in recent weeks by furious farmers. If you’re in Spain and Italy, take cover – because they are coming to you soon, if not already. In this week’s cover story, we explore what has proved to be the final straw for Europe’s farmers. A combination of rising costs, environmental rules and grievances over EU policies, coupled with more localised complaints, seem to be the factors driving the convoys of tractors. But far-right and anti-establishment parties, who could make major gains in forthcoming European parliament elections, have also picked up on the protests as part of their agenda against EU influence. Paris correspondent Angelique Chrisafis and Europe correspondent Jon Henley delve into the protests (if not the piles of steaming dung being dumped on the continent’s roads, as illustrated wonderfully by Neil Jamieson on this week’s cover), and ask what can be done to placate them. Middle East | Could a new region emerge? Julian Borger examines how US president Joe Biden hopes to recast the Middle East via diplomatic incentives, while gaining political capital at home in an election year Europe | England’s councils in crisis A Guardian special investigation detailing the financial crisis hitting England’s local councils and what it means for the communities they serve Feature | Can anything stop the AI deepfakes? With Taylor Swift the latest victim of AI-generated porn, Emine Saner asks whether renewed pressure on social media companies could force them to take it seriously. Opinion | It’s a plutocrat’s world – and dissenters are swiftly crushed Around the world, those who challenge rich corporations are being hounded and crushed with ever-more inventive penalties, argues George Monbiot . (Do you agree? Tell us what you think on our Letters page .) Culture | The triumphant return of the Pet Shop Boys After four decades at the pinnacle of pop, Neil Tennant and Chris Lowe talk to Laura Snapes about their forthcoming 15th album. Since the start of the year, Guardian columnist Rhik Samadder has been charting his attempts to break his phone addiction . Looking back on his detox, he concludes: “The shiny, infinite-content machine is not a muse, cold lover or nemesis. It’s a tool. More than anything else, it’s a barometer of my discontent.” Clare Horton, Guardian Weekly assistant editor This thought-provoking feature on a successful intergenerational care facility in the north of England really brightened up my lunch break. Quite simply, older residents spending time with young nursery children has led to improvements in all of their lives and I hope it’s still up and running when it’s time for me to down tools! Emily El Nusairi, Guardian Weekly deputy production editor I greatly enjoyed Donald McRae ’s interview with Warrington darts wunderkind Luke Littler . It perfectly captured the bemusement and joy of a teenage prodigy upending the established pillars of a professional sport. Graham Snowdon, Guardian Weekly editor Video | Rowdy Flock: a daughter, her dreams, and a sheep farm in Norway Gallery | Ali Smith’s 90s New York punk scene – a photo essay Interactive | Men’s transfer window January 2024 – all deals from Europe’s top five football leagues We’d love to hear your thoughts on the magazine: for submissions to our letters page, please email [email protected] . For anything else, it’s [email protected] X: https://twitter.com/guardianweekly Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/guardianweekly Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guardian_weekly/ Get the Guardian Weekly magazine delivered to your home address Explore more on these topics Farming Inside Guardian Weekly European Union Europe Protest Food France Germany Share Reuse this content Farming Inside Guardian Weekly European Union Europe Protest Food France Germany
|
Dropping of £28bn pledge marks a shift in Reeves’s entire economic philosophy
Rachel Reeves had argued for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters View image in fullscreen Rachel Reeves had argued for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Dropping of £28bn pledge marks a shift in Reeves’s entire economic philosophy This article is more than 1 year old Kiran Stacey Political correspondent Rachel Reeves had promised to spend big to be Britain’s first green chancellor. Now she wants to spend as little public money as possible Labour cuts £28bn green investment pledge by half When Rachel Reeves announced Labour’s £28bn climate plan in 2021, she was so confident it was the right thing to do that she issued a dire warning about what would happen if the scheme was held up or scaled back. “The greatest cost to our public finances, as well as to our planet, will be if we delay and let the costs mount up for future generations to pay,” she told a packed hall at the party conference in Brighton. On Thursday, Reeves stood alongside the party leader, Keir Starmer , in front of about 30 journalists in a draughty room in parliament and reversed all of that. The £28bn was gone, as was the reasoning behind it. “We want to bring jobs to Britain, to bring energy bills down, to boost our energy security, and also to decarbonise the economy,” Reeves told reporters. “If you don’t need to spend £28bn in doing that, that’s great.” The reversal of Labour’s central economic and environmental policy has come after weeks of agonised decision-making by Starmer and Reeves, in conjunction with Ed Miliband , the shadow energy secretary. Thursday’s confirmation that the policy would be cut back to half its original scale is a key moment in Starmer’s leadership and could redefine the election campaign. It also marks a shift in Reeves’s entire economic philosophy. No longer is the shadow chancellor arguing for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Instead, she says she wants to achieve Labour’s green targets using as little public money as possible. The story of how that change came about in the course of just over two years is indicative of the broader shift in approach from Starmer and Reeves in that time, as they have enacted a series of U-turns in an attempt to shed the baggage they fear could weigh them down in an election contest. From determination to doubt Reeves’s initial announcement in 2021 was regarded in senior Labour circles as a triumph. The Brighton conference had been fractious until then. The party had been plagued by splits between Starmer and Miliband on the question of whether energy companies should be nationalised. Senior figures had been followed wherever they went by protesters calling for a “green new deal”. The party’s members had defied the leadership by voting for a motion calling for a “socialist green new deal”. Reeves’s announcement brought an end to all that, answering the criticisms that Labour did not have a green policy and that it did not have an economic strategy. “I am committing the next Labour government to an additional £28bn of capital investment in our country’s green transition for each and every year of this decade,” she told delegates. “I will be a responsible chancellor. I will be Britain’s first green chancellor.” Labour stuck to the plan for many months. At the party conference a year later, Starmer announced that a significant chunk of the money would be spent on a new national energy company, to be known as Great British Energy. Other schemes included a new sovereign wealth fund to invest in green schemes and a £6bn-a-year home insulation scheme to improve the energy efficiency of 19m properties. Gradually however, senior Labour figures became nervous. After Liz Truss’s turbulent 45 days in power, Labour’s pitch to the electors was no longer to be the party of radical change, but instead to offer reassurance where the Conservatives offered turmoil. Truss’s economic plans, coupled with the war in Ukraine and rising inflation, sent interest rates on UK government debt spiking from just over 1% at the beginning of 2022 to 4.5% by the middle of 2023. Reeves was growing concerned about the economic consequences of the £28bn policy, especially after a crucial meeting she had in Washington DC in June 2023 with Janet Yellen, the US treasury secretary. People briefed on that meeting have told the Guardian that Yellen warned Reeves against making the mistake the Biden administration had of announcing major new climate investments without first reforming planning laws so they could get built. Reeves came back from that trip determined to make a change. She wrote an article for the Times announcing the £28bn figure would not be hit until the second half of the parliament, and that it would only be hit if Labour could meet its promise to have debt falling as a percentage of economic output at the end of a five-year period. Given the forecasts at the time predicted the government could borrow only an additional £6bn a year and still have debt falling in that time period, Reeves’s announcement all but killed her original policy. Decision time And yet Labour politicians continued to use the £28bn figure, putting the party in the awkward position of defending a figure they had no intention of hitting and could not say how it would be spent. Shadow ministers and advisers began pitching their ideas for how to change the policy. Some wanted to junk it altogether. Others wanted to use the money to fund other investment schemes, such as new schools and roads. Some suggested putting all the existing spending commitments in a single bill and abandoning the rest. As those around Starmer argued over what should happen, the leader continued to defend it publicly. “‘It’s absolutely clear to me that the Tories are trying to weaponise this issue, the £28bn,” he said in January. “This is a fight I want to have … If they want that fight on borrow-to-invest, I’m absolutely up for that fight.” Privately however, Starmer was becoming convinced of the need to make a change. He, Reeves and Miliband began working intensively on a compromise which would protect existing schemes such as GB Energy and the sovereign wealth fund, but scale back the home insulation scheme and clarify that no further spending would be announced. Labour officials insisted on Thursday the three had developed the plan together, downplaying talk of a split at the top of the party. The final decision was reached jointly just days ago, they added. Some of Starmer’s advisers urged him to wait until after Jeremy Hunt’s budget to make the final decision, not least because the chancellor was promising more tax cuts which would further reduce the room to borrow. The Labour leader, however, had told shadow ministers to have their manifesto policies ready by Thursday in case of a May election, so he knew a decision would have to be taken by then. Besides, reports in the Guardian and elsewhere about the fate of the £28bn were making it increasingly hard to hold the line. “Today is the deadline for shadow cabinet teams to get their proposals in and fully funded so we can begin the next stage of the process of the manifesto,” he told reporters on Thursday. “We knew we would have to get to a decision on this around about now.” Political ramifications The eventual U-turn was met with anger among green campaigners and some MPs, including the former shadow energy secretary Barry Gardiner, who called it “economically illiterate, environmentally irresponsible and politically jejune”. And while the party has recommitted to parts of its investment schemes, important question remain. Can Labour really decarbonise Britain’s energy sector by 2030 with this level of spending? What does the reduction in the home insulation programme mean for the legal requirement to eradicate fuel poverty by 2030? Many in Labour expressed relief at the change, however. “At least we know what the policy is now,” said one shadow minister. “At least we have something to defend.” But if Labour believes it now has something to defend, the Tories insist they still have something to attack. Senior advisers to Rishi Sunak insisted on Thursday they intended to keep using the £28bn figure, arguing Labour would have to end up spending that much when they realised they might miss their green targets. “Nothing has changed,” said one. But in a sign of how Thursday’s announcement by Starmer has made life more difficult for his opponents, the Conservatives were simultaneously accusing him of enacting another “flip-flop”. “The problem is the Tories now have to decide,” said one Labour figure. “Is it that nothing has changed, or have we flip-flopped? They can’t get their attack right.” Explore more on these topics Labour Rachel Reeves Keir Starmer Ed Miliband Green politics analysis Share Reuse this content Rachel Reeves had argued for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters View image in fullscreen Rachel Reeves had argued for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Dropping of £28bn pledge marks a shift in Reeves’s entire economic philosophy This article is more than 1 year old Kiran Stacey Political correspondent Rachel Reeves had promised to spend big to be Britain’s first green chancellor. Now she wants to spend as little public money as possible Labour cuts £28bn green investment pledge by half When Rachel Reeves announced Labour’s £28bn climate plan in 2021, she was so confident it was the right thing to do that she issued a dire warning about what would happen if the scheme was held up or scaled back. “The greatest cost to our public finances, as well as to our planet, will be if we delay and let the costs mount up for future generations to pay,” she told a packed hall at the party conference in Brighton. On Thursday, Reeves stood alongside the party leader, Keir Starmer , in front of about 30 journalists in a draughty room in parliament and reversed all of that. The £28bn was gone, as was the reasoning behind it. “We want to bring jobs to Britain, to bring energy bills down, to boost our energy security, and also to decarbonise the economy,” Reeves told reporters. “If you don’t need to spend £28bn in doing that, that’s great.” The reversal of Labour’s central economic and environmental policy has come after weeks of agonised decision-making by Starmer and Reeves, in conjunction with Ed Miliband , the shadow energy secretary. Thursday’s confirmation that the policy would be cut back to half its original scale is a key moment in Starmer’s leadership and could redefine the election campaign. It also marks a shift in Reeves’s entire economic philosophy. No longer is the shadow chancellor arguing for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Instead, she says she wants to achieve Labour’s green targets using as little public money as possible. The story of how that change came about in the course of just over two years is indicative of the broader shift in approach from Starmer and Reeves in that time, as they have enacted a series of U-turns in an attempt to shed the baggage they fear could weigh them down in an election contest. From determination to doubt Reeves’s initial announcement in 2021 was regarded in senior Labour circles as a triumph. The Brighton conference had been fractious until then. The party had been plagued by splits between Starmer and Miliband on the question of whether energy companies should be nationalised. Senior figures had been followed wherever they went by protesters calling for a “green new deal”. The party’s members had defied the leadership by voting for a motion calling for a “socialist green new deal”. Reeves’s announcement brought an end to all that, answering the criticisms that Labour did not have a green policy and that it did not have an economic strategy. “I am committing the next Labour government to an additional £28bn of capital investment in our country’s green transition for each and every year of this decade,” she told delegates. “I will be a responsible chancellor. I will be Britain’s first green chancellor.” Labour stuck to the plan for many months. At the party conference a year later, Starmer announced that a significant chunk of the money would be spent on a new national energy company, to be known as Great British Energy. Other schemes included a new sovereign wealth fund to invest in green schemes and a £6bn-a-year home insulation scheme to improve the energy efficiency of 19m properties. Gradually however, senior Labour figures became nervous. After Liz Truss’s turbulent 45 days in power, Labour’s pitch to the electors was no longer to be the party of radical change, but instead to offer reassurance where the Conservatives offered turmoil. Truss’s economic plans, coupled with the war in Ukraine and rising inflation, sent interest rates on UK government debt spiking from just over 1% at the beginning of 2022 to 4.5% by the middle of 2023. Reeves was growing concerned about the economic consequences of the £28bn policy, especially after a crucial meeting she had in Washington DC in June 2023 with Janet Yellen, the US treasury secretary. People briefed on that meeting have told the Guardian that Yellen warned Reeves against making the mistake the Biden administration had of announcing major new climate investments without first reforming planning laws so they could get built. Reeves came back from that trip determined to make a change. She wrote an article for the Times announcing the £28bn figure would not be hit until the second half of the parliament, and that it would only be hit if Labour could meet its promise to have debt falling as a percentage of economic output at the end of a five-year period. Given the forecasts at the time predicted the government could borrow only an additional £6bn a year and still have debt falling in that time period, Reeves’s announcement all but killed her original policy. Decision time And yet Labour politicians continued to use the £28bn figure, putting the party in the awkward position of defending a figure they had no intention of hitting and could not say how it would be spent. Shadow ministers and advisers began pitching their ideas for how to change the policy. Some wanted to junk it altogether. Others wanted to use the money to fund other investment schemes, such as new schools and roads. Some suggested putting all the existing spending commitments in a single bill and abandoning the rest. As those around Starmer argued over what should happen, the leader continued to defend it publicly. “‘It’s absolutely clear to me that the Tories are trying to weaponise this issue, the £28bn,” he said in January. “This is a fight I want to have … If they want that fight on borrow-to-invest, I’m absolutely up for that fight.” Privately however, Starmer was becoming convinced of the need to make a change. He, Reeves and Miliband began working intensively on a compromise which would protect existing schemes such as GB Energy and the sovereign wealth fund, but scale back the home insulation scheme and clarify that no further spending would be announced. Labour officials insisted on Thursday the three had developed the plan together, downplaying talk of a split at the top of the party. The final decision was reached jointly just days ago, they added. Some of Starmer’s advisers urged him to wait until after Jeremy Hunt’s budget to make the final decision, not least because the chancellor was promising more tax cuts which would further reduce the room to borrow. The Labour leader, however, had told shadow ministers to have their manifesto policies ready by Thursday in case of a May election, so he knew a decision would have to be taken by then. Besides, reports in the Guardian and elsewhere about the fate of the £28bn were making it increasingly hard to hold the line. “Today is the deadline for shadow cabinet teams to get their proposals in and fully funded so we can begin the next stage of the process of the manifesto,” he told reporters on Thursday. “We knew we would have to get to a decision on this around about now.” Political ramifications The eventual U-turn was met with anger among green campaigners and some MPs, including the former shadow energy secretary Barry Gardiner, who called it “economically illiterate, environmentally irresponsible and politically jejune”. And while the party has recommitted to parts of its investment schemes, important question remain. Can Labour really decarbonise Britain’s energy sector by 2030 with this level of spending? What does the reduction in the home insulation programme mean for the legal requirement to eradicate fuel poverty by 2030? Many in Labour expressed relief at the change, however. “At least we know what the policy is now,” said one shadow minister. “At least we have something to defend.” But if Labour believes it now has something to defend, the Tories insist they still have something to attack. Senior advisers to Rishi Sunak insisted on Thursday they intended to keep using the £28bn figure, arguing Labour would have to end up spending that much when they realised they might miss their green targets. “Nothing has changed,” said one. But in a sign of how Thursday’s announcement by Starmer has made life more difficult for his opponents, the Conservatives were simultaneously accusing him of enacting another “flip-flop”. “The problem is the Tories now have to decide,” said one Labour figure. “Is it that nothing has changed, or have we flip-flopped? They can’t get their attack right.” Explore more on these topics Labour Rachel Reeves Keir Starmer Ed Miliband Green politics analysis Share Reuse this content Rachel Reeves had argued for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters View image in fullscreen Rachel Reeves had argued for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters Rachel Reeves had argued for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters View image in fullscreen Rachel Reeves had argued for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters Rachel Reeves had argued for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters View image in fullscreen Rachel Reeves had argued for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters Rachel Reeves had argued for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters View image in fullscreen Rachel Reeves had argued for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters Rachel Reeves had argued for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters Rachel Reeves had argued for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Dropping of £28bn pledge marks a shift in Reeves’s entire economic philosophy This article is more than 1 year old Kiran Stacey Political correspondent This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Dropping of £28bn pledge marks a shift in Reeves’s entire economic philosophy This article is more than 1 year old Kiran Stacey Political correspondent This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Dropping of £28bn pledge marks a shift in Reeves’s entire economic philosophy 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 Rachel Reeves had promised to spend big to be Britain’s first green chancellor. Now she wants to spend as little public money as possible Labour cuts £28bn green investment pledge by half Rachel Reeves had promised to spend big to be Britain’s first green chancellor. Now she wants to spend as little public money as possible Labour cuts £28bn green investment pledge by half Rachel Reeves had promised to spend big to be Britain’s first green chancellor. Now she wants to spend as little public money as possible When Rachel Reeves announced Labour’s £28bn climate plan in 2021, she was so confident it was the right thing to do that she issued a dire warning about what would happen if the scheme was held up or scaled back. “The greatest cost to our public finances, as well as to our planet, will be if we delay and let the costs mount up for future generations to pay,” she told a packed hall at the party conference in Brighton. On Thursday, Reeves stood alongside the party leader, Keir Starmer , in front of about 30 journalists in a draughty room in parliament and reversed all of that. The £28bn was gone, as was the reasoning behind it. “We want to bring jobs to Britain, to bring energy bills down, to boost our energy security, and also to decarbonise the economy,” Reeves told reporters. “If you don’t need to spend £28bn in doing that, that’s great.” The reversal of Labour’s central economic and environmental policy has come after weeks of agonised decision-making by Starmer and Reeves, in conjunction with Ed Miliband , the shadow energy secretary. Thursday’s confirmation that the policy would be cut back to half its original scale is a key moment in Starmer’s leadership and could redefine the election campaign. It also marks a shift in Reeves’s entire economic philosophy. No longer is the shadow chancellor arguing for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Instead, she says she wants to achieve Labour’s green targets using as little public money as possible. The story of how that change came about in the course of just over two years is indicative of the broader shift in approach from Starmer and Reeves in that time, as they have enacted a series of U-turns in an attempt to shed the baggage they fear could weigh them down in an election contest. From determination to doubt Reeves’s initial announcement in 2021 was regarded in senior Labour circles as a triumph. The Brighton conference had been fractious until then. The party had been plagued by splits between Starmer and Miliband on the question of whether energy companies should be nationalised. Senior figures had been followed wherever they went by protesters calling for a “green new deal”. The party’s members had defied the leadership by voting for a motion calling for a “socialist green new deal”. Reeves’s announcement brought an end to all that, answering the criticisms that Labour did not have a green policy and that it did not have an economic strategy. “I am committing the next Labour government to an additional £28bn of capital investment in our country’s green transition for each and every year of this decade,” she told delegates. “I will be a responsible chancellor. I will be Britain’s first green chancellor.” Labour stuck to the plan for many months. At the party conference a year later, Starmer announced that a significant chunk of the money would be spent on a new national energy company, to be known as Great British Energy. Other schemes included a new sovereign wealth fund to invest in green schemes and a £6bn-a-year home insulation scheme to improve the energy efficiency of 19m properties. Gradually however, senior Labour figures became nervous. After Liz Truss’s turbulent 45 days in power, Labour’s pitch to the electors was no longer to be the party of radical change, but instead to offer reassurance where the Conservatives offered turmoil. Truss’s economic plans, coupled with the war in Ukraine and rising inflation, sent interest rates on UK government debt spiking from just over 1% at the beginning of 2022 to 4.5% by the middle of 2023. Reeves was growing concerned about the economic consequences of the £28bn policy, especially after a crucial meeting she had in Washington DC in June 2023 with Janet Yellen, the US treasury secretary. People briefed on that meeting have told the Guardian that Yellen warned Reeves against making the mistake the Biden administration had of announcing major new climate investments without first reforming planning laws so they could get built. Reeves came back from that trip determined to make a change. She wrote an article for the Times announcing the £28bn figure would not be hit until the second half of the parliament, and that it would only be hit if Labour could meet its promise to have debt falling as a percentage of economic output at the end of a five-year period. Given the forecasts at the time predicted the government could borrow only an additional £6bn a year and still have debt falling in that time period, Reeves’s announcement all but killed her original policy. Decision time And yet Labour politicians continued to use the £28bn figure, putting the party in the awkward position of defending a figure they had no intention of hitting and could not say how it would be spent. Shadow ministers and advisers began pitching their ideas for how to change the policy. Some wanted to junk it altogether. Others wanted to use the money to fund other investment schemes, such as new schools and roads. Some suggested putting all the existing spending commitments in a single bill and abandoning the rest. As those around Starmer argued over what should happen, the leader continued to defend it publicly. “‘It’s absolutely clear to me that the Tories are trying to weaponise this issue, the £28bn,” he said in January. “This is a fight I want to have … If they want that fight on borrow-to-invest, I’m absolutely up for that fight.” Privately however, Starmer was becoming convinced of the need to make a change. He, Reeves and Miliband began working intensively on a compromise which would protect existing schemes such as GB Energy and the sovereign wealth fund, but scale back the home insulation scheme and clarify that no further spending would be announced. Labour officials insisted on Thursday the three had developed the plan together, downplaying talk of a split at the top of the party. The final decision was reached jointly just days ago, they added. Some of Starmer’s advisers urged him to wait until after Jeremy Hunt’s budget to make the final decision, not least because the chancellor was promising more tax cuts which would further reduce the room to borrow. The Labour leader, however, had told shadow ministers to have their manifesto policies ready by Thursday in case of a May election, so he knew a decision would have to be taken by then. Besides, reports in the Guardian and elsewhere about the fate of the £28bn were making it increasingly hard to hold the line. “Today is the deadline for shadow cabinet teams to get their proposals in and fully funded so we can begin the next stage of the process of the manifesto,” he told reporters on Thursday. “We knew we would have to get to a decision on this around about now.” Political ramifications The eventual U-turn was met with anger among green campaigners and some MPs, including the former shadow energy secretary Barry Gardiner, who called it “economically illiterate, environmentally irresponsible and politically jejune”. And while the party has recommitted to parts of its investment schemes, important question remain. Can Labour really decarbonise Britain’s energy sector by 2030 with this level of spending? What does the reduction in the home insulation programme mean for the legal requirement to eradicate fuel poverty by 2030? Many in Labour expressed relief at the change, however. “At least we know what the policy is now,” said one shadow minister. “At least we have something to defend.” But if Labour believes it now has something to defend, the Tories insist they still have something to attack. Senior advisers to Rishi Sunak insisted on Thursday they intended to keep using the £28bn figure, arguing Labour would have to end up spending that much when they realised they might miss their green targets. “Nothing has changed,” said one. But in a sign of how Thursday’s announcement by Starmer has made life more difficult for his opponents, the Conservatives were simultaneously accusing him of enacting another “flip-flop”. “The problem is the Tories now have to decide,” said one Labour figure. “Is it that nothing has changed, or have we flip-flopped? They can’t get their attack right.” Explore more on these topics Labour Rachel Reeves Keir Starmer Ed Miliband Green politics analysis Share Reuse this content When Rachel Reeves announced Labour’s £28bn climate plan in 2021, she was so confident it was the right thing to do that she issued a dire warning about what would happen if the scheme was held up or scaled back. “The greatest cost to our public finances, as well as to our planet, will be if we delay and let the costs mount up for future generations to pay,” she told a packed hall at the party conference in Brighton. On Thursday, Reeves stood alongside the party leader, Keir Starmer , in front of about 30 journalists in a draughty room in parliament and reversed all of that. The £28bn was gone, as was the reasoning behind it. “We want to bring jobs to Britain, to bring energy bills down, to boost our energy security, and also to decarbonise the economy,” Reeves told reporters. “If you don’t need to spend £28bn in doing that, that’s great.” The reversal of Labour’s central economic and environmental policy has come after weeks of agonised decision-making by Starmer and Reeves, in conjunction with Ed Miliband , the shadow energy secretary. Thursday’s confirmation that the policy would be cut back to half its original scale is a key moment in Starmer’s leadership and could redefine the election campaign. It also marks a shift in Reeves’s entire economic philosophy. No longer is the shadow chancellor arguing for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Instead, she says she wants to achieve Labour’s green targets using as little public money as possible. The story of how that change came about in the course of just over two years is indicative of the broader shift in approach from Starmer and Reeves in that time, as they have enacted a series of U-turns in an attempt to shed the baggage they fear could weigh them down in an election contest. From determination to doubt Reeves’s initial announcement in 2021 was regarded in senior Labour circles as a triumph. The Brighton conference had been fractious until then. The party had been plagued by splits between Starmer and Miliband on the question of whether energy companies should be nationalised. Senior figures had been followed wherever they went by protesters calling for a “green new deal”. The party’s members had defied the leadership by voting for a motion calling for a “socialist green new deal”. Reeves’s announcement brought an end to all that, answering the criticisms that Labour did not have a green policy and that it did not have an economic strategy. “I am committing the next Labour government to an additional £28bn of capital investment in our country’s green transition for each and every year of this decade,” she told delegates. “I will be a responsible chancellor. I will be Britain’s first green chancellor.” Labour stuck to the plan for many months. At the party conference a year later, Starmer announced that a significant chunk of the money would be spent on a new national energy company, to be known as Great British Energy. Other schemes included a new sovereign wealth fund to invest in green schemes and a £6bn-a-year home insulation scheme to improve the energy efficiency of 19m properties. Gradually however, senior Labour figures became nervous. After Liz Truss’s turbulent 45 days in power, Labour’s pitch to the electors was no longer to be the party of radical change, but instead to offer reassurance where the Conservatives offered turmoil. Truss’s economic plans, coupled with the war in Ukraine and rising inflation, sent interest rates on UK government debt spiking from just over 1% at the beginning of 2022 to 4.5% by the middle of 2023. Reeves was growing concerned about the economic consequences of the £28bn policy, especially after a crucial meeting she had in Washington DC in June 2023 with Janet Yellen, the US treasury secretary. People briefed on that meeting have told the Guardian that Yellen warned Reeves against making the mistake the Biden administration had of announcing major new climate investments without first reforming planning laws so they could get built. Reeves came back from that trip determined to make a change. She wrote an article for the Times announcing the £28bn figure would not be hit until the second half of the parliament, and that it would only be hit if Labour could meet its promise to have debt falling as a percentage of economic output at the end of a five-year period. Given the forecasts at the time predicted the government could borrow only an additional £6bn a year and still have debt falling in that time period, Reeves’s announcement all but killed her original policy. Decision time And yet Labour politicians continued to use the £28bn figure, putting the party in the awkward position of defending a figure they had no intention of hitting and could not say how it would be spent. Shadow ministers and advisers began pitching their ideas for how to change the policy. Some wanted to junk it altogether. Others wanted to use the money to fund other investment schemes, such as new schools and roads. Some suggested putting all the existing spending commitments in a single bill and abandoning the rest. As those around Starmer argued over what should happen, the leader continued to defend it publicly. “‘It’s absolutely clear to me that the Tories are trying to weaponise this issue, the £28bn,” he said in January. “This is a fight I want to have … If they want that fight on borrow-to-invest, I’m absolutely up for that fight.” Privately however, Starmer was becoming convinced of the need to make a change. He, Reeves and Miliband began working intensively on a compromise which would protect existing schemes such as GB Energy and the sovereign wealth fund, but scale back the home insulation scheme and clarify that no further spending would be announced. Labour officials insisted on Thursday the three had developed the plan together, downplaying talk of a split at the top of the party. The final decision was reached jointly just days ago, they added. Some of Starmer’s advisers urged him to wait until after Jeremy Hunt’s budget to make the final decision, not least because the chancellor was promising more tax cuts which would further reduce the room to borrow. The Labour leader, however, had told shadow ministers to have their manifesto policies ready by Thursday in case of a May election, so he knew a decision would have to be taken by then. Besides, reports in the Guardian and elsewhere about the fate of the £28bn were making it increasingly hard to hold the line. “Today is the deadline for shadow cabinet teams to get their proposals in and fully funded so we can begin the next stage of the process of the manifesto,” he told reporters on Thursday. “We knew we would have to get to a decision on this around about now.” Political ramifications The eventual U-turn was met with anger among green campaigners and some MPs, including the former shadow energy secretary Barry Gardiner, who called it “economically illiterate, environmentally irresponsible and politically jejune”. And while the party has recommitted to parts of its investment schemes, important question remain. Can Labour really decarbonise Britain’s energy sector by 2030 with this level of spending? What does the reduction in the home insulation programme mean for the legal requirement to eradicate fuel poverty by 2030? Many in Labour expressed relief at the change, however. “At least we know what the policy is now,” said one shadow minister. “At least we have something to defend.” But if Labour believes it now has something to defend, the Tories insist they still have something to attack. Senior advisers to Rishi Sunak insisted on Thursday they intended to keep using the £28bn figure, arguing Labour would have to end up spending that much when they realised they might miss their green targets. “Nothing has changed,” said one. But in a sign of how Thursday’s announcement by Starmer has made life more difficult for his opponents, the Conservatives were simultaneously accusing him of enacting another “flip-flop”. “The problem is the Tories now have to decide,” said one Labour figure. “Is it that nothing has changed, or have we flip-flopped? They can’t get their attack right.” Explore more on these topics Labour Rachel Reeves Keir Starmer Ed Miliband Green politics analysis Share Reuse this content When Rachel Reeves announced Labour’s £28bn climate plan in 2021, she was so confident it was the right thing to do that she issued a dire warning about what would happen if the scheme was held up or scaled back. “The greatest cost to our public finances, as well as to our planet, will be if we delay and let the costs mount up for future generations to pay,” she told a packed hall at the party conference in Brighton. On Thursday, Reeves stood alongside the party leader, Keir Starmer , in front of about 30 journalists in a draughty room in parliament and reversed all of that. The £28bn was gone, as was the reasoning behind it. “We want to bring jobs to Britain, to bring energy bills down, to boost our energy security, and also to decarbonise the economy,” Reeves told reporters. “If you don’t need to spend £28bn in doing that, that’s great.” The reversal of Labour’s central economic and environmental policy has come after weeks of agonised decision-making by Starmer and Reeves, in conjunction with Ed Miliband , the shadow energy secretary. Thursday’s confirmation that the policy would be cut back to half its original scale is a key moment in Starmer’s leadership and could redefine the election campaign. It also marks a shift in Reeves’s entire economic philosophy. No longer is the shadow chancellor arguing for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Instead, she says she wants to achieve Labour’s green targets using as little public money as possible. The story of how that change came about in the course of just over two years is indicative of the broader shift in approach from Starmer and Reeves in that time, as they have enacted a series of U-turns in an attempt to shed the baggage they fear could weigh them down in an election contest. From determination to doubt Reeves’s initial announcement in 2021 was regarded in senior Labour circles as a triumph. The Brighton conference had been fractious until then. The party had been plagued by splits between Starmer and Miliband on the question of whether energy companies should be nationalised. Senior figures had been followed wherever they went by protesters calling for a “green new deal”. The party’s members had defied the leadership by voting for a motion calling for a “socialist green new deal”. Reeves’s announcement brought an end to all that, answering the criticisms that Labour did not have a green policy and that it did not have an economic strategy. “I am committing the next Labour government to an additional £28bn of capital investment in our country’s green transition for each and every year of this decade,” she told delegates. “I will be a responsible chancellor. I will be Britain’s first green chancellor.” Labour stuck to the plan for many months. At the party conference a year later, Starmer announced that a significant chunk of the money would be spent on a new national energy company, to be known as Great British Energy. Other schemes included a new sovereign wealth fund to invest in green schemes and a £6bn-a-year home insulation scheme to improve the energy efficiency of 19m properties. Gradually however, senior Labour figures became nervous. After Liz Truss’s turbulent 45 days in power, Labour’s pitch to the electors was no longer to be the party of radical change, but instead to offer reassurance where the Conservatives offered turmoil. Truss’s economic plans, coupled with the war in Ukraine and rising inflation, sent interest rates on UK government debt spiking from just over 1% at the beginning of 2022 to 4.5% by the middle of 2023. Reeves was growing concerned about the economic consequences of the £28bn policy, especially after a crucial meeting she had in Washington DC in June 2023 with Janet Yellen, the US treasury secretary. People briefed on that meeting have told the Guardian that Yellen warned Reeves against making the mistake the Biden administration had of announcing major new climate investments without first reforming planning laws so they could get built. Reeves came back from that trip determined to make a change. She wrote an article for the Times announcing the £28bn figure would not be hit until the second half of the parliament, and that it would only be hit if Labour could meet its promise to have debt falling as a percentage of economic output at the end of a five-year period. Given the forecasts at the time predicted the government could borrow only an additional £6bn a year and still have debt falling in that time period, Reeves’s announcement all but killed her original policy. Decision time And yet Labour politicians continued to use the £28bn figure, putting the party in the awkward position of defending a figure they had no intention of hitting and could not say how it would be spent. Shadow ministers and advisers began pitching their ideas for how to change the policy. Some wanted to junk it altogether. Others wanted to use the money to fund other investment schemes, such as new schools and roads. Some suggested putting all the existing spending commitments in a single bill and abandoning the rest. As those around Starmer argued over what should happen, the leader continued to defend it publicly. “‘It’s absolutely clear to me that the Tories are trying to weaponise this issue, the £28bn,” he said in January. “This is a fight I want to have … If they want that fight on borrow-to-invest, I’m absolutely up for that fight.” Privately however, Starmer was becoming convinced of the need to make a change. He, Reeves and Miliband began working intensively on a compromise which would protect existing schemes such as GB Energy and the sovereign wealth fund, but scale back the home insulation scheme and clarify that no further spending would be announced. Labour officials insisted on Thursday the three had developed the plan together, downplaying talk of a split at the top of the party. The final decision was reached jointly just days ago, they added. Some of Starmer’s advisers urged him to wait until after Jeremy Hunt’s budget to make the final decision, not least because the chancellor was promising more tax cuts which would further reduce the room to borrow. The Labour leader, however, had told shadow ministers to have their manifesto policies ready by Thursday in case of a May election, so he knew a decision would have to be taken by then. Besides, reports in the Guardian and elsewhere about the fate of the £28bn were making it increasingly hard to hold the line. “Today is the deadline for shadow cabinet teams to get their proposals in and fully funded so we can begin the next stage of the process of the manifesto,” he told reporters on Thursday. “We knew we would have to get to a decision on this around about now.” Political ramifications The eventual U-turn was met with anger among green campaigners and some MPs, including the former shadow energy secretary Barry Gardiner, who called it “economically illiterate, environmentally irresponsible and politically jejune”. And while the party has recommitted to parts of its investment schemes, important question remain. Can Labour really decarbonise Britain’s energy sector by 2030 with this level of spending? What does the reduction in the home insulation programme mean for the legal requirement to eradicate fuel poverty by 2030? Many in Labour expressed relief at the change, however. “At least we know what the policy is now,” said one shadow minister. “At least we have something to defend.” But if Labour believes it now has something to defend, the Tories insist they still have something to attack. Senior advisers to Rishi Sunak insisted on Thursday they intended to keep using the £28bn figure, arguing Labour would have to end up spending that much when they realised they might miss their green targets. “Nothing has changed,” said one. But in a sign of how Thursday’s announcement by Starmer has made life more difficult for his opponents, the Conservatives were simultaneously accusing him of enacting another “flip-flop”. “The problem is the Tories now have to decide,” said one Labour figure. “Is it that nothing has changed, or have we flip-flopped? They can’t get their attack right.” When Rachel Reeves announced Labour’s £28bn climate plan in 2021, she was so confident it was the right thing to do that she issued a dire warning about what would happen if the scheme was held up or scaled back. “The greatest cost to our public finances, as well as to our planet, will be if we delay and let the costs mount up for future generations to pay,” she told a packed hall at the party conference in Brighton. On Thursday, Reeves stood alongside the party leader, Keir Starmer , in front of about 30 journalists in a draughty room in parliament and reversed all of that. The £28bn was gone, as was the reasoning behind it. “We want to bring jobs to Britain, to bring energy bills down, to boost our energy security, and also to decarbonise the economy,” Reeves told reporters. “If you don’t need to spend £28bn in doing that, that’s great.” The reversal of Labour’s central economic and environmental policy has come after weeks of agonised decision-making by Starmer and Reeves, in conjunction with Ed Miliband , the shadow energy secretary. Thursday’s confirmation that the policy would be cut back to half its original scale is a key moment in Starmer’s leadership and could redefine the election campaign. It also marks a shift in Reeves’s entire economic philosophy. No longer is the shadow chancellor arguing for public investment for its own sake as a way to stimulate the economy and galvanise private capital. Instead, she says she wants to achieve Labour’s green targets using as little public money as possible. The story of how that change came about in the course of just over two years is indicative of the broader shift in approach from Starmer and Reeves in that time, as they have enacted a series of U-turns in an attempt to shed the baggage they fear could weigh them down in an election contest. From determination to doubt Reeves’s initial announcement in 2021 was regarded in senior Labour circles as a triumph. The Brighton conference had been fractious until then. The party had been plagued by splits between Starmer and Miliband on the question of whether energy companies should be nationalised. Senior figures had been followed wherever they went by protesters calling for a “green new deal”. The party’s members had defied the leadership by voting for a motion calling for a “socialist green new deal”. Reeves’s announcement brought an end to all that, answering the criticisms that Labour did not have a green policy and that it did not have an economic strategy. “I am committing the next Labour government to an additional £28bn of capital investment in our country’s green transition for each and every year of this decade,” she told delegates. “I will be a responsible chancellor. I will be Britain’s first green chancellor.” Labour stuck to the plan for many months. At the party conference a year later, Starmer announced that a significant chunk of the mon
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
Council of Europe calls on UK not to process asylum claims in Rwanda
A group of people thought to be migrants are brought into Dover, Kent, on an RNLI boat on 31 January. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen A group of people thought to be migrants are brought into Dover, Kent, on an RNLI boat on 31 January. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA This article is more than 1 year old Council of Europe calls on UK not to process asylum claims in Rwanda This article is more than 1 year old People may be exposed to abuses such as torture and degrading treatment in Rwanda, says watchdog Europe’s leading anti-torture watchdog has called on the government to process asylum claims in the UK rather than sending people to Rwanda because of the risk they may be exposed to human rights abuses there. In a report published on Thursday, the Council of Europe’s committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment raises a litany of concerns after an 11-day visit to the UK in March and April last year. The report warns that the UK’s Illegal Migration Act, which allows asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the UK, and the migration and economic development partnership between UK and Rwanda “raise multiple concerns over the treatment of vulnerable persons” and warns that they may be subject to torture or inhuman, degrading treatment if they are sent to Rwanda. The purpose of the committee’s ad hoc visit was to examine immigration detention conditions in the UK at a time when the Home Office plans to significantly increase the number of asylum seekers it locks up before the forced removals it hopes to implement to Rwanda. The current number of detention spaces is 2,245 and the government wants to add another 1,000 places. ‘Not a betting person’: Rishi Sunak rows back on £1,000 Rwanda bet Read more The European court of human rights relies on the committee’s findings when ruling on relevant cases – the government’s first planned deportation flight to Rwanda, which was due to take off on 14 June 2022, was halted after an intervention from the ECHR, and the court may consider the Rwanda policy in the future. The report raises concerns about the UK’s practice of indefinite immigration detention and about keeping some immigration detainees with criminal convictions in prisons rather than moving them to detention centres after the conclusion of their sentences. It warns that the Illegal Migration Act, a bill at the time of the committee’s visit, makes the removal of those arriving without a valid visa easier “by stripping away a series of fundamental safeguards”. It urges the UK government not to use “inflammatory or derogatory language” when referring to foreign nationals arriving in the UK after hazardous journeys. The report raises concerns about detainees, including those who are victims of torture or at risk of suicide, whose vulnerabilities are highlighted in a process in immigration detention known as rule 35. Once bail has been granted to detainees, their rule 35 categorisation is no longer counted in official statistics, even if they remain in detention centres for several months longer. This means “official statistics cannot be considered accurate” and people deemed unfit for detention continue to be detained. The committee raised concerns about the treatment of some detainees, including a man who had initially protested but was then compliant. Four guards in full body armour surrounded him and he was handcuffed. The Illegal Migration Act allows children to be detained for possible deportation to Rwanda, a controversial practice previously ended in the UK but now reintroduced. In response to concerns about this by the committee, UK government officials confirmed that children may be detained and that “where practicably possible” children’s needs in detention will be met. In response to the report, UK officials said: “The UK government does not recognise much of the content of this report and feels it does not accurately reflect the important work we undertake to ensure the safety and wellbeing of those in our care.” In response to the delegation’s call to process asylum claims in the UK rather than in Rwanda, officials said they were satisfied the Rwanda plan was in line with international refugee and human rights law and that the courts had recently found the principle of removal to a safe third country lawful. In November 2023 the UK supreme court ruled that the Rwanda scheme was unlawful and that Rwanda was not a safe country to which to send asylum seekers. Explore more on these topics Immigration and asylum Rwanda Council of Europe Human rights Africa Migration Home Office news Share Reuse this content A group of people thought to be migrants are brought into Dover, Kent, on an RNLI boat on 31 January. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen A group of people thought to be migrants are brought into Dover, Kent, on an RNLI boat on 31 January. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA This article is more than 1 year old Council of Europe calls on UK not to process asylum claims in Rwanda This article is more than 1 year old People may be exposed to abuses such as torture and degrading treatment in Rwanda, says watchdog Europe’s leading anti-torture watchdog has called on the government to process asylum claims in the UK rather than sending people to Rwanda because of the risk they may be exposed to human rights abuses there. In a report published on Thursday, the Council of Europe’s committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment raises a litany of concerns after an 11-day visit to the UK in March and April last year. The report warns that the UK’s Illegal Migration Act, which allows asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the UK, and the migration and economic development partnership between UK and Rwanda “raise multiple concerns over the treatment of vulnerable persons” and warns that they may be subject to torture or inhuman, degrading treatment if they are sent to Rwanda. The purpose of the committee’s ad hoc visit was to examine immigration detention conditions in the UK at a time when the Home Office plans to significantly increase the number of asylum seekers it locks up before the forced removals it hopes to implement to Rwanda. The current number of detention spaces is 2,245 and the government wants to add another 1,000 places. ‘Not a betting person’: Rishi Sunak rows back on £1,000 Rwanda bet Read more The European court of human rights relies on the committee’s findings when ruling on relevant cases – the government’s first planned deportation flight to Rwanda, which was due to take off on 14 June 2022, was halted after an intervention from the ECHR, and the court may consider the Rwanda policy in the future. The report raises concerns about the UK’s practice of indefinite immigration detention and about keeping some immigration detainees with criminal convictions in prisons rather than moving them to detention centres after the conclusion of their sentences. It warns that the Illegal Migration Act, a bill at the time of the committee’s visit, makes the removal of those arriving without a valid visa easier “by stripping away a series of fundamental safeguards”. It urges the UK government not to use “inflammatory or derogatory language” when referring to foreign nationals arriving in the UK after hazardous journeys. The report raises concerns about detainees, including those who are victims of torture or at risk of suicide, whose vulnerabilities are highlighted in a process in immigration detention known as rule 35. Once bail has been granted to detainees, their rule 35 categorisation is no longer counted in official statistics, even if they remain in detention centres for several months longer. This means “official statistics cannot be considered accurate” and people deemed unfit for detention continue to be detained. The committee raised concerns about the treatment of some detainees, including a man who had initially protested but was then compliant. Four guards in full body armour surrounded him and he was handcuffed. The Illegal Migration Act allows children to be detained for possible deportation to Rwanda, a controversial practice previously ended in the UK but now reintroduced. In response to concerns about this by the committee, UK government officials confirmed that children may be detained and that “where practicably possible” children’s needs in detention will be met. In response to the report, UK officials said: “The UK government does not recognise much of the content of this report and feels it does not accurately reflect the important work we undertake to ensure the safety and wellbeing of those in our care.” In response to the delegation’s call to process asylum claims in the UK rather than in Rwanda, officials said they were satisfied the Rwanda plan was in line with international refugee and human rights law and that the courts had recently found the principle of removal to a safe third country lawful. In November 2023 the UK supreme court ruled that the Rwanda scheme was unlawful and that Rwanda was not a safe country to which to send asylum seekers. Explore more on these topics Immigration and asylum Rwanda Council of Europe Human rights Africa Migration Home Office news Share Reuse this content A group of people thought to be migrants are brought into Dover, Kent, on an RNLI boat on 31 January. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen A group of people thought to be migrants are brought into Dover, Kent, on an RNLI boat on 31 January. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA A group of people thought to be migrants are brought into Dover, Kent, on an RNLI boat on 31 January. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen A group of people thought to be migrants are brought into Dover, Kent, on an RNLI boat on 31 January. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA A group of people thought to be migrants are brought into Dover, Kent, on an RNLI boat on 31 January. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen A group of people thought to be migrants are brought into Dover, Kent, on an RNLI boat on 31 January. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA A group of people thought to be migrants are brought into Dover, Kent, on an RNLI boat on 31 January. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen A group of people thought to be migrants are brought into Dover, Kent, on an RNLI boat on 31 January. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA A group of people thought to be migrants are brought into Dover, Kent, on an RNLI boat on 31 January. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA A group of people thought to be migrants are brought into Dover, Kent, on an RNLI boat on 31 January. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA This article is more than 1 year old Council of Europe calls on UK not to process asylum claims in Rwanda This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Council of Europe calls on UK not to process asylum claims in Rwanda This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Council of Europe calls on UK not to process asylum claims in Rwanda 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 People may be exposed to abuses such as torture and degrading treatment in Rwanda, says watchdog People may be exposed to abuses such as torture and degrading treatment in Rwanda, says watchdog People may be exposed to abuses such as torture and degrading treatment in Rwanda, says watchdog Europe’s leading anti-torture watchdog has called on the government to process asylum claims in the UK rather than sending people to Rwanda because of the risk they may be exposed to human rights abuses there. In a report published on Thursday, the Council of Europe’s committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment raises a litany of concerns after an 11-day visit to the UK in March and April last year. The report warns that the UK’s Illegal Migration Act, which allows asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the UK, and the migration and economic development partnership between UK and Rwanda “raise multiple concerns over the treatment of vulnerable persons” and warns that they may be subject to torture or inhuman, degrading treatment if they are sent to Rwanda. The purpose of the committee’s ad hoc visit was to examine immigration detention conditions in the UK at a time when the Home Office plans to significantly increase the number of asylum seekers it locks up before the forced removals it hopes to implement to Rwanda. The current number of detention spaces is 2,245 and the government wants to add another 1,000 places. ‘Not a betting person’: Rishi Sunak rows back on £1,000 Rwanda bet Read more The European court of human rights relies on the committee’s findings when ruling on relevant cases – the government’s first planned deportation flight to Rwanda, which was due to take off on 14 June 2022, was halted after an intervention from the ECHR, and the court may consider the Rwanda policy in the future. The report raises concerns about the UK’s practice of indefinite immigration detention and about keeping some immigration detainees with criminal convictions in prisons rather than moving them to detention centres after the conclusion of their sentences. It warns that the Illegal Migration Act, a bill at the time of the committee’s visit, makes the removal of those arriving without a valid visa easier “by stripping away a series of fundamental safeguards”. It urges the UK government not to use “inflammatory or derogatory language” when referring to foreign nationals arriving in the UK after hazardous journeys. The report raises concerns about detainees, including those who are victims of torture or at risk of suicide, whose vulnerabilities are highlighted in a process in immigration detention known as rule 35. Once bail has been granted to detainees, their rule 35 categorisation is no longer counted in official statistics, even if they remain in detention centres for several months longer. This means “official statistics cannot be considered accurate” and people deemed unfit for detention continue to be detained. The committee raised concerns about the treatment of some detainees, including a man who had initially protested but was then compliant. Four guards in full body armour surrounded him and he was handcuffed. The Illegal Migration Act allows children to be detained for possible deportation to Rwanda, a controversial practice previously ended in the UK but now reintroduced. In response to concerns about this by the committee, UK government officials confirmed that children may be detained and that “where practicably possible” children’s needs in detention will be met. In response to the report, UK officials said: “The UK government does not recognise much of the content of this report and feels it does not accurately reflect the important work we undertake to ensure the safety and wellbeing of those in our care.” In response to the delegation’s call to process asylum claims in the UK rather than in Rwanda, officials said they were satisfied the Rwanda plan was in line with international refugee and human rights law and that the courts had recently found the principle of removal to a safe third country lawful. In November 2023 the UK supreme court ruled that the Rwanda scheme was unlawful and that Rwanda was not a safe country to which to send asylum seekers. Explore more on these topics Immigration and asylum Rwanda Council of Europe Human rights Africa Migration Home Office news Share Reuse this content Europe’s leading anti-torture watchdog has called on the government to process asylum claims in the UK rather than sending people to Rwanda because of the risk they may be exposed to human rights abuses there. In a report published on Thursday, the Council of Europe’s committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment raises a litany of concerns after an 11-day visit to the UK in March and April last year. The report warns that the UK’s Illegal Migration Act, which allows asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the UK, and the migration and economic development partnership between UK and Rwanda “raise multiple concerns over the treatment of vulnerable persons” and warns that they may be subject to torture or inhuman, degrading treatment if they are sent to Rwanda. The purpose of the committee’s ad hoc visit was to examine immigration detention conditions in the UK at a time when the Home Office plans to significantly increase the number of asylum seekers it locks up before the forced removals it hopes to implement to Rwanda. The current number of detention spaces is 2,245 and the government wants to add another 1,000 places. ‘Not a betting person’: Rishi Sunak rows back on £1,000 Rwanda bet Read more The European court of human rights relies on the committee’s findings when ruling on relevant cases – the government’s first planned deportation flight to Rwanda, which was due to take off on 14 June 2022, was halted after an intervention from the ECHR, and the court may consider the Rwanda policy in the future. The report raises concerns about the UK’s practice of indefinite immigration detention and about keeping some immigration detainees with criminal convictions in prisons rather than moving them to detention centres after the conclusion of their sentences. It warns that the Illegal Migration Act, a bill at the time of the committee’s visit, makes the removal of those arriving without a valid visa easier “by stripping away a series of fundamental safeguards”. It urges the UK government not to use “inflammatory or derogatory language” when referring to foreign nationals arriving in the UK after hazardous journeys. The report raises concerns about detainees, including those who are victims of torture or at risk of suicide, whose vulnerabilities are highlighted in a process in immigration detention known as rule 35. Once bail has been granted to detainees, their rule 35 categorisation is no longer counted in official statistics, even if they remain in detention centres for several months longer. This means “official statistics cannot be considered accurate” and people deemed unfit for detention continue to be detained. The committee raised concerns about the treatment of some detainees, including a man who had initially protested but was then compliant. Four guards in full body armour surrounded him and he was handcuffed. The Illegal Migration Act allows children to be detained for possible deportation to Rwanda, a controversial practice previously ended in the UK but now reintroduced. In response to concerns about this by the committee, UK government officials confirmed that children may be detained and that “where practicably possible” children’s needs in detention will be met. In response to the report, UK officials said: “The UK government does not recognise much of the content of this report and feels it does not accurately reflect the important work we undertake to ensure the safety and wellbeing of those in our care.” In response to the delegation’s call to process asylum claims in the UK rather than in Rwanda, officials said they were satisfied the Rwanda plan was in line with international refugee and human rights law and that the courts had recently found the principle of removal to a safe third country lawful. In November 2023 the UK supreme court ruled that the Rwanda scheme was unlawful and that Rwanda was not a safe country to which to send asylum seekers. Explore more on these topics Immigration and asylum Rwanda Council of Europe Human rights Africa Migration Home Office news Share Reuse this content Europe’s leading anti-torture watchdog has called on the government to process asylum claims in the UK rather than sending people to Rwanda because of the risk they may be exposed to human rights abuses there. In a report published on Thursday, the Council of Europe’s committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment raises a litany of concerns after an 11-day visit to the UK in March and April last year. The report warns that the UK’s Illegal Migration Act, which allows asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the UK, and the migration and economic development partnership between UK and Rwanda “raise multiple concerns over the treatment of vulnerable persons” and warns that they may be subject to torture or inhuman, degrading treatment if they are sent to Rwanda. The purpose of the committee’s ad hoc visit was to examine immigration detention conditions in the UK at a time when the Home Office plans to significantly increase the number of asylum seekers it locks up before the forced removals it hopes to implement to Rwanda. The current number of detention spaces is 2,245 and the government wants to add another 1,000 places. ‘Not a betting person’: Rishi Sunak rows back on £1,000 Rwanda bet Read more The European court of human rights relies on the committee’s findings when ruling on relevant cases – the government’s first planned deportation flight to Rwanda, which was due to take off on 14 June 2022, was halted after an intervention from the ECHR, and the court may consider the Rwanda policy in the future. The report raises concerns about the UK’s practice of indefinite immigration detention and about keeping some immigration detainees with criminal convictions in prisons rather than moving them to detention centres after the conclusion of their sentences. It warns that the Illegal Migration Act, a bill at the time of the committee’s visit, makes the removal of those arriving without a valid visa easier “by stripping away a series of fundamental safeguards”. It urges the UK government not to use “inflammatory or derogatory language” when referring to foreign nationals arriving in the UK after hazardous journeys. The report raises concerns about detainees, including those who are victims of torture or at risk of suicide, whose vulnerabilities are highlighted in a process in immigration detention known as rule 35. Once bail has been granted to detainees, their rule 35 categorisation is no longer counted in official statistics, even if they remain in detention centres for several months longer. This means “official statistics cannot be considered accurate” and people deemed unfit for detention continue to be detained. The committee raised concerns about the treatment of some detainees, including a man who had initially protested but was then compliant. Four guards in full body armour surrounded him and he was handcuffed. The Illegal Migration Act allows children to be detained for possible deportation to Rwanda, a controversial practice previously ended in the UK but now reintroduced. In response to concerns about this by the committee, UK government officials confirmed that children may be detained and that “where practicably possible” children’s needs in detention will be met. In response to the report, UK officials said: “The UK government does not recognise much of the content of this report and feels it does not accurately reflect the important work we undertake to ensure the safety and wellbeing of those in our care.” In response to the delegation’s call to process asylum claims in the UK rather than in Rwanda, officials said they were satisfied the Rwanda plan was in line with international refugee and human rights law and that the courts had recently found the principle of removal to a safe third country lawful. In November 2023 the UK supreme court ruled that the Rwanda scheme was unlawful and that Rwanda was not a safe country to which to send asylum seekers. Europe’s leading anti-torture watchdog has called on the government to process asylum claims in the UK rather than sending people to Rwanda because of the risk they may be exposed to human rights abuses there. In a report published on Thursday, the Council of Europe’s committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment raises a litany of concerns after an 11-day visit to the UK in March and April last year. The report warns that the UK’s Illegal Migration Act, which allows asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the UK, and the migration and economic development partnership between UK and Rwanda “raise multiple concerns over the treatment of vulnerable persons” and warns that they may be subject to torture or inhuman, degrading treatment if they are sent to Rwanda. The purpose of the committee’s ad hoc visit was to examine immigration detention conditions in the UK at a time when the Home Office plans to significantly increase the number of asylum seekers it locks up before the forced removals it hopes to implement to Rwanda. The current number of detention spaces is 2,245 and the government wants to add another 1,000 places. ‘Not a betting person’: Rishi Sunak rows back on £1,000 Rwanda bet Read more The European court of human rights relies on the committee’s findings when ruling on relevant cases – the government’s first planned deportation flight to Rwanda, which was due to take off on 14 June 2022, was halted after an intervention from the ECHR, and the court may consider the Rwanda policy in the future. The report raises concerns about the UK’s practice of indefinite immigration detention and about keeping some immigration detainees with criminal convictions in prisons rather than moving them to detention centres after the conclusion of their sentences. It warns that the Illegal Migration Act, a bill at the time of the committee’s visit, makes the removal of those arriving without a valid visa easier “by stripping away a series of fundamental safeguards”. It urges the UK government not to use “inflammatory or derogatory language” when referring to foreign nationals arriving in the UK after hazardous journeys. The report raises concerns about detainees, including those who are victims of torture or at risk of suicide, whose vulnerabilities are highlighted in a process in immigration detention known as rule 35. Once bail has been granted to detainees, their rule 35 categorisation is no longer counted in official statistics, even if they remain in detention centres for several months longer. This means “official statistics cannot be considered accurate” and people deemed unfit for detention continue to be detained. The committee raised concerns about the treatment of some detainees, including a man who had initially protested but was then compliant. Four guards in full body armour surrounded him and he was handcuffed. The Illegal Migration Act allows children to be detained for possible deportation to Rwanda, a controversial practice previously ended in the UK but now reintroduced. In response to concerns about this by the committee, UK government officials confirmed that children may be detained and that “where practicably possible” children’s needs in detention will be met. In response to the report, UK officials said: “The UK government does not recognise much of the content of this report and feels it does not accurately reflect the important work we undertake to ensure the safety and wellbeing of those in our care.” In response to the delegation’s call to process asylum claims in the UK rather than in Rwanda, officials said they were satisfied the Rwanda plan was in line with international refugee and human rights law and that the courts had recently found the principle of removal to a safe third country lawful. In November 2023 the UK supreme court ruled that the Rwanda scheme was unlawful and that Rwanda was not a safe country to which to send asylum seekers. Europe’s leading anti-torture watchdog has called on the government to process asylum claims in the UK rather than sending people to Rwanda because of the risk they may be exposed to human rights abuses there. In a report published on Thursday, the Council of Europe’s committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment raises a litany of concerns after an 11-day visit to the UK in March and April last year. The report warns that the UK’s Illegal Migration Act, which allows asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the UK, and the migration and economic development partnership between UK and Rwanda “raise multiple concerns over the treatment of vulnerable persons” and warns that they may be subject to torture or inhuman, degrading treatment if they are sent to Rwanda. The purpose of the committee’s ad hoc visit was to examine immigration detention conditions in the UK at a time when the Home Office plans to significantly increase the number of asylum seekers it locks up before the forced removals it hopes to implement to Rwanda. The current number of detention spaces is 2,245 and the government wants to add another 1,000 places. ‘Not a betting person’: Rishi Sunak rows back on £1,000 Rwanda bet Read more ‘Not a betting person’: Rishi Sunak rows back on £1,000 Rwanda bet Read more ‘Not a betting person’: Rishi Sunak rows back on £1,000 Rwanda bet Read more ‘Not a betting person’: Rishi Sunak rows back on £1,000 Rwanda bet ‘Not a betting person’: Rishi Sunak rows back on £1,000 Rwanda bet The European court of human rights relies on the committee’s findings when ruling on relevant cases – the government’s first planned deportation flight to Rwanda, which was due to take off on 14 June 2022, was halted after an intervention from the ECHR, and the court may consider the Rwanda policy in the future. The report raises concerns about the UK’s practice of indefinite immigration detention and about keeping some immigration detainees with criminal convictions in prisons rather than moving them to detention centres after the conclusion of their sentences. It warns that the Illegal Migration Act, a bill at the time of the committee’s visit, makes the removal of those arriving without a valid visa easier “by stripping away a series of fundamental safeguards”. It urges the UK government not to use “inflammatory or derogatory language” when referring to foreign nationals arriving in the UK after hazardous journeys. The report raises concerns about detainees, including those who are victims of torture or at risk of suicide, whose vulnerabilities are highlighted in a process in immigration detention known as rule 35. Once bail has been granted to detainees, their rule 35 categorisation is no longer counted in official statistics, even if they remain in detention centres for several months longer. This means “official statistics cannot be considered accurate” and people deemed unfit for detention continue to be detained. The committee raised concerns about the treatment of some detainees, including a man who had initially protested but was then compliant. Four guards in full body armour surrounded him and he was handcuffed. The Illegal Migration Act allows children to be detained for possible deportation to Rwanda, a controversial practice previously ended in the UK but now reintroduced. In response to concerns about this by the committee, UK government officials confirmed that children may be detained and that “where practicably possible” children’s needs in detention will be met. In response to the report, UK officials said: “The UK government does not recognise much of the content of this report and feels it does not accurately reflect the important work we undertake to ensure the safety and wellbeing of those in our care.” In response to the delegation’s call to process asylum claims in the UK rather than in Rwanda, officials said they were satisfied the Rwanda plan was in line with international refugee and human rights law and that the courts had recently found the principle of removal to a safe third country lawful. In November 2023 the UK supreme court ruled that the Rwanda scheme was unlawful and that Rwanda was not a safe country to which to send asylum seekers. Explore more on these topics Immigration and asylum Rwanda Council of Europe Human rights Africa Migration Home Office news Share Reuse this content Immigration and asylum Rwanda Council of Europe Human rights Africa Migration Home Office news
|
London council rips out playgrounds to build houses – then runs out of cash
The Lindley Estate in Peckham. Southwark council says it is ‘extremely disappointed’ to have had to stop its works. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The Lindley Estate in Peckham. Southwark council says it is ‘extremely disappointed’ to have had to stop its works. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old London council rips out playgrounds to build houses – then runs out of cash This article is more than 1 year old Experts say boarded-up communal space illustrates crisis in social housing funding and need to protect play areas Families in south London say their children have stopped playing outside after communal spaces and playgrounds were ripped out to make room for new homes and then left boarded up when Southwark council ran out of money. The council began tearing down large parts of the Bells Gardens and Lindley estates in Peckham last August but abandoned the build in January due to a funding crisis driven by rising interest rates. All that remains of the previous play area is a small pitch surrounded by hoardings and out of sight of the flats. Experts warn the boarded-up area – which locals say is an “abomination” – illustrates a crisis in how social housing is funded as well as an urgent need for better laws to protect children’s play spaces. One parent, Rosie, who has two children aged six and three, says she relied heavily on the play spaces. “We went to that playground all the time. It was so convenient for burning off their energy. There were also loads of kids who were older and had their independence and would play out as one. The eight-, nine-, 10-year-olds. It’s just how I grew up. I could see them playing when I looked out of my window but they’ve all gone now.” She feels let down by the council. “I think they mustn’t have children to have let this happen. Or those that do, their children don’t live here so it doesn’t affect them.” View image in fullscreen Residents say green space is desperately needed. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian Southwark council says it is “extremely disappointed” to have had to stop the works – part of a commitment to build thousands of new social homes in the coming years. Helen Dennis, a councillor and cabinet member for new homes and sustainable development, told the Guardian the council was being hit by mounting costs. “Increased inflation, significantly higher building costs and interest rates following the government’s mini-budget a year ago have meant that councils across the country have had to change plans. “The residents of Bells Gardens worked so passionately with us to plan what was to happen on the estate. It’s incredibly disappointing. We will provide a playground and we are working as quickly as possible to get things moving again.” Protests grow against new council homes on green spaces in London Read more Residents protested during planning, and if finished the site would have delivered 1,575 sq metres of purpose-built play space for about 600 homes. Official guidance in the mayor’s London plan is that there should be 10 sq metres per child but pressure for denser builds means developers do not always meet this standard. The issue of protection of children’s spaces to play is the focus of an inquiry by the committee that scrutinises the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities that is taking evidence from planners, play experts and psychologists. The housing was to have been built as part of a controversial process known as “infill building” – seen as a key way to provide desperately needed affordable homes because it uses land councils already own. There is a massive national shortage of affordable homes with one in 23 children in London homeless and Southwark alone has 15,000 people on its housing waiting list, including many families living in bed and breakfast accommodation. View image in fullscreen Maryanne Vanson with her daughter on the balcony of her flat in Bells Gardens, Peckham. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian But residents say green spaces are desperately needed for the families who are living in flats with no gardens. Maryanne Vanson lives in a fourth-floor flat with her five children. She says a solution is needed that does not take space from those who already do not have enough. “I understand the need for housing, I’m overcrowded myself. But don’t take all our green space, our play space. There isn’t enough as it is in this area.” Dinah Bornat, an architect, told the Guardian more housing projects would be halted. “What has happened on this estate is a physical manifestation of a much wider housing crisis that is leaving thousands and thousands of children without homes. The way in which social housing is funded – the cross-subsidy model – is a failure. There are more situations like this coming down the pipeline, more housing projects will be abandoned as the money dries up.” Play spaces can be particularly badly affected when there are delays or funding problems for developments. Last year in New Cross, south London, residents protested over the continued failure of Peabody to return their park after taking it over to store building materials for several years. ‘Most of our children live in flats’: London park boarded up by developers Read more The London assembly member Siân Berry said there should be specific protection in policy for play spaces when developments hit a crisis. “This kind of blight to London’s neighbourhoods is a huge problem I’m seeing on other estates, particularly with so many being demolished and rebuilt. “If amenities are demolished and there is delay we need a policy from the mayor to get these vital spaces reinstated as a priority. He funds these schemes and could make sure that contingency plans to protect community facilities are mandatory.” Bernice Miller, who runs sports and arts projects for local children, said: “What’s happened here on this estate is an abomination. There were years of discussions with our residents to get them to commit to play areas as part of their housing project. All of that for nothing. The council came to see us in January and said it could be two years until they even start the work again. “Free play is gone now because there is no space to gather and come together, particularly the younger ones. They also boarded up the main dog walking area so the remaining spaces are now covered in dog waste.” Miller learned recently that her application to continue funding the arts and sports projects she runs had been turned down by Southwark council. She says children urgently need space to play. “We are asking: please pull down the hoarding, give us some land for the children to play on.” Explore more on these topics Access to green space Communities London Local government Housing Children England news Share Reuse this content The Lindley Estate in Peckham. Southwark council says it is ‘extremely disappointed’ to have had to stop its works. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The Lindley Estate in Peckham. Southwark council says it is ‘extremely disappointed’ to have had to stop its works. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old London council rips out playgrounds to build houses – then runs out of cash This article is more than 1 year old Experts say boarded-up communal space illustrates crisis in social housing funding and need to protect play areas Families in south London say their children have stopped playing outside after communal spaces and playgrounds were ripped out to make room for new homes and then left boarded up when Southwark council ran out of money. The council began tearing down large parts of the Bells Gardens and Lindley estates in Peckham last August but abandoned the build in January due to a funding crisis driven by rising interest rates. All that remains of the previous play area is a small pitch surrounded by hoardings and out of sight of the flats. Experts warn the boarded-up area – which locals say is an “abomination” – illustrates a crisis in how social housing is funded as well as an urgent need for better laws to protect children’s play spaces. One parent, Rosie, who has two children aged six and three, says she relied heavily on the play spaces. “We went to that playground all the time. It was so convenient for burning off their energy. There were also loads of kids who were older and had their independence and would play out as one. The eight-, nine-, 10-year-olds. It’s just how I grew up. I could see them playing when I looked out of my window but they’ve all gone now.” She feels let down by the council. “I think they mustn’t have children to have let this happen. Or those that do, their children don’t live here so it doesn’t affect them.” View image in fullscreen Residents say green space is desperately needed. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian Southwark council says it is “extremely disappointed” to have had to stop the works – part of a commitment to build thousands of new social homes in the coming years. Helen Dennis, a councillor and cabinet member for new homes and sustainable development, told the Guardian the council was being hit by mounting costs. “Increased inflation, significantly higher building costs and interest rates following the government’s mini-budget a year ago have meant that councils across the country have had to change plans. “The residents of Bells Gardens worked so passionately with us to plan what was to happen on the estate. It’s incredibly disappointing. We will provide a playground and we are working as quickly as possible to get things moving again.” Protests grow against new council homes on green spaces in London Read more Residents protested during planning, and if finished the site would have delivered 1,575 sq metres of purpose-built play space for about 600 homes. Official guidance in the mayor’s London plan is that there should be 10 sq metres per child but pressure for denser builds means developers do not always meet this standard. The issue of protection of children’s spaces to play is the focus of an inquiry by the committee that scrutinises the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities that is taking evidence from planners, play experts and psychologists. The housing was to have been built as part of a controversial process known as “infill building” – seen as a key way to provide desperately needed affordable homes because it uses land councils already own. There is a massive national shortage of affordable homes with one in 23 children in London homeless and Southwark alone has 15,000 people on its housing waiting list, including many families living in bed and breakfast accommodation. View image in fullscreen Maryanne Vanson with her daughter on the balcony of her flat in Bells Gardens, Peckham. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian But residents say green spaces are desperately needed for the families who are living in flats with no gardens. Maryanne Vanson lives in a fourth-floor flat with her five children. She says a solution is needed that does not take space from those who already do not have enough. “I understand the need for housing, I’m overcrowded myself. But don’t take all our green space, our play space. There isn’t enough as it is in this area.” Dinah Bornat, an architect, told the Guardian more housing projects would be halted. “What has happened on this estate is a physical manifestation of a much wider housing crisis that is leaving thousands and thousands of children without homes. The way in which social housing is funded – the cross-subsidy model – is a failure. There are more situations like this coming down the pipeline, more housing projects will be abandoned as the money dries up.” Play spaces can be particularly badly affected when there are delays or funding problems for developments. Last year in New Cross, south London, residents protested over the continued failure of Peabody to return their park after taking it over to store building materials for several years. ‘Most of our children live in flats’: London park boarded up by developers Read more The London assembly member Siân Berry said there should be specific protection in policy for play spaces when developments hit a crisis. “This kind of blight to London’s neighbourhoods is a huge problem I’m seeing on other estates, particularly with so many being demolished and rebuilt. “If amenities are demolished and there is delay we need a policy from the mayor to get these vital spaces reinstated as a priority. He funds these schemes and could make sure that contingency plans to protect community facilities are mandatory.” Bernice Miller, who runs sports and arts projects for local children, said: “What’s happened here on this estate is an abomination. There were years of discussions with our residents to get them to commit to play areas as part of their housing project. All of that for nothing. The council came to see us in January and said it could be two years until they even start the work again. “Free play is gone now because there is no space to gather and come together, particularly the younger ones. They also boarded up the main dog walking area so the remaining spaces are now covered in dog waste.” Miller learned recently that her application to continue funding the arts and sports projects she runs had been turned down by Southwark council. She says children urgently need space to play. “We are asking: please pull down the hoarding, give us some land for the children to play on.” Explore more on these topics Access to green space Communities London Local government Housing Children England news Share Reuse this content The Lindley Estate in Peckham. Southwark council says it is ‘extremely disappointed’ to have had to stop its works. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The Lindley Estate in Peckham. Southwark council says it is ‘extremely disappointed’ to have had to stop its works. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian The Lindley Estate in Peckham. Southwark council says it is ‘extremely disappointed’ to have had to stop its works. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The Lindley Estate in Peckham. Southwark council says it is ‘extremely disappointed’ to have had to stop its works. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian The Lindley Estate in Peckham. Southwark council says it is ‘extremely disappointed’ to have had to stop its works. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The Lindley Estate in Peckham. Southwark council says it is ‘extremely disappointed’ to have had to stop its works. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian The Lindley Estate in Peckham. Southwark council says it is ‘extremely disappointed’ to have had to stop its works. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The Lindley Estate in Peckham. Southwark council says it is ‘extremely disappointed’ to have had to stop its works. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian The Lindley Estate in Peckham. Southwark council says it is ‘extremely disappointed’ to have had to stop its works. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian The Lindley Estate in Peckham. Southwark council says it is ‘extremely disappointed’ to have had to stop its works. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old London council rips out playgrounds to build houses – then runs out of cash This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old London council rips out playgrounds to build houses – then runs out of cash This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old London council rips out playgrounds to build houses – then runs out of cash 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 Experts say boarded-up communal space illustrates crisis in social housing funding and need to protect play areas Experts say boarded-up communal space illustrates crisis in social housing funding and need to protect play areas Experts say boarded-up communal space illustrates crisis in social housing funding and need to protect play areas Families in south London say their children have stopped playing outside after communal spaces and playgrounds were ripped out to make room for new homes and then left boarded up when Southwark council ran out of money. The council began tearing down large parts of the Bells Gardens and Lindley estates in Peckham last August but abandoned the build in January due to a funding crisis driven by rising interest rates. All that remains of the previous play area is a small pitch surrounded by hoardings and out of sight of the flats. Experts warn the boarded-up area – which locals say is an “abomination” – illustrates a crisis in how social housing is funded as well as an urgent need for better laws to protect children’s play spaces. One parent, Rosie, who has two children aged six and three, says she relied heavily on the play spaces. “We went to that playground all the time. It was so convenient for burning off their energy. There were also loads of kids who were older and had their independence and would play out as one. The eight-, nine-, 10-year-olds. It’s just how I grew up. I could see them playing when I looked out of my window but they’ve all gone now.” She feels let down by the council. “I think they mustn’t have children to have let this happen. Or those that do, their children don’t live here so it doesn’t affect them.” View image in fullscreen Residents say green space is desperately needed. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian Southwark council says it is “extremely disappointed” to have had to stop the works – part of a commitment to build thousands of new social homes in the coming years. Helen Dennis, a councillor and cabinet member for new homes and sustainable development, told the Guardian the council was being hit by mounting costs. “Increased inflation, significantly higher building costs and interest rates following the government’s mini-budget a year ago have meant that councils across the country have had to change plans. “The residents of Bells Gardens worked so passionately with us to plan what was to happen on the estate. It’s incredibly disappointing. We will provide a playground and we are working as quickly as possible to get things moving again.” Protests grow against new council homes on green spaces in London Read more Residents protested during planning, and if finished the site would have delivered 1,575 sq metres of purpose-built play space for about 600 homes. Official guidance in the mayor’s London plan is that there should be 10 sq metres per child but pressure for denser builds means developers do not always meet this standard. The issue of protection of children’s spaces to play is the focus of an inquiry by the committee that scrutinises the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities that is taking evidence from planners, play experts and psychologists. The housing was to have been built as part of a controversial process known as “infill building” – seen as a key way to provide desperately needed affordable homes because it uses land councils already own. There is a massive national shortage of affordable homes with one in 23 children in London homeless and Southwark alone has 15,000 people on its housing waiting list, including many families living in bed and breakfast accommodation. View image in fullscreen Maryanne Vanson with her daughter on the balcony of her flat in Bells Gardens, Peckham. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian But residents say green spaces are desperately needed for the families who are living in flats with no gardens. Maryanne Vanson lives in a fourth-floor flat with her five children. She says a solution is needed that does not take space from those who already do not have enough. “I understand the need for housing, I’m overcrowded myself. But don’t take all our green space, our play space. There isn’t enough as it is in this area.” Dinah Bornat, an architect, told the Guardian more housing projects would be halted. “What has happened on this estate is a physical manifestation of a much wider housing crisis that is leaving thousands and thousands of children without homes. The way in which social housing is funded – the cross-subsidy model – is a failure. There are more situations like this coming down the pipeline, more housing projects will be abandoned as the money dries up.” Play spaces can be particularly badly affected when there are delays or funding problems for developments. Last year in New Cross, south London, residents protested over the continued failure of Peabody to return their park after taking it over to store building materials for several years. ‘Most of our children live in flats’: London park boarded up by developers Read more The London assembly member Siân Berry said there should be specific protection in policy for play spaces when developments hit a crisis. “This kind of blight to London’s neighbourhoods is a huge problem I’m seeing on other estates, particularly with so many being demolished and rebuilt. “If amenities are demolished and there is delay we need a policy from the mayor to get these vital spaces reinstated as a priority. He funds these schemes and could make sure that contingency plans to protect community facilities are mandatory.” Bernice Miller, who runs sports and arts projects for local children, said: “What’s happened here on this estate is an abomination. There were years of discussions with our residents to get them to commit to play areas as part of their housing project. All of that for nothing. The council came to see us in January and said it could be two years until they even start the work again. “Free play is gone now because there is no space to gather and come together, particularly the younger ones. They also boarded up the main dog walking area so the remaining spaces are now covered in dog waste.” Miller learned recently that her application to continue funding the arts and sports projects she runs had been turned down by Southwark council. She says children urgently need space to play. “We are asking: please pull down the hoarding, give us some land for the children to play on.” Explore more on these topics Access to green space Communities London Local government Housing Children England news Share Reuse this content Families in south London say their children have stopped playing outside after communal spaces and playgrounds were ripped out to make room for new homes and then left boarded up when Southwark council ran out of money. The council began tearing down large parts of the Bells Gardens and Lindley estates in Peckham last August but abandoned the build in January due to a funding crisis driven by rising interest rates. All that remains of the previous play area is a small pitch surrounded by hoardings and out of sight of the flats. Experts warn the boarded-up area – which locals say is an “abomination” – illustrates a crisis in how social housing is funded as well as an urgent need for better laws to protect children’s play spaces. One parent, Rosie, who has two children aged six and three, says she relied heavily on the play spaces. “We went to that playground all the time. It was so convenient for burning off their energy. There were also loads of kids who were older and had their independence and would play out as one. The eight-, nine-, 10-year-olds. It’s just how I grew up. I could see them playing when I looked out of my window but they’ve all gone now.” She feels let down by the council. “I think they mustn’t have children to have let this happen. Or those that do, their children don’t live here so it doesn’t affect them.” View image in fullscreen Residents say green space is desperately needed. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian Southwark council says it is “extremely disappointed” to have had to stop the works – part of a commitment to build thousands of new social homes in the coming years. Helen Dennis, a councillor and cabinet member for new homes and sustainable development, told the Guardian the council was being hit by mounting costs. “Increased inflation, significantly higher building costs and interest rates following the government’s mini-budget a year ago have meant that councils across the country have had to change plans. “The residents of Bells Gardens worked so passionately with us to plan what was to happen on the estate. It’s incredibly disappointing. We will provide a playground and we are working as quickly as possible to get things moving again.” Protests grow against new council homes on green spaces in London Read more Residents protested during planning, and if finished the site would have delivered 1,575 sq metres of purpose-built play space for about 600 homes. Official guidance in the mayor’s London plan is that there should be 10 sq metres per child but pressure for denser builds means developers do not always meet this standard. The issue of protection of children’s spaces to play is the focus of an inquiry by the committee that scrutinises the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities that is taking evidence from planners, play experts and psychologists. The housing was to have been built as part of a controversial process known as “infill building” – seen as a key way to provide desperately needed affordable homes because it uses land councils already own. There is a massive national shortage of affordable homes with one in 23 children in London homeless and Southwark alone has 15,000 people on its housing waiting list, including many families living in bed and breakfast accommodation. View image in fullscreen Maryanne Vanson with her daughter on the balcony of her flat in Bells Gardens, Peckham. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian But residents say green spaces are desperately needed for the families who are living in flats with no gardens. Maryanne Vanson lives in a fourth-floor flat with her five children. She says a solution is needed that does not take space from those who already do not have enough. “I understand the need for housing, I’m overcrowded myself. But don’t take all our green space, our play space. There isn’t enough as it is in this area.” Dinah Bornat, an architect, told the Guardian more housing projects would be halted. “What has happened on this estate is a physical manifestation of a much wider housing crisis that is leaving thousands and thousands of children without homes. The way in which social housing is funded – the cross-subsidy model – is a failure. There are more situations like this coming down the pipeline, more housing projects will be abandoned as the money dries up.” Play spaces can be particularly badly affected when there are delays or funding problems for developments. Last year in New Cross, south London, residents protested over the continued failure of Peabody to return their park after taking it over to store building materials for several years. ‘Most of our children live in flats’: London park boarded up by developers Read more The London assembly member Siân Berry said there should be specific protection in policy for play spaces when developments hit a crisis. “This kind of blight to London’s neighbourhoods is a huge problem I’m seeing on other estates, particularly with so many being demolished and rebuilt. “If amenities are demolished and there is delay we need a policy from the mayor to get these vital spaces reinstated as a priority. He funds these schemes and could make sure that contingency plans to protect community facilities are mandatory.” Bernice Miller, who runs sports and arts projects for local children, said: “What’s happened here on this estate is an abomination. There were years of discussions with our residents to get them to commit to play areas as part of their housing project. All of that for nothing. The council came to see us in January and said it could be two years until they even start the work again. “Free play is gone now because there is no space to gather and come together, particularly the younger ones. They also boarded up the main dog walking area so the remaining spaces are now covered in dog waste.” Miller learned recently that her application to continue funding the arts and sports projects she runs had been turned down by Southwark council. She says children urgently need space to play. “We are asking: please pull down the hoarding, give us some land for the children to play on.” Explore more on these topics Access to green space Communities London Local government Housing Children England news Share Reuse this content Families in south London say their children have stopped playing outside after communal spaces and playgrounds were ripped out to make room for new homes and then left boarded up when Southwark council ran out of money. The council began tearing down large parts of the Bells Gardens and Lindley estates in Peckham last August but abandoned the build in January due to a funding crisis driven by rising interest rates. All that remains of the previous play area is a small pitch surrounded by hoardings and out of sight of the flats. Experts warn the boarded-up area – which locals say is an “abomination” – illustrates a crisis in how social housing is funded as well as an urgent need for better laws to protect children’s play spaces. One parent, Rosie, who has two children aged six and three, says she relied heavily on the play spaces. “We went to that playground all the time. It was so convenient for burning off their energy. There were also loads of kids who were older and had their independence and would play out as one. The eight-, nine-, 10-year-olds. It’s just how I grew up. I could see them playing when I looked out of my window but they’ve all gone now.” She feels let down by the council. “I think they mustn’t have children to have let this happen. Or those that do, their children don’t live here so it doesn’t affect them.” View image in fullscreen Residents say green space is desperately needed. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian Southwark council says it is “extremely disappointed” to have had to stop the works – part of a commitment to build thousands of new social homes in the coming years. Helen Dennis, a councillor and cabinet member for new homes and sustainable development, told the Guardian the council was being hit by mounting costs. “Increased inflation, significantly higher building costs and interest rates following the government’s mini-budget a year ago have meant that councils across the country have had to change plans. “The residents of Bells Gardens worked so passionately with us to plan what was to happen on the estate. It’s incredibly disappointing. We will provide a playground and we are working as quickly as possible to get things moving again.” Protests grow against new council homes on green spaces in London Read more Residents protested during planning, and if finished the site would have delivered 1,575 sq metres of purpose-built play space for about 600 homes. Official guidance in the mayor’s London plan is that there should be 10 sq metres per child but pressure for denser builds means developers do not always meet this standard. The issue of protection of children’s spaces to play is the focus of an inquiry by the committee that scrutinises the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities that is taking evidence from planners, play experts and psychologists. The housing was to have been built as part of a controversial process known as “infill building” – seen as a key way to provide desperately needed affordable homes because it uses land councils already own. There is a massive national shortage of affordable homes with one in 23 children in London homeless and Southwark alone has 15,000 people on its housing waiting list, including many families living in bed and breakfast accommodation. View image in fullscreen Maryanne Vanson with her daughter on the balcony of her flat in Bells Gardens, Peckham. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian But residents say green spaces are desperately needed for the families who are living in flats with no gardens. Maryanne Vanson lives in a fourth-floor flat with her five children. She says a solution is needed that does not take space from those who already do not have enough. “I understand the need for housing, I’m overcrowded myself. But don’t take all our green space, our play space. There isn’t enough as it is in this area.” Dinah Bornat, an architect, told the Guardian more housing projects would be halted. “What has happened on this estate is a physical manifestation of a much wider housing crisis that is leaving thousands and thousands of children without homes. The way in which social housing is funded – the cross-subsidy model – is a failure. There are more situations like this coming down the pipeline, more housing projects will be abandoned as the money dries up.” Play spaces can be particularly badly affected when there are delays or funding problems for developments. Last year in New Cross, south London, residents protested over the continued failure of Peabody to return their park after taking it over to store building materials for several years. ‘Most of our children live in flats’: London park boarded up by developers Read more The London assembly member Siân Berry said there should be specific protection in policy for play spaces when developments hit a crisis. “This kind of blight to London’s neighbourhoods is a huge problem I’m seeing on other estates, particularly with so many being demolished and rebuilt. “If amenities are demolished and there is delay we need a policy from the mayor to get these vital spaces reinstated as a priority. He funds these schemes and could make sure that contingency plans to protect community facilities are mandatory.” Bernice Miller, who runs sports and arts projects for local children, said: “What’s happened here on this estate is an abomination. There were years of discussions with our residents to get them to commit to play areas as part of their housing project. All of that for nothing. The council came to see us in January and said it could be two years until they even start the work again. “Free play is gone now because there is no space to gather and come together, particularly the younger ones. They also boarded up the main dog walking area so the remaining spaces are now covered in dog waste.” Miller learned recently that her application to continue funding the arts and sports projects she runs had been turned down by Southwark council. She says children urgently need space to play. “We are asking: please pull down the hoarding, give us some land for the children to play on.” Families in south London say their children have stopped playing outside after communal spaces and playgrounds were ripped out to make room for new homes and then left boarded up when Southwark council ran out of money. The council began tearing down large parts of the Bells Gardens and Lindley estates in Peckham last August but abandoned the build in January due to a funding crisis driven by rising interest rates. All that remains of the previous play area is a small pitch surrounded by hoardings and out of sight of the flats. Experts warn the boarded-up area – which locals say is an “abomination” – illustrates a crisis in how social housing is funded as well as an urgent need for better laws to protect children’s play spaces. One parent, Rosie, who has two children aged six and three, says she relied heavily on the play spaces. “We went to that playground all the time. It was so convenient for burning off their energy. There were also loads of kids who were older and had their independence and would play out as one. The eight-, nine-, 10-year-olds. It’s just how I grew up. I could see them playing when I looked out of my window but they’ve all gone now.” She feels let down by the council. “I think they mustn’t have children to have let this happen. Or those that do, their children don’t live here so it doesn’t affect them.” View image in fullscreen Residents say green space is desperately needed. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian Southwark council says it is “extremely disappointed” to have had to stop the works – part of a commitment to build thousands of new social homes in the coming years. Helen Dennis, a councillor and cabinet member for new homes and sustainable development, told the Guardian the council was being hit by mounting costs. “Increased inflation, significantly higher building costs and interest rates following the government’s mini-budget a year ago have meant that councils across the country have had to change plans. “The residents of Bells Gardens worked so passionately with us to plan what was to happen on the estate. It’s incredibly disappointing. We will provide a playground and we are working as quickly as possible to get things moving again.” Protests grow against new council homes on green spaces in London Read more Residents protested during planning, and if finished the site would have delivered 1,575 sq metres of purpose-built play space for about 600 homes. Official guidance in the mayor’s London plan is that there should be 10 sq metres per child but pressure for denser builds means developers do not always meet this standard. The issue of protection of children’s spaces to play is the focus of an inquiry by the committee that scrutinises the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities that is taking evidence from planners, play experts and psychologists. The housing was to have been built as part of a controversial process known as “infill building” – seen as a key way to provide desperately needed affordable homes because it uses land councils already own. There is a massive national shortage of affordable homes with one in 23 children in London homeless and Southwark alone has 15,000 people on its housing waiting list, including many families living in bed and breakfast accommodation. View image in fullscreen Maryanne Vanson with her daughter on the balcony of her flat in Bells Gardens, Peckham. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian But residents say green spaces are desperately needed for the families who are living in flats with no gardens. Maryanne Vanson lives in a fourth-floor flat with her five children. She says a solution is needed that does not take space from those who already do not have enough. “I understand the need for housing, I’m overcrowded myself. But don’t take all our green space, our play space. There isn’t enough as it is in this area.” Dinah Bornat, an architect, told the Guardian more housing projects would be halted. “What has happened on this estate is a physical manifestation of a much wider housing crisis that is leaving thousands and thousands of children without homes. The way in which social housing is funded – the cross-subsidy model – is a failure. There are more situations like this coming down the pipeline, more housing projects will be abandoned as the money dries up.” Play spaces can be particularly badly affected when there are delays or funding problems for developments. Last year in New Cross, south London, residents protested over the continued failure of Peabody to return their park after taking it over to store building materials for several years. ‘Most of our children live in flats’: London park boarded up by developers Read more The London assembly member Siân Berry said there should be specific protection in policy for play spaces when developments hit a crisis. “This kind of blight to London’s neighbourhoods is a huge problem I’m seeing on other estates, particularly with so many being demolished and rebuilt. “If amenities are demolished and there is delay we need a policy from the mayor to get these vital spaces reinstated as a priority. He funds these schemes and could make sure that contingency plans to protect community facilities are mandatory.” Bernice Miller, who runs sports and arts projects for local children, said: “What’s happened here on this estate is an abomination. There were years of discussions with our residents to get them to commit to play areas as part of their housing project. All of that for nothing. The council came to see us in January and said it could be two years until they even start the work again. “Free play is gone now because there is no space to gather and come together, particularly the younger ones. They also boarded up the main dog walking area so the remaining spaces are now covered in dog waste.” Miller learned recently that her application to continue funding the arts and sports projects she runs had been turned down by Southwark council. She says children urgently need space to play. “We are asking: please pull down the hoarding, give us some land for the children to play on.” Families in south London say their children have stopped playing outside after communal spaces and playgrounds were ripped out to make room for new homes and then left boarded up when Southwark council ran out of money. The council began tearing down large parts of the Bells Gardens and Lindley estates in Peckham last August but abandoned the build in January due to a funding crisis driven by rising interest rates. All that remains of the previous play area is a small pitch surrounded by hoardings and out of sight of the flats. Experts warn the boarded-up area – which locals say is an “abomination” – illustrates a crisis in how social housing is funded as well as an urgent need for better laws to protect children’s play spaces. One parent, Rosie, who has two children aged six and three, says she relied heavily on the play spaces. “We went to that playground all the time. It was so convenient for burning off their energy. There were also loads of kids who were older and had their independence and would play out as one. The eight-, nine-, 10-year-olds. It’s just how I grew up. I could see them playing when I looked out of my window but they’ve all gone now.” She feels let down by the council. “I think they mustn’t have children to have let this happen. Or those that do, their children don’t live here so it doesn’t affect them.” Southwark council says it is “extremely disappointed” to have had to stop the works – part of a commitment to build thousands of new social homes in the coming years. Helen Dennis, a councillor and cabinet member for new homes and sustainable development, told the Guardian the council was being hit by mounting costs. “Increased inflation, significantly higher building costs and interest rates following the government’s mini-budget a year ago have meant that councils across the country have had to change plans. “The residents of Bells Gardens worked so passionately with us to plan what was to happen on the estate. It’s incredibly disappointing. We will provide a playground and we are working as quickly as possible to get things moving again.” Protests grow against new council homes on green spaces in London Read more Protests grow against new council homes on green spaces in London Read more Protests grow against new council homes on green spaces in London Read more Protests grow against new council homes on green spaces in London Protests grow against new council homes on green spaces in London Residents protested during planning, and if finished the site would have delivered 1,575 sq metres of purpose-built play space for about 600 homes. Official guidance in the mayor’s London plan is that there should be 10 sq metres per child but pressure for denser builds means developers do not always meet this standard. The issue of protection of children’s spaces to play is the focus of an inquiry by the committee that scrutinises the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities that is taking evidence from planners, play experts and psychologists. The housing was to have been built as part of a controversial process known as “infill building” – seen as a key way to provide desperately needed affordable homes because it uses land councils already own. There is a massive national shortage of affordable homes with one in 23 children in London homeless and Southwark alone has 15,000 people on its housing waiting list, including many families living in bed and breakfast accommodation. But residents say green spaces are desperately needed for the families who are living in flats with no gardens. Maryanne Vanson lives in a fourth-floor flat with her five children. She says a solution is needed that does not take space from those who already do not have enough. “I understand the need for housing, I’m overcrowded myself. But don’t take all our green space, our play space. There isn’t enough as it is in this area.” Dinah Bornat, an architect, told the Guardian more housing projects would be halted. “What has happened on this estate is a physical manifestation of a much wider housing crisis that is leaving thousands and thousands of children without homes. The way in which social housing is funded – the cross-subsidy model – is a failure. There are more situations like this coming down the pipeline, more housing projects will be abandoned as the money dries up.” Play spaces can be particularly badly affected when there are delays or funding problems for developments. Last year in New Cross, south London, residents protested over the continued failure of Peabody to return their park after taking it over to store building materials for several years. ‘Most of our children live in flats’: London park boarded up by developers Read more ‘Most of our children live in flats’: London park boarded up by developers Read more ‘Most of our children live in flats’: London park boarded up by developers Read more ‘Most of our children live in flats’: London park boarded up by developers ‘Most of our children live in flats’: London park boarded up by developers The London assembly member Siân Berry said there should be specific protection in policy for play spaces when developments hit a crisis. “This kind of blight to London’s neighbourhoods is a huge problem I’m seeing on other estates, particularly with so many being demolished and rebuilt. “If amenities are demolished and there is delay we need a policy from the mayor to get these vital spaces reinstated as a priority. He funds these schemes and could make sure that contingency plans to protect community facilities are mandatory.” Bernice Miller, who runs sports and arts projects for local children, said: “What’s happened here on this estate is an abomination. There were years of discussions with our residents to get them to commit to play areas as part of their housing project. All of that for nothing. The council came to see us in January and said it could be two years until they even start the work again. “Free play is gone now because there is no space to gather and come together, particularly the younger ones. They also boarded up the main dog walking area so the remaining spaces are now covered in dog waste.” Miller learned recently that her application to continue funding the arts and sports projects she runs had been turned down by Southwark council. She says children urgently need space to play. “We are asking: please pull down the hoarding, give us some land for the children to play on.” Explore more on these topics Access to green space Communities London Local government Housing Children England news Share Reuse this content Access to green space Communities London Local government Housing Children England news
|
Tales of pain and patience: the story behind the dentistry queue in Bristol
The queue was branded ‘a visual representation of the depth and scale of the crisis in NHS dentistry’. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA View image in fullscreen The queue was branded ‘a visual representation of the depth and scale of the crisis in NHS dentistry’. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA This article is more than 1 year old Tales of pain and patience: the story behind the dentistry queue in Bristol This article is more than 1 year old ‘The system is at breaking point, almost already broken,’ says senior dentist at newly opened practice The queue meandered into the distance, past offices, flats and houses; there were hundreds waiting, shoulder to shoulder, old and young. But this patient crowd were not tennis fans outside Wimbledon or mourning the loss of a monarch or hoping to purchase a bottle of Prime – they were trying to register for an NHS dentist in England in 2024. The scenes outside St Pauls Dental Practice in inner-city Bristol – where 1,500 patients were registered for NHS treatment in two days – became one of the defining images of the week. They have been branded “a visual representation of the depth and scale of the crisis in NHS dentistry”. View image in fullscreen Photograph: AA Access Scaffolding/SWNS The practice was previously a Bupa dental branch, which closed down in June last year. After a passionate campaign led by residents, it reopened under new ownership on Monday, with queues building as early as 5am and lasting well into Wednesday. At the same time, Rishi Sunak unveiled a £200m plan to restore NHS dentistry, which has been derided by professionals . Second through the door was Carol Sherman, 59, who lives opposite the practice. In the cold and dark she took her place at 5am on Monday, her car parked close by as a safety measure. “I was desperate and I thought I wanted to stand a chance to get it,” she said. “I thought the only thing to do is to get there.” Just when the branch closed last June, she started experiencing “excruciating pain” in her teeth and was left with no choice but to go private, spending upwards of £500 on two fillings. She did not want to have to spend that again. View image in fullscreen Staff at the NHS practice on Ashley Road were overwhelmed by 1,500 applicants in two days. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA Sisi Hussein, 39, was several places behind Sherman in the queue. She arrived at 8am to find about 40 people ahead of her, and waited in line for five hours before getting registered at 1pm. A St Pauls resident, she was an NHS patient under the previous Bupa ownership but since its closure she has moved between private practices seeking help. Hussein has spent about £600 on care for herself and her 16-year-old son. Previously working as a cleaner at a bowling alley, she is on universal credit after tripping on a pavement and injuring her foot. She is also on a waiting list for physiotherapy so she can return to work. Pliers, abscesses and agonising pain: Britain’s dental crisis – as seen from A&E Read more Faced with persistent pain in her tooth, she was at a loss. “I just couldn’t afford it, I’d already spent all my money at the dentist,” she said. During her registration check-up under the new ownership, she discovered her tooth would have to be removed, despite the money spent on private treatment. “All the money I had spent on private treatment, it was a waste,” she said. “It was just really hard to find an NHS dentist. They were all full, not taking patients on. It was so hard.” View image in fullscreen A notice on the practice door on Wednesday telling people they are not enrolling any more patients. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA Later on Monday, Rose Robinson, 47, from St Werburghs, a neighbouring suburb, arrived at 11am and spent three hours in the queue before being told by police to go home after a fight broke out further up the line. Determined to get a place, the healthcare assistant returned on Tuesday, when a ticketing system had been introduced, and spent 30 minutes in the queue before being registered. She had been a patient under the previous ownership since she was a child but lost her place on their books during the pandemic after not booking an appointment for more than a year. “I literally can’t afford private prices,” she said. “The same as many other people. So I was just praying that nothing would go wrong with my teeth.” Something did. One of her back teeth is cracked, causing pain when she bites down. “I’m just avoiding chewing on that side completely,” she said, adding she now hopes to get it fixed. Jen Witts, 43, joined the back of the queue around the same time Robinson went through the door and waited in the drizzle and cold for about two hours. She too was an NHS patient under the previous ownership and was able to get an appointment on the last day before it closed. The dentist identified a loose tooth, which they were unable to fix on the day, and it has remained loose. “I literally thought, I’m never going to have an NHS dentist again in my life,” the charity mental health facilitator said. “It’s been a real cause of stress and worry because I can’t afford private and when I came out I just started crying. I was so overwhelmed.” In the time the practice was closed, Witts moved to Saltford, a village east of Bristol, about 8 miles away. Even though St Pauls was the nearest practice accepting new adult NHS patients, Witts still felt some guilt. “Should I be trying? I did ask the dentist if it was OK my applying when I’m not local, even though I was a patient before. I work for a mental health charity in Bristol, so I kind of felt like I do my bit for the community.” Ukrainians in UK shocked by shortage of dentists, survey finds Read more According to the British Dental Association, 23,577 dentists carried out NHS work in the 2022-23 financial year, the lowest number since 2012. The BDA says the £3bn dental budget has remained static for a decade, falling in real terms by more than £1bn since 2010. Four in five dentists in England are not taking on new NHS patients, according to analysis by the Labour party. Of those the Guardian spoke to in the queue, all praised the Save St Pauls Dentists campaign for being instrumental in the return of the practice to the neighbourhood. Before the branch closed its doors under the previous management, protests began outside on a weekly basis, the group held meetings with NHS officials and the housing sssociation, hundreds of pounds were raised, and its petition garnered more than 1,500 signatures. Barbara Cook, a community artist and one of the campaign leads, said: “Campaigning works, it can work. Don’t just be beaten down and think you can’t do anything because now’s the time for us to stand up.” Cook said campaigners were horrified by the closure. “We thought, if we let this go, it will be GPs next. Because we know to get an appointment with a GP is horrendous.” She said the success of the group in working with public bodies showed what could be achieved if campaigners were not treated as “pesky protesters”. The community mobilisation, combined with the power of social media and the huge demand for NHS dentistry created the perfect storm for this week’s scenes, according to the dentists and managers at the practice. “The system is at breaking point, almost already broken,” said Gauri Pradhan, the principal dentist at the practice. “We need to fix it. I’m sure if there was better remuneration offered to the dentists people would look into getting back NHS contracts.” Pradhan said it had been challenging to run an NHS contract – “We are all passionate about NHS dentistry, there is a sense of pride” – but reveals previous experiences have seen them running at a loss to cover the contracts, and pointedly refers to the work as “charity”. Campaigners such as Cook are setting their sights on the wider issue. “For me, it’s far from over,” she said. “The battle for dentistry, this is just like it’s only just begun.” The alternative manifesto: Securing the future of the NHS On Tuesday 27 February, 8pm-9.15pm GMT, join Denis Campbell, Narda Ahmed, Siva Anandaciva and Greg Fell as they discuss what an alternative manifesto for health and social care could look like. Book tickets here or at theguardian.live Explore more on these topics Dentists NHS Bristol Health England Health policy Public services policy features Share Reuse this content The queue was branded ‘a visual representation of the depth and scale of the crisis in NHS dentistry’. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA View image in fullscreen The queue was branded ‘a visual representation of the depth and scale of the crisis in NHS dentistry’. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA This article is more than 1 year old Tales of pain and patience: the story behind the dentistry queue in Bristol This article is more than 1 year old ‘The system is at breaking point, almost already broken,’ says senior dentist at newly opened practice The queue meandered into the distance, past offices, flats and houses; there were hundreds waiting, shoulder to shoulder, old and young. But this patient crowd were not tennis fans outside Wimbledon or mourning the loss of a monarch or hoping to purchase a bottle of Prime – they were trying to register for an NHS dentist in England in 2024. The scenes outside St Pauls Dental Practice in inner-city Bristol – where 1,500 patients were registered for NHS treatment in two days – became one of the defining images of the week. They have been branded “a visual representation of the depth and scale of the crisis in NHS dentistry”. View image in fullscreen Photograph: AA Access Scaffolding/SWNS The practice was previously a Bupa dental branch, which closed down in June last year. After a passionate campaign led by residents, it reopened under new ownership on Monday, with queues building as early as 5am and lasting well into Wednesday. At the same time, Rishi Sunak unveiled a £200m plan to restore NHS dentistry, which has been derided by professionals . Second through the door was Carol Sherman, 59, who lives opposite the practice. In the cold and dark she took her place at 5am on Monday, her car parked close by as a safety measure. “I was desperate and I thought I wanted to stand a chance to get it,” she said. “I thought the only thing to do is to get there.” Just when the branch closed last June, she started experiencing “excruciating pain” in her teeth and was left with no choice but to go private, spending upwards of £500 on two fillings. She did not want to have to spend that again. View image in fullscreen Staff at the NHS practice on Ashley Road were overwhelmed by 1,500 applicants in two days. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA Sisi Hussein, 39, was several places behind Sherman in the queue. She arrived at 8am to find about 40 people ahead of her, and waited in line for five hours before getting registered at 1pm. A St Pauls resident, she was an NHS patient under the previous Bupa ownership but since its closure she has moved between private practices seeking help. Hussein has spent about £600 on care for herself and her 16-year-old son. Previously working as a cleaner at a bowling alley, she is on universal credit after tripping on a pavement and injuring her foot. She is also on a waiting list for physiotherapy so she can return to work. Pliers, abscesses and agonising pain: Britain’s dental crisis – as seen from A&E Read more Faced with persistent pain in her tooth, she was at a loss. “I just couldn’t afford it, I’d already spent all my money at the dentist,” she said. During her registration check-up under the new ownership, she discovered her tooth would have to be removed, despite the money spent on private treatment. “All the money I had spent on private treatment, it was a waste,” she said. “It was just really hard to find an NHS dentist. They were all full, not taking patients on. It was so hard.” View image in fullscreen A notice on the practice door on Wednesday telling people they are not enrolling any more patients. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA Later on Monday, Rose Robinson, 47, from St Werburghs, a neighbouring suburb, arrived at 11am and spent three hours in the queue before being told by police to go home after a fight broke out further up the line. Determined to get a place, the healthcare assistant returned on Tuesday, when a ticketing system had been introduced, and spent 30 minutes in the queue before being registered. She had been a patient under the previous ownership since she was a child but lost her place on their books during the pandemic after not booking an appointment for more than a year. “I literally can’t afford private prices,” she said. “The same as many other people. So I was just praying that nothing would go wrong with my teeth.” Something did. One of her back teeth is cracked, causing pain when she bites down. “I’m just avoiding chewing on that side completely,” she said, adding she now hopes to get it fixed. Jen Witts, 43, joined the back of the queue around the same time Robinson went through the door and waited in the drizzle and cold for about two hours. She too was an NHS patient under the previous ownership and was able to get an appointment on the last day before it closed. The dentist identified a loose tooth, which they were unable to fix on the day, and it has remained loose. “I literally thought, I’m never going to have an NHS dentist again in my life,” the charity mental health facilitator said. “It’s been a real cause of stress and worry because I can’t afford private and when I came out I just started crying. I was so overwhelmed.” In the time the practice was closed, Witts moved to Saltford, a village east of Bristol, about 8 miles away. Even though St Pauls was the nearest practice accepting new adult NHS patients, Witts still felt some guilt. “Should I be trying? I did ask the dentist if it was OK my applying when I’m not local, even though I was a patient before. I work for a mental health charity in Bristol, so I kind of felt like I do my bit for the community.” Ukrainians in UK shocked by shortage of dentists, survey finds Read more According to the British Dental Association, 23,577 dentists carried out NHS work in the 2022-23 financial year, the lowest number since 2012. The BDA says the £3bn dental budget has remained static for a decade, falling in real terms by more than £1bn since 2010. Four in five dentists in England are not taking on new NHS patients, according to analysis by the Labour party. Of those the Guardian spoke to in the queue, all praised the Save St Pauls Dentists campaign for being instrumental in the return of the practice to the neighbourhood. Before the branch closed its doors under the previous management, protests began outside on a weekly basis, the group held meetings with NHS officials and the housing sssociation, hundreds of pounds were raised, and its petition garnered more than 1,500 signatures. Barbara Cook, a community artist and one of the campaign leads, said: “Campaigning works, it can work. Don’t just be beaten down and think you can’t do anything because now’s the time for us to stand up.” Cook said campaigners were horrified by the closure. “We thought, if we let this go, it will be GPs next. Because we know to get an appointment with a GP is horrendous.” She said the success of the group in working with public bodies showed what could be achieved if campaigners were not treated as “pesky protesters”. The community mobilisation, combined with the power of social media and the huge demand for NHS dentistry created the perfect storm for this week’s scenes, according to the dentists and managers at the practice. “The system is at breaking point, almost already broken,” said Gauri Pradhan, the principal dentist at the practice. “We need to fix it. I’m sure if there was better remuneration offered to the dentists people would look into getting back NHS contracts.” Pradhan said it had been challenging to run an NHS contract – “We are all passionate about NHS dentistry, there is a sense of pride” – but reveals previous experiences have seen them running at a loss to cover the contracts, and pointedly refers to the work as “charity”. Campaigners such as Cook are setting their sights on the wider issue. “For me, it’s far from over,” she said. “The battle for dentistry, this is just like it’s only just begun.” The alternative manifesto: Securing the future of the NHS On Tuesday 27 February, 8pm-9.15pm GMT, join Denis Campbell, Narda Ahmed, Siva Anandaciva and Greg Fell as they discuss what an alternative manifesto for health and social care could look like. Book tickets here or at theguardian.live Explore more on these topics Dentists NHS Bristol Health England Health policy Public services policy features Share Reuse this content The queue was branded ‘a visual representation of the depth and scale of the crisis in NHS dentistry’. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA View image in fullscreen The queue was branded ‘a visual representation of the depth and scale of the crisis in NHS dentistry’. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA The queue was branded ‘a visual representation of the depth and scale of the crisis in NHS dentistry’. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA View image in fullscreen The queue was branded ‘a visual representation of the depth and scale of the crisis in NHS dentistry’. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA The queue was branded ‘a visual representation of the depth and scale of the crisis in NHS dentistry’. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA View image in fullscreen The queue was branded ‘a visual representation of the depth and scale of the crisis in NHS dentistry’. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA The queue was branded ‘a visual representation of the depth and scale of the crisis in NHS dentistry’. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA View image in fullscreen The queue was branded ‘a visual representation of the depth and scale of the crisis in NHS dentistry’. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA The queue was branded ‘a visual representation of the depth and scale of the crisis in NHS dentistry’. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA The queue was branded ‘a visual representation of the depth and scale of the crisis in NHS dentistry’. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA This article is more than 1 year old Tales of pain and patience: the story behind the dentistry queue in Bristol This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Tales of pain and patience: the story behind the dentistry queue in Bristol This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Tales of pain and patience: the story behind the dentistry queue in Bristol 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 system is at breaking point, almost already broken,’ says senior dentist at newly opened practice ‘The system is at breaking point, almost already broken,’ says senior dentist at newly opened practice ‘The system is at breaking point, almost already broken,’ says senior dentist at newly opened practice The queue meandered into the distance, past offices, flats and houses; there were hundreds waiting, shoulder to shoulder, old and young. But this patient crowd were not tennis fans outside Wimbledon or mourning the loss of a monarch or hoping to purchase a bottle of Prime – they were trying to register for an NHS dentist in England in 2024. The scenes outside St Pauls Dental Practice in inner-city Bristol – where 1,500 patients were registered for NHS treatment in two days – became one of the defining images of the week. They have been branded “a visual representation of the depth and scale of the crisis in NHS dentistry”. View image in fullscreen Photograph: AA Access Scaffolding/SWNS The practice was previously a Bupa dental branch, which closed down in June last year. After a passionate campaign led by residents, it reopened under new ownership on Monday, with queues building as early as 5am and lasting well into Wednesday. At the same time, Rishi Sunak unveiled a £200m plan to restore NHS dentistry, which has been derided by professionals . Second through the door was Carol Sherman, 59, who lives opposite the practice. In the cold and dark she took her place at 5am on Monday, her car parked close by as a safety measure. “I was desperate and I thought I wanted to stand a chance to get it,” she said. “I thought the only thing to do is to get there.” Just when the branch closed last June, she started experiencing “excruciating pain” in her teeth and was left with no choice but to go private, spending upwards of £500 on two fillings. She did not want to have to spend that again. View image in fullscreen Staff at the NHS practice on Ashley Road were overwhelmed by 1,500 applicants in two days. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA Sisi Hussein, 39, was several places behind Sherman in the queue. She arrived at 8am to find about 40 people ahead of her, and waited in line for five hours before getting registered at 1pm. A St Pauls resident, she was an NHS patient under the previous Bupa ownership but since its closure she has moved between private practices seeking help. Hussein has spent about £600 on care for herself and her 16-year-old son. Previously working as a cleaner at a bowling alley, she is on universal credit after tripping on a pavement and injuring her foot. She is also on a waiting list for physiotherapy so she can return to work. Pliers, abscesses and agonising pain: Britain’s dental crisis – as seen from A&E Read more Faced with persistent pain in her tooth, she was at a loss. “I just couldn’t afford it, I’d already spent all my money at the dentist,” she said. During her registration check-up under the new ownership, she discovered her tooth would have to be removed, despite the money spent on private treatment. “All the money I had spent on private treatment, it was a waste,” she said. “It was just really hard to find an NHS dentist. They were all full, not taking patients on. It was so hard.” View image in fullscreen A notice on the practice door on Wednesday telling people they are not enrolling any more patients. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA Later on Monday, Rose Robinson, 47, from St Werburghs, a neighbouring suburb, arrived at 11am and spent three hours in the queue before being told by police to go home after a fight broke out further up the line. Determined to get a place, the healthcare assistant returned on Tuesday, when a ticketing system had been introduced, and spent 30 minutes in the queue before being registered. She had been a patient under the previous ownership since she was a child but lost her place on their books during the pandemic after not booking an appointment for more than a year. “I literally can’t afford private prices,” she said. “The same as many other people. So I was just praying that nothing would go wrong with my teeth.” Something did. One of her back teeth is cracked, causing pain when she bites down. “I’m just avoiding chewing on that side completely,” she said, adding she now hopes to get it fixed. Jen Witts, 43, joined the back of the queue around the same time Robinson went through the door and waited in the drizzle and cold for about two hours. She too was an NHS patient under the previous ownership and was able to get an appointment on the last day before it closed. The dentist identified a loose tooth, which they were unable to fix on the day, and it has remained loose. “I literally thought, I’m never going to have an NHS dentist again in my life,” the charity mental health facilitator said. “It’s been a real cause of stress and worry because I can’t afford private and when I came out I just started crying. I was so overwhelmed.” In the time the practice was closed, Witts moved to Saltford, a village east of Bristol, about 8 miles away. Even though St Pauls was the nearest practice accepting new adult NHS patients, Witts still felt some guilt. “Should I be trying? I did ask the dentist if it was OK my applying when I’m not local, even though I was a patient before. I work for a mental health charity in Bristol, so I kind of felt like I do my bit for the community.” Ukrainians in UK shocked by shortage of dentists, survey finds Read more According to the British Dental Association, 23,577 dentists carried out NHS work in the 2022-23 financial year, the lowest number since 2012. The BDA says the £3bn dental budget has remained static for a decade, falling in real terms by more than £1bn since 2010. Four in five dentists in England are not taking on new NHS patients, according to analysis by the Labour party. Of those the Guardian spoke to in the queue, all praised the Save St Pauls Dentists campaign for being instrumental in the return of the practice to the neighbourhood. Before the branch closed its doors under the previous management, protests began outside on a weekly basis, the group held meetings with NHS officials and the housing sssociation, hundreds of pounds were raised, and its petition garnered more than 1,500 signatures. Barbara Cook, a community artist and one of the campaign leads, said: “Campaigning works, it can work. Don’t just be beaten down and think you can’t do anything because now’s the time for us to stand up.” Cook said campaigners were horrified by the closure. “We thought, if we let this go, it will be GPs next. Because we know to get an appointment with a GP is horrendous.” She said the success of the group in working with public bodies showed what could be achieved if campaigners were not treated as “pesky protesters”. The community mobilisation, combined with the power of social media and the huge demand for NHS dentistry created the perfect storm for this week’s scenes, according to the dentists and managers at the practice. “The system is at breaking point, almost already broken,” said Gauri Pradhan, the principal dentist at the practice. “We need to fix it. I’m sure if there was better remuneration offered to the dentists people would look into getting back NHS contracts.” Pradhan said it had been challenging to run an NHS contract – “We are all passionate about NHS dentistry, there is a sense of pride” – but reveals previous experiences have seen them running at a loss to cover the contracts, and pointedly refers to the work as “charity”. Campaigners such as Cook are setting their sights on the wider issue. “For me, it’s far from over,” she said. “The battle for dentistry, this is just like it’s only just begun.” The alternative manifesto: Securing the future of the NHS On Tuesday 27 February, 8pm-9.15pm GMT, join Denis Campbell, Narda Ahmed, Siva Anandaciva and Greg Fell as they discuss what an alternative manifesto for health and social care could look like. Book tickets here or at theguardian.live Explore more on these topics Dentists NHS Bristol Health England Health policy Public services policy features Share Reuse this content The queue meandered into the distance, past offices, flats and houses; there were hundreds waiting, shoulder to shoulder, old and young. But this patient crowd were not tennis fans outside Wimbledon or mourning the loss of a monarch or hoping to purchase a bottle of Prime – they were trying to register for an NHS dentist in England in 2024. The scenes outside St Pauls Dental Practice in inner-city Bristol – where 1,500 patients were registered for NHS treatment in two days – became one of the defining images of the week. They have been branded “a visual representation of the depth and scale of the crisis in NHS dentistry”. View image in fullscreen Photograph: AA Access Scaffolding/SWNS The practice was previously a Bupa dental branch, which closed down in June last year. After a passionate campaign led by residents, it reopened under new ownership on Monday, with queues building as early as 5am and lasting well into Wednesday. At the same time, Rishi Sunak unveiled a £200m plan to restore NHS dentistry, which has been derided by professionals . Second through the door was Carol Sherman, 59, who lives opposite the practice. In the cold and dark she took her place at 5am on Monday, her car parked close by as a safety measure. “I was desperate and I thought I wanted to stand a chance to get it,” she said. “I thought the only thing to do is to get there.” Just when the branch closed last June, she started experiencing “excruciating pain” in her teeth and was left with no choice but to go private, spending upwards of £500 on two fillings. She did not want to have to spend that again. View image in fullscreen Staff at the NHS practice on Ashley Road were overwhelmed by 1,500 applicants in two days. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA Sisi Hussein, 39, was several places behind Sherman in the queue. She arrived at 8am to find about 40 people ahead of her, and waited in line for five hours before getting registered at 1pm. A St Pauls resident, she was an NHS patient under the previous Bupa ownership but since its closure she has moved between private practices seeking help. Hussein has spent about £600 on care for herself and her 16-year-old son. Previously working as a cleaner at a bowling alley, she is on universal credit after tripping on a pavement and injuring her foot. She is also on a waiting list for physiotherapy so she can return to work. Pliers, abscesses and agonising pain: Britain’s dental crisis – as seen from A&E Read more Faced with persistent pain in her tooth, she was at a loss. “I just couldn’t afford it, I’d already spent all my money at the dentist,” she said. During her registration check-up under the new ownership, she discovered her tooth would have to be removed, despite the money spent on private treatment. “All the money I had spent on private treatment, it was a waste,” she said. “It was just really hard to find an NHS dentist. They were all full, not taking patients on. It was so hard.” View image in fullscreen A notice on the practice door on Wednesday telling people they are not enrolling any more patients. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA Later on Monday, Rose Robinson, 47, from St Werburghs, a neighbouring suburb, arrived at 11am and spent three hours in the queue before being told by police to go home after a fight broke out further up the line. Determined to get a place, the healthcare assistant returned on Tuesday, when a ticketing system had been introduced, and spent 30 minutes in the queue before being registered. She had been a patient under the previous ownership since she was a child but lost her place on their books during the pandemic after not booking an appointment for more than a year. “I literally can’t afford private prices,” she said. “The same as many other people. So I was just praying that nothing would go wrong with my teeth.” Something did. One of her back teeth is cracked, causing pain when she bites down. “I’m just avoiding chewing on that side completely,” she said, adding she now hopes to get it fixed. Jen Witts, 43, joined the back of the queue around the same time Robinson went through the door and waited in the drizzle and cold for about two hours. She too was an NHS patient under the previous ownership and was able to get an appointment on the last day before it closed. The dentist identified a loose tooth, which they were unable to fix on the day, and it has remained loose. “I literally thought, I’m never going to have an NHS dentist again in my life,” the charity mental health facilitator said. “It’s been a real cause of stress and worry because I can’t afford private and when I came out I just started crying. I was so overwhelmed.” In the time the practice was closed, Witts moved to Saltford, a village east of Bristol, about 8 miles away. Even though St Pauls was the nearest practice accepting new adult NHS patients, Witts still felt some guilt. “Should I be trying? I did ask the dentist if it was OK my applying when I’m not local, even though I was a patient before. I work for a mental health charity in Bristol, so I kind of felt like I do my bit for the community.” Ukrainians in UK shocked by shortage of dentists, survey finds Read more According to the British Dental Association, 23,577 dentists carried out NHS work in the 2022-23 financial year, the lowest number since 2012. The BDA says the £3bn dental budget has remained static for a decade, falling in real terms by more than £1bn since 2010. Four in five dentists in England are not taking on new NHS patients, according to analysis by the Labour party. Of those the Guardian spoke to in the queue, all praised the Save St Pauls Dentists campaign for being instrumental in the return of the practice to the neighbourhood. Before the branch closed its doors under the previous management, protests began outside on a weekly basis, the group held meetings with NHS officials and the housing sssociation, hundreds of pounds were raised, and its petition garnered more than 1,500 signatures. Barbara Cook, a community artist and one of the campaign leads, said: “Campaigning works, it can work. Don’t just be beaten down and think you can’t do anything because now’s the time for us to stand up.” Cook said campaigners were horrified by the closure. “We thought, if we let this go, it will be GPs next. Because we know to get an appointment with a GP is horrendous.” She said the success of the group in working with public bodies showed what could be achieved if campaigners were not treated as “pesky protesters”. The community mobilisation, combined with the power of social media and the huge demand for NHS dentistry created the perfect storm for this week’s scenes, according to the dentists and managers at the practice. “The system is at breaking point, almost already broken,” said Gauri Pradhan, the principal dentist at the practice. “We need to fix it. I’m sure if there was better remuneration offered to the dentists people would look into getting back NHS contracts.” Pradhan said it had been challenging to run an NHS contract – “We are all passionate about NHS dentistry, there is a sense of pride” – but reveals previous experiences have seen them running at a loss to cover the contracts, and pointedly refers to the work as “charity”. Campaigners such as Cook are setting their sights on the wider issue. “For me, it’s far from over,” she said. “The battle for dentistry, this is just like it’s only just begun.” The alternative manifesto: Securing the future of the NHS On Tuesday 27 February, 8pm-9.15pm GMT, join Denis Campbell, Narda Ahmed, Siva Anandaciva and Greg Fell as they discuss what an alternative manifesto for health and social care could look like. Book tickets here or at theguardian.live Explore more on these topics Dentists NHS Bristol Health England Health policy Public services policy features Share Reuse this content The queue meandered into the distance, past offices, flats and houses; there were hundreds waiting, shoulder to shoulder, old and young. But this patient crowd were not tennis fans outside Wimbledon or mourning the loss of a monarch or hoping to purchase a bottle of Prime – they were trying to register for an NHS dentist in England in 2024. The scenes outside St Pauls Dental Practice in inner-city Bristol – where 1,500 patients were registered for NHS treatment in two days – became one of the defining images of the week. They have been branded “a visual representation of the depth and scale of the crisis in NHS dentistry”. View image in fullscreen Photograph: AA Access Scaffolding/SWNS The practice was previously a Bupa dental branch, which closed down in June last year. After a passionate campaign led by residents, it reopened under new ownership on Monday, with queues building as early as 5am and lasting well into Wednesday. At the same time, Rishi Sunak unveiled a £200m plan to restore NHS dentistry, which has been derided by professionals . Second through the door was Carol Sherman, 59, who lives opposite the practice. In the cold and dark she took her place at 5am on Monday, her car parked close by as a safety measure. “I was desperate and I thought I wanted to stand a chance to get it,” she said. “I thought the only thing to do is to get there.” Just when the branch closed last June, she started experiencing “excruciating pain” in her teeth and was left with no choice but to go private, spending upwards of £500 on two fillings. She did not want to have to spend that again. View image in fullscreen Staff at the NHS practice on Ashley Road were overwhelmed by 1,500 applicants in two days. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA Sisi Hussein, 39, was several places behind Sherman in the queue. She arrived at 8am to find about 40 people ahead of her, and waited in line for five hours before getting registered at 1pm. A St Pauls resident, she was an NHS patient under the previous Bupa ownership but since its closure she has moved between private practices seeking help. Hussein has spent about £600 on care for herself and her 16-year-old son. Previously working as a cleaner at a bowling alley, she is on universal credit after tripping on a pavement and injuring her foot. She is also on a waiting list for physiotherapy so she can return to work. Pliers, abscesses and agonising pain: Britain’s dental crisis – as seen from A&E Read more Faced with persistent pain in her tooth, she was at a loss. “I just couldn’t afford it, I’d already spent all my money at the dentist,” she said. During her registration check-up under the new ownership, she discovered her tooth would have to be removed, despite the money spent on private treatment. “All the money I had spent on private treatment, it was a waste,” she said. “It was just really hard to find an NHS dentist. They were all full, not taking patients on. It was so hard.” View image in fullscreen A notice on the practice door on Wednesday telling people they are not enrolling any more patients. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA Later on Monday, Rose Robinson, 47, from St Werburghs, a neighbouring suburb, arrived at 11am and spent three hours in the queue before being told by police to go home after a fight broke out further up the line. Determined to get a place, the healthcare assistant returned on Tuesday, when a ticketing system had been introduced, and spent 30 minutes in the queue before being registered. She had been a patient under the previous ownership since she was a child but lost her place on their books during the pandemic after not booking an appointment for more than a year. “I literally can’t afford private prices,” she said. “The same as many other people. So I was just praying that nothing would go wrong with my teeth.” Something did. One of her back teeth is cracked, causing pain when she bites down. “I’m just avoiding chewing on that side completely,” she said, adding she now hopes to get it fixed. Jen Witts, 43, joined the back of the queue around the same time Robinson went through the door and waited in the drizzle and cold for about two hours. She too was an NHS patient under the previous ownership and was able to get an appointment on the last day before it closed. The dentist identified a loose tooth, which they were unable to fix on the day, and it has remained loose. “I literally thought, I’m never going to have an NHS dentist again in my life,” the charity mental health facilitator said. “It’s been a real cause of stress and worry because I can’t afford private and when I came out I just started crying. I was so overwhelmed.” In the time the practice was closed, Witts moved to Saltford, a village east of Bristol, about 8 miles away. Even though St Pauls was the nearest practice accepting new adult NHS patients, Witts still felt some guilt. “Should I be trying? I did ask the dentist if it was OK my applying when I’m not local, even though I was a patient before. I work for a mental health charity in Bristol, so I kind of felt like I do my bit for the community.” Ukrainians in UK shocked by shortage of dentists, survey finds Read more According to the British Dental Association, 23,577 dentists carried out NHS work in the 2022-23 financial year, the lowest number since 2012. The BDA says the £3bn dental budget has remained static for a decade, falling in real terms by more than £1bn since 2010. Four in five dentists in England are not taking on new NHS patients, according to analysis by the Labour party. Of those the Guardian spoke to in the queue, all praised the Save St Pauls Dentists campaign for being instrumental in the return of the practice to the neighbourhood. Before the branch closed its doors under the previous management, protests began outside on a weekly basis, the group held meetings with NHS officials and the housing sssociation, hundreds of pounds were raised, and its petition garnered more than 1,500 signatures. Barbara Cook, a community artist and one of the campaign leads, said: “Campaigning works, it can work. Don’t just be beaten down and think you can’t do anything because now’s the time for us to stand up.” Cook said campaigners were horrified by the closure. “We thought, if we let this go, it will be GPs next. Because we know to get an appointment with a GP is horrendous.” She said the success of the group in working with public bodies showed what could be achieved if campaigners were not treated as “pesky protesters”. The community mobilisation, combined with the power of social media and the huge demand for NHS dentistry created the perfect storm for this week’s scenes, according to the dentists and managers at the practice. “The system is at breaking point, almost already broken,” said Gauri Pradhan, the principal dentist at the practice. “We need to fix it. I’m sure if there was better remuneration offered to the dentists people would look into getting back NHS contracts.” Pradhan said it had been challenging to run an NHS contract – “We are all passionate about NHS dentistry, there is a sense of pride” – but reveals previous experiences have seen them running at a loss to cover the contracts, and pointedly refers to the work as “charity”. Campaigners such as Cook are setting their sights on the wider issue. “For me, it’s far from over,” she said. “The battle for dentistry, this is just like it’s only just begun.” The alternative manifesto: Securing the future of the NHS On Tuesday 27 February, 8pm-9.15pm GMT, join Denis Campbell, Narda Ahmed, Siva Anandaciva and Greg Fell as they discuss what an alternative manifesto for health and social care could look like. Book tickets here or at theguardian.live The queue meandered into the distance, past offices, flats and houses; there were hundreds waiting, shoulder to shoulder, old and young. But this patient crowd were not tennis fans outside Wimbledon or mourning the loss of a monarch or hoping to purchase a bottle of Prime – they were trying to register for an NHS dentist in England in 2024. The scenes outside St Pauls Dental Practice in inner-city Bristol – where 1,500 patients were registered for NHS treatment in two days – became one of the defining images of the week. They have been branded “a visual representation of the depth and scale of the crisis in NHS dentistry”. View image in fullscreen Photograph: AA Access Scaffolding/SWNS The practice was previously a Bupa dental branch, which closed down in June last year. After a passionate campaign led by residents, it reopened under new ownership on Monday, with queues building as early as 5am and lasting well into Wednesday. At the same time, Rishi Sunak unveiled a £200m plan to restore NHS dentistry, which has been derided by professionals . Second through the door was Carol Sherman, 59, who lives opposite the practice. In the cold and dark she took her place at 5am on Monday, her car parked close by as a safety measure. “I was desperate and I thought I wanted to stand a chance to get it,” she said. “I thought the only thing to do is to get there.” Just when the branch closed last June, she started experiencing “excruciating pain” in her teeth and was left with no choice but to go private, spending upwards of £500 on two fillings. She did not want to have to spend that again. View image in fullscreen Staff at the NHS practice on Ashley Road were overwhelmed by 1,500 applicants in two days. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA Sisi Hussein, 39, was several places behind Sherman in the queue. She arrived at 8am to find about 40 people ahead of her, and waited in line for five hours before getting registered at 1pm. A St Pauls resident, she was an NHS patient under the previous Bupa ownership but since its closure she has moved between private practices seeking help. Hussein has spent about £600 on care for herself and her 16-year-old son. Previously working as a cleaner at a bowling alley, she is on universal credit after tripping on a pavement and injuring her foot. She is also on a waiting list for physiotherapy so she can return to work. Pliers, abscesses and agonising pain: Britain’s dental crisis – as seen from A&E Read more Faced with persistent pain in her tooth, she was at a loss. “I just couldn’t afford it, I’d already spent all my money at the dentist,” she said. During her registration check-up under the new ownership, she discovered her tooth would have to be removed, despite the money spent on private treatment. “All the money I had spent on private treatment, it was a waste,” she said. “It was just really hard to find an NHS dentist. They were all full, not taking patients on. It was so hard.” View image in fullscreen A notice on the practice door on Wednesday telling people they are not enrolling any more patients. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA Later on Monday, Rose Robinson, 47, from St Werburghs, a neighbouring suburb, arrived at 11am and spent three hours in the queue before being told by police to go home after a fight broke out further up the line. Determined to get a place, the healthcare assistant returned on Tuesday, when a ticketing system had been introduced, and spent 30 minutes in the queue before being registered. She had been a patient under the previous ownership since she was a child but lost her place on their books during the pandemic after not booking an appointment for more than a year. “I literally can’t afford private prices,” she said. “The same as many other people. So I was just praying that nothing would go wrong with my teeth.” Something did. One of her back teeth is cracked, causing pain when she bites down. “I’m just avoiding chewing on that side completely,” she said, adding she now hopes to get it fixed. Jen Witts, 43, joined the back of the queue around the same time Robinson went through the door and waited in the drizzle and cold for about two hours. She too was an NHS patient under the previous ownership and was able to get an appointment on the last day before it closed. The dentist identified a loose tooth, which they were unable to fix on the day, and it has remained loose. “I literally thought, I’m never going to have an NHS dentist again in my life,” the charity mental health facilitator said. “It’s been a real cause of stress and worry because I can’t afford private and when I came out I just started crying. I was so overwhelmed.” In the time the practice was closed, Witts moved to Saltford, a village east of Bristol, about 8 miles away. Even though St Pauls was the nearest practice accepting new adult NHS patients, Witts still felt some guilt. “Should I be trying? I did ask the dentist if it was OK my applying when I’m not local, even though I was a patient before. I work for a mental health charity in Bristol, so I kind of felt like I do my bit for the community.” Ukrainians in UK shocked by shortage of dentists, survey finds Read more According to the British Dental Association, 23,577 dentists carried out NHS work in the 2022-23 financial year, the lowest number since 2012. The BDA says the £3bn dental budget has remained static for a decade, falling in real terms by more than £1bn since 2010. Four in five dentists in England are not taking on new NHS patients, according to analysis by the Labour party. Of those the Guardian spoke to in the queue, all praised the Save St Pauls Dentists campaign for being instrumental in the return of the practice to the neighbourhood. Before the branch closed its doors under the previous management, protests began outside on a weekly basis, the group held meetings with NHS officials and the housing sssociation, hundreds of pounds were raised, and its petition garnered more than 1,500 signatures. Barbara Cook, a community artist and one of the campaign leads, said: “Campaigning works, it can work. Don’t just be beaten down and think you can’t do anything because now’s the time for us to stand up.” Cook said campaigners were horrified by the closure. “We thought, if we let this go, it will be GPs next. Because we know to get an appointment with a GP is horrendous.” She said the success of the group in working with public bodies showed what could be achieved if campaign
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
‘She gave me Lennon’s shirt to wear on stage’: Moby, Peaches and more on their encounters with Yoko Ono
24-hour arty person … Yoko Ono. Photograph: Inez and Vinoodh/trunkarchive View image in fullscreen 24-hour arty person … Yoko Ono. Photograph: Inez and Vinoodh/trunkarchive This article is more than 1 year old ‘She gave me Lennon’s shirt to wear on stage’: Moby, Peaches and more on their encounters with Yoko Ono This article is more than 1 year old As a major retrospective of her work opens in London, artists and writers recall their brushes with a cultural one-off “I’m gonna stick around,” Yoko Ono warned her detractors in her 1997 song, Yes I’m a Witch. “We know you want things to stay as it is. It’s gonna change, baby.” The criticisms she was defending herself against are well known: that she was an impostor in the male-dominated rock music world of her husband John Lennon. No matter that she was an established artist in her own right, a member of the international avant garde art movement Fluxus, while campaigning for world peace. No matter that her 1964 work Cut Piece, where she sat quietly while the audience took a pair of scissors to her best clothes and stripped her on stage, became a feminist classic. Or that her instruction pieces in the hit book Grapefruit invited readers to see the world in a new way through tasks such as “recording the sound of snow” – a sentiment she and her co-writer Lennon explored in Imagine, one of the most beloved pop songs of all time. In the 1960s and 70s, when the women’s liberation movement was in its infancy, she was an Asian woman in the public eye. In other words, a threatening anomaly and an easy target for racist and misogynistic abuse. As it turned out, Yes I’m a Witch was prophetic: the cultural tide was about to turn. Sonic Youth included one of her scream pieces on their experimental album SYR4 in 1999. By 2007, alternative music royalty such as Cat Power, the Flaming Lips and Le Tigre lined up to remix her work. She was invited to curate 2013’s Meltdown music festival, while major art institutions such as New York’s Moma and London’s Serpentine Galleries exhibited her work. This month, Tate Modern will stage a far-reaching survey of the 90-year-old artist’s six-decade career. Here artists and writers who have been inspired by her work as an artist, musician, activist and, perhaps most of all, one of the world’s great nonconformists, give their insights into Ono’s staying power. Skye Sherwin View image in fullscreen Guerrilla Girls, Women In The World 2016, Photograph: Katie Booth Kathe Kollwitz Guerrilla Girls artist and activist Yoko never gives up. She is such a groundbreaking artist, feminist and activist who has triumphed over so much prejudice. In the Guerrilla Girls, we always try to do whatever we can to disrupt the public sphere, drawing attention to discrimination in the art world. One thing we really relate to is Yoko’s very important idea with the Bed-ins for Peace, with John Lennon in 1969, and other works that have had a giant effect on people. She always shows you something you didn’t really know before, in the hope of changing your mind. View image in fullscreen Yoko Ono’s Peace is Power installation, first realised 2017, in Yoko Ono The Learning Garden of Freedom, Porto, 2020. Photograph: Filipe Braga The Guerrilla Girls did a campaign in the UK a few years ago, asking people to go to their favourite museum, count the number of works by women and artists of colour v the number of naked females in artworks and let us know what they found out. We also installed one of our favourite billboards, the Estrogen Bomb [advertising a “new weapon” against male aggression], for Yoko Ono’s Meltdown festival in 2013. I first met Yoko in 2010, when she gave the Guerrilla Girls the Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award for the Arts. That’s one cool thing that she does, too: honouring political artists all over the world. When she started out, it was so difficult for any woman or artists of colour to get anywhere. The art world wants to love the few and throw everybody else out. She always wanted to reach out beyond the art world and use her platform to do that. At the Tate show, people won’t only have a wonderful time with her work, but also leave inspired to take action themselves. It’s life-affirming. As told to Skye Sherwin View image in fullscreen Peaches Photograph: Hadley Hudson Peaches Musician Yoko comes from a “give no fucks” place that I relate to. She’s going to express herself the way she wants. I love how her work is loud in a quiet way. Her gestures have to be finished by you, like the tasks for readers in her book of instructions Grapefruit. I especially love her 1967 film Bottoms, which was banned in the UK. It’s a movie of people’s bums, and to me, that’s super-inclusive and unrestricted. Everybody’s got a bum. Our relationship started when she asked me to remix her song Kiss, Kiss, Kiss in 2007. When she came to Berlin for her 80th birthday in 2013, I performed Yes I’m a Witch, my favourite Yoko song, with the Plastic Ono Band. On stage, she’s really spontaneous. While we were singing, she looked into my eyes, egging me on, like: “You’re a powerful witch.” View image in fullscreen Cutting edge … Yoko gets her clothes cut off in Cut Piece, 1964. Photograph: Yoko Ono Then she asked me to perform Cut Piece at Meltdown in 2013. As much as people think I get naked all the time on stage, I’ve never been fully naked. I was terrified. But I have never learned so much from a performance. I told her: “I want to do this the way that you have done it. I don’t want to move and I’m down for them cutting every single bit of cloth off my body.” She said: “Anybody can do it the way they do it.” She doesn’t want to give you direction, she wants you to have the experience. I’m sitting there with the scissors in front of me and there’s such drama, conflict, camaraderie. Some people wanted to protect me, others wanted to steal my shoe, or cut my hair. There was a whole universe. And I was just a witness to it. As told to Skye Sherwin View image in fullscreen Jean Yoon Photograph: Denise Grant Jean Yoon Actor and writer I came of age as a woman in the early 1980s, when, after John Lennon’s murder, Yoko Ono became the target of a toxic mix of racism, sexism and anti-elitist, anti-art sentiments. She was called a witch, blamed for the breakup of the Beatles, and her art was ridiculed. My hair was long like hers and I could not, under any circumstances, wear sunglasses without becoming the object of jeers or creepy innuendo. I realised I didn’t know anything about her. So I dug into her work, and the more I learned, the more intrigued I was, and the angrier I became on her behalf. She was the object of the kind of vitriol that Courtney Love later received. In response to her 1981 song Walking on Thin Ice, one callow critic wrote: “Mark David Chapman could have saved us all a lot of grief by aiming just one foot to the right.” View image in fullscreen The cheek of it … Yoko Ono, Film No 4 (Bottoms) 1966. Photograph: © Yoko Ono My research led me to create the multimedia performance art comedy The Yoko Ono Project, which premiered in Toronto in 2000, and tackles art and female identity from an Asian diasporic perspective. It brings together Ono’s work in various media, interwoven with the experiences of three Asian Canadian women who meet at a Yoko Ono event. With Ono’s support, I was able to incorporate her music, instruction poems, sculptures, films and words. I was lent clips from her films as well as an original 9 x 9 slide of Blood Object, a haunting blood-stained high-heeled shoe – one in a series created in response to her husband’s assassination. I wanted audiences to experience the breadth, whimsy, beauty and humour of her work, and to inspire Asian women like myself to say: “Go ahead, call me Yoko. You can’t hurt me. Not through her.” As told to Skye Sherwin skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Moby Photograph: Michael Kovac/Getty Images for Support + Feed Moby Musician My first and funniest encounter with Yoko was in the late 1980s, when I was studying at SUNY Purchase in New York. For a class on surrealism, my friend Paul and I decided to make a movie about a giant mushroom that he’d found. We imagined it was actually a space alien pod. We filmed it all over New York on these weird mushroom adventures. At one point we were filming on 72nd Street, and we looked up and Yoko was standing there smiling. She asked us what we were doing so we told her, then she and her friend just laughed and walked away. The second encounter was at a benefit concert at Radio City Music Hall after 9/11, to raise money for relief efforts and to honour the music of John Lennon. I played Across the Universe with Sean Lennon and Rufus Wainwright. Yoko came backstage; of course she didn’t remember our giant mushroom meeting but I told her the story and she laughed. And then she said: “I brought one of John’s shirts, if you want to wear it.” She told me she hadn’t washed it since he’d died. It fit perfectly, which was weird because I’d always assumed he was bigger than me. The moment the show was over I gave the shirt back. View image in fullscreen Art and craft … Yoko Ono’s, Add Colour (Refugee Boat), 2016. Photograph: /Yoko Ono/Musacchio/ Ianniello & Pasqualini When I was asked to do a remix for her 2016 album Yes, I’m a Witch Too, I said of course, as a free gesture of respect and appreciation. But I also said: “If you feel like paying me, all I want is a small piece of art from Yoko. I don’t care what it is – it could be a toothbrush with a ribbon tied around it.” I got a tiny little card with the words: “Ask the clouds to remember. Yoko 2013”. I think it’s remarkable that, considering she was one of the most unfairly maligned people of the 1970s and the 80s, she seemed to never be that defensive. She stayed active, she kept involved with the world. That fortitude is impressive. When everyone hates you, it’s a very hard thing to recognise that their opinions don’t ultimately matter. As told to Gabrielle Schwarz Jonathan Jones Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian Jonathan Jones Guardian art critic One thing I know about Yoko Ono is that she can say a lot in 20 minutes. That’s how long I had to interview her at the Guggenheim Bilbao a decade ago, when she was 81, yet her ideas and memories had an imagistic lucidity that made her philosophy instantly compelling. “The ladder John had to climb up was very high,” she said of her artwork Yes Painting, in which a ladder leads to the ceiling where you use a magnifying glass to read the tiny word “Yes”. Her words were literal yet seemed poetic: John Lennon, that bolshie rock star from Liverpool, had a long climb to reach the ethereal visionary heights. View image in fullscreen Fruit of her labour … Yoko Ono, Apple, 1966. Photograph: /Thomas Griesel/Moma, NY Speaking of her performance Cut Piece, first staged in Tokyo in 1964, in which audience members were invited to snip off pieces of her clothes, she denied that it was angry or a protest, instead explaining its origins in esoteric philosophy: “I was originally thinking of the Buddha and how he gave everything up.” Ono was not only Lennon’s lover but his guru, and a much better one than any of the other Beatles found. Her art is about acceptance, meditation, claiming your time and space to be. If Buddhism is one source, this way of thinking interfolded beautifully with the radicalism of the 1960s Fluxus movement, which sought to replace art objects with instructions, musical scores and acts. In the eyes of the Fluxus group, art is only real in the moment we interact with it and through it interact with others. Ono literally embodied this vision in her Cut Piece, accepting chance and letting the world act on her. John Lennon and Yoko Ono simulate making love – Allan Tannenbaum’s best photograph Read more She also defied the cliche of the 1960s as the age of pop art. There was nothing populist about Fluxus, with its appetite for drone music and 24-hour performances. So when she met Lennon it was a marriage of the most popular pop group of the era and one of its most obscure and enigmatic art movements. Yet you can’t separate Ono’s solo art from her experimental life with Lennon. Their bed-in for peace was Fluxus for the masses, bringing the freedom and courage of avant garde art into pop culture, letting the mockers mock so long as it reached millions who might care. We all have a high ladder to climb. Yoko Ono’s art is a map upwards, into the sky above us. Yoko Ono: Music of the Mind is at Tate Modern, London, 15 February to 1 September. Explore more on these topics Yoko Ono Art Performance art features Share Reuse this content 24-hour arty person … Yoko Ono. Photograph: Inez and Vinoodh/trunkarchive View image in fullscreen 24-hour arty person … Yoko Ono. Photograph: Inez and Vinoodh/trunkarchive This article is more than 1 year old ‘She gave me Lennon’s shirt to wear on stage’: Moby, Peaches and more on their encounters with Yoko Ono This article is more than 1 year old As a major retrospective of her work opens in London, artists and writers recall their brushes with a cultural one-off “I’m gonna stick around,” Yoko Ono warned her detractors in her 1997 song, Yes I’m a Witch. “We know you want things to stay as it is. It’s gonna change, baby.” The criticisms she was defending herself against are well known: that she was an impostor in the male-dominated rock music world of her husband John Lennon. No matter that she was an established artist in her own right, a member of the international avant garde art movement Fluxus, while campaigning for world peace. No matter that her 1964 work Cut Piece, where she sat quietly while the audience took a pair of scissors to her best clothes and stripped her on stage, became a feminist classic. Or that her instruction pieces in the hit book Grapefruit invited readers to see the world in a new way through tasks such as “recording the sound of snow” – a sentiment she and her co-writer Lennon explored in Imagine, one of the most beloved pop songs of all time. In the 1960s and 70s, when the women’s liberation movement was in its infancy, she was an Asian woman in the public eye. In other words, a threatening anomaly and an easy target for racist and misogynistic abuse. As it turned out, Yes I’m a Witch was prophetic: the cultural tide was about to turn. Sonic Youth included one of her scream pieces on their experimental album SYR4 in 1999. By 2007, alternative music royalty such as Cat Power, the Flaming Lips and Le Tigre lined up to remix her work. She was invited to curate 2013’s Meltdown music festival, while major art institutions such as New York’s Moma and London’s Serpentine Galleries exhibited her work. This month, Tate Modern will stage a far-reaching survey of the 90-year-old artist’s six-decade career. Here artists and writers who have been inspired by her work as an artist, musician, activist and, perhaps most of all, one of the world’s great nonconformists, give their insights into Ono’s staying power. Skye Sherwin View image in fullscreen Guerrilla Girls, Women In The World 2016, Photograph: Katie Booth Kathe Kollwitz Guerrilla Girls artist and activist Yoko never gives up. She is such a groundbreaking artist, feminist and activist who has triumphed over so much prejudice. In the Guerrilla Girls, we always try to do whatever we can to disrupt the public sphere, drawing attention to discrimination in the art world. One thing we really relate to is Yoko’s very important idea with the Bed-ins for Peace, with John Lennon in 1969, and other works that have had a giant effect on people. She always shows you something you didn’t really know before, in the hope of changing your mind. View image in fullscreen Yoko Ono’s Peace is Power installation, first realised 2017, in Yoko Ono The Learning Garden of Freedom, Porto, 2020. Photograph: Filipe Braga The Guerrilla Girls did a campaign in the UK a few years ago, asking people to go to their favourite museum, count the number of works by women and artists of colour v the number of naked females in artworks and let us know what they found out. We also installed one of our favourite billboards, the Estrogen Bomb [advertising a “new weapon” against male aggression], for Yoko Ono’s Meltdown festival in 2013. I first met Yoko in 2010, when she gave the Guerrilla Girls the Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award for the Arts. That’s one cool thing that she does, too: honouring political artists all over the world. When she started out, it was so difficult for any woman or artists of colour to get anywhere. The art world wants to love the few and throw everybody else out. She always wanted to reach out beyond the art world and use her platform to do that. At the Tate show, people won’t only have a wonderful time with her work, but also leave inspired to take action themselves. It’s life-affirming. As told to Skye Sherwin View image in fullscreen Peaches Photograph: Hadley Hudson Peaches Musician Yoko comes from a “give no fucks” place that I relate to. She’s going to express herself the way she wants. I love how her work is loud in a quiet way. Her gestures have to be finished by you, like the tasks for readers in her book of instructions Grapefruit. I especially love her 1967 film Bottoms, which was banned in the UK. It’s a movie of people’s bums, and to me, that’s super-inclusive and unrestricted. Everybody’s got a bum. Our relationship started when she asked me to remix her song Kiss, Kiss, Kiss in 2007. When she came to Berlin for her 80th birthday in 2013, I performed Yes I’m a Witch, my favourite Yoko song, with the Plastic Ono Band. On stage, she’s really spontaneous. While we were singing, she looked into my eyes, egging me on, like: “You’re a powerful witch.” View image in fullscreen Cutting edge … Yoko gets her clothes cut off in Cut Piece, 1964. Photograph: Yoko Ono Then she asked me to perform Cut Piece at Meltdown in 2013. As much as people think I get naked all the time on stage, I’ve never been fully naked. I was terrified. But I have never learned so much from a performance. I told her: “I want to do this the way that you have done it. I don’t want to move and I’m down for them cutting every single bit of cloth off my body.” She said: “Anybody can do it the way they do it.” She doesn’t want to give you direction, she wants you to have the experience. I’m sitting there with the scissors in front of me and there’s such drama, conflict, camaraderie. Some people wanted to protect me, others wanted to steal my shoe, or cut my hair. There was a whole universe. And I was just a witness to it. As told to Skye Sherwin View image in fullscreen Jean Yoon Photograph: Denise Grant Jean Yoon Actor and writer I came of age as a woman in the early 1980s, when, after John Lennon’s murder, Yoko Ono became the target of a toxic mix of racism, sexism and anti-elitist, anti-art sentiments. She was called a witch, blamed for the breakup of the Beatles, and her art was ridiculed. My hair was long like hers and I could not, under any circumstances, wear sunglasses without becoming the object of jeers or creepy innuendo. I realised I didn’t know anything about her. So I dug into her work, and the more I learned, the more intrigued I was, and the angrier I became on her behalf. She was the object of the kind of vitriol that Courtney Love later received. In response to her 1981 song Walking on Thin Ice, one callow critic wrote: “Mark David Chapman could have saved us all a lot of grief by aiming just one foot to the right.” View image in fullscreen The cheek of it … Yoko Ono, Film No 4 (Bottoms) 1966. Photograph: © Yoko Ono My research led me to create the multimedia performance art comedy The Yoko Ono Project, which premiered in Toronto in 2000, and tackles art and female identity from an Asian diasporic perspective. It brings together Ono’s work in various media, interwoven with the experiences of three Asian Canadian women who meet at a Yoko Ono event. With Ono’s support, I was able to incorporate her music, instruction poems, sculptures, films and words. I was lent clips from her films as well as an original 9 x 9 slide of Blood Object, a haunting blood-stained high-heeled shoe – one in a series created in response to her husband’s assassination. I wanted audiences to experience the breadth, whimsy, beauty and humour of her work, and to inspire Asian women like myself to say: “Go ahead, call me Yoko. You can’t hurt me. Not through her.” As told to Skye Sherwin skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Moby Photograph: Michael Kovac/Getty Images for Support + Feed Moby Musician My first and funniest encounter with Yoko was in the late 1980s, when I was studying at SUNY Purchase in New York. For a class on surrealism, my friend Paul and I decided to make a movie about a giant mushroom that he’d found. We imagined it was actually a space alien pod. We filmed it all over New York on these weird mushroom adventures. At one point we were filming on 72nd Street, and we looked up and Yoko was standing there smiling. She asked us what we were doing so we told her, then she and her friend just laughed and walked away. The second encounter was at a benefit concert at Radio City Music Hall after 9/11, to raise money for relief efforts and to honour the music of John Lennon. I played Across the Universe with Sean Lennon and Rufus Wainwright. Yoko came backstage; of course she didn’t remember our giant mushroom meeting but I told her the story and she laughed. And then she said: “I brought one of John’s shirts, if you want to wear it.” She told me she hadn’t washed it since he’d died. It fit perfectly, which was weird because I’d always assumed he was bigger than me. The moment the show was over I gave the shirt back. View image in fullscreen Art and craft … Yoko Ono’s, Add Colour (Refugee Boat), 2016. Photograph: /Yoko Ono/Musacchio/ Ianniello & Pasqualini When I was asked to do a remix for her 2016 album Yes, I’m a Witch Too, I said of course, as a free gesture of respect and appreciation. But I also said: “If you feel like paying me, all I want is a small piece of art from Yoko. I don’t care what it is – it could be a toothbrush with a ribbon tied around it.” I got a tiny little card with the words: “Ask the clouds to remember. Yoko 2013”. I think it’s remarkable that, considering she was one of the most unfairly maligned people of the 1970s and the 80s, she seemed to never be that defensive. She stayed active, she kept involved with the world. That fortitude is impressive. When everyone hates you, it’s a very hard thing to recognise that their opinions don’t ultimately matter. As told to Gabrielle Schwarz Jonathan Jones Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian Jonathan Jones Guardian art critic One thing I know about Yoko Ono is that she can say a lot in 20 minutes. That’s how long I had to interview her at the Guggenheim Bilbao a decade ago, when she was 81, yet her ideas and memories had an imagistic lucidity that made her philosophy instantly compelling. “The ladder John had to climb up was very high,” she said of her artwork Yes Painting, in which a ladder leads to the ceiling where you use a magnifying glass to read the tiny word “Yes”. Her words were literal yet seemed poetic: John Lennon, that bolshie rock star from Liverpool, had a long climb to reach the ethereal visionary heights. View image in fullscreen Fruit of her labour … Yoko Ono, Apple, 1966. Photograph: /Thomas Griesel/Moma, NY Speaking of her performance Cut Piece, first staged in Tokyo in 1964, in which audience members were invited to snip off pieces of her clothes, she denied that it was angry or a protest, instead explaining its origins in esoteric philosophy: “I was originally thinking of the Buddha and how he gave everything up.” Ono was not only Lennon’s lover but his guru, and a much better one than any of the other Beatles found. Her art is about acceptance, meditation, claiming your time and space to be. If Buddhism is one source, this way of thinking interfolded beautifully with the radicalism of the 1960s Fluxus movement, which sought to replace art objects with instructions, musical scores and acts. In the eyes of the Fluxus group, art is only real in the moment we interact with it and through it interact with others. Ono literally embodied this vision in her Cut Piece, accepting chance and letting the world act on her. John Lennon and Yoko Ono simulate making love – Allan Tannenbaum’s best photograph Read more She also defied the cliche of the 1960s as the age of pop art. There was nothing populist about Fluxus, with its appetite for drone music and 24-hour performances. So when she met Lennon it was a marriage of the most popular pop group of the era and one of its most obscure and enigmatic art movements. Yet you can’t separate Ono’s solo art from her experimental life with Lennon. Their bed-in for peace was Fluxus for the masses, bringing the freedom and courage of avant garde art into pop culture, letting the mockers mock so long as it reached millions who might care. We all have a high ladder to climb. Yoko Ono’s art is a map upwards, into the sky above us. Yoko Ono: Music of the Mind is at Tate Modern, London, 15 February to 1 September. Explore more on these topics Yoko Ono Art Performance art features Share Reuse this content 24-hour arty person … Yoko Ono. Photograph: Inez and Vinoodh/trunkarchive View image in fullscreen 24-hour arty person … Yoko Ono. Photograph: Inez and Vinoodh/trunkarchive 24-hour arty person … Yoko Ono. Photograph: Inez and Vinoodh/trunkarchive View image in fullscreen 24-hour arty person … Yoko Ono. Photograph: Inez and Vinoodh/trunkarchive 24-hour arty person … Yoko Ono. Photograph: Inez and Vinoodh/trunkarchive View image in fullscreen 24-hour arty person … Yoko Ono. Photograph: Inez and Vinoodh/trunkarchive 24-hour arty person … Yoko Ono. Photograph: Inez and Vinoodh/trunkarchive View image in fullscreen 24-hour arty person … Yoko Ono. Photograph: Inez and Vinoodh/trunkarchive 24-hour arty person … Yoko Ono. Photograph: Inez and Vinoodh/trunkarchive 24-hour arty person … Yoko Ono. Photograph: Inez and Vinoodh/trunkarchive This article is more than 1 year old ‘She gave me Lennon’s shirt to wear on stage’: Moby, Peaches and more on their encounters with Yoko Ono This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘She gave me Lennon’s shirt to wear on stage’: Moby, Peaches and more on their encounters with Yoko Ono This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘She gave me Lennon’s shirt to wear on stage’: Moby, Peaches and more on their encounters with Yoko Ono 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 As a major retrospective of her work opens in London, artists and writers recall their brushes with a cultural one-off As a major retrospective of her work opens in London, artists and writers recall their brushes with a cultural one-off As a major retrospective of her work opens in London, artists and writers recall their brushes with a cultural one-off “I’m gonna stick around,” Yoko Ono warned her detractors in her 1997 song, Yes I’m a Witch. “We know you want things to stay as it is. It’s gonna change, baby.” The criticisms she was defending herself against are well known: that she was an impostor in the male-dominated rock music world of her husband John Lennon. No matter that she was an established artist in her own right, a member of the international avant garde art movement Fluxus, while campaigning for world peace. No matter that her 1964 work Cut Piece, where she sat quietly while the audience took a pair of scissors to her best clothes and stripped her on stage, became a feminist classic. Or that her instruction pieces in the hit book Grapefruit invited readers to see the world in a new way through tasks such as “recording the sound of snow” – a sentiment she and her co-writer Lennon explored in Imagine, one of the most beloved pop songs of all time. In the 1960s and 70s, when the women’s liberation movement was in its infancy, she was an Asian woman in the public eye. In other words, a threatening anomaly and an easy target for racist and misogynistic abuse. As it turned out, Yes I’m a Witch was prophetic: the cultural tide was about to turn. Sonic Youth included one of her scream pieces on their experimental album SYR4 in 1999. By 2007, alternative music royalty such as Cat Power, the Flaming Lips and Le Tigre lined up to remix her work. She was invited to curate 2013’s Meltdown music festival, while major art institutions such as New York’s Moma and London’s Serpentine Galleries exhibited her work. This month, Tate Modern will stage a far-reaching survey of the 90-year-old artist’s six-decade career. Here artists and writers who have been inspired by her work as an artist, musician, activist and, perhaps most of all, one of the world’s great nonconformists, give their insights into Ono’s staying power. Skye Sherwin View image in fullscreen Guerrilla Girls, Women In The World 2016, Photograph: Katie Booth Kathe Kollwitz Guerrilla Girls artist and activist Yoko never gives up. She is such a groundbreaking artist, feminist and activist who has triumphed over so much prejudice. In the Guerrilla Girls, we always try to do whatever we can to disrupt the public sphere, drawing attention to discrimination in the art world. One thing we really relate to is Yoko’s very important idea with the Bed-ins for Peace, with John Lennon in 1969, and other works that have had a giant effect on people. She always shows you something you didn’t really know before, in the hope of changing your mind. View image in fullscreen Yoko Ono’s Peace is Power installation, first realised 2017, in Yoko Ono The Learning Garden of Freedom, Porto, 2020. Photograph: Filipe Braga The Guerrilla Girls did a campaign in the UK a few years ago, asking people to go to their favourite museum, count the number of works by women and artists of colour v the number of naked females in artworks and let us know what they found out. We also installed one of our favourite billboards, the Estrogen Bomb [advertising a “new weapon” against male aggression], for Yoko Ono’s Meltdown festival in 2013. I first met Yoko in 2010, when she gave the Guerrilla Girls the Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award for the Arts. That’s one cool thing that she does, too: honouring political artists all over the world. When she started out, it was so difficult for any woman or artists of colour to get anywhere. The art world wants to love the few and throw everybody else out. She always wanted to reach out beyond the art world and use her platform to do that. At the Tate show, people won’t only have a wonderful time with her work, but also leave inspired to take action themselves. It’s life-affirming. As told to Skye Sherwin View image in fullscreen Peaches Photograph: Hadley Hudson Peaches Musician Yoko comes from a “give no fucks” place that I relate to. She’s going to express herself the way she wants. I love how her work is loud in a quiet way. Her gestures have to be finished by you, like the tasks for readers in her book of instructions Grapefruit. I especially love her 1967 film Bottoms, which was banned in the UK. It’s a movie of people’s bums, and to me, that’s super-inclusive and unrestricted. Everybody’s got a bum. Our relationship started when she asked me to remix her song Kiss, Kiss, Kiss in 2007. When she came to Berlin for her 80th birthday in 2013, I performed Yes I’m a Witch, my favourite Yoko song, with the Plastic Ono Band. On stage, she’s really spontaneous. While we were singing, she looked into my eyes, egging me on, like: “You’re a powerful witch.” View image in fullscreen Cutting edge … Yoko gets her clothes cut off in Cut Piece, 1964. Photograph: Yoko Ono Then she asked me to perform Cut Piece at Meltdown in 2013. As much as people think I get naked all the time on stage, I’ve never been fully naked. I was terrified. But I have never learned so much from a performance. I told her: “I want to do this the way that you have done it. I don’t want to move and I’m down for them cutting every single bit of cloth off my body.” She said: “Anybody can do it the way they do it.” She doesn’t want to give you direction, she wants you to have the experience. I’m sitting there with the scissors in front of me and there’s such drama, conflict, camaraderie. Some people wanted to protect me, others wanted to steal my shoe, or cut my hair. There was a whole universe. And I was just a witness to it. As told to Skye Sherwin View image in fullscreen Jean Yoon Photograph: Denise Grant Jean Yoon Actor and writer I came of age as a woman in the early 1980s, when, after John Lennon’s murder, Yoko Ono became the target of a toxic mix of racism, sexism and anti-elitist, anti-art sentiments. She was called a witch, blamed for the breakup of the Beatles, and her art was ridiculed. My hair was long like hers and I could not, under any circumstances, wear sunglasses without becoming the object of jeers or creepy innuendo. I realised I didn’t know anything about her. So I dug into her work, and the more I learned, the more intrigued I was, and the angrier I became on her behalf. She was the object of the kind of vitriol that Courtney Love later received. In response to her 1981 song Walking on Thin Ice, one callow critic wrote: “Mark David Chapman could have saved us all a lot of grief by aiming just one foot to the right.” View image in fullscreen The cheek of it … Yoko Ono, Film No 4 (Bottoms) 1966. Photograph: © Yoko Ono My research led me to create the multimedia performance art comedy The Yoko Ono Project, which premiered in Toronto in 2000, and tackles art and female identity from an Asian diasporic perspective. It brings together Ono’s work in various media, interwoven with the experiences of three Asian Canadian women who meet at a Yoko Ono event. With Ono’s support, I was able to incorporate her music, instruction poems, sculptures, films and words. I was lent clips from her films as well as an original 9 x 9 slide of Blood Object, a haunting blood-stained high-heeled shoe – one in a series created in response to her husband’s assassination. I wanted audiences to experience the breadth, whimsy, beauty and humour of her work, and to inspire Asian women like myself to say: “Go ahead, call me Yoko. You can’t hurt me. Not through her.” As told to Skye Sherwin skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Moby Photograph: Michael Kovac/Getty Images for Support + Feed Moby Musician My first and funniest encounter with Yoko was in the late 1980s, when I was studying at SUNY Purchase in New York. For a class on surrealism, my friend Paul and I decided to make a movie about a giant mushroom that he’d found. We imagined it was actually a space alien pod. We filmed it all over New York on these weird mushroom adventures. At one point we were filming on 72nd Street, and we looked up and Yoko was standing there smiling. She asked us what we were doing so we told her, then she and her friend just laughed and walked away. The second encounter was at a benefit concert at Radio City Music Hall after 9/11, to raise money for relief efforts and to honour the music of John Lennon. I played Across the Universe with Sean Lennon and Rufus Wainwright. Yoko came backstage; of course she didn’t remember our giant mushroom meeting but I told her the story and she laughed. And then she said: “I brought one of John’s shirts, if you want to wear it.” She told me she hadn’t washed it since he’d died. It fit perfectly, which was weird because I’d always assumed he was bigger than me. The moment the show was over I gave the shirt back. View image in fullscreen Art and craft … Yoko Ono’s, Add Colour (Refugee Boat), 2016. Photograph: /Yoko Ono/Musacchio/ Ianniello & Pasqualini When I was asked to do a remix for her 2016 album Yes, I’m a Witch Too, I said of course, as a free gesture of respect and appreciation. But I also said: “If you feel like paying me, all I want is a small piece of art from Yoko. I don’t care what it is – it could be a toothbrush with a ribbon tied around it.” I got a tiny little card with the words: “Ask the clouds to remember. Yoko 2013”. I think it’s remarkable that, considering she was one of the most unfairly maligned people of the 1970s and the 80s, she seemed to never be that defensive. She stayed active, she kept involved with the world. That fortitude is impressive. When everyone hates you, it’s a very hard thing to recognise that their opinions don’t ultimately matter. As told to Gabrielle Schwarz Jonathan Jones Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian Jonathan Jones Guardian art critic One thing I know about Yoko Ono is that she can say a lot in 20 minutes. That’s how long I had to interview her at the Guggenheim Bilbao a decade ago, when she was 81, yet her ideas and memories had an imagistic lucidity that made her philosophy instantly compelling. “The ladder John had to climb up was very high,” she said of her artwork Yes Painting, in which a ladder leads to the ceiling where you use a magnifying glass to read the tiny word “Yes”. Her words were literal yet seemed poetic: John Lennon, that bolshie rock star from Liverpool, had a long climb to reach the ethereal visionary heights. View image in fullscreen Fruit of her labour … Yoko Ono, Apple, 1966. Photograph: /Thomas Griesel/Moma, NY Speaking of her performance Cut Piece, first staged in Tokyo in 1964, in which audience members were invited to snip off pieces of her clothes, she denied that it was angry or a protest, instead explaining its origins in esoteric philosophy: “I was originally thinking of the Buddha and how he gave everything up.” Ono was not only Lennon’s lover but his guru, and a much better one than any of the other Beatles found. Her art is about acceptance, meditation, claiming your time and space to be. If Buddhism is one source, this way of thinking interfolded beautifully with the radicalism of the 1960s Fluxus movement, which sought to replace art objects with instructions, musical scores and acts. In the eyes of the Fluxus group, art is only real in the moment we interact with it and through it interact with others. Ono literally embodied this vision in her Cut Piece, accepting chance and letting the world act on her. John Lennon and Yoko Ono simulate making love – Allan Tannenbaum’s best photograph Read more She also defied the cliche of the 1960s as the age of pop art. There was nothing populist about Fluxus, with its appetite for drone music and 24-hour performances. So when she met Lennon it was a marriage of the most popular pop group of the era and one of its most obscure and enigmatic art movements. Yet you can’t separate Ono’s solo art from her experimental life with Lennon. Their bed-in for peace was Fluxus for the masses, bringing the freedom and courage of avant garde art into pop culture, letting the mockers mock so long as it reached millions who might care. We all have a high ladder to climb. Yoko Ono’s art is a map upwards, into the sky above us. Yoko Ono: Music of the Mind is at Tate Modern, London, 15 February to 1 September. Explore more on these topics Yoko Ono Art Performance art features Share Reuse this content “I’m gonna stick around,” Yoko Ono warned her detractors in her 1997 song, Yes I’m a Witch. “We know you want things to stay as it is. It’s gonna change, baby.” The criticisms she was defending herself against are well known: that she was an impostor in the male-dominated rock music world of her husband John Lennon. No matter that she was an established artist in her own right, a member of the international avant garde art movement Fluxus, while campaigning for world peace. No matter that her 1964 work Cut Piece, where she sat quietly while the audience took a pair of scissors to her best clothes and stripped her on stage, became a feminist classic. Or that her instruction pieces in the hit book Grapefruit invited readers to see the world in a new way through tasks such as “recording the sound of snow” – a sentiment she and her co-writer Lennon explored in Imagine, one of the most beloved pop songs of all time. In the 1960s and 70s, when the women’s liberation movement was in its infancy, she was an Asian woman in the public eye. In other words, a threatening anomaly and an easy target for racist and misogynistic abuse. As it turned out, Yes I’m a Witch was prophetic: the cultural tide was about to turn. Sonic Youth included one of her scream pieces on their experimental album SYR4 in 1999. By 2007, alternative music royalty such as Cat Power, the Flaming Lips and Le Tigre lined up to remix her work. She was invited to curate 2013’s Meltdown music festival, while major art institutions such as New York’s Moma and London’s Serpentine Galleries exhibited her work. This month, Tate Modern will stage a far-reaching survey of the 90-year-old artist’s six-decade career. Here artists and writers who have been inspired by her work as an artist, musician, activist and, perhaps most of all, one of the world’s great nonconformists, give their insights into Ono’s staying power. Skye Sherwin View image in fullscreen Guerrilla Girls, Women In The World 2016, Photograph: Katie Booth Kathe Kollwitz Guerrilla Girls artist and activist Yoko never gives up. She is such a groundbreaking artist, feminist and activist who has triumphed over so much prejudice. In the Guerrilla Girls, we always try to do whatever we can to disrupt the public sphere, drawing attention to discrimination in the art world. One thing we really relate to is Yoko’s very important idea with the Bed-ins for Peace, with John Lennon in 1969, and other works that have had a giant effect on people. She always shows you something you didn’t really know before, in the hope of changing your mind. View image in fullscreen Yoko Ono’s Peace is Power installation, first realised 2017, in Yoko Ono The Learning Garden of Freedom, Porto, 2020. Photograph: Filipe Braga The Guerrilla Girls did a campaign in the UK a few years ago, asking people to go to their favourite museum, count the number of works by women and artists of colour v the number of naked females in artworks and let us know what they found out. We also installed one of our favourite billboards, the Estrogen Bomb [advertising a “new weapon” against male aggression], for Yoko Ono’s Meltdown festival in 2013. I first met Yoko in 2010, when she gave the Guerrilla Girls the Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award for the Arts. That’s one cool thing that she does, too: honouring political artists all over the world. When she started out, it was so difficult for any woman or artists of colour to get anywhere. The art world wants to love the few and throw everybody else out. She always wanted to reach out beyond the art world and use her platform to do that. At the Tate show, people won’t only have a wonderful time with her work, but also leave inspired to take action themselves. It’s life-affirming. As told to Skye Sherwin View image in fullscreen Peaches Photograph: Hadley Hudson Peaches Musician Yoko comes from a “give no fucks” place that I relate to. She’s going to express herself the way she wants. I love how her work is loud in a quiet way. Her gestures have to be finished by you, like the tasks for readers in her book of instructions Grapefruit. I especially love her 1967 film Bottoms, which was banned in the UK. It’s a movie of people’s bums, and to me, that’s super-inclusive and unrestricted. Everybody’s got a bum. Our relationship started when she asked me to remix her song Kiss, Kiss, Kiss in 2007. When she came to Berlin for her 80th birthday in 2013, I performed Yes I’m a Witch, my favourite Yoko song, with the Plastic Ono Band. On stage, she’s really spontaneous. While we were singing, she looked into my eyes, egging me on, like: “You’re a powerful witch.” View image in fullscreen Cutting edge … Yoko gets her clothes cut off in Cut Piece, 1964. Photograph: Yoko Ono Then she asked me to perform Cut Piece at Meltdown in 2013. As much as people think I get naked all the time on stage, I’ve never been fully naked. I was terrified. But I have never learned so much from a performance. I told her: “I want to do this the way that you have done it. I don’t want to move and I’m down for them cutting every single bit of cloth off my body.” She said: “Anybody can do it the way they do it.” She doesn’t want to give you direction, she wants you to have the experience. I’m sitting there with the scissors in front of me and there’s such drama, conflict, camaraderie. Some people wanted to protect me, others wanted to steal my shoe, or cut my hair. There was a whole universe. And I was just a witness to it. As told to Skye Sherwin View image in fullscreen Jean Yoon Photograph: Denise Grant Jean Yoon Actor and writer I came of age as a woman in the early 1980s, when, after John Lennon’s murder, Yoko Ono became the target of a toxic mix of racism, sexism and anti-elitist, anti-art sentiments. She was called a witch, blamed for the breakup of the Beatles, and her art was ridiculed. My hair was long like hers and I could not, under any circumstances, wear sunglasses without becoming the object of jeers or creepy innuendo. I realised I didn’t know anything about her. So I dug into her work, and the more I learned, the more intrigued I was, and the angrier I became on her behalf. She was the object of the kind of vitriol that Courtney Love later received. In response to her 1981 song Walking on Thin Ice, one callow critic wrote: “Mark David Chapman could have saved us all a lot of grief by aiming just one foot to the right.” View image in fullscreen The cheek of it … Yoko Ono, Film No 4 (Bottoms) 1966. Photograph: © Yoko Ono My research led me to create the multimedia performance art comedy The Yoko Ono Project, which premiered in Toronto in 2000, and tackles art and female identity from an Asian diasporic perspective. It brings together Ono’s work in various media, interwoven with the experiences of three Asian Canadian women who meet at a Yoko Ono event. With Ono’s support, I was able to incorporate her music, instruction poems, sculptures, films and words. I was lent clips from her films as well as an original 9 x 9 slide of Blood Object, a haunting blood-stained high-heeled shoe – one in a series created in response to her husband’s assassination. I wanted audiences to experience the breadth, whimsy, beauty and humour of her work, and to inspire Asian women like myself to say: “Go ahead, call me Yoko. You can’t hurt me. Not through her.” As told to Skye Sherwin skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Moby Photograph: Michael Kovac/Getty Images for Support + Feed Moby Musician My first and funniest encounter with Yoko was in the late 1980s, when I was studying at SUNY Purchase in New York. For a class on surrealism, my friend Paul and I decided to make a movie about a giant mushroom that he’d found. We imagined it was actually a space alien pod. We filmed it all over New York on these weird mushroom adventures. At one point we were filming on 72nd Street, and we looked up and Yoko was standing there smiling. She asked us what we were doing so we told her, then she and her friend just laughed and walked away. The second encounter was at a benefit concert at Radio City Music Hall after 9/11, to raise money for relief efforts and to honour the music of John Lennon. I played Across the Universe with Sean Lennon and Rufus Wainwright. Yoko came backstage; of course she didn’t remember our giant mushroom meeting but I told her the story and she laughed. And then she said: “I brought one of John’s shirts, if you want to wear it.” She told me she hadn’t washed it since he’d died. It fit perfectly, which was weird because I’d always assumed he was bigger than me. The moment the show was over I gave the shirt back. View image in fullscreen Art and craft … Yoko Ono’s, Add Colour (Refugee Boat), 2016. Photograph: /Yoko Ono/Musacchio/ Ianniello & Pasqualini When I was asked to do a remix for her 2016 album Yes, I’m a Witch Too, I said of course, as a free gesture of respect and appreciation. But I also said: “If you feel like paying me, all I want is a small piece of art from Yoko. I don’t care what it is – it could be a toothbrush with a ribbon tied around it.” I got a tiny little card with the words: “Ask the clouds to remember. Yoko 2013”. I think it’s remarkable that, considering she was one of the most unfairly maligned people of the 1970s and the 80s, she seemed to never be that defensive. She stayed active, she kept involved with the world. That fo
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
UK farmers vow to mount more blockades over cheap post-Brexit imports
Farmers slowed traffic on Friday near the port of Dover in Kent. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen Farmers slowed traffic on Friday near the port of Dover in Kent. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA This article is more than 1 year old UK farmers vow to mount more blockades over cheap post-Brexit imports This article is more than 1 year old Inspired by French action, British campaigners say they will continue slow tractor protests after Dover roads were blocked Farmers say there will be further French-style blockades following a slow tractor protest at Dover against low supermarket prices and cheap food imports from post-Brexit trade deals. Around 40 tractors and other farm vehicles blocked roads around the Kent port for several hours on Friday evening by driving slowly and carrying signs with slogans such as “No More Cheap Imports”. The Kent farmers are meeting again this week to discuss further action, and they may be joined by other campaigns fuelled by farmers’ simmering discontent. Last October farmers in Somerset attempted to block a Morrisons distribution centre in Bridgwater under a banner that said “Proud to Farm”. Then last week about 3,000 farmers gathered in Carmarthen, Wales, to protest, with some carrying a mock coffin with a plaque reading “In memory of Welsh farming”. Other campaigns have started up with similar themes, including Get Fair About Farming , which was set up last year by the founder of organic vegetable-box company Riverford, Guy Singh-Watson , with a petition debated in parliament last month. Andrew Gibson, who helped organise the Dover protest with his brother Jeff, said: “We’ve had support from all round the country. There will be other groups like us and they will make their presence felt – around the docks, around supermarket distribution centres.” The Kent farmers took inspiration from their counterparts in France who blocked motorways into Paris for more than a week until the government promised extra funds, looser regulation and protection against unfair competition. “I don’t think we’re getting into London, because we’d get shooed out pretty quickly, but I think we’d like to do that,” Gibson said. The protest on Friday afternoon was spontaneous – it had only been organised hours earlier, and the response so far has been “brilliant”, Gibson said. Gibson cited tariff-free wheat from Ukraine and cheap lamb from New Zealand among the reasons for farmers protesting. His brother Jeff told Radio 4’s Today programme: “Brexit has made things more difficult. Exporting things from the UK is much more difficult, and importing into the UK doesn’t seem to have changed.” Dover tractor protester says farmers could launch more demonstrations Read more Sustain , the food campaigners, warned in 2022 that UK farmers made far less than 1p profit from food they produce. A loaf of bread was worth 0.09p profit for a cereal farmer while a £2.50 block of cheddar was worth less than a penny for dairy farmers. Since then trade deals with Australia and New Zealand have come into force. Andrew Gibson said he had tried to buy British lamb in his local supermarket and found none. “The ethics are just appalling,” he said. “How you get a leg of lamb from New Zealand, the other side of the world, and sell that for £15 or £20 – it’s mind-boggling. “We’re getting a lot of produce from around the world that would be illegal to grow in this country,” he added. “We produce the best stuff to the highest standard. We just want a level playing field.” Brexit border checks and badly planned farm subsidies could plunge the UK into a food crisis Read more National Farmers’ Union (NFU) president Minette Batters said that years of “unsustainably high production costs and crop losses because of extreme weather” had put farmers under pressure. She said that public support for farmers was “invaluable”. “We do not take this support or its influence for granted, and it’s why protests should always be a last resort,” she said. A government spokesperson said that British farming was “at the heart of British trade”. “We’ve maintained the £2.4bn annual farming budget, which supports farmers to produce food profitably and sustainably, while protecting nature and helping to meet our net zero ambitions. Our new schemes offer something for every type of farm, and a crucial part of their development has been to listen to farmers’ feedback. “We are also looking at ways to further improve fairness in the supply chain and support British farmers and growers, as well as ensuring customers have access to high-quality fresh British products.” 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 Farming The Observer Supermarkets Retail industry Food & drink industry Agriculture Trade policy Brexit news Share Reuse this content Farmers slowed traffic on Friday near the port of Dover in Kent. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen Farmers slowed traffic on Friday near the port of Dover in Kent. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA This article is more than 1 year old UK farmers vow to mount more blockades over cheap post-Brexit imports This article is more than 1 year old Inspired by French action, British campaigners say they will continue slow tractor protests after Dover roads were blocked Farmers say there will be further French-style blockades following a slow tractor protest at Dover against low supermarket prices and cheap food imports from post-Brexit trade deals. Around 40 tractors and other farm vehicles blocked roads around the Kent port for several hours on Friday evening by driving slowly and carrying signs with slogans such as “No More Cheap Imports”. The Kent farmers are meeting again this week to discuss further action, and they may be joined by other campaigns fuelled by farmers’ simmering discontent. Last October farmers in Somerset attempted to block a Morrisons distribution centre in Bridgwater under a banner that said “Proud to Farm”. Then last week about 3,000 farmers gathered in Carmarthen, Wales, to protest, with some carrying a mock coffin with a plaque reading “In memory of Welsh farming”. Other campaigns have started up with similar themes, including Get Fair About Farming , which was set up last year by the founder of organic vegetable-box company Riverford, Guy Singh-Watson , with a petition debated in parliament last month. Andrew Gibson, who helped organise the Dover protest with his brother Jeff, said: “We’ve had support from all round the country. There will be other groups like us and they will make their presence felt – around the docks, around supermarket distribution centres.” The Kent farmers took inspiration from their counterparts in France who blocked motorways into Paris for more than a week until the government promised extra funds, looser regulation and protection against unfair competition. “I don’t think we’re getting into London, because we’d get shooed out pretty quickly, but I think we’d like to do that,” Gibson said. The protest on Friday afternoon was spontaneous – it had only been organised hours earlier, and the response so far has been “brilliant”, Gibson said. Gibson cited tariff-free wheat from Ukraine and cheap lamb from New Zealand among the reasons for farmers protesting. His brother Jeff told Radio 4’s Today programme: “Brexit has made things more difficult. Exporting things from the UK is much more difficult, and importing into the UK doesn’t seem to have changed.” Dover tractor protester says farmers could launch more demonstrations Read more Sustain , the food campaigners, warned in 2022 that UK farmers made far less than 1p profit from food they produce. A loaf of bread was worth 0.09p profit for a cereal farmer while a £2.50 block of cheddar was worth less than a penny for dairy farmers. Since then trade deals with Australia and New Zealand have come into force. Andrew Gibson said he had tried to buy British lamb in his local supermarket and found none. “The ethics are just appalling,” he said. “How you get a leg of lamb from New Zealand, the other side of the world, and sell that for £15 or £20 – it’s mind-boggling. “We’re getting a lot of produce from around the world that would be illegal to grow in this country,” he added. “We produce the best stuff to the highest standard. We just want a level playing field.” Brexit border checks and badly planned farm subsidies could plunge the UK into a food crisis Read more National Farmers’ Union (NFU) president Minette Batters said that years of “unsustainably high production costs and crop losses because of extreme weather” had put farmers under pressure. She said that public support for farmers was “invaluable”. “We do not take this support or its influence for granted, and it’s why protests should always be a last resort,” she said. A government spokesperson said that British farming was “at the heart of British trade”. “We’ve maintained the £2.4bn annual farming budget, which supports farmers to produce food profitably and sustainably, while protecting nature and helping to meet our net zero ambitions. Our new schemes offer something for every type of farm, and a crucial part of their development has been to listen to farmers’ feedback. “We are also looking at ways to further improve fairness in the supply chain and support British farmers and growers, as well as ensuring customers have access to high-quality fresh British products.” 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 Farming The Observer Supermarkets Retail industry Food & drink industry Agriculture Trade policy Brexit news Share Reuse this content Farmers slowed traffic on Friday near the port of Dover in Kent. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen Farmers slowed traffic on Friday near the port of Dover in Kent. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA Farmers slowed traffic on Friday near the port of Dover in Kent. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen Farmers slowed traffic on Friday near the port of Dover in Kent. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA Farmers slowed traffic on Friday near the port of Dover in Kent. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen Farmers slowed traffic on Friday near the port of Dover in Kent. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA Farmers slowed traffic on Friday near the port of Dover in Kent. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen Farmers slowed traffic on Friday near the port of Dover in Kent. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA Farmers slowed traffic on Friday near the port of Dover in Kent. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA Farmers slowed traffic on Friday near the port of Dover in Kent. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA This article is more than 1 year old UK farmers vow to mount more blockades over cheap post-Brexit imports This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old UK farmers vow to mount more blockades over cheap post-Brexit imports This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old UK farmers vow to mount more blockades over cheap post-Brexit imports 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 Inspired by French action, British campaigners say they will continue slow tractor protests after Dover roads were blocked Inspired by French action, British campaigners say they will continue slow tractor protests after Dover roads were blocked Inspired by French action, British campaigners say they will continue slow tractor protests after Dover roads were blocked Farmers say there will be further French-style blockades following a slow tractor protest at Dover against low supermarket prices and cheap food imports from post-Brexit trade deals. Around 40 tractors and other farm vehicles blocked roads around the Kent port for several hours on Friday evening by driving slowly and carrying signs with slogans such as “No More Cheap Imports”. The Kent farmers are meeting again this week to discuss further action, and they may be joined by other campaigns fuelled by farmers’ simmering discontent. Last October farmers in Somerset attempted to block a Morrisons distribution centre in Bridgwater under a banner that said “Proud to Farm”. Then last week about 3,000 farmers gathered in Carmarthen, Wales, to protest, with some carrying a mock coffin with a plaque reading “In memory of Welsh farming”. Other campaigns have started up with similar themes, including Get Fair About Farming , which was set up last year by the founder of organic vegetable-box company Riverford, Guy Singh-Watson , with a petition debated in parliament last month. Andrew Gibson, who helped organise the Dover protest with his brother Jeff, said: “We’ve had support from all round the country. There will be other groups like us and they will make their presence felt – around the docks, around supermarket distribution centres.” The Kent farmers took inspiration from their counterparts in France who blocked motorways into Paris for more than a week until the government promised extra funds, looser regulation and protection against unfair competition. “I don’t think we’re getting into London, because we’d get shooed out pretty quickly, but I think we’d like to do that,” Gibson said. The protest on Friday afternoon was spontaneous – it had only been organised hours earlier, and the response so far has been “brilliant”, Gibson said. Gibson cited tariff-free wheat from Ukraine and cheap lamb from New Zealand among the reasons for farmers protesting. His brother Jeff told Radio 4’s Today programme: “Brexit has made things more difficult. Exporting things from the UK is much more difficult, and importing into the UK doesn’t seem to have changed.” Dover tractor protester says farmers could launch more demonstrations Read more Sustain , the food campaigners, warned in 2022 that UK farmers made far less than 1p profit from food they produce. A loaf of bread was worth 0.09p profit for a cereal farmer while a £2.50 block of cheddar was worth less than a penny for dairy farmers. Since then trade deals with Australia and New Zealand have come into force. Andrew Gibson said he had tried to buy British lamb in his local supermarket and found none. “The ethics are just appalling,” he said. “How you get a leg of lamb from New Zealand, the other side of the world, and sell that for £15 or £20 – it’s mind-boggling. “We’re getting a lot of produce from around the world that would be illegal to grow in this country,” he added. “We produce the best stuff to the highest standard. We just want a level playing field.” Brexit border checks and badly planned farm subsidies could plunge the UK into a food crisis Read more National Farmers’ Union (NFU) president Minette Batters said that years of “unsustainably high production costs and crop losses because of extreme weather” had put farmers under pressure. She said that public support for farmers was “invaluable”. “We do not take this support or its influence for granted, and it’s why protests should always be a last resort,” she said. A government spokesperson said that British farming was “at the heart of British trade”. “We’ve maintained the £2.4bn annual farming budget, which supports farmers to produce food profitably and sustainably, while protecting nature and helping to meet our net zero ambitions. Our new schemes offer something for every type of farm, and a crucial part of their development has been to listen to farmers’ feedback. “We are also looking at ways to further improve fairness in the supply chain and support British farmers and growers, as well as ensuring customers have access to high-quality fresh British products.” 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 Farming The Observer Supermarkets Retail industry Food & drink industry Agriculture Trade policy Brexit news Share Reuse this content Farmers say there will be further French-style blockades following a slow tractor protest at Dover against low supermarket prices and cheap food imports from post-Brexit trade deals. Around 40 tractors and other farm vehicles blocked roads around the Kent port for several hours on Friday evening by driving slowly and carrying signs with slogans such as “No More Cheap Imports”. The Kent farmers are meeting again this week to discuss further action, and they may be joined by other campaigns fuelled by farmers’ simmering discontent. Last October farmers in Somerset attempted to block a Morrisons distribution centre in Bridgwater under a banner that said “Proud to Farm”. Then last week about 3,000 farmers gathered in Carmarthen, Wales, to protest, with some carrying a mock coffin with a plaque reading “In memory of Welsh farming”. Other campaigns have started up with similar themes, including Get Fair About Farming , which was set up last year by the founder of organic vegetable-box company Riverford, Guy Singh-Watson , with a petition debated in parliament last month. Andrew Gibson, who helped organise the Dover protest with his brother Jeff, said: “We’ve had support from all round the country. There will be other groups like us and they will make their presence felt – around the docks, around supermarket distribution centres.” The Kent farmers took inspiration from their counterparts in France who blocked motorways into Paris for more than a week until the government promised extra funds, looser regulation and protection against unfair competition. “I don’t think we’re getting into London, because we’d get shooed out pretty quickly, but I think we’d like to do that,” Gibson said. The protest on Friday afternoon was spontaneous – it had only been organised hours earlier, and the response so far has been “brilliant”, Gibson said. Gibson cited tariff-free wheat from Ukraine and cheap lamb from New Zealand among the reasons for farmers protesting. His brother Jeff told Radio 4’s Today programme: “Brexit has made things more difficult. Exporting things from the UK is much more difficult, and importing into the UK doesn’t seem to have changed.” Dover tractor protester says farmers could launch more demonstrations Read more Sustain , the food campaigners, warned in 2022 that UK farmers made far less than 1p profit from food they produce. A loaf of bread was worth 0.09p profit for a cereal farmer while a £2.50 block of cheddar was worth less than a penny for dairy farmers. Since then trade deals with Australia and New Zealand have come into force. Andrew Gibson said he had tried to buy British lamb in his local supermarket and found none. “The ethics are just appalling,” he said. “How you get a leg of lamb from New Zealand, the other side of the world, and sell that for £15 or £20 – it’s mind-boggling. “We’re getting a lot of produce from around the world that would be illegal to grow in this country,” he added. “We produce the best stuff to the highest standard. We just want a level playing field.” Brexit border checks and badly planned farm subsidies could plunge the UK into a food crisis Read more National Farmers’ Union (NFU) president Minette Batters said that years of “unsustainably high production costs and crop losses because of extreme weather” had put farmers under pressure. She said that public support for farmers was “invaluable”. “We do not take this support or its influence for granted, and it’s why protests should always be a last resort,” she said. A government spokesperson said that British farming was “at the heart of British trade”. “We’ve maintained the £2.4bn annual farming budget, which supports farmers to produce food profitably and sustainably, while protecting nature and helping to meet our net zero ambitions. Our new schemes offer something for every type of farm, and a crucial part of their development has been to listen to farmers’ feedback. “We are also looking at ways to further improve fairness in the supply chain and support British farmers and growers, as well as ensuring customers have access to high-quality fresh British products.” 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 Farming The Observer Supermarkets Retail industry Food & drink industry Agriculture Trade policy Brexit news Share Reuse this content Farmers say there will be further French-style blockades following a slow tractor protest at Dover against low supermarket prices and cheap food imports from post-Brexit trade deals. Around 40 tractors and other farm vehicles blocked roads around the Kent port for several hours on Friday evening by driving slowly and carrying signs with slogans such as “No More Cheap Imports”. The Kent farmers are meeting again this week to discuss further action, and they may be joined by other campaigns fuelled by farmers’ simmering discontent. Last October farmers in Somerset attempted to block a Morrisons distribution centre in Bridgwater under a banner that said “Proud to Farm”. Then last week about 3,000 farmers gathered in Carmarthen, Wales, to protest, with some carrying a mock coffin with a plaque reading “In memory of Welsh farming”. Other campaigns have started up with similar themes, including Get Fair About Farming , which was set up last year by the founder of organic vegetable-box company Riverford, Guy Singh-Watson , with a petition debated in parliament last month. Andrew Gibson, who helped organise the Dover protest with his brother Jeff, said: “We’ve had support from all round the country. There will be other groups like us and they will make their presence felt – around the docks, around supermarket distribution centres.” The Kent farmers took inspiration from their counterparts in France who blocked motorways into Paris for more than a week until the government promised extra funds, looser regulation and protection against unfair competition. “I don’t think we’re getting into London, because we’d get shooed out pretty quickly, but I think we’d like to do that,” Gibson said. The protest on Friday afternoon was spontaneous – it had only been organised hours earlier, and the response so far has been “brilliant”, Gibson said. Gibson cited tariff-free wheat from Ukraine and cheap lamb from New Zealand among the reasons for farmers protesting. His brother Jeff told Radio 4’s Today programme: “Brexit has made things more difficult. Exporting things from the UK is much more difficult, and importing into the UK doesn’t seem to have changed.” Dover tractor protester says farmers could launch more demonstrations Read more Sustain , the food campaigners, warned in 2022 that UK farmers made far less than 1p profit from food they produce. A loaf of bread was worth 0.09p profit for a cereal farmer while a £2.50 block of cheddar was worth less than a penny for dairy farmers. Since then trade deals with Australia and New Zealand have come into force. Andrew Gibson said he had tried to buy British lamb in his local supermarket and found none. “The ethics are just appalling,” he said. “How you get a leg of lamb from New Zealand, the other side of the world, and sell that for £15 or £20 – it’s mind-boggling. “We’re getting a lot of produce from around the world that would be illegal to grow in this country,” he added. “We produce the best stuff to the highest standard. We just want a level playing field.” Brexit border checks and badly planned farm subsidies could plunge the UK into a food crisis Read more National Farmers’ Union (NFU) president Minette Batters said that years of “unsustainably high production costs and crop losses because of extreme weather” had put farmers under pressure. She said that public support for farmers was “invaluable”. “We do not take this support or its influence for granted, and it’s why protests should always be a last resort,” she said. A government spokesperson said that British farming was “at the heart of British trade”. “We’ve maintained the £2.4bn annual farming budget, which supports farmers to produce food profitably and sustainably, while protecting nature and helping to meet our net zero ambitions. Our new schemes offer something for every type of farm, and a crucial part of their development has been to listen to farmers’ feedback. “We are also looking at ways to further improve fairness in the supply chain and support British farmers and growers, as well as ensuring customers have access to high-quality fresh British products.” Farmers say there will be further French-style blockades following a slow tractor protest at Dover against low supermarket prices and cheap food imports from post-Brexit trade deals. Around 40 tractors and other farm vehicles blocked roads around the Kent port for several hours on Friday evening by driving slowly and carrying signs with slogans such as “No More Cheap Imports”. The Kent farmers are meeting again this week to discuss further action, and they may be joined by other campaigns fuelled by farmers’ simmering discontent. Last October farmers in Somerset attempted to block a Morrisons distribution centre in Bridgwater under a banner that said “Proud to Farm”. Then last week about 3,000 farmers gathered in Carmarthen, Wales, to protest, with some carrying a mock coffin with a plaque reading “In memory of Welsh farming”. Other campaigns have started up with similar themes, including Get Fair About Farming , which was set up last year by the founder of organic vegetable-box company Riverford, Guy Singh-Watson , with a petition debated in parliament last month. Andrew Gibson, who helped organise the Dover protest with his brother Jeff, said: “We’ve had support from all round the country. There will be other groups like us and they will make their presence felt – around the docks, around supermarket distribution centres.” The Kent farmers took inspiration from their counterparts in France who blocked motorways into Paris for more than a week until the government promised extra funds, looser regulation and protection against unfair competition. “I don’t think we’re getting into London, because we’d get shooed out pretty quickly, but I think we’d like to do that,” Gibson said. The protest on Friday afternoon was spontaneous – it had only been organised hours earlier, and the response so far has been “brilliant”, Gibson said. Gibson cited tariff-free wheat from Ukraine and cheap lamb from New Zealand among the reasons for farmers protesting. His brother Jeff told Radio 4’s Today programme: “Brexit has made things more difficult. Exporting things from the UK is much more difficult, and importing into the UK doesn’t seem to have changed.” Dover tractor protester says farmers could launch more demonstrations Read more Sustain , the food campaigners, warned in 2022 that UK farmers made far less than 1p profit from food they produce. A loaf of bread was worth 0.09p profit for a cereal farmer while a £2.50 block of cheddar was worth less than a penny for dairy farmers. Since then trade deals with Australia and New Zealand have come into force. Andrew Gibson said he had tried to buy British lamb in his local supermarket and found none. “The ethics are just appalling,” he said. “How you get a leg of lamb from New Zealand, the other side of the world, and sell that for £15 or £20 – it’s mind-boggling. “We’re getting a lot of produce from around the world that would be illegal to grow in this country,” he added. “We produce the best stuff to the highest standard. We just want a level playing field.” Brexit border checks and badly planned farm subsidies could plunge the UK into a food crisis Read more National Farmers’ Union (NFU) president Minette Batters said that years of “unsustainably high production costs and crop losses because of extreme weather” had put farmers under pressure. She said that public support for farmers was “invaluable”. “We do not take this support or its influence for granted, and it’s why protests should always be a last resort,” she said. A government spokesperson said that British farming was “at the heart of British trade”. “We’ve maintained the £2.4bn annual farming budget, which supports farmers to produce food profitably and sustainably, while protecting nature and helping to meet our net zero ambitions. Our new schemes offer something for every type of farm, and a crucial part of their development has been to listen to farmers’ feedback. “We are also looking at ways to further improve fairness in the supply chain and support British farmers and growers, as well as ensuring customers have access to high-quality fresh British products.” Farmers say there will be further French-style blockades following a slow tractor protest at Dover against low supermarket prices and cheap food imports from post-Brexit trade deals. Around 40 tractors and other farm vehicles blocked roads around the Kent port for several hours on Friday evening by driving slowly and carrying signs with slogans such as “No More Cheap Imports”. The Kent farmers are meeting again this week to discuss further action, and they may be joined by other campaigns fuelled by farmers’ simmering discontent. Last October farmers in Somerset attempted to block a Morrisons distribution centre in Bridgwater under a banner that said “Proud to Farm”. Then last week about 3,000 farmers gathered in Carmarthen, Wales, to protest, with some carrying a mock coffin with a plaque reading “In memory of Welsh farming”. Other campaigns have started up with similar themes, including Get Fair About Farming , which was set up last year by the founder of organic vegetable-box company Riverford, Guy Singh-Watson , with a petition debated in parliament last month. Andrew Gibson, who helped organise the Dover protest with his brother Jeff, said: “We’ve had support from all round the country. There will be other groups like us and they will make their presence felt – around the docks, around supermarket distribution centres.” The Kent farmers took inspiration from their counterparts in France who blocked motorways into Paris for more than a week until the government promised extra funds, looser regulation and protection against unfair competition. “I don’t think we’re getting into London, because we’d get shooed out pretty quickly, but I think we’d like to do that,” Gibson said. The protest on Friday afternoon was spontaneous – it had only been organised hours earlier, and the response so far has been “brilliant”, Gibson said. Gibson cited tariff-free wheat from Ukraine and cheap lamb from New Zealand among the reasons for farmers protesting. His brother Jeff told Radio 4’s Today programme: “Brexit has made things more difficult. Exporting things from the UK is much more difficult, and importing into the UK doesn’t seem to have changed.” Dover tractor protester says farmers could launch more demonstrations Read more Dover tractor protester says farmers could launch more demonstrations Read more Dover tractor protester says farmers could launch more demonstrations Read more Dover tractor protester says farmers could launch more demonstrations Dover tractor protester says farmers could launch more demonstrations Sustain , the food campaigners, warned in 2022 that UK farmers made far less than 1p profit from food they produce. A loaf of bread was worth 0.09p profit for a cereal farmer while a £2.50 block of cheddar was worth less than a penny for dairy farmers. Since then trade deals with Australia and New Zealand have come into force. Andrew Gibson said he had tried to buy British lamb in his local supermarket and found none. “The ethics are just appalling,” he said. “How you get a leg of lamb from New Zealand, the other side of the world, and sell that for £15 or £20 – it’s mind-boggling. “We’re getting a lot of produce from around the world that would be illegal to grow in this country,” he added. “We produce the best stuff to the highest standard. We just want a level playing field.” Brexit border checks and badly planned farm subsidies could plunge the UK into a food crisis Read more Brexit border checks and badly planned farm subsidies could plunge the UK into a food crisis Read more Brexit border checks and badly planned farm subsidies could plunge the UK into a food crisis Read more Brexit border checks and badly planned farm subsidies could plunge the UK into a food crisis Brexit border checks and badly planned farm subsidies could plunge the UK into a food crisis National Farmers’ Union (NFU) president Minette Batters said that years of “unsustainably high production costs and crop losses because of extreme weather” had put farmers under pressure. She said that public support for farmers was “invaluable”. “We do not take this support or its influence for granted, and it’s why protests should always be a last resort,” she said. A government spokesperson said that British farming was “at the heart of British trade”. “We’ve maintained the £2.4bn annual farming budget, which supports farmers to produce food profitably and sustainably, while protecting nature and helping to meet our net zero ambitions. Our new schemes offer something for every type of farm, and a crucial part of their development has been to listen to farmers’ feedback. “We are also looking at ways to further improve fairness in the supply chain and support British farmers and growers, as well as ensuring customers have access to high-quality fresh British products.” 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 Farming The Observer Supermarkets Retail industry Food & drink industry Agriculture Trade policy Brexit news Share Reuse this content Farming The Observer Supermarkets Retail industry Food & drink industry Agriculture Trade policy Brexit news
|
Dover tractor protester says farmers could launch more demonstrations
Protesting farmers use their vehicles to cause disruption in Dover on Friday. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen Protesting farmers use their vehicles to cause disruption in Dover on Friday. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA This article is more than 1 year old Dover tractor protester says farmers could launch more demonstrations This article is more than 1 year old Organiser of go-slow protest says farmers in Europe have ‘shown us what can be accomplished’ The organiser of a protest in which tractor-driving farmers caused traffic jams around the Port of Dover has said there could be more demonstrations. Road traffic in and out of the Kent town was disrupted by the go-slow demonstration on Friday night. Farmers’ protests have been sweeping Europe for months, in countries such as Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France, where the government was taken by surprise by a motorway blockade of Paris. Jeff Gibson, a farmer from Wingham in Kent, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that farmers in Europe had “shown us what can be accomplished and hopefully the government start taking notice”. He said Brexit had made things more difficult for farmers. “This was a protest that was planned at lunchtime yesterday with 30 tractors. There’s tens and thousands of UK farmers that are angry and disgruntled at the moment so it could very easily escalate a lot further,” he said. “As UK farmers we are very good at talking in the pub and keeping quiet and complaining about how bad things are and we don’t take action like European farmers. It has got to the point where voices need to be heard.” Gibson posted on Facebook before the protest that it was against cheap imports and the government’s sustainable farming incentive (SFI) scheme. He wrote: “Time has come, enough is enough why are we as British farmers producing food to the highest standards in the world, only for the government to do trade deals with countries producing far cheaper food with little or no standards. As for the supermarkets selling British produce cheaper than the cost of production, shame on you. “The time has come to take a stance, if farming continues in this country as it is with the new SFI scheme actively encouraging us not to grow food and rely more on cheap imports none of us will exist once the government changes tack leaving us unequipped to grow anything.” A Kent police spokesperson said: “Kent police was called just after 5pm on Friday 9 February to a report of slow-moving vehicles in Jubilee Way, Dover. Officers are in attendance and working with the Port of Dover police on this matter.” A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “We firmly back our farmers. British farming is at the heart of British trade, and we put agriculture at the forefront of any deals we negotiate, prioritising new export opportunities and protecting UK food standards. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “We are looking at ways to improve fairness and support British farmers and growers, as well as ensuring customers have access to high-quality fresh British products.” Farmers in western Europe have fought with increasing ferocity in recent years against policies to protect the planet that they say cost too much. German farmers blocked city centres, highways and motorway slip roads with tractors last month at the start of a week-long nationwide protest over planned cuts to agricultural sector subsidies that the government said could be co-opted by rightwing extremists. Explore more on these topics Farming Kent Shipping industry Food & drink industry Food news Share Reuse this content Protesting farmers use their vehicles to cause disruption in Dover on Friday. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen Protesting farmers use their vehicles to cause disruption in Dover on Friday. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA This article is more than 1 year old Dover tractor protester says farmers could launch more demonstrations This article is more than 1 year old Organiser of go-slow protest says farmers in Europe have ‘shown us what can be accomplished’ The organiser of a protest in which tractor-driving farmers caused traffic jams around the Port of Dover has said there could be more demonstrations. Road traffic in and out of the Kent town was disrupted by the go-slow demonstration on Friday night. Farmers’ protests have been sweeping Europe for months, in countries such as Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France, where the government was taken by surprise by a motorway blockade of Paris. Jeff Gibson, a farmer from Wingham in Kent, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that farmers in Europe had “shown us what can be accomplished and hopefully the government start taking notice”. He said Brexit had made things more difficult for farmers. “This was a protest that was planned at lunchtime yesterday with 30 tractors. There’s tens and thousands of UK farmers that are angry and disgruntled at the moment so it could very easily escalate a lot further,” he said. “As UK farmers we are very good at talking in the pub and keeping quiet and complaining about how bad things are and we don’t take action like European farmers. It has got to the point where voices need to be heard.” Gibson posted on Facebook before the protest that it was against cheap imports and the government’s sustainable farming incentive (SFI) scheme. He wrote: “Time has come, enough is enough why are we as British farmers producing food to the highest standards in the world, only for the government to do trade deals with countries producing far cheaper food with little or no standards. As for the supermarkets selling British produce cheaper than the cost of production, shame on you. “The time has come to take a stance, if farming continues in this country as it is with the new SFI scheme actively encouraging us not to grow food and rely more on cheap imports none of us will exist once the government changes tack leaving us unequipped to grow anything.” A Kent police spokesperson said: “Kent police was called just after 5pm on Friday 9 February to a report of slow-moving vehicles in Jubilee Way, Dover. Officers are in attendance and working with the Port of Dover police on this matter.” A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “We firmly back our farmers. British farming is at the heart of British trade, and we put agriculture at the forefront of any deals we negotiate, prioritising new export opportunities and protecting UK food standards. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “We are looking at ways to improve fairness and support British farmers and growers, as well as ensuring customers have access to high-quality fresh British products.” Farmers in western Europe have fought with increasing ferocity in recent years against policies to protect the planet that they say cost too much. German farmers blocked city centres, highways and motorway slip roads with tractors last month at the start of a week-long nationwide protest over planned cuts to agricultural sector subsidies that the government said could be co-opted by rightwing extremists. Explore more on these topics Farming Kent Shipping industry Food & drink industry Food news Share Reuse this content Protesting farmers use their vehicles to cause disruption in Dover on Friday. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen Protesting farmers use their vehicles to cause disruption in Dover on Friday. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA Protesting farmers use their vehicles to cause disruption in Dover on Friday. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen Protesting farmers use their vehicles to cause disruption in Dover on Friday. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA Protesting farmers use their vehicles to cause disruption in Dover on Friday. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen Protesting farmers use their vehicles to cause disruption in Dover on Friday. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA Protesting farmers use their vehicles to cause disruption in Dover on Friday. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen Protesting farmers use their vehicles to cause disruption in Dover on Friday. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA Protesting farmers use their vehicles to cause disruption in Dover on Friday. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA Protesting farmers use their vehicles to cause disruption in Dover on Friday. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA This article is more than 1 year old Dover tractor protester says farmers could launch more demonstrations This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Dover tractor protester says farmers could launch more demonstrations This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Dover tractor protester says farmers could launch more demonstrations 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 Organiser of go-slow protest says farmers in Europe have ‘shown us what can be accomplished’ Organiser of go-slow protest says farmers in Europe have ‘shown us what can be accomplished’ Organiser of go-slow protest says farmers in Europe have ‘shown us what can be accomplished’ The organiser of a protest in which tractor-driving farmers caused traffic jams around the Port of Dover has said there could be more demonstrations. Road traffic in and out of the Kent town was disrupted by the go-slow demonstration on Friday night. Farmers’ protests have been sweeping Europe for months, in countries such as Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France, where the government was taken by surprise by a motorway blockade of Paris. Jeff Gibson, a farmer from Wingham in Kent, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that farmers in Europe had “shown us what can be accomplished and hopefully the government start taking notice”. He said Brexit had made things more difficult for farmers. “This was a protest that was planned at lunchtime yesterday with 30 tractors. There’s tens and thousands of UK farmers that are angry and disgruntled at the moment so it could very easily escalate a lot further,” he said. “As UK farmers we are very good at talking in the pub and keeping quiet and complaining about how bad things are and we don’t take action like European farmers. It has got to the point where voices need to be heard.” Gibson posted on Facebook before the protest that it was against cheap imports and the government’s sustainable farming incentive (SFI) scheme. He wrote: “Time has come, enough is enough why are we as British farmers producing food to the highest standards in the world, only for the government to do trade deals with countries producing far cheaper food with little or no standards. As for the supermarkets selling British produce cheaper than the cost of production, shame on you. “The time has come to take a stance, if farming continues in this country as it is with the new SFI scheme actively encouraging us not to grow food and rely more on cheap imports none of us will exist once the government changes tack leaving us unequipped to grow anything.” A Kent police spokesperson said: “Kent police was called just after 5pm on Friday 9 February to a report of slow-moving vehicles in Jubilee Way, Dover. Officers are in attendance and working with the Port of Dover police on this matter.” A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “We firmly back our farmers. British farming is at the heart of British trade, and we put agriculture at the forefront of any deals we negotiate, prioritising new export opportunities and protecting UK food standards. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “We are looking at ways to improve fairness and support British farmers and growers, as well as ensuring customers have access to high-quality fresh British products.” Farmers in western Europe have fought with increasing ferocity in recent years against policies to protect the planet that they say cost too much. German farmers blocked city centres, highways and motorway slip roads with tractors last month at the start of a week-long nationwide protest over planned cuts to agricultural sector subsidies that the government said could be co-opted by rightwing extremists. Explore more on these topics Farming Kent Shipping industry Food & drink industry Food news Share Reuse this content The organiser of a protest in which tractor-driving farmers caused traffic jams around the Port of Dover has said there could be more demonstrations. Road traffic in and out of the Kent town was disrupted by the go-slow demonstration on Friday night. Farmers’ protests have been sweeping Europe for months, in countries such as Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France, where the government was taken by surprise by a motorway blockade of Paris. Jeff Gibson, a farmer from Wingham in Kent, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that farmers in Europe had “shown us what can be accomplished and hopefully the government start taking notice”. He said Brexit had made things more difficult for farmers. “This was a protest that was planned at lunchtime yesterday with 30 tractors. There’s tens and thousands of UK farmers that are angry and disgruntled at the moment so it could very easily escalate a lot further,” he said. “As UK farmers we are very good at talking in the pub and keeping quiet and complaining about how bad things are and we don’t take action like European farmers. It has got to the point where voices need to be heard.” Gibson posted on Facebook before the protest that it was against cheap imports and the government’s sustainable farming incentive (SFI) scheme. He wrote: “Time has come, enough is enough why are we as British farmers producing food to the highest standards in the world, only for the government to do trade deals with countries producing far cheaper food with little or no standards. As for the supermarkets selling British produce cheaper than the cost of production, shame on you. “The time has come to take a stance, if farming continues in this country as it is with the new SFI scheme actively encouraging us not to grow food and rely more on cheap imports none of us will exist once the government changes tack leaving us unequipped to grow anything.” A Kent police spokesperson said: “Kent police was called just after 5pm on Friday 9 February to a report of slow-moving vehicles in Jubilee Way, Dover. Officers are in attendance and working with the Port of Dover police on this matter.” A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “We firmly back our farmers. British farming is at the heart of British trade, and we put agriculture at the forefront of any deals we negotiate, prioritising new export opportunities and protecting UK food standards. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “We are looking at ways to improve fairness and support British farmers and growers, as well as ensuring customers have access to high-quality fresh British products.” Farmers in western Europe have fought with increasing ferocity in recent years against policies to protect the planet that they say cost too much. German farmers blocked city centres, highways and motorway slip roads with tractors last month at the start of a week-long nationwide protest over planned cuts to agricultural sector subsidies that the government said could be co-opted by rightwing extremists. Explore more on these topics Farming Kent Shipping industry Food & drink industry Food news Share Reuse this content The organiser of a protest in which tractor-driving farmers caused traffic jams around the Port of Dover has said there could be more demonstrations. Road traffic in and out of the Kent town was disrupted by the go-slow demonstration on Friday night. Farmers’ protests have been sweeping Europe for months, in countries such as Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France, where the government was taken by surprise by a motorway blockade of Paris. Jeff Gibson, a farmer from Wingham in Kent, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that farmers in Europe had “shown us what can be accomplished and hopefully the government start taking notice”. He said Brexit had made things more difficult for farmers. “This was a protest that was planned at lunchtime yesterday with 30 tractors. There’s tens and thousands of UK farmers that are angry and disgruntled at the moment so it could very easily escalate a lot further,” he said. “As UK farmers we are very good at talking in the pub and keeping quiet and complaining about how bad things are and we don’t take action like European farmers. It has got to the point where voices need to be heard.” Gibson posted on Facebook before the protest that it was against cheap imports and the government’s sustainable farming incentive (SFI) scheme. He wrote: “Time has come, enough is enough why are we as British farmers producing food to the highest standards in the world, only for the government to do trade deals with countries producing far cheaper food with little or no standards. As for the supermarkets selling British produce cheaper than the cost of production, shame on you. “The time has come to take a stance, if farming continues in this country as it is with the new SFI scheme actively encouraging us not to grow food and rely more on cheap imports none of us will exist once the government changes tack leaving us unequipped to grow anything.” A Kent police spokesperson said: “Kent police was called just after 5pm on Friday 9 February to a report of slow-moving vehicles in Jubilee Way, Dover. Officers are in attendance and working with the Port of Dover police on this matter.” A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “We firmly back our farmers. British farming is at the heart of British trade, and we put agriculture at the forefront of any deals we negotiate, prioritising new export opportunities and protecting UK food standards. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “We are looking at ways to improve fairness and support British farmers and growers, as well as ensuring customers have access to high-quality fresh British products.” Farmers in western Europe have fought with increasing ferocity in recent years against policies to protect the planet that they say cost too much. German farmers blocked city centres, highways and motorway slip roads with tractors last month at the start of a week-long nationwide protest over planned cuts to agricultural sector subsidies that the government said could be co-opted by rightwing extremists. The organiser of a protest in which tractor-driving farmers caused traffic jams around the Port of Dover has said there could be more demonstrations. Road traffic in and out of the Kent town was disrupted by the go-slow demonstration on Friday night. Farmers’ protests have been sweeping Europe for months, in countries such as Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France, where the government was taken by surprise by a motorway blockade of Paris. Jeff Gibson, a farmer from Wingham in Kent, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that farmers in Europe had “shown us what can be accomplished and hopefully the government start taking notice”. He said Brexit had made things more difficult for farmers. “This was a protest that was planned at lunchtime yesterday with 30 tractors. There’s tens and thousands of UK farmers that are angry and disgruntled at the moment so it could very easily escalate a lot further,” he said. “As UK farmers we are very good at talking in the pub and keeping quiet and complaining about how bad things are and we don’t take action like European farmers. It has got to the point where voices need to be heard.” Gibson posted on Facebook before the protest that it was against cheap imports and the government’s sustainable farming incentive (SFI) scheme. He wrote: “Time has come, enough is enough why are we as British farmers producing food to the highest standards in the world, only for the government to do trade deals with countries producing far cheaper food with little or no standards. As for the supermarkets selling British produce cheaper than the cost of production, shame on you. “The time has come to take a stance, if farming continues in this country as it is with the new SFI scheme actively encouraging us not to grow food and rely more on cheap imports none of us will exist once the government changes tack leaving us unequipped to grow anything.” A Kent police spokesperson said: “Kent police was called just after 5pm on Friday 9 February to a report of slow-moving vehicles in Jubilee Way, Dover. Officers are in attendance and working with the Port of Dover police on this matter.” A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “We firmly back our farmers. British farming is at the heart of British trade, and we put agriculture at the forefront of any deals we negotiate, prioritising new export opportunities and protecting UK food standards. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “We are looking at ways to improve fairness and support British farmers and growers, as well as ensuring customers have access to high-quality fresh British products.” Farmers in western Europe have fought with increasing ferocity in recent years against policies to protect the planet that they say cost too much. German farmers blocked city centres, highways and motorway slip roads with tractors last month at the start of a week-long nationwide protest over planned cuts to agricultural sector subsidies that the government said could be co-opted by rightwing extremists. The organiser of a protest in which tractor-driving farmers caused traffic jams around the Port of Dover has said there could be more demonstrations. Road traffic in and out of the Kent town was disrupted by the go-slow demonstration on Friday night. Farmers’ protests have been sweeping Europe for months, in countries such as Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France, where the government was taken by surprise by a motorway blockade of Paris. Jeff Gibson, a farmer from Wingham in Kent, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that farmers in Europe had “shown us what can be accomplished and hopefully the government start taking notice”. He said Brexit had made things more difficult for farmers. “This was a protest that was planned at lunchtime yesterday with 30 tractors. There’s tens and thousands of UK farmers that are angry and disgruntled at the moment so it could very easily escalate a lot further,” he said. “As UK farmers we are very good at talking in the pub and keeping quiet and complaining about how bad things are and we don’t take action like European farmers. It has got to the point where voices need to be heard.” Gibson posted on Facebook before the protest that it was against cheap imports and the government’s sustainable farming incentive (SFI) scheme. He wrote: “Time has come, enough is enough why are we as British farmers producing food to the highest standards in the world, only for the government to do trade deals with countries producing far cheaper food with little or no standards. As for the supermarkets selling British produce cheaper than the cost of production, shame on you. “The time has come to take a stance, if farming continues in this country as it is with the new SFI scheme actively encouraging us not to grow food and rely more on cheap imports none of us will exist once the government changes tack leaving us unequipped to grow anything.” A Kent police spokesperson said: “Kent police was called just after 5pm on Friday 9 February to a report of slow-moving vehicles in Jubilee Way, Dover. Officers are in attendance and working with the Port of Dover police on this matter.” A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “We firmly back our farmers. British farming is at the heart of British trade, and we put agriculture at the forefront of any deals we negotiate, prioritising new export opportunities and protecting UK food standards. “We are looking at ways to improve fairness and support British farmers and growers, as well as ensuring customers have access to high-quality fresh British products.” Farmers in western Europe have fought with increasing ferocity in recent years against policies to protect the planet that they say cost too much. German farmers blocked city centres, highways and motorway slip roads with tractors last month at the start of a week-long nationwide protest over planned cuts to agricultural sector subsidies that the government said could be co-opted by rightwing extremists. Explore more on these topics Farming Kent Shipping industry Food & drink industry Food news Share Reuse this content Farming Kent Shipping industry Food & drink industry Food news
|
Texas took over a failing Houston school district. Will its militaristic structure work?
Students arrive for the first day of school at Phillis Wheatley high school in Houston, Texas, on 28 August 2023. Photograph: Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images View image in fullscreen Students arrive for the first day of school at Phillis Wheatley high school in Houston, Texas, on 28 August 2023. Photograph: Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Texas took over a failing Houston school district. Will its militaristic structure work? This article is more than 1 year old The state appointed administrators and brought in a former army ranger as superintendent, who brought questionable lessons with him I n the fashion of American democracy, when someone believes there’s a problem with their local school, they may decide to make a call or send an email to their elected school board members, whom they almost always have to look up first. Parents might take these minor elected officials by the figurative shirt collar and gently shake them, saying: “I want this thing to change.” They may then gather their surly neighbors and gang up on the school board to not-so-gently threaten their re-election until someone is thrown out of office or everyone else gives up. Florida schoolkids may have to study ‘threat of communism in the US’ Read more Houstonians were getting arrested at rowdy school board meetings years before “critical race theory” made such things fashionable. In 2017, three women were arrested – and two charged – after getting into a shoving match when the Houston school board had been considering a plan to turn over its failing schools to a charter program, to get out from under the threatened state takeover. The board abandoned the plan. But it’s one thing for activists to lobby someone who lives up the street and another when state lawmakers take control, as has happened in Houston. Under a 2015 Texas law, if a school fails state standards for five years running, the state is obligated to either close the school – or take over the school district. In 2023, the entire Houston independent school district – the eighth-largest system in the country – became a dependency of the state. Houston homeowners still pay school taxes. They even vote for school board members, though those elected officials have no authority. The state-run district places underperforming schools in the New Education System (NES), which critics describe as a reform model of inflexible lesson plans in a rigidly disciplinarian environment geared toward passing tests. The curriculum is questionable: in one instance, a school used instructional materials from the conservative non-profit PragerU that cast doubt on the human-made origins of climate change. In another, seventh graders were asked to imagine themselves as statehood convention delegates and asked whether slavery in Texas should be legal. Parents have protested new rules that abandon state requirements for certified teachers in classrooms. They argue that Spanish-speaking students are no longer receiving adequately bilingual instruction. They see the conversion of a school in a struggling part of Houston into a military academy as a challenge to their values. But now, there is no shirt collar to grab. T he halls of Phillis Wheatley high school were quiet in the middle of the day in the middle of December. Testing was on. Testing is always on, but in this case teachers were administering end-of-semester exams. Three students carted boxes of pizza into the front hall. The school, in Houston’s struggling fifth ward, was the first of several schools in Houston ISD to trigger the Texas law. After a years-long court fight, the Texas education agency opted to replace Houston’s elected school board with a state-appointed panel. About 5.4 million students attend public schools in Texas, and about 200,000 are enrolled by Houston ISD. Children at Risk, a non-partisan research and advocacy non-profit in Texas, academically assessed 1,282 high schools in Texas for the 2022-23 school year, pairing test data with socioeconomic data to look at performance. A few Houston schools took several of the rankings’ top spots. But Wheatley ranked 1,236th. Eight of Houston ISD’s 43 high schools ranked lower still. Wheatley is showing improvement, said Bob Sanborn, the CEO of Children at Risk. “But when you look at schools like Wheatley, they’re in such a hole to start. At least they’re trying something different. Most parents at these poorly performing high schools want to see a change as well. They’re less interested in who is doing it and more in whether they will be successful.” View image in fullscreen Anthony Singleton, the dean of students, greets students as they arrive. Photograph: Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images Sabrina Cuby-King became Wheatley’s principal in 2022. One year later, the Texas education agency took over. Wheatley had been the poster child for reformers after repeatedly failing the state assessments. All eyes were on her, and on Wheatley. Her first order of business was doing what she could to turn off the spotlight, she said. Cuby-King has not spoken to the press since taking the job – until now. The Spelman College grad spoke with care to avoid negative language about the school, about the takeover, about parents or politics. “Students who are attending here see their school on the news being beat down. That had to shift first … the perception of the school had to change,” she said. “I didn’t want my students to go out and be embarrassed. That was my internal push. That was my motivation.” The state rates schools using A to F letter grades. Houston ISD posted school test grades on 23 January. After a string of Fs, Wheatley scored a D. It’s an improvement that Cuby-King expected after a year of intense change. She’s a cheerleader for the model. “The model that’s put in place has shown that the turnaround is successful,” she said. But both Cuby-King and other administrators vigorously challenged the suggestion that students were being taught to the test, despite the constant classroom quizzing. “The focus is on high-quality instruction and a reassurance that kids have content-knowledge acquisition,” said Joseph Sotelo, the senior executive director of Houston ISD. “So, at the end of class, we have a quiz. We make sure that you know it, and through the genius of the model, when kids do get it, they get to go to the team center and excel with their work.” M ike Miles, the Houston ISD superintendent, is a West Point-trained former army ranger and diplomat who also previously served as a school superintendent in Dallas and Colorado Springs, and ran a charter school network, Third Future Schools . His critics complain of the military-like regimentation he has imposed on failing schools, over public objections, in the New Education System modeled on his charter school approach – and of the questionable curriculum their children have faced. Both the PragerU and slavery material were removed after their appearance became public. But neither case threatened Miles’s job. View image in fullscreen HISD superintendent Mike Miles speaks in Houston on 23 January. Photograph: Kirk Sides/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images Miles “doesn’t have to act politically or in accordance with other peoples’ wishes”, Sanborn said. “And he has a personality that fits that. He doesn’t know how to spin things for the media. He doesn’t know how to spin things for parents. He has the best intentions, but sometimes he’s a bull in a china shop.” Some of the changes are cosmetic, like replacing hall passes with 3ft-tall, bright orange traffic cones that a hall monitor can spot from orbit. Some changes are less abstract: in Miles’s system, lesson plans must be taught without deviation, with a quiz at the end of every block of instruction. Students who pass the quiz are sent to what used to be school libraries – team centers, which have also been described as “disciplinary centers” – for other instruction. Those who fail the quiz are re-educated. Critics of the state school takeover see Miles as the epitome of what they hate about it: an unelected outsider who refuses to listen to their concerns. “I am speaking to the unelected board of managers, who consistently support the uncertified superintendent on his quest to remove all certified teachers, principals, staff members and counselors out of our schools,” Dr Pamela Boveland, a Houston college professor, said at the December school board meeting. “Obviously if he is not certified, no one else should be.” In January, the district announced it would convert Cullen middle school – an economically disadvantaged campus that’s about 90% students of color and a solid C on the state’s academic achievement ratings – into a military academy later this year. Until the state returns governing authority to the elected board, the elected officers of the district, like Plácido Gómez, who was elected last year, are left playing the role of a prison trustee negotiating with the wardens. View image in fullscreen Protesters turn their backs to the HISD school board and superintendent Mike Miles during a meeting in Houston on 10 August 2023. Photograph: Elizabeth Conley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images “People really are upset, and they have every right to be upset. Their voice was taken away,” he said of the takeover. He’s trying to give Miles the benefit of the doubt, though. “I’m willing to die on the hill of seeing the best in people. Though I could criticize the way that the superintendent came at things, I do believe that in his heart of hearts, he wants what’s best for students, and particularly, he wants what’s best for students who have historically been underserved.” Miles argues that the takeover process itself was a product of a democratic process. Elected lawmakers enacted the legislation. Elected officials appointed attorneys to argue the constitutionality in open courtrooms, before an elected judiciary. “I understand that people think that because they no longer elect the school board, at least for a period of time, that that process is non-democratic,” he said. “But the overarching process that allowed the takeover? Totally democratic. You may not like the results, you know, but the process was used and was vetted legally, through several iterations, right, several levels.” P arents generally understand that Houston has some troubled schools and want to see them improve. But under the New Education System, they’re left trying to find ways around the government to help their children. Jessica Campos’s daughter attends Pugh elementary school in the Denver Harbor neighborhood; it’s one of the feeder schools to Wheatley. Because it’s in the Wheatley school cluster, the district imposed the New Education System on it. In 2022 it earned an A grade. Last year it slipped to a B. “We had just got through having our last day of school, and it was a wonderful time,” Campos said. “Next year, my daughter was going to have the same teacher she had in third grade, which was the best teacher she ever had. A couple days later, we get a call from that same teacher, crying, saying that he just lost his job. I’m like: ‘What is that? What do you mean? You just got nominated for teacher of the year last month?’ And he’s like: ‘Yeah, we all lost our jobs. All the teachers.’ So yeah, that’s going to upset us parents because we had a great school.” Campos was disturbed by some of the changes made at Pugh, like the PragerU video. District leaders apologized, but the decision to use them at all is a poke in the eye to any pretense of local control. Campos said she’s particularly concerned about how dual-language instruction had been curtailed. Pugh’s student body is 96.4% Hispanic, according to school records. About 97% are economically disadvantaged and almost all have Spanish as a first language. Campos says the mechanisms to challenge a problem like this have been eliminated. “It feels like our language is being removed from our schools,” Campos said. “And I think that it’s our right as parents to choose that. I don’t think that the parents in our community had a voice. They have eliminated us from the schools. We’re not allowed to ask questions. Actually, teachers have told parents that they have been told they cannot speak to us.” Gómez has heard similar things from teachers. “A lot of teachers feel there’s a culture of fear in the schools,” he said. But there’s little recourse to the appointed board of managers. “If I come to them with a logistical concern, or that principal is not effective, or this parent had a negative experience trying to observe what’s going on in schools, the board of managers really doesn’t have the power to do those administrative things.” Campos and her daughter’s teacher don’t get a vote on how the system is administered. But both parents and teachers have been voting with their feet. Teacher turnover has doubled in the last year, according to Houston ISD reports. “Today I went to a school where almost all of the cars that I went to said: Yeah, we’re moving our kid out of the school district,” she said. “That’s what they want us to do. They want us to run, they want us to leave.” “We have to stay and fight this because these are our schools, we pay taxes. These are our children. And we have a say in how the curriculum is presented to our children.” Explore more on these topics Houston The fight for democracy Schools US education Texas features Share Reuse this content Students arrive for the first day of school at Phillis Wheatley high school in Houston, Texas, on 28 August 2023. Photograph: Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images View image in fullscreen Students arrive for the first day of school at Phillis Wheatley high school in Houston, Texas, on 28 August 2023. Photograph: Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Texas took over a failing Houston school district. Will its militaristic structure work? This article is more than 1 year old The state appointed administrators and brought in a former army ranger as superintendent, who brought questionable lessons with him I n the fashion of American democracy, when someone believes there’s a problem with their local school, they may decide to make a call or send an email to their elected school board members, whom they almost always have to look up first. Parents might take these minor elected officials by the figurative shirt collar and gently shake them, saying: “I want this thing to change.” They may then gather their surly neighbors and gang up on the school board to not-so-gently threaten their re-election until someone is thrown out of office or everyone else gives up. Florida schoolkids may have to study ‘threat of communism in the US’ Read more Houstonians were getting arrested at rowdy school board meetings years before “critical race theory” made such things fashionable. In 2017, three women were arrested – and two charged – after getting into a shoving match when the Houston school board had been considering a plan to turn over its failing schools to a charter program, to get out from under the threatened state takeover. The board abandoned the plan. But it’s one thing for activists to lobby someone who lives up the street and another when state lawmakers take control, as has happened in Houston. Under a 2015 Texas law, if a school fails state standards for five years running, the state is obligated to either close the school – or take over the school district. In 2023, the entire Houston independent school district – the eighth-largest system in the country – became a dependency of the state. Houston homeowners still pay school taxes. They even vote for school board members, though those elected officials have no authority. The state-run district places underperforming schools in the New Education System (NES), which critics describe as a reform model of inflexible lesson plans in a rigidly disciplinarian environment geared toward passing tests. The curriculum is questionable: in one instance, a school used instructional materials from the conservative non-profit PragerU that cast doubt on the human-made origins of climate change. In another, seventh graders were asked to imagine themselves as statehood convention delegates and asked whether slavery in Texas should be legal. Parents have protested new rules that abandon state requirements for certified teachers in classrooms. They argue that Spanish-speaking students are no longer receiving adequately bilingual instruction. They see the conversion of a school in a struggling part of Houston into a military academy as a challenge to their values. But now, there is no shirt collar to grab. T he halls of Phillis Wheatley high school were quiet in the middle of the day in the middle of December. Testing was on. Testing is always on, but in this case teachers were administering end-of-semester exams. Three students carted boxes of pizza into the front hall. The school, in Houston’s struggling fifth ward, was the first of several schools in Houston ISD to trigger the Texas law. After a years-long court fight, the Texas education agency opted to replace Houston’s elected school board with a state-appointed panel. About 5.4 million students attend public schools in Texas, and about 200,000 are enrolled by Houston ISD. Children at Risk, a non-partisan research and advocacy non-profit in Texas, academically assessed 1,282 high schools in Texas for the 2022-23 school year, pairing test data with socioeconomic data to look at performance. A few Houston schools took several of the rankings’ top spots. But Wheatley ranked 1,236th. Eight of Houston ISD’s 43 high schools ranked lower still. Wheatley is showing improvement, said Bob Sanborn, the CEO of Children at Risk. “But when you look at schools like Wheatley, they’re in such a hole to start. At least they’re trying something different. Most parents at these poorly performing high schools want to see a change as well. They’re less interested in who is doing it and more in whether they will be successful.” View image in fullscreen Anthony Singleton, the dean of students, greets students as they arrive. Photograph: Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images Sabrina Cuby-King became Wheatley’s principal in 2022. One year later, the Texas education agency took over. Wheatley had been the poster child for reformers after repeatedly failing the state assessments. All eyes were on her, and on Wheatley. Her first order of business was doing what she could to turn off the spotlight, she said. Cuby-King has not spoken to the press since taking the job – until now. The Spelman College grad spoke with care to avoid negative language about the school, about the takeover, about parents or politics. “Students who are attending here see their school on the news being beat down. That had to shift first … the perception of the school had to change,” she said. “I didn’t want my students to go out and be embarrassed. That was my internal push. That was my motivation.” The state rates schools using A to F letter grades. Houston ISD posted school test grades on 23 January. After a string of Fs, Wheatley scored a D. It’s an improvement that Cuby-King expected after a year of intense change. She’s a cheerleader for the model. “The model that’s put in place has shown that the turnaround is successful,” she said. But both Cuby-King and other administrators vigorously challenged the suggestion that students were being taught to the test, despite the constant classroom quizzing. “The focus is on high-quality instruction and a reassurance that kids have content-knowledge acquisition,” said Joseph Sotelo, the senior executive director of Houston ISD. “So, at the end of class, we have a quiz. We make sure that you know it, and through the genius of the model, when kids do get it, they get to go to the team center and excel with their work.” M ike Miles, the Houston ISD superintendent, is a West Point-trained former army ranger and diplomat who also previously served as a school superintendent in Dallas and Colorado Springs, and ran a charter school network, Third Future Schools . His critics complain of the military-like regimentation he has imposed on failing schools, over public objections, in the New Education System modeled on his charter school approach – and of the questionable curriculum their children have faced. Both the PragerU and slavery material were removed after their appearance became public. But neither case threatened Miles’s job. View image in fullscreen HISD superintendent Mike Miles speaks in Houston on 23 January. Photograph: Kirk Sides/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images Miles “doesn’t have to act politically or in accordance with other peoples’ wishes”, Sanborn said. “And he has a personality that fits that. He doesn’t know how to spin things for the media. He doesn’t know how to spin things for parents. He has the best intentions, but sometimes he’s a bull in a china shop.” Some of the changes are cosmetic, like replacing hall passes with 3ft-tall, bright orange traffic cones that a hall monitor can spot from orbit. Some changes are less abstract: in Miles’s system, lesson plans must be taught without deviation, with a quiz at the end of every block of instruction. Students who pass the quiz are sent to what used to be school libraries – team centers, which have also been described as “disciplinary centers” – for other instruction. Those who fail the quiz are re-educated. Critics of the state school takeover see Miles as the epitome of what they hate about it: an unelected outsider who refuses to listen to their concerns. “I am speaking to the unelected board of managers, who consistently support the uncertified superintendent on his quest to remove all certified teachers, principals, staff members and counselors out of our schools,” Dr Pamela Boveland, a Houston college professor, said at the December school board meeting. “Obviously if he is not certified, no one else should be.” In January, the district announced it would convert Cullen middle school – an economically disadvantaged campus that’s about 90% students of color and a solid C on the state’s academic achievement ratings – into a military academy later this year. Until the state returns governing authority to the elected board, the elected officers of the district, like Plácido Gómez, who was elected last year, are left playing the role of a prison trustee negotiating with the wardens. View image in fullscreen Protesters turn their backs to the HISD school board and superintendent Mike Miles during a meeting in Houston on 10 August 2023. Photograph: Elizabeth Conley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images “People really are upset, and they have every right to be upset. Their voice was taken away,” he said of the takeover. He’s trying to give Miles the benefit of the doubt, though. “I’m willing to die on the hill of seeing the best in people. Though I could criticize the way that the superintendent came at things, I do believe that in his heart of hearts, he wants what’s best for students, and particularly, he wants what’s best for students who have historically been underserved.” Miles argues that the takeover process itself was a product of a democratic process. Elected lawmakers enacted the legislation. Elected officials appointed attorneys to argue the constitutionality in open courtrooms, before an elected judiciary. “I understand that people think that because they no longer elect the school board, at least for a period of time, that that process is non-democratic,” he said. “But the overarching process that allowed the takeover? Totally democratic. You may not like the results, you know, but the process was used and was vetted legally, through several iterations, right, several levels.” P arents generally understand that Houston has some troubled schools and want to see them improve. But under the New Education System, they’re left trying to find ways around the government to help their children. Jessica Campos’s daughter attends Pugh elementary school in the Denver Harbor neighborhood; it’s one of the feeder schools to Wheatley. Because it’s in the Wheatley school cluster, the district imposed the New Education System on it. In 2022 it earned an A grade. Last year it slipped to a B. “We had just got through having our last day of school, and it was a wonderful time,” Campos said. “Next year, my daughter was going to have the same teacher she had in third grade, which was the best teacher she ever had. A couple days later, we get a call from that same teacher, crying, saying that he just lost his job. I’m like: ‘What is that? What do you mean? You just got nominated for teacher of the year last month?’ And he’s like: ‘Yeah, we all lost our jobs. All the teachers.’ So yeah, that’s going to upset us parents because we had a great school.” Campos was disturbed by some of the changes made at Pugh, like the PragerU video. District leaders apologized, but the decision to use them at all is a poke in the eye to any pretense of local control. Campos said she’s particularly concerned about how dual-language instruction had been curtailed. Pugh’s student body is 96.4% Hispanic, according to school records. About 97% are economically disadvantaged and almost all have Spanish as a first language. Campos says the mechanisms to challenge a problem like this have been eliminated. “It feels like our language is being removed from our schools,” Campos said. “And I think that it’s our right as parents to choose that. I don’t think that the parents in our community had a voice. They have eliminated us from the schools. We’re not allowed to ask questions. Actually, teachers have told parents that they have been told they cannot speak to us.” Gómez has heard similar things from teachers. “A lot of teachers feel there’s a culture of fear in the schools,” he said. But there’s little recourse to the appointed board of managers. “If I come to them with a logistical concern, or that principal is not effective, or this parent had a negative experience trying to observe what’s going on in schools, the board of managers really doesn’t have the power to do those administrative things.” Campos and her daughter’s teacher don’t get a vote on how the system is administered. But both parents and teachers have been voting with their feet. Teacher turnover has doubled in the last year, according to Houston ISD reports. “Today I went to a school where almost all of the cars that I went to said: Yeah, we’re moving our kid out of the school district,” she said. “That’s what they want us to do. They want us to run, they want us to leave.” “We have to stay and fight this because these are our schools, we pay taxes. These are our children. And we have a say in how the curriculum is presented to our children.” Explore more on these topics Houston The fight for democracy Schools US education Texas features Share Reuse this content Students arrive for the first day of school at Phillis Wheatley high school in Houston, Texas, on 28 August 2023. Photograph: Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images View image in fullscreen Students arrive for the first day of school at Phillis Wheatley high school in Houston, Texas, on 28 August 2023. Photograph: Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images Students arrive for the first day of school at Phillis Wheatley high school in Houston, Texas, on 28 August 2023. Photograph: Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images View image in fullscreen Students arrive for the first day of school at Phillis Wheatley high school in Houston, Texas, on 28 August 2023. Photograph: Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images Students arrive for the first day of school at Phillis Wheatley high school in Houston, Texas, on 28 August 2023. Photograph: Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images View image in fullscreen Students arrive for the first day of school at Phillis Wheatley high school in Houston, Texas, on 28 August 2023. Photograph: Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images Students arrive for the first day of school at Phillis Wheatley high school in Houston, Texas, on 28 August 2023. Photograph: Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images View image in fullscreen Students arrive for the first day of school at Phillis Wheatley high school in Houston, Texas, on 28 August 2023. Photograph: Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images Students arrive for the first day of school at Phillis Wheatley high school in Houston, Texas, on 28 August 2023. Photograph: Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images Students arrive for the first day of school at Phillis Wheatley high school in Houston, Texas, on 28 August 2023. Photograph: Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Texas took over a failing Houston school district. Will its militaristic structure work? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Texas took over a failing Houston school district. Will its militaristic structure work? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Texas took over a failing Houston school district. Will its militaristic structure work? 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 state appointed administrators and brought in a former army ranger as superintendent, who brought questionable lessons with him The state appointed administrators and brought in a former army ranger as superintendent, who brought questionable lessons with him The state appointed administrators and brought in a former army ranger as superintendent, who brought questionable lessons with him I n the fashion of American democracy, when someone believes there’s a problem with their local school, they may decide to make a call or send an email to their elected school board members, whom they almost always have to look up first. Parents might take these minor elected officials by the figurative shirt collar and gently shake them, saying: “I want this thing to change.” They may then gather their surly neighbors and gang up on the school board to not-so-gently threaten their re-election until someone is thrown out of office or everyone else gives up. Florida schoolkids may have to study ‘threat of communism in the US’ Read more Houstonians were getting arrested at rowdy school board meetings years before “critical race theory” made such things fashionable. In 2017, three women were arrested – and two charged – after getting into a shoving match when the Houston school board had been considering a plan to turn over its failing schools to a charter program, to get out from under the threatened state takeover. The board abandoned the plan. But it’s one thing for activists to lobby someone who lives up the street and another when state lawmakers take control, as has happened in Houston. Under a 2015 Texas law, if a school fails state standards for five years running, the state is obligated to either close the school – or take over the school district. In 2023, the entire Houston independent school district – the eighth-largest system in the country – became a dependency of the state. Houston homeowners still pay school taxes. They even vote for school board members, though those elected officials have no authority. The state-run district places underperforming schools in the New Education System (NES), which critics describe as a reform model of inflexible lesson plans in a rigidly disciplinarian environment geared toward passing tests. The curriculum is questionable: in one instance, a school used instructional materials from the conservative non-profit PragerU that cast doubt on the human-made origins of climate change. In another, seventh graders were asked to imagine themselves as statehood convention delegates and asked whether slavery in Texas should be legal. Parents have protested new rules that abandon state requirements for certified teachers in classrooms. They argue that Spanish-speaking students are no longer receiving adequately bilingual instruction. They see the conversion of a school in a struggling part of Houston into a military academy as a challenge to their values. But now, there is no shirt collar to grab. T he halls of Phillis Wheatley high school were quiet in the middle of the day in the middle of December. Testing was on. Testing is always on, but in this case teachers were administering end-of-semester exams. Three students carted boxes of pizza into the front hall. The school, in Houston’s struggling fifth ward, was the first of several schools in Houston ISD to trigger the Texas law. After a years-long court fight, the Texas education agency opted to replace Houston’s elected school board with a state-appointed panel. About 5.4 million students attend public schools in Texas, and about 200,000 are enrolled by Houston ISD. Children at Risk, a non-partisan research and advocacy non-profit in Texas, academically assessed 1,282 high schools in Texas for the 2022-23 school year, pairing test data with socioeconomic data to look at performance. A few Houston schools took several of the rankings’ top spots. But Wheatley ranked 1,236th. Eight of Houston ISD’s 43 high schools ranked lower still. Wheatley is showing improvement, said Bob Sanborn, the CEO of Children at Risk. “But when you look at schools like Wheatley, they’re in such a hole to start. At least they’re trying something different. Most parents at these poorly performing high schools want to see a change as well. They’re less interested in who is doing it and more in whether they will be successful.” View image in fullscreen Anthony Singleton, the dean of students, greets students as they arrive. Photograph: Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images Sabrina Cuby-King became Wheatley’s principal in 2022. One year later, the Texas education agency took over. Wheatley had been the poster child for reformers after repeatedly failing the state assessments. All eyes were on her, and on Wheatley. Her first order of business was doing what she could to turn off the spotlight, she said. Cuby-King has not spoken to the press since taking the job – until now. The Spelman College grad spoke with care to avoid negative language about the school, about the takeover, about parents or politics. “Students who are attending here see their school on the news being beat down. That had to shift first … the perception of the school had to change,” she said. “I didn’t want my students to go out and be embarrassed. That was my internal push. That was my motivation.” The state rates schools using A to F letter grades. Houston ISD posted school test grades on 23 January. After a string of Fs, Wheatley scored a D. It’s an improvement that Cuby-King expected after a year of intense change. She’s a cheerleader for the model. “The model that’s put in place has shown that the turnaround is successful,” she said. But both Cuby-King and other administrators vigorously challenged the suggestion that students were being taught to the test, despite the constant classroom quizzing. “The focus is on high-quality instruction and a reassurance that kids have content-knowledge acquisition,” said Joseph Sotelo, the senior executive director of Houston ISD. “So, at the end of class, we have a quiz. We make sure that you know it, and through the genius of the model, when kids do get it, they get to go to the team center and excel with their work.” M ike Miles, the Houston ISD superintendent, is a West Point-trained former army ranger and diplomat who also previously served as a school superintendent in Dallas and Colorado Springs, and ran a charter school network, Third Future Schools . His critics complain of the military-like regimentation he has imposed on failing schools, over public objections, in the New Education System modeled on his charter school approach – and of the questionable curriculum their children have faced. Both the PragerU and slavery material were removed after their appearance became public. But neither case threatened Miles’s job. View image in fullscreen HISD superintendent Mike Miles speaks in Houston on 23 January. Photograph: Kirk Sides/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images Miles “doesn’t have to act politically or in accordance with other peoples’ wishes”, Sanborn said. “And he has a personality that fits that. He doesn’t know how to spin things for the media. He doesn’t know how to spin things for parents. He has the best intentions, but sometimes he’s a bull in a china shop.” Some of the changes are cosmetic, like replacing hall passes with 3ft-tall, bright orange traffic cones that a hall monitor can spot from orbit. Some changes are less abstract: in Miles’s system, lesson plans must be taught without deviation, with a quiz at the end of every block of instruction. Students who pass the quiz are sent to what used to be school libraries – team centers, which have also been described as “disciplinary centers” – for other instruction. Those who fail the quiz are re-educated. Critics of the state school takeover see Miles as the epitome of what they hate about it: an unelected outsider who refuses to listen to their concerns. “I am speaking to the unelected board of managers, who consistently support the uncertified superintendent on his quest to remove all certified teachers, principals, staff members and counselors out of our schools,” Dr Pamela Boveland, a Houston college professor, said at the December school board meeting. “Obviously if he is not certified, no one else should be.” In January, the district announced it would convert Cullen middle school – an economically disadvantaged campus that’s about 90% students of color and a solid C on the state’s academic achievement ratings – into a military academy later this year. Until the state returns governing authority to the elected board, the elected officers of the district, like Plácido Gómez, who was elected last year, are left playing the role of a prison trustee negotiating with the wardens. View image in fullscreen Protesters turn their backs to the HISD school board and superintendent Mike Miles during a meeting in Houston on 10 August 2023. Photograph: Elizabeth Conley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images “People really are upset, and they have every right to be upset. Their voice was taken away,” he said of the takeover. He’s trying to give Miles the benefit of the doubt, though. “I’m willing to die on the hill of seeing the best in people. Though I could criticize the way that the superintendent came at things, I do believe that in his heart of hearts, he wants what’s best for students, and particularly, he wants what’s best for students who have historically been underserved.” Miles argues that the takeover process itself was a product of a democratic process. Elected lawmakers enacted the legislation. Elected officials appointed attorneys to argue the constitutionality in open courtrooms, before an elected judiciary. “I understand that people think that because they no longer elect the school board, at least for a period of time, that that process is non-democratic,” he said. “But the overarching process that allowed the takeover? Totally democratic. You may not like the results, you know, but the process was used and was vetted legally, through several iterations, right, several levels.” P arents generally understand that Houston has some troubled schools and want to see them improve. But under the New Education System, they’re left trying to find ways around the government to help their children. Jessica Campos’s daughter attends Pugh elementary school in the Denver Harbor neighborhood; it’s one of the feeder schools to Wheatley. Because it’s in the Wheatley school cluster, the district imposed the New Education System on it. In 2022 it earned an A grade. Last year it slipped to a B. “We had just got through having our last day of school, and it was a wonderful time,” Campos said. “Next year, my daughter was going to have the same teacher she had in third grade, which was the best teacher she ever had. A couple days later, we get a call from that same teacher, crying, saying that he just lost his job. I’m like: ‘What is that? What do you mean? You just got nominated for teacher of the year last month?’ And he’s like: ‘Yeah, we all lost our jobs. All the teachers.’ So yeah, that’s going to upset us parents because we had a great school.” Campos was disturbed by some of the changes made at Pugh, like the PragerU video. District leaders apologized, but the decision to use them at all is a poke in the eye to any pretense of local control. Campos said she’s particularly concerned about how dual-language instruction had been curtailed. Pugh’s student body is 96.4% Hispanic, according to school records. About 97% are economically disadvantaged and almost all have Spanish as a first language. Campos says the mechanisms to challenge a problem like this have been eliminated. “It feels like our language is being removed from our schools,” Campos said. “And I think that it’s our right as parents to choose that. I don’t think that the parents in our community had a voice. They have eliminated us from the schools. We’re not allowed to ask questions. Actually, teachers have told parents that they have been told they cannot speak to us.” Gómez has heard similar things from teachers. “A lot of teachers feel there’s a culture of fear in the schools,” he said. But there’s little recourse to the appointed board of managers. “If I come to them with a logistical concern, or that principal is not effective, or this parent had a negative experience trying to observe what’s going on in schools, the board of managers really doesn’t have the power to do those administrative things.” Campos and her daughter’s teacher don’t get a vote on how the system is administered. But both parents and teachers have been voting with their feet. Teacher turnover has doubled in the last year, according to Houston ISD reports. “Today I went to a school where almost all of the cars that I went to said: Yeah, we’re moving our kid out of the school district,” she said. “That’s what they want us to do. They want us to run, they want us to leave.” “We have to stay and fight this because these are our schools, we pay taxes. These are our children. And we have a say in how the curriculum is presented to our children.” Explore more on these topics Houston The fight for democracy Schools US education Texas features Share Reuse this content I n the fashion of American democracy, when someone believes there’s a problem with their local school, they may decide to make a call or send an email to their elected school board members, whom they almost always have to look up first. Parents might take these minor elected officials by the figurative shirt collar and gently shake them, saying: “I want this thing to change.” They may then gather their surly neighbors and gang up on the school board to not-so-gently threaten their re-election until someone is thrown out of office or everyone else gives up. Florida schoolkids may have to study ‘threat of communism in the US’ Read more Houstonians were getting arrested at rowdy school board meetings years before “critical race theory” made such things fashionable. In 2017, three women were arrested – and two charged – after getting into a shoving match when the Houston school board had been considering a plan to turn over its failing schools to a charter program, to get out from under the threatened state takeover. The board abandoned the plan. But it’s one thing for activists to lobby someone who lives up the street and another when state lawmakers take control, as has happened in Houston. Under a 2015 Texas law, if a school fails state standards for five years running, the state is obligated to either close the school – or take over the school district. In 2023, the entire Houston independent school district – the eighth-largest system in the country – became a dependency of the state. Houston homeowners still pay school taxes. They even vote for school board members, though those elected officials have no authority. The state-run district places underperforming schools in the New Education System (NES), which critics describe as a reform model of inflexible lesson plans in a rigidly disciplinarian environment geared toward passing tests. The curriculum is questionable: in one instance, a school used instructional materials from the conservative non-profit PragerU that cast doubt on the human-made origins of climate change. In another, seventh graders were asked to imagine themselves as statehood convention delegates and asked whether slavery in Texas should be legal. Parents have protested new rules that abandon state requirements for certified teachers in classrooms. They argue that Spanish-speaking students are no longer receiving adequately bilingual instruction. They see the conversion of a school in a struggling part of Houston into a military academy as a challenge to their values. But now, there is no shirt collar to grab. T he halls of Phillis Wheatley high school were quiet in the middle of the day in the middle of December. Testing was on. Testing is always on, but in this case teachers were administering end-of-semester exams. Three students carted boxes of pizza into the front hall. The school, in Houston’s struggling fifth ward, was the first of several schools in Houston ISD to trigger the Texas law. After a years-long court fight, the Texas education agency opted to replace Houston’s elected school board with a state-appointed panel. About 5.4 million students attend public schools in Texas, and about 200,000 are enrolled by Houston ISD. Children at Risk, a non-partisan research and advocacy non-profit in Texas, academically assessed 1,282 high schools in Texas for the 2022-23 school year, pairing test data with socioeconomic data to look at performance. A few Houston schools took several of the rankings’ top spots. But Wheatley ranked 1,236th. Eight of Houston ISD’s 43 high schools ranked lower still. Wheatley is showing improvement, said Bob Sanborn, the CEO of Children at Risk. “But when you look at schools like Wheatley, they’re in such a hole to start. At least they’re trying something different. Most parents at these poorly performing high schools want to see a change as well. They’re less interested in who is doing it and more in whether they will be successful.” View image in fullscreen Anthony Singleton, the dean of students, greets students as they arrive. Photograph: Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images Sabrina Cuby-King became Wheatley’s principal in 2022. One year later, the Texas education agency took over. Wheatley had been the poster child for reformers after repeatedly failing the state assessments. All eyes were on her, and on Wheatley. Her first order of business was doing what she could to turn off the spotlight, she said. Cuby-King has not spoken to the press since taking the job – until now. The Spelman College grad spoke with care to avoid negative language about the school, about the takeover, about parents or politics. “Students who are attending here see their school on the news being beat down. That had to shift first … the perception of the school had to change,” she said. “I didn’t want my students to go out and be embarrassed. That was my internal push. That was my motivation.” The state rates schools using A to F letter grades. Houston ISD posted school test grades on 23 January. After a string of Fs, Wheatley scored a D. It’s an improvement that Cuby-King expected after a year of intense change. She’s a cheerleader for the model. “The model that’s put in place has shown that the turnaround is successful,” she said. But both Cuby-King and other administrators vigorously challenged the suggestion that students were being taught to the test, despite the constant classroom quizzing. “The focus is on high-quality instruction and a reassurance that kids have content-knowledge acquisition,” said Joseph Sotelo, the senior executive director of Houston ISD. “So, at the end of class, we have a quiz. We make sure that you know it, and through the genius of the model, when kids do get it, they get to go to the team center and excel with their work.” M ike Miles, the Houston ISD superintendent, is a West Point-trained former army ranger and diplomat who also previously served as a school superintendent in Dallas and Colorado Springs, and ran a charter school network, Third Future Schools . His critics complain of the military-like regimentation he has imposed on failing schools, over public objections, in the New Education System modeled on his charter
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
‘They’re drowning us in regulations’: how Europe’s furious farmers took on Brussels and won
Spanish farmers march through Logrono, La Rioja on 8 February. Photograph: JM Garcia/EPA View image in fullscreen Spanish farmers march through Logrono, La Rioja on 8 February. Photograph: JM Garcia/EPA This article is more than 1 year old ‘They’re drowning us in regulations’: how Europe’s furious farmers took on Brussels and won This article is more than 1 year old Mass demonstrations across the EU against environmental directives have become a politically charged issue O n the outskirts of the northern Spanish city of Pamplona, a green, red and blue stream of New Holland, John Deere, Massey Ferguson, Fendt and Deutz-Fahr tractors trundled forwards, horns honking and orange lights flashing. Under drizzly grey skies and escorted by navy blue Policía Nacional vans, few were in the mood to explain the motives for their demonstration, but a young farmer from the nearby town of Estella threw open his cab door to share his grievances. “They’re drowning us with all these regulations,” he said. “They need to ease up on all the directives and bureaucracy. We can’t compete with other countries when things are like this. We’re … drowning.” Brexit border checks and badly planned farm subsidies could plunge the UK into a food crisis Read more If Europe’s farmers have called a temporary halt to their protests in France and Germany – awaiting what one French farmer called “proof of love, not just words of love” from their respective governments – they have only just got going in Spain. In scenes now familiar from Poland to Portugal, angry farmers last week blocked roads, a port and a large wholesale market, and plan to continue through February. Italian farmers also took to their tractors last week, converging on the outskirts of Rome and staging a symbolic drive-past of the Colosseum on Friday. In recent weeks, large conurbations including Paris and Lyon have been blockaded. City centres in Brussels and Berlin have been choked to a standstill. Farmers have closed down motorways, dumped manure, hurled eggs, trashed supermarkets, set fire to hay bales and pallets, and clashed, sometimes violently, with police. View image in fullscreen Farmers block a Belgian highway linking Germany and France last month. Photograph: Olivier Hoslet/EPA Away from the heat of the protests, in TV interviews and parliamentary speeches, their cause has been enthusiastically adopted by a resurgent populist far right, which sees in the farmers’ revolt a promising new front in its long-running war on “out-of-touch elites”, “radical environmentalism” and “Brussels diktats”. Months from European parliament elections in which far-right and “anti-European” parties are projected to make big gains , farming – which represents just 1.4% of EU gross domestic product – has climbed, suddenly, to the top of the political agenda. Why are farmers protesting across the EU and what can the bloc do about it? Read more “Everywhere in Europe, the same questions are coming up,” said France’s prime minister, Gabriel Attal. “How do we continue to produce more, but better? Continue to tackle climate change? Avoid unfair competition from foreign countries?” They are questions to which Europe needs rapid answers. The first stirrings came, appropriately, in the Netherlands – Europe’s most intensively farmed country, home to more than 110 million livestock, including cows, pigs and chickens , and, largely as a consequence, to nitrogen emissions four times the EU average. Five years ago, officials said “drastic measures” were needed, including buying up and shutting down farms. The government unveiled plans to cut nitrogen emissions in half by 2030, partly by slashing livestock numbers by up to a third. Dutch farmers did not wait for the details to make their feelings known. In October 2019, more than 2,000 tractors trundled from all corners of the country to the seat of government in The Hague, causing 620 miles of motorway tailbacks. “No farmers no food,” their placards read, and “Proud of the farmer”. It was the start of a movement that has since snowballed cross the bloc, accelerating rapidly in recent months to leave – so far - only Austria, Denmark, Finland and Sweden untouched . Many protests – as in the Netherlands – are at least partly country-specific. In Italy, demands included reinstatement of an income tax exemption that had been in force since 2017 but was due to be scrapped in the 2024 budget. In Germany, where protests have briefly paused after an estimated 30,000 farmers and 5,000 tractors paralysed Berlin in mid-January , the most explosive issue is a government plan to phase out tax breaks on agricultural diesel to balance its budget. View image in fullscreen Farmers demonstrate in Barcelona last week against the EU common agricultural policy. Photograph: Albert Llop/NurPhoto/REX/Shutterstock But uniting them all are concerns shared across mainland Europe: falling product prices, rising costs, over-powerful retailers, cheap foreign imports and – in particular – EU environmental rules that many farmers see as unfair and economically unrealistic. “There are many issues,” said Arnaud Rousseau, president of France’s biggest farmers union, the FNSEA. “But the seeds of these protests are the same: lack of understanding between the reality on the ground and the decisions taken by governments.” Spain’s agriculture minister, Luis Planas, said last week that the causes of the protests sweeping Europe were diverse and complicated, but boiled down to longstanding dissatisfactions and farmers feeling underappreciated. “Farmers want to be listened to and respected,” said Planas. “And they often feel they aren’t respected – especially in Brussels, but also sometimes in Madrid, or in the urban or political sphere.” Some problems are structural. The EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP), the €55bn (£47bn) annual subsidy on which mainland Europe’s postwar food security has rested for more than 60 years, has always been based on economy of scale: bigger farms, common standards. Increasingly, that has encouraged consolidation (the number of farms in the bloc has fallen by more than a third since 2005), leaving many larger operations overburdened with debt and many smaller ones struggling to stay competitive on product price. Others are temporal. The past two years have brought a vicious squeeze on already tight margins, triggered by the pandemic and, more significantly, Russia’s war on Ukraine. Farmers’ costs – fuel, electricity, fertiliser and transport – have soared. At the same time, efforts by governments and retailers to limit the impact of the cost of living crisis on consumers have hit prices. Eurostat data shows the prices farmers get for their products fell on average by almost 9% between late 2022 and late 2023. That squeeze is being further exacerbated by an avalanche of imports, often from countries and regions where farmers are not generally subject to the same strict standards and regulations as in the EU – and so can compete unfairly on price. A flood of cheap agricultural produce, especially grain from Ukraine – on which the EU initially waived quotas and duties after Russia’s full-scale invasion – prompted furious Polish farmers to begin blocking cross-border roads as early as the spring of 2023. View image in fullscreen Spanish farmers protest against rising costs and green rules in Girona this month. Photograph: Albert Gea/Reuters Free-trade agreements with non-EU countries are also a source of anger, particularly a forthcoming deal with the Mercosur bloc of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay – all of which use hormones, antibiotics and pesticides banned in the EU. “We have to deal with all these rules and yet we face competition from goods from outside the EU that simply aren’t produced in the same conditions,” said Emmanuel Mathé, a French farmer, during a recent motorway blockade outside Paris. Completing the catalogue of woes, the climate crisis – droughts, floods, heatwaves and other extreme weather events – is increasingly affecting output, particularly in southern Europe. Besides Italy , large farmers’ protests are due in Greece this week. The readiest focus for farmers’ ire, however, is EU environmental legislation . For an already struggling industry, the European green deal, aimed at achieving climate neutrality across the bloc by 2050, looks very much like a bridge too far. The plan’s targets for agriculture included halving pesticide use by 2030, cutting fertiliser use by 20%, devoting more land to non-agricultural use – for example, by leaving it fallow – and doubling organic production to 25% of all EU farmland. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Copa-Cogeca, the leading agricultural lobby in Brussels, has described much of the deal’s “Farm2Fork” strategy as a “top-down … poorly designed, poorly evaluated, poorly financed” proposal that “offered few alternatives to farmers”. In response to the growing wave of rural revolt, Europe’s politicians are running scared. The European Commission has made multiple recent concessions in an effort to ease tensions, with its president, Ursula von der Leyen, insisting the bloc had heard farmers’ concerns. Last week, the commission shelved plans to cut pesticide use, saying it had become “a symbol of polarisation” . Last month, it unveiled an “emergency brake” on the most sensitive Ukrainian products and delayed rules on setting aside more land . Presenting the EU’s latest recommendations for cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, the executive last week also eased up on agriculture, removing from a previous draft the stipulation that farming would have to cut non-CO 2 emissions by 30% from 2015 levels. View image in fullscreen Farmers protest in Rome this month. Photograph: Cecilia Fabiano/LaPresse ceciliafabiano/REX/Shutterstock While farming would have to transition to a “more sustainable model of production”, von der Leyen said, farmers were undeniably being confronted with a range of problems and “deserved to be listened to … We should place more trust in them”. At a national level, too, governments have scrambled to respond: Berlin watered down its plans to cut diesel subsidies while the Italian prime minister, Georgia Meloni, on Friday agreed to partially reinstate the suspended tax exemption, at least for low earners. Paris scrapped a diesel tax increase and promised measures worth €400m, plus €200m more in cash aid. Attal also said it was now “out of the question” that France would agree to the planned EU-Mercosur trade deal as it stood and promised the government would stop imposing stricter rules on its farmers than EU regulations demanded. Will it all be enough? The growing politicisation of the movement is a real concern. In the Netherlands, a new populist party, the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB), emerged from the “nitrogen wars”, channelling rural resentment and opposition to “radical environmentalism”. The BBB swept the board in provincial elections last year and while it failed to repeat that performance in November’s general election, it is one of the parties negotiating to form the next Dutch government with far-right, anti-Islam provocateur Geert Wilders. The far-right Alternative for Germany – now second in the polls – has forcefully backed the farmers, as have members of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France, which has said it wants the “abolition”, pure and simple, of the European green deal. The farmers’ protests make an undeniably appealing bandwagon for far-right and populist parties, an extension of the culture wars that allows them to rail against what they portray as an increasingly dictatorial EU, as well as an urban, international elite ignoring – or attacking – oppressed rural workers. While most farmers reject any far-right connection, many have acknowledged that they feel trebly misunderstood: by politicians who impose unrealistic regulations, consumers who know little about how food is produced, and environmentalists who cast them as evildoers. In last month’s protests in Germany, a surprisingly large number of tractors bore placards complaining about Teslas. Elon Musk’s US electric car brand is, it seems, emblematic of the kind of urban wealth that votes green, but knows nothing about farming. View image in fullscreen Dutch farmers on their way to a protest in the Hague in 2019. Photograph: Vincent Jannink/EPA Back outside Pamplona, the list of Spanish farmers’ grievances sounded all too familiar: they want less bureaucracy, fairer prices, a revision of the European green deal, safeguarding of CAP subsidies and stronger protection against non-EU competition. And in Madrid, Planas was well aware of the political risk, with the agriculture minister saying he was worried that opposition parties were deliberately exploiting the farmers’ protests for political gain. He was particularly bothered, he said, by comments made in congress by Alberto Núñez Feijóo, the leader of the conservative People’s party, who accused the socialist-led government of alienating farmers through its pursuit of what he called “environmental dogmatism”. Planas said: “That’s an expression we’ve heard a lot from many sectors that – let’s be clear – are climate deniers and anti-EU. I find it very worrying because I believe that Spaniards understand very well that climate change is here.” Such talk by the likes of Feijóo, he added, called into question the bloc’s approach to fighting the climate emergency, whose effects – most notably a prolonged drought that is having a devastating impact on water supplies – were already being keenly felt on the Iberian peninsula. “Spain is a country that is pro-EU,” Planas said. “That doesn’t mean we don’t sometimes disagree with the odd decision. “But I think what’s happening now is directly linked to the forthcoming European elections.” 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 Farming The Observer Food Agriculture Europe European Union Protest Ursula von der Leyen features Share Reuse this content Spanish farmers march through Logrono, La Rioja on 8 February. Photograph: JM Garcia/EPA View image in fullscreen Spanish farmers march through Logrono, La Rioja on 8 February. Photograph: JM Garcia/EPA This article is more than 1 year old ‘They’re drowning us in regulations’: how Europe’s furious farmers took on Brussels and won This article is more than 1 year old Mass demonstrations across the EU against environmental directives have become a politically charged issue O n the outskirts of the northern Spanish city of Pamplona, a green, red and blue stream of New Holland, John Deere, Massey Ferguson, Fendt and Deutz-Fahr tractors trundled forwards, horns honking and orange lights flashing. Under drizzly grey skies and escorted by navy blue Policía Nacional vans, few were in the mood to explain the motives for their demonstration, but a young farmer from the nearby town of Estella threw open his cab door to share his grievances. “They’re drowning us with all these regulations,” he said. “They need to ease up on all the directives and bureaucracy. We can’t compete with other countries when things are like this. We’re … drowning.” Brexit border checks and badly planned farm subsidies could plunge the UK into a food crisis Read more If Europe’s farmers have called a temporary halt to their protests in France and Germany – awaiting what one French farmer called “proof of love, not just words of love” from their respective governments – they have only just got going in Spain. In scenes now familiar from Poland to Portugal, angry farmers last week blocked roads, a port and a large wholesale market, and plan to continue through February. Italian farmers also took to their tractors last week, converging on the outskirts of Rome and staging a symbolic drive-past of the Colosseum on Friday. In recent weeks, large conurbations including Paris and Lyon have been blockaded. City centres in Brussels and Berlin have been choked to a standstill. Farmers have closed down motorways, dumped manure, hurled eggs, trashed supermarkets, set fire to hay bales and pallets, and clashed, sometimes violently, with police. View image in fullscreen Farmers block a Belgian highway linking Germany and France last month. Photograph: Olivier Hoslet/EPA Away from the heat of the protests, in TV interviews and parliamentary speeches, their cause has been enthusiastically adopted by a resurgent populist far right, which sees in the farmers’ revolt a promising new front in its long-running war on “out-of-touch elites”, “radical environmentalism” and “Brussels diktats”. Months from European parliament elections in which far-right and “anti-European” parties are projected to make big gains , farming – which represents just 1.4% of EU gross domestic product – has climbed, suddenly, to the top of the political agenda. Why are farmers protesting across the EU and what can the bloc do about it? Read more “Everywhere in Europe, the same questions are coming up,” said France’s prime minister, Gabriel Attal. “How do we continue to produce more, but better? Continue to tackle climate change? Avoid unfair competition from foreign countries?” They are questions to which Europe needs rapid answers. The first stirrings came, appropriately, in the Netherlands – Europe’s most intensively farmed country, home to more than 110 million livestock, including cows, pigs and chickens , and, largely as a consequence, to nitrogen emissions four times the EU average. Five years ago, officials said “drastic measures” were needed, including buying up and shutting down farms. The government unveiled plans to cut nitrogen emissions in half by 2030, partly by slashing livestock numbers by up to a third. Dutch farmers did not wait for the details to make their feelings known. In October 2019, more than 2,000 tractors trundled from all corners of the country to the seat of government in The Hague, causing 620 miles of motorway tailbacks. “No farmers no food,” their placards read, and “Proud of the farmer”. It was the start of a movement that has since snowballed cross the bloc, accelerating rapidly in recent months to leave – so far - only Austria, Denmark, Finland and Sweden untouched . Many protests – as in the Netherlands – are at least partly country-specific. In Italy, demands included reinstatement of an income tax exemption that had been in force since 2017 but was due to be scrapped in the 2024 budget. In Germany, where protests have briefly paused after an estimated 30,000 farmers and 5,000 tractors paralysed Berlin in mid-January , the most explosive issue is a government plan to phase out tax breaks on agricultural diesel to balance its budget. View image in fullscreen Farmers demonstrate in Barcelona last week against the EU common agricultural policy. Photograph: Albert Llop/NurPhoto/REX/Shutterstock But uniting them all are concerns shared across mainland Europe: falling product prices, rising costs, over-powerful retailers, cheap foreign imports and – in particular – EU environmental rules that many farmers see as unfair and economically unrealistic. “There are many issues,” said Arnaud Rousseau, president of France’s biggest farmers union, the FNSEA. “But the seeds of these protests are the same: lack of understanding between the reality on the ground and the decisions taken by governments.” Spain’s agriculture minister, Luis Planas, said last week that the causes of the protests sweeping Europe were diverse and complicated, but boiled down to longstanding dissatisfactions and farmers feeling underappreciated. “Farmers want to be listened to and respected,” said Planas. “And they often feel they aren’t respected – especially in Brussels, but also sometimes in Madrid, or in the urban or political sphere.” Some problems are structural. The EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP), the €55bn (£47bn) annual subsidy on which mainland Europe’s postwar food security has rested for more than 60 years, has always been based on economy of scale: bigger farms, common standards. Increasingly, that has encouraged consolidation (the number of farms in the bloc has fallen by more than a third since 2005), leaving many larger operations overburdened with debt and many smaller ones struggling to stay competitive on product price. Others are temporal. The past two years have brought a vicious squeeze on already tight margins, triggered by the pandemic and, more significantly, Russia’s war on Ukraine. Farmers’ costs – fuel, electricity, fertiliser and transport – have soared. At the same time, efforts by governments and retailers to limit the impact of the cost of living crisis on consumers have hit prices. Eurostat data shows the prices farmers get for their products fell on average by almost 9% between late 2022 and late 2023. That squeeze is being further exacerbated by an avalanche of imports, often from countries and regions where farmers are not generally subject to the same strict standards and regulations as in the EU – and so can compete unfairly on price. A flood of cheap agricultural produce, especially grain from Ukraine – on which the EU initially waived quotas and duties after Russia’s full-scale invasion – prompted furious Polish farmers to begin blocking cross-border roads as early as the spring of 2023. View image in fullscreen Spanish farmers protest against rising costs and green rules in Girona this month. Photograph: Albert Gea/Reuters Free-trade agreements with non-EU countries are also a source of anger, particularly a forthcoming deal with the Mercosur bloc of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay – all of which use hormones, antibiotics and pesticides banned in the EU. “We have to deal with all these rules and yet we face competition from goods from outside the EU that simply aren’t produced in the same conditions,” said Emmanuel Mathé, a French farmer, during a recent motorway blockade outside Paris. Completing the catalogue of woes, the climate crisis – droughts, floods, heatwaves and other extreme weather events – is increasingly affecting output, particularly in southern Europe. Besides Italy , large farmers’ protests are due in Greece this week. The readiest focus for farmers’ ire, however, is EU environmental legislation . For an already struggling industry, the European green deal, aimed at achieving climate neutrality across the bloc by 2050, looks very much like a bridge too far. The plan’s targets for agriculture included halving pesticide use by 2030, cutting fertiliser use by 20%, devoting more land to non-agricultural use – for example, by leaving it fallow – and doubling organic production to 25% of all EU farmland. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Copa-Cogeca, the leading agricultural lobby in Brussels, has described much of the deal’s “Farm2Fork” strategy as a “top-down … poorly designed, poorly evaluated, poorly financed” proposal that “offered few alternatives to farmers”. In response to the growing wave of rural revolt, Europe’s politicians are running scared. The European Commission has made multiple recent concessions in an effort to ease tensions, with its president, Ursula von der Leyen, insisting the bloc had heard farmers’ concerns. Last week, the commission shelved plans to cut pesticide use, saying it had become “a symbol of polarisation” . Last month, it unveiled an “emergency brake” on the most sensitive Ukrainian products and delayed rules on setting aside more land . Presenting the EU’s latest recommendations for cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, the executive last week also eased up on agriculture, removing from a previous draft the stipulation that farming would have to cut non-CO 2 emissions by 30% from 2015 levels. View image in fullscreen Farmers protest in Rome this month. Photograph: Cecilia Fabiano/LaPresse ceciliafabiano/REX/Shutterstock While farming would have to transition to a “more sustainable model of production”, von der Leyen said, farmers were undeniably being confronted with a range of problems and “deserved to be listened to … We should place more trust in them”. At a national level, too, governments have scrambled to respond: Berlin watered down its plans to cut diesel subsidies while the Italian prime minister, Georgia Meloni, on Friday agreed to partially reinstate the suspended tax exemption, at least for low earners. Paris scrapped a diesel tax increase and promised measures worth €400m, plus €200m more in cash aid. Attal also said it was now “out of the question” that France would agree to the planned EU-Mercosur trade deal as it stood and promised the government would stop imposing stricter rules on its farmers than EU regulations demanded. Will it all be enough? The growing politicisation of the movement is a real concern. In the Netherlands, a new populist party, the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB), emerged from the “nitrogen wars”, channelling rural resentment and opposition to “radical environmentalism”. The BBB swept the board in provincial elections last year and while it failed to repeat that performance in November’s general election, it is one of the parties negotiating to form the next Dutch government with far-right, anti-Islam provocateur Geert Wilders. The far-right Alternative for Germany – now second in the polls – has forcefully backed the farmers, as have members of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France, which has said it wants the “abolition”, pure and simple, of the European green deal. The farmers’ protests make an undeniably appealing bandwagon for far-right and populist parties, an extension of the culture wars that allows them to rail against what they portray as an increasingly dictatorial EU, as well as an urban, international elite ignoring – or attacking – oppressed rural workers. While most farmers reject any far-right connection, many have acknowledged that they feel trebly misunderstood: by politicians who impose unrealistic regulations, consumers who know little about how food is produced, and environmentalists who cast them as evildoers. In last month’s protests in Germany, a surprisingly large number of tractors bore placards complaining about Teslas. Elon Musk’s US electric car brand is, it seems, emblematic of the kind of urban wealth that votes green, but knows nothing about farming. View image in fullscreen Dutch farmers on their way to a protest in the Hague in 2019. Photograph: Vincent Jannink/EPA Back outside Pamplona, the list of Spanish farmers’ grievances sounded all too familiar: they want less bureaucracy, fairer prices, a revision of the European green deal, safeguarding of CAP subsidies and stronger protection against non-EU competition. And in Madrid, Planas was well aware of the political risk, with the agriculture minister saying he was worried that opposition parties were deliberately exploiting the farmers’ protests for political gain. He was particularly bothered, he said, by comments made in congress by Alberto Núñez Feijóo, the leader of the conservative People’s party, who accused the socialist-led government of alienating farmers through its pursuit of what he called “environmental dogmatism”. Planas said: “That’s an expression we’ve heard a lot from many sectors that – let’s be clear – are climate deniers and anti-EU. I find it very worrying because I believe that Spaniards understand very well that climate change is here.” Such talk by the likes of Feijóo, he added, called into question the bloc’s approach to fighting the climate emergency, whose effects – most notably a prolonged drought that is having a devastating impact on water supplies – were already being keenly felt on the Iberian peninsula. “Spain is a country that is pro-EU,” Planas said. “That doesn’t mean we don’t sometimes disagree with the odd decision. “But I think what’s happening now is directly linked to the forthcoming European elections.” 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 Farming The Observer Food Agriculture Europe European Union Protest Ursula von der Leyen features Share Reuse this content Spanish farmers march through Logrono, La Rioja on 8 February. Photograph: JM Garcia/EPA View image in fullscreen Spanish farmers march through Logrono, La Rioja on 8 February. Photograph: JM Garcia/EPA Spanish farmers march through Logrono, La Rioja on 8 February. Photograph: JM Garcia/EPA View image in fullscreen Spanish farmers march through Logrono, La Rioja on 8 February. Photograph: JM Garcia/EPA Spanish farmers march through Logrono, La Rioja on 8 February. Photograph: JM Garcia/EPA View image in fullscreen Spanish farmers march through Logrono, La Rioja on 8 February. Photograph: JM Garcia/EPA Spanish farmers march through Logrono, La Rioja on 8 February. Photograph: JM Garcia/EPA View image in fullscreen Spanish farmers march through Logrono, La Rioja on 8 February. Photograph: JM Garcia/EPA Spanish farmers march through Logrono, La Rioja on 8 February. Photograph: JM Garcia/EPA Spanish farmers march through Logrono, La Rioja on 8 February. Photograph: JM Garcia/EPA This article is more than 1 year old ‘They’re drowning us in regulations’: how Europe’s furious farmers took on Brussels and won This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘They’re drowning us in regulations’: how Europe’s furious farmers took on Brussels and won This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘They’re drowning us in regulations’: how Europe’s furious farmers took on Brussels and won 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 Mass demonstrations across the EU against environmental directives have become a politically charged issue Mass demonstrations across the EU against environmental directives have become a politically charged issue Mass demonstrations across the EU against environmental directives have become a politically charged issue O n the outskirts of the northern Spanish city of Pamplona, a green, red and blue stream of New Holland, John Deere, Massey Ferguson, Fendt and Deutz-Fahr tractors trundled forwards, horns honking and orange lights flashing. Under drizzly grey skies and escorted by navy blue Policía Nacional vans, few were in the mood to explain the motives for their demonstration, but a young farmer from the nearby town of Estella threw open his cab door to share his grievances. “They’re drowning us with all these regulations,” he said. “They need to ease up on all the directives and bureaucracy. We can’t compete with other countries when things are like this. We’re … drowning.” Brexit border checks and badly planned farm subsidies could plunge the UK into a food crisis Read more If Europe’s farmers have called a temporary halt to their protests in France and Germany – awaiting what one French farmer called “proof of love, not just words of love” from their respective governments – they have only just got going in Spain. In scenes now familiar from Poland to Portugal, angry farmers last week blocked roads, a port and a large wholesale market, and plan to continue through February. Italian farmers also took to their tractors last week, converging on the outskirts of Rome and staging a symbolic drive-past of the Colosseum on Friday. In recent weeks, large conurbations including Paris and Lyon have been blockaded. City centres in Brussels and Berlin have been choked to a standstill. Farmers have closed down motorways, dumped manure, hurled eggs, trashed supermarkets, set fire to hay bales and pallets, and clashed, sometimes violently, with police. View image in fullscreen Farmers block a Belgian highway linking Germany and France last month. Photograph: Olivier Hoslet/EPA Away from the heat of the protests, in TV interviews and parliamentary speeches, their cause has been enthusiastically adopted by a resurgent populist far right, which sees in the farmers’ revolt a promising new front in its long-running war on “out-of-touch elites”, “radical environmentalism” and “Brussels diktats”. Months from European parliament elections in which far-right and “anti-European” parties are projected to make big gains , farming – which represents just 1.4% of EU gross domestic product – has climbed, suddenly, to the top of the political agenda. Why are farmers protesting across the EU and what can the bloc do about it? Read more “Everywhere in Europe, the same questions are coming up,” said France’s prime minister, Gabriel Attal. “How do we continue to produce more, but better? Continue to tackle climate change? Avoid unfair competition from foreign countries?” They are questions to which Europe needs rapid answers. The first stirrings came, appropriately, in the Netherlands – Europe’s most intensively farmed country, home to more than 110 million livestock, including cows, pigs and chickens , and, largely as a consequence, to nitrogen emissions four times the EU average. Five years ago, officials said “drastic measures” were needed, including buying up and shutting down farms. The government unveiled plans to cut nitrogen emissions in half by 2030, partly by slashing livestock numbers by up to a third. Dutch farmers did not wait for the details to make their feelings known. In October 2019, more than 2,000 tractors trundled from all corners of the country to the seat of government in The Hague, causing 620 miles of motorway tailbacks. “No farmers no food,” their placards read, and “Proud of the farmer”. It was the start of a movement that has since snowballed cross the bloc, accelerating rapidly in recent months to leave – so far - only Austria, Denmark, Finland and Sweden untouched . Many protests – as in the Netherlands – are at least partly country-specific. In Italy, demands included reinstatement of an income tax exemption that had been in force since 2017 but was due to be scrapped in the 2024 budget. In Germany, where protests have briefly paused after an estimated 30,000 farmers and 5,000 tractors paralysed Berlin in mid-January , the most explosive issue is a government plan to phase out tax breaks on agricultural diesel to balance its budget. View image in fullscreen Farmers demonstrate in Barcelona last week against the EU common agricultural policy. Photograph: Albert Llop/NurPhoto/REX/Shutterstock But uniting them all are concerns shared across mainland Europe: falling product prices, rising costs, over-powerful retailers, cheap foreign imports and – in particular – EU environmental rules that many farmers see as unfair and economically unrealistic. “There are many issues,” said Arnaud Rousseau, president of France’s biggest farmers union, the FNSEA. “But the seeds of these protests are the same: lack of understanding between the reality on the ground and the decisions taken by governments.” Spain’s agriculture minister, Luis Planas, said last week that the causes of the protests sweeping Europe were diverse and complicated, but boiled down to longstanding dissatisfactions and farmers feeling underappreciated. “Farmers want to be listened to and respected,” said Planas. “And they often feel they aren’t respected – especially in Brussels, but also sometimes in Madrid, or in the urban or political sphere.” Some problems are structural. The EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP), the €55bn (£47bn) annual subsidy on which mainland Europe’s postwar food security has rested for more than 60 years, has always been based on economy of scale: bigger farms, common standards. Increasingly, that has encouraged consolidation (the number of farms in the bloc has fallen by more than a third since 2005), leaving many larger operations overburdened with debt and many smaller ones struggling to stay competitive on product price. Others are temporal. The past two years have brought a vicious squeeze on already tight margins, triggered by the pandemic and, more significantly, Russia’s war on Ukraine. Farmers’ costs – fuel, electricity, fertiliser and transport – have soared. At the same time, efforts by governments and retailers to limit the impact of the cost of living crisis on consumers have hit prices. Eurostat data shows the prices farmers get for their products fell on average by almost 9% between late 2022 and late 2023. That squeeze is being further exacerbated by an avalanche of imports, often from countries and regions where farmers are not generally subject to the same strict standards and regulations as in the EU – and so can compete unfairly on price. A flood of cheap agricultural produce, especially grain from Ukraine – on which the EU initially waived quotas and duties after Russia’s full-scale invasion – prompted furious Polish farmers to begin blocking cross-border roads as early as the spring of 2023. View image in fullscreen Spanish farmers protest against rising costs and green rules in Girona this month. Photograph: Albert Gea/Reuters Free-trade agreements with non-EU countries are also a source of anger, particularly a forthcoming deal with the Mercosur bloc of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay – all of which use hormones, antibiotics and pesticides banned in the EU. “We have to deal with all these rules and yet we face competition from goods from outside the EU that simply aren’t produced in the same conditions,” said Emmanuel Mathé, a French farmer, during a recent motorway blockade outside Paris. Completing the catalogue of woes, the climate crisis – droughts, floods, heatwaves and other extreme weather events – is increasingly affecting output, particularly in southern Europe. Besides Italy , large farmers’ protests are due in Greece this week. The readiest focus for farmers’ ire, however, is EU environmental legislation . For an already struggling industry, the European green deal, aimed at achieving climate neutrality across the bloc by 2050, looks very much like a bridge too far. The plan’s targets for agriculture included halving pesticide use by 2030, cutting fertiliser use by 20%, devoting more land to non-agricultural use – for example, by leaving it fallow – and doubling organic production to 25% of all EU farmland. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Copa-Cogeca, the leading agricultural lobby in Brussels, has described much of the deal’s “Farm2Fork” strategy as a “top-down … poorly designed, poorly evaluated, poorly financed” proposal that “offered few alternatives to farmers”. In response to the growing wave of rural revolt, Europe’s politicians are running scared. The European Commission has made multiple recent concessions in an effort to ease tensions, with its president, Ursula von der Leyen, insisting the bloc had heard farmers’ concerns. Last week, the commission shelved plans to cut pesticide use, saying it had become “a symbol of polarisation” . Last month, it unveiled an “emergency brake” on the most sensitive Ukrainian products and delayed rules on setting aside more land . Presenting the EU’s latest recommendations for cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, the executive last week also eased up on agriculture, removing from a previous draft the stipulation that farming would have to cut non-CO 2 emissions by 30% from 2015 levels. View image in fullscreen Farmers protest in Rome this month. Photograph: Cecilia Fabiano/LaPresse ceciliafabiano/REX/Shutterstock While farming would have to transition to a “more sustainable model of production”, von der Leyen said, farmers were undeniably being confronted with a range of problems and “deserved to be listened to … We should place more trust in them”. At a national level, too, governments have scrambled to respond: Berlin watered down its plans to cut diesel subsidies while the Italian prime minister, Georgia Meloni, on Friday agreed to partially reinstate the suspended tax exemption, at least for low earners. Paris scrapped a diesel tax increase and promised measures worth €400m, plus €200m more in cash aid. Attal also said it was now “out of the question” that France would agree to the planned EU-Mercosur trade deal as it stood and promised the government would stop imposing stricter rules on its farmers than EU regulations demanded. Will it all be enough? The growing politicisation of the movement is a real concern. In the Netherlands, a new populist party, the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB), emerged from the “nitrogen wars”, channelling rural resentment and opposition to “radical environmentalism”. The BBB swept the board in provincial elections last year and while it failed to repeat that performance in November’s general election, it is one of the parties negotiating to form the next Dutch government with far-right, anti-Islam provocateur Geert Wilders. The far-right Alternative for Germany – now second in the polls – has forcefully backed the farmers, as have members of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France, which has said it wants the “abolition”, pure and simple, of the European green deal. The farmers’ protests make an undeniably appealing bandwagon for far-right and populist parties, an extension of the culture wars that allows them to rail against what they portray as an increasingly dictatorial EU, as well as an urban, international elite ignoring – or attacking – oppressed rural workers. While most farmers reject any far-right connection, many have acknowledged that they feel trebly misunderstood: by politicians who impose unrealistic regulations, consumers who know little about how food is produced, and environmentalists who cast them as evildoers. In last month’s protests in Germany, a surprisingly large number of tractors bore placards complaining about Teslas. Elon Musk’s US electric car brand is, it seems, emblematic of the kind of urban wealth that votes green, but knows nothing about farming. View image in fullscreen Dutch farmers on their way to a protest in the Hague in 2019. Photograph: Vincent Jannink/EPA Back outside Pamplona, the list of Spanish farmers’ grievances sounded all too familiar: they want less bureaucracy, fairer prices, a revision of the European green deal, safeguarding of CAP subsidies and stronger protection against non-EU competition. And in Madrid, Planas was well aware of the political risk, with the agriculture minister saying he was worried that opposition parties were deliberately exploiting the farmers’ protests for political gain. He was particularly bothered, he said, by comments made in congress by Alberto Núñez Feijóo, the leader of the conservative People’s party, who accused the socialist-led government of alienating farmers through its pursuit of what he called “environmental dogmatism”. Planas said: “That’s an expression we’ve heard a lot from many sectors that – let’s be clear – are climate deniers and anti-EU. I find it very worrying because I believe that Spaniards understand very well that climate change is here.” Such talk by the likes of Feijóo, he added, called into question the bloc’s approach to fighting the climate emergency, whose effects – most notably a prolonged drought that is having a devastating impact on water supplies – were already being keenly felt on the Iberian peninsula. “Spain is a country that is pro-EU,” Planas said. “That doesn’t mean we don’t sometimes disagree with the odd decision. “But I think what’s happening now is directly linked to the forthcoming European elections.” 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 Farming The Observer Food Agriculture Europe European Union Protest Ursula von der Leyen features Share Reuse this content O n the outskirts of the northern Spanish city of Pamplona, a green, red and blue stream of New Holland, John Deere, Massey Ferguson, Fendt and Deutz-Fahr tractors trundled forwards, horns honking and orange lights flashing. Under drizzly grey skies and escorted by navy blue Policía Nacional vans, few were in the mood to explain the motives for their demonstration, but a young farmer from the nearby town of Estella threw open his cab door to share his grievances. “They’re drowning us with all these regulations,” he said. “They need to ease up on all the directives and bureaucracy. We can’t compete with other countries when things are like this. We’re … drowning.” Brexit border checks and badly planned farm subsidies could plunge the UK into a food crisis Read more If Europe’s farmers have called a temporary halt to their protests in France and Germany – awaiting what one French farmer called “proof of love, not just words of love” from their respective governments – they have only just got going in Spain. In scenes now familiar from Poland to Portugal, angry farmers last week blocked roads, a port and a large wholesale market, and plan to continue through February. Italian farmers also took to their tractors last week, converging on the outskirts of Rome and staging a symbolic drive-past of the Colosseum on Friday. In recent weeks, large conurbations including Paris and Lyon have been blockaded. City centres in Brussels and Berlin have been choked to a standstill. Farmers have closed down motorways, dumped manure, hurled eggs, trashed supermarkets, set fire to hay bales and pallets, and clashed, sometimes violently, with police. View image in fullscreen Farmers block a Belgian highway linking Germany and France last month. Photograph: Olivier Hoslet/EPA Away from the heat of the protests, in TV interviews and parliamentary speeches, their cause has been enthusiastically adopted by a resurgent populist far right, which sees in the farmers’ revolt a promising new front in its long-running war on “out-of-touch elites”, “radical environmentalism” and “Brussels diktats”. Months from European parliament elections in which far-right and “anti-European” parties are projected to make big gains , farming – which represents just 1.4% of EU gross domestic product – has climbed, suddenly, to the top of the political agenda. Why are farmers protesting across the EU and what can the bloc do about it? Read more “Everywhere in Europe, the same questions are coming up,” said France’s prime minister, Gabriel Attal. “How do we continue to produce more, but better? Continue to tackle climate change? Avoid unfair competition from foreign countries?” They are questions to which Europe needs rapid answers. The first stirrings came, appropriately, in the Netherlands – Europe’s most intensively farmed country, home to more than 110 million livestock, including cows, pigs and chickens , and, largely as a consequence, to nitrogen emissions four times the EU average. Five years ago, officials said “drastic measures” were needed, including buying up and shutting down farms. The government unveiled plans to cut nitrogen emissions in half by 2030, partly by slashing livestock numbers by up to a third. Dutch farmers did not wait for the details to make their feelings known. In October 2019, more than 2,000 tractors trundled from all corners of the country to the seat of government in The Hague, causing 620 miles of motorway tailbacks. “No farmers no food,” their placards read, and “Proud of the farmer”. It was the start of a movement that has since snowballed cross the bloc, accelerating rapidly in recent months to leave – so far - only Austria, Denmark, Finland and Sweden untouched . Many protests – as in the Netherlands – are at least partly country-specific. In Italy, demands included reinstatement of an income tax exemption that had been in force since 2017 but was due to be scrapped in the 2024 budget. In Germany, where protests have briefly paused after an estimated 30,000 farmers and 5,000 tractors paralysed Berlin in mid-January , the most explosive issue is a government plan to phase out tax breaks on agricultural diesel to balance its budget. View image in fullscreen Farmers demonstrate in Barcelona last week against the EU common agricultural policy. Photograph: Albert Llop/NurPhoto/REX/Shutterstock But uniting them all are concerns shared across mainland Europe: falling product prices, rising costs, over-powerful retailers, cheap foreign imports and – in particular – EU environmental rules that many farmers see as unfair and economically unrealistic. “There are many issues,” said Arnaud Rousseau, president of France’s biggest farmers union, the FNSEA. “But the seeds of these protests are the same: lack of understanding between the reality on the ground and the decisions taken by governments.” Spain’s agriculture minister, Luis Planas, said last week that the causes of the protests sweeping Europe were diverse and complicated, but boiled down to longstanding dissatisfactions and farmers feeling underappreciated. “Farmers want to be listened to and respected,” said Planas. “
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
‘The ultimate protest against Labour’: George Galloway’s bid to win Rochdale
George Galloway has told people in Rochdale that he presents an opportunity ‘to be a voice of Gaza’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen George Galloway has told people in Rochdale that he presents an opportunity ‘to be a voice of Gaza’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old ‘The ultimate protest against Labour’: George Galloway’s bid to win Rochdale This article is more than 1 year old Labour’s 9,668 majority in Greater Manchester seat challenged by Galloway’s Gaza-focused campaign “G eorge Galloway all the way!” cried Ali Dar, the assistant manager of Rochdale Chunky Chicken. “He came here a few days ago, he went in all the shops, and every person, even on social media, is voting for him. I voted last time Labour, but this time: definitely George Galloway .” Until now, he said, “the Asian community was supporting Labour unconditionally”. But not in the byelection on 29 February, because of Keir Starmer ’s refusal to back an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. A Labour canvasser wearing a red rosette waited silently for his chicken. The Guardian asked: “Are you not going to try to persuade him?” “Above my pay grade,” the canvasser answered. Quietly, he said he did not think Galloway would win. He’d been out all morning knocking on doors elsewhere in the constituency, where the demographics were different, and “Galloway didn’t come up at all”. View image in fullscreen Ali Dar, at Chunky Chicken in central Rochdale, was backing George Galloway. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Chunky Chicken is in the ward of Milkstone and Deeplish, just outside Rochdale town centre, where 72% of people are Muslim, according to the 2021 census. Galloway, the former Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin (1987-97) and Respect party MP for Bethnal Green and Bow (2005-10) and Bradford West (2012-15), has been working the ward hard – when not hosting his YouTube talkshow or retweeting admiring posts about Vladimir Putin. He walks the streets in his black fedora and Palestinian scarf, megaphone in hand, urging people to “lend” him their vote as “the ultimate protest” against Labour . They have “an opportunity sent by the almighty to be a voice of Gaza in the world”, he says. Much of his campaigning happens online, with a team of enthusiastic young people spreading the message on social media. “It seems to be working,” said one well-connected Deeplish resident. “Every morning I open WhatsApp and more people have changed their profile pictures to ‘Vote Galloway.’” View image in fullscreen Rochdale has a byelection on 29 February after the recent death of its veteran Labour MP, Tony Lloyd. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Galloway, who is now standing as the Workers party candidate, has also attracted a few unwelcome fans, including Nick Griffin , the former leader of the far-right British National party, who tweeted : “The man’s not perfect, but he’s streets ahead of any other possible winner.” Standing on a pile of wooden pallets outside the Bilal mosque on Friday, Galloway laid his message on thick: “How are you going to answer your children, your grandchildren, on judgment day when you are asked: ‘What did you do when Keir Starmer asked you to endorse what he has done?’” He received only muted applause from the 50-strong crowd, who had to be coaxed towards the front so that it didn’t look like Galloway was talking to an empty cul-de-sac on TikTok. View image in fullscreen Azhar Ali, the Labour candidate for Rochdale. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Labour is focusing resources elsewhere, after its candidate, the Lancashire county councillor Azhar Ali, was repeatedly abused by Deeplish locals. A video doing the rounds online shows him in a takeaway being called “Keir Starmer’s bum chum” while diners shout “free Palestine”. Ali, who worked as a Home Office adviser for five years after the 7/7 bombings , has supported an immediate ceasefire in Gaza as well as the release of hostages on both sides. But it doesn’t seem to make much difference to many Muslim voters. He acknowledged “there is anger on the streets” and “some support has drained away”. But he insisted that “bread-and-butter issues” such as the NHS “trump the Gaza issue”. View image in fullscreen Labour said Galloway’s campaign was ‘targeting just the Muslim community’ in Rochdale. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian On Sunday, Ali was forced to apologise after the Mail on Sunday reported remarks he made in the aftermath of the 7 October attacks in Israel, in which he said the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, deliberately allowed 1,400 of its citizens to be massacred in order to give it the “green light” for military action. Pat McFadden, Labour’s election coordinator, said Ali was “wrong to say that, he should never have said it”. Asked by Sky News if Ali remained a Labour candidate, he said: “In the upcoming byelection? Yes he will.” However, McFadden’s remarks prompted some speculation that Ali could be suspended by Labour if he is elected, and replaced in the general election later this year. Galloway, said Ali, is “targeting just the Muslim community. He’s come in on his white horse trying to be the saviour, but all he’s doing is dividing the community.” View image in fullscreen Galloway speaking outside Bilal mosque. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian He said he was “big and ugly enough” to engage with angry voters. “But what I’m not going to put up with is people being rude, disparaging and threatening abuse towards young women and men who go out campaigning for me.” Across the whole constituency, Muslims make up 30% of the population. In contrast, Galloway’s last byelection win took place in Bradford West in 2012, where Muslims made up 51% of the constituency. His last byelection loss was in 2021 in Batley and Spen , where 23% of the population were Muslim. To win in Rochdale, Galloway will have to overturn the 9,668 majority won in 2019 by Labour’s Tony Lloyd, who died from leukaemia last month. View image in fullscreen Paul Hanson, a retired police officer, in Milkstone Road, central Rochdale. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Strolling down Milkstone Road this week, Paul Hanson, a retired police officer, questioned whether Rochdale’s “indigenous” people would vote for a Pakistani Muslim, particularly after the town’s grooming scandal , where mostly Pakistani men exploited vulnerable white girls. “I have no problem with them – fantastic people, some of them, the ones that you get to know. But they have their beliefs and cultures and we have ours,” he said. In Littleborough, a wealthy and largely white village on the other side of the constituency, no one seemed to know Galloway was standing. Ann Robbins, out doing her shopping, said she would stick with Labour. She said she was a fan of Starmer, describing him as “a trustworthy man. I think he will try to do what he says.” View image in fullscreen Ben Kelsall, a bookseller in Littleborough, said he would vote for Labour. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian In George Kelsall Booksellers, Ben Kelsall said he, too, would vote Labour, describing Starmer as “more serious than the government at the minute”. Simon Danczuk, Rochdale’s Labour MP from 2010 to 2017 who was suspended from the party after a series of scandals, is standing for Reform UK, the rightwing party co-founded by Nigel Farage . He said Ali had spoken repeatedly about the “plight of the Palestinians” but “had not once bothered to speak upon behalf of the Asian grooming gang victims”. This, said Danczuk, illustrated Labour’s “woke” agenda. “Why would a Labour politician be more interested in the plight of the Palestinians than he is of poor white working class?” he said. View image in fullscreen Ann Robbins, in Littleborough, said she trusted Keir Starmer and would vote for Labour. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Ali said Danczuk was “living in cloud cuckoo land”. He said he chaired East Lancashire’s group against sexual exploitation and had “a strong record of calling out grooming, whichever community it’s in”. In his speech outside Bilal mosque, Galloway said he would perform a citizen’s arrest on any groomer. He then listed various northern paedophiles who were not Muslim, including Rochdale’s former Liberal MP, Cyril Smith. “Jimmy Savile wasn’t a Muslim,” he added. Explore more on these topics George Galloway Byelections Greater Manchester Labour North of England Workers party features Share Reuse this content George Galloway has told people in Rochdale that he presents an opportunity ‘to be a voice of Gaza’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen George Galloway has told people in Rochdale that he presents an opportunity ‘to be a voice of Gaza’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old ‘The ultimate protest against Labour’: George Galloway’s bid to win Rochdale This article is more than 1 year old Labour’s 9,668 majority in Greater Manchester seat challenged by Galloway’s Gaza-focused campaign “G eorge Galloway all the way!” cried Ali Dar, the assistant manager of Rochdale Chunky Chicken. “He came here a few days ago, he went in all the shops, and every person, even on social media, is voting for him. I voted last time Labour, but this time: definitely George Galloway .” Until now, he said, “the Asian community was supporting Labour unconditionally”. But not in the byelection on 29 February, because of Keir Starmer ’s refusal to back an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. A Labour canvasser wearing a red rosette waited silently for his chicken. The Guardian asked: “Are you not going to try to persuade him?” “Above my pay grade,” the canvasser answered. Quietly, he said he did not think Galloway would win. He’d been out all morning knocking on doors elsewhere in the constituency, where the demographics were different, and “Galloway didn’t come up at all”. View image in fullscreen Ali Dar, at Chunky Chicken in central Rochdale, was backing George Galloway. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Chunky Chicken is in the ward of Milkstone and Deeplish, just outside Rochdale town centre, where 72% of people are Muslim, according to the 2021 census. Galloway, the former Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin (1987-97) and Respect party MP for Bethnal Green and Bow (2005-10) and Bradford West (2012-15), has been working the ward hard – when not hosting his YouTube talkshow or retweeting admiring posts about Vladimir Putin. He walks the streets in his black fedora and Palestinian scarf, megaphone in hand, urging people to “lend” him their vote as “the ultimate protest” against Labour . They have “an opportunity sent by the almighty to be a voice of Gaza in the world”, he says. Much of his campaigning happens online, with a team of enthusiastic young people spreading the message on social media. “It seems to be working,” said one well-connected Deeplish resident. “Every morning I open WhatsApp and more people have changed their profile pictures to ‘Vote Galloway.’” View image in fullscreen Rochdale has a byelection on 29 February after the recent death of its veteran Labour MP, Tony Lloyd. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Galloway, who is now standing as the Workers party candidate, has also attracted a few unwelcome fans, including Nick Griffin , the former leader of the far-right British National party, who tweeted : “The man’s not perfect, but he’s streets ahead of any other possible winner.” Standing on a pile of wooden pallets outside the Bilal mosque on Friday, Galloway laid his message on thick: “How are you going to answer your children, your grandchildren, on judgment day when you are asked: ‘What did you do when Keir Starmer asked you to endorse what he has done?’” He received only muted applause from the 50-strong crowd, who had to be coaxed towards the front so that it didn’t look like Galloway was talking to an empty cul-de-sac on TikTok. View image in fullscreen Azhar Ali, the Labour candidate for Rochdale. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Labour is focusing resources elsewhere, after its candidate, the Lancashire county councillor Azhar Ali, was repeatedly abused by Deeplish locals. A video doing the rounds online shows him in a takeaway being called “Keir Starmer’s bum chum” while diners shout “free Palestine”. Ali, who worked as a Home Office adviser for five years after the 7/7 bombings , has supported an immediate ceasefire in Gaza as well as the release of hostages on both sides. But it doesn’t seem to make much difference to many Muslim voters. He acknowledged “there is anger on the streets” and “some support has drained away”. But he insisted that “bread-and-butter issues” such as the NHS “trump the Gaza issue”. View image in fullscreen Labour said Galloway’s campaign was ‘targeting just the Muslim community’ in Rochdale. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian On Sunday, Ali was forced to apologise after the Mail on Sunday reported remarks he made in the aftermath of the 7 October attacks in Israel, in which he said the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, deliberately allowed 1,400 of its citizens to be massacred in order to give it the “green light” for military action. Pat McFadden, Labour’s election coordinator, said Ali was “wrong to say that, he should never have said it”. Asked by Sky News if Ali remained a Labour candidate, he said: “In the upcoming byelection? Yes he will.” However, McFadden’s remarks prompted some speculation that Ali could be suspended by Labour if he is elected, and replaced in the general election later this year. Galloway, said Ali, is “targeting just the Muslim community. He’s come in on his white horse trying to be the saviour, but all he’s doing is dividing the community.” View image in fullscreen Galloway speaking outside Bilal mosque. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian He said he was “big and ugly enough” to engage with angry voters. “But what I’m not going to put up with is people being rude, disparaging and threatening abuse towards young women and men who go out campaigning for me.” Across the whole constituency, Muslims make up 30% of the population. In contrast, Galloway’s last byelection win took place in Bradford West in 2012, where Muslims made up 51% of the constituency. His last byelection loss was in 2021 in Batley and Spen , where 23% of the population were Muslim. To win in Rochdale, Galloway will have to overturn the 9,668 majority won in 2019 by Labour’s Tony Lloyd, who died from leukaemia last month. View image in fullscreen Paul Hanson, a retired police officer, in Milkstone Road, central Rochdale. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Strolling down Milkstone Road this week, Paul Hanson, a retired police officer, questioned whether Rochdale’s “indigenous” people would vote for a Pakistani Muslim, particularly after the town’s grooming scandal , where mostly Pakistani men exploited vulnerable white girls. “I have no problem with them – fantastic people, some of them, the ones that you get to know. But they have their beliefs and cultures and we have ours,” he said. In Littleborough, a wealthy and largely white village on the other side of the constituency, no one seemed to know Galloway was standing. Ann Robbins, out doing her shopping, said she would stick with Labour. She said she was a fan of Starmer, describing him as “a trustworthy man. I think he will try to do what he says.” View image in fullscreen Ben Kelsall, a bookseller in Littleborough, said he would vote for Labour. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian In George Kelsall Booksellers, Ben Kelsall said he, too, would vote Labour, describing Starmer as “more serious than the government at the minute”. Simon Danczuk, Rochdale’s Labour MP from 2010 to 2017 who was suspended from the party after a series of scandals, is standing for Reform UK, the rightwing party co-founded by Nigel Farage . He said Ali had spoken repeatedly about the “plight of the Palestinians” but “had not once bothered to speak upon behalf of the Asian grooming gang victims”. This, said Danczuk, illustrated Labour’s “woke” agenda. “Why would a Labour politician be more interested in the plight of the Palestinians than he is of poor white working class?” he said. View image in fullscreen Ann Robbins, in Littleborough, said she trusted Keir Starmer and would vote for Labour. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Ali said Danczuk was “living in cloud cuckoo land”. He said he chaired East Lancashire’s group against sexual exploitation and had “a strong record of calling out grooming, whichever community it’s in”. In his speech outside Bilal mosque, Galloway said he would perform a citizen’s arrest on any groomer. He then listed various northern paedophiles who were not Muslim, including Rochdale’s former Liberal MP, Cyril Smith. “Jimmy Savile wasn’t a Muslim,” he added. Explore more on these topics George Galloway Byelections Greater Manchester Labour North of England Workers party features Share Reuse this content George Galloway has told people in Rochdale that he presents an opportunity ‘to be a voice of Gaza’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen George Galloway has told people in Rochdale that he presents an opportunity ‘to be a voice of Gaza’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian George Galloway has told people in Rochdale that he presents an opportunity ‘to be a voice of Gaza’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen George Galloway has told people in Rochdale that he presents an opportunity ‘to be a voice of Gaza’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian George Galloway has told people in Rochdale that he presents an opportunity ‘to be a voice of Gaza’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen George Galloway has told people in Rochdale that he presents an opportunity ‘to be a voice of Gaza’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian George Galloway has told people in Rochdale that he presents an opportunity ‘to be a voice of Gaza’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen George Galloway has told people in Rochdale that he presents an opportunity ‘to be a voice of Gaza’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian George Galloway has told people in Rochdale that he presents an opportunity ‘to be a voice of Gaza’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian George Galloway has told people in Rochdale that he presents an opportunity ‘to be a voice of Gaza’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old ‘The ultimate protest against Labour’: George Galloway’s bid to win Rochdale This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘The ultimate protest against Labour’: George Galloway’s bid to win Rochdale This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘The ultimate protest against Labour’: George Galloway’s bid to win Rochdale 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’s 9,668 majority in Greater Manchester seat challenged by Galloway’s Gaza-focused campaign Labour’s 9,668 majority in Greater Manchester seat challenged by Galloway’s Gaza-focused campaign Labour’s 9,668 majority in Greater Manchester seat challenged by Galloway’s Gaza-focused campaign “G eorge Galloway all the way!” cried Ali Dar, the assistant manager of Rochdale Chunky Chicken. “He came here a few days ago, he went in all the shops, and every person, even on social media, is voting for him. I voted last time Labour, but this time: definitely George Galloway .” Until now, he said, “the Asian community was supporting Labour unconditionally”. But not in the byelection on 29 February, because of Keir Starmer ’s refusal to back an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. A Labour canvasser wearing a red rosette waited silently for his chicken. The Guardian asked: “Are you not going to try to persuade him?” “Above my pay grade,” the canvasser answered. Quietly, he said he did not think Galloway would win. He’d been out all morning knocking on doors elsewhere in the constituency, where the demographics were different, and “Galloway didn’t come up at all”. View image in fullscreen Ali Dar, at Chunky Chicken in central Rochdale, was backing George Galloway. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Chunky Chicken is in the ward of Milkstone and Deeplish, just outside Rochdale town centre, where 72% of people are Muslim, according to the 2021 census. Galloway, the former Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin (1987-97) and Respect party MP for Bethnal Green and Bow (2005-10) and Bradford West (2012-15), has been working the ward hard – when not hosting his YouTube talkshow or retweeting admiring posts about Vladimir Putin. He walks the streets in his black fedora and Palestinian scarf, megaphone in hand, urging people to “lend” him their vote as “the ultimate protest” against Labour . They have “an opportunity sent by the almighty to be a voice of Gaza in the world”, he says. Much of his campaigning happens online, with a team of enthusiastic young people spreading the message on social media. “It seems to be working,” said one well-connected Deeplish resident. “Every morning I open WhatsApp and more people have changed their profile pictures to ‘Vote Galloway.’” View image in fullscreen Rochdale has a byelection on 29 February after the recent death of its veteran Labour MP, Tony Lloyd. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Galloway, who is now standing as the Workers party candidate, has also attracted a few unwelcome fans, including Nick Griffin , the former leader of the far-right British National party, who tweeted : “The man’s not perfect, but he’s streets ahead of any other possible winner.” Standing on a pile of wooden pallets outside the Bilal mosque on Friday, Galloway laid his message on thick: “How are you going to answer your children, your grandchildren, on judgment day when you are asked: ‘What did you do when Keir Starmer asked you to endorse what he has done?’” He received only muted applause from the 50-strong crowd, who had to be coaxed towards the front so that it didn’t look like Galloway was talking to an empty cul-de-sac on TikTok. View image in fullscreen Azhar Ali, the Labour candidate for Rochdale. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Labour is focusing resources elsewhere, after its candidate, the Lancashire county councillor Azhar Ali, was repeatedly abused by Deeplish locals. A video doing the rounds online shows him in a takeaway being called “Keir Starmer’s bum chum” while diners shout “free Palestine”. Ali, who worked as a Home Office adviser for five years after the 7/7 bombings , has supported an immediate ceasefire in Gaza as well as the release of hostages on both sides. But it doesn’t seem to make much difference to many Muslim voters. He acknowledged “there is anger on the streets” and “some support has drained away”. But he insisted that “bread-and-butter issues” such as the NHS “trump the Gaza issue”. View image in fullscreen Labour said Galloway’s campaign was ‘targeting just the Muslim community’ in Rochdale. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian On Sunday, Ali was forced to apologise after the Mail on Sunday reported remarks he made in the aftermath of the 7 October attacks in Israel, in which he said the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, deliberately allowed 1,400 of its citizens to be massacred in order to give it the “green light” for military action. Pat McFadden, Labour’s election coordinator, said Ali was “wrong to say that, he should never have said it”. Asked by Sky News if Ali remained a Labour candidate, he said: “In the upcoming byelection? Yes he will.” However, McFadden’s remarks prompted some speculation that Ali could be suspended by Labour if he is elected, and replaced in the general election later this year. Galloway, said Ali, is “targeting just the Muslim community. He’s come in on his white horse trying to be the saviour, but all he’s doing is dividing the community.” View image in fullscreen Galloway speaking outside Bilal mosque. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian He said he was “big and ugly enough” to engage with angry voters. “But what I’m not going to put up with is people being rude, disparaging and threatening abuse towards young women and men who go out campaigning for me.” Across the whole constituency, Muslims make up 30% of the population. In contrast, Galloway’s last byelection win took place in Bradford West in 2012, where Muslims made up 51% of the constituency. His last byelection loss was in 2021 in Batley and Spen , where 23% of the population were Muslim. To win in Rochdale, Galloway will have to overturn the 9,668 majority won in 2019 by Labour’s Tony Lloyd, who died from leukaemia last month. View image in fullscreen Paul Hanson, a retired police officer, in Milkstone Road, central Rochdale. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Strolling down Milkstone Road this week, Paul Hanson, a retired police officer, questioned whether Rochdale’s “indigenous” people would vote for a Pakistani Muslim, particularly after the town’s grooming scandal , where mostly Pakistani men exploited vulnerable white girls. “I have no problem with them – fantastic people, some of them, the ones that you get to know. But they have their beliefs and cultures and we have ours,” he said. In Littleborough, a wealthy and largely white village on the other side of the constituency, no one seemed to know Galloway was standing. Ann Robbins, out doing her shopping, said she would stick with Labour. She said she was a fan of Starmer, describing him as “a trustworthy man. I think he will try to do what he says.” View image in fullscreen Ben Kelsall, a bookseller in Littleborough, said he would vote for Labour. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian In George Kelsall Booksellers, Ben Kelsall said he, too, would vote Labour, describing Starmer as “more serious than the government at the minute”. Simon Danczuk, Rochdale’s Labour MP from 2010 to 2017 who was suspended from the party after a series of scandals, is standing for Reform UK, the rightwing party co-founded by Nigel Farage . He said Ali had spoken repeatedly about the “plight of the Palestinians” but “had not once bothered to speak upon behalf of the Asian grooming gang victims”. This, said Danczuk, illustrated Labour’s “woke” agenda. “Why would a Labour politician be more interested in the plight of the Palestinians than he is of poor white working class?” he said. View image in fullscreen Ann Robbins, in Littleborough, said she trusted Keir Starmer and would vote for Labour. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Ali said Danczuk was “living in cloud cuckoo land”. He said he chaired East Lancashire’s group against sexual exploitation and had “a strong record of calling out grooming, whichever community it’s in”. In his speech outside Bilal mosque, Galloway said he would perform a citizen’s arrest on any groomer. He then listed various northern paedophiles who were not Muslim, including Rochdale’s former Liberal MP, Cyril Smith. “Jimmy Savile wasn’t a Muslim,” he added. Explore more on these topics George Galloway Byelections Greater Manchester Labour North of England Workers party features Share Reuse this content “G eorge Galloway all the way!” cried Ali Dar, the assistant manager of Rochdale Chunky Chicken. “He came here a few days ago, he went in all the shops, and every person, even on social media, is voting for him. I voted last time Labour, but this time: definitely George Galloway .” Until now, he said, “the Asian community was supporting Labour unconditionally”. But not in the byelection on 29 February, because of Keir Starmer ’s refusal to back an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. A Labour canvasser wearing a red rosette waited silently for his chicken. The Guardian asked: “Are you not going to try to persuade him?” “Above my pay grade,” the canvasser answered. Quietly, he said he did not think Galloway would win. He’d been out all morning knocking on doors elsewhere in the constituency, where the demographics were different, and “Galloway didn’t come up at all”. View image in fullscreen Ali Dar, at Chunky Chicken in central Rochdale, was backing George Galloway. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Chunky Chicken is in the ward of Milkstone and Deeplish, just outside Rochdale town centre, where 72% of people are Muslim, according to the 2021 census. Galloway, the former Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin (1987-97) and Respect party MP for Bethnal Green and Bow (2005-10) and Bradford West (2012-15), has been working the ward hard – when not hosting his YouTube talkshow or retweeting admiring posts about Vladimir Putin. He walks the streets in his black fedora and Palestinian scarf, megaphone in hand, urging people to “lend” him their vote as “the ultimate protest” against Labour . They have “an opportunity sent by the almighty to be a voice of Gaza in the world”, he says. Much of his campaigning happens online, with a team of enthusiastic young people spreading the message on social media. “It seems to be working,” said one well-connected Deeplish resident. “Every morning I open WhatsApp and more people have changed their profile pictures to ‘Vote Galloway.’” View image in fullscreen Rochdale has a byelection on 29 February after the recent death of its veteran Labour MP, Tony Lloyd. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Galloway, who is now standing as the Workers party candidate, has also attracted a few unwelcome fans, including Nick Griffin , the former leader of the far-right British National party, who tweeted : “The man’s not perfect, but he’s streets ahead of any other possible winner.” Standing on a pile of wooden pallets outside the Bilal mosque on Friday, Galloway laid his message on thick: “How are you going to answer your children, your grandchildren, on judgment day when you are asked: ‘What did you do when Keir Starmer asked you to endorse what he has done?’” He received only muted applause from the 50-strong crowd, who had to be coaxed towards the front so that it didn’t look like Galloway was talking to an empty cul-de-sac on TikTok. View image in fullscreen Azhar Ali, the Labour candidate for Rochdale. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Labour is focusing resources elsewhere, after its candidate, the Lancashire county councillor Azhar Ali, was repeatedly abused by Deeplish locals. A video doing the rounds online shows him in a takeaway being called “Keir Starmer’s bum chum” while diners shout “free Palestine”. Ali, who worked as a Home Office adviser for five years after the 7/7 bombings , has supported an immediate ceasefire in Gaza as well as the release of hostages on both sides. But it doesn’t seem to make much difference to many Muslim voters. He acknowledged “there is anger on the streets” and “some support has drained away”. But he insisted that “bread-and-butter issues” such as the NHS “trump the Gaza issue”. View image in fullscreen Labour said Galloway’s campaign was ‘targeting just the Muslim community’ in Rochdale. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian On Sunday, Ali was forced to apologise after the Mail on Sunday reported remarks he made in the aftermath of the 7 October attacks in Israel, in which he said the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, deliberately allowed 1,400 of its citizens to be massacred in order to give it the “green light” for military action. Pat McFadden, Labour’s election coordinator, said Ali was “wrong to say that, he should never have said it”. Asked by Sky News if Ali remained a Labour candidate, he said: “In the upcoming byelection? Yes he will.” However, McFadden’s remarks prompted some speculation that Ali could be suspended by Labour if he is elected, and replaced in the general election later this year. Galloway, said Ali, is “targeting just the Muslim community. He’s come in on his white horse trying to be the saviour, but all he’s doing is dividing the community.” View image in fullscreen Galloway speaking outside Bilal mosque. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian He said he was “big and ugly enough” to engage with angry voters. “But what I’m not going to put up with is people being rude, disparaging and threatening abuse towards young women and men who go out campaigning for me.” Across the whole constituency, Muslims make up 30% of the population. In contrast, Galloway’s last byelection win took place in Bradford West in 2012, where Muslims made up 51% of the constituency. His last byelection loss was in 2021 in Batley and Spen , where 23% of the population were Muslim. To win in Rochdale, Galloway will have to overturn the 9,668 majority won in 2019 by Labour’s Tony Lloyd, who died from leukaemia last month. View image in fullscreen Paul Hanson, a retired police officer, in Milkstone Road, central Rochdale. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Strolling down Milkstone Road this week, Paul Hanson, a retired police officer, questioned whether Rochdale’s “indigenous” people would vote for a Pakistani Muslim, particularly after the town’s grooming scandal , where mostly Pakistani men exploited vulnerable white girls. “I have no problem with them – fantastic people, some of them, the ones that you get to know. But they have their beliefs and cultures and we have ours,” he said. In Littleborough, a wealthy and largely white village on the other side of the constituency, no one seemed to know Galloway was standing. Ann Robbins, out doing her shopping, said she would stick with Labour. She said she was a fan of Starmer, describing him as “a trustworthy man. I think he will try to do what he says.” View image in fullscreen Ben Kelsall, a bookseller in Littleborough, said he would vote for Labour. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian In George Kelsall Booksellers, Ben Kelsall said he, too, would vote Labour, describing Starmer as “more serious than the government at the minute”. Simon Danczuk, Rochdale’s Labour MP from 2010 to 2017 who was suspended from the party after a series of scandals, is standing for Reform UK, the rightwing party co-founded by Nigel Farage . He said Ali had spoken repeatedly about the “plight of the Palestinians” but “had not once bothered to speak upon behalf of the Asian grooming gang victims”. This, said Danczuk, illustrated Labour’s “woke” agenda. “Why would a Labour politician be more interested in the plight of the Palestinians than he is of poor white working class?” he said. View image in fullscreen Ann Robbins, in Littleborough, said she trusted Keir Starmer and would vote for Labour. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Ali said Danczuk was “living in cloud cuckoo land”. He said he chaired East Lancashire’s group against sexual exploitation and had “a strong record of calling out grooming, whichever community it’s in”. In his speech outside Bilal mosque, Galloway said he would perform a citizen’s arrest on any groomer. He then listed various northern paedophiles who were not Muslim, including Rochdale’s former Liberal MP, Cyril Smith. “Jimmy Savile wasn’t a Muslim,” he added. Explore more on these topics George Galloway Byelections Greater Manchester Labour North of England Workers party features Share Reuse this content “G eorge Galloway all the way!” cried Ali Dar, the assistant manager of Rochdale Chunky Chicken. “He came here a few days ago, he went in all the shops, and every person, even on social media, is voting for him. I voted last time Labour, but this time: definitely George Galloway .” Until now, he said, “the Asian community was supporting Labour unconditionally”. But not in the byelection on 29 February, because of Keir Starmer ’s refusal to back an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. A Labour canvasser wearing a red rosette waited silently for his chicken. The Guardian asked: “Are you not going to try to persuade him?” “Above my pay grade,” the canvasser answered. Quietly, he said he did not think Galloway would win. He’d been out all morning knocking on doors elsewhere in the constituency, where the demographics were different, and “Galloway didn’t come up at all”. View image in fullscreen Ali Dar, at Chunky Chicken in central Rochdale, was backing George Galloway. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Chunky Chicken is in the ward of Milkstone and Deeplish, just outside Rochdale town centre, where 72% of people are Muslim, according to the 2021 census. Galloway, the former Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin (1987-97) and Respect party MP for Bethnal Green and Bow (2005-10) and Bradford West (2012-15), has been working the ward hard – when not hosting his YouTube talkshow or retweeting admiring posts about Vladimir Putin. He walks the streets in his black fedora and Palestinian scarf, megaphone in hand, urging people to “lend” him their vote as “the ultimate protest” against Labour . They have “an opportunity sent by the almighty to be a voice of Gaza in the world”, he says. Much of his campaigning happens online, with a team of enthusiastic young people spreading the message on social media. “It seems to be working,” said one well-connected Deeplish resident. “Every morning I open WhatsApp and more people have changed their profile pictures to ‘Vote Galloway.’” View image in fullscreen Rochdale has a byelection on 29 February after the recent death of its veteran Labour MP, Tony Lloyd. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Galloway, who is now standing as the Workers party candidate, has also attracted a few unwelcome fans, including Nick Griffin , the former leader of the far-right British National party, who tweeted : “The man’s not perfect, but he’s streets ahead of any other possible winner.” Standing on a pile of wooden pallets outside the Bilal mosque on Friday, Galloway laid his message on thick: “How are you going to answer your children, your grandchildren, on judgment day when you are asked: ‘What did you do when Keir Starmer asked you to endorse what he has done?’” He received only muted applause from the 50-strong crowd, who had to be coaxed towards the front so that it didn’t look like Galloway was talking to an empty cul-de-sac on TikTok. View image in fullscreen Azhar Ali, the Labour candidate for Rochdale. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Labour is focusing resources elsewhere, after its candidate, the Lancashire county councillor Azhar Ali, was repeatedly abused by Deeplish locals. A video doing the rounds online shows him in a takeaway being called “Keir Starmer’s bum chum” while diners shout “free Palestine”. Ali, who worked as a Home Office adviser for five years after the 7/7 bombings , has supported an immediate ceasefire in Gaza as well as the release of hostages on both sides. But it doesn’t seem to make much difference to many Muslim voters. He acknowledged “there is anger on the streets” and “some support has drained away”. But he insisted that “bread-and-butter issues” such as the NHS “trump the Gaza issue”. View image in fullscreen Labour said Galloway’s campaign was ‘targeting just the Muslim community’ in Rochdale. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian On Sunday, Ali was forced to apologise after the Mail on Sunday reported remarks he made in the aftermath of the 7 October attacks in Israel, in which he said the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, deliberately allowed 1,400 of its citizens to be massacred in order to give it the “green light” for military action. Pat McFadden, Labour’s election coordinator, said Ali was “wrong to say that, he should never have said it”. Asked by Sky News if Ali remained a Labour candidate, he said: “In the upcoming byelection? Yes he will.” However, McFadden’s remarks prompted some speculation that Ali could be suspended by Labour if he is elected, and replaced in the general election later this year. Galloway, said Ali, is “targeting just the Muslim community. He’s come in on his white horse trying to be the saviour, but all he’s doing is dividing the community.” View image in fullscreen Galloway speaking outside Bilal mosque. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian He said he was “big and ugly enough” to engage with angry voters. “But what I’m not going to put up with is people being rude, disparaging and threatening abuse towards young women and men who go out campaigning for me.” Across the whole constituency, Muslims make up 30% of the population. In contrast, Galloway’s last byelection win took place in Bradford West in 2012, where Muslims made up 51% of the constituency. His last byelection loss was in 2021 in Batley and Spen , where 23% of the population were Muslim. To win in Rochdale, Galloway will have to overturn the 9,668 majority won in 2019 by Labour’s Tony Lloyd, who died from leukaemia last month. View image in fullscreen Paul Hanson, a retired police officer, in Milkstone Road, central Rochdale. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Strolling down Milkstone Road this week, Paul Hanson, a retired police officer, questioned whether Rochdale’s “indigenous” people would vote for a Pakistani Muslim, particularly after the town’s grooming scandal , where mostly Pakistani men exploited vulnerable white girls. “I have no problem with them – fantastic people, some of them, the ones that you get to know. But they have their beliefs and cultures and we have ours,” he said. In Littleborough, a wealthy and largely white village on the other side of the constituency, no one seemed to know Galloway was standing. Ann Robbins, out doing her shopping, said she would stick with Labour. She said she was a fan of Starmer, describing him as “a trustworthy man. I think he will try to do what he says.” View image in fullscreen Ben Kelsall, a bookseller in Littleborough, said he would vote for Labour. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian In George Kelsall Booksellers, Ben Kelsall said he, too, would vote Labour, describing Starmer as “more serious than the government at the minute”. Simon Danczuk, Rochdale’s Labour MP from 2010 to 2017 who was suspended from the party after a series of scandals, is standing for Reform UK, the rightwing party co-founded by Nigel Farage . He said Ali had spoken repeatedly about the “plight of the Palestinians” but “had not once bothered to speak upon behalf of the Asian grooming gang victims”. This, said Danczuk, illustrated Labour’s “woke” agenda. “Why would a Labour politician be more interested in the plight of the Palestinians than he is of poor white working class?” he said. View image in fullscreen Ann Robbins, in Littleborough, said she trusted Keir Starmer and would vote for Labour. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Ali said Danczuk was “living in cloud cuckoo land”. He said he chaired East Lancashire’s group against sexual exploitation and had “a strong record of calling out grooming, whichever community it’s in”. In his speech outside Bilal mosque, Galloway said he would perform a citizen’s arrest on any groomer. He then listed various northern paedophiles who were not Muslim, including Rochdale’s former Liberal MP, Cyril Smith. “Jimmy Savile wasn’t a Muslim,” he added. “G eorge Galloway all the way!” cried Ali Dar, the assistant manager of Rochdale Chunky Chicken. “He came here a few days ago, he went in all the shops, and every person, even on social media, is voting for him. I voted last time Labour, but this time: definitely George Galloway .” Until now, he said, “the Asian community was supporting Labour unconditionally”. But not in the byelection on 29 February, because of Keir Starmer ’s refusal to back an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. A Labour canvasser wearing a red rosette waited silently for his chicken. The Guardian asked: “Are you not going to try to persuade him?” “Above my pay grade,” the canvasser answered. Quietly, he said he did not think Galloway would win. He’d been out all morning knocking on doors elsewhere in the constituency, where the demographics were different, and “Galloway didn’t come up at all”. View image in fullscreen Ali Dar, at Chunky Chicken in central Rochdale, was backing George Galloway. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Chunky Chicken is in the ward of Milkstone and Deeplish, just outside Rochdale town centre, where 72% of people are Muslim, according to the 2021 census. Galloway, the former Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin (1987-97) and Respect party MP for Bethnal Green and Bow (2005-10) and Bradford West (2012-15), has been working the ward hard – when not hosting his YouTube talkshow or retweeting admiring posts about Vladimir Putin. He walks the streets in his black fedora and Palestinian scarf, megaphone in hand, urging people to “lend” him their vote as “the ultimate protest” against Labour . They have “an opportunity sent by the almighty to be a voice of Gaza in the world”, he says. Much of his campaigning happens online, with a team of enthusiastic young people spreading the message on social media. “It seems to be working,” said one well-connected Deeplish resident. “Every morning I open WhatsApp and more people have changed their profile pictures to ‘Vote Galloway.’” View image in fullscreen Rochdale has a byelection on 29 February after the recent death of its veteran Labour MP, Tony Lloyd. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Galloway, who is now standing as the Workers party candidate, has also attracted a few unwelcome fans, including Nick Griffin , the former leader of the far-right British National party, who tweeted : “The man’s not perfect, but he’s streets ahead of any other possible winner.” Standing on a pile of wooden pallets outside the Bilal mosque on Friday, Galloway laid his message on thick: “How are you going to answer your children, your grandchildren, on judgment day when you are asked: ‘What did you do when Keir Starmer asked you to endorse what he has done?’” He received only muted applause from the 50-strong crowd, who had to be coaxed towards the front so that it didn’t look like Galloway was talking to an empty cul-de-sac on TikTok. View image in fullscreen Azhar Ali, the Labour candidate for Rochdale. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Labour is focusing resources elsewhere, after its candidate, the Lancashire county councillor Azhar Ali, was repeatedly abused by Deeplish locals. A video doing the rounds online shows him in a takeaway being called “Keir Starmer’s bum chum” while diners shout “free Palestine”. Ali, who worked as a Home Office adviser for five years after the 7/7 bombings , has supported an immediate ceasefire in Gaza as well as the release of hostages on both sides. But it doesn’t seem to make much difference to many Muslim voters. He acknowledged “there is anger on the streets” and “some support has drained away”. But he insisted that “bread-and-butter issues” such as the NHS “trump the Gaza issue”. View image in fullscreen Labour said Galloway’s campaign was ‘targeting just the Muslim community’ in Rochdale. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian On Sunday, Ali was forced to apologise after the Mail on Sunday reported remarks he made in the aftermath of the 7 October attacks in Israel, in which he said the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, deliberately allowed 1,400 of its citizens to be massacred in order to give it the “green light” for military action. Pat McFadden, Labour’s election coordinator, said Ali was “wrong to say that, he should never have said it”. Asked by Sky News if Ali remained a Labour candidate, he said: “In the upcoming byelection? Yes he will.” However, McFadden’s remarks prompted some speculation that Ali could be suspended by Labour if he is elected, and replaced in the general election later this year. Galloway, said Ali, is “targeting just the Muslim community. He’s come in on his white horse trying to be the saviour, but all he’s doing is dividing the community.” View image in fullscreen Galloway speaking outside Bilal mosque. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian He said he was “big and ugly enough” to engage with angry voters. “But what I’m not going to put up with is people being rude, disparaging and threatening abuse towards young women and men who go out campaigning for me.” Across the whole constituency, Muslims make up 30% of the population. In contrast, Galloway’s last byelection win took place in Bradford West in 2012, where Muslims made up 51% of the constituency. His last byelection loss was in 2021 in Batley and Spen , where 23% of the population were Muslim
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
Why drag queens are racing to the rescue
RuPaul: ‘If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.’ Photograph: BBC World of Wonder View image in fullscreen RuPaul: ‘If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.’ Photograph: BBC World of Wonder This article is more than 1 year old Why drag queens are racing to the rescue This article is more than 1 year old Eva Wiseman Everyone relax, drag queens have it all under control D oesn’t it feel, perhaps, as if drag queens are about to save the world? For a long time the most public threat to drag queens were other drag queens, competing in lip-sync battles, or in the art of ritual insult, or throwing shade about back hair. In the past couple of years, though, drag has become a culture war flash point, with a series of US states passing anti-drag legislation. In Britain, in the summer of 2022, protesters started turning up at libraries hosting Drag Queen Story Hour . These protest groups, often including anti-vaxxers, white nationalists and conspiracy theorists, claimed to advocate for the protection of children. Conservative politicians described the events – typically drag queens reading stories about the joy of being yourself – as “inappropriate” and “propaganda”. Videos appeared on social media, edited to suggest children were present at explicit nude performances, rather than, as was the case, an afternoon of fairytales in fancy dress. Between the summers of 2022 and 2023 at least 57 all-ages drag events were disrupted in the UK. Something was building. A man was found guilty of a public order offence after protesting at a drag queen story-telling event at Tate Britain. He was accused of being “aggressive and intimidating” and making comments motivated by “hostility relating to sexual orientation and transgender identity”. Another memorable demonstration took place last March outside a pub in south London, which the rightwing group Turning Point UK publicised with the message “groom dogs, not kids”. However, the event listing on the pub’s website was out of date, so there were no drag queens and no readings and no children. There was just the idea of a drag queen – and that was enough. It would all be quite funny, if it wasn’t also terrifying. RuPaul’s Drag Race is responsible, first for taking drag mainstream and then for showing, week by week, that queer people are not odd or inferior, but funny and nuanced and human, and worthy of respect. In his Emmy acceptance speech last month, RuPaul said: “If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.” While anti-drag activism was undoubtedly inspired by US groups, it quickly found its feet in the UK, where cultural anxieties about gender are high and, instead of focusing on policy, politicians lean into feelings, focusing on divisive issues to show voters what they stand for, or against. They have created a sort of bitter fire around drag, a mix of homophobia and panic about trans people, kept alight by the media and people like Laurence Fox , who turned up at the drag event in south London in a little lilac scarf and whose picture always reminds me of writer Sarah Dempster’s description that he looks like “a pencil made of horse”. Fox’s picture has been in the papers a lot this week. He was in court after calling drag queen Crystal (real name Colin Seymour) and former Stonewall trustee Simon Blake “paedophiles” online in 2020. They sued him, he countersued (saying they had defamed him by calling him racist, in response to his criticism of Black History Month), and he lost. Crystal got up at 3am the following morning in order to put on two hours of drag makeup before her Sky News interview with Kay Burley. “Do you have any sympathy for Fox?” she asked. “I have sympathy for people who have been targeted,” replied Crystal, who’s had death threats and countless accusations of paedophilia since the trial began. “There’s a huge swathe of the population that experiences this nastiness.” She calmly and sensibly explained why she’d pursued this through the courts for more than three years, because baseless accusations of paedophilia against queer people are an “old trope” and one that needs to be exploded. There’s a long history to this – to the threat of paedophilia being used in dehumanising, homophobic and transphobic ways, tapping into parents fears by branding queer people as predatory. These moral panics that locate the threat to children as drag queens in libraries are a distraction of course, from decades of research that confirmed the places that young people are actually most at risk of sexual victimisation are their homes, or churches or schools. Drag has always been a political act. It has disrupted conformity, protested queer invisibility in the mainstream, brought razzmatazz and glee to otherwise grim occasions, on hospital wards or picket lines. It is a form of protest in itself, a glamorous reminder that it’s OK to be visibly different and that you can be adored and celebrated and even happy while doing so. Drag makes interventions about gender and sexuality and beauty, and drag queens talk directly about racism, homophobia and transphobia, often while dancing backwards in high heels. Crystal showing up to the news studio in drag, discussing her libel victory (and last year, Brigitte Bandit challenging an anti-drag Texas senate bill in a gown and pink wig) feels both radical and completely correct, an important, inevitable performance. Drag queens, for so long now the focus of bad faith debate and confusion, are fighting back, unpicking the culture war to provide a kind of calm and glittering hope. Email Eva at [email protected] or follow her on X @EvaWiseman 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 Drag The Eva Wiseman column comment Share Reuse this content RuPaul: ‘If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.’ Photograph: BBC World of Wonder View image in fullscreen RuPaul: ‘If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.’ Photograph: BBC World of Wonder This article is more than 1 year old Why drag queens are racing to the rescue This article is more than 1 year old Eva Wiseman Everyone relax, drag queens have it all under control D oesn’t it feel, perhaps, as if drag queens are about to save the world? For a long time the most public threat to drag queens were other drag queens, competing in lip-sync battles, or in the art of ritual insult, or throwing shade about back hair. In the past couple of years, though, drag has become a culture war flash point, with a series of US states passing anti-drag legislation. In Britain, in the summer of 2022, protesters started turning up at libraries hosting Drag Queen Story Hour . These protest groups, often including anti-vaxxers, white nationalists and conspiracy theorists, claimed to advocate for the protection of children. Conservative politicians described the events – typically drag queens reading stories about the joy of being yourself – as “inappropriate” and “propaganda”. Videos appeared on social media, edited to suggest children were present at explicit nude performances, rather than, as was the case, an afternoon of fairytales in fancy dress. Between the summers of 2022 and 2023 at least 57 all-ages drag events were disrupted in the UK. Something was building. A man was found guilty of a public order offence after protesting at a drag queen story-telling event at Tate Britain. He was accused of being “aggressive and intimidating” and making comments motivated by “hostility relating to sexual orientation and transgender identity”. Another memorable demonstration took place last March outside a pub in south London, which the rightwing group Turning Point UK publicised with the message “groom dogs, not kids”. However, the event listing on the pub’s website was out of date, so there were no drag queens and no readings and no children. There was just the idea of a drag queen – and that was enough. It would all be quite funny, if it wasn’t also terrifying. RuPaul’s Drag Race is responsible, first for taking drag mainstream and then for showing, week by week, that queer people are not odd or inferior, but funny and nuanced and human, and worthy of respect. In his Emmy acceptance speech last month, RuPaul said: “If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.” While anti-drag activism was undoubtedly inspired by US groups, it quickly found its feet in the UK, where cultural anxieties about gender are high and, instead of focusing on policy, politicians lean into feelings, focusing on divisive issues to show voters what they stand for, or against. They have created a sort of bitter fire around drag, a mix of homophobia and panic about trans people, kept alight by the media and people like Laurence Fox , who turned up at the drag event in south London in a little lilac scarf and whose picture always reminds me of writer Sarah Dempster’s description that he looks like “a pencil made of horse”. Fox’s picture has been in the papers a lot this week. He was in court after calling drag queen Crystal (real name Colin Seymour) and former Stonewall trustee Simon Blake “paedophiles” online in 2020. They sued him, he countersued (saying they had defamed him by calling him racist, in response to his criticism of Black History Month), and he lost. Crystal got up at 3am the following morning in order to put on two hours of drag makeup before her Sky News interview with Kay Burley. “Do you have any sympathy for Fox?” she asked. “I have sympathy for people who have been targeted,” replied Crystal, who’s had death threats and countless accusations of paedophilia since the trial began. “There’s a huge swathe of the population that experiences this nastiness.” She calmly and sensibly explained why she’d pursued this through the courts for more than three years, because baseless accusations of paedophilia against queer people are an “old trope” and one that needs to be exploded. There’s a long history to this – to the threat of paedophilia being used in dehumanising, homophobic and transphobic ways, tapping into parents fears by branding queer people as predatory. These moral panics that locate the threat to children as drag queens in libraries are a distraction of course, from decades of research that confirmed the places that young people are actually most at risk of sexual victimisation are their homes, or churches or schools. Drag has always been a political act. It has disrupted conformity, protested queer invisibility in the mainstream, brought razzmatazz and glee to otherwise grim occasions, on hospital wards or picket lines. It is a form of protest in itself, a glamorous reminder that it’s OK to be visibly different and that you can be adored and celebrated and even happy while doing so. Drag makes interventions about gender and sexuality and beauty, and drag queens talk directly about racism, homophobia and transphobia, often while dancing backwards in high heels. Crystal showing up to the news studio in drag, discussing her libel victory (and last year, Brigitte Bandit challenging an anti-drag Texas senate bill in a gown and pink wig) feels both radical and completely correct, an important, inevitable performance. Drag queens, for so long now the focus of bad faith debate and confusion, are fighting back, unpicking the culture war to provide a kind of calm and glittering hope. Email Eva at [email protected] or follow her on X @EvaWiseman 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 Drag The Eva Wiseman column comment Share Reuse this content RuPaul: ‘If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.’ Photograph: BBC World of Wonder View image in fullscreen RuPaul: ‘If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.’ Photograph: BBC World of Wonder RuPaul: ‘If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.’ Photograph: BBC World of Wonder View image in fullscreen RuPaul: ‘If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.’ Photograph: BBC World of Wonder RuPaul: ‘If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.’ Photograph: BBC World of Wonder View image in fullscreen RuPaul: ‘If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.’ Photograph: BBC World of Wonder RuPaul: ‘If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.’ Photograph: BBC World of Wonder View image in fullscreen RuPaul: ‘If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.’ Photograph: BBC World of Wonder RuPaul: ‘If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.’ Photograph: BBC World of Wonder RuPaul: ‘If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.’ Photograph: BBC World of Wonder This article is more than 1 year old Why drag queens are racing to the rescue This article is more than 1 year old Eva Wiseman This article is more than 1 year old Why drag queens are racing to the rescue This article is more than 1 year old Eva Wiseman This article is more than 1 year old Why drag queens are racing to the rescue This article is more than 1 year old Eva Wiseman This article is more than 1 year old Why drag queens are racing to the rescue This article is more than 1 year old Eva Wiseman This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Everyone relax, drag queens have it all under control Everyone relax, drag queens have it all under control Everyone relax, drag queens have it all under control D oesn’t it feel, perhaps, as if drag queens are about to save the world? For a long time the most public threat to drag queens were other drag queens, competing in lip-sync battles, or in the art of ritual insult, or throwing shade about back hair. In the past couple of years, though, drag has become a culture war flash point, with a series of US states passing anti-drag legislation. In Britain, in the summer of 2022, protesters started turning up at libraries hosting Drag Queen Story Hour . These protest groups, often including anti-vaxxers, white nationalists and conspiracy theorists, claimed to advocate for the protection of children. Conservative politicians described the events – typically drag queens reading stories about the joy of being yourself – as “inappropriate” and “propaganda”. Videos appeared on social media, edited to suggest children were present at explicit nude performances, rather than, as was the case, an afternoon of fairytales in fancy dress. Between the summers of 2022 and 2023 at least 57 all-ages drag events were disrupted in the UK. Something was building. A man was found guilty of a public order offence after protesting at a drag queen story-telling event at Tate Britain. He was accused of being “aggressive and intimidating” and making comments motivated by “hostility relating to sexual orientation and transgender identity”. Another memorable demonstration took place last March outside a pub in south London, which the rightwing group Turning Point UK publicised with the message “groom dogs, not kids”. However, the event listing on the pub’s website was out of date, so there were no drag queens and no readings and no children. There was just the idea of a drag queen – and that was enough. It would all be quite funny, if it wasn’t also terrifying. RuPaul’s Drag Race is responsible, first for taking drag mainstream and then for showing, week by week, that queer people are not odd or inferior, but funny and nuanced and human, and worthy of respect. In his Emmy acceptance speech last month, RuPaul said: “If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.” While anti-drag activism was undoubtedly inspired by US groups, it quickly found its feet in the UK, where cultural anxieties about gender are high and, instead of focusing on policy, politicians lean into feelings, focusing on divisive issues to show voters what they stand for, or against. They have created a sort of bitter fire around drag, a mix of homophobia and panic about trans people, kept alight by the media and people like Laurence Fox , who turned up at the drag event in south London in a little lilac scarf and whose picture always reminds me of writer Sarah Dempster’s description that he looks like “a pencil made of horse”. Fox’s picture has been in the papers a lot this week. He was in court after calling drag queen Crystal (real name Colin Seymour) and former Stonewall trustee Simon Blake “paedophiles” online in 2020. They sued him, he countersued (saying they had defamed him by calling him racist, in response to his criticism of Black History Month), and he lost. Crystal got up at 3am the following morning in order to put on two hours of drag makeup before her Sky News interview with Kay Burley. “Do you have any sympathy for Fox?” she asked. “I have sympathy for people who have been targeted,” replied Crystal, who’s had death threats and countless accusations of paedophilia since the trial began. “There’s a huge swathe of the population that experiences this nastiness.” She calmly and sensibly explained why she’d pursued this through the courts for more than three years, because baseless accusations of paedophilia against queer people are an “old trope” and one that needs to be exploded. There’s a long history to this – to the threat of paedophilia being used in dehumanising, homophobic and transphobic ways, tapping into parents fears by branding queer people as predatory. These moral panics that locate the threat to children as drag queens in libraries are a distraction of course, from decades of research that confirmed the places that young people are actually most at risk of sexual victimisation are their homes, or churches or schools. Drag has always been a political act. It has disrupted conformity, protested queer invisibility in the mainstream, brought razzmatazz and glee to otherwise grim occasions, on hospital wards or picket lines. It is a form of protest in itself, a glamorous reminder that it’s OK to be visibly different and that you can be adored and celebrated and even happy while doing so. Drag makes interventions about gender and sexuality and beauty, and drag queens talk directly about racism, homophobia and transphobia, often while dancing backwards in high heels. Crystal showing up to the news studio in drag, discussing her libel victory (and last year, Brigitte Bandit challenging an anti-drag Texas senate bill in a gown and pink wig) feels both radical and completely correct, an important, inevitable performance. Drag queens, for so long now the focus of bad faith debate and confusion, are fighting back, unpicking the culture war to provide a kind of calm and glittering hope. Email Eva at [email protected] or follow her on X @EvaWiseman 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 Drag The Eva Wiseman column comment Share Reuse this content D oesn’t it feel, perhaps, as if drag queens are about to save the world? For a long time the most public threat to drag queens were other drag queens, competing in lip-sync battles, or in the art of ritual insult, or throwing shade about back hair. In the past couple of years, though, drag has become a culture war flash point, with a series of US states passing anti-drag legislation. In Britain, in the summer of 2022, protesters started turning up at libraries hosting Drag Queen Story Hour . These protest groups, often including anti-vaxxers, white nationalists and conspiracy theorists, claimed to advocate for the protection of children. Conservative politicians described the events – typically drag queens reading stories about the joy of being yourself – as “inappropriate” and “propaganda”. Videos appeared on social media, edited to suggest children were present at explicit nude performances, rather than, as was the case, an afternoon of fairytales in fancy dress. Between the summers of 2022 and 2023 at least 57 all-ages drag events were disrupted in the UK. Something was building. A man was found guilty of a public order offence after protesting at a drag queen story-telling event at Tate Britain. He was accused of being “aggressive and intimidating” and making comments motivated by “hostility relating to sexual orientation and transgender identity”. Another memorable demonstration took place last March outside a pub in south London, which the rightwing group Turning Point UK publicised with the message “groom dogs, not kids”. However, the event listing on the pub’s website was out of date, so there were no drag queens and no readings and no children. There was just the idea of a drag queen – and that was enough. It would all be quite funny, if it wasn’t also terrifying. RuPaul’s Drag Race is responsible, first for taking drag mainstream and then for showing, week by week, that queer people are not odd or inferior, but funny and nuanced and human, and worthy of respect. In his Emmy acceptance speech last month, RuPaul said: “If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.” While anti-drag activism was undoubtedly inspired by US groups, it quickly found its feet in the UK, where cultural anxieties about gender are high and, instead of focusing on policy, politicians lean into feelings, focusing on divisive issues to show voters what they stand for, or against. They have created a sort of bitter fire around drag, a mix of homophobia and panic about trans people, kept alight by the media and people like Laurence Fox , who turned up at the drag event in south London in a little lilac scarf and whose picture always reminds me of writer Sarah Dempster’s description that he looks like “a pencil made of horse”. Fox’s picture has been in the papers a lot this week. He was in court after calling drag queen Crystal (real name Colin Seymour) and former Stonewall trustee Simon Blake “paedophiles” online in 2020. They sued him, he countersued (saying they had defamed him by calling him racist, in response to his criticism of Black History Month), and he lost. Crystal got up at 3am the following morning in order to put on two hours of drag makeup before her Sky News interview with Kay Burley. “Do you have any sympathy for Fox?” she asked. “I have sympathy for people who have been targeted,” replied Crystal, who’s had death threats and countless accusations of paedophilia since the trial began. “There’s a huge swathe of the population that experiences this nastiness.” She calmly and sensibly explained why she’d pursued this through the courts for more than three years, because baseless accusations of paedophilia against queer people are an “old trope” and one that needs to be exploded. There’s a long history to this – to the threat of paedophilia being used in dehumanising, homophobic and transphobic ways, tapping into parents fears by branding queer people as predatory. These moral panics that locate the threat to children as drag queens in libraries are a distraction of course, from decades of research that confirmed the places that young people are actually most at risk of sexual victimisation are their homes, or churches or schools. Drag has always been a political act. It has disrupted conformity, protested queer invisibility in the mainstream, brought razzmatazz and glee to otherwise grim occasions, on hospital wards or picket lines. It is a form of protest in itself, a glamorous reminder that it’s OK to be visibly different and that you can be adored and celebrated and even happy while doing so. Drag makes interventions about gender and sexuality and beauty, and drag queens talk directly about racism, homophobia and transphobia, often while dancing backwards in high heels. Crystal showing up to the news studio in drag, discussing her libel victory (and last year, Brigitte Bandit challenging an anti-drag Texas senate bill in a gown and pink wig) feels both radical and completely correct, an important, inevitable performance. Drag queens, for so long now the focus of bad faith debate and confusion, are fighting back, unpicking the culture war to provide a kind of calm and glittering hope. Email Eva at [email protected] or follow her on X @EvaWiseman 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 Drag The Eva Wiseman column comment Share Reuse this content D oesn’t it feel, perhaps, as if drag queens are about to save the world? For a long time the most public threat to drag queens were other drag queens, competing in lip-sync battles, or in the art of ritual insult, or throwing shade about back hair. In the past couple of years, though, drag has become a culture war flash point, with a series of US states passing anti-drag legislation. In Britain, in the summer of 2022, protesters started turning up at libraries hosting Drag Queen Story Hour . These protest groups, often including anti-vaxxers, white nationalists and conspiracy theorists, claimed to advocate for the protection of children. Conservative politicians described the events – typically drag queens reading stories about the joy of being yourself – as “inappropriate” and “propaganda”. Videos appeared on social media, edited to suggest children were present at explicit nude performances, rather than, as was the case, an afternoon of fairytales in fancy dress. Between the summers of 2022 and 2023 at least 57 all-ages drag events were disrupted in the UK. Something was building. A man was found guilty of a public order offence after protesting at a drag queen story-telling event at Tate Britain. He was accused of being “aggressive and intimidating” and making comments motivated by “hostility relating to sexual orientation and transgender identity”. Another memorable demonstration took place last March outside a pub in south London, which the rightwing group Turning Point UK publicised with the message “groom dogs, not kids”. However, the event listing on the pub’s website was out of date, so there were no drag queens and no readings and no children. There was just the idea of a drag queen – and that was enough. It would all be quite funny, if it wasn’t also terrifying. RuPaul’s Drag Race is responsible, first for taking drag mainstream and then for showing, week by week, that queer people are not odd or inferior, but funny and nuanced and human, and worthy of respect. In his Emmy acceptance speech last month, RuPaul said: “If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.” While anti-drag activism was undoubtedly inspired by US groups, it quickly found its feet in the UK, where cultural anxieties about gender are high and, instead of focusing on policy, politicians lean into feelings, focusing on divisive issues to show voters what they stand for, or against. They have created a sort of bitter fire around drag, a mix of homophobia and panic about trans people, kept alight by the media and people like Laurence Fox , who turned up at the drag event in south London in a little lilac scarf and whose picture always reminds me of writer Sarah Dempster’s description that he looks like “a pencil made of horse”. Fox’s picture has been in the papers a lot this week. He was in court after calling drag queen Crystal (real name Colin Seymour) and former Stonewall trustee Simon Blake “paedophiles” online in 2020. They sued him, he countersued (saying they had defamed him by calling him racist, in response to his criticism of Black History Month), and he lost. Crystal got up at 3am the following morning in order to put on two hours of drag makeup before her Sky News interview with Kay Burley. “Do you have any sympathy for Fox?” she asked. “I have sympathy for people who have been targeted,” replied Crystal, who’s had death threats and countless accusations of paedophilia since the trial began. “There’s a huge swathe of the population that experiences this nastiness.” She calmly and sensibly explained why she’d pursued this through the courts for more than three years, because baseless accusations of paedophilia against queer people are an “old trope” and one that needs to be exploded. There’s a long history to this – to the threat of paedophilia being used in dehumanising, homophobic and transphobic ways, tapping into parents fears by branding queer people as predatory. These moral panics that locate the threat to children as drag queens in libraries are a distraction of course, from decades of research that confirmed the places that young people are actually most at risk of sexual victimisation are their homes, or churches or schools. Drag has always been a political act. It has disrupted conformity, protested queer invisibility in the mainstream, brought razzmatazz and glee to otherwise grim occasions, on hospital wards or picket lines. It is a form of protest in itself, a glamorous reminder that it’s OK to be visibly different and that you can be adored and celebrated and even happy while doing so. Drag makes interventions about gender and sexuality and beauty, and drag queens talk directly about racism, homophobia and transphobia, often while dancing backwards in high heels. Crystal showing up to the news studio in drag, discussing her libel victory (and last year, Brigitte Bandit challenging an anti-drag Texas senate bill in a gown and pink wig) feels both radical and completely correct, an important, inevitable performance. Drag queens, for so long now the focus of bad faith debate and confusion, are fighting back, unpicking the culture war to provide a kind of calm and glittering hope. Email Eva at [email protected] or follow her on X @EvaWiseman 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 Drag The Eva Wiseman column comment Share Reuse this content D oesn’t it feel, perhaps, as if drag queens are about to save the world? For a long time the most public threat to drag queens were other drag queens, competing in lip-sync battles, or in the art of ritual insult, or throwing shade about back hair. In the past couple of years, though, drag has become a culture war flash point, with a series of US states passing anti-drag legislation. In Britain, in the summer of 2022, protesters started turning up at libraries hosting Drag Queen Story Hour . These protest groups, often including anti-vaxxers, white nationalists and conspiracy theorists, claimed to advocate for the protection of children. Conservative politicians described the events – typically drag queens reading stories about the joy of being yourself – as “inappropriate” and “propaganda”. Videos appeared on social media, edited to suggest children were present at explicit nude performances, rather than, as was the case, an afternoon of fairytales in fancy dress. Between the summers of 2022 and 2023 at least 57 all-ages drag events were disrupted in the UK. Something was building. A man was found guilty of a public order offence after protesting at a drag queen story-telling event at Tate Britain. He was accused of being “aggressive and intimidating” and making comments motivated by “hostility relating to sexual orientation and transgender identity”. Another memorable demonstration took place last March outside a pub in south London, which the rightwing group Turning Point UK publicised with the message “groom dogs, not kids”. However, the event listing on the pub’s website was out of date, so there were no drag queens and no readings and no children. There was just the idea of a drag queen – and that was enough. It would all be quite funny, if it wasn’t also terrifying. RuPaul’s Drag Race is responsible, first for taking drag mainstream and then for showing, week by week, that queer people are not odd or inferior, but funny and nuanced and human, and worthy of respect. In his Emmy acceptance speech last month, RuPaul said: “If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.” While anti-drag activism was undoubtedly inspired by US groups, it quickly found its feet in the UK, where cultural anxieties about gender are high and, instead of focusing on policy, politicians lean into feelings, focusing on divisive issues to show voters what they stand for, or against. They have created a sort of bitter fire around drag, a mix of homophobia and panic about trans people, kept alight by the media and people like Laurence Fox , who turned up at the drag event in south London in a little lilac scarf and whose picture always reminds me of writer Sarah Dempster’s description that he looks like “a pencil made of horse”. Fox’s picture has been in the papers a lot this week. He was in court after calling drag queen Crystal (real name Colin Seymour) and former Stonewall trustee Simon Blake “paedophiles” online in 2020. They sued him, he countersued (saying they had defamed him by calling him racist, in response to his criticism of Black History Month), and he lost. Crystal got up at 3am the following morning in order to put on two hours of drag makeup before her Sky News interview with Kay Burley. “Do you have any sympathy for Fox?” she asked. “I have sympathy for people who have been targeted,” replied Crystal, who’s had death threats and countless accusations of paedophilia since the trial began. “There’s a huge swathe of the population that experiences this nastiness.” She calmly and sensibly explained why she’d pursued this through the courts for more than three years, because baseless accusations of paedophilia against queer people are an “old trope” and one that needs to be exploded. There’s a long history to this – to the threat of paedophilia being used in dehumanising, homophobic and transphobic ways, tapping into parents fears by branding queer people as predatory. These moral panics that locate the threat to children as drag queens in libraries are a distraction of course, from decades of research that confirmed the places that young people are actually most at risk of sexual victimisation are their homes, or churches or schools. Drag has always been a political act. It has disrupted conformity, protested queer invisibility in the mainstream, brought razzmatazz and glee to otherwise grim occasions, on hospital wards or picket lines. It is a form of protest in itself, a glamorous reminder that it’s OK to be visibly different and that you can be adored and celebrated and even happy while doing so. Drag makes interventions about gender and sexuality and beauty, and drag queens talk directly about racism, homophobia and transphobia, often while dancing backwards in high heels. Crystal showing up to the news studio in drag, discussing her libel victory (and last year, Brigitte Bandit challenging an anti-drag Texas senate bill in a gown and pink wig) feels both radical and completely correct, an important, inevitable performance. Drag queens, for so long now the focus of bad faith debate and confusion, are fighting back, unpicking the culture war to provide a kind of calm and glittering hope. Email Eva at [email protected] or follow her on X @EvaWiseman D oesn’t it feel, perhaps, as if drag queens are about to save the world? For a long time the most public threat to drag queens were other drag queens, competing in lip-sync battles, or in the art of ritual insult, or throwing shade about back hair. In the past couple of years, though, drag has become a culture war flash point, with a series of US states passing anti-drag legislation. In Britain, in the summer of 2022, protesters started turning up at libraries hosting Drag Queen Story Hour . These protest groups, often including anti-vaxxers, white nationalists and conspiracy theorists, claimed to advocate for the protection of children. Conservative politicians described the events – typically drag queens reading stories about the joy of being yourself – as “inappropriate” and “propaganda”. Videos appeared on social media, edited to suggest children were present at explicit nude performances, rather than, as was the case, an afternoon of fairytales in fancy dress. Between the summers of 2022 and 2023 at least 57 all-ages drag events were disrupted in the UK. Something was building. A man was found guilty of a public order offence after protesting at a drag queen story-telling event at Tate Britain. He was accused of being “aggressive and intimidating” and making comments motivated by “hostility relating to sexual orientation and transgender identity”. Another memorable demonstration took place last March outside a pub in south London, which the rightwing group Turning Point UK publicised with the message “groom dogs, not kids”. However, the event listing on the pub’s website was out of date, so there were no drag queens and no readings and no children. There was just the idea of a drag queen – and that was enough. It would all be quite funny, if it wasn’t also terrifying. RuPaul’s Drag Race is responsible, first for taking drag mainstream and then for showing, week by week, that queer people are not odd or inferior, but funny and nuanced and human, and worthy of respect. In his Emmy acceptance speech last month, RuPaul said: “If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.” While anti-drag activism was undoubtedly inspired by US groups, it quickly found its feet in the UK, where cultural anxieties about gender are high and, instead of focusing on policy, politicians lean into feelings, focusing on divisive issues to show voters what they stand for, or against. They have created a sort of bitter fire around drag, a mix of homophobia and panic about trans people, kept alight by the media and people like Laurence Fox , who turned up at the drag event in south London in a little lilac scarf and whose picture always reminds me of writer Sarah Dempster’s description that he looks like “a pencil made of horse”. Fox’s picture has been in the papers a lot this week. He was in court after calling drag queen Crystal (real name Colin Seymour) and former Stonewall trustee Simon Blake “paedophiles” online in 2020. They sued him, he countersued (saying they had defamed him by calling him racist, in response to his criticism of Black History Month), and he lost. Crystal got up at 3am the following morning in order to put on two hours of drag makeup before her Sky News interview with Kay Burley. “Do you have any sympathy for Fox?” she asked. “I have sympathy for people who have been targeted,” replied Crystal, who’s had death threats and countless accusations of paedophilia since the trial began. “There’s a huge swathe of the population that experiences this nastiness.” She calmly and sensibly explained why she’d pursued this through the courts for more than three years, because baseless accusations of paedophilia against queer people are an “old trope” and one that needs to be exploded. There’s a long history to this – to the threat of paedophilia being used in dehumanising, homophobic and transphobic ways, tapping into parents fears by branding queer people as predatory. These moral panics that locate the threat to children as drag queens in libraries are a distraction of course, from decades of research that confirmed the places that young people are actually most at risk of sexual victimisation are their homes, or churches or schools. Drag has always been a political act. It has disrupted conformity, protested queer invisibility in the mainstream, brought razzmatazz and glee to otherwise grim occasions, on hospital wards or picket lines. It is a form of protest in itself, a glamorous reminder that it’s OK to be visibly different and that you can be adored and celebrated and even happy while doing so. Drag makes interventions about gender and sexuality and beauty, and drag queens talk directly about racism, homophobia and transphobia, often while dancing backwards in high heels. Crystal showing up to the news studio in drag, discussing her libel victory (and last year, Brigitte Bandit challenging an anti-drag Texas senate bill in a gown and pink wig) feels both radical and completely correct, an important, inevitable performance. Drag queens, for so long now the focus of bad faith debate and confusion, are fighting back, unpicking the culture war to provide a kind of calm and glittering hope. Email Eva at [email protected] or follow her on X @EvaWiseman D oesn’t it feel, perhaps, as if drag queens are about to save the world? For a long time the most public threat to drag queens were other drag queens, competing in lip-sync battles, or in the art of ritual insult, or throwing shade about back hair. In the past couple of years, though, drag has become a culture war flash point, with a series of US states passing anti-drag legislation. In Britain, in the summer of 2022, protesters started turning up at libraries hosting Drag Queen Story Hour . These protest groups, often including anti-vaxxers, white nationalists and conspiracy theorists, claimed to advocate for the protection of children. Conservative politicians described the events – typically drag queens reading stories about the joy of being yourself – as “inappropriate” and “propaganda”. Videos appeared on social media, edited to suggest children were present at explicit nude performances, rather than, as was the case, an afternoon of fairytales in fancy dress. Between the summers of 2022 and 2023 at least 57 all-ages drag events were disrupted in the UK. Something was building. A man was found guilty of a public order offence after protesting at a drag queen story-telling event at Tate Britain. He was accused of being “aggressive and intimidating” and making comments motivated by “hostility relating to sexual orientation and transgender identity”. Another memorable demonstration took place last March outside a pub in south London, which the rightwing group Turning Point UK publicised with the message “groom dogs, not kids”. However, the event listing on the pub’s website was out of date, so there were no drag queens and no readings and no children. There was just the idea of a drag queen – and that was enough. It would all be quite funny, if it wasn’t also terrifying. RuPaul’s Drag Race is responsible, first for taking drag mainstream and then for showing, week by week, that queer people are not odd or inferior, but funny and nuanced and human, and worthy of respect. In his Emmy acceptance speech last month, RuPaul said: “If a drag queen wants to read you a story at a library, listen to her, because knowledge is power. And if someone tries to restrict your access to power, they are trying to scare you.” While anti-drag activism was undoubtedly inspired by US groups, it quickly found its feet in the UK, where cultural anxieties about gender are high and, instead of focusing on policy, politicians lean into feelings, focusing on divisive issues to show voters what they stand for, or against. They have created a sort of bitter fire around drag, a mix of homophobia and panic about trans people, kept alight by the media and people like Laurence Fox , who turned up at the drag event in south London in a little lilac scarf and whose picture always reminds me of writer Sarah Dempster’s description that he looks like “a pencil made of horse”. Fox’s picture has been in the papers a lot this week. He was in court after calling drag queen Crystal (real name Colin Seymour) and former Stonewall trustee Simon Blake “paedophiles” online in 2020. They sued him, he countersued (saying they had defamed him by calling him racist, in response to his criticism of Black History Month), and he lost. Crystal got up at 3am the following morning in order to put on two hours of drag makeup before her Sky News interview with Kay Burley. “Do you have any sympathy for Fox?” she asked. “I have sympathy for people who have been targeted,” replied Crystal, who’s had death threats and countless accusations of paedophilia since the trial began. “There’s a huge swathe of the population that experiences this nastiness.” She calmly and sensibly explained why she’d pursued this through the courts for more than three years, because baseless accusations of paedophilia against queer people are an “old trope” and one that needs to be exploded. There’s a long history to this – to the threat of paedophilia being used in dehumanising, homophobic and transphobic ways, tapping into parents fears by branding queer people as predatory. These moral panics that locate the threat to children as drag queens in libraries are a distraction of course, from decades of research that confirmed the places that young people are actually most at risk of sexual victimisation are their homes, or churches or schools. Drag has always been a political act. It has disrupted conformity, protested queer invisibility in the mainstream, brought razzmatazz and glee to otherwise grim occasions, on hospital wards or picket lines. It is a form of protest in itself, a glamorous reminder that it’s OK to be visibly different and that you can be adored and celebrated and even happy while doing so. Drag makes interventions about gender and sexuality and beauty, and drag queens talk directly about racism, homophobia and transphobia, often while dancing backwards in high heels. Crystal showing up to the news studio in drag, discussing her libel victory (and last year, Brigitte Bandit challenging an anti-drag Texas senate bill in a gown and pink wig) feels both radical and completely correct, an important, inevitable performance. Drag queens, for so long now the focus of bad faith debate and confusion, are fighting back, unpicking the culture war to provide a kind of calm and glittering hope. Email Eva at [email protected] or follow her on X @EvaWiseman 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 Drag The Eva Wiseman column comment Share Reuse this content Drag The Eva Wiseman column comment
|
English test scandal: students renew fight to clear names after 10 years
Thousands of students have protested that they were wrongly accused, and have spent years arguing that the evidence presented against them is flawed. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA View image in fullscreen Thousands of students have protested that they were wrongly accused, and have spent years arguing that the evidence presented against them is flawed. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA This article is more than 1 year old English test scandal: students renew fight to clear names after 10 years This article is more than 1 year old Exclusive: Push follows new evidence that raises questions over Home Office’s cheating accusations against 35,000 international students ‘It destroyed my life’: the students accused of cheating in English tests What is the Home Office English test scandal? International students accused of cheating at English-language tests are planning a fresh push to clear their names 10 years on, with thousands thought to have been victims of a gross miscarriage of justice. Important new evidence has recently been presented in court raising fresh questions over the Home Office’s decision to make a blanket accusation of cheating against more than 35,000 students, which led to thousands being thrown off their courses and forced out of the country. The case has drawn parallels with the Post Office Horizon scandal, in which hundreds of post office operators were prosecuted for stealing money on the basis of incorrect information provided by a computer system managed by a large international firm. A decade ago this weekend, the BBC broadcast a Panorama investigation, which uncovered widespread cheating in Home Office-approved test centres offering English-language tests that international students were required to pass as part of their visa renewal process. Theresa May, who was then home secretary, described the BBC report as “shocking” and asked the US-based test provider, Educational Testing Service (ETS) to investigate. ETS concluded that 97% of its English tests taken in the UK between 2011 and 2014 were in some way suspicious and the Home Office cancelled the visas of about 35,000 students. Immigration enforcement teams mounted dawn raids on students’ accommodation and about 2,500 were deported. A further 7,200 are known to have left the country after being warned they would be arrested and detained if they stayed. Many more had to give up degree courses, wasting thousands of pounds’ worth of fees. But thousands of students have protested that they were wrongly accused of cheating, and have spent years arguing that the evidence presented against them is flawed and thin. More than 3,600 have won appeals against the Home Office. Many more have been unable to attempt to clear their names because of the prohibitive cost of taking legal action. Lawyers have compared the official response to the Post Office scandal. Senior Post Office staff have been accused of putting excessive faith in a flawed IT system. Similarly, the Home Office has been accused in recent legal action of basing its actions on digital evidence provided by a US organisation, without giving sufficient consideration to the possibility that the evidence might not be robust. The human cost of the scandal has been high. In interviews with the Guardian over the past five years, dozens of students have described the painful consequences of the unexpected accusation; one man was held in UK immigration detention centres for 11 months before returning to India; others described being forced into destitution in the UK, becoming homeless and reliant on food banks, as they attempted to challenge the accusation, or becoming depressed and suicidal when confronted with the wasted tuition fees and the difficulty of shaking off an allegation of dishonesty. Many of those accused had studied in English-language schools before travelling to the UK to study. One had a degree in English literature and had worked with Nato troops in Afghanistan before moving to the UK for an MBA, while another had grown up bilingual. They were bemused at the accusation that they had paid for a proxy exam-taker to sit the basic English test on their behalf. There is no doubt that the undercover Panorama filming exposed clear evidence of fraud in two of the 90 or so test centres run by ETS, offering the Test of English for international communication (Toeic). The Home Office was already aware of fraud in other centres. But the Home Office’s readiness to accept evidence from ETS that 97% of all tests taken were suspicious has been repeatedly questioned. During its investigations, ETS used voice recognition technology to review the recordings of students’ voices during the spoken section of the exam and identified cases where the same voice appeared on multiple test recordings; it classified those tests as fraudulent, because they suggested that a proxy had sat the test on the candidate’s behalf. The company concluded that 58% of all tests taken (about 34,000) were invalid for this reason. Those students had their visas cancelled, making their presence in the UK immediately illegal. ETS found that a further 39% of students had questionable results; the Home Office invited those people to resit an English test. The company said only 2,222 test results were valid. Campaigners have said it is implausible that 97% of students who took Home Office-approved tests, advertised on government websites and taken over a three-year period, were all involved in fraud. A decision is expected soon on a test case held in December at the upper immigration tribunal. Evidence from an expert witness suggested that staff at some test centres where fraud was in operation may have substituted all the tests done by all students for tests done simultaneously by proxies in a hidden room. In this way, genuine students would have been unaware of fraud happening at the centre, but their test papers would have been substituted along with those of students who had paid for someone to cheat on their behalf. The court also heard from a former ETS employee that the company had ignored evidence of fraud and had refused to shut down test centres. In the past decade, several in-depth investigations have questioned the Home Office’s decisions. A public accounts committee report concluded that the department’s “flawed” handling and “rush to penalise” students caused “injustice and hardship for many thousands of international students”. The National Audit Office in 2019 found that the Home Office “did not have the expertise to validate the results” provided by ETS, and criticised the department for failing to protect those caught up in the scandal, adding: “We could find no evidence that the department had actively looked at whether innocent people were wrongly assessed as cheats.” Somehow, despite a widespread recognition that many students were wrongly accused, justice has never been delivered. Those students who have managed to get their cases overturned have often spent more than £20,000 on legal fees, pushing their families into debt. One immigration tribunal judge in 2017 described the Home Office’s behaviour as “so unfair and unreasonable as to amount to an abuse of power”. Theresa May’s memoir, published last year, titled The Abuse of Power makes no mention of the issue, which unfolded during her time as home secretary. Campaigners point out that the decision to revoke 35,000 student visas came at a time when May was trying to get net migration down to the tens of thousands and during a period when she was overseeing the creation of a “really hostile environment” for illegal immigrants. May has been approached for comment. The Labour MP Stephen Timms has helped many international students in his constituency of East Ham in east London to challenge these accusations. He said: “Thousands of students, falsely accused of cheating, lost their visas and their savings. Many were denied their degrees. Some gave up, their lives blighted. Some are still battling, 10 years on, exhausted and hard-up – in some cases unable to go home over shame at the cheating allegation, their families convinced an accusation by the British government must be true.” The charity Migrant Voice , which has been fighting on this issue since 2017, held a meeting earlier this month with a group of students still fighting for justice, seeking new ways to persuade the Home Office to remove the allegations against them. A Home Office spokesperson said: “Abuse of our immigration system will not be tolerated and those who do will face the appropriate measures against them. This includes cheating on English-language tests. Courts have consistently found evidence that is sufficient to take action, and it is only right that we allow these legal processes to run their course.” ETS said at the time of the serious allegations its UK operations were contracted out to a subsidiary organisation, ETS Global BV. The office was subsequently closed. The Home Office was paid a £1.6m settlement by ETS Global BV in 2018. An ETS spokesperson said the company’s people and practices had changed. “ETS’s work in the UK is focused on supporting those seeking to study abroad in the UK and the universities that host them.” Explore more on these topics English language testing scandal Home Office International students Students Immigration and asylum news Share Reuse this content Thousands of students have protested that they were wrongly accused, and have spent years arguing that the evidence presented against them is flawed. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA View image in fullscreen Thousands of students have protested that they were wrongly accused, and have spent years arguing that the evidence presented against them is flawed. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA This article is more than 1 year old English test scandal: students renew fight to clear names after 10 years This article is more than 1 year old Exclusive: Push follows new evidence that raises questions over Home Office’s cheating accusations against 35,000 international students ‘It destroyed my life’: the students accused of cheating in English tests What is the Home Office English test scandal? International students accused of cheating at English-language tests are planning a fresh push to clear their names 10 years on, with thousands thought to have been victims of a gross miscarriage of justice. Important new evidence has recently been presented in court raising fresh questions over the Home Office’s decision to make a blanket accusation of cheating against more than 35,000 students, which led to thousands being thrown off their courses and forced out of the country. The case has drawn parallels with the Post Office Horizon scandal, in which hundreds of post office operators were prosecuted for stealing money on the basis of incorrect information provided by a computer system managed by a large international firm. A decade ago this weekend, the BBC broadcast a Panorama investigation, which uncovered widespread cheating in Home Office-approved test centres offering English-language tests that international students were required to pass as part of their visa renewal process. Theresa May, who was then home secretary, described the BBC report as “shocking” and asked the US-based test provider, Educational Testing Service (ETS) to investigate. ETS concluded that 97% of its English tests taken in the UK between 2011 and 2014 were in some way suspicious and the Home Office cancelled the visas of about 35,000 students. Immigration enforcement teams mounted dawn raids on students’ accommodation and about 2,500 were deported. A further 7,200 are known to have left the country after being warned they would be arrested and detained if they stayed. Many more had to give up degree courses, wasting thousands of pounds’ worth of fees. But thousands of students have protested that they were wrongly accused of cheating, and have spent years arguing that the evidence presented against them is flawed and thin. More than 3,600 have won appeals against the Home Office. Many more have been unable to attempt to clear their names because of the prohibitive cost of taking legal action. Lawyers have compared the official response to the Post Office scandal. Senior Post Office staff have been accused of putting excessive faith in a flawed IT system. Similarly, the Home Office has been accused in recent legal action of basing its actions on digital evidence provided by a US organisation, without giving sufficient consideration to the possibility that the evidence might not be robust. The human cost of the scandal has been high. In interviews with the Guardian over the past five years, dozens of students have described the painful consequences of the unexpected accusation; one man was held in UK immigration detention centres for 11 months before returning to India; others described being forced into destitution in the UK, becoming homeless and reliant on food banks, as they attempted to challenge the accusation, or becoming depressed and suicidal when confronted with the wasted tuition fees and the difficulty of shaking off an allegation of dishonesty. Many of those accused had studied in English-language schools before travelling to the UK to study. One had a degree in English literature and had worked with Nato troops in Afghanistan before moving to the UK for an MBA, while another had grown up bilingual. They were bemused at the accusation that they had paid for a proxy exam-taker to sit the basic English test on their behalf. There is no doubt that the undercover Panorama filming exposed clear evidence of fraud in two of the 90 or so test centres run by ETS, offering the Test of English for international communication (Toeic). The Home Office was already aware of fraud in other centres. But the Home Office’s readiness to accept evidence from ETS that 97% of all tests taken were suspicious has been repeatedly questioned. During its investigations, ETS used voice recognition technology to review the recordings of students’ voices during the spoken section of the exam and identified cases where the same voice appeared on multiple test recordings; it classified those tests as fraudulent, because they suggested that a proxy had sat the test on the candidate’s behalf. The company concluded that 58% of all tests taken (about 34,000) were invalid for this reason. Those students had their visas cancelled, making their presence in the UK immediately illegal. ETS found that a further 39% of students had questionable results; the Home Office invited those people to resit an English test. The company said only 2,222 test results were valid. Campaigners have said it is implausible that 97% of students who took Home Office-approved tests, advertised on government websites and taken over a three-year period, were all involved in fraud. A decision is expected soon on a test case held in December at the upper immigration tribunal. Evidence from an expert witness suggested that staff at some test centres where fraud was in operation may have substituted all the tests done by all students for tests done simultaneously by proxies in a hidden room. In this way, genuine students would have been unaware of fraud happening at the centre, but their test papers would have been substituted along with those of students who had paid for someone to cheat on their behalf. The court also heard from a former ETS employee that the company had ignored evidence of fraud and had refused to shut down test centres. In the past decade, several in-depth investigations have questioned the Home Office’s decisions. A public accounts committee report concluded that the department’s “flawed” handling and “rush to penalise” students caused “injustice and hardship for many thousands of international students”. The National Audit Office in 2019 found that the Home Office “did not have the expertise to validate the results” provided by ETS, and criticised the department for failing to protect those caught up in the scandal, adding: “We could find no evidence that the department had actively looked at whether innocent people were wrongly assessed as cheats.” Somehow, despite a widespread recognition that many students were wrongly accused, justice has never been delivered. Those students who have managed to get their cases overturned have often spent more than £20,000 on legal fees, pushing their families into debt. One immigration tribunal judge in 2017 described the Home Office’s behaviour as “so unfair and unreasonable as to amount to an abuse of power”. Theresa May’s memoir, published last year, titled The Abuse of Power makes no mention of the issue, which unfolded during her time as home secretary. Campaigners point out that the decision to revoke 35,000 student visas came at a time when May was trying to get net migration down to the tens of thousands and during a period when she was overseeing the creation of a “really hostile environment” for illegal immigrants. May has been approached for comment. The Labour MP Stephen Timms has helped many international students in his constituency of East Ham in east London to challenge these accusations. He said: “Thousands of students, falsely accused of cheating, lost their visas and their savings. Many were denied their degrees. Some gave up, their lives blighted. Some are still battling, 10 years on, exhausted and hard-up – in some cases unable to go home over shame at the cheating allegation, their families convinced an accusation by the British government must be true.” The charity Migrant Voice , which has been fighting on this issue since 2017, held a meeting earlier this month with a group of students still fighting for justice, seeking new ways to persuade the Home Office to remove the allegations against them. A Home Office spokesperson said: “Abuse of our immigration system will not be tolerated and those who do will face the appropriate measures against them. This includes cheating on English-language tests. Courts have consistently found evidence that is sufficient to take action, and it is only right that we allow these legal processes to run their course.” ETS said at the time of the serious allegations its UK operations were contracted out to a subsidiary organisation, ETS Global BV. The office was subsequently closed. The Home Office was paid a £1.6m settlement by ETS Global BV in 2018. An ETS spokesperson said the company’s people and practices had changed. “ETS’s work in the UK is focused on supporting those seeking to study abroad in the UK and the universities that host them.” Explore more on these topics English language testing scandal Home Office International students Students Immigration and asylum news Share Reuse this content Thousands of students have protested that they were wrongly accused, and have spent years arguing that the evidence presented against them is flawed. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA View image in fullscreen Thousands of students have protested that they were wrongly accused, and have spent years arguing that the evidence presented against them is flawed. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA Thousands of students have protested that they were wrongly accused, and have spent years arguing that the evidence presented against them is flawed. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA View image in fullscreen Thousands of students have protested that they were wrongly accused, and have spent years arguing that the evidence presented against them is flawed. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA Thousands of students have protested that they were wrongly accused, and have spent years arguing that the evidence presented against them is flawed. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA View image in fullscreen Thousands of students have protested that they were wrongly accused, and have spent years arguing that the evidence presented against them is flawed. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA Thousands of students have protested that they were wrongly accused, and have spent years arguing that the evidence presented against them is flawed. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA View image in fullscreen Thousands of students have protested that they were wrongly accused, and have spent years arguing that the evidence presented against them is flawed. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA Thousands of students have protested that they were wrongly accused, and have spent years arguing that the evidence presented against them is flawed. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA Thousands of students have protested that they were wrongly accused, and have spent years arguing that the evidence presented against them is flawed. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA This article is more than 1 year old English test scandal: students renew fight to clear names after 10 years This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old English test scandal: students renew fight to clear names after 10 years This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old English test scandal: students renew fight to clear names after 10 years 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: Push follows new evidence that raises questions over Home Office’s cheating accusations against 35,000 international students ‘It destroyed my life’: the students accused of cheating in English tests What is the Home Office English test scandal? Exclusive: Push follows new evidence that raises questions over Home Office’s cheating accusations against 35,000 international students ‘It destroyed my life’: the students accused of cheating in English tests What is the Home Office English test scandal? Exclusive: Push follows new evidence that raises questions over Home Office’s cheating accusations against 35,000 international students International students accused of cheating at English-language tests are planning a fresh push to clear their names 10 years on, with thousands thought to have been victims of a gross miscarriage of justice. Important new evidence has recently been presented in court raising fresh questions over the Home Office’s decision to make a blanket accusation of cheating against more than 35,000 students, which led to thousands being thrown off their courses and forced out of the country. The case has drawn parallels with the Post Office Horizon scandal, in which hundreds of post office operators were prosecuted for stealing money on the basis of incorrect information provided by a computer system managed by a large international firm. A decade ago this weekend, the BBC broadcast a Panorama investigation, which uncovered widespread cheating in Home Office-approved test centres offering English-language tests that international students were required to pass as part of their visa renewal process. Theresa May, who was then home secretary, described the BBC report as “shocking” and asked the US-based test provider, Educational Testing Service (ETS) to investigate. ETS concluded that 97% of its English tests taken in the UK between 2011 and 2014 were in some way suspicious and the Home Office cancelled the visas of about 35,000 students. Immigration enforcement teams mounted dawn raids on students’ accommodation and about 2,500 were deported. A further 7,200 are known to have left the country after being warned they would be arrested and detained if they stayed. Many more had to give up degree courses, wasting thousands of pounds’ worth of fees. But thousands of students have protested that they were wrongly accused of cheating, and have spent years arguing that the evidence presented against them is flawed and thin. More than 3,600 have won appeals against the Home Office. Many more have been unable to attempt to clear their names because of the prohibitive cost of taking legal action. Lawyers have compared the official response to the Post Office scandal. Senior Post Office staff have been accused of putting excessive faith in a flawed IT system. Similarly, the Home Office has been accused in recent legal action of basing its actions on digital evidence provided by a US organisation, without giving sufficient consideration to the possibility that the evidence might not be robust. The human cost of the scandal has been high. In interviews with the Guardian over the past five years, dozens of students have described the painful consequences of the unexpected accusation; one man was held in UK immigration detention centres for 11 months before returning to India; others described being forced into destitution in the UK, becoming homeless and reliant on food banks, as they attempted to challenge the accusation, or becoming depressed and suicidal when confronted with the wasted tuition fees and the difficulty of shaking off an allegation of dishonesty. Many of those accused had studied in English-language schools before travelling to the UK to study. One had a degree in English literature and had worked with Nato troops in Afghanistan before moving to the UK for an MBA, while another had grown up bilingual. They were bemused at the accusation that they had paid for a proxy exam-taker to sit the basic English test on their behalf. There is no doubt that the undercover Panorama filming exposed clear evidence of fraud in two of the 90 or so test centres run by ETS, offering the Test of English for international communication (Toeic). The Home Office was already aware of fraud in other centres. But the Home Office’s readiness to accept evidence from ETS that 97% of all tests taken were suspicious has been repeatedly questioned. During its investigations, ETS used voice recognition technology to review the recordings of students’ voices during the spoken section of the exam and identified cases where the same voice appeared on multiple test recordings; it classified those tests as fraudulent, because they suggested that a proxy had sat the test on the candidate’s behalf. The company concluded that 58% of all tests taken (about 34,000) were invalid for this reason. Those students had their visas cancelled, making their presence in the UK immediately illegal. ETS found that a further 39% of students had questionable results; the Home Office invited those people to resit an English test. The company said only 2,222 test results were valid. Campaigners have said it is implausible that 97% of students who took Home Office-approved tests, advertised on government websites and taken over a three-year period, were all involved in fraud. A decision is expected soon on a test case held in December at the upper immigration tribunal. Evidence from an expert witness suggested that staff at some test centres where fraud was in operation may have substituted all the tests done by all students for tests done simultaneously by proxies in a hidden room. In this way, genuine students would have been unaware of fraud happening at the centre, but their test papers would have been substituted along with those of students who had paid for someone to cheat on their behalf. The court also heard from a former ETS employee that the company had ignored evidence of fraud and had refused to shut down test centres. In the past decade, several in-depth investigations have questioned the Home Office’s decisions. A public accounts committee report concluded that the department’s “flawed” handling and “rush to penalise” students caused “injustice and hardship for many thousands of international students”. The National Audit Office in 2019 found that the Home Office “did not have the expertise to validate the results” provided by ETS, and criticised the department for failing to protect those caught up in the scandal, adding: “We could find no evidence that the department had actively looked at whether innocent people were wrongly assessed as cheats.” Somehow, despite a widespread recognition that many students were wrongly accused, justice has never been delivered. Those students who have managed to get their cases overturned have often spent more than £20,000 on legal fees, pushing their families into debt. One immigration tribunal judge in 2017 described the Home Office’s behaviour as “so unfair and unreasonable as to amount to an abuse of power”. Theresa May’s memoir, published last year, titled The Abuse of Power makes no mention of the issue, which unfolded during her time as home secretary. Campaigners point out that the decision to revoke 35,000 student visas came at a time when May was trying to get net migration down to the tens of thousands and during a period when she was overseeing the creation of a “really hostile environment” for illegal immigrants. May has been approached for comment. The Labour MP Stephen Timms has helped many international students in his constituency of East Ham in east London to challenge these accusations. He said: “Thousands of students, falsely accused of cheating, lost their visas and their savings. Many were denied their degrees. Some gave up, their lives blighted. Some are still battling, 10 years on, exhausted and hard-up – in some cases unable to go home over shame at the cheating allegation, their families convinced an accusation by the British government must be true.” The charity Migrant Voice , which has been fighting on this issue since 2017, held a meeting earlier this month with a group of students still fighting for justice, seeking new ways to persuade the Home Office to remove the allegations against them. A Home Office spokesperson said: “Abuse of our immigration system will not be tolerated and those who do will face the appropriate measures against them. This includes cheating on English-language tests. Courts have consistently found evidence that is sufficient to take action, and it is only right that we allow these legal processes to run their course.” ETS said at the time of the serious allegations its UK operations were contracted out to a subsidiary organisation, ETS Global BV. The office was subsequently closed. The Home Office was paid a £1.6m settlement by ETS Global BV in 2018. An ETS spokesperson said the company’s people and practices had changed. “ETS’s work in the UK is focused on supporting those seeking to study abroad in the UK and the universities that host them.” Explore more on these topics English language testing scandal Home Office International students Students Immigration and asylum news Share Reuse this content International students accused of cheating at English-language tests are planning a fresh push to clear their names 10 years on, with thousands thought to have been victims of a gross miscarriage of justice. Important new evidence has recently been presented in court raising fresh questions over the Home Office’s decision to make a blanket accusation of cheating against more than 35,000 students, which led to thousands being thrown off their courses and forced out of the country. The case has drawn parallels with the Post Office Horizon scandal, in which hundreds of post office operators were prosecuted for stealing money on the basis of incorrect information provided by a computer system managed by a large international firm. A decade ago this weekend, the BBC broadcast a Panorama investigation, which uncovered widespread cheating in Home Office-approved test centres offering English-language tests that international students were required to pass as part of their visa renewal process. Theresa May, who was then home secretary, described the BBC report as “shocking” and asked the US-based test provider, Educational Testing Service (ETS) to investigate. ETS concluded that 97% of its English tests taken in the UK between 2011 and 2014 were in some way suspicious and the Home Office cancelled the visas of about 35,000 students. Immigration enforcement teams mounted dawn raids on students’ accommodation and about 2,500 were deported. A further 7,200 are known to have left the country after being warned they would be arrested and detained if they stayed. Many more had to give up degree courses, wasting thousands of pounds’ worth of fees. But thousands of students have protested that they were wrongly accused of cheating, and have spent years arguing that the evidence presented against them is flawed and thin. More than 3,600 have won appeals against the Home Office. Many more have been unable to attempt to clear their names because of the prohibitive cost of taking legal action. Lawyers have compared the official response to the Post Office scandal. Senior Post Office staff have been accused of putting excessive faith in a flawed IT system. Similarly, the Home Office has been accused in recent legal action of basing its actions on digital evidence provided by a US organisation, without giving sufficient consideration to the possibility that the evidence might not be robust. The human cost of the scandal has been high. In interviews with the Guardian over the past five years, dozens of students have described the painful consequences of the unexpected accusation; one man was held in UK immigration detention centres for 11 months before returning to India; others described being forced into destitution in the UK, becoming homeless and reliant on food banks, as they attempted to challenge the accusation, or becoming depressed and suicidal when confronted with the wasted tuition fees and the difficulty of shaking off an allegation of dishonesty. Many of those accused had studied in English-language schools before travelling to the UK to study. One had a degree in English literature and had worked with Nato troops in Afghanistan before moving to the UK for an MBA, while another had grown up bilingual. They were bemused at the accusation that they had paid for a proxy exam-taker to sit the basic English test on their behalf. There is no doubt that the undercover Panorama filming exposed clear evidence of fraud in two of the 90 or so test centres run by ETS, offering the Test of English for international communication (Toeic). The Home Office was already aware of fraud in other centres. But the Home Office’s readiness to accept evidence from ETS that 97% of all tests taken were suspicious has been repeatedly questioned. During its investigations, ETS used voice recognition technology to review the recordings of students’ voices during the spoken section of the exam and identified cases where the same voice appeared on multiple test recordings; it classified those tests as fraudulent, because they suggested that a proxy had sat the test on the candidate’s behalf. The company concluded that 58% of all tests taken (about 34,000) were invalid for this reason. Those students had their visas cancelled, making their presence in the UK immediately illegal. ETS found that a further 39% of students had questionable results; the Home Office invited those people to resit an English test. The company said only 2,222 test results were valid. Campaigners have said it is implausible that 97% of students who took Home Office-approved tests, advertised on government websites and taken over a three-year period, were all involved in fraud. A decision is expected soon on a test case held in December at the upper immigration tribunal. Evidence from an expert witness suggested that staff at some test centres where fraud was in operation may have substituted all the tests done by all students for tests done simultaneously by proxies in a hidden room. In this way, genuine students would have been unaware of fraud happening at the centre, but their test papers would have been substituted along with those of students who had paid for someone to cheat on their behalf. The court also heard from a former ETS employee that the company had ignored evidence of fraud and had refused to shut down test centres. In the past decade, several in-depth investigations have questioned the Home Office’s decisions. A public accounts committee report concluded that the department’s “flawed” handling and “rush to penalise” students caused “injustice and hardship for many thousands of international students”. The National Audit Office in 2019 found that the Home Office “did not have the expertise to validate the results” provided by ETS, and criticised the department for failing to protect those caught up in the scandal, adding: “We could find no evidence that the department had actively looked at whether innocent people were wrongly assessed as cheats.” Somehow, despite a widespread recognition that many students were wrongly accused, justice has never been delivered. Those students who have managed to get their cases overturned have often spent more than £20,000 on legal fees, pushing their families into debt. One immigration tribunal judge in 2017 described the Home Office’s behaviour as “so unfair and unreasonable as to amount to an abuse of power”. Theresa May’s memoir, published last year, titled The Abuse of Power makes no mention of the issue, which unfolded during her time as home secretary. Campaigners point out that the decision to revoke 35,000 student visas came at a time when May was trying to get net migration down to the tens of thousands and during a period when she was overseeing the creation of a “really hostile environment” for illegal immigrants. May has been approached for comment. The Labour MP Stephen Timms has helped many international students in his constituency of East Ham in east London to challenge these accusations. He said: “Thousands of students, falsely accused of cheating, lost their visas and their savings. Many were denied their degrees. Some gave up, their lives blighted. Some are still battling, 10 years on, exhausted and hard-up – in some cases unable to go home over shame at the cheating allegation, their families convinced an accusation by the British government must be true.” The charity Migrant Voice , which has been fighting on this issue since 2017, held a meeting earlier this month with a group of students still fighting for justice, seeking new ways to persuade the Home Office to remove the allegations against them. A Home Office spokesperson said: “Abuse of our immigration system will not be tolerated and those who do will face the appropriate measures against them. This includes cheating on English-language tests. Courts have consistently found evidence that is sufficient to take action, and it is only right that we allow these legal processes to run their course.” ETS said at the time of the serious allegations its UK operations were contracted out to a subsidiary organisation, ETS Global BV. The office was subsequently closed. The Home Office was paid a £1.6m settlement by ETS Global BV in 2018. An ETS spokesperson said the company’s people and practices had changed. “ETS’s work in the UK is focused on supporting those seeking to study abroad in the UK and the universities that host them.” Explore more on these topics English language testing scandal Home Office International students Students Immigration and asylum news Share Reuse this content International students accused of cheating at English-language tests are planning a fresh push to clear their names 10 years on, with thousands thought to have been victims of a gross miscarriage of justice. Important new evidence has recently been presented in court raising fresh questions over the Home Office’s decision to make a blanket accusation of cheating against more than 35,000 students, which led to thousands being thrown off their courses and forced out of the country. The case has drawn parallels with the Post Office Horizon scandal, in which hundreds of post office operators were prosecuted for stealing money on the basis of incorrect information provided by a computer system managed by a large international firm. A decade ago this weekend, the BBC broadcast a Panorama investigation, which uncovered widespread cheating in Home Office-approved test centres offering English-language tests that international students were required to pass as part of their visa renewal process. Theresa May, who was then home secretary, described the BBC report as “shocking” and asked the US-based test provider, Educational Testing Service (ETS) to investigate. ETS concluded that 97% of its English tests taken in the UK between 2011 and 2014 were in some way suspicious and the Home Office cancelled the visas of about 35,000 students. Immigration enforcement teams mounted dawn raids on students’ accommodation and about 2,500 were deported. A further 7,200 are known to have left the country after being warned they would be arrested and detained if they stayed. Many more had to give up degree courses, wasting thousands of pounds’ worth of fees. But thousands of students have protested that they were wrongly accused of cheating, and have spent years arguing that the evidence presented against them is flawed and thin. More than 3,600 have won appeals against the Home Office. Many more have been unable to attempt to clear their names because of the prohibitive cost of taking legal action. Lawyers have compared the official response to the Post Office scandal. Senior Post Office staff have been accused of putting excessive faith in a flawed IT system. Similarly, the Home Office has been accused in recent legal action of basing its actions on digital evidence provided by a US organisation, without giving sufficient consideration to the possibility that the evidence might not be robust. The human cost of the scandal has been high. In interviews with the Guardian over the past five years, dozens of students have described the painful consequences of the unexpected accusation; one man was held in UK immigration detention centres for 11 months before returning to India; others described being forced into destitution in the UK, becoming homeless and reliant on food banks, as they attempted to challenge the accusation, or becoming depressed and suicidal when confronted with the wasted tuition fees and the difficulty of shaking off an allegation of dishonesty. Many of those accused had studied in English-language schools before travelling to the UK to study. One had a degree in English literature and had worked with Nato troops in Afghanistan before moving to the UK for an MBA, while another had grown up bilingual. They were bemused at the accusation that they had paid for a proxy exam-taker to sit the basic English test on their behalf. There is no doubt that the undercover Panorama filming exposed clear evidence of fraud in two of the 90 or so test centres run by ETS, offering the Test of English for international communication (Toeic). The Home Office was already aware of fraud in other centres. But the Home Office’s readiness to accept evidence from ETS that 97% of all tests taken were suspicious has been repeatedly questioned. During its investigations, ETS used voice recognition technology to review the recordings of students’ voices during the spoken section of the exam and identified cases where the same voice appeared on multiple test recordings; it classified those tests as fraudulent, because they suggested that a proxy had sat the test on the candidate’s behalf. The company concluded that 58% of all tests taken (about 34,000) were invalid for this reason. Those students had their visas cancelled, making their presence in the UK immediately illegal. ETS found that a further 39% of students had questionable results; the Home Office invited those people to resit an English test. The company said only 2,222 test results were valid. Campaigners have said it is implausible that 97% of students who took Home Office-approved tests, advertised on government websites and taken over a three-year period, were all involved in fraud. A decision is expected soon on a test case held in December at the upper immigration tribunal. Evidence from an expert witness suggested that staff at some test centres where fraud was in operation may have substituted all the tests done by all students for tests done simultaneously by proxies in a hidden room. In this way, genuine students would have been unaware of fraud happening at the centre, but their test papers would have been substituted along with those of students who had paid for someone to cheat on their behalf. The court also heard from a former ETS employee that the company had ignored evidence of fraud and had refused to shut down test centres. In the past decade, several in-depth investigations have questioned the Home Office’s decisions. A public accounts committee report concluded that the department’s “flawed” handling and “rush to penalise” students caused “injustice and hardship for many thousands of international students”. The National Audit Office in 2019 found that the Home Office “did not have the expertise to validate the results” provided by ETS, and criticised the department for failing to protect those caught up in the scandal, adding: “We could find no evidence that the department had actively looked at whether innocent people were wrongly assessed as cheats.” Somehow, despite a widespread recognition that many students were wrongly accused, justice has never been delivered. Those students who have managed to get their cases overturned have often spent more than £20,000 on legal fees, pushing their families into debt. One immigration tribunal judge in 2017 described the Home Office’s behaviour as “so unfair and unreasonable as to amount to an abuse of power”. Theresa May’s memoir, published last year, titled The Abuse of Power makes no mention of the issue, which unfolded during her time as home secretary. Campaigners point out that the decision to revoke 35,000 student visas came at a time when May was trying to get net migration down to the tens of thousands and during a period when she was overseeing the creation of a “really hostile environment” for illegal immigrants. May has been approached for comment. The Labour MP Stephen Timms has helped many international students in his constituency of East Ham in east London to challenge these accusations. He said: “Thousands of students, falsely accused of cheating, lost their visas and their savings. Many were denied their degrees. Some gave up, their lives blighted. Some are still battling, 10 years on, exhausted and hard-up – in some cases unable to go home over shame at the cheating allegation, their families convinced an accusation by the British government must be true.” The charity Migrant Voice , which has been fighting on this issue since 2017, held a meeting earlier this month with a group of students still fighting for justice, seeking new ways to persuade the Home Office to remove the allegations against them. A Home Office spokesperson said: “Abuse of our immigration system will not be tolerated and those who do will face the appropriate measures against them. This includes cheating on English-language tests. Courts have consistently found evidence that is sufficient to take action, and it is only right that we allow these legal processes to run their course.” ETS said at the time of the serious allegations its UK operations were contracted out to a subsidiary organisation, ETS Global BV. The office was subsequently closed. The Home Office was paid a £1.6m settlement by ETS Global BV in 2018. An ETS spokesperson said the company’s people and practices had changed. “ETS’s work in the UK is focused on supporting those seeking to study abroad in the UK and the universities that host them.” International students accused of cheating at English-language tests are planning a fresh push to clear their names 10 years on, with thousands thought to have been victims of a gross miscarriage of justice. Important new evidence has recently been presented in court raising fresh questions over the Home Office’s decision to make a blanket accusation of cheating against more than 35,000 students, which led to thousands being thrown off their courses and forced out of the country. The case has drawn parallels with the Post Office Horizon scandal, in which hundreds of post office operators were prosecuted for stealing money on the basis of incorrect information provided by a computer system managed by a large international firm. A decade ago this weekend, the BBC broadcast a Panorama investigation, which uncovered widespread cheating in Home Office-approved test centres offering English-language tests that international students were required to pass as part of their visa renewal process. Theresa May, who was then home secretary, described the BBC report as “shocking” and asked the US-based test provider, Educational Testing Service (ETS) to investigate. ETS concluded that 97% of its English tests taken in the UK between 2011 and 2014 were in some way suspicious and the Home Office cancelled the visas of about 35,000 students. Immigration enforcement teams mounted dawn raids on students’ accommodation and about 2,500 were deported. A further 7,20
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
‘It’s completely divided’: British Iranians torn over Middle East crisis
Negin Shiraghaei: ‘That divide we see in the general public in the UK, it exists in the Iranian community as well, maybe 10 times [more].’ Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Negin Shiraghaei: ‘That divide we see in the general public in the UK, it exists in the Iranian community as well, maybe 10 times [more].’ Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old ‘It’s completely divided’: British Iranians torn over Middle East crisis This article is more than 1 year old Escalation of conflict causing tensions within community and fears about war spreading to Iran Middle East crisis – live updates Iranians living in the UK have described deep divisions in the community since the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East. The deadly attack by Hamas in Israel on 7 October and the subsequent bombardment of Gaza have led to tense conversations among British Iranians, they say. “On the face of it, really clearly you can find two camps,” said Negin Shiraghaei, an activist and founder of the Azadi Network. “One is the pro-Israel camp … but then on the other side there are lots of Iranians who’ve been part of the women, life, freedom [movement] and feel much closer to the cause of the Palestinians, so it’s completely divided.” Shiraghaei added: “Talking about these issues [is] quite difficult with a divided society. That divide we see in the general public in the UK, it exists in the Iranian community as well, maybe 10 times [more].” Recent developments in the Middle East, where increasing attacks by Iranian-backed militia have been met with retaliatory strikes from the US , have led to growing fears the war will spread. British Iranians, some of whom have fled the Islamic republic and were united in anti-government protests in 2022 , find themselves at a significant intersection. Anahita, an artist whose work addresses human rights abuses in Iran, said that after what happened in Gaza, “a bunch of people started supporting … Israel just because Iran is such a big and obvious supporter of Hamas, so just to be anti-Islamic republic”. When asked if the atmosphere felt polarised, she said: “Yes, ridiculously, it feels like a football team you need to choose. You can be just quiet about it or you have to be very clear on which side you stand.” Shiraghaei, who has facilitated conversations with small groups of British Iranians, said the reality on the ground was more complex and diverse. She said there was a “third narrative” emerging “that we should be able to talk about human rights abuse, no matter where it happens”. “I can be against the Islamic Republic [in Iran]. I can be against Hamas, and what they’re doing to the Palestinian people and I can be against what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people as well and that [view] needs to find space,” she said. “If they cannot find a place to voice their narrative, they will be lost.” View image in fullscreen Vahid Beheshti: ‘The root of the problem is the Iranian regime – end of story.’ Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian She said this position “is much closer to people’s hearts”. Like Shiraghaei, Saeed Khalilirad said many British Iranians were concerned about the potential spread of war. Khalilirad, a psychotherapist and political activist who runs workshops with Iranians, said people were living with “daily trauma”. “Iranians are quite distressed because they don’t know what the [Iranian] regime is going to do next and whether it wants to attract any military action against the regime or not … everyone has families in Iran,” he said. Khalilirad, who fled Iran and moved to the UK in 2007, said there were concerns the developments in the Middle East could put the lives of people in Iran in “jeopardy”. View image in fullscreen Fariba Nazemi: ‘In this century, to see this amount of killing and injustice going on in the world, it’s horrible.’ Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian For the Iranian activist Vahid Beheshti, it is important the UK government stops “ignoring [the] big elephant in the room”. “This is how I see it, we have to identify the root of the problem otherwise we are going to lock ourselves in this vicious circle … So the root of the problem is the Iranian regime – end of story,” he said. Beheshti, who spoke at the Israeli parliament earlier this year, has called on the UK government to proscribe the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group. He has been participating in a sit-in protest outside the UK Foreign Office. He said: “[I’ve] been here 344 days now in the street living in a tent. Why? Because we know what’s happened. We know the danger of this regime, not just for Iran but for us here as well.” Another British Iranian, Fariba Nazemi, a foster parent, said discussions about the developments in the Middle East were happening “every day, every hour, every minute when we are together … it does affect us”. Nazemi added: “I think it’s unfair, very unfair. In this century, to see this amount of killing and injustice going on in the world, it’s horrible.” Explore more on these topics UK news Iran Israel-Gaza war Middle East and north Africa features Share Reuse this content Negin Shiraghaei: ‘That divide we see in the general public in the UK, it exists in the Iranian community as well, maybe 10 times [more].’ Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Negin Shiraghaei: ‘That divide we see in the general public in the UK, it exists in the Iranian community as well, maybe 10 times [more].’ Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old ‘It’s completely divided’: British Iranians torn over Middle East crisis This article is more than 1 year old Escalation of conflict causing tensions within community and fears about war spreading to Iran Middle East crisis – live updates Iranians living in the UK have described deep divisions in the community since the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East. The deadly attack by Hamas in Israel on 7 October and the subsequent bombardment of Gaza have led to tense conversations among British Iranians, they say. “On the face of it, really clearly you can find two camps,” said Negin Shiraghaei, an activist and founder of the Azadi Network. “One is the pro-Israel camp … but then on the other side there are lots of Iranians who’ve been part of the women, life, freedom [movement] and feel much closer to the cause of the Palestinians, so it’s completely divided.” Shiraghaei added: “Talking about these issues [is] quite difficult with a divided society. That divide we see in the general public in the UK, it exists in the Iranian community as well, maybe 10 times [more].” Recent developments in the Middle East, where increasing attacks by Iranian-backed militia have been met with retaliatory strikes from the US , have led to growing fears the war will spread. British Iranians, some of whom have fled the Islamic republic and were united in anti-government protests in 2022 , find themselves at a significant intersection. Anahita, an artist whose work addresses human rights abuses in Iran, said that after what happened in Gaza, “a bunch of people started supporting … Israel just because Iran is such a big and obvious supporter of Hamas, so just to be anti-Islamic republic”. When asked if the atmosphere felt polarised, she said: “Yes, ridiculously, it feels like a football team you need to choose. You can be just quiet about it or you have to be very clear on which side you stand.” Shiraghaei, who has facilitated conversations with small groups of British Iranians, said the reality on the ground was more complex and diverse. She said there was a “third narrative” emerging “that we should be able to talk about human rights abuse, no matter where it happens”. “I can be against the Islamic Republic [in Iran]. I can be against Hamas, and what they’re doing to the Palestinian people and I can be against what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people as well and that [view] needs to find space,” she said. “If they cannot find a place to voice their narrative, they will be lost.” View image in fullscreen Vahid Beheshti: ‘The root of the problem is the Iranian regime – end of story.’ Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian She said this position “is much closer to people’s hearts”. Like Shiraghaei, Saeed Khalilirad said many British Iranians were concerned about the potential spread of war. Khalilirad, a psychotherapist and political activist who runs workshops with Iranians, said people were living with “daily trauma”. “Iranians are quite distressed because they don’t know what the [Iranian] regime is going to do next and whether it wants to attract any military action against the regime or not … everyone has families in Iran,” he said. Khalilirad, who fled Iran and moved to the UK in 2007, said there were concerns the developments in the Middle East could put the lives of people in Iran in “jeopardy”. View image in fullscreen Fariba Nazemi: ‘In this century, to see this amount of killing and injustice going on in the world, it’s horrible.’ Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian For the Iranian activist Vahid Beheshti, it is important the UK government stops “ignoring [the] big elephant in the room”. “This is how I see it, we have to identify the root of the problem otherwise we are going to lock ourselves in this vicious circle … So the root of the problem is the Iranian regime – end of story,” he said. Beheshti, who spoke at the Israeli parliament earlier this year, has called on the UK government to proscribe the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group. He has been participating in a sit-in protest outside the UK Foreign Office. He said: “[I’ve] been here 344 days now in the street living in a tent. Why? Because we know what’s happened. We know the danger of this regime, not just for Iran but for us here as well.” Another British Iranian, Fariba Nazemi, a foster parent, said discussions about the developments in the Middle East were happening “every day, every hour, every minute when we are together … it does affect us”. Nazemi added: “I think it’s unfair, very unfair. In this century, to see this amount of killing and injustice going on in the world, it’s horrible.” Explore more on these topics UK news Iran Israel-Gaza war Middle East and north Africa features Share Reuse this content Negin Shiraghaei: ‘That divide we see in the general public in the UK, it exists in the Iranian community as well, maybe 10 times [more].’ Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Negin Shiraghaei: ‘That divide we see in the general public in the UK, it exists in the Iranian community as well, maybe 10 times [more].’ Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian Negin Shiraghaei: ‘That divide we see in the general public in the UK, it exists in the Iranian community as well, maybe 10 times [more].’ Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Negin Shiraghaei: ‘That divide we see in the general public in the UK, it exists in the Iranian community as well, maybe 10 times [more].’ Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian Negin Shiraghaei: ‘That divide we see in the general public in the UK, it exists in the Iranian community as well, maybe 10 times [more].’ Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Negin Shiraghaei: ‘That divide we see in the general public in the UK, it exists in the Iranian community as well, maybe 10 times [more].’ Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian Negin Shiraghaei: ‘That divide we see in the general public in the UK, it exists in the Iranian community as well, maybe 10 times [more].’ Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Negin Shiraghaei: ‘That divide we see in the general public in the UK, it exists in the Iranian community as well, maybe 10 times [more].’ Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian Negin Shiraghaei: ‘That divide we see in the general public in the UK, it exists in the Iranian community as well, maybe 10 times [more].’ Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian Negin Shiraghaei: ‘That divide we see in the general public in the UK, it exists in the Iranian community as well, maybe 10 times [more].’ Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old ‘It’s completely divided’: British Iranians torn over Middle East crisis This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘It’s completely divided’: British Iranians torn over Middle East crisis This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘It’s completely divided’: British Iranians torn over Middle East crisis 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 Escalation of conflict causing tensions within community and fears about war spreading to Iran Middle East crisis – live updates Escalation of conflict causing tensions within community and fears about war spreading to Iran Middle East crisis – live updates Escalation of conflict causing tensions within community and fears about war spreading to Iran Iranians living in the UK have described deep divisions in the community since the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East. The deadly attack by Hamas in Israel on 7 October and the subsequent bombardment of Gaza have led to tense conversations among British Iranians, they say. “On the face of it, really clearly you can find two camps,” said Negin Shiraghaei, an activist and founder of the Azadi Network. “One is the pro-Israel camp … but then on the other side there are lots of Iranians who’ve been part of the women, life, freedom [movement] and feel much closer to the cause of the Palestinians, so it’s completely divided.” Shiraghaei added: “Talking about these issues [is] quite difficult with a divided society. That divide we see in the general public in the UK, it exists in the Iranian community as well, maybe 10 times [more].” Recent developments in the Middle East, where increasing attacks by Iranian-backed militia have been met with retaliatory strikes from the US , have led to growing fears the war will spread. British Iranians, some of whom have fled the Islamic republic and were united in anti-government protests in 2022 , find themselves at a significant intersection. Anahita, an artist whose work addresses human rights abuses in Iran, said that after what happened in Gaza, “a bunch of people started supporting … Israel just because Iran is such a big and obvious supporter of Hamas, so just to be anti-Islamic republic”. When asked if the atmosphere felt polarised, she said: “Yes, ridiculously, it feels like a football team you need to choose. You can be just quiet about it or you have to be very clear on which side you stand.” Shiraghaei, who has facilitated conversations with small groups of British Iranians, said the reality on the ground was more complex and diverse. She said there was a “third narrative” emerging “that we should be able to talk about human rights abuse, no matter where it happens”. “I can be against the Islamic Republic [in Iran]. I can be against Hamas, and what they’re doing to the Palestinian people and I can be against what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people as well and that [view] needs to find space,” she said. “If they cannot find a place to voice their narrative, they will be lost.” View image in fullscreen Vahid Beheshti: ‘The root of the problem is the Iranian regime – end of story.’ Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian She said this position “is much closer to people’s hearts”. Like Shiraghaei, Saeed Khalilirad said many British Iranians were concerned about the potential spread of war. Khalilirad, a psychotherapist and political activist who runs workshops with Iranians, said people were living with “daily trauma”. “Iranians are quite distressed because they don’t know what the [Iranian] regime is going to do next and whether it wants to attract any military action against the regime or not … everyone has families in Iran,” he said. Khalilirad, who fled Iran and moved to the UK in 2007, said there were concerns the developments in the Middle East could put the lives of people in Iran in “jeopardy”. View image in fullscreen Fariba Nazemi: ‘In this century, to see this amount of killing and injustice going on in the world, it’s horrible.’ Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian For the Iranian activist Vahid Beheshti, it is important the UK government stops “ignoring [the] big elephant in the room”. “This is how I see it, we have to identify the root of the problem otherwise we are going to lock ourselves in this vicious circle … So the root of the problem is the Iranian regime – end of story,” he said. Beheshti, who spoke at the Israeli parliament earlier this year, has called on the UK government to proscribe the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group. He has been participating in a sit-in protest outside the UK Foreign Office. He said: “[I’ve] been here 344 days now in the street living in a tent. Why? Because we know what’s happened. We know the danger of this regime, not just for Iran but for us here as well.” Another British Iranian, Fariba Nazemi, a foster parent, said discussions about the developments in the Middle East were happening “every day, every hour, every minute when we are together … it does affect us”. Nazemi added: “I think it’s unfair, very unfair. In this century, to see this amount of killing and injustice going on in the world, it’s horrible.” Explore more on these topics UK news Iran Israel-Gaza war Middle East and north Africa features Share Reuse this content Iranians living in the UK have described deep divisions in the community since the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East. The deadly attack by Hamas in Israel on 7 October and the subsequent bombardment of Gaza have led to tense conversations among British Iranians, they say. “On the face of it, really clearly you can find two camps,” said Negin Shiraghaei, an activist and founder of the Azadi Network. “One is the pro-Israel camp … but then on the other side there are lots of Iranians who’ve been part of the women, life, freedom [movement] and feel much closer to the cause of the Palestinians, so it’s completely divided.” Shiraghaei added: “Talking about these issues [is] quite difficult with a divided society. That divide we see in the general public in the UK, it exists in the Iranian community as well, maybe 10 times [more].” Recent developments in the Middle East, where increasing attacks by Iranian-backed militia have been met with retaliatory strikes from the US , have led to growing fears the war will spread. British Iranians, some of whom have fled the Islamic republic and were united in anti-government protests in 2022 , find themselves at a significant intersection. Anahita, an artist whose work addresses human rights abuses in Iran, said that after what happened in Gaza, “a bunch of people started supporting … Israel just because Iran is such a big and obvious supporter of Hamas, so just to be anti-Islamic republic”. When asked if the atmosphere felt polarised, she said: “Yes, ridiculously, it feels like a football team you need to choose. You can be just quiet about it or you have to be very clear on which side you stand.” Shiraghaei, who has facilitated conversations with small groups of British Iranians, said the reality on the ground was more complex and diverse. She said there was a “third narrative” emerging “that we should be able to talk about human rights abuse, no matter where it happens”. “I can be against the Islamic Republic [in Iran]. I can be against Hamas, and what they’re doing to the Palestinian people and I can be against what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people as well and that [view] needs to find space,” she said. “If they cannot find a place to voice their narrative, they will be lost.” View image in fullscreen Vahid Beheshti: ‘The root of the problem is the Iranian regime – end of story.’ Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian She said this position “is much closer to people’s hearts”. Like Shiraghaei, Saeed Khalilirad said many British Iranians were concerned about the potential spread of war. Khalilirad, a psychotherapist and political activist who runs workshops with Iranians, said people were living with “daily trauma”. “Iranians are quite distressed because they don’t know what the [Iranian] regime is going to do next and whether it wants to attract any military action against the regime or not … everyone has families in Iran,” he said. Khalilirad, who fled Iran and moved to the UK in 2007, said there were concerns the developments in the Middle East could put the lives of people in Iran in “jeopardy”. View image in fullscreen Fariba Nazemi: ‘In this century, to see this amount of killing and injustice going on in the world, it’s horrible.’ Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian For the Iranian activist Vahid Beheshti, it is important the UK government stops “ignoring [the] big elephant in the room”. “This is how I see it, we have to identify the root of the problem otherwise we are going to lock ourselves in this vicious circle … So the root of the problem is the Iranian regime – end of story,” he said. Beheshti, who spoke at the Israeli parliament earlier this year, has called on the UK government to proscribe the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group. He has been participating in a sit-in protest outside the UK Foreign Office. He said: “[I’ve] been here 344 days now in the street living in a tent. Why? Because we know what’s happened. We know the danger of this regime, not just for Iran but for us here as well.” Another British Iranian, Fariba Nazemi, a foster parent, said discussions about the developments in the Middle East were happening “every day, every hour, every minute when we are together … it does affect us”. Nazemi added: “I think it’s unfair, very unfair. In this century, to see this amount of killing and injustice going on in the world, it’s horrible.” Explore more on these topics UK news Iran Israel-Gaza war Middle East and north Africa features Share Reuse this content Iranians living in the UK have described deep divisions in the community since the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East. The deadly attack by Hamas in Israel on 7 October and the subsequent bombardment of Gaza have led to tense conversations among British Iranians, they say. “On the face of it, really clearly you can find two camps,” said Negin Shiraghaei, an activist and founder of the Azadi Network. “One is the pro-Israel camp … but then on the other side there are lots of Iranians who’ve been part of the women, life, freedom [movement] and feel much closer to the cause of the Palestinians, so it’s completely divided.” Shiraghaei added: “Talking about these issues [is] quite difficult with a divided society. That divide we see in the general public in the UK, it exists in the Iranian community as well, maybe 10 times [more].” Recent developments in the Middle East, where increasing attacks by Iranian-backed militia have been met with retaliatory strikes from the US , have led to growing fears the war will spread. British Iranians, some of whom have fled the Islamic republic and were united in anti-government protests in 2022 , find themselves at a significant intersection. Anahita, an artist whose work addresses human rights abuses in Iran, said that after what happened in Gaza, “a bunch of people started supporting … Israel just because Iran is such a big and obvious supporter of Hamas, so just to be anti-Islamic republic”. When asked if the atmosphere felt polarised, she said: “Yes, ridiculously, it feels like a football team you need to choose. You can be just quiet about it or you have to be very clear on which side you stand.” Shiraghaei, who has facilitated conversations with small groups of British Iranians, said the reality on the ground was more complex and diverse. She said there was a “third narrative” emerging “that we should be able to talk about human rights abuse, no matter where it happens”. “I can be against the Islamic Republic [in Iran]. I can be against Hamas, and what they’re doing to the Palestinian people and I can be against what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people as well and that [view] needs to find space,” she said. “If they cannot find a place to voice their narrative, they will be lost.” View image in fullscreen Vahid Beheshti: ‘The root of the problem is the Iranian regime – end of story.’ Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian She said this position “is much closer to people’s hearts”. Like Shiraghaei, Saeed Khalilirad said many British Iranians were concerned about the potential spread of war. Khalilirad, a psychotherapist and political activist who runs workshops with Iranians, said people were living with “daily trauma”. “Iranians are quite distressed because they don’t know what the [Iranian] regime is going to do next and whether it wants to attract any military action against the regime or not … everyone has families in Iran,” he said. Khalilirad, who fled Iran and moved to the UK in 2007, said there were concerns the developments in the Middle East could put the lives of people in Iran in “jeopardy”. View image in fullscreen Fariba Nazemi: ‘In this century, to see this amount of killing and injustice going on in the world, it’s horrible.’ Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian For the Iranian activist Vahid Beheshti, it is important the UK government stops “ignoring [the] big elephant in the room”. “This is how I see it, we have to identify the root of the problem otherwise we are going to lock ourselves in this vicious circle … So the root of the problem is the Iranian regime – end of story,” he said. Beheshti, who spoke at the Israeli parliament earlier this year, has called on the UK government to proscribe the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group. He has been participating in a sit-in protest outside the UK Foreign Office. He said: “[I’ve] been here 344 days now in the street living in a tent. Why? Because we know what’s happened. We know the danger of this regime, not just for Iran but for us here as well.” Another British Iranian, Fariba Nazemi, a foster parent, said discussions about the developments in the Middle East were happening “every day, every hour, every minute when we are together … it does affect us”. Nazemi added: “I think it’s unfair, very unfair. In this century, to see this amount of killing and injustice going on in the world, it’s horrible.” Iranians living in the UK have described deep divisions in the community since the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East. The deadly attack by Hamas in Israel on 7 October and the subsequent bombardment of Gaza have led to tense conversations among British Iranians, they say. “On the face of it, really clearly you can find two camps,” said Negin Shiraghaei, an activist and founder of the Azadi Network. “One is the pro-Israel camp … but then on the other side there are lots of Iranians who’ve been part of the women, life, freedom [movement] and feel much closer to the cause of the Palestinians, so it’s completely divided.” Shiraghaei added: “Talking about these issues [is] quite difficult with a divided society. That divide we see in the general public in the UK, it exists in the Iranian community as well, maybe 10 times [more].” Recent developments in the Middle East, where increasing attacks by Iranian-backed militia have been met with retaliatory strikes from the US , have led to growing fears the war will spread. British Iranians, some of whom have fled the Islamic republic and were united in anti-government protests in 2022 , find themselves at a significant intersection. Anahita, an artist whose work addresses human rights abuses in Iran, said that after what happened in Gaza, “a bunch of people started supporting … Israel just because Iran is such a big and obvious supporter of Hamas, so just to be anti-Islamic republic”. When asked if the atmosphere felt polarised, she said: “Yes, ridiculously, it feels like a football team you need to choose. You can be just quiet about it or you have to be very clear on which side you stand.” Shiraghaei, who has facilitated conversations with small groups of British Iranians, said the reality on the ground was more complex and diverse. She said there was a “third narrative” emerging “that we should be able to talk about human rights abuse, no matter where it happens”. “I can be against the Islamic Republic [in Iran]. I can be against Hamas, and what they’re doing to the Palestinian people and I can be against what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people as well and that [view] needs to find space,” she said. “If they cannot find a place to voice their narrative, they will be lost.” View image in fullscreen Vahid Beheshti: ‘The root of the problem is the Iranian regime – end of story.’ Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian She said this position “is much closer to people’s hearts”. Like Shiraghaei, Saeed Khalilirad said many British Iranians were concerned about the potential spread of war. Khalilirad, a psychotherapist and political activist who runs workshops with Iranians, said people were living with “daily trauma”. “Iranians are quite distressed because they don’t know what the [Iranian] regime is going to do next and whether it wants to attract any military action against the regime or not … everyone has families in Iran,” he said. Khalilirad, who fled Iran and moved to the UK in 2007, said there were concerns the developments in the Middle East could put the lives of people in Iran in “jeopardy”. View image in fullscreen Fariba Nazemi: ‘In this century, to see this amount of killing and injustice going on in the world, it’s horrible.’ Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian For the Iranian activist Vahid Beheshti, it is important the UK government stops “ignoring [the] big elephant in the room”. “This is how I see it, we have to identify the root of the problem otherwise we are going to lock ourselves in this vicious circle … So the root of the problem is the Iranian regime – end of story,” he said. Beheshti, who spoke at the Israeli parliament earlier this year, has called on the UK government to proscribe the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group. He has been participating in a sit-in protest outside the UK Foreign Office. He said: “[I’ve] been here 344 days now in the street living in a tent. Why? Because we know what’s happened. We know the danger of this regime, not just for Iran but for us here as well.” Another British Iranian, Fariba Nazemi, a foster parent, said discussions about the developments in the Middle East were happening “every day, every hour, every minute when we are together … it does affect us”. Nazemi added: “I think it’s unfair, very unfair. In this century, to see this amount of killing and injustice going on in the world, it’s horrible.” Iranians living in the UK have described deep divisions in the community since the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East. The deadly attack by Hamas in Israel on 7 October and the subsequent bombardment of Gaza have led to tense conversations among British Iranians, they say. “On the face of it, really clearly you can find two camps,” said Negin Shiraghaei, an activist and founder of the Azadi Network. “One is the pro-Israel camp … but then on the other side there are lots of Iranians who’ve been part of the women, life, freedom [movement] and feel much closer to the cause of the Palestinians, so it’s completely divided.” Shiraghaei added: “Talking about these issues [is] quite difficult with a divided society. That divide we see in the general public in the UK, it exists in the Iranian community as well, maybe 10 times [more].” Recent developments in the Middle East, where increasing attacks by Iranian-backed militia have been met with retaliatory strikes from the US , have led to growing fears the war will spread. British Iranians, some of whom have fled the Islamic republic and were united in anti-government protests in 2022 , find themselves at a significant intersection. Anahita, an artist whose work addresses human rights abuses in Iran, said that after what happened in Gaza, “a bunch of people started supporting … Israel just because Iran is such a big and obvious supporter of Hamas, so just to be anti-Islamic republic”. When asked if the atmosphere felt polarised, she said: “Yes, ridiculously, it feels like a football team you need to choose. You can be just quiet about it or you have to be very clear on which side you stand.” Shiraghaei, who has facilitated conversations with small groups of British Iranians, said the reality on the ground was more complex and diverse. She said there was a “third narrative” emerging “that we should be able to talk about human rights abuse, no matter where it happens”. “I can be against the Islamic Republic [in Iran]. I can be against Hamas, and what they’re doing to the Palestinian people and I can be against what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people as well and that [view] needs to find space,” she said. “If they cannot find a place to voice their narrative, they will be lost.” She said this position “is much closer to people’s hearts”. Like Shiraghaei, Saeed Khalilirad said many British Iranians were concerned about the potential spread of war. Khalilirad, a psychotherapist and political activist who runs workshops with Iranians, said people were living with “daily trauma”. “Iranians are quite distressed because they don’t know what the [Iranian] regime is going to do next and whether it wants to attract any military action against the regime or not … everyone has families in Iran,” he said. Khalilirad, who fled Iran and moved to the UK in 2007, said there were concerns the developments in the Middle East could put the lives of people in Iran in “jeopardy”. For the Iranian activist Vahid Beheshti, it is important the UK government stops “ignoring [the] big elephant in the room”. “This is how I see it, we have to identify the root of the problem otherwise we are going to lock ourselves in this vicious circle … So the root of the problem is the Iranian regime – end of story,” he said. Beheshti, who spoke at the Israeli parliament earlier this year, has called on the UK government to proscribe the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group. He has been participating in a sit-in protest outside the UK Foreign Office. He said: “[I’ve] been here 344 days now in the street living in a tent. Why? Because we know what’s happened. We know the danger of this regime, not just for Iran but for us here as well.” Another British Iranian, Fariba Nazemi, a foster parent, said discussions about the developments in the Middle East were happening “every day, every hour, every minute when we are together … it does affect us”. Nazemi added: “I think it’s unfair, very unfair. In this century, to see this amount of killing and injustice going on in the world, it’s horrible.” Explore more on these topics UK news Iran Israel-Gaza war Middle East and north Africa features Share Reuse this content UK news Iran Israel-Gaza war Middle East and north Africa features
|
What is the Home Office English test scandal?
The Home Office has been accused of rushing to penalise a whole cohort of international students. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA View image in fullscreen The Home Office has been accused of rushing to penalise a whole cohort of international students. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA This article is more than 1 year old Explainer What is the Home Office English test scandal? This article is more than 1 year old Tens of thousands of students lost their visas after a TV exposé of cheating a decade ago. Many say they were wrongly accused In 2014, a BBC Panorama documentary revealed widespread, well-organised cheating in the English language tests that international students were required to take in the UK if they wanted to change their course or renew their visa. As a result of these allegations the Home Office revoked the visas of about 35,000 students. Most were thrown off their courses; 2,500 students were deported and 7,200 left the country after being warned that they faced arrest and detention if they stayed. Thousands of students have spent years protesting their innocence. Were students cheating? There was clear evidence that many students had paid money to people working at some test centres to ensure they passed the test; at least 21 people have received prison sentences for helping candidates cheat at the test centres. But over the past decade it has emerged that thousands were wrongly accused. The Home Office has itself been accused of rushing to penalise a whole cohort of international students. What went wrong? The Home Office website gave students details of four approved test providers where they could sit a test to prove they had a high enough level of English to be able to study in the UK. Panorama exposed cheating in two centres run by a UK subsidiary of the US-based company Educational Testing Service (ETS). The Home Office asked ETS to investigate. After reviewing recordings of the spoken part of the test, ETS found that of about 58,000 people who sat the Test of English for International Communication (Toeic) between 2011 and 2014, 58% had used deception, and their visas were cancelled. Another 39% of tests were questionable, and those students were later asked to resit the test. ETS said only 2,200 students who took its tests during that period had definitely not cheated. Could 97% of students who sat a test run by a Home Office-approved company all have been cheating? Campaigners acknowledge there was deception but say it is implausible that such a high proportion of students could have been involved. Some of those who have tried to clear their names were educated in English-medium schools and said they had no reason to pay someone to ensure they passed a relatively basic language test. How were students affected? Thousands of students were unable to complete their courses, wasting thousands of pounds of fees. Many say relations with their parents were catastrophically damaged because family members struggled to believe that the highly respected British judicial system could have made such an error. Others say an outstanding accusation of deception from the UK government has made it difficult to get visas to study elsewhere. Despite the seriousness of the allegation, students were initially given no right of appeal in the UK; it proved almost impossible for wrongly deported students to challenge the Home Office’s decision from abroad. Why is this still a problem? A decade after the Panorama broadcast, immigration tribunals are still dealing with attempts by former students to get the allegation reversed. About 3,600 accused students have won immigration appeals, although there are no records of whether these judgments indicate that they were found innocent of cheating or whether they won for other reasons. What evidence is there of cheating? Lawyers acting for students have argued that the evidence of cheating provided by ETS is unreliable. Initially, ETS provided no evidence, but after a few years the company released recordings for use in immigration tribunals of students speaking during the oral section of the exams. These voices rarely matched up with the voice of the accused student, lawyers say. The Home Office argues that this is evidence that someone else took the test fraudulently on the student’s behalf. The students’ lawyers argue that the mismatch may indicate that the ETS records are unreliable, or that dishonest people running the test centres may have submitted different recordings for everyone taking the tests, to ensure that students who had paid to pass were successful. Bona fide test-takers would not have seen anything suspicious in the test centres. What do wrongly accused students want? The charity Migrant Voice has been working with students since 2017 and says they are hoping for an acknowledgement that they have been wrongly accused, the chance to return to their studies in the UK and to have the allegation of deception lifted from their immigration records. What does the Home Office say? “Abuse of our immigration system will not be tolerated and those who do will face the appropriate measures against them. This includes cheating on English language tests.” ETS says it closed its UK subsidiary in response to the allegation and no longer operates English-language tests in the UK. It says its people and practices have changed. Explore more on these topics Home Office International students Higher education Universities Students explainers Share Reuse this content The Home Office has been accused of rushing to penalise a whole cohort of international students. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA View image in fullscreen The Home Office has been accused of rushing to penalise a whole cohort of international students. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA This article is more than 1 year old Explainer What is the Home Office English test scandal? This article is more than 1 year old Tens of thousands of students lost their visas after a TV exposé of cheating a decade ago. Many say they were wrongly accused In 2014, a BBC Panorama documentary revealed widespread, well-organised cheating in the English language tests that international students were required to take in the UK if they wanted to change their course or renew their visa. As a result of these allegations the Home Office revoked the visas of about 35,000 students. Most were thrown off their courses; 2,500 students were deported and 7,200 left the country after being warned that they faced arrest and detention if they stayed. Thousands of students have spent years protesting their innocence. Were students cheating? There was clear evidence that many students had paid money to people working at some test centres to ensure they passed the test; at least 21 people have received prison sentences for helping candidates cheat at the test centres. But over the past decade it has emerged that thousands were wrongly accused. The Home Office has itself been accused of rushing to penalise a whole cohort of international students. What went wrong? The Home Office website gave students details of four approved test providers where they could sit a test to prove they had a high enough level of English to be able to study in the UK. Panorama exposed cheating in two centres run by a UK subsidiary of the US-based company Educational Testing Service (ETS). The Home Office asked ETS to investigate. After reviewing recordings of the spoken part of the test, ETS found that of about 58,000 people who sat the Test of English for International Communication (Toeic) between 2011 and 2014, 58% had used deception, and their visas were cancelled. Another 39% of tests were questionable, and those students were later asked to resit the test. ETS said only 2,200 students who took its tests during that period had definitely not cheated. Could 97% of students who sat a test run by a Home Office-approved company all have been cheating? Campaigners acknowledge there was deception but say it is implausible that such a high proportion of students could have been involved. Some of those who have tried to clear their names were educated in English-medium schools and said they had no reason to pay someone to ensure they passed a relatively basic language test. How were students affected? Thousands of students were unable to complete their courses, wasting thousands of pounds of fees. Many say relations with their parents were catastrophically damaged because family members struggled to believe that the highly respected British judicial system could have made such an error. Others say an outstanding accusation of deception from the UK government has made it difficult to get visas to study elsewhere. Despite the seriousness of the allegation, students were initially given no right of appeal in the UK; it proved almost impossible for wrongly deported students to challenge the Home Office’s decision from abroad. Why is this still a problem? A decade after the Panorama broadcast, immigration tribunals are still dealing with attempts by former students to get the allegation reversed. About 3,600 accused students have won immigration appeals, although there are no records of whether these judgments indicate that they were found innocent of cheating or whether they won for other reasons. What evidence is there of cheating? Lawyers acting for students have argued that the evidence of cheating provided by ETS is unreliable. Initially, ETS provided no evidence, but after a few years the company released recordings for use in immigration tribunals of students speaking during the oral section of the exams. These voices rarely matched up with the voice of the accused student, lawyers say. The Home Office argues that this is evidence that someone else took the test fraudulently on the student’s behalf. The students’ lawyers argue that the mismatch may indicate that the ETS records are unreliable, or that dishonest people running the test centres may have submitted different recordings for everyone taking the tests, to ensure that students who had paid to pass were successful. Bona fide test-takers would not have seen anything suspicious in the test centres. What do wrongly accused students want? The charity Migrant Voice has been working with students since 2017 and says they are hoping for an acknowledgement that they have been wrongly accused, the chance to return to their studies in the UK and to have the allegation of deception lifted from their immigration records. What does the Home Office say? “Abuse of our immigration system will not be tolerated and those who do will face the appropriate measures against them. This includes cheating on English language tests.” ETS says it closed its UK subsidiary in response to the allegation and no longer operates English-language tests in the UK. It says its people and practices have changed. Explore more on these topics Home Office International students Higher education Universities Students explainers Share Reuse this content The Home Office has been accused of rushing to penalise a whole cohort of international students. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA View image in fullscreen The Home Office has been accused of rushing to penalise a whole cohort of international students. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA The Home Office has been accused of rushing to penalise a whole cohort of international students. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA View image in fullscreen The Home Office has been accused of rushing to penalise a whole cohort of international students. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA The Home Office has been accused of rushing to penalise a whole cohort of international students. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA View image in fullscreen The Home Office has been accused of rushing to penalise a whole cohort of international students. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA The Home Office has been accused of rushing to penalise a whole cohort of international students. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA View image in fullscreen The Home Office has been accused of rushing to penalise a whole cohort of international students. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA The Home Office has been accused of rushing to penalise a whole cohort of international students. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA The Home Office has been accused of rushing to penalise a whole cohort of international students. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA This article is more than 1 year old Explainer What is the Home Office English test scandal? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Explainer What is the Home Office English test scandal? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Explainer What is the Home Office English test scandal? 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 students lost their visas after a TV exposé of cheating a decade ago. Many say they were wrongly accused Tens of thousands of students lost their visas after a TV exposé of cheating a decade ago. Many say they were wrongly accused Tens of thousands of students lost their visas after a TV exposé of cheating a decade ago. Many say they were wrongly accused In 2014, a BBC Panorama documentary revealed widespread, well-organised cheating in the English language tests that international students were required to take in the UK if they wanted to change their course or renew their visa. As a result of these allegations the Home Office revoked the visas of about 35,000 students. Most were thrown off their courses; 2,500 students were deported and 7,200 left the country after being warned that they faced arrest and detention if they stayed. Thousands of students have spent years protesting their innocence. Were students cheating? There was clear evidence that many students had paid money to people working at some test centres to ensure they passed the test; at least 21 people have received prison sentences for helping candidates cheat at the test centres. But over the past decade it has emerged that thousands were wrongly accused. The Home Office has itself been accused of rushing to penalise a whole cohort of international students. What went wrong? The Home Office website gave students details of four approved test providers where they could sit a test to prove they had a high enough level of English to be able to study in the UK. Panorama exposed cheating in two centres run by a UK subsidiary of the US-based company Educational Testing Service (ETS). The Home Office asked ETS to investigate. After reviewing recordings of the spoken part of the test, ETS found that of about 58,000 people who sat the Test of English for International Communication (Toeic) between 2011 and 2014, 58% had used deception, and their visas were cancelled. Another 39% of tests were questionable, and those students were later asked to resit the test. ETS said only 2,200 students who took its tests during that period had definitely not cheated. Could 97% of students who sat a test run by a Home Office-approved company all have been cheating? Campaigners acknowledge there was deception but say it is implausible that such a high proportion of students could have been involved. Some of those who have tried to clear their names were educated in English-medium schools and said they had no reason to pay someone to ensure they passed a relatively basic language test. How were students affected? Thousands of students were unable to complete their courses, wasting thousands of pounds of fees. Many say relations with their parents were catastrophically damaged because family members struggled to believe that the highly respected British judicial system could have made such an error. Others say an outstanding accusation of deception from the UK government has made it difficult to get visas to study elsewhere. Despite the seriousness of the allegation, students were initially given no right of appeal in the UK; it proved almost impossible for wrongly deported students to challenge the Home Office’s decision from abroad. Why is this still a problem? A decade after the Panorama broadcast, immigration tribunals are still dealing with attempts by former students to get the allegation reversed. About 3,600 accused students have won immigration appeals, although there are no records of whether these judgments indicate that they were found innocent of cheating or whether they won for other reasons. What evidence is there of cheating? Lawyers acting for students have argued that the evidence of cheating provided by ETS is unreliable. Initially, ETS provided no evidence, but after a few years the company released recordings for use in immigration tribunals of students speaking during the oral section of the exams. These voices rarely matched up with the voice of the accused student, lawyers say. The Home Office argues that this is evidence that someone else took the test fraudulently on the student’s behalf. The students’ lawyers argue that the mismatch may indicate that the ETS records are unreliable, or that dishonest people running the test centres may have submitted different recordings for everyone taking the tests, to ensure that students who had paid to pass were successful. Bona fide test-takers would not have seen anything suspicious in the test centres. What do wrongly accused students want? The charity Migrant Voice has been working with students since 2017 and says they are hoping for an acknowledgement that they have been wrongly accused, the chance to return to their studies in the UK and to have the allegation of deception lifted from their immigration records. What does the Home Office say? “Abuse of our immigration system will not be tolerated and those who do will face the appropriate measures against them. This includes cheating on English language tests.” ETS says it closed its UK subsidiary in response to the allegation and no longer operates English-language tests in the UK. It says its people and practices have changed. Explore more on these topics Home Office International students Higher education Universities Students explainers Share Reuse this content In 2014, a BBC Panorama documentary revealed widespread, well-organised cheating in the English language tests that international students were required to take in the UK if they wanted to change their course or renew their visa. As a result of these allegations the Home Office revoked the visas of about 35,000 students. Most were thrown off their courses; 2,500 students were deported and 7,200 left the country after being warned that they faced arrest and detention if they stayed. Thousands of students have spent years protesting their innocence. Were students cheating? There was clear evidence that many students had paid money to people working at some test centres to ensure they passed the test; at least 21 people have received prison sentences for helping candidates cheat at the test centres. But over the past decade it has emerged that thousands were wrongly accused. The Home Office has itself been accused of rushing to penalise a whole cohort of international students. What went wrong? The Home Office website gave students details of four approved test providers where they could sit a test to prove they had a high enough level of English to be able to study in the UK. Panorama exposed cheating in two centres run by a UK subsidiary of the US-based company Educational Testing Service (ETS). The Home Office asked ETS to investigate. After reviewing recordings of the spoken part of the test, ETS found that of about 58,000 people who sat the Test of English for International Communication (Toeic) between 2011 and 2014, 58% had used deception, and their visas were cancelled. Another 39% of tests were questionable, and those students were later asked to resit the test. ETS said only 2,200 students who took its tests during that period had definitely not cheated. Could 97% of students who sat a test run by a Home Office-approved company all have been cheating? Campaigners acknowledge there was deception but say it is implausible that such a high proportion of students could have been involved. Some of those who have tried to clear their names were educated in English-medium schools and said they had no reason to pay someone to ensure they passed a relatively basic language test. How were students affected? Thousands of students were unable to complete their courses, wasting thousands of pounds of fees. Many say relations with their parents were catastrophically damaged because family members struggled to believe that the highly respected British judicial system could have made such an error. Others say an outstanding accusation of deception from the UK government has made it difficult to get visas to study elsewhere. Despite the seriousness of the allegation, students were initially given no right of appeal in the UK; it proved almost impossible for wrongly deported students to challenge the Home Office’s decision from abroad. Why is this still a problem? A decade after the Panorama broadcast, immigration tribunals are still dealing with attempts by former students to get the allegation reversed. About 3,600 accused students have won immigration appeals, although there are no records of whether these judgments indicate that they were found innocent of cheating or whether they won for other reasons. What evidence is there of cheating? Lawyers acting for students have argued that the evidence of cheating provided by ETS is unreliable. Initially, ETS provided no evidence, but after a few years the company released recordings for use in immigration tribunals of students speaking during the oral section of the exams. These voices rarely matched up with the voice of the accused student, lawyers say. The Home Office argues that this is evidence that someone else took the test fraudulently on the student’s behalf. The students’ lawyers argue that the mismatch may indicate that the ETS records are unreliable, or that dishonest people running the test centres may have submitted different recordings for everyone taking the tests, to ensure that students who had paid to pass were successful. Bona fide test-takers would not have seen anything suspicious in the test centres. What do wrongly accused students want? The charity Migrant Voice has been working with students since 2017 and says they are hoping for an acknowledgement that they have been wrongly accused, the chance to return to their studies in the UK and to have the allegation of deception lifted from their immigration records. What does the Home Office say? “Abuse of our immigration system will not be tolerated and those who do will face the appropriate measures against them. This includes cheating on English language tests.” ETS says it closed its UK subsidiary in response to the allegation and no longer operates English-language tests in the UK. It says its people and practices have changed. Explore more on these topics Home Office International students Higher education Universities Students explainers Share Reuse this content In 2014, a BBC Panorama documentary revealed widespread, well-organised cheating in the English language tests that international students were required to take in the UK if they wanted to change their course or renew their visa. As a result of these allegations the Home Office revoked the visas of about 35,000 students. Most were thrown off their courses; 2,500 students were deported and 7,200 left the country after being warned that they faced arrest and detention if they stayed. Thousands of students have spent years protesting their innocence. Were students cheating? There was clear evidence that many students had paid money to people working at some test centres to ensure they passed the test; at least 21 people have received prison sentences for helping candidates cheat at the test centres. But over the past decade it has emerged that thousands were wrongly accused. The Home Office has itself been accused of rushing to penalise a whole cohort of international students. What went wrong? The Home Office website gave students details of four approved test providers where they could sit a test to prove they had a high enough level of English to be able to study in the UK. Panorama exposed cheating in two centres run by a UK subsidiary of the US-based company Educational Testing Service (ETS). The Home Office asked ETS to investigate. After reviewing recordings of the spoken part of the test, ETS found that of about 58,000 people who sat the Test of English for International Communication (Toeic) between 2011 and 2014, 58% had used deception, and their visas were cancelled. Another 39% of tests were questionable, and those students were later asked to resit the test. ETS said only 2,200 students who took its tests during that period had definitely not cheated. Could 97% of students who sat a test run by a Home Office-approved company all have been cheating? Campaigners acknowledge there was deception but say it is implausible that such a high proportion of students could have been involved. Some of those who have tried to clear their names were educated in English-medium schools and said they had no reason to pay someone to ensure they passed a relatively basic language test. How were students affected? Thousands of students were unable to complete their courses, wasting thousands of pounds of fees. Many say relations with their parents were catastrophically damaged because family members struggled to believe that the highly respected British judicial system could have made such an error. Others say an outstanding accusation of deception from the UK government has made it difficult to get visas to study elsewhere. Despite the seriousness of the allegation, students were initially given no right of appeal in the UK; it proved almost impossible for wrongly deported students to challenge the Home Office’s decision from abroad. Why is this still a problem? A decade after the Panorama broadcast, immigration tribunals are still dealing with attempts by former students to get the allegation reversed. About 3,600 accused students have won immigration appeals, although there are no records of whether these judgments indicate that they were found innocent of cheating or whether they won for other reasons. What evidence is there of cheating? Lawyers acting for students have argued that the evidence of cheating provided by ETS is unreliable. Initially, ETS provided no evidence, but after a few years the company released recordings for use in immigration tribunals of students speaking during the oral section of the exams. These voices rarely matched up with the voice of the accused student, lawyers say. The Home Office argues that this is evidence that someone else took the test fraudulently on the student’s behalf. The students’ lawyers argue that the mismatch may indicate that the ETS records are unreliable, or that dishonest people running the test centres may have submitted different recordings for everyone taking the tests, to ensure that students who had paid to pass were successful. Bona fide test-takers would not have seen anything suspicious in the test centres. What do wrongly accused students want? The charity Migrant Voice has been working with students since 2017 and says they are hoping for an acknowledgement that they have been wrongly accused, the chance to return to their studies in the UK and to have the allegation of deception lifted from their immigration records. What does the Home Office say? “Abuse of our immigration system will not be tolerated and those who do will face the appropriate measures against them. This includes cheating on English language tests.” ETS says it closed its UK subsidiary in response to the allegation and no longer operates English-language tests in the UK. It says its people and practices have changed. In 2014, a BBC Panorama documentary revealed widespread, well-organised cheating in the English language tests that international students were required to take in the UK if they wanted to change their course or renew their visa. As a result of these allegations the Home Office revoked the visas of about 35,000 students. Most were thrown off their courses; 2,500 students were deported and 7,200 left the country after being warned that they faced arrest and detention if they stayed. Thousands of students have spent years protesting their innocence. Were students cheating? There was clear evidence that many students had paid money to people working at some test centres to ensure they passed the test; at least 21 people have received prison sentences for helping candidates cheat at the test centres. But over the past decade it has emerged that thousands were wrongly accused. The Home Office has itself been accused of rushing to penalise a whole cohort of international students. What went wrong? The Home Office website gave students details of four approved test providers where they could sit a test to prove they had a high enough level of English to be able to study in the UK. Panorama exposed cheating in two centres run by a UK subsidiary of the US-based company Educational Testing Service (ETS). The Home Office asked ETS to investigate. After reviewing recordings of the spoken part of the test, ETS found that of about 58,000 people who sat the Test of English for International Communication (Toeic) between 2011 and 2014, 58% had used deception, and their visas were cancelled. Another 39% of tests were questionable, and those students were later asked to resit the test. ETS said only 2,200 students who took its tests during that period had definitely not cheated. Could 97% of students who sat a test run by a Home Office-approved company all have been cheating? Campaigners acknowledge there was deception but say it is implausible that such a high proportion of students could have been involved. Some of those who have tried to clear their names were educated in English-medium schools and said they had no reason to pay someone to ensure they passed a relatively basic language test. How were students affected? Thousands of students were unable to complete their courses, wasting thousands of pounds of fees. Many say relations with their parents were catastrophically damaged because family members struggled to believe that the highly respected British judicial system could have made such an error. Others say an outstanding accusation of deception from the UK government has made it difficult to get visas to study elsewhere. Despite the seriousness of the allegation, students were initially given no right of appeal in the UK; it proved almost impossible for wrongly deported students to challenge the Home Office’s decision from abroad. Why is this still a problem? A decade after the Panorama broadcast, immigration tribunals are still dealing with attempts by former students to get the allegation reversed. About 3,600 accused students have won immigration appeals, although there are no records of whether these judgments indicate that they were found innocent of cheating or whether they won for other reasons. What evidence is there of cheating? Lawyers acting for students have argued that the evidence of cheating provided by ETS is unreliable. Initially, ETS provided no evidence, but after a few years the company released recordings for use in immigration tribunals of students speaking during the oral section of the exams. These voices rarely matched up with the voice of the accused student, lawyers say. The Home Office argues that this is evidence that someone else took the test fraudulently on the student’s behalf. The students’ lawyers argue that the mismatch may indicate that the ETS records are unreliable, or that dishonest people running the test centres may have submitted different recordings for everyone taking the tests, to ensure that students who had paid to pass were successful. Bona fide test-takers would not have seen anything suspicious in the test centres. What do wrongly accused students want? The charity Migrant Voice has been working with students since 2017 and says they are hoping for an acknowledgement that they have been wrongly accused, the chance to return to their studies in the UK and to have the allegation of deception lifted from their immigration records. What does the Home Office say? “Abuse of our immigration system will not be tolerated and those who do will face the appropriate measures against them. This includes cheating on English language tests.” ETS says it closed its UK subsidiary in response to the allegation and no longer operates English-language tests in the UK. It says its people and practices have changed. In 2014, a BBC Panorama documentary revealed widespread, well-organised cheating in the English language tests that international students were required to take in the UK if they wanted to change their course or renew their visa. As a result of these allegations the Home Office revoked the visas of about 35,000 students. Most were thrown off their courses; 2,500 students were deported and 7,200 left the country after being warned that they faced arrest and detention if they stayed. Thousands of students have spent years protesting their innocence. There was clear evidence that many students had paid money to people working at some test centres to ensure they passed the test; at least 21 people have received prison sentences for helping candidates cheat at the test centres. But over the past decade it has emerged that thousands were wrongly accused. The Home Office has itself been accused of rushing to penalise a whole cohort of international students. The Home Office website gave students details of four approved test providers where they could sit a test to prove they had a high enough level of English to be able to study in the UK. Panorama exposed cheating in two centres run by a UK subsidiary of the US-based company Educational Testing Service (ETS). The Home Office asked ETS to investigate. After reviewing recordings of the spoken part of the test, ETS found that of about 58,000 people who sat the Test of English for International Communication (Toeic) between 2011 and 2014, 58% had used deception, and their visas were cancelled. Another 39% of tests were questionable, and those students were later asked to resit the test. ETS said only 2,200 students who took its tests during that period had definitely not cheated. Campaigners acknowledge there was deception but say it is implausible that such a high proportion of students could have been involved. Some of those who have tried to clear their names were educated in English-medium schools and said they had no reason to pay someone to ensure they passed a relatively basic language test. Thousands of students were unable to complete their courses, wasting thousands of pounds of fees. Many say relations with their parents were catastrophically damaged because family members struggled to believe that the highly respected British judicial system could have made such an error. Others say an outstanding accusation of deception from the UK government has made it difficult to get visas to study elsewhere. Despite the seriousness of the allegation, students were initially given no right of appeal in the UK; it proved almost impossible for wrongly deported students to challenge the Home Office’s decision from abroad. A decade after the Panorama broadcast, immigration tribunals are still dealing with attempts by former students to get the allegation reversed. About 3,600 accused students have won immigration appeals, although there are no records of whether these judgments indicate that they were found innocent of cheating or whether they won for other reasons. Lawyers acting for students have argued that the evidence of cheating provided by ETS is unreliable. Initially, ETS provided no evidence, but after a few years the company released recordings for use in immigration tribunals of students speaking during the oral section of the exams. These voices rarely matched up with the voice of the accused student, lawyers say. The Home Office argues that this is evidence that someone else took the test fraudulently on the student’s behalf. The students’ lawyers argue that the mismatch may indicate that the ETS records are unreliable, or that dishonest people running the test centres may have submitted different recordings for everyone taking the tests, to ensure that students who had paid to pass were successful. Bona fide test-takers would not have seen anything suspicious in the test centres. The charity Migrant Voice has been working with students since 2017 and says they are hoping for an acknowledgement that they have been wrongly accused, the chance to return to their studies in the UK and to have the allegation of deception lifted from their immigration records. “Abuse of our immigration system will not be tolerated and those who do will face the appropriate measures against them. This includes cheating on English language tests.” ETS says it closed its UK subsidiary in response to the allegation and no longer operates English-language tests in the UK. It says its people and practices have changed. Explore more on these topics Home Office International students Higher education Universities Students explainers Share Reuse this content Home Office International students Higher education Universities Students explainers
|
Rishi Sunak tells voters he is ‘absolutely’ committed to Rwanda during Q&A on GB News – as it happened
Rishi Sunak gets a question on Rwanda : “Why are you so adamant on Rwanda?” He responds that he made stopping the small boats a priority because “as a matter of compassion, it’s the right thing to do.” “I think illegal migration is profoundly unfair,” he said. “I think our country is based on a sense of fairness.” He said the plans he has put in place are working, and illegal migration is an example of that – small boats to UK are down, though they’re up in the rest of Europe. He referenced the Albania deal – said the UK has returned “something like 5,000” Albanians last year. “What do you know? They stopped coming.” Sunak said he is “absolutely” committed to getting the Rwanda bill through Parliament because “we need a deterrent”. “We need to say unequivocally that if you come to our country illegally, you cannot stay,” he said. “That is what Rwanda is about.”
|
Tractor blockade disrupts operations at Belgian port of Antwerp
Farmers take their tractors to the streets for a protest action near the port of Antwerp. Photograph: REX/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Farmers take their tractors to the streets for a protest action near the port of Antwerp. Photograph: REX/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old Tractor blockade disrupts operations at Belgian port of Antwerp This article is more than 1 year old Farmers across Europe demand higher prices and looser environmental rules A tractor blockade has seriously disrupted operations at the Belgian port of Antwerp, Europe’s second largest, authorities said, as angry farmers continued their protests in half a dozen European countries. “No freight can be delivered or picked up, as trucks are halted, while employees are only being allowed in after a long wait,” said Stephan Vanfraechem, the director of the association of port operators Alfaport. Vanfraechem told Reuters the protest was costing his members millions of euros “for a conflict they play no part in”. Access roads and tunnels leading to the port were blocked by an estimated 500 tractors from early morning, authorities said. The protest was the latest in a series of recent actions by farmers across the bloc that have left only four EU member states untouched, as farmers demand higher product prices, looser environmental rules and better protection against cheap imports. ‘They’re drowning us in regulations’: how Europe’s furious farmers took on Brussels and won Read more Belgium’s main farmers’ union criticised “a lack of concrete results” from talks with the government, saying working groups aimed at finding solutions had turned out to be “talking shops that come up only with vague, long-term promises”. In Spain , a protest against against the impact on agriculture of EU green laws and unfair competition from cheap food imported from outside the bloc – much of it produced under less strict regulations than in Europe – entered its eighth day. Tractors blocked motorways near Seville and Granada in Andalucia, and further north in Catalonia prevented access to Mercabarna, the main wholesale food market in Barcelona, the port of Tarragona, and the main border crossing with France . Spanish farmers are also demanding more support from the government in the face of a severe drought and soaring production costs. The whole country has officially been in drought since January 2022, amid record-high temperatures. Polish farmers also continued their protests, dumping grain at border crossing points with Ukraine. The EU suspended quotas and duties on Ukrainian agricultural products after Russia’s invasion, depressing prices in neighbouring countries. Moldovan farmers also blocked a key border crossing with Romania with their tractors on Tuesday, demanding more state subsidies to counter recent losses. Farmers’ associations say thousands of small and medium-size farms are at risk of collapse. Farmers staged a protest in Sofia calling for the resignation of Bulgaria’s agriculture minister, Kiril Vatev, arguing a recent agreement with the government to provide emergency financial help to livestock and arable farmers was inadequate. Greece’s prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, met farmers’ representatives on Tuesday and pledged more help, particularly with electricity prices. “I believe we can find common ground, taking into account your justified concerns,” Mitsotakis said. In France, however, Arnaud Rousseau, the head of the country’s biggest farming union FNSEA, said on Tuesday that the protests that hit the sector last month and blocked motorways across the country could resume if the government did not do more. France ’s major farming unions suspended their protests on 1 February after government concessions including scrapping a planned diesel tax increase, support worth €600m, and a pledge to stop imposing stricter rules than EU laws demand. “We’ve said it since the beginning,” Rousseau said ahead of a planned meeting on Tuesday with the prime minister, Gabriel Attal. “We expect real changes, not announcements. French farmers have not disarmed: we are ready to go again.” The government is negotiating with farmers over securing higher product prices and easing red tape, but Rousseau said progress “is not being made at the right pace” in the run-up to the opening of the annual Paris agricultural show in 10 days’ time. Explore more on these topics Farming Protest Europe Belgium Spain Poland Moldova news Share Reuse this content Farmers take their tractors to the streets for a protest action near the port of Antwerp. Photograph: REX/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Farmers take their tractors to the streets for a protest action near the port of Antwerp. Photograph: REX/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old Tractor blockade disrupts operations at Belgian port of Antwerp This article is more than 1 year old Farmers across Europe demand higher prices and looser environmental rules A tractor blockade has seriously disrupted operations at the Belgian port of Antwerp, Europe’s second largest, authorities said, as angry farmers continued their protests in half a dozen European countries. “No freight can be delivered or picked up, as trucks are halted, while employees are only being allowed in after a long wait,” said Stephan Vanfraechem, the director of the association of port operators Alfaport. Vanfraechem told Reuters the protest was costing his members millions of euros “for a conflict they play no part in”. Access roads and tunnels leading to the port were blocked by an estimated 500 tractors from early morning, authorities said. The protest was the latest in a series of recent actions by farmers across the bloc that have left only four EU member states untouched, as farmers demand higher product prices, looser environmental rules and better protection against cheap imports. ‘They’re drowning us in regulations’: how Europe’s furious farmers took on Brussels and won Read more Belgium’s main farmers’ union criticised “a lack of concrete results” from talks with the government, saying working groups aimed at finding solutions had turned out to be “talking shops that come up only with vague, long-term promises”. In Spain , a protest against against the impact on agriculture of EU green laws and unfair competition from cheap food imported from outside the bloc – much of it produced under less strict regulations than in Europe – entered its eighth day. Tractors blocked motorways near Seville and Granada in Andalucia, and further north in Catalonia prevented access to Mercabarna, the main wholesale food market in Barcelona, the port of Tarragona, and the main border crossing with France . Spanish farmers are also demanding more support from the government in the face of a severe drought and soaring production costs. The whole country has officially been in drought since January 2022, amid record-high temperatures. Polish farmers also continued their protests, dumping grain at border crossing points with Ukraine. The EU suspended quotas and duties on Ukrainian agricultural products after Russia’s invasion, depressing prices in neighbouring countries. Moldovan farmers also blocked a key border crossing with Romania with their tractors on Tuesday, demanding more state subsidies to counter recent losses. Farmers’ associations say thousands of small and medium-size farms are at risk of collapse. Farmers staged a protest in Sofia calling for the resignation of Bulgaria’s agriculture minister, Kiril Vatev, arguing a recent agreement with the government to provide emergency financial help to livestock and arable farmers was inadequate. Greece’s prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, met farmers’ representatives on Tuesday and pledged more help, particularly with electricity prices. “I believe we can find common ground, taking into account your justified concerns,” Mitsotakis said. In France, however, Arnaud Rousseau, the head of the country’s biggest farming union FNSEA, said on Tuesday that the protests that hit the sector last month and blocked motorways across the country could resume if the government did not do more. France ’s major farming unions suspended their protests on 1 February after government concessions including scrapping a planned diesel tax increase, support worth €600m, and a pledge to stop imposing stricter rules than EU laws demand. “We’ve said it since the beginning,” Rousseau said ahead of a planned meeting on Tuesday with the prime minister, Gabriel Attal. “We expect real changes, not announcements. French farmers have not disarmed: we are ready to go again.” The government is negotiating with farmers over securing higher product prices and easing red tape, but Rousseau said progress “is not being made at the right pace” in the run-up to the opening of the annual Paris agricultural show in 10 days’ time. Explore more on these topics Farming Protest Europe Belgium Spain Poland Moldova news Share Reuse this content Farmers take their tractors to the streets for a protest action near the port of Antwerp. Photograph: REX/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Farmers take their tractors to the streets for a protest action near the port of Antwerp. Photograph: REX/Shutterstock Farmers take their tractors to the streets for a protest action near the port of Antwerp. Photograph: REX/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Farmers take their tractors to the streets for a protest action near the port of Antwerp. Photograph: REX/Shutterstock Farmers take their tractors to the streets for a protest action near the port of Antwerp. Photograph: REX/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Farmers take their tractors to the streets for a protest action near the port of Antwerp. Photograph: REX/Shutterstock Farmers take their tractors to the streets for a protest action near the port of Antwerp. Photograph: REX/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Farmers take their tractors to the streets for a protest action near the port of Antwerp. Photograph: REX/Shutterstock Farmers take their tractors to the streets for a protest action near the port of Antwerp. Photograph: REX/Shutterstock Farmers take their tractors to the streets for a protest action near the port of Antwerp. Photograph: REX/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old Tractor blockade disrupts operations at Belgian port of Antwerp This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Tractor blockade disrupts operations at Belgian port of Antwerp This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Tractor blockade disrupts operations at Belgian port of Antwerp 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 Farmers across Europe demand higher prices and looser environmental rules Farmers across Europe demand higher prices and looser environmental rules Farmers across Europe demand higher prices and looser environmental rules A tractor blockade has seriously disrupted operations at the Belgian port of Antwerp, Europe’s second largest, authorities said, as angry farmers continued their protests in half a dozen European countries. “No freight can be delivered or picked up, as trucks are halted, while employees are only being allowed in after a long wait,” said Stephan Vanfraechem, the director of the association of port operators Alfaport. Vanfraechem told Reuters the protest was costing his members millions of euros “for a conflict they play no part in”. Access roads and tunnels leading to the port were blocked by an estimated 500 tractors from early morning, authorities said. The protest was the latest in a series of recent actions by farmers across the bloc that have left only four EU member states untouched, as farmers demand higher product prices, looser environmental rules and better protection against cheap imports. ‘They’re drowning us in regulations’: how Europe’s furious farmers took on Brussels and won Read more Belgium’s main farmers’ union criticised “a lack of concrete results” from talks with the government, saying working groups aimed at finding solutions had turned out to be “talking shops that come up only with vague, long-term promises”. In Spain , a protest against against the impact on agriculture of EU green laws and unfair competition from cheap food imported from outside the bloc – much of it produced under less strict regulations than in Europe – entered its eighth day. Tractors blocked motorways near Seville and Granada in Andalucia, and further north in Catalonia prevented access to Mercabarna, the main wholesale food market in Barcelona, the port of Tarragona, and the main border crossing with France . Spanish farmers are also demanding more support from the government in the face of a severe drought and soaring production costs. The whole country has officially been in drought since January 2022, amid record-high temperatures. Polish farmers also continued their protests, dumping grain at border crossing points with Ukraine. The EU suspended quotas and duties on Ukrainian agricultural products after Russia’s invasion, depressing prices in neighbouring countries. Moldovan farmers also blocked a key border crossing with Romania with their tractors on Tuesday, demanding more state subsidies to counter recent losses. Farmers’ associations say thousands of small and medium-size farms are at risk of collapse. Farmers staged a protest in Sofia calling for the resignation of Bulgaria’s agriculture minister, Kiril Vatev, arguing a recent agreement with the government to provide emergency financial help to livestock and arable farmers was inadequate. Greece’s prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, met farmers’ representatives on Tuesday and pledged more help, particularly with electricity prices. “I believe we can find common ground, taking into account your justified concerns,” Mitsotakis said. In France, however, Arnaud Rousseau, the head of the country’s biggest farming union FNSEA, said on Tuesday that the protests that hit the sector last month and blocked motorways across the country could resume if the government did not do more. France ’s major farming unions suspended their protests on 1 February after government concessions including scrapping a planned diesel tax increase, support worth €600m, and a pledge to stop imposing stricter rules than EU laws demand. “We’ve said it since the beginning,” Rousseau said ahead of a planned meeting on Tuesday with the prime minister, Gabriel Attal. “We expect real changes, not announcements. French farmers have not disarmed: we are ready to go again.” The government is negotiating with farmers over securing higher product prices and easing red tape, but Rousseau said progress “is not being made at the right pace” in the run-up to the opening of the annual Paris agricultural show in 10 days’ time. Explore more on these topics Farming Protest Europe Belgium Spain Poland Moldova news Share Reuse this content A tractor blockade has seriously disrupted operations at the Belgian port of Antwerp, Europe’s second largest, authorities said, as angry farmers continued their protests in half a dozen European countries. “No freight can be delivered or picked up, as trucks are halted, while employees are only being allowed in after a long wait,” said Stephan Vanfraechem, the director of the association of port operators Alfaport. Vanfraechem told Reuters the protest was costing his members millions of euros “for a conflict they play no part in”. Access roads and tunnels leading to the port were blocked by an estimated 500 tractors from early morning, authorities said. The protest was the latest in a series of recent actions by farmers across the bloc that have left only four EU member states untouched, as farmers demand higher product prices, looser environmental rules and better protection against cheap imports. ‘They’re drowning us in regulations’: how Europe’s furious farmers took on Brussels and won Read more Belgium’s main farmers’ union criticised “a lack of concrete results” from talks with the government, saying working groups aimed at finding solutions had turned out to be “talking shops that come up only with vague, long-term promises”. In Spain , a protest against against the impact on agriculture of EU green laws and unfair competition from cheap food imported from outside the bloc – much of it produced under less strict regulations than in Europe – entered its eighth day. Tractors blocked motorways near Seville and Granada in Andalucia, and further north in Catalonia prevented access to Mercabarna, the main wholesale food market in Barcelona, the port of Tarragona, and the main border crossing with France . Spanish farmers are also demanding more support from the government in the face of a severe drought and soaring production costs. The whole country has officially been in drought since January 2022, amid record-high temperatures. Polish farmers also continued their protests, dumping grain at border crossing points with Ukraine. The EU suspended quotas and duties on Ukrainian agricultural products after Russia’s invasion, depressing prices in neighbouring countries. Moldovan farmers also blocked a key border crossing with Romania with their tractors on Tuesday, demanding more state subsidies to counter recent losses. Farmers’ associations say thousands of small and medium-size farms are at risk of collapse. Farmers staged a protest in Sofia calling for the resignation of Bulgaria’s agriculture minister, Kiril Vatev, arguing a recent agreement with the government to provide emergency financial help to livestock and arable farmers was inadequate. Greece’s prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, met farmers’ representatives on Tuesday and pledged more help, particularly with electricity prices. “I believe we can find common ground, taking into account your justified concerns,” Mitsotakis said. In France, however, Arnaud Rousseau, the head of the country’s biggest farming union FNSEA, said on Tuesday that the protests that hit the sector last month and blocked motorways across the country could resume if the government did not do more. France ’s major farming unions suspended their protests on 1 February after government concessions including scrapping a planned diesel tax increase, support worth €600m, and a pledge to stop imposing stricter rules than EU laws demand. “We’ve said it since the beginning,” Rousseau said ahead of a planned meeting on Tuesday with the prime minister, Gabriel Attal. “We expect real changes, not announcements. French farmers have not disarmed: we are ready to go again.” The government is negotiating with farmers over securing higher product prices and easing red tape, but Rousseau said progress “is not being made at the right pace” in the run-up to the opening of the annual Paris agricultural show in 10 days’ time. Explore more on these topics Farming Protest Europe Belgium Spain Poland Moldova news Share Reuse this content A tractor blockade has seriously disrupted operations at the Belgian port of Antwerp, Europe’s second largest, authorities said, as angry farmers continued their protests in half a dozen European countries. “No freight can be delivered or picked up, as trucks are halted, while employees are only being allowed in after a long wait,” said Stephan Vanfraechem, the director of the association of port operators Alfaport. Vanfraechem told Reuters the protest was costing his members millions of euros “for a conflict they play no part in”. Access roads and tunnels leading to the port were blocked by an estimated 500 tractors from early morning, authorities said. The protest was the latest in a series of recent actions by farmers across the bloc that have left only four EU member states untouched, as farmers demand higher product prices, looser environmental rules and better protection against cheap imports. ‘They’re drowning us in regulations’: how Europe’s furious farmers took on Brussels and won Read more Belgium’s main farmers’ union criticised “a lack of concrete results” from talks with the government, saying working groups aimed at finding solutions had turned out to be “talking shops that come up only with vague, long-term promises”. In Spain , a protest against against the impact on agriculture of EU green laws and unfair competition from cheap food imported from outside the bloc – much of it produced under less strict regulations than in Europe – entered its eighth day. Tractors blocked motorways near Seville and Granada in Andalucia, and further north in Catalonia prevented access to Mercabarna, the main wholesale food market in Barcelona, the port of Tarragona, and the main border crossing with France . Spanish farmers are also demanding more support from the government in the face of a severe drought and soaring production costs. The whole country has officially been in drought since January 2022, amid record-high temperatures. Polish farmers also continued their protests, dumping grain at border crossing points with Ukraine. The EU suspended quotas and duties on Ukrainian agricultural products after Russia’s invasion, depressing prices in neighbouring countries. Moldovan farmers also blocked a key border crossing with Romania with their tractors on Tuesday, demanding more state subsidies to counter recent losses. Farmers’ associations say thousands of small and medium-size farms are at risk of collapse. Farmers staged a protest in Sofia calling for the resignation of Bulgaria’s agriculture minister, Kiril Vatev, arguing a recent agreement with the government to provide emergency financial help to livestock and arable farmers was inadequate. Greece’s prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, met farmers’ representatives on Tuesday and pledged more help, particularly with electricity prices. “I believe we can find common ground, taking into account your justified concerns,” Mitsotakis said. In France, however, Arnaud Rousseau, the head of the country’s biggest farming union FNSEA, said on Tuesday that the protests that hit the sector last month and blocked motorways across the country could resume if the government did not do more. France ’s major farming unions suspended their protests on 1 February after government concessions including scrapping a planned diesel tax increase, support worth €600m, and a pledge to stop imposing stricter rules than EU laws demand. “We’ve said it since the beginning,” Rousseau said ahead of a planned meeting on Tuesday with the prime minister, Gabriel Attal. “We expect real changes, not announcements. French farmers have not disarmed: we are ready to go again.” The government is negotiating with farmers over securing higher product prices and easing red tape, but Rousseau said progress “is not being made at the right pace” in the run-up to the opening of the annual Paris agricultural show in 10 days’ time. A tractor blockade has seriously disrupted operations at the Belgian port of Antwerp, Europe’s second largest, authorities said, as angry farmers continued their protests in half a dozen European countries. “No freight can be delivered or picked up, as trucks are halted, while employees are only being allowed in after a long wait,” said Stephan Vanfraechem, the director of the association of port operators Alfaport. Vanfraechem told Reuters the protest was costing his members millions of euros “for a conflict they play no part in”. Access roads and tunnels leading to the port were blocked by an estimated 500 tractors from early morning, authorities said. The protest was the latest in a series of recent actions by farmers across the bloc that have left only four EU member states untouched, as farmers demand higher product prices, looser environmental rules and better protection against cheap imports. ‘They’re drowning us in regulations’: how Europe’s furious farmers took on Brussels and won Read more Belgium’s main farmers’ union criticised “a lack of concrete results” from talks with the government, saying working groups aimed at finding solutions had turned out to be “talking shops that come up only with vague, long-term promises”. In Spain , a protest against against the impact on agriculture of EU green laws and unfair competition from cheap food imported from outside the bloc – much of it produced under less strict regulations than in Europe – entered its eighth day. Tractors blocked motorways near Seville and Granada in Andalucia, and further north in Catalonia prevented access to Mercabarna, the main wholesale food market in Barcelona, the port of Tarragona, and the main border crossing with France . Spanish farmers are also demanding more support from the government in the face of a severe drought and soaring production costs. The whole country has officially been in drought since January 2022, amid record-high temperatures. Polish farmers also continued their protests, dumping grain at border crossing points with Ukraine. The EU suspended quotas and duties on Ukrainian agricultural products after Russia’s invasion, depressing prices in neighbouring countries. Moldovan farmers also blocked a key border crossing with Romania with their tractors on Tuesday, demanding more state subsidies to counter recent losses. Farmers’ associations say thousands of small and medium-size farms are at risk of collapse. Farmers staged a protest in Sofia calling for the resignation of Bulgaria’s agriculture minister, Kiril Vatev, arguing a recent agreement with the government to provide emergency financial help to livestock and arable farmers was inadequate. Greece’s prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, met farmers’ representatives on Tuesday and pledged more help, particularly with electricity prices. “I believe we can find common ground, taking into account your justified concerns,” Mitsotakis said. In France, however, Arnaud Rousseau, the head of the country’s biggest farming union FNSEA, said on Tuesday that the protests that hit the sector last month and blocked motorways across the country could resume if the government did not do more. France ’s major farming unions suspended their protests on 1 February after government concessions including scrapping a planned diesel tax increase, support worth €600m, and a pledge to stop imposing stricter rules than EU laws demand. “We’ve said it since the beginning,” Rousseau said ahead of a planned meeting on Tuesday with the prime minister, Gabriel Attal. “We expect real changes, not announcements. French farmers have not disarmed: we are ready to go again.” The government is negotiating with farmers over securing higher product prices and easing red tape, but Rousseau said progress “is not being made at the right pace” in the run-up to the opening of the annual Paris agricultural show in 10 days’ time. A tractor blockade has seriously disrupted operations at the Belgian port of Antwerp, Europe’s second largest, authorities said, as angry farmers continued their protests in half a dozen European countries. “No freight can be delivered or picked up, as trucks are halted, while employees are only being allowed in after a long wait,” said Stephan Vanfraechem, the director of the association of port operators Alfaport. Vanfraechem told Reuters the protest was costing his members millions of euros “for a conflict they play no part in”. Access roads and tunnels leading to the port were blocked by an estimated 500 tractors from early morning, authorities said. The protest was the latest in a series of recent actions by farmers across the bloc that have left only four EU member states untouched, as farmers demand higher product prices, looser environmental rules and better protection against cheap imports. ‘They’re drowning us in regulations’: how Europe’s furious farmers took on Brussels and won Read more ‘They’re drowning us in regulations’: how Europe’s furious farmers took on Brussels and won Read more ‘They’re drowning us in regulations’: how Europe’s furious farmers took on Brussels and won Read more ‘They’re drowning us in regulations’: how Europe’s furious farmers took on Brussels and won ‘They’re drowning us in regulations’: how Europe’s furious farmers took on Brussels and won Belgium’s main farmers’ union criticised “a lack of concrete results” from talks with the government, saying working groups aimed at finding solutions had turned out to be “talking shops that come up only with vague, long-term promises”. In Spain , a protest against against the impact on agriculture of EU green laws and unfair competition from cheap food imported from outside the bloc – much of it produced under less strict regulations than in Europe – entered its eighth day. Tractors blocked motorways near Seville and Granada in Andalucia, and further north in Catalonia prevented access to Mercabarna, the main wholesale food market in Barcelona, the port of Tarragona, and the main border crossing with France . Spanish farmers are also demanding more support from the government in the face of a severe drought and soaring production costs. The whole country has officially been in drought since January 2022, amid record-high temperatures. Polish farmers also continued their protests, dumping grain at border crossing points with Ukraine. The EU suspended quotas and duties on Ukrainian agricultural products after Russia’s invasion, depressing prices in neighbouring countries. Moldovan farmers also blocked a key border crossing with Romania with their tractors on Tuesday, demanding more state subsidies to counter recent losses. Farmers’ associations say thousands of small and medium-size farms are at risk of collapse. Farmers staged a protest in Sofia calling for the resignation of Bulgaria’s agriculture minister, Kiril Vatev, arguing a recent agreement with the government to provide emergency financial help to livestock and arable farmers was inadequate. Greece’s prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, met farmers’ representatives on Tuesday and pledged more help, particularly with electricity prices. “I believe we can find common ground, taking into account your justified concerns,” Mitsotakis said. In France, however, Arnaud Rousseau, the head of the country’s biggest farming union FNSEA, said on Tuesday that the protests that hit the sector last month and blocked motorways across the country could resume if the government did not do more. France ’s major farming unions suspended their protests on 1 February after government concessions including scrapping a planned diesel tax increase, support worth €600m, and a pledge to stop imposing stricter rules than EU laws demand. “We’ve said it since the beginning,” Rousseau said ahead of a planned meeting on Tuesday with the prime minister, Gabriel Attal. “We expect real changes, not announcements. French farmers have not disarmed: we are ready to go again.” The government is negotiating with farmers over securing higher product prices and easing red tape, but Rousseau said progress “is not being made at the right pace” in the run-up to the opening of the annual Paris agricultural show in 10 days’ time. Explore more on these topics Farming Protest Europe Belgium Spain Poland Moldova news Share Reuse this content Farming Protest Europe Belgium Spain Poland Moldova news
|
‘97% seemed absurd’: Labour’s Stephen Timms on the English test scandal that wrecked lives
Stephen Timms is optimistic that the government will one day admit it made a huge mistake in assuming so many overseas students cheated in their English exams. Photograph: Christian Sinibaldi/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Stephen Timms is optimistic that the government will one day admit it made a huge mistake in assuming so many overseas students cheated in their English exams. Photograph: Christian Sinibaldi/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Interview ‘97% seemed absurd’: Labour’s Stephen Timms on the English test scandal that wrecked lives This article is more than 1 year old Amelia Gentleman The London MP has battled to get the Home Office to take responsibility for its mistaken allegations of cheating against many thousands of overseas students T here was one crucial statistic in the cheating allegations that the Home Office levelled against more than 35,000 overseas students that instantly alerted Labour MP Stephen Timms to the likely presence of a huge miscarriage of justice. A dossier of evidence revealed that 97% of all international students who took a Home Office-approved English language test between 2011 and 2014 were suspected of cheating. “The figure of 97% seemed absurd. It was completely implausible. When I saw that the Home Office was saying that virtually everybody had either definitely or probably cheated, it crystallised my understanding that something had gone very badly wrong,” Timms says, in an interview this week in his Westminster office, overlooking the Thames and the London Eye. He was amazed that no one within the department had questioned whether it could really be true that 97% of the 58,000 students who sat a government-approved test, advertised on the Home Office website, could all have cheated. Almost all of them would have sat and passed an English language test previously to get admission to the university; many had studied in English medium schools and colleges before leaving their home countries and had good English. “Surely somebody in the Home Office seeing that should have said: ‘Hang on that can’t be right, that over 97% are cheats.’ So you have to conclude there must be people in the department who just think: ‘Well, they’re foreign, therefore they cheat.’ And I think that’s part of what went wrong here.” For the past eight years, Timms has been trying to persuade the Home Office to take responsibility for what he describes as the biggest miscarriage of justice he has encountered in three decades as an east London MP. Although he is calm and measured as he talks about what went wrong, he admits to finding the subject “very, very distressing”. The Home Office revoked about 35,000 student visas in response to a BBC investigation that revealed widespread cheating in English language tests run by Educational Testing Service (ETS), one of four official providers of a mandatory test required for visa renewals. There was initially no mechanism for students to appeal against the accusation. At least 2,500 were deported and more than 7,200 left the country voluntarily after being told they faced arrest and detention if they stayed. Thousands have spent years fighting the accusations in court, and over 3,700 have won against the Home Office. Timms does not contest that there were criminal groups accepting payments and ensuring candidates passed the test; at least 21 people received prison sentences for helping students cheat. But he believes that rather than 97% of students being involved a more likely figure is between “maybe 10% and 15%. It’s only a hunch.” He is optimistic that eventually the government will be forced to acknowledge that it made a huge mistake. Two Home Office ministers have admitted to him privately that they know something went wrong, but the department has failed to take steps to allow students to challenge the allegations against them without having to enter into prohibitively expensive legal proceedings. The logical step initially would have been to allow all the students to retake the tests, rather than instantly revoking visas. Now he wants officials to help those people who were expelled from their colleges to be allowed to return to study. “At the moment the Home Office is still in full denial, but once the truth is fully understood I find it difficult to see how applications for compensation can be avoided. And given the scale of the number of people involved, we could be talking about hundreds of millions. There’s an inevitability about it. These people have unjustly been put through years of misery.” A decade after the Home Office first made a blanket accusation of deception against tens of thousands of students who had travelled to the UK seeking a British university education, Timms is perplexed by how few people understand the huge scale of what went wrong. “It’s an absolute tragedy,” he says. English test scandal: reprieve plan was derailed by government reshuffle Read more He notes that there has been none of the public expression of dismay that the Post Office scandal provoked, despite close parallels between the two issues: large numbers of innocent people accused of deception on apparently flawed evidence. “I think there’s a lack of empathy for people from different backgrounds and cultures. There isn’t a sense of identification with the hardships that they’ve endured,” he says. He has a dossier of 46 students he has tried to help challenge mistaken accusations of cheating, with mixed results. Even in bare skeleton summary form, the cases make upsetting reading. Some students have been deported and subsequently let Timms’ office know that they are still fighting to clear their names from abroad. Some describe racking up over £30,000 of debt in wasted tuition fees and legal fees. Some describe finding basic errors in the evidence presented against them by ETS – mistaken names, nationalities, errors in the dates when and location where they are meant to have taken the test. Despite having been stabbed several times in the abdomen during a constituency surgery in 2010, Timms has continued to hold appointments every Friday afternoon in East Ham (with security just slightly improved by the addition of a bigger desk separating him and his visitors). In late 2015, he began getting visits from panicking students, mostly from India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The students were both puzzled and horrified to have been accused of cheating. “It didn’t make sense. They clearly spoke English well enough to study in the UK,” he said. “They felt their world was at an end. They had pinned their own hopes and their family’s hopes entirely on securing a degree in the UK. But then there was an allegation of cheating, the money spent on fees was gone and they had no qualification. None of these students got any of their fees reimbursed.” One student from Bangladesh told Timms that his parents had put their entire life savings into his UK college fees. “Then he got a conviction from the British government for cheating. He said he couldn’t bear the shame of going home to face his family, having inflicted this absolutely shameful humiliation on them.” He is very critical of ETS for its mismanagement of the tests and blames Theresa May’s Home Office, which was working to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands and which introduced a series of hostile environment policies at the time that students were being accused of cheating. Her department maintained an attitude of scepticism towards students’ protestation of innocence, he says. A Home Office spokesperson said: “The 2014 investigation into the abuse of English language testing revealed systemic cheating which was indicative of significant organised fraud. Courts have consistently found the evidence was sufficient to take the action we did. We completely refute any allegations of racism, decisions were taken solely on the basis of the evidence provided to the department.” ETS said that at the time of the allegations its UK operations were contracted out to a subsidiary organisation ETS Global BV. That office was subsequently closed. The Home Office was paid a £1.6m settlement by ETS Global BV in 2018. Timms remains struck by the intensity of the betrayal the students felt. “These are young people who entrusted their future to Britain and, in reality, Britain has proved utterly untrustworthy and has wrecked their lives. All of them have had the start of their careers blighted for years. And many of them will never ever fully recover from what happened, some have permanent mental health problems. We treated them appallingly.” Explore more on these topics Home Office Students Labour Higher education interviews Share Reuse this content Stephen Timms is optimistic that the government will one day admit it made a huge mistake in assuming so many overseas students cheated in their English exams. Photograph: Christian Sinibaldi/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Stephen Timms is optimistic that the government will one day admit it made a huge mistake in assuming so many overseas students cheated in their English exams. Photograph: Christian Sinibaldi/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Interview ‘97% seemed absurd’: Labour’s Stephen Timms on the English test scandal that wrecked lives This article is more than 1 year old Amelia Gentleman The London MP has battled to get the Home Office to take responsibility for its mistaken allegations of cheating against many thousands of overseas students T here was one crucial statistic in the cheating allegations that the Home Office levelled against more than 35,000 overseas students that instantly alerted Labour MP Stephen Timms to the likely presence of a huge miscarriage of justice. A dossier of evidence revealed that 97% of all international students who took a Home Office-approved English language test between 2011 and 2014 were suspected of cheating. “The figure of 97% seemed absurd. It was completely implausible. When I saw that the Home Office was saying that virtually everybody had either definitely or probably cheated, it crystallised my understanding that something had gone very badly wrong,” Timms says, in an interview this week in his Westminster office, overlooking the Thames and the London Eye. He was amazed that no one within the department had questioned whether it could really be true that 97% of the 58,000 students who sat a government-approved test, advertised on the Home Office website, could all have cheated. Almost all of them would have sat and passed an English language test previously to get admission to the university; many had studied in English medium schools and colleges before leaving their home countries and had good English. “Surely somebody in the Home Office seeing that should have said: ‘Hang on that can’t be right, that over 97% are cheats.’ So you have to conclude there must be people in the department who just think: ‘Well, they’re foreign, therefore they cheat.’ And I think that’s part of what went wrong here.” For the past eight years, Timms has been trying to persuade the Home Office to take responsibility for what he describes as the biggest miscarriage of justice he has encountered in three decades as an east London MP. Although he is calm and measured as he talks about what went wrong, he admits to finding the subject “very, very distressing”. The Home Office revoked about 35,000 student visas in response to a BBC investigation that revealed widespread cheating in English language tests run by Educational Testing Service (ETS), one of four official providers of a mandatory test required for visa renewals. There was initially no mechanism for students to appeal against the accusation. At least 2,500 were deported and more than 7,200 left the country voluntarily after being told they faced arrest and detention if they stayed. Thousands have spent years fighting the accusations in court, and over 3,700 have won against the Home Office. Timms does not contest that there were criminal groups accepting payments and ensuring candidates passed the test; at least 21 people received prison sentences for helping students cheat. But he believes that rather than 97% of students being involved a more likely figure is between “maybe 10% and 15%. It’s only a hunch.” He is optimistic that eventually the government will be forced to acknowledge that it made a huge mistake. Two Home Office ministers have admitted to him privately that they know something went wrong, but the department has failed to take steps to allow students to challenge the allegations against them without having to enter into prohibitively expensive legal proceedings. The logical step initially would have been to allow all the students to retake the tests, rather than instantly revoking visas. Now he wants officials to help those people who were expelled from their colleges to be allowed to return to study. “At the moment the Home Office is still in full denial, but once the truth is fully understood I find it difficult to see how applications for compensation can be avoided. And given the scale of the number of people involved, we could be talking about hundreds of millions. There’s an inevitability about it. These people have unjustly been put through years of misery.” A decade after the Home Office first made a blanket accusation of deception against tens of thousands of students who had travelled to the UK seeking a British university education, Timms is perplexed by how few people understand the huge scale of what went wrong. “It’s an absolute tragedy,” he says. English test scandal: reprieve plan was derailed by government reshuffle Read more He notes that there has been none of the public expression of dismay that the Post Office scandal provoked, despite close parallels between the two issues: large numbers of innocent people accused of deception on apparently flawed evidence. “I think there’s a lack of empathy for people from different backgrounds and cultures. There isn’t a sense of identification with the hardships that they’ve endured,” he says. He has a dossier of 46 students he has tried to help challenge mistaken accusations of cheating, with mixed results. Even in bare skeleton summary form, the cases make upsetting reading. Some students have been deported and subsequently let Timms’ office know that they are still fighting to clear their names from abroad. Some describe racking up over £30,000 of debt in wasted tuition fees and legal fees. Some describe finding basic errors in the evidence presented against them by ETS – mistaken names, nationalities, errors in the dates when and location where they are meant to have taken the test. Despite having been stabbed several times in the abdomen during a constituency surgery in 2010, Timms has continued to hold appointments every Friday afternoon in East Ham (with security just slightly improved by the addition of a bigger desk separating him and his visitors). In late 2015, he began getting visits from panicking students, mostly from India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The students were both puzzled and horrified to have been accused of cheating. “It didn’t make sense. They clearly spoke English well enough to study in the UK,” he said. “They felt their world was at an end. They had pinned their own hopes and their family’s hopes entirely on securing a degree in the UK. But then there was an allegation of cheating, the money spent on fees was gone and they had no qualification. None of these students got any of their fees reimbursed.” One student from Bangladesh told Timms that his parents had put their entire life savings into his UK college fees. “Then he got a conviction from the British government for cheating. He said he couldn’t bear the shame of going home to face his family, having inflicted this absolutely shameful humiliation on them.” He is very critical of ETS for its mismanagement of the tests and blames Theresa May’s Home Office, which was working to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands and which introduced a series of hostile environment policies at the time that students were being accused of cheating. Her department maintained an attitude of scepticism towards students’ protestation of innocence, he says. A Home Office spokesperson said: “The 2014 investigation into the abuse of English language testing revealed systemic cheating which was indicative of significant organised fraud. Courts have consistently found the evidence was sufficient to take the action we did. We completely refute any allegations of racism, decisions were taken solely on the basis of the evidence provided to the department.” ETS said that at the time of the allegations its UK operations were contracted out to a subsidiary organisation ETS Global BV. That office was subsequently closed. The Home Office was paid a £1.6m settlement by ETS Global BV in 2018. Timms remains struck by the intensity of the betrayal the students felt. “These are young people who entrusted their future to Britain and, in reality, Britain has proved utterly untrustworthy and has wrecked their lives. All of them have had the start of their careers blighted for years. And many of them will never ever fully recover from what happened, some have permanent mental health problems. We treated them appallingly.” Explore more on these topics Home Office Students Labour Higher education interviews Share Reuse this content Stephen Timms is optimistic that the government will one day admit it made a huge mistake in assuming so many overseas students cheated in their English exams. Photograph: Christian Sinibaldi/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Stephen Timms is optimistic that the government will one day admit it made a huge mistake in assuming so many overseas students cheated in their English exams. Photograph: Christian Sinibaldi/The Guardian Stephen Timms is optimistic that the government will one day admit it made a huge mistake in assuming so many overseas students cheated in their English exams. Photograph: Christian Sinibaldi/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Stephen Timms is optimistic that the government will one day admit it made a huge mistake in assuming so many overseas students cheated in their English exams. Photograph: Christian Sinibaldi/The Guardian Stephen Timms is optimistic that the government will one day admit it made a huge mistake in assuming so many overseas students cheated in their English exams. Photograph: Christian Sinibaldi/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Stephen Timms is optimistic that the government will one day admit it made a huge mistake in assuming so many overseas students cheated in their English exams. Photograph: Christian Sinibaldi/The Guardian Stephen Timms is optimistic that the government will one day admit it made a huge mistake in assuming so many overseas students cheated in their English exams. Photograph: Christian Sinibaldi/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Stephen Timms is optimistic that the government will one day admit it made a huge mistake in assuming so many overseas students cheated in their English exams. Photograph: Christian Sinibaldi/The Guardian Stephen Timms is optimistic that the government will one day admit it made a huge mistake in assuming so many overseas students cheated in their English exams. Photograph: Christian Sinibaldi/The Guardian Stephen Timms is optimistic that the government will one day admit it made a huge mistake in assuming so many overseas students cheated in their English exams. Photograph: Christian Sinibaldi/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Interview ‘97% seemed absurd’: Labour’s Stephen Timms on the English test scandal that wrecked lives This article is more than 1 year old Amelia Gentleman This article is more than 1 year old Interview ‘97% seemed absurd’: Labour’s Stephen Timms on the English test scandal that wrecked lives This article is more than 1 year old Amelia Gentleman This article is more than 1 year old Interview ‘97% seemed absurd’: Labour’s Stephen Timms on the English test scandal that wrecked lives This article is more than 1 year old Amelia Gentleman 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 London MP has battled to get the Home Office to take responsibility for its mistaken allegations of cheating against many thousands of overseas students The London MP has battled to get the Home Office to take responsibility for its mistaken allegations of cheating against many thousands of overseas students The London MP has battled to get the Home Office to take responsibility for its mistaken allegations of cheating against many thousands of overseas students T here was one crucial statistic in the cheating allegations that the Home Office levelled against more than 35,000 overseas students that instantly alerted Labour MP Stephen Timms to the likely presence of a huge miscarriage of justice. A dossier of evidence revealed that 97% of all international students who took a Home Office-approved English language test between 2011 and 2014 were suspected of cheating. “The figure of 97% seemed absurd. It was completely implausible. When I saw that the Home Office was saying that virtually everybody had either definitely or probably cheated, it crystallised my understanding that something had gone very badly wrong,” Timms says, in an interview this week in his Westminster office, overlooking the Thames and the London Eye. He was amazed that no one within the department had questioned whether it could really be true that 97% of the 58,000 students who sat a government-approved test, advertised on the Home Office website, could all have cheated. Almost all of them would have sat and passed an English language test previously to get admission to the university; many had studied in English medium schools and colleges before leaving their home countries and had good English. “Surely somebody in the Home Office seeing that should have said: ‘Hang on that can’t be right, that over 97% are cheats.’ So you have to conclude there must be people in the department who just think: ‘Well, they’re foreign, therefore they cheat.’ And I think that’s part of what went wrong here.” For the past eight years, Timms has been trying to persuade the Home Office to take responsibility for what he describes as the biggest miscarriage of justice he has encountered in three decades as an east London MP. Although he is calm and measured as he talks about what went wrong, he admits to finding the subject “very, very distressing”. The Home Office revoked about 35,000 student visas in response to a BBC investigation that revealed widespread cheating in English language tests run by Educational Testing Service (ETS), one of four official providers of a mandatory test required for visa renewals. There was initially no mechanism for students to appeal against the accusation. At least 2,500 were deported and more than 7,200 left the country voluntarily after being told they faced arrest and detention if they stayed. Thousands have spent years fighting the accusations in court, and over 3,700 have won against the Home Office. Timms does not contest that there were criminal groups accepting payments and ensuring candidates passed the test; at least 21 people received prison sentences for helping students cheat. But he believes that rather than 97% of students being involved a more likely figure is between “maybe 10% and 15%. It’s only a hunch.” He is optimistic that eventually the government will be forced to acknowledge that it made a huge mistake. Two Home Office ministers have admitted to him privately that they know something went wrong, but the department has failed to take steps to allow students to challenge the allegations against them without having to enter into prohibitively expensive legal proceedings. The logical step initially would have been to allow all the students to retake the tests, rather than instantly revoking visas. Now he wants officials to help those people who were expelled from their colleges to be allowed to return to study. “At the moment the Home Office is still in full denial, but once the truth is fully understood I find it difficult to see how applications for compensation can be avoided. And given the scale of the number of people involved, we could be talking about hundreds of millions. There’s an inevitability about it. These people have unjustly been put through years of misery.” A decade after the Home Office first made a blanket accusation of deception against tens of thousands of students who had travelled to the UK seeking a British university education, Timms is perplexed by how few people understand the huge scale of what went wrong. “It’s an absolute tragedy,” he says. English test scandal: reprieve plan was derailed by government reshuffle Read more He notes that there has been none of the public expression of dismay that the Post Office scandal provoked, despite close parallels between the two issues: large numbers of innocent people accused of deception on apparently flawed evidence. “I think there’s a lack of empathy for people from different backgrounds and cultures. There isn’t a sense of identification with the hardships that they’ve endured,” he says. He has a dossier of 46 students he has tried to help challenge mistaken accusations of cheating, with mixed results. Even in bare skeleton summary form, the cases make upsetting reading. Some students have been deported and subsequently let Timms’ office know that they are still fighting to clear their names from abroad. Some describe racking up over £30,000 of debt in wasted tuition fees and legal fees. Some describe finding basic errors in the evidence presented against them by ETS – mistaken names, nationalities, errors in the dates when and location where they are meant to have taken the test. Despite having been stabbed several times in the abdomen during a constituency surgery in 2010, Timms has continued to hold appointments every Friday afternoon in East Ham (with security just slightly improved by the addition of a bigger desk separating him and his visitors). In late 2015, he began getting visits from panicking students, mostly from India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The students were both puzzled and horrified to have been accused of cheating. “It didn’t make sense. They clearly spoke English well enough to study in the UK,” he said. “They felt their world was at an end. They had pinned their own hopes and their family’s hopes entirely on securing a degree in the UK. But then there was an allegation of cheating, the money spent on fees was gone and they had no qualification. None of these students got any of their fees reimbursed.” One student from Bangladesh told Timms that his parents had put their entire life savings into his UK college fees. “Then he got a conviction from the British government for cheating. He said he couldn’t bear the shame of going home to face his family, having inflicted this absolutely shameful humiliation on them.” He is very critical of ETS for its mismanagement of the tests and blames Theresa May’s Home Office, which was working to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands and which introduced a series of hostile environment policies at the time that students were being accused of cheating. Her department maintained an attitude of scepticism towards students’ protestation of innocence, he says. A Home Office spokesperson said: “The 2014 investigation into the abuse of English language testing revealed systemic cheating which was indicative of significant organised fraud. Courts have consistently found the evidence was sufficient to take the action we did. We completely refute any allegations of racism, decisions were taken solely on the basis of the evidence provided to the department.” ETS said that at the time of the allegations its UK operations were contracted out to a subsidiary organisation ETS Global BV. That office was subsequently closed. The Home Office was paid a £1.6m settlement by ETS Global BV in 2018. Timms remains struck by the intensity of the betrayal the students felt. “These are young people who entrusted their future to Britain and, in reality, Britain has proved utterly untrustworthy and has wrecked their lives. All of them have had the start of their careers blighted for years. And many of them will never ever fully recover from what happened, some have permanent mental health problems. We treated them appallingly.” Explore more on these topics Home Office Students Labour Higher education interviews Share Reuse this content T here was one crucial statistic in the cheating allegations that the Home Office levelled against more than 35,000 overseas students that instantly alerted Labour MP Stephen Timms to the likely presence of a huge miscarriage of justice. A dossier of evidence revealed that 97% of all international students who took a Home Office-approved English language test between 2011 and 2014 were suspected of cheating. “The figure of 97% seemed absurd. It was completely implausible. When I saw that the Home Office was saying that virtually everybody had either definitely or probably cheated, it crystallised my understanding that something had gone very badly wrong,” Timms says, in an interview this week in his Westminster office, overlooking the Thames and the London Eye. He was amazed that no one within the department had questioned whether it could really be true that 97% of the 58,000 students who sat a government-approved test, advertised on the Home Office website, could all have cheated. Almost all of them would have sat and passed an English language test previously to get admission to the university; many had studied in English medium schools and colleges before leaving their home countries and had good English. “Surely somebody in the Home Office seeing that should have said: ‘Hang on that can’t be right, that over 97% are cheats.’ So you have to conclude there must be people in the department who just think: ‘Well, they’re foreign, therefore they cheat.’ And I think that’s part of what went wrong here.” For the past eight years, Timms has been trying to persuade the Home Office to take responsibility for what he describes as the biggest miscarriage of justice he has encountered in three decades as an east London MP. Although he is calm and measured as he talks about what went wrong, he admits to finding the subject “very, very distressing”. The Home Office revoked about 35,000 student visas in response to a BBC investigation that revealed widespread cheating in English language tests run by Educational Testing Service (ETS), one of four official providers of a mandatory test required for visa renewals. There was initially no mechanism for students to appeal against the accusation. At least 2,500 were deported and more than 7,200 left the country voluntarily after being told they faced arrest and detention if they stayed. Thousands have spent years fighting the accusations in court, and over 3,700 have won against the Home Office. Timms does not contest that there were criminal groups accepting payments and ensuring candidates passed the test; at least 21 people received prison sentences for helping students cheat. But he believes that rather than 97% of students being involved a more likely figure is between “maybe 10% and 15%. It’s only a hunch.” He is optimistic that eventually the government will be forced to acknowledge that it made a huge mistake. Two Home Office ministers have admitted to him privately that they know something went wrong, but the department has failed to take steps to allow students to challenge the allegations against them without having to enter into prohibitively expensive legal proceedings. The logical step initially would have been to allow all the students to retake the tests, rather than instantly revoking visas. Now he wants officials to help those people who were expelled from their colleges to be allowed to return to study. “At the moment the Home Office is still in full denial, but once the truth is fully understood I find it difficult to see how applications for compensation can be avoided. And given the scale of the number of people involved, we could be talking about hundreds of millions. There’s an inevitability about it. These people have unjustly been put through years of misery.” A decade after the Home Office first made a blanket accusation of deception against tens of thousands of students who had travelled to the UK seeking a British university education, Timms is perplexed by how few people understand the huge scale of what went wrong. “It’s an absolute tragedy,” he says. English test scandal: reprieve plan was derailed by government reshuffle Read more He notes that there has been none of the public expression of dismay that the Post Office scandal provoked, despite close parallels between the two issues: large numbers of innocent people accused of deception on apparently flawed evidence. “I think there’s a lack of empathy for people from different backgrounds and cultures. There isn’t a sense of identification with the hardships that they’ve endured,” he says. He has a dossier of 46 students he has tried to help challenge mistaken accusations of cheating, with mixed results. Even in bare skeleton summary form, the cases make upsetting reading. Some students have been deported and subsequently let Timms’ office know that they are still fighting to clear their names from abroad. Some describe racking up over £30,000 of debt in wasted tuition fees and legal fees. Some describe finding basic errors in the evidence presented against them by ETS – mistaken names, nationalities, errors in the dates when and location where they are meant to have taken the test. Despite having been stabbed several times in the abdomen during a constituency surgery in 2010, Timms has continued to hold appointments every Friday afternoon in East Ham (with security just slightly improved by the addition of a bigger desk separating him and his visitors). In late 2015, he began getting visits from panicking students, mostly from India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The students were both puzzled and horrified to have been accused of cheating. “It didn’t make sense. They clearly spoke English well enough to study in the UK,” he said. “They felt their world was at an end. They had pinned their own hopes and their family’s hopes entirely on securing a degree in the UK. But then there was an allegation of cheating, the money spent on fees was gone and they had no qualification. None of these students got any of their fees reimbursed.” One student from Bangladesh told Timms that his parents had put their entire life savings into his UK college fees. “Then he got a conviction from the British government for cheating. He said he couldn’t bear the shame of going home to face his family, having inflicted this absolutely shameful humiliation on them.” He is very critical of ETS for its mismanagement of the tests and blames Theresa May’s Home Office, which was working to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands and which introduced a series of hostile environment policies at the time that students were being accused of cheating. Her department maintained an attitude of scepticism towards students’ protestation of innocence, he says. A Home Office spokesperson said: “The 2014 investigation into the abuse of English language testing revealed systemic cheating which was indicative of significant organised fraud. Courts have consistently found the evidence was sufficient to take the action we did. We completely refute any allegations of racism, decisions were taken solely on the basis of the evidence provided to the department.” ETS said that at the time of the allegations its UK operations were contracted out to a subsidiary organisation ETS Global BV. That office was subsequently closed. The Home Office was paid a £1.6m settlement by ETS Global BV in 2018. Timms remains struck by the intensity of the betrayal the students felt. “These are young people who entrusted their future to Britain and, in reality, Britain has proved utterly untrustworthy and has wrecked their lives. All of them have had the start of their careers blighted for years. And many of them will never ever fully recover from what happened, some have permanent mental health problems. We treated them appallingly.” Explore more on these topics Home Office Students Labour Higher education interviews Share Reuse this content T here was one crucial statistic in the cheating allegations that the Home Office levelled against more than 35,000 overseas students that instantly alerted Labour MP Stephen Timms to the likely presence of a huge miscarriage of justice. A dossier of evidence revealed that 97% of all international students who took a Home Office-approved English language test between 2011 and 2014 were suspected of cheating. “The figure of 97% seemed absurd. It was completely implausible. When I saw that the Home Office was saying that virtually everybody had either definitely or probably cheated, it crystallised my understanding that something had gone very badly wrong,” Timms says, in an interview this week in his Westminster office, overlooking the Thames and the London Eye. He was amazed that no one within the department had questioned whether it could really be true that 97% of the 58,000 students who sat a government-approved test, advertised on the Home Office website, could all have cheated. Almost all of them would have sat and passed an English language test previously to get admission to the university; many had studied in English medium schools and colleges before leaving their home countries and had good English. “Surely somebody in the Home Office seeing that should have said: ‘Hang on that can’t be right, that over 97% are cheats.’ So you have to conclude there must be people in the department who just think: ‘Well, they’re foreign, therefore they cheat.’ And I think that’s part of what went wrong here.” For the past eight years, Timms has been trying to persuade the Home Office to take responsibility for what he describes as the biggest miscarriage of justice he has encountered in three decades as an east London MP. Although he is calm and measured as he talks about what went wrong, he admits to finding the subject “very, very distressing”. The Home Office revoked about 35,000 student visas in response to a BBC investigation that revealed widespread cheating in English language tests run by Educational Testing Service (ETS), one of four official providers of a mandatory test required for visa renewals. There was initially no mechanism for students to appeal against the accusation. At least 2,500 were deported and more than 7,200 left the country voluntarily after being told they faced arrest and detention if they stayed. Thousands have spent years fighting the accusations in court, and over 3,700 have won against the Home Office. Timms does not contest that there were criminal groups accepting payments and ensuring candidates passed the test; at least 21 people received prison sentences for helping students cheat. But he believes that rather than 97% of students being involved a more likely figure is between “maybe 10% and 15%. It’s only a hunch.” He is optimistic that eventually the government will be forced to acknowledge that it made a huge mistake. Two Home Office ministers have admitted to him privately that they know something went wrong, but the department has failed to take steps to allow students to challenge the allegations against them without having to enter into prohibitively expensive legal proceedings. The logical step initially would have been to allow all the students to retake the tests, rather than instantly revoking visas. Now he wants officials to help those people who were expelled from their colleges to be allowed to return to study. “At the moment the Home Office is still in full denial, but once the truth is fully understood I find it difficult to see how applications for compensation can be avoided. And given the scale of the number of people involved, we could be talking about hundreds of millions. There’s an inevitability about it. These people have unjustly been put through years of misery.” A decade after the Home Office first made a blanket accusation of deception against tens of thousands of students who had travelled to the UK seeking a British university education, Timms is perplexed by how few people understand the huge scale of what went wrong. “It’s an absolute tragedy,” he says. English test scandal: reprieve plan was derailed by government reshuffle Read more He notes that there has been none of the public expression of dismay that the Post Office scandal provoked, despite close parallels between the two issues: large numbers of innocent people accused of deception on apparently flawed evidence. “I think there’s a lack of empathy for people from different backgrounds and cultures. There isn’t a sense of identification with the hardships that they’ve endured,” he says. He has a dossier of 46 students he has tried to help challenge mistaken accusations of cheating, with mixed results. Even in bare skeleton summary form, the cases make upsetting reading. Some students have been deported and subsequently let Timms’ office know that they are still fighting to clear their names from abroad. Some describe racking up over £30,000 of debt in wasted tuition fees and legal fees. Some describe finding basic errors in the evidence presented against them by ETS – mistaken names, nationalities, errors in the dates when and location where they are meant to have taken the test. Despite having been stabbed several times in the abdomen during a constituency surgery in 2010, Timms has continued to hold appointments every Friday afternoon in East Ham (with security just slightly improved by the addition of a bigger desk separating him and his visitors). In late 2015, he began getting visits from panicking students, mostly from India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The students were both puzzled and horrified to have been accused of cheating. “It didn’t make sense. They clearly spoke English well enough to study in the UK,” he said. “They felt their world was at an end. They had pinned their own hopes and their family’s hopes entirely on securing a degree in the UK. But then there was an allegation of cheating, the money spent on fees was gone and they had no qualification. None of these students got any of their fees reimbursed.” One student from Bangladesh told Timms that his parents had put their entire life savings into his UK college fees. “Then he got a conviction from the British government for cheating. He said he couldn’t bear the shame of going home to face his family, having inflicted this absolutely shameful humiliation on them.” He is very critical of ETS for its mismanagement of the tests and blames Theresa May’s Home Office, which was working to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands and which introduced a series of hostile environment policies at the time that students were being accused of cheating. Her department maintained an attitude of scepticism towards students’ protestation of innocence, he says. A Home Office spokesperson said: “The 2014 investigation into the abuse of English language testing revealed systemic cheating which was indicative of significant organised fraud. Courts have consistently found the evidence was sufficient to take the action we did. We completely refute any allegations of racism, decisions were taken solely on the basis of the evidence provided to the department.” ETS said that at the time of the allegations its UK operations were contracted out to a subsidiary organisation ETS Global BV. That office was subsequently closed. The Home Office was paid a £1.6m settlement by ETS Global BV in 2018. Timms remains struck by the intensity of the betrayal the students felt. “These are young people who entrusted their future to Britain and, in reality, Britain has proved utterly untrustworthy and has wrecked their lives. All of them have had the start of their careers blighted for years. And many of them will never ever fully recover from what happened, some have permanent mental health problems. We treated them appallingly.” T here was one crucial statistic in the cheating allegations that the Home Office levelled against more than 35,000 overseas students that instantly alerted Labour MP Stephen Timms to the likely presence of a huge miscarriage of justice. A dossier of evidence revealed that 97% of all international students who took a Home Office-approved English language test between 2011 and 2014 were suspected of cheating. “The figure of 97% seemed absurd. It was completely implausible. When I saw that the Home Office was saying that virtually everybody had either definitely or probably cheated, it crystallised my understanding that something had gone very badly wrong,” Timms says, in an interview this week in his Westminster office, overlooking the Thames and the London Eye. He was amazed that no one within the department had questioned whether it could really be true that 97% of the 58,000 students who sat a government-approved test, advertised on the Home Office website, could all have cheated. Almost all of them would have sat and passed an English language test previously to get admission to the university; many had studied in English medium schools and colleges before leaving their home countries and had good English. “Surely somebody in the Home Office seeing that should have said: ‘Hang on that can’t be right, that over 97% are cheats.’ So you have to conclude there must be people in the department who just think: ‘Well, they’re foreign, therefore they cheat.’ And I think that’s part of what went wrong here.” For the past eight years, Timms has been trying to persuade the Home Office to take responsibility for what he describes as the biggest miscarriage of justice he has encountered in three decades as an east London MP. Although he is calm and measured as he talks about what went wrong, he admits to finding the subject “very, very distressing”. The Home Office revoked about 35,000 student visas in response to a BBC investigation that revealed widespread cheating in English language tests run by Educational Testing Service (ETS), one of four official providers of a mandatory test required for visa renewals. There was initially no mechanism for students to appeal against the accusation. At least 2,500 were deported and more than 7,200 left the country voluntarily after being told they faced arrest and detention if they stayed. Thousands have spent years fighting the accusations in court, and over 3,700 have won against the Home Office. Timms does not contest that there were criminal groups accepting payments and ensuring candidates passed the test; at least 21 people received prison sentences for helping students cheat. But he believes that rather than 97% of students being involved a more likely figure is between “maybe 10% and 15%. It’s only a hunch.” He is optimistic that eventually the government will be forced to acknowledge that it made a huge mistake. Two Home Office ministers have admitted to him privately that they know something went wrong, but the department has failed to take steps to allow students to challenge the allegations against them without having to enter into prohibitively expensive legal proceedings. The logical step initially would have been to allow all the students to retake the tests, rather than instantly revoking visas. Now he wants officials to help those people who were expelled from their colleges to be allowed to return to study. “At the moment the Home Office is still in full denial, but once the truth is fully understood I find it difficult to see how applications for compensation can be avoided. And given the scale of the number of people involved, we could be talking about hundreds of millions. There’s an inevitability about it. These people have unjustly been put through years of misery.” A decade after the Home Office first made a blanket accusation of deception against tens of thousands of students who had travelled to the UK seeking a British university education, Timms is perplexed by how few people understand the huge scale of what went wrong. “It’s an absolute tragedy,” he says. English test scandal: reprieve plan was derailed by government reshuffle Read more He notes that there has been none of the public expression of dismay that the Post Office scandal provoked, despite close parallels between the two issues: large numbers of innocent people accused of deception on apparently flawed evidence. “I think there’s a lack of empathy for people from different backgrounds and cultures. There isn’t a sense of identific
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets]
|
Farmers in Europe: are you taking part in the protests?
Spanish farmers blockade roads in Barcelona Photograph: Nacho Doce/Reuters View image in fullscreen Spanish farmers blockade roads in Barcelona Photograph: Nacho Doce/Reuters This article is more than 1 year old Farmers in Europe: are you taking part in the protests? This article is more than 1 year old We would like to hear from agriculture workers in mainland Europe and the UK about their views on the protests Tractors have blockaded the Belgian port of Antwerp, as farmers continue their protests in half a dozen European countries. Protests have taken place across a number of European nations in recent months including Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France. Last week, some 40 tractors and other farm vehicles blocked roads in Dover, carrying signs with slogans like “No More Cheap Imports”. We would like to speak to farmers and others working in the agriculture sector in the European countries that have seen protests about these blockades. What is your view? Have you taken part, and if so, why? If not, tell us about why not. Have you been affected by the protests, and if so, how? Explore more on these topics Farming Europe callout Share Reuse this content Spanish farmers blockade roads in Barcelona Photograph: Nacho Doce/Reuters View image in fullscreen Spanish farmers blockade roads in Barcelona Photograph: Nacho Doce/Reuters This article is more than 1 year old Farmers in Europe: are you taking part in the protests? This article is more than 1 year old We would like to hear from agriculture workers in mainland Europe and the UK about their views on the protests Tractors have blockaded the Belgian port of Antwerp, as farmers continue their protests in half a dozen European countries. Protests have taken place across a number of European nations in recent months including Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France. Last week, some 40 tractors and other farm vehicles blocked roads in Dover, carrying signs with slogans like “No More Cheap Imports”. We would like to speak to farmers and others working in the agriculture sector in the European countries that have seen protests about these blockades. What is your view? Have you taken part, and if so, why? If not, tell us about why not. Have you been affected by the protests, and if so, how? Explore more on these topics Farming Europe callout Share Reuse this content Spanish farmers blockade roads in Barcelona Photograph: Nacho Doce/Reuters View image in fullscreen Spanish farmers blockade roads in Barcelona Photograph: Nacho Doce/Reuters Spanish farmers blockade roads in Barcelona Photograph: Nacho Doce/Reuters View image in fullscreen Spanish farmers blockade roads in Barcelona Photograph: Nacho Doce/Reuters Spanish farmers blockade roads in Barcelona Photograph: Nacho Doce/Reuters View image in fullscreen Spanish farmers blockade roads in Barcelona Photograph: Nacho Doce/Reuters Spanish farmers blockade roads in Barcelona Photograph: Nacho Doce/Reuters View image in fullscreen Spanish farmers blockade roads in Barcelona Photograph: Nacho Doce/Reuters Spanish farmers blockade roads in Barcelona Photograph: Nacho Doce/Reuters Spanish farmers blockade roads in Barcelona Photograph: Nacho Doce/Reuters This article is more than 1 year old Farmers in Europe: are you taking part in the protests? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Farmers in Europe: are you taking part in the protests? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Farmers in Europe: are you taking part in the protests? 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 We would like to hear from agriculture workers in mainland Europe and the UK about their views on the protests We would like to hear from agriculture workers in mainland Europe and the UK about their views on the protests We would like to hear from agriculture workers in mainland Europe and the UK about their views on the protests Tractors have blockaded the Belgian port of Antwerp, as farmers continue their protests in half a dozen European countries. Protests have taken place across a number of European nations in recent months including Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France. Last week, some 40 tractors and other farm vehicles blocked roads in Dover, carrying signs with slogans like “No More Cheap Imports”. We would like to speak to farmers and others working in the agriculture sector in the European countries that have seen protests about these blockades. What is your view? Have you taken part, and if so, why? If not, tell us about why not. Have you been affected by the protests, and if so, how? Explore more on these topics Farming Europe callout Share Reuse this content Tractors have blockaded the Belgian port of Antwerp, as farmers continue their protests in half a dozen European countries. Protests have taken place across a number of European nations in recent months including Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France. Last week, some 40 tractors and other farm vehicles blocked roads in Dover, carrying signs with slogans like “No More Cheap Imports”. We would like to speak to farmers and others working in the agriculture sector in the European countries that have seen protests about these blockades. What is your view? Have you taken part, and if so, why? If not, tell us about why not. Have you been affected by the protests, and if so, how? Explore more on these topics Farming Europe callout Share Reuse this content Tractors have blockaded the Belgian port of Antwerp, as farmers continue their protests in half a dozen European countries. Protests have taken place across a number of European nations in recent months including Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France. Last week, some 40 tractors and other farm vehicles blocked roads in Dover, carrying signs with slogans like “No More Cheap Imports”. We would like to speak to farmers and others working in the agriculture sector in the European countries that have seen protests about these blockades. What is your view? Have you taken part, and if so, why? If not, tell us about why not. Have you been affected by the protests, and if so, how? Tractors have blockaded the Belgian port of Antwerp, as farmers continue their protests in half a dozen European countries. Protests have taken place across a number of European nations in recent months including Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France. Last week, some 40 tractors and other farm vehicles blocked roads in Dover, carrying signs with slogans like “No More Cheap Imports”. We would like to speak to farmers and others working in the agriculture sector in the European countries that have seen protests about these blockades. What is your view? Have you taken part, and if so, why? If not, tell us about why not. Have you been affected by the protests, and if so, how? Tractors have blockaded the Belgian port of Antwerp, as farmers continue their protests in half a dozen European countries. Protests have taken place across a number of European nations in recent months including Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France. Last week, some 40 tractors and other farm vehicles blocked roads in Dover, carrying signs with slogans like “No More Cheap Imports”. We would like to speak to farmers and others working in the agriculture sector in the European countries that have seen protests about these blockades. What is your view? Have you taken part, and if so, why? If not, tell us about why not. Have you been affected by the protests, and if so, how? Explore more on these topics Farming Europe callout Share Reuse this content
|
Humza Yousaf ‘naive’ about links to evangelical Christian donor, say rights groups
Souter helped arrange a private business dinner at a hotel in Edinburgh at Yousaf’s request last year. Photograph: Oliver Dixon/Stagecoach/PA Archive/PA Images View image in fullscreen Souter helped arrange a private business dinner at a hotel in Edinburgh at Yousaf’s request last year. Photograph: Oliver Dixon/Stagecoach/PA Archive/PA Images This article is more than 1 year old Humza Yousaf ‘naive’ about links to evangelical Christian donor, say rights groups This article is more than 1 year old First minister faces questions after it emerged he courted Sir Brian Souter despite his hostility to LGBTQ+ rights Civil rights groups have accused Humza Yousaf of being “naive” about his links to Sir Brian Souter, the millionaire who funds a network of conservative Christian groups that campaign against gay and women’s rights. The Humanist Society of Scotland (HSS) said Scotland’s first minister faced “serious questions” after it emerged he courted Souter despite his longstanding hostility to equal marriage, abortion rights and trans rights. Souter, formerly a regular donor to the Scottish National party, helped arrange a private business dinner at a boutique hotel in Edinburgh at Yousaf’s request last year, after inviting the first minister to attend a “prayer breakfast” soon after Yousaf won the SNP leadership contest. The co-founder of the Stagecoach transport empire, Souter spent at least £1m unsuccessfully fighting in the early 2000s to keep the rules, known as section 28, that banned teachers from “promoting” gay rights in schools. Over the past three years, Souter has given at least £650,000 to evangelical groups that oppose policies championed by Nicola Sturgeon such as barring protests outside abortion clinics, outlawing conversion practices and protecting trans people in Scotland . These groups also oppose proposals to legalise assisted dying in Scotland that have won all-party backing at Holyrood, including one group with strong evangelical links called Care Not Killing, funded by Souter . Ally Thomson, Scottish director of the pro-assisted dying group Dignity in Dying, said these groups represented a vocal minority with “a track record of opposing personal freedoms such as reproductive rights and equal marriage”. The Guardian has found that Souter has funded two US-based evangelical organisations alleged in the US to have coveredup sexual assaults, discriminated against gay and lesbian members and forced unmarried mothers to give their babies for adoption. The Souter Charitable Trust, which gives away £9m a year on his behalf, bought a chalet resort in the Highlands for the US evangelical group Young Life to hold Christian summer camps and to let out to holidaymakers. Young Life is under investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a US federal agency, after four women alleged it sexually discriminated against them after they reported sexual assaults or harassment by male Young Life members. Young Life declined to comment to US media, citing the EEOC investigation. Young Life has also faced multiple discrimination allegations from LGBTQ+ members for allegedly banning gay couples from its camps, banning lesbians from volunteering, and attacking critics of its conservative stances on marriage and sexuality. There are no suggestions similar allegations about Young Life have emerged in the UK. Young Life has said some people left the organisation “over disagreements with our beliefs and policies” and it welcomes same-sex attracted members if they remain celibate. Souter has also given nearly £100,000 to the UK arm of Teen Challenge, an evangelical group accused of highly coercive conduct with pregnant and gay teenage girls at its residential schools in the US, including forced adoptions, and faced lawsuits there. Teen Challenge has denied these allegations. In 2004, the Welsh government withdrew funding from Teen Challenge’s anti-addiction residential centres because officials believed public money was being used to promote its evangelical Christianity – an allegation Teen Challenge denied. Fraser Sutherland, the chief executive of HSS, said Souter had refused to support the SNP while Sturgeon was leader. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “Voters have a right to know if there is even the smallest chance that Souter’s return could signal a shift towards more regressive, religiously influenced policy positions, as they have never backed or voted for such policies in recent elections,” Sutherland said. Yousaf’s official spokesperson said the first minister was unequivocal in his defence of the SNP’s socially progressive policies such as the trans rights and abortion clinic buffer zones that Souter opposed; he had made it clear he disagreed with Souter on those issues. However, Souter had a “formidable” record as a businessman that the Scottish government was determined to harness to create jobs “regardless of whether or not they share the same views on politics, the constitution, or social policy and equalities issues”. A spokesperson for Souter said he was “unashamedly Christian and contributes to a wide range of secular and faith-based causes, which form the bedrock of a strong, free and civilised society for the good of all”. The spokesperson said Souter had donated more than £100m to more than 13,000 organisations worldwide. Those included “groups that fight malaria, supply daily meals to hungry schoolchildren in Africa, or deliver humanitarian aid to Ukraine and Gaza. He sees this work as part of his Christian duty and has no plans to stop.” Speaking on behalf of Care Not Killing, Prof Kevin Yuill, founder of the recently formed group Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, said Care Not Killing was a secular group, including humanists. “We are delighted to benefit from the funding provided by the Souter Charitable Trust to assist in our central aim of preventing the implementation of legislation which would result in state-sponsored killing through assisted suicide and euthanasia,” he said. Explore more on these topics Scotland Humza Yousaf Scottish National party (SNP) LGBTQ+ rights Evangelical Christianity Christianity Transgender news Share Reuse this content Souter helped arrange a private business dinner at a hotel in Edinburgh at Yousaf’s request last year. Photograph: Oliver Dixon/Stagecoach/PA Archive/PA Images View image in fullscreen Souter helped arrange a private business dinner at a hotel in Edinburgh at Yousaf’s request last year. Photograph: Oliver Dixon/Stagecoach/PA Archive/PA Images This article is more than 1 year old Humza Yousaf ‘naive’ about links to evangelical Christian donor, say rights groups This article is more than 1 year old First minister faces questions after it emerged he courted Sir Brian Souter despite his hostility to LGBTQ+ rights Civil rights groups have accused Humza Yousaf of being “naive” about his links to Sir Brian Souter, the millionaire who funds a network of conservative Christian groups that campaign against gay and women’s rights. The Humanist Society of Scotland (HSS) said Scotland’s first minister faced “serious questions” after it emerged he courted Souter despite his longstanding hostility to equal marriage, abortion rights and trans rights. Souter, formerly a regular donor to the Scottish National party, helped arrange a private business dinner at a boutique hotel in Edinburgh at Yousaf’s request last year, after inviting the first minister to attend a “prayer breakfast” soon after Yousaf won the SNP leadership contest. The co-founder of the Stagecoach transport empire, Souter spent at least £1m unsuccessfully fighting in the early 2000s to keep the rules, known as section 28, that banned teachers from “promoting” gay rights in schools. Over the past three years, Souter has given at least £650,000 to evangelical groups that oppose policies championed by Nicola Sturgeon such as barring protests outside abortion clinics, outlawing conversion practices and protecting trans people in Scotland . These groups also oppose proposals to legalise assisted dying in Scotland that have won all-party backing at Holyrood, including one group with strong evangelical links called Care Not Killing, funded by Souter . Ally Thomson, Scottish director of the pro-assisted dying group Dignity in Dying, said these groups represented a vocal minority with “a track record of opposing personal freedoms such as reproductive rights and equal marriage”. The Guardian has found that Souter has funded two US-based evangelical organisations alleged in the US to have coveredup sexual assaults, discriminated against gay and lesbian members and forced unmarried mothers to give their babies for adoption. The Souter Charitable Trust, which gives away £9m a year on his behalf, bought a chalet resort in the Highlands for the US evangelical group Young Life to hold Christian summer camps and to let out to holidaymakers. Young Life is under investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a US federal agency, after four women alleged it sexually discriminated against them after they reported sexual assaults or harassment by male Young Life members. Young Life declined to comment to US media, citing the EEOC investigation. Young Life has also faced multiple discrimination allegations from LGBTQ+ members for allegedly banning gay couples from its camps, banning lesbians from volunteering, and attacking critics of its conservative stances on marriage and sexuality. There are no suggestions similar allegations about Young Life have emerged in the UK. Young Life has said some people left the organisation “over disagreements with our beliefs and policies” and it welcomes same-sex attracted members if they remain celibate. Souter has also given nearly £100,000 to the UK arm of Teen Challenge, an evangelical group accused of highly coercive conduct with pregnant and gay teenage girls at its residential schools in the US, including forced adoptions, and faced lawsuits there. Teen Challenge has denied these allegations. In 2004, the Welsh government withdrew funding from Teen Challenge’s anti-addiction residential centres because officials believed public money was being used to promote its evangelical Christianity – an allegation Teen Challenge denied. Fraser Sutherland, the chief executive of HSS, said Souter had refused to support the SNP while Sturgeon was leader. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “Voters have a right to know if there is even the smallest chance that Souter’s return could signal a shift towards more regressive, religiously influenced policy positions, as they have never backed or voted for such policies in recent elections,” Sutherland said. Yousaf’s official spokesperson said the first minister was unequivocal in his defence of the SNP’s socially progressive policies such as the trans rights and abortion clinic buffer zones that Souter opposed; he had made it clear he disagreed with Souter on those issues. However, Souter had a “formidable” record as a businessman that the Scottish government was determined to harness to create jobs “regardless of whether or not they share the same views on politics, the constitution, or social policy and equalities issues”. A spokesperson for Souter said he was “unashamedly Christian and contributes to a wide range of secular and faith-based causes, which form the bedrock of a strong, free and civilised society for the good of all”. The spokesperson said Souter had donated more than £100m to more than 13,000 organisations worldwide. Those included “groups that fight malaria, supply daily meals to hungry schoolchildren in Africa, or deliver humanitarian aid to Ukraine and Gaza. He sees this work as part of his Christian duty and has no plans to stop.” Speaking on behalf of Care Not Killing, Prof Kevin Yuill, founder of the recently formed group Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, said Care Not Killing was a secular group, including humanists. “We are delighted to benefit from the funding provided by the Souter Charitable Trust to assist in our central aim of preventing the implementation of legislation which would result in state-sponsored killing through assisted suicide and euthanasia,” he said. Explore more on these topics Scotland Humza Yousaf Scottish National party (SNP) LGBTQ+ rights Evangelical Christianity Christianity Transgender news Share Reuse this content Souter helped arrange a private business dinner at a hotel in Edinburgh at Yousaf’s request last year. Photograph: Oliver Dixon/Stagecoach/PA Archive/PA Images View image in fullscreen Souter helped arrange a private business dinner at a hotel in Edinburgh at Yousaf’s request last year. Photograph: Oliver Dixon/Stagecoach/PA Archive/PA Images Souter helped arrange a private business dinner at a hotel in Edinburgh at Yousaf’s request last year. Photograph: Oliver Dixon/Stagecoach/PA Archive/PA Images View image in fullscreen Souter helped arrange a private business dinner at a hotel in Edinburgh at Yousaf’s request last year. Photograph: Oliver Dixon/Stagecoach/PA Archive/PA Images Souter helped arrange a private business dinner at a hotel in Edinburgh at Yousaf’s request last year. Photograph: Oliver Dixon/Stagecoach/PA Archive/PA Images View image in fullscreen Souter helped arrange a private business dinner at a hotel in Edinburgh at Yousaf’s request last year. Photograph: Oliver Dixon/Stagecoach/PA Archive/PA Images Souter helped arrange a private business dinner at a hotel in Edinburgh at Yousaf’s request last year. Photograph: Oliver Dixon/Stagecoach/PA Archive/PA Images View image in fullscreen Souter helped arrange a private business dinner at a hotel in Edinburgh at Yousaf’s request last year. Photograph: Oliver Dixon/Stagecoach/PA Archive/PA Images Souter helped arrange a private business dinner at a hotel in Edinburgh at Yousaf’s request last year. Photograph: Oliver Dixon/Stagecoach/PA Archive/PA Images Souter helped arrange a private business dinner at a hotel in Edinburgh at Yousaf’s request last year. Photograph: Oliver Dixon/Stagecoach/PA Archive/PA Images This article is more than 1 year old Humza Yousaf ‘naive’ about links to evangelical Christian donor, say rights groups This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Humza Yousaf ‘naive’ about links to evangelical Christian donor, say rights groups This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Humza Yousaf ‘naive’ about links to evangelical Christian donor, say rights groups 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 First minister faces questions after it emerged he courted Sir Brian Souter despite his hostility to LGBTQ+ rights First minister faces questions after it emerged he courted Sir Brian Souter despite his hostility to LGBTQ+ rights First minister faces questions after it emerged he courted Sir Brian Souter despite his hostility to LGBTQ+ rights Civil rights groups have accused Humza Yousaf of being “naive” about his links to Sir Brian Souter, the millionaire who funds a network of conservative Christian groups that campaign against gay and women’s rights. The Humanist Society of Scotland (HSS) said Scotland’s first minister faced “serious questions” after it emerged he courted Souter despite his longstanding hostility to equal marriage, abortion rights and trans rights. Souter, formerly a regular donor to the Scottish National party, helped arrange a private business dinner at a boutique hotel in Edinburgh at Yousaf’s request last year, after inviting the first minister to attend a “prayer breakfast” soon after Yousaf won the SNP leadership contest. The co-founder of the Stagecoach transport empire, Souter spent at least £1m unsuccessfully fighting in the early 2000s to keep the rules, known as section 28, that banned teachers from “promoting” gay rights in schools. Over the past three years, Souter has given at least £650,000 to evangelical groups that oppose policies championed by Nicola Sturgeon such as barring protests outside abortion clinics, outlawing conversion practices and protecting trans people in Scotland . These groups also oppose proposals to legalise assisted dying in Scotland that have won all-party backing at Holyrood, including one group with strong evangelical links called Care Not Killing, funded by Souter . Ally Thomson, Scottish director of the pro-assisted dying group Dignity in Dying, said these groups represented a vocal minority with “a track record of opposing personal freedoms such as reproductive rights and equal marriage”. The Guardian has found that Souter has funded two US-based evangelical organisations alleged in the US to have coveredup sexual assaults, discriminated against gay and lesbian members and forced unmarried mothers to give their babies for adoption. The Souter Charitable Trust, which gives away £9m a year on his behalf, bought a chalet resort in the Highlands for the US evangelical group Young Life to hold Christian summer camps and to let out to holidaymakers. Young Life is under investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a US federal agency, after four women alleged it sexually discriminated against them after they reported sexual assaults or harassment by male Young Life members. Young Life declined to comment to US media, citing the EEOC investigation. Young Life has also faced multiple discrimination allegations from LGBTQ+ members for allegedly banning gay couples from its camps, banning lesbians from volunteering, and attacking critics of its conservative stances on marriage and sexuality. There are no suggestions similar allegations about Young Life have emerged in the UK. Young Life has said some people left the organisation “over disagreements with our beliefs and policies” and it welcomes same-sex attracted members if they remain celibate. Souter has also given nearly £100,000 to the UK arm of Teen Challenge, an evangelical group accused of highly coercive conduct with pregnant and gay teenage girls at its residential schools in the US, including forced adoptions, and faced lawsuits there. Teen Challenge has denied these allegations. In 2004, the Welsh government withdrew funding from Teen Challenge’s anti-addiction residential centres because officials believed public money was being used to promote its evangelical Christianity – an allegation Teen Challenge denied. Fraser Sutherland, the chief executive of HSS, said Souter had refused to support the SNP while Sturgeon was leader. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “Voters have a right to know if there is even the smallest chance that Souter’s return could signal a shift towards more regressive, religiously influenced policy positions, as they have never backed or voted for such policies in recent elections,” Sutherland said. Yousaf’s official spokesperson said the first minister was unequivocal in his defence of the SNP’s socially progressive policies such as the trans rights and abortion clinic buffer zones that Souter opposed; he had made it clear he disagreed with Souter on those issues. However, Souter had a “formidable” record as a businessman that the Scottish government was determined to harness to create jobs “regardless of whether or not they share the same views on politics, the constitution, or social policy and equalities issues”. A spokesperson for Souter said he was “unashamedly Christian and contributes to a wide range of secular and faith-based causes, which form the bedrock of a strong, free and civilised society for the good of all”. The spokesperson said Souter had donated more than £100m to more than 13,000 organisations worldwide. Those included “groups that fight malaria, supply daily meals to hungry schoolchildren in Africa, or deliver humanitarian aid to Ukraine and Gaza. He sees this work as part of his Christian duty and has no plans to stop.” Speaking on behalf of Care Not Killing, Prof Kevin Yuill, founder of the recently formed group Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, said Care Not Killing was a secular group, including humanists. “We are delighted to benefit from the funding provided by the Souter Charitable Trust to assist in our central aim of preventing the implementation of legislation which would result in state-sponsored killing through assisted suicide and euthanasia,” he said. Explore more on these topics Scotland Humza Yousaf Scottish National party (SNP) LGBTQ+ rights Evangelical Christianity Christianity Transgender news Share Reuse this content Civil rights groups have accused Humza Yousaf of being “naive” about his links to Sir Brian Souter, the millionaire who funds a network of conservative Christian groups that campaign against gay and women’s rights. The Humanist Society of Scotland (HSS) said Scotland’s first minister faced “serious questions” after it emerged he courted Souter despite his longstanding hostility to equal marriage, abortion rights and trans rights. Souter, formerly a regular donor to the Scottish National party, helped arrange a private business dinner at a boutique hotel in Edinburgh at Yousaf’s request last year, after inviting the first minister to attend a “prayer breakfast” soon after Yousaf won the SNP leadership contest. The co-founder of the Stagecoach transport empire, Souter spent at least £1m unsuccessfully fighting in the early 2000s to keep the rules, known as section 28, that banned teachers from “promoting” gay rights in schools. Over the past three years, Souter has given at least £650,000 to evangelical groups that oppose policies championed by Nicola Sturgeon such as barring protests outside abortion clinics, outlawing conversion practices and protecting trans people in Scotland . These groups also oppose proposals to legalise assisted dying in Scotland that have won all-party backing at Holyrood, including one group with strong evangelical links called Care Not Killing, funded by Souter . Ally Thomson, Scottish director of the pro-assisted dying group Dignity in Dying, said these groups represented a vocal minority with “a track record of opposing personal freedoms such as reproductive rights and equal marriage”. The Guardian has found that Souter has funded two US-based evangelical organisations alleged in the US to have coveredup sexual assaults, discriminated against gay and lesbian members and forced unmarried mothers to give their babies for adoption. The Souter Charitable Trust, which gives away £9m a year on his behalf, bought a chalet resort in the Highlands for the US evangelical group Young Life to hold Christian summer camps and to let out to holidaymakers. Young Life is under investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a US federal agency, after four women alleged it sexually discriminated against them after they reported sexual assaults or harassment by male Young Life members. Young Life declined to comment to US media, citing the EEOC investigation. Young Life has also faced multiple discrimination allegations from LGBTQ+ members for allegedly banning gay couples from its camps, banning lesbians from volunteering, and attacking critics of its conservative stances on marriage and sexuality. There are no suggestions similar allegations about Young Life have emerged in the UK. Young Life has said some people left the organisation “over disagreements with our beliefs and policies” and it welcomes same-sex attracted members if they remain celibate. Souter has also given nearly £100,000 to the UK arm of Teen Challenge, an evangelical group accused of highly coercive conduct with pregnant and gay teenage girls at its residential schools in the US, including forced adoptions, and faced lawsuits there. Teen Challenge has denied these allegations. In 2004, the Welsh government withdrew funding from Teen Challenge’s anti-addiction residential centres because officials believed public money was being used to promote its evangelical Christianity – an allegation Teen Challenge denied. Fraser Sutherland, the chief executive of HSS, said Souter had refused to support the SNP while Sturgeon was leader. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “Voters have a right to know if there is even the smallest chance that Souter’s return could signal a shift towards more regressive, religiously influenced policy positions, as they have never backed or voted for such policies in recent elections,” Sutherland said. Yousaf’s official spokesperson said the first minister was unequivocal in his defence of the SNP’s socially progressive policies such as the trans rights and abortion clinic buffer zones that Souter opposed; he had made it clear he disagreed with Souter on those issues. However, Souter had a “formidable” record as a businessman that the Scottish government was determined to harness to create jobs “regardless of whether or not they share the same views on politics, the constitution, or social policy and equalities issues”. A spokesperson for Souter said he was “unashamedly Christian and contributes to a wide range of secular and faith-based causes, which form the bedrock of a strong, free and civilised society for the good of all”. The spokesperson said Souter had donated more than £100m to more than 13,000 organisations worldwide. Those included “groups that fight malaria, supply daily meals to hungry schoolchildren in Africa, or deliver humanitarian aid to Ukraine and Gaza. He sees this work as part of his Christian duty and has no plans to stop.” Speaking on behalf of Care Not Killing, Prof Kevin Yuill, founder of the recently formed group Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, said Care Not Killing was a secular group, including humanists. “We are delighted to benefit from the funding provided by the Souter Charitable Trust to assist in our central aim of preventing the implementation of legislation which would result in state-sponsored killing through assisted suicide and euthanasia,” he said. Explore more on these topics Scotland Humza Yousaf Scottish National party (SNP) LGBTQ+ rights Evangelical Christianity Christianity Transgender news Share Reuse this content Civil rights groups have accused Humza Yousaf of being “naive” about his links to Sir Brian Souter, the millionaire who funds a network of conservative Christian groups that campaign against gay and women’s rights. The Humanist Society of Scotland (HSS) said Scotland’s first minister faced “serious questions” after it emerged he courted Souter despite his longstanding hostility to equal marriage, abortion rights and trans rights. Souter, formerly a regular donor to the Scottish National party, helped arrange a private business dinner at a boutique hotel in Edinburgh at Yousaf’s request last year, after inviting the first minister to attend a “prayer breakfast” soon after Yousaf won the SNP leadership contest. The co-founder of the Stagecoach transport empire, Souter spent at least £1m unsuccessfully fighting in the early 2000s to keep the rules, known as section 28, that banned teachers from “promoting” gay rights in schools. Over the past three years, Souter has given at least £650,000 to evangelical groups that oppose policies championed by Nicola Sturgeon such as barring protests outside abortion clinics, outlawing conversion practices and protecting trans people in Scotland . These groups also oppose proposals to legalise assisted dying in Scotland that have won all-party backing at Holyrood, including one group with strong evangelical links called Care Not Killing, funded by Souter . Ally Thomson, Scottish director of the pro-assisted dying group Dignity in Dying, said these groups represented a vocal minority with “a track record of opposing personal freedoms such as reproductive rights and equal marriage”. The Guardian has found that Souter has funded two US-based evangelical organisations alleged in the US to have coveredup sexual assaults, discriminated against gay and lesbian members and forced unmarried mothers to give their babies for adoption. The Souter Charitable Trust, which gives away £9m a year on his behalf, bought a chalet resort in the Highlands for the US evangelical group Young Life to hold Christian summer camps and to let out to holidaymakers. Young Life is under investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a US federal agency, after four women alleged it sexually discriminated against them after they reported sexual assaults or harassment by male Young Life members. Young Life declined to comment to US media, citing the EEOC investigation. Young Life has also faced multiple discrimination allegations from LGBTQ+ members for allegedly banning gay couples from its camps, banning lesbians from volunteering, and attacking critics of its conservative stances on marriage and sexuality. There are no suggestions similar allegations about Young Life have emerged in the UK. Young Life has said some people left the organisation “over disagreements with our beliefs and policies” and it welcomes same-sex attracted members if they remain celibate. Souter has also given nearly £100,000 to the UK arm of Teen Challenge, an evangelical group accused of highly coercive conduct with pregnant and gay teenage girls at its residential schools in the US, including forced adoptions, and faced lawsuits there. Teen Challenge has denied these allegations. In 2004, the Welsh government withdrew funding from Teen Challenge’s anti-addiction residential centres because officials believed public money was being used to promote its evangelical Christianity – an allegation Teen Challenge denied. Fraser Sutherland, the chief executive of HSS, said Souter had refused to support the SNP while Sturgeon was leader. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “Voters have a right to know if there is even the smallest chance that Souter’s return could signal a shift towards more regressive, religiously influenced policy positions, as they have never backed or voted for such policies in recent elections,” Sutherland said. Yousaf’s official spokesperson said the first minister was unequivocal in his defence of the SNP’s socially progressive policies such as the trans rights and abortion clinic buffer zones that Souter opposed; he had made it clear he disagreed with Souter on those issues. However, Souter had a “formidable” record as a businessman that the Scottish government was determined to harness to create jobs “regardless of whether or not they share the same views on politics, the constitution, or social policy and equalities issues”. A spokesperson for Souter said he was “unashamedly Christian and contributes to a wide range of secular and faith-based causes, which form the bedrock of a strong, free and civilised society for the good of all”. The spokesperson said Souter had donated more than £100m to more than 13,000 organisations worldwide. Those included “groups that fight malaria, supply daily meals to hungry schoolchildren in Africa, or deliver humanitarian aid to Ukraine and Gaza. He sees this work as part of his Christian duty and has no plans to stop.” Speaking on behalf of Care Not Killing, Prof Kevin Yuill, founder of the recently formed group Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, said Care Not Killing was a secular group, including humanists. “We are delighted to benefit from the funding provided by the Souter Charitable Trust to assist in our central aim of preventing the implementation of legislation which would result in state-sponsored killing through assisted suicide and euthanasia,” he said. Civil rights groups have accused Humza Yousaf of being “naive” about his links to Sir Brian Souter, the millionaire who funds a network of conservative Christian groups that campaign against gay and women’s rights. The Humanist Society of Scotland (HSS) said Scotland’s first minister faced “serious questions” after it emerged he courted Souter despite his longstanding hostility to equal marriage, abortion rights and trans rights. Souter, formerly a regular donor to the Scottish National party, helped arrange a private business dinner at a boutique hotel in Edinburgh at Yousaf’s request last year, after inviting the first minister to attend a “prayer breakfast” soon after Yousaf won the SNP leadership contest. The co-founder of the Stagecoach transport empire, Souter spent at least £1m unsuccessfully fighting in the early 2000s to keep the rules, known as section 28, that banned teachers from “promoting” gay rights in schools. Over the past three years, Souter has given at least £650,000 to evangelical groups that oppose policies championed by Nicola Sturgeon such as barring protests outside abortion clinics, outlawing conversion practices and protecting trans people in Scotland . These groups also oppose proposals to legalise assisted dying in Scotland that have won all-party backing at Holyrood, including one group with strong evangelical links called Care Not Killing, funded by Souter . Ally Thomson, Scottish director of the pro-assisted dying group Dignity in Dying, said these groups represented a vocal minority with “a track record of opposing personal freedoms such as reproductive rights and equal marriage”. The Guardian has found that Souter has funded two US-based evangelical organisations alleged in the US to have coveredup sexual assaults, discriminated against gay and lesbian members and forced unmarried mothers to give their babies for adoption. The Souter Charitable Trust, which gives away £9m a year on his behalf, bought a chalet resort in the Highlands for the US evangelical group Young Life to hold Christian summer camps and to let out to holidaymakers. Young Life is under investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a US federal agency, after four women alleged it sexually discriminated against them after they reported sexual assaults or harassment by male Young Life members. Young Life declined to comment to US media, citing the EEOC investigation. Young Life has also faced multiple discrimination allegations from LGBTQ+ members for allegedly banning gay couples from its camps, banning lesbians from volunteering, and attacking critics of its conservative stances on marriage and sexuality. There are no suggestions similar allegations about Young Life have emerged in the UK. Young Life has said some people left the organisation “over disagreements with our beliefs and policies” and it welcomes same-sex attracted members if they remain celibate. Souter has also given nearly £100,000 to the UK arm of Teen Challenge, an evangelical group accused of highly coercive conduct with pregnant and gay teenage girls at its residential schools in the US, including forced adoptions, and faced lawsuits there. Teen Challenge has denied these allegations. In 2004, the Welsh government withdrew funding from Teen Challenge’s anti-addiction residential centres because officials believed public money was being used to promote its evangelical Christianity – an allegation Teen Challenge denied. Fraser Sutherland, the chief executive of HSS, said Souter had refused to support the SNP while Sturgeon was leader. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “Voters have a right to know if there is even the smallest chance that Souter’s return could signal a shift towards more regressive, religiously influenced policy positions, as they have never backed or voted for such policies in recent elections,” Sutherland said. Yousaf’s official spokesperson said the first minister was unequivocal in his defence of the SNP’s socially progressive policies such as the trans rights and abortion clinic buffer zones that Souter opposed; he had made it clear he disagreed with Souter on those issues. However, Souter had a “formidable” record as a businessman that the Scottish government was determined to harness to create jobs “regardless of whether or not they share the same views on politics, the constitution, or social policy and equalities issues”. A spokesperson for Souter said he was “unashamedly Christian and contributes to a wide range of secular and faith-based causes, which form the bedrock of a strong, free and civilised society for the good of all”. The spokesperson said Souter had donated more than £100m to more than 13,000 organisations worldwide. Those included “groups that fight malaria, supply daily meals to hungry schoolchildren in Africa, or deliver humanitarian aid to Ukraine and Gaza. He sees this work as part of his Christian duty and has no plans to stop.” Speaking on behalf of Care Not Killing, Prof Kevin Yuill, founder of the recently formed group Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, said Care Not Killing was a secular group, including humanists. “We are delighted to benefit from the funding provided by the Souter Charitable Trust to assist in our central aim of preventing the implementation of legislation which would result in state-sponsored killing through assisted suicide and euthanasia,” he said. Civil rights groups have accused Humza Yousaf of being “naive” about his links to Sir Brian Souter, the millionaire who funds a network of conservative Christian groups that campaign against gay and women’s rights. The Humanist Society of Scotland (HSS) said Scotland’s first minister faced “serious questions” after it emerged he courted Souter despite his longstanding hostility to equal marriage, abortion rights and trans rights. Souter, formerly a regular donor to the Scottish National party, helped arrange a private business dinner at a boutique hotel in Edinburgh at Yousaf’s request last year, after inviting the first minister to attend a “prayer breakfast” soon after Yousaf won the SNP leadership contest. The co-founder of the Stagecoach transport empire, Souter spent at least £1m unsuccessfully fighting in the early 2000s to keep the rules, known as section 28, that banned teachers from “promoting” gay rights in schools. Over the past three years, Souter has given at least £650,000 to evangelical groups that oppose policies championed by Nicola Sturgeon such as barring protests outside abortion clinics, outlawing conversion practices and protecting trans people in Scotland . These groups also oppose proposals to legalise assisted dying in Scotland that have won all-party backing at Holyrood, including one group with strong evangelical links called Care Not Killing, funded by Souter . Ally Thomson, Scottish director of the pro-assisted dying group Dignity in Dying, said these groups represented a vocal minority with “a track record of opposing personal freedoms such as reproductive rights and equal marriage”. The Guardian has found that Souter has funded two US-based evangelical organisations alleged in the US to have coveredup sexual assaults, discriminated against gay and lesbian members and forced unmarried mothers to give their babies for adoption. The Souter Charitable Trust, which gives away £9m a year on his behalf, bought a chalet resort in the Highlands for the US evangelical group Young Life to hold Christian summer camps and to let out to holidaymakers. Young Life is under investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a US federal agency, after four women alleged it sexually discriminated against them after they reported sexual assaults or harassment by male Young Life members. Young Life declined to comment to US media, citing the EEOC investigation. Young Life has also faced multiple discrimination allegations from LGBTQ+ members for allegedly banning gay couples from its camps, banning lesbians from volunteering, and attacking critics of its conservative stances on marriage and sexuality. There are no suggestions similar allegations about Young Life have emerged in the UK. Young Life has said some people left the organisation “over disagreements with our beliefs and policies” and it welcomes same-sex attracted members if they remain celibate. Souter has also given nearly £100,000 to the UK arm of Teen Challenge, an evangelical group accused of highly coercive conduct with pregnant and gay teenage girls at its residential schools in the US, including forced adoptions, and faced lawsuits there. Teen Challenge has denied these allegations. In 2004, the Welsh government withdrew funding from Teen Challenge’s anti-addiction residential centres because officials believed public money was being used to promote its evangelical Christianity – an allegation Teen Challenge denied. Fraser Sutherland, the chief executive of HSS, said Souter had refused to support the SNP while Sturgeon was leader. “Voters have a right to know if there is even the smallest chance that Souter’s return could signal a shift towards more regressive, religiously influenced policy positions, as they have never backed or voted for such policies in recent elections,” Sutherland said. Yousaf’s official spokesperson said the first minister was unequivocal in his defence of the SNP’s socially progressive policies such as the trans rights and abortion clinic buffer zones that Souter opposed; he had made it clear he disagreed with Souter on those issues. However, Souter had a “formidable” record as a businessman that the Scottish government was determined to harness to create jobs “regardless of whether or not they share the same views on politics, the constitution, or social policy and equalities issues”. A spokesperson for Souter said he was “unashamedly Christian and contributes to a wide range of secular and faith-based causes, which form the bedrock of a strong, free and civilised society for the good of all”. The spokesperson said Souter had donated more than £100m to more than 13,000 organisations worldwide. Those included “groups that fight malaria, supply daily meals to hungry schoolchildren in Africa, or deliver humanitarian aid to Ukraine and Gaza. He sees this work as part of his Christian duty and has no plans to stop.” Speaking on behalf of Care Not Killing, Prof Kevin Yuill, founder of the recently formed group Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, said Care Not Killing was a secular group, including humanists. “We are delighted to benefit from the funding provided by the Souter Charitable Trust to assist in our central aim of preventing the implementation of legislation which would result in state-sponsored killing through assisted suicide and euthanasia,” he said. Explore more on these topics Scotland Humza Yousaf Scottish National party (SNP) LGBTQ+ rights Evangelical Christianity Christianity Transgender news Share Reuse this content Scotland Humza Yousaf Scottish National party (SNP) LGBTQ+ rights Evangelical Christianity Christianity Transgender news
|
What has Louisiana’s governor done his first month in office? Boost fossil fuels
Jeff Landry speaks in the house chamber in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on 15 January. Photograph: Michael Johnson/AP View image in fullscreen Jeff Landry speaks in the house chamber in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on 15 January. Photograph: Michael Johnson/AP This article is more than 1 year old What has Louisiana’s governor done his first month in office? Boost fossil fuels This article is more than 1 year old Republican Jeff Landry, who has labeled climate change ‘a hoax’, has elevated fossil fuel executives to key environmental posts In his first four weeks in office, Louisiana’s Republican governor, Jeff Landry, has filled the ranks of state environmental posts with executives tied to the oil, gas and coal industries. Landry, who has labeled climate change “a hoax”, has also taken aim at the state’s climate taskforce for possible elimination as part of a sweeping reorganization of Louisiana’s environmental bureaucracy. The goal, according to Landry’s executive order , is to “create a better prospective business climate”. floodlight logo And in his first month, Landry has hinted a new focus for the department of natural resources, the state agency with oversight of the fossil fuel industry, after changing the title to include the word “energy”. While the US and other countries have vowed to move away from fossil fuels , Landry is running in the opposite direction. The newly elected governor wants to grow the oil and gas industry that supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in Louisiana. Environmentalists blame the industry for the pollution they say has harmed vulnerable communities in the state. A key indicator of where Landry is headed is the choice of Tyler Gray to lead the state’s department of energy and natural resources. Gray enters the new administration after spending the past two years working for Placid Refining Company as the oil company’s corporate secretary and lobbyist. For environmentalists, these are worrying signs for a state that is the site of a boom in proposed liquified natural gas facilities and carbon capture projects that they say threaten to increase Louisiana’s already high contribution of climate-changing greenhouse gasses. Louisiana’s ‘sacrifice zone’ Landry’s moves weren’t unexpected, advocates say, given his past actions as state attorney general and his combative stance toward environmental justice issues. Gray’s appointment is “disappointing but not surprising”, said Jackson Voss, climate policy coordinator for the Alliance for Affordable Energy. “Unfortunately, from our perspective, the history of the [Louisiana] department of natural resources has always been very deeply connected with the oil and gas industry,” said Voss. In its latest report , Human Rights Watch highlighted the environmental harms and health-related issues the oil and gas industry is accused of inflicting on predominantly Black communities in the south-east Louisiana corridor known as Cancer Alley. Researcher Antonia Juhasz interviewed dozens of residents living in Cancer Alley who talked about miscarriages, high-risk pregnancies, infertility, respiratory issues and a multitude of other health impacts in their communities. They attribute the maladies to years of pollution and dangerous emissions from the high concentration of polluting industries. “The fossil fuel and petrochemical industry has created a ‘sacrifice zone’ in Louisiana,” Juhasz said in a prepared statement. “The failure of state and federal authorities to properly regulate the industry has dire consequences for residents of Cancer Alley.” Fossil fuel executive leads environmental agency Gray, Louisiana’s new natural resources secretary, spent seven years with the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association (LMOGA), his final two years as the lobbying group’s president. During his tenure with LMOGA, Gray helped draft the controversial 2018 law that criminalizes protesting near the oil and gas pipelines and construction sites. Anne Rolfes with the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, a grassroots non-profit focused on accountability in the petrochemical industry, has a grim outlook on Louisiana’s future – and its past. ”The state has never stood up to the oil industry,” Rolfes said. “Under every administration, there is this myopic idea of destroying our state via the oil and gas industry is somehow economic development.” Not surprisingly, Landry’s pick of Gray was lauded by his successor at LMOGA. “This appointment marks the start of a new era for our state’s oil and gas industry,” the group’s president, Mike Moncla, wrote In a prepared statement, adding: “We know that he will be an incredible asset for our industry.” Neither Landry nor Gray’s office responded to multiple requests for comments. Landry picks have oil, gas and coal ties Gray is one of several former fossil fuel executives Landry has selected to lead Louisiana’s environmental efforts. Tony Alford, the former co-owner and president of a Houma-based oilfield service company that was accused of spilling toxic waste in a Montana lawsuit, is now the chairman of the governor’s Advisory Commission on Coastal Protection. And Benjamin Bienvenu, an oil industry executive and petroleum engineer, is serving as the commissioner of conservation within the department of energy and natural resources. Landry also tapped Aurelia Giacometto to lead the state’s department of environmental quality. Giacometto, former head of the US Fish and Wildlife Service under Donald Trump, sits on the board of a coal company . And Landry’s pick for the state’s new leader for the department of wildlife and fisheries, Madison Sheahan, doesn’t have a background in wildlife – or fisheries. She formerly worked as the executive director of the South Dakota Republican party and managed Trump’s re-election campaign in that state. The agency led by Sheahan is one of the state entities responsible for investigating oil spills . As the state’s attorney general, Landry sued the Environmental Protection Agency over its “disparate-impact” rules designed to better regulate emissions in communities of color in areas such as Cancer Alley. A Trump-appointed federal district judge in western Louisiana recently sided with Landry on that lawsuit. Angelle Bradford, a spokesperson with the Delta chapter of the Sierra Club, said Landry’s moves show “Louisiana is not taking the climate crisis seriously”. Bradford added: “It’s once again the usual Good Ol’ Boy mentality where we’re putting people in positions who not only won’t follow the rules but create rules that make it harder for the other side, which is us.” Floodlight is a non-profit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action. Explore more on these topics Louisiana Floodlight Republicans Fossil fuels Climate crisis features Share Reuse this content Jeff Landry speaks in the house chamber in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on 15 January. Photograph: Michael Johnson/AP View image in fullscreen Jeff Landry speaks in the house chamber in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on 15 January. Photograph: Michael Johnson/AP This article is more than 1 year old What has Louisiana’s governor done his first month in office? Boost fossil fuels This article is more than 1 year old Republican Jeff Landry, who has labeled climate change ‘a hoax’, has elevated fossil fuel executives to key environmental posts In his first four weeks in office, Louisiana’s Republican governor, Jeff Landry, has filled the ranks of state environmental posts with executives tied to the oil, gas and coal industries. Landry, who has labeled climate change “a hoax”, has also taken aim at the state’s climate taskforce for possible elimination as part of a sweeping reorganization of Louisiana’s environmental bureaucracy. The goal, according to Landry’s executive order , is to “create a better prospective business climate”. floodlight logo And in his first month, Landry has hinted a new focus for the department of natural resources, the state agency with oversight of the fossil fuel industry, after changing the title to include the word “energy”. While the US and other countries have vowed to move away from fossil fuels , Landry is running in the opposite direction. The newly elected governor wants to grow the oil and gas industry that supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in Louisiana. Environmentalists blame the industry for the pollution they say has harmed vulnerable communities in the state. A key indicator of where Landry is headed is the choice of Tyler Gray to lead the state’s department of energy and natural resources. Gray enters the new administration after spending the past two years working for Placid Refining Company as the oil company’s corporate secretary and lobbyist. For environmentalists, these are worrying signs for a state that is the site of a boom in proposed liquified natural gas facilities and carbon capture projects that they say threaten to increase Louisiana’s already high contribution of climate-changing greenhouse gasses. Louisiana’s ‘sacrifice zone’ Landry’s moves weren’t unexpected, advocates say, given his past actions as state attorney general and his combative stance toward environmental justice issues. Gray’s appointment is “disappointing but not surprising”, said Jackson Voss, climate policy coordinator for the Alliance for Affordable Energy. “Unfortunately, from our perspective, the history of the [Louisiana] department of natural resources has always been very deeply connected with the oil and gas industry,” said Voss. In its latest report , Human Rights Watch highlighted the environmental harms and health-related issues the oil and gas industry is accused of inflicting on predominantly Black communities in the south-east Louisiana corridor known as Cancer Alley. Researcher Antonia Juhasz interviewed dozens of residents living in Cancer Alley who talked about miscarriages, high-risk pregnancies, infertility, respiratory issues and a multitude of other health impacts in their communities. They attribute the maladies to years of pollution and dangerous emissions from the high concentration of polluting industries. “The fossil fuel and petrochemical industry has created a ‘sacrifice zone’ in Louisiana,” Juhasz said in a prepared statement. “The failure of state and federal authorities to properly regulate the industry has dire consequences for residents of Cancer Alley.” Fossil fuel executive leads environmental agency Gray, Louisiana’s new natural resources secretary, spent seven years with the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association (LMOGA), his final two years as the lobbying group’s president. During his tenure with LMOGA, Gray helped draft the controversial 2018 law that criminalizes protesting near the oil and gas pipelines and construction sites. Anne Rolfes with the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, a grassroots non-profit focused on accountability in the petrochemical industry, has a grim outlook on Louisiana’s future – and its past. ”The state has never stood up to the oil industry,” Rolfes said. “Under every administration, there is this myopic idea of destroying our state via the oil and gas industry is somehow economic development.” Not surprisingly, Landry’s pick of Gray was lauded by his successor at LMOGA. “This appointment marks the start of a new era for our state’s oil and gas industry,” the group’s president, Mike Moncla, wrote In a prepared statement, adding: “We know that he will be an incredible asset for our industry.” Neither Landry nor Gray’s office responded to multiple requests for comments. Landry picks have oil, gas and coal ties Gray is one of several former fossil fuel executives Landry has selected to lead Louisiana’s environmental efforts. Tony Alford, the former co-owner and president of a Houma-based oilfield service company that was accused of spilling toxic waste in a Montana lawsuit, is now the chairman of the governor’s Advisory Commission on Coastal Protection. And Benjamin Bienvenu, an oil industry executive and petroleum engineer, is serving as the commissioner of conservation within the department of energy and natural resources. Landry also tapped Aurelia Giacometto to lead the state’s department of environmental quality. Giacometto, former head of the US Fish and Wildlife Service under Donald Trump, sits on the board of a coal company . And Landry’s pick for the state’s new leader for the department of wildlife and fisheries, Madison Sheahan, doesn’t have a background in wildlife – or fisheries. She formerly worked as the executive director of the South Dakota Republican party and managed Trump’s re-election campaign in that state. The agency led by Sheahan is one of the state entities responsible for investigating oil spills . As the state’s attorney general, Landry sued the Environmental Protection Agency over its “disparate-impact” rules designed to better regulate emissions in communities of color in areas such as Cancer Alley. A Trump-appointed federal district judge in western Louisiana recently sided with Landry on that lawsuit. Angelle Bradford, a spokesperson with the Delta chapter of the Sierra Club, said Landry’s moves show “Louisiana is not taking the climate crisis seriously”. Bradford added: “It’s once again the usual Good Ol’ Boy mentality where we’re putting people in positions who not only won’t follow the rules but create rules that make it harder for the other side, which is us.” Floodlight is a non-profit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action. Explore more on these topics Louisiana Floodlight Republicans Fossil fuels Climate crisis features Share Reuse this content Jeff Landry speaks in the house chamber in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on 15 January. Photograph: Michael Johnson/AP View image in fullscreen Jeff Landry speaks in the house chamber in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on 15 January. Photograph: Michael Johnson/AP Jeff Landry speaks in the house chamber in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on 15 January. Photograph: Michael Johnson/AP View image in fullscreen Jeff Landry speaks in the house chamber in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on 15 January. Photograph: Michael Johnson/AP Jeff Landry speaks in the house chamber in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on 15 January. Photograph: Michael Johnson/AP View image in fullscreen Jeff Landry speaks in the house chamber in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on 15 January. Photograph: Michael Johnson/AP Jeff Landry speaks in the house chamber in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on 15 January. Photograph: Michael Johnson/AP View image in fullscreen Jeff Landry speaks in the house chamber in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on 15 January. Photograph: Michael Johnson/AP Jeff Landry speaks in the house chamber in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on 15 January. Photograph: Michael Johnson/AP Jeff Landry speaks in the house chamber in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on 15 January. Photograph: Michael Johnson/AP This article is more than 1 year old What has Louisiana’s governor done his first month in office? Boost fossil fuels This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old What has Louisiana’s governor done his first month in office? Boost fossil fuels This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old What has Louisiana’s governor done his first month in office? Boost fossil fuels 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 Republican Jeff Landry, who has labeled climate change ‘a hoax’, has elevated fossil fuel executives to key environmental posts Republican Jeff Landry, who has labeled climate change ‘a hoax’, has elevated fossil fuel executives to key environmental posts Republican Jeff Landry, who has labeled climate change ‘a hoax’, has elevated fossil fuel executives to key environmental posts In his first four weeks in office, Louisiana’s Republican governor, Jeff Landry, has filled the ranks of state environmental posts with executives tied to the oil, gas and coal industries. Landry, who has labeled climate change “a hoax”, has also taken aim at the state’s climate taskforce for possible elimination as part of a sweeping reorganization of Louisiana’s environmental bureaucracy. The goal, according to Landry’s executive order , is to “create a better prospective business climate”. floodlight logo And in his first month, Landry has hinted a new focus for the department of natural resources, the state agency with oversight of the fossil fuel industry, after changing the title to include the word “energy”. While the US and other countries have vowed to move away from fossil fuels , Landry is running in the opposite direction. The newly elected governor wants to grow the oil and gas industry that supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in Louisiana. Environmentalists blame the industry for the pollution they say has harmed vulnerable communities in the state. A key indicator of where Landry is headed is the choice of Tyler Gray to lead the state’s department of energy and natural resources. Gray enters the new administration after spending the past two years working for Placid Refining Company as the oil company’s corporate secretary and lobbyist. For environmentalists, these are worrying signs for a state that is the site of a boom in proposed liquified natural gas facilities and carbon capture projects that they say threaten to increase Louisiana’s already high contribution of climate-changing greenhouse gasses. Louisiana’s ‘sacrifice zone’ Landry’s moves weren’t unexpected, advocates say, given his past actions as state attorney general and his combative stance toward environmental justice issues. Gray’s appointment is “disappointing but not surprising”, said Jackson Voss, climate policy coordinator for the Alliance for Affordable Energy. “Unfortunately, from our perspective, the history of the [Louisiana] department of natural resources has always been very deeply connected with the oil and gas industry,” said Voss. In its latest report , Human Rights Watch highlighted the environmental harms and health-related issues the oil and gas industry is accused of inflicting on predominantly Black communities in the south-east Louisiana corridor known as Cancer Alley. Researcher Antonia Juhasz interviewed dozens of residents living in Cancer Alley who talked about miscarriages, high-risk pregnancies, infertility, respiratory issues and a multitude of other health impacts in their communities. They attribute the maladies to years of pollution and dangerous emissions from the high concentration of polluting industries. “The fossil fuel and petrochemical industry has created a ‘sacrifice zone’ in Louisiana,” Juhasz said in a prepared statement. “The failure of state and federal authorities to properly regulate the industry has dire consequences for residents of Cancer Alley.” Fossil fuel executive leads environmental agency Gray, Louisiana’s new natural resources secretary, spent seven years with the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association (LMOGA), his final two years as the lobbying group’s president. During his tenure with LMOGA, Gray helped draft the controversial 2018 law that criminalizes protesting near the oil and gas pipelines and construction sites. Anne Rolfes with the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, a grassroots non-profit focused on accountability in the petrochemical industry, has a grim outlook on Louisiana’s future – and its past. ”The state has never stood up to the oil industry,” Rolfes said. “Under every administration, there is this myopic idea of destroying our state via the oil and gas industry is somehow economic development.” Not surprisingly, Landry’s pick of Gray was lauded by his successor at LMOGA. “This appointment marks the start of a new era for our state’s oil and gas industry,” the group’s president, Mike Moncla, wrote In a prepared statement, adding: “We know that he will be an incredible asset for our industry.” Neither Landry nor Gray’s office responded to multiple requests for comments. Landry picks have oil, gas and coal ties Gray is one of several former fossil fuel executives Landry has selected to lead Louisiana’s environmental efforts. Tony Alford, the former co-owner and president of a Houma-based oilfield service company that was accused of spilling toxic waste in a Montana lawsuit, is now the chairman of the governor’s Advisory Commission on Coastal Protection. And Benjamin Bienvenu, an oil industry executive and petroleum engineer, is serving as the commissioner of conservation within the department of energy and natural resources. Landry also tapped Aurelia Giacometto to lead the state’s department of environmental quality. Giacometto, former head of the US Fish and Wildlife Service under Donald Trump, sits on the board of a coal company . And Landry’s pick for the state’s new leader for the department of wildlife and fisheries, Madison Sheahan, doesn’t have a background in wildlife – or fisheries. She formerly worked as the executive director of the South Dakota Republican party and managed Trump’s re-election campaign in that state. The agency led by Sheahan is one of the state entities responsible for investigating oil spills . As the state’s attorney general, Landry sued the Environmental Protection Agency over its “disparate-impact” rules designed to better regulate emissions in communities of color in areas such as Cancer Alley. A Trump-appointed federal district judge in western Louisiana recently sided with Landry on that lawsuit. Angelle Bradford, a spokesperson with the Delta chapter of the Sierra Club, said Landry’s moves show “Louisiana is not taking the climate crisis seriously”. Bradford added: “It’s once again the usual Good Ol’ Boy mentality where we’re putting people in positions who not only won’t follow the rules but create rules that make it harder for the other side, which is us.” Floodlight is a non-profit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action. Explore more on these topics Louisiana Floodlight Republicans Fossil fuels Climate crisis features Share Reuse this content In his first four weeks in office, Louisiana’s Republican governor, Jeff Landry, has filled the ranks of state environmental posts with executives tied to the oil, gas and coal industries. Landry, who has labeled climate change “a hoax”, has also taken aim at the state’s climate taskforce for possible elimination as part of a sweeping reorganization of Louisiana’s environmental bureaucracy. The goal, according to Landry’s executive order , is to “create a better prospective business climate”. floodlight logo And in his first month, Landry has hinted a new focus for the department of natural resources, the state agency with oversight of the fossil fuel industry, after changing the title to include the word “energy”. While the US and other countries have vowed to move away from fossil fuels , Landry is running in the opposite direction. The newly elected governor wants to grow the oil and gas industry that supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in Louisiana. Environmentalists blame the industry for the pollution they say has harmed vulnerable communities in the state. A key indicator of where Landry is headed is the choice of Tyler Gray to lead the state’s department of energy and natural resources. Gray enters the new administration after spending the past two years working for Placid Refining Company as the oil company’s corporate secretary and lobbyist. For environmentalists, these are worrying signs for a state that is the site of a boom in proposed liquified natural gas facilities and carbon capture projects that they say threaten to increase Louisiana’s already high contribution of climate-changing greenhouse gasses. Louisiana’s ‘sacrifice zone’ Landry’s moves weren’t unexpected, advocates say, given his past actions as state attorney general and his combative stance toward environmental justice issues. Gray’s appointment is “disappointing but not surprising”, said Jackson Voss, climate policy coordinator for the Alliance for Affordable Energy. “Unfortunately, from our perspective, the history of the [Louisiana] department of natural resources has always been very deeply connected with the oil and gas industry,” said Voss. In its latest report , Human Rights Watch highlighted the environmental harms and health-related issues the oil and gas industry is accused of inflicting on predominantly Black communities in the south-east Louisiana corridor known as Cancer Alley. Researcher Antonia Juhasz interviewed dozens of residents living in Cancer Alley who talked about miscarriages, high-risk pregnancies, infertility, respiratory issues and a multitude of other health impacts in their communities. They attribute the maladies to years of pollution and dangerous emissions from the high concentration of polluting industries. “The fossil fuel and petrochemical industry has created a ‘sacrifice zone’ in Louisiana,” Juhasz said in a prepared statement. “The failure of state and federal authorities to properly regulate the industry has dire consequences for residents of Cancer Alley.” Fossil fuel executive leads environmental agency Gray, Louisiana’s new natural resources secretary, spent seven years with the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association (LMOGA), his final two years as the lobbying group’s president. During his tenure with LMOGA, Gray helped draft the controversial 2018 law that criminalizes protesting near the oil and gas pipelines and construction sites. Anne Rolfes with the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, a grassroots non-profit focused on accountability in the petrochemical industry, has a grim outlook on Louisiana’s future – and its past. ”The state has never stood up to the oil industry,” Rolfes said. “Under every administration, there is this myopic idea of destroying our state via the oil and gas industry is somehow economic development.” Not surprisingly, Landry’s pick of Gray was lauded by his successor at LMOGA. “This appointment marks the start of a new era for our state’s oil and gas industry,” the group’s president, Mike Moncla, wrote In a prepared statement, adding: “We know that he will be an incredible asset for our industry.” Neither Landry nor Gray’s office responded to multiple requests for comments. Landry picks have oil, gas and coal ties Gray is one of several former fossil fuel executives Landry has selected to lead Louisiana’s environmental efforts. Tony Alford, the former co-owner and president of a Houma-based oilfield service company that was accused of spilling toxic waste in a Montana lawsuit, is now the chairman of the governor’s Advisory Commission on Coastal Protection. And Benjamin Bienvenu, an oil industry executive and petroleum engineer, is serving as the commissioner of conservation within the department of energy and natural resources. Landry also tapped Aurelia Giacometto to lead the state’s department of environmental quality. Giacometto, former head of the US Fish and Wildlife Service under Donald Trump, sits on the board of a coal company . And Landry’s pick for the state’s new leader for the department of wildlife and fisheries, Madison Sheahan, doesn’t have a background in wildlife – or fisheries. She formerly worked as the executive director of the South Dakota Republican party and managed Trump’s re-election campaign in that state. The agency led by Sheahan is one of the state entities responsible for investigating oil spills . As the state’s attorney general, Landry sued the Environmental Protection Agency over its “disparate-impact” rules designed to better regulate emissions in communities of color in areas such as Cancer Alley. A Trump-appointed federal district judge in western Louisiana recently sided with Landry on that lawsuit. Angelle Bradford, a spokesperson with the Delta chapter of the Sierra Club, said Landry’s moves show “Louisiana is not taking the climate crisis seriously”. Bradford added: “It’s once again the usual Good Ol’ Boy mentality where we’re putting people in positions who not only won’t follow the rules but create rules that make it harder for the other side, which is us.” Floodlight is a non-profit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action. Explore more on these topics Louisiana Floodlight Republicans Fossil fuels Climate crisis features Share Reuse this content In his first four weeks in office, Louisiana’s Republican governor, Jeff Landry, has filled the ranks of state environmental posts with executives tied to the oil, gas and coal industries. Landry, who has labeled climate change “a hoax”, has also taken aim at the state’s climate taskforce for possible elimination as part of a sweeping reorganization of Louisiana’s environmental bureaucracy. The goal, according to Landry’s executive order , is to “create a better prospective business climate”. floodlight logo And in his first month, Landry has hinted a new focus for the department of natural resources, the state agency with oversight of the fossil fuel industry, after changing the title to include the word “energy”. While the US and other countries have vowed to move away from fossil fuels , Landry is running in the opposite direction. The newly elected governor wants to grow the oil and gas industry that supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in Louisiana. Environmentalists blame the industry for the pollution they say has harmed vulnerable communities in the state. A key indicator of where Landry is headed is the choice of Tyler Gray to lead the state’s department of energy and natural resources. Gray enters the new administration after spending the past two years working for Placid Refining Company as the oil company’s corporate secretary and lobbyist. For environmentalists, these are worrying signs for a state that is the site of a boom in proposed liquified natural gas facilities and carbon capture projects that they say threaten to increase Louisiana’s already high contribution of climate-changing greenhouse gasses. Louisiana’s ‘sacrifice zone’ Landry’s moves weren’t unexpected, advocates say, given his past actions as state attorney general and his combative stance toward environmental justice issues. Gray’s appointment is “disappointing but not surprising”, said Jackson Voss, climate policy coordinator for the Alliance for Affordable Energy. “Unfortunately, from our perspective, the history of the [Louisiana] department of natural resources has always been very deeply connected with the oil and gas industry,” said Voss. In its latest report , Human Rights Watch highlighted the environmental harms and health-related issues the oil and gas industry is accused of inflicting on predominantly Black communities in the south-east Louisiana corridor known as Cancer Alley. Researcher Antonia Juhasz interviewed dozens of residents living in Cancer Alley who talked about miscarriages, high-risk pregnancies, infertility, respiratory issues and a multitude of other health impacts in their communities. They attribute the maladies to years of pollution and dangerous emissions from the high concentration of polluting industries. “The fossil fuel and petrochemical industry has created a ‘sacrifice zone’ in Louisiana,” Juhasz said in a prepared statement. “The failure of state and federal authorities to properly regulate the industry has dire consequences for residents of Cancer Alley.” Fossil fuel executive leads environmental agency Gray, Louisiana’s new natural resources secretary, spent seven years with the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association (LMOGA), his final two years as the lobbying group’s president. During his tenure with LMOGA, Gray helped draft the controversial 2018 law that criminalizes protesting near the oil and gas pipelines and construction sites. Anne Rolfes with the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, a grassroots non-profit focused on accountability in the petrochemical industry, has a grim outlook on Louisiana’s future – and its past. ”The state has never stood up to the oil industry,” Rolfes said. “Under every administration, there is this myopic idea of destroying our state via the oil and gas industry is somehow economic development.” Not surprisingly, Landry’s pick of Gray was lauded by his successor at LMOGA. “This appointment marks the start of a new era for our state’s oil and gas industry,” the group’s president, Mike Moncla, wrote In a prepared statement, adding: “We know that he will be an incredible asset for our industry.” Neither Landry nor Gray’s office responded to multiple requests for comments. Landry picks have oil, gas and coal ties Gray is one of several former fossil fuel executives Landry has selected to lead Louisiana’s environmental efforts. Tony Alford, the former co-owner and president of a Houma-based oilfield service company that was accused of spilling toxic waste in a Montana lawsuit, is now the chairman of the governor’s Advisory Commission on Coastal Protection. And Benjamin Bienvenu, an oil industry executive and petroleum engineer, is serving as the commissioner of conservation within the department of energy and natural resources. Landry also tapped Aurelia Giacometto to lead the state’s department of environmental quality. Giacometto, former head of the US Fish and Wildlife Service under Donald Trump, sits on the board of a coal company . And Landry’s pick for the state’s new leader for the department of wildlife and fisheries, Madison Sheahan, doesn’t have a background in wildlife – or fisheries. She formerly worked as the executive director of the South Dakota Republican party and managed Trump’s re-election campaign in that state. The agency led by Sheahan is one of the state entities responsible for investigating oil spills . As the state’s attorney general, Landry sued the Environmental Protection Agency over its “disparate-impact” rules designed to better regulate emissions in communities of color in areas such as Cancer Alley. A Trump-appointed federal district judge in western Louisiana recently sided with Landry on that lawsuit. Angelle Bradford, a spokesperson with the Delta chapter of the Sierra Club, said Landry’s moves show “Louisiana is not taking the climate crisis seriously”. Bradford added: “It’s once again the usual Good Ol’ Boy mentality where we’re putting people in positions who not only won’t follow the rules but create rules that make it harder for the other side, which is us.” Floodlight is a non-profit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action. In his first four weeks in office, Louisiana’s Republican governor, Jeff Landry, has filled the ranks of state environmental posts with executives tied to the oil, gas and coal industries. Landry, who has labeled climate change “a hoax”, has also taken aim at the state’s climate taskforce for possible elimination as part of a sweeping reorganization of Louisiana’s environmental bureaucracy. The goal, according to Landry’s executive order , is to “create a better prospective business climate”. floodlight logo And in his first month, Landry has hinted a new focus for the department of natural resources, the state agency with oversight of the fossil fuel industry, after changing the title to include the word “energy”. While the US and other countries have vowed to move away from fossil fuels , Landry is running in the opposite direction. The newly elected governor wants to grow the oil and gas industry that supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in Louisiana. Environmentalists blame the industry for the pollution they say has harmed vulnerable communities in the state. A key indicator of where Landry is headed is the choice of Tyler Gray to lead the state’s department of energy and natural resources. Gray enters the new administration after spending the past two years working for Placid Refining Company as the oil company’s corporate secretary and lobbyist. For environmentalists, these are worrying signs for a state that is the site of a boom in proposed liquified natural gas facilities and carbon capture projects that they say threaten to increase Louisiana’s already high contribution of climate-changing greenhouse gasses. Louisiana’s ‘sacrifice zone’ Landry’s moves weren’t unexpected, advocates say, given his past actions as state attorney general and his combative stance toward environmental justice issues. Gray’s appointment is “disappointing but not surprising”, said Jackson Voss, climate policy coordinator for the Alliance for Affordable Energy. “Unfortunately, from our perspective, the history of the [Louisiana] department of natural resources has always been very deeply connected with the oil and gas industry,” said Voss. In its latest report , Human Rights Watch highlighted the environmental harms and health-related issues the oil and gas industry is accused of inflicting on predominantly Black communities in the south-east Louisiana corridor known as Cancer Alley. Researcher Antonia Juhasz interviewed dozens of residents living in Cancer Alley who talked about miscarriages, high-risk pregnancies, infertility, respiratory issues and a multitude of other health impacts in their communities. They attribute the maladies to years of pollution and dangerous emissions from the high concentration of polluting industries. “The fossil fuel and petrochemical industry has created a ‘sacrifice zone’ in Louisiana,” Juhasz said in a prepared statement. “The failure of state and federal authorities to properly regulate the industry has dire consequences for residents of Cancer Alley.” Fossil fuel executive leads environmental agency Gray, Louisiana’s new natural resources secretary, spent seven years with the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association (LMOGA), his final two years as the lobbying group’s president. During his tenure with LMOGA, Gray helped draft the controversial 2018 law that criminalizes protesting near the oil and gas pipelines and construction sites. Anne Rolfes with the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, a grassroots non-profit focused on accountability in the petrochemical industry, has a grim outlook on Louisiana’s future – and its past. ”The state has never stood up to the oil industry,” Rolfes said. “Under every administration, there is this myopic idea of destroying our state via the oil and gas industry is somehow economic development.” Not surprisingly, Landry’s pick of Gray was lauded by his successor at LMOGA. “This appointment marks the start of a new era for our state’s oil and gas industry,” the group’s president, Mike Moncla, wrote In a prepared statement, adding: “We know that he will be an incredible asset for our industry.” Neither Landry nor Gray’s office responded to multiple requests for comments. Landry picks have oil, gas and coal ties Gray is one of several former fossil fuel executives Landry has selected to lead Louisiana’s environmental efforts. Tony Alford, the former co-owner and president of a Houma-based oilfield service company that was accused of spilling toxic waste in a Montana lawsuit, is now the chairman of the governor’s Advisory Commission on Coastal Protection. And Benjamin Bienvenu, an oil industry executive and petroleum engineer, is serving as the commissioner of conservation within the department of energy and natural resources. Landry also tapped Aurelia Giacometto to lead the state’s department of environmental quality. Giacometto, former head of the US Fish and Wildlife Service under Donald Trump, sits on the board of a coal company . And Landry’s pick for the state’s new leader for the department of wildlife and fisheries, Madison Sheahan, doesn’t have a background in wildlife – or fisheries. She formerly worked as the executive director of the South Dakota Republican party and managed Trump’s re-election campaign in that state. The agency led by Sheahan is one of the state entities responsible for investigating oil spills . As the state’s attorney general, Landry sued the Environmental Protection Agency over its “disparate-impact” rules designed to better regulate emissions in communities of color in areas such as Cancer Alley. A Trump-appointed federal district judge in western Louisiana recently sided with Landry on that lawsuit. Angelle Bradford, a spokesperson with the Delta chapter of the Sierra Club, said Landry’s moves show “Louisiana is not taking the climate crisis seriously”. Bradford added: “It’s once again the usual Good Ol’ Boy mentality where we’re putting people in positions who not only won’t follow the rules but create rules that make it harder for the other side, which is us.” Floodlight is a non-profit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action. In his first four weeks in office, Louisiana’s Republican governor, Jeff Landry, has filled the ranks of state environmental posts with executives tied to the oil, gas and coal industries. Landry, who has labeled climate change “a hoax”, has also taken aim at the state’s climate taskforce for possible elimination as part of a sweeping reorganization of Louisiana’s environmental bureaucracy. The goal, according to Landry’s executive order , is to “create a better prospective business climate”. And in his first month, Landry has hinted a new focus for the department of natural resources, the state agency with oversight of the fossil fuel industry, after changing the title to include the word “energy”. While the US and other countries have vowed to move away from fossil fuels , Landry is running in the opposite direction. The newly elected governor wants to grow the oil and gas industry that supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in Louisiana. Environmentalists blame the industry for the pollution they say has harmed vulnerable communities in the state. A key indicator of where Landry is headed is the choice of Tyler Gray to lead the state’s department of energy and natural resources. Gray enters the new administration after spending the past two years working for Placid Refining Company as the oil company’s corporate secretary and lobbyist. For environmentalists, these are worrying signs for a state that is the site of a boom in proposed liquified natural gas facilities and carbon capture projects that they say threaten to increase Louisiana’s already high contribution of climate-changing greenhouse gasses. Landry’s moves weren’t unexpected, advocates say, given his past actions as state attorney general and his combative stance toward environmental justice issues. Gray’s appointment is “disappointing but not surprising”, said Jackson Voss, climate policy coordinator for the Alliance for Affordable Energy. “Unfortunately, from our perspective, the history of the [Louisiana] department of natural resources has always been very deeply connected with the oil and gas industry,” said Voss. In its latest report , Human Rights Watch highlighted the environmental harms and health-related issues the oil and gas industry is accused of inflicting on predominantly Black communities in the south-east Louisiana corridor known as Cancer Alley. Researcher Antonia Juhasz interviewed dozens of residents living in Cancer Alley who talked about miscarriages, high-risk pregnancies, infertility, respiratory issues and a multitude of other health impacts in their communities. They attribute the maladies to years of pollution and dangerous emissions from the high concentration of polluting industries. “The fossil fuel and petrochemical industry has created a ‘sacrifice zone’ in Louisiana,” Juhasz said in a prepared statement. “The failure of state and federal authorities to properly regulate the industry has dire consequences for residents of Cancer Alley.” Gray, Louisiana’s new natural resources secretary, spent seven years with the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association (LMOGA), his final two years as the lobbying group’s president. During his tenure with LMOGA, Gray helped draft the controversial 2018 law that criminalizes protesting near the oil and gas pipelines and construction sites. Anne Rolfes with the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, a grassroots non-profit focused on accountability in the petrochemical industry, has a grim outlook on Louisiana’s future – and its past. ”The state has never stood up to the oil industry,” Rolfes said. “Under every administration, there is this myopic idea of destroying our state via the oil and gas industry is somehow economic development.” Not surprisingly, Landry’s pick of Gray was lauded by his successor at LMOGA. “This appointment marks the start of a new era for our state’s oil and gas industry,” the group’s president, Mike Moncla, wrote In a prepared statement, adding: “We know that he will be an incredible asset for our industry.” Neither Landry nor Gray’s office responded to multiple requests for comments. Gray is one of several former fossil fuel executives Landry has selected to lead Louisiana’s environmental efforts. Tony Alford, the former co-owner and president of a Houma-based oilfield service company that was accused of spilling toxic waste in a Montana lawsuit, is now the chairman of the governor’s Advisory Commission on Coastal Protection. And Benjamin Bienvenu, an oil industry executive and petroleum engineer, is serving as the commissioner of conservation within the department of energy and natural resources. Landry also tapped Aurelia Giacometto to lead the state’s department of environmental quality. Giacometto, former head of the US Fish and Wildlife Service under Donald Trump, sits on the board of a coal company . And Landry’s pick for the state’s new leader for the department of wildlife and fisheries, Madison Sheahan, doesn’t have a background in wildlife – or fisheries. She formerly worked as the executive director of the South Dakota Republican party and managed Trump’s re-election campaign in that state. The agency led by Sheahan is one of the state entities responsible for investigating oil spills . As the state’s attorney general, Landry sued the Environmental Protection Agency over its “disparate-impact” rules designed to better regulate emissions in communities of color in areas such as Cancer Alley. A Trump-appointed federal district judge in western Louisiana recently sided with Landry on that lawsuit. Angelle Bradford, a spokesperson with the Delta chapter of the Sierra Club, said Landry’s moves show “Louisiana is not taking the climate crisis seriously”. Bradford added: “It’s once again the usual Good Ol’ Boy mentality where we’re putting people in positions who not only won’t follow the rules but create rules that make it harder for the other side, which is us.” Floodlight is a non-profit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action. Explore more on these topics Louisiana Floodlight Republicans Fossil fuels Climate crisis features Share Reuse this content Louisiana Floodlight Republicans Fossil fuels Climate crisis features
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.