Byline Times Audio Articles

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY While the Labour leadership deploy their time and effort to block the best-placed candidate, in Andy Burnham, to win a crucial by-election and keep Reform at bay, normal people with normal lives struggle to get on and get by. Labour's leadership claim that this is what they are focussed on – making our lives better. But the reality is quite different. This is the short story of who, what and why some in the party seem hell bent, under no pressure from anywhere, on actually making our lives even harder. What is the good society and the good life? Too often we struggle to just keep up, to keep our heads above water, to survive the day, to have the luxury of time to even contemplate how life could be transformatively better. But without a lodestar, a utopian vision of what could and should be, progressives offer little hope or sense of direction. To be a dreamer, in a world ruled by scarcity, fear, insecurity, the clock, endless and mindless consumption, coercion and control, is deemed to be wasted idleness. But nothing good happens, has ever happened or ever will, without a dream. Enter the Governments Non-Dreamer in Residence, Steve Reed the Secretary of State for Local Government, who took it upon himself to crush the dreamers in councils with his pre-Xmas Scrooge like rebuke to even consider a four-day working week. He said full time work for part time pay could be an indicator of "failure". As such Reed joins his soul mates at that bastion of progressive campaigning the Taxpayers Alliance in their predictable and dreary campaign to stop people having more time and instead keep their noses to the grindstone. Control over the working week is of course part of a centuries long battle between capital and labour. From the enclosures, through to the fabrication of the Protestant work ethic, the poor laws and the creation of the never ending turbo-consumption race that can never be won and should never have been started, people have battled for the right to spend more of their time how they want to. What Keir Starmer Should Have Done With Andy Burnham The PM's decision to block Burnham from standing in the Gorton and Denton by-election risks handing the seat to Nigel Farage, and ultimately triggering his own downfall. It didn't have to be this way, argues Adam Bienkov Adam Bienkov "There are many definitions of the good society" wrote the American economist JK Galbraith "the treadmill is not one of them". But today we learn, to work, to buy. Many do more than one job to make ends meet. Parents pass like ships in the night with barely a moment to do the precious things in life, like the time to read a child a bedtime story. The remorseless and relentless grind of growth without purpose, the so-called 'hard-working families', the denigration of the so called 'scroungers' as opposed to 'strivers', the politicians who kick down and kiss up are all symptoms of a governing system that has lost its connection to us as human beings. Whatever Steve Reed says and does the demand for more time and greater freedom are only likely to grow as supply of work is likely to decline, while AI takes his grip on the vociferous and politically crucial middle class jobs of people who live in swing seats, and work in professions like law and accountancy. Every technological revolution leads to fears over systemic and permanent net job losses, only to see new areas of work arise. The AI revolution looks like it could be different, with a structural decline in the demand for mental labour, as opposed to the physical labour job displacement of the past. The option to work less should be available to everyone, even as it becomes a fait accompli for many. The savings and benefits of a four-day week to individuals and society are almost incalculable, from mental physical health and well-being, care, volunteering retraining, the lis...

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY When Reform UK announced it would accept cryptocurrency donations through a payment processor called Radom, the decision was presented by the party as a breakthrough in the modernisation of political fundraising. But a Byline Times investigation reveals that Radom's origins lie deep within the same Silicon Valley networks that have bankrolled and built the technological infrastructure for President Donald Trump's political movement in the United States. The company's leadership emerged from corporations and venture capital firms deeply connected to some of Trump's most prominent tech-world supporters. They include Peter Thiel, the billionaire who became MAGA's chief evangelist in Silicon Valley with over a dozen allies in Trump's second administration, and Larry Ellison, Oracle's controlling shareholder described by a Trump advisor as a "shadow president" behind Trump himself. Byline Times can also confirm that Amazon, a major pro-Trump donor controlled by Jeff Bezos, provided seed-funding to Radom. Radom had already exerted its influence in the UK Parliament years before Farage's announcement, through an All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) whose secretariat was run by an organisation advertising close relationships with pro-Trump tech giants including Oracle, Google and Microsoft. Byline Times can reveal that the APPG's secretariat had not only received funding from Oracle, but at the time was dominated by Conservative Party politicians – including current Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch. From Oracle to Radom: Silicon Valley's Republican Vanguard Radom's founder and chief executive, Christopher Wilson, cut his teeth as a software engineer at Oracle, the technology giant controlled by Larry Ellison. Wilson worked at Oracle's Greater Dublin office from 2015 to 2017. Oracle is not merely another Silicon Valley firm. Under Ellison's stewardship, it has become synonymous with a particular strain of pro-Trump, anti-regulatory conservatism rare among major tech companies. Ellison has hosted fundraisers for Trump, donated substantial sums to Republican Party causes, and positioned himself as one of the President's most prominent backers. A decade ago, senior Oracle executives were hobnobbing with people in Trump's orbit shortly before the 2016 election. Oracle CEO Safra Catz and chief lobbyist Ken Glueck went on to join the Trump administration's transition teams. Wilson's tenure at Oracle does not necessarily mean he shares Ellison's politics. But it situates Radom's technical leadership within a corporate environment closely entangled with Trump-aligned networks and narratives throughout the MAGA era. EXCLUSIVE Nigel Farage Paid by Trump Crypto Adviser Who Worked With Russia Operative Paul Manafort The Reform UK leader received payment from David Bailey, who collaborated with the convicted fraudster behind the Trump-Russia influence scandal Nafeez Ahmed The Thiel Connection The Trump network connections deepen when examining Radom's other co-founder. Mariel Yonnadam, the company's former chief technology officer from 2022 until 2025, previously worked as a front-end engineer from 2018 to 2019 at Faire, a San Francisco-based marketplace that has become one of Silicon Valley's most highly valued 'unicorn' start-ups. Faire's meteoric rise was powered by a roster of venture capital investors that reads like a who's who of Trump-aligned tech finance. Among the most significant are Founders Fund, co-founded by Peter Thiel, the billionaire venture capitalist who spoke at the 2016 Republican National Convention, joined Trump's presidential transition team, and has since incubated numerous hard-right political projects whilst providing intellectual scaffolding for tech nationalism. Another is Sequoia Capital, which in recent years has become increasingly associated with powerful Trump-supporting partne...

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY If things were going well for Keir Starmer then he would have nothing to fear, and indeed much to benefit, from the return of a political big beast to Westminster like Andy Burnham. If the Prime Minister had a clear plan for the country then the return of a rival, even one as determined to become Prime Minister as Burnham, would barely ruffle the feathers of those cooped up in Downing Street. Previous Prime Ministers have acted differently. When Boris Johnson, as London Mayor, announced his own return to Westminster, there was no attempt by David Cameron to block him from doing so, despite Johnson's own plans to become "world king" being well established. Instead Cameron actively encouraged him to come back and then sought to use his talents in Government for the benefit of his own party and leadership. Johnson proved to be an irritant, but he never seriously threatened Cameron's leadership for the simple reason that the then Prime Minister was in a position of strength. Andy Burnham: These Dangerous, Alienating Times Call for Radical Change of Our Politics From imposter syndrome and proportional representation, to fixing the fundamentals and the 'incestuous' Westminster media-political class – Labour's Greater Manchester Mayor believes the right can be defeated at the ballot box if bold changes to connect with the public and their day-to-day lives are made now Hardeep Matharu Of course Johnson did arguably end up playing a part in Cameron's downfall, backing the Brexit campaign which ultimately toppled him. But that failure, just like the decision to accept Johnson back to Westminster, was ultimately in Cameron's hands. Had Cameron fought a better campaign, or even opted to remain in Downing Street post-referendum, then he could have remained as Prime Minister for years more to come. The same cannot be now said of Starmer. His decision to block Burnham from becoming a an MP has been taken, not from a position of strength, but from a position of potentially irreversible weakness. By blocking the Greater Manchester Mayor, he has made it all but impossible for Labour to cling on to their previously safe seat in Gorton and Denton, with Nigel Farage's Reform, or even potentially the Greens, poised to take it instead. Either of these outcomes would severely weaken the Prime Minister's position and bring the point at which Labour MPs move against him to a head. An Alternative Path It didn't have to be this way. Had Starmer instead welcomed Burnham's return and then gone on to win the Gorton by-election together, then both the Prime Minister and the Labour party would have emerged in a stronger position. He could then have offered Burnham a seat in the Cabinet, just as Cameron did with Johnson, and sought to hold him to his word of wanting to help the Government succeed. Had Burnham either refused, or then used his new position to undermine that Government then it would have been Burnham, rather than Starmer, whose position would have been weakened. Of course such a path would have carried risks, but those risks could have been manageable. Instead the Prime Minister has chosen a path that looks all but certain to end in disaster for his Premiership It may sound simplistic to the point of absurdity, but in politics winning comes from winning. It does not come from losing. If Labour loses the Gorton by-election, after blocking the man most likely to have won it, then no amount of Downing Street shenanigans are going to save Starmer from a concerted attempt to remove him as leader. The Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, Morgan McSweeney, may feel that he has won a battle, but he now faces losing the wider war as a result. These considerations may not worry those in Downing Street too much. Over the last few years it has become clear that the overwhelming priority of those around the Prime Minister is to pursu...

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY Prince Harry and Elizabeth Hurley, each giving evidence at the Royal Courts of Justice earlier this week, have alleged that the Mail tore apart relationships, drove its targets to paranoia, and made life miserable for anyone caught in its crosshairs. The publisher did so, they claim, by illegally spying on them, publishing their secrets, and invading the privacy of their families, partners and closest friends. It was a bruising opening week for the Mail, whose publisher, Associated Newspapers Limited, is defending itself against litigation brought by Prince Harry, Sadie Frost, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Sir Simon Hughes, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and Elizabeth Hurley. The claims allege widespread illegality at the publisher, arguing that the Mail's prolific use of private investigators known to use unlawful methods demonstrates that the publisher was illegally spying on its targets. The claimants argue that private information about the lives of the claimants was obtained by listening in on voicemail messages and even live phone calls, and published in the newspaper – all to sell more papers and make the publisher more money. The Mail's defence is that there is no direct evidence of illegality, arguing that journalists got hold of private information through friends and other associates of the claimants. They also argue that the claims have been brought too late, and should have been brought years ago – despite the Mail's own heated denials of wrongdoing at the Leveson Inquiry – into the culture, practices and ethics of the press following the exposure of the phone-hacking scandal in 2011-12 – and since. BREAKING Daily Mail Trial: British People Say Press Standards Haven't Improved Since Phone Hacking Scandal As the Daily Mail goes on trial for alleged lawbreaking, a new poll finds seven-in-ten voters demand independent regulation of the press Byline Times Team The Wider Picture The summary of the claimants' case, published on Monday, threatens to suck other senior figures in the press into the litigation. The current editor of The Sun, Victoria Newton, is alleged to have been a "habitual" user of unlawfully accessed information, while the editor of the Mail on Sunday, David Dillon, is alleged to have commissioned private investigators for criminal activity. The findings in the case could have implications for the online and print news media more broadly. If it is found that yet another newspaper engaged in illegal behaviour, calls for the second part of the Leveson Inquiry are likely to intensify. Hacked Off even came up once or twice during the course of evidence given by both Hurley and Prince Harry, with the Duke of Sussex generously praising the campaign for its "fantastic work". "Hacking of my voicemails, landline tapping, blagging, obtaining itemised phone bills, hardwire tapping, and obtaining private flight information for my former girlfriend, Chelsy Davy, amongst other criminal methods… was deliberately undertaken with the purpose of publishing articles about me in the Mail newspapers because it made them money." Witness Statement of Prince Harry On Wednesday Prince Harry took to the witness stand and his witness statement, setting out his allegations in his own words, was published. An object of relentless fascination to the press throughout the 2000s was Harry's romantic life. In his statement, he highlights an article entitled 'Harry's Older Woman', a piece which covered his relationship with a former girlfriend. He was 18 at the time. At best, this was obsessive coverage of a teenager's relationship. But Harry alleges that it was published as a direct result of phone hacking or "blagging" – the use of impersonation to get someone's personal information. In other words, Harry's claim is that the Mail was actively and illegally spying on the private communications of a teenager and...

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY British people believe standards in the UK press have not improved since the phone hacking scandal 15 years ago, with seven-in-ten voters demanding the industry be independently regulated for the first time, according to a new poll. The survey conducted by pollsters Opinium for the Press Justice Project charity, found that 54% of those surveyed said press standards either haven't improved or have got worse over the past decade, with a further 71% saying the press should now be regulated by a body independent from the industry and politicians. Voters want publications to be more accountable for inaccurate reporting. Seventy three percent of those surveyed said they believed press corrections should be published with the same size and prominence as the original misleading reporting. Support for reforming the press could be found across supporters of all parties, according to the poll, including voters for Nigel Farage's Reform UK. Of all the potential options for reforming the press, the most popular was for newspapers and their websites to be regulated by an independent statutory regulator, like Ofcom. 'A Victim All Over Again': The Mail Trial and the Murders of Stephen Lawrence and Daniel Morgan Peter Jukes looks at how an ongoing High Court case plunges us back over thirty years to two murders in south-east London and to a nexus of corrupt police officers and private investigators Peter Jukes According to the poll, readers of the Metro (45%) the Daily Mail (38%), the Daily Express (37%), The Sun (35%), the Daily Telegraph (33%) and The Times (31%) all backed independent statutory regulation as their favoured option. None of these papers are currently independently regulated. Stephen Kinsella OBE, chair of the Press Justice Project, said: "Newspaper publishers often say they have 'cleaned up their act' since the appalling practices revealed by the phone hacking scandal, and argue there is no need for reform of press regulation. "Every week, we at the Press Justice Project hear from people affected by wrongdoing in the press, which proves otherwise. These results show that the wider public shares our concerns. There is a clear public demand for independent press regulation that provides effective remedies when newspapers fail to uphold ethical standards. "Press wrongdoing continues to affect people from all walks of life. Almost 15 years on from the phone hacking scandal, there is still an urgent need to protect the public from press abuse. The Press Justice Project shares the public's support for legislation that encourages industry compliance with independent and effective press regulation, in the interests of the victims of press wrongdoing we were established to assist." EXCLUSIVE Daily Mail High Court Trial Casts Shadow Over Lord Rothermere's Telegraph Bid Allegations that the Mail engaged in phone hacking, landline tapping, burglaries, and the theft of medical records are threatening to derail its £500 million takeover of the Telegraph Dan Evans The findings come in the same week a High Court trial opened into alleged lawbreaking at the Daily Mail, including allegations of phone hacking, landline tapping, burglaries, and the theft of medical records. More than 400 potential victims have been identified by the claimants' lawyers, after evidence was uncovered suggesting they were hacked and blagged by the Mail titles. The claimants allege phone hacking and other unlawful practices stretching back decades. ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account. PAY ANNUALLY – £44.75 A YEAR PAY MONTHLY – £4.50 A MONTH MORE OPTIONS We're not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism....

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY You did not dream the last fortnight: that really just happened. Fresh from illegally abducting a foreign head of state, the President of the United States turned his attention to seizing part of the territory of a close NATO ally while declaring economic war on those European allies who dared to object. The Greenland fiasco not only represented the lowest point in UK-US relations in 70 years, it quite literally threatened to blow apart Europe's post-war geopolitical and security architecture. Thankfully, Donald Trump has now – at last – confirmed that he will not invade Greenland. He also walked back his threats to impose fresh, punitive tariffs on the UK and other allies. But these feel like temporary reprieves. Trump's presidency has three years to run and more instability surely awaits. The old world, with its reassuring alliances and certainties, no longer exists. The new world brings fresh and urgent demands for the continent of Europe – in particular, the European country that, ten years ago, chose to leave the only trade bloc capable of rivalling the United States. Engage, for one moment, in a small thought experiment. Imagine that we had not left the EU. That in 2016, we narrowly voted to remain, and then stumbled through the following ten years with our economic and geopolitical framework essentially unchanged. Why Is the Government Really Refusing to Investigate Russian Interference in Brexit? Keir Starmer's decision to exclude Russian interference in the 2016 EU referendum from his inquiry into foreign interference in our elections should ring alarm bells, argues Sergei Cristo Sergei Cristo Imagine the last decade of geopolitical turbulence, but where we were neither obsessing about tearing ourselves from our regional bloc, nor finding our way once we had. Would Theresa May have debased herself to invite Trump on his first state visit to the UK, all for the comprehensive trade deal to mitigate Brexit's damage – a deal which never came? Would the UK's global voice and reputation have been stronger or weaker? Did our economy – pummelled by so many events out of our control – need the additional voluntary hit or not? Imagine just the last year. Would Keir Starmer have had to prostrate himself before the new American king, offering an unprecedented second state visit, if the UK were not so weakened on the global stage by Brexit? Would Trump have still been able to get everything he wanted – pomp, prestige and royalty – without offering anything except, as it subsequently transpired, political and economic threats and personal insults. Now imagine the last two weeks. When Trump issued his threats of tariffs for the crime of upholding Denmark's territorial integrity and Greenland's self-determination, all Starmer could do was protest the move and appeal to Trump's better nature. Compare that with the muscular responses of France and Germany, who resolved to respond in kind. They knew they could plausibly do so thanks to the power of the EU behind and alongside them. The UK could only act in isolation. Given the vast power imbalance against the US, that meant, in practice, failing to act at all. Never has the UK been so exposed. Even in 2016, in a more benign global environment, Brexit was a catastrophic error. Ten years later, it looks incalculably more damaging. Both Britain and the EU are weaker at a time they need collective strength more than ever. Brexit's only beneficiaries have been Russia, China and, as it turns out, an actively hostile United States. Brexit Failures Who, apart from Nigel Farage, would be advocating for Brexit right now if we were still in the EU? The verdict of voters would be overwhelming. The power of the EU was something the UK considered to be a threat instead of what it was: an opportunity. The bloc enables free nation states to pool some of their sovereignty a...

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY Head North by two Scousers, Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram, is the most original, interesting and important book by serving Labour politicians that I've read. It was published in 2024 to a pitiful number of mainly patronising reviews in the London media – all of which missed the larger point of its call for a new constitution that enshrines a Basic Law, includes PR, and empowers Members of Parliament. A failure that perhaps confirms the authors' assertion that London has lost the plot and does not grasp how intolerable our system of government has become for the country as a whole. Of the two, Burnham is well-known as a high-flying Labour politician, who entered Parliament in 2001, and rose swiftly to become a senior Cabinet member under Gordon Brown. When he tried to become Labour leader in 2015, he lost out to Jeremy Corbyn. A year later, he left Westminster altogether to become the first Mayor of Greater Manchester. Rotheram is less well-known nationally, but his rise from being a bricklayer to becoming a Labour MP and then Mayor of Liverpool is also impressive. The book opens with the two of them shaking hands in 2016 and pledging their joint determination to leave the House of Commons and seek election to the twin cities of England's north-west – where the novelty of elected mayors was about to become a reality for the first time. The first half of the book is a dialogue between the two of them as they share the experience of their personal journeys close to the heart of power. Again and again, they are shocked to the point of being traumatised by the cold indifference of the centre to the legitimate needs of their communities. From Hillsborough to COVID, they draw two personal conclusions from 20 years. First, in a crisis "you have to speak to the soul of the place you are in". Second, that the UK has "an unaccountable state that tries to divide and rule and foist decisions taken by a small cabal on millions". It prioritises private vested interests over the public interest while "Whitehall does not regard all people and places as equal". Andy Burnham: These Dangerous, Alienating Times Call for Radical Change of Our Politics From imposter syndrome and proportional representation, to fixing the fundamentals and the 'incestuous' Westminster media-political class – Labour's Greater Manchester Mayor believes the right can be defeated at the ballot box if bold changes to connect with the public and their day-to-day lives are made now Hardeep Matharu The way they share their account of experiencing the built-in failures of the British state is comparable to Rory Stewart's Politics on The Edge. Stewart's is a more sustained blow-by-blow account of his journey, in his case through the ruins of the Conservative tradition. It culminates in his attempt to become Prime Minister and his humiliation. Whereas Burnham's takes off after his Westminster ambitions are crushed. The second half of Head North sets out the way in which Burnham and Rotheram believe the country has to change. They conclude by demanding a written constitution. They spell out the need for a proportional voting system; empowering Members of Parliament by the removal of the whipping system; a senate of the nations and regions to replace the House of Lords; full devolution; two equal paths in education; a Grenfell law for those in public housing; a Hillsborough law to impose a duty of candour on all public servants; and ecological sustainability. Missing from their list of constitutional demands is the need for a justice system that works for regular people – something, however, that emerges vividly in their account. Many others have proclaimed the need for systematic constitutional reform in the United Kingdom, going back to Charter 88 and beyond. Burnham's and Rotheram's call is unique in that it emerges from, and is rooted in, their ...

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY Britain's biggest middle-market newspaper stands accused of phone hacking, landline tapping, burglaries, and the theft of medical records in a nine-week High Court trial which began on Monday. But in a week that on Wednesday saw Prince Harry become emotional in the witness box as he talked about the impact of media intrusion on his wife Meghan, tensions are rising not just between the Mail and its critics, but between the publisher and its own bankers. NatWest, the Mail's long-standing lender and the principal funder of the Telegraph bid, has the power to pull the plug if internal auditors conclude the legal risks are too great. And City scrutiny has intensified as allegations of industrial-scale criminality inside the Mail's newsrooms are tested in court. Against this backdrop, the Mail on January 8 publicly attacked its financial backer with a story headlined "NatWest Dirty Money Farce". The two-page article recycled a five-year-old case in which Britain's fourth-largest bank paid a record £264.8 million fine for accepting criminal proceeds. EXCLUSIVE 'Trump Has Already Rigged the 2028 Presidential Election': US Defence Insider Regardless of how people vote, the chances of a Democrat Government coming to power in 2029 is now virtually nil, argues Brynn Tannehill Brynn Tannehill NatWest, however, is not the only party to the Telegraph deal facing allegations of serious wrongdoing. In the ongoing litigation brought by Prince Harry and Baroness Doreen Lawrence—whose son Stephen was murdered in a racist attack—more than £3 million in payments from the Mail to private investigators have been disclosed over the past three years. Mr Justice Matthew Nicklin's verdict now hangs over Lord Rothermere's biggest ever newspaper acquisition. His company, Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), has agreed to assume the debts of Telegraph Media Group's current investor, RedBird IMI, paying £400 million up front and a further £100 million within two years. The deal must still pass detailed due diligence by City lawyers and accountants who are acutely sensitive to allegations of criminal activity while the impact of the proposed takeover on competition and the public interest will be investigated. City public relations expert Brian Basham said: 'The timing of this deal, which comes in the middle of a nine-week trial for phone hacking, couldn't be worse. 'NatWest will not like this. The reputational damage to their client, of being on the news every night for months, about unlawful intrusion, is a risk.' Mr Basham, who previously gave evidence in a phone hacking trial against the Mirror after warning its then chief executive of a cover-up, added: 'But it will the liability of future claims which the bank will be very worried about.' City insiders say NatWest is weighing whether the Mail could survive a "contingent liability" running to as much as £1 billion if hundreds of additional claims are launched. The estimate is based on the scale of payouts made by Rupert Murdoch's companies following the News of the World hacking scandal. Shares analyst Paul Scott has reviewed DMGT's accounts and concluded that a £1 billion hit 'would probably either bankrupt DMGT, or at least stretch it to the limit.' DMGT has secured a funding package with NatWest, its preferred lender, and has finalised the terms of the transaction. But the City remains wary as the litigation approaches, set to begin in just over a week. The case has already cost the Mail around £30 million, despite involving only seven "test" claims at the Royal Courts of Justice. Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), DMGT's main newspaper subsidiary, is defending actions brought by Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John and David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Sir Simon Hughes, and Sadie Frost. EXCLUSIVE 'That Phone Could Hold the Truth': Levi Davis Family Say...

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY The Home Office has been accused of treating asylum seekers like "lab rats" after moving to "warehouse" the first batch of migrants into a military barracks, despite opposition from campaigners and local politicians. Twenty-seven men have been moved into the Crowborough military barracks, as part of the Government's plans to move migrants from hotels to military sites. The site in East Sussex has a capacity of 500 bed spaces, allocated for single adult males, who will be housed there for up to three months while their claims are processed. If their asylum application is rejected, the department say they will be removed from the country. The plans have already triggered anti-migrant protests in the local area, prompting fears about an increase in far-right activity. Conservative MP for Sussex Weald Nusrat Ghani has warned of the "grave impact" of moving the men onto the site. In a letter to Immigration Minister Alex Norris on Wednesday, seen by Byline Times, Ghani stated that there was "clear evidence that the site is not an empty army barracks, but a functioning and much used and loved training camp". Crowborough is currently used as a training facility for the local Royal Air Force Cadets and for fire, police and other public service agencies. She added that the site was "unable to be signed off as safe, legal and compliant, and one of the reasons was the cost and displacement of services and the Cadets". Despite asking yesterday for a detailed assessment of how the Home Office intended to "square that circle", the first migrants were moved to Crowborough this morning. Wealden District Council leader James Partridge has also voiced opposition to the plans, saying it was the "wrong decision". Protests have taken place around the site on a weekly basis since last October when the plans were first announced. "Despite our strong objections, the minister [Alex Norris] has not listened to us," Partridge said. The latest move marks the start of the Government's plans to 'warehouse' asylum seekers in former military camps in an attempt to close hotels by the end of this parliament. More than 200 hotels remain in use, at a cost of more than £5.7 million per day. The Home Office has consistently said that hotels are a "pull factor" for small boat crossings. Campaigners have described the use of former military sites to accommodate asylum seekers as a "sleeper issue", with the potential for protests starting at a local level to become more widespread. "It's like they're using asylum seekers as lab rats," said Lou Calvey, Director of Asylum Matters. "The Government should be building policy in the interests of people in local communities – a fiscally-responsible policy – but they're not even doing that. When are they going to wake up? We know these sites are incredibly damaging and this will only mean more community tensions and problems." EXCLUSIVE 'They've Ruined Christmas': Nigerian Student Blocked By Home Office From Visiting UK Family for Holidays British academic and his Nigerian wife repeatedly stopped from hosting family members, including at their own wedding, due to visa restrictions brought in by Keir Starmer's Government Nicola Kelly A report from the National Audit Office last year found that military barracks were projected to cost £46 million more than hotels over the next decade. A leaked forecast from the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) warned that the expected cost to house asylum seekers has tripled from £4.5 billion to £15.3 billion for contracts from 2019-2029. In a statement released this morning, the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said that opening Crowborough camp was "just the start". "I will bring forward site after site until every asylum hotel is closed and returned to local communities," Mahmood said. In October, the Government announced it would also open Cameron barracks ...

Brynn Tannehill has worked for years for one of the largest US Government defence contractors in the country. Writing pseudonymously for Byline Times, in November 2024 she predicted the astonishingly rapid militarisation of the homeland that Donald Trump would pursue; and in February 2025 she accurately forecast some of the most shocking turns of the Trump administration – including how serious it is about annexing places like Venezuela and Greenland. Now she casts her eye on what pivotal presidential elections will hold in 2028 – and warns that Democrats are dangerously unprepared for what's coming. The outcome of the election has already been determined: Democrats just don't realise it yet. Donald Trump's first year in office has largely been an exercise in consolidating all power in the executive branch, and then wielding this power to punish his enemies, whether they are recalcitrant blue state governors, people who have angered him (like James Comey and Letitia James), and unpopular minorities (immigrants and transgender people), or the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The Legal Coup So far, the Project 2025 Heritage Foundation and Claremont Institute plan to codify the 'Unitary Executive theory' into law has been successful. Until recently, the Unitary Executive Theory was a fringe constitutional doctrine asserting the President holds sole authority over the entire executive branch, derived from Article II's vesting of "the executive Power" in one person, meaning Congress can't limit presidential control over executive officials or agencies. The US Supreme Court has now mostly embraced this idea, and has consistently removed Congressional oversight powers, or even the power to dictate where and how funds are spent. The other two branches have yielded power willingly; the Republican controlled Congress has handed over the power of the purse to the executive branch, and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has nearly universally accepted Department of Justice (DOJ) arguments that the executive branch cannot be countermanded via injunctions. SCOTUS also granted near-blanket immunity to the President to commit crimes while in office, so long as they are a part of "official acts." The Republican Party is increasingly behaving like a party that believes it will never face a competitive election again, which I believe is exactly what is happening. The administration increasingly doubles down on unpopular policies and positions, including defending young Republican leaders who got caught admiring Hitler and looking forward to gassing and burning the bodies of their political opponents. Trump is deep underwater in opinion polls across most of his signature issues, including tariffs, the economy, and immigration. Yet Republican leadership seems to assume they have the capability to decide Presidential elections in perpetuity, regardless of how people vote. Trump's Greenland Delusion Runs Aground in Davos For all his attempted bullying, taunts and threats, Trump's delusional Davos speech revealed a man who is far weaker than he appears, argues Alexandra Hall Hall Alexandra Hall Hall This doesn't apply to the 2026 mid-terms, but they do not matter anyway: SCOTUS has largely allowed the executive branch to bypass Congress, nor will the executive branch cooperate with a democratic Congress, and all the mechanisms to enforce actions by Congress are controlled by the executive branch anyway, such as the Department of Justice. At this point, the only election that matters is for President, and the results are already being determined by the incumbent party. When you run a step-by-step analysis of what it takes to decide who is President, it rapidly becomes obvious that a great many things must happen for the process to evade subversion. Republicans have set things up such that it is nearly impossible for everything to go the way it was intended, and instead the process of selecting a President is almost guaranteed to be suc...

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY Trump is a narcissistic, psychopathic bully. But a weak one. I started listening to Trump's speech at Davos with anger and outrage. But as he went on and on, I slowly felt a growing sense of relief. I realised that all his bullying, taunts and threats reflected weakness. He sounded like a needy, spoilt child frustrated that he could not get his own way. His deranged tendencies were on full display with repeated hints at all the damage he could cause to those who did not bend to his will – like a mafia boss threatening to cut off a former partner's fingers if he did not cooperate. "I really like you, actually. I don't want to hurt you. It's a shame. I tried my best to be nice. But, I gotta do what I gotta do." His neediness was on full display with his repeated mentions of how much everyone loves him, and appreciates his achievements. Only someone unsure of his popularity needs to keep claiming he has lots of friends. His childishness was on full display with his petty taunts and jibes at other global figures – such as French President Emmanuel Macron, Canadian Premier Mark Carney, California Gavin Newsom, and Fed Chair Jerome Powell, even as he simultaneously claimed that they were "great guys, actually" and that he liked them. Mark Carney's Speech Showed America and Britain the Sort of Global Leadership They Have Now Abandoned The Canadian Prime Minister's powerful response to the growing threat from Donald Trump has put other world leaders to shame, argues Simon Nixon Simon Nixon His vanity was on full display with his repeated boasts about how brilliant he was, and how great America had become under his leadership. His insecurity was on full display with his continued need to lash out at defeated foes, such as Joe Biden. A truly self-confident person would not need to repeatedly big up his own alleged achievements in office, rather than letting them speak for themselves. His self-delusion was on full display with his claims that he really cares about Europe and NATO, respects the people of Greenland and Denmark, and is only trying to do what's best for them. A genuine friend does not bully and threaten allies. His dishonesty was on full display with his claim that he is only motivated to end the war in Ukraine because he is concerned about how many young men and women are dying there, when what he has actually been doing since returning to office is trying to extort Ukraine's natural wealth and force it into an unjust peace deal. His bullying tendency was on full display with his repeated reminders of the strength of the US military and economy. Trump is not a man to "speak softly and carry a big stick" – but a schoolyard bully who inadvertently reveals weakness by over-emphasising his physical attributes. "Yah, boo, I'm bigger than you. I could beat you up if I wanted to." His greed, and cavalier disregard for the fate of the planet, was on full display with his attacks on Europe for pursuing its "scam" green agenda, exhortations on the UK to do more more to extract oil from the North Sea, and boasts about how much oil the US was going to pick up from Venezuela. His whiny tendency was on full display with his complaints about how NATO has treated the US "unfairly" and that he personally never gets enough credit for his achievements – such as allegedly ending eight wars – an obvious reflection of his continued frustration at not being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. His ignorance, or is it deteriorating mental health, was on full display with his repeated reference to Iceland, when he meant Greenland, and his false claims that the US "gave back" Greenland to Denmark. A Year of Living Dangerously in Trump's America I no longer feel safe to speak or act freely in a country where people are being arbitrarily detained and killed and where the truth is becoming whatever Donald Trump says it is, repor...

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY Mark Carney's speech in Davos on the end of the world order is rightly being hailed as one of the most powerful interventions by any political leader in the year since Donald Trump returned to the White House. My social media feed and WhatsApp groups have been filled with veterans of past Davos gatherings telling me it was the most important speech they had ever heard delivered in the Swiss mountain town – or indeed expect to hear this year. The Canadian Prime Minister's argument tempered brutal realism— "we are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition" —with optimism. He set out a way that middle powers such as Canada, Britain and other advanced economies can maintain some sovereignty and control over their own destinies in a new era of superpower rivalries. His speech was an eloquent call for middling powers to work together to face down the great powers whose trashing of global rules and weaponisation of dependencies had turned integration into a source of subordination. Carney was better placed than anyone in the world to have delivered such a speech. As one of the high priests of the global financial system over the last two decades – having previously served as Governor of the Bank of Canada and then the Bank of England – he will have no illusions about the costs of the collapse of the old rules-based order. What's more, as Prime Minister of a country whose own territory it is the stated policy of the US president to annex- and which would be encircled by America if Trump succeeds in his ambition of seizing Greenland – he surely feels both the gravity and urgency of the moment keenly. It's Time for an Apology From the Trump Apologists The politicians and commentators who mocked those warning about the threat posed by the US President as being "hysterical" need to face up to their own role in the calamity now unfolding, argues Adam Bienkov Adam Bienkov But above all, Carney understands what is at stake with greater clarity than other world leaders because he has been thinking about these issues for longer. As Governor of the Bank of England, he watched as Britain committed what he privately considered to be a monumental act of stupidity with Brexit. He appeared to allude to the lessons he took from that experience in his speech, noting that "the cost of strategic autonomy and sovereignty can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortress. Shared standards reduce fragmentation. Complementarities are positive sums." What is depressing is that it is almost impossible to imagine Keir Starmer or any other British political leader delivering such a speech, even assuming they understood the arguments. Starmer himself, no doubt, is keenly aware of the dangers of this moment and the risk to Britain's national interest posed by a rogue United States. But he is incapable of articulating them, paralysed by his own timidity and buoyed by overconfidence in his capabilities as a "Trump whisperer" who can convince the capricious US President to change course. Besides, in his decade at the front rank of UK politics, Starmer has never delivered a single notable speech. Indeed, the only memorable phrase ever to pass his lips—a claim that Britain was becoming an "island of strangers"—had such obvious racist connotations that he was later obliged to disown it. As for the rest of the British political class, one detects little sign that either of the two parties currently leading in the polls – Reform and the Conservatives – have any understanding of the consequences of this moment of rupture for Britain, of the costs that Carney rightly warns countries will have to incur to boost their resilience, and of the trade-offs that will be required as the price of preserving some autonomy. This is partly a reflection of what has happened to British politics i...

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY The Home Office has been accused of failing to protect vulnerable LGBT+ people in immigration detention, in contravention of their own guidelines. Rainbow Migration, a charity which supports lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the asylum and immigration system, found that not one of the seven immigration removal centres across the UK had strategies in place for staff to monitor or challenge homophobic behaviour. The charity also found that the Government had not conducted any analyses of the prevalence of incidents across the detention estate. Four IRCs had failed to make any explicit reference to sexual orientation or gender identity in its anti-bullying information. Home Office guidelines state that information about bullying and harassment must be displayed in a variety of languages where staff, detainees and visitors can see it. Each IRC must also include specified content on homophobia. EXCLUSIVE How Neo-Nazis Posing as 'Ordinary Parents' Embedded Themselves in Anti-Immigrant Protests A year long investigation by Katherine Denkinson exposes the Neo-Nazi and far-right extremists operating openly inside anti-immigration protests Katherine Denkinson Around 70 countries worldwide criminalise same-sex relations, some with the death penalty, meaning that significant numbers odf asylum applications come from persecuted LGBT+ people. "We know that immigration detention is unsafe and harmful for LGBT+ people," said Ayesha Aziz, Rainbow Migration's Legal Service Manager. "These are people who have fled family members or governments because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. They may have already been detained in their home country because of who they are. Now they are in Britain to seek protection and the Home Office knows about their backgrounds because they have claimed asylum on that basis, but they are not doing anything to protect them." Aziz points to the example of a South American man she visited at Harmondsworth detention centre near Heathrow, who was too fearful of being 'outed' to leave his cell. Another man was isolated from the group by staff and told he needed to be checked for sexually-transmitted diseases. A third person reported being harassed for the way they dressed, experiencing suicidal thoughts and poor physical health due to stress and anxiety. "We are seeing a significant uptick in the number of queries from LGBT+ people at IRCs due to the failures of the Home Office," said Aziz. "In an ideal world, we would say no to all LGBT people in detention. There are alternatives which are cost-effective, safe and secure." ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account. PAY ANNUALLY – £44.75 A YEAR PAY MONTHLY – £4.50 A MONTH MORE OPTIONS We're not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe. Rainbow Migration is calling for protections offered to trans and intersex people, who have been classed as 'at risk of harm' under the 'Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention' policy since 2016 and therefore should not usually be detained, extended to lesbian, gay and bisexual people. And for guidelines to be put in place for staff to ensure that vulnerable minority individuals are protected from homophobic abuse and attacks. In June 2024, the charity, alongside Micro Rainbow, urged the Government to introduce a pilot scheme, which would allow vulnerable people in detention to be released and offered a place in Micro Rainbow's safe house, with support from legal aid lawyers. The UNHCR warns in its guidelines that special measures may be required to avoid exposing LGBTQI+ people to 'risk of violence, ill-treatmen...

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY Whatever the outcome of the civil trial between various claimants and Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), the newspaper group behind the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, the legal claims shed light again on what former prime minister Gordon Brown called "the criminal media nexus" — a circle of dodgy journalists and corrupt police officers circulating around the hub of the private detective agency Southern Investigations. These horrific murders may seem like ancient history, but they are at the centre of astonishing legal claims against the UK's largest newspaper publisher and owner of one of the world's most-read online news websites, which is currently bidding to increase its hold on the British media by buying the Telegraph group. The Daniel Morgan Murder The murders of Daniel Morgan and Stephen Lawrence took place six years apart, but only a few miles away from each other in south-east London. And they are connected by more than just geographical proximity. Both murder investigations were stymied by the same cartel of corrupt police officers with gangland affiliations, and ready access to the British popular press. Anyone who saw the recent TV drama The Hack, or has followed the podcast Untold: The Daniel Morgan Murder that I hosted and produced with Deeivya Meir ten years ago, will understand the centrality of Southern Investigations to the spread of the dark arts of "unlawful information gathering" (UIG) after one of its founders, Daniel Morgan, was slain with an axe in the car park of a Sydenham pub in 1987. After Daniel's murder, his co-founder Jonathan Rees, and the man who took Daniel's place, former "King of Catford" Detective Sergeant Sid Fillery, went on to turn Southern Investigations into the hub of the dark arts — bribing police officers, hacking phones and computers, blagging financial and medical records, impersonation, surveillance and intimidation. Press and Police Corruption: Mail Hearing Reveals More Connections between Murders of Daniel Morgan and Stephen Lawrence Witness statements on behalf of the claimants against Associated News plunge us straight back into what Gordon Brown once described as the 'criminal media nexus' Peter Jukes They trained some of Britain's most feted journalists, like the "Fake Sheikh" Mazher Mahmood, who was convicted of conspiring to pervert the course of justice in 2016. As well as billing for hundreds of thousands of pounds a year the now-shuttered News of the World, they worked for Piers Morgan's Mirror Group and (as laid out in my book with Alastair Morgan, Who Killed Daniel Morgan?) claimed to work for other newspapers, including the Daily Mail. Though Rees and Fillery were both arrested on suspicion of conspiracy in Daniel's murder (Rees three times and Fillery twice), the multiple investigations finally came to a close at the Old Bailey in 2011 when the prosecution collapsed due to multiple flaws in disclosure. No further investigation was possible due to a quarter of a century of police corruption that made the evidence totally unreliable. Technically, Daniel's murder remains "unsolved", but the details amassed by the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, which reported in 2021, make it clear that the police are not looking for any further suspects. Included in the panel report is a detailed account of how the original murder inquiry was stymied by the presence in the incident room, on the night before Rees and Fillery were arrested, of a former disgraced police officer, Jonathan Ross. According to another police officer, Derek Haslam, who worked undercover for the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) for nine years gathering information on Southern Investigations and its network of connections with corrupt police officers, journalists and the underworld, Ross was a "corrupt policeman" who specialised in "selling information to the Mail and othe...

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY Neo-Nazi and far-right extremist groups – including two flagged by the UK Government – have embedded themselves in anti-immigration protests across the Westcountry, operating alongside self-described "ordinary mums and dads" with little challenge from politicians, police or the local press. Over the past year, Byline Times has identified activists linked to neo-Nazi organisations including the British Movement and Blood & Honour working with members of Britain First and other far-right networks. In January 2025, the UK Government froze the assets of Blood & Honour under counter-terrorism regulations. In 2024, the UK Government flagged British Movement as "a cause for concern" in relation to domestic extremism. As their involvement has grown, protests have hardened, shifting from loosely organised gatherings into marches marked by intimidation, racist chants and hostility towards journalists. Emerging from online campaigns framed as grassroots opposition to immigration, when those efforts failed to mobilise large numbers far-right actors stepped in, reshaping the movement and giving it a new direction. In a county of 1.25 million people with fewer than 2,000 asylum seekers and only one asylum hotel, that transformation raises urgent questions about how extremist networks gain local footholds, and why their presence has been allowed to pass without challenge. Far Right Influence In the first week of December 2025, as shoppers browsed Plymouth's Christmas market, around 50 mostly male protestors marched through the city centre chanting "save the nation, deportation" and "you can shove your Palestine up your arse!" Initially met by a larger counter-protest organised by Stand Up To Racism (SUTR), police contained the counter-group in one area while allowing the march to continue for almost three hours. Their final event in a year which saw monthly protests taking place in Plymouth and weekly protests occurring in Exeter, the December march underlined how far the movement had shifted towards organised far-right activism. When asked about the presence of known extremists, police told Byline Times that provided people were protesting peacefully, officers had limited grounds to intervene. Yet this lack of intervention saw the movement become a safe-space for supporters of neo-Nazi music collective Blood & Honour, representatives of Britain First, members of the neo-Nazi British Movement, and far right members of local football firm The Central Element. Sp how did organised far-right activists gain a foothold in a protest movement that presented itself as families concerned about their children's welfare? The Beginning Plymouth is the largest city in Devon with a population of around 264,000 people, 96% of whom are white. When their version of the Great British Strike – a nationwide anti-immigration protest organised by former soldier Richard Donaldson – took place in May 2025, protesters were pre-warned about violence in the local press linking it to the 2024 riot that occurred following the Southport attack. Donaldson's plan was to force a general election by having "500,000 people [walk] out in protest". In reality, barely one hundred people turned out – waving flags and milling around in small groups – countered by a similar number from Stand Up To Racism. Visibly angered by SUTR referring to them as "Nazi scum", several protestors Byline Times encountered presented themselves as "just ordinary mums and dads" worried about their children. Reports emerged of similar scenes across the country. Two months later, Donaldson's followers began protesting outside UK hotels housing asylum seekers. Still being presented in local media reports as ordinary people "in favour of stricter immigration laws and against the placement of migrants in hotels without communities being consulted", the coverage largely ignored...

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY It's been clear for a very long time who Donald Trump really is, whose interests he really serves and why nobody should believe that he is a reliable friend of either the UK, or Europe. Keir Starmer continues to be reluctant to face up to these realities. In a Downing Street press conference on Monday the Prime Minister insisted that he was "determined to keep that relationship [with Trump] strong, constructive and focused on results". Such prevarication is understandable. The UK remains hugely reliant upon the United States for its security, with Trump also able to pile huge economic pain on this country, should he choose to do so. Yet at best Starmer's strategy can only hope to dampen, or delay, what is a growing threat to our continent posed by the US President. A Year of Living Dangerously in Trump's America I no longer feel safe to speak or act freely in a country where people are being arbitrarily detained and killed and where the truth is becoming whatever Donald Trump says it is, reports Alexandra Hall Hall Alexandra Hall Hall So far it is a strategy that has yielded few tangible results. While the US has not yet completely abandoned Ukraine in its fight against foreign invasion, the President has now switched to threatening his own incursion into European territory, in Greenland. This threat is in some ways even graver than the threat posed by Russia in Ukraine. If Putin were to take Kyiv then it would be a catastrophic development that would seriously raise the threat posed by Moscow to neighbouring countries, but it would not in itself lead to a wider collapse in pan-European security. The threat to Greenland is of a different order. Denmark is a member of both the European Union and NATO. Were Trump to follow through on his threats then it would risk destroying the very bedrock of post-war European security. As EU defence Commissioner Andrius Kubilius put it, seizure of Greenland would herald the "end of NATO". Not everyone would be unhappy with such an outcome. The end of Europe's main security alliance has long been the Russian President's number one geopolitical aim. So far he has failed to achieve his aim, thanks in part to the resilience of the Ukranian people and the resolve of other European nations and the United States. Yet where Putin has failed, Trump now looks poised to succeed. An alliance that has saved Europe, and the wider world, from outright war for the best part of a century risks being torn apart due to the imperial dreams of an increasingly unhinged US President. Of course under previous presidents, such a catastrophic threat to global peace would have prevented disaster. However, when you have a US administration which openly portrays European nations as a group of weak and contemptible "random countries" that scrounge off of America, and when you have a man in the Oval office who says he is willing to start a war with those same nations, in retaliation for not being given a peace prize, then we can no longer be sure that sanity will prevail. A 'Global Peacemaker' It's worth remembering that none of this is what we were told was likely to happen. When Trump last ran for office, there was no shortage of senior UK politicians and commentators who predicted that his re-election would lead to a new era of peace and prosperity for the world. Nigel Farage, who is currently the favourite to form the next UK Government, claimed that Trump would be a "global peacemaker" who would make the world a "better, safer place". Others, like former Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson, said that Trump's return would make the world much more "safe and stable" and accused those who warned otherwise of engaging in a "whinge-a-rama". In the UK media, Trump's British cheerleaders also loudly encouraged and then celebrated his return, with one presenter on GB News quite literally sal...

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY A private investigator has been accused of 'hacking' and 'withholding' an iPhone considered critical to the ongoing investigation into the disappearance of rugby and reality TV star Levi Davis, Byline Times can reveal Gavin Burrows took the device from Mr Davis's grieving family after volunteering his help in their search following the former Bath Rugby and X Factor star's unexplained disappearance in Barcelona in October 2022 – a case that remains one of Europe's most perplexing of recent times. But after falling out with family and friends of the missing man, who say Burrows later became "highly abusive" toward them, prompting an official complaint to his trade body, the phone's whereabouts – and its secrets – remain a mystery three years later. "That phone could hold the key to why Levi posted on Instagram before he disappeared saying his life was in danger," Davis's mother Julie said today, referring to a harrowing 15-minute film her son made alleging he'd been a victim of targeted drug rape and organised blackmail after appearing on reality TV shows in the UK. Miss Davis added: "This is why the family are desperate to have the iPhone back. Myself and others have repeatedly asked Mr Burrows to return Levi's device since spring 2023 so it can be properly forensically examined by the police. He told me that he could not release it to me and then went silent. As far as we are concerned he is responsible for withholding potentially critical evidence." EXCLUSIVE Levi Davis – Murdered At Sea? Part Two of a five part special investigation by Dan Evans and Tom Latchem into a missing person's case with dark criminal undertones Dan Evans and Tom Latchem New Version of Events While the Davis family say Burrows has simply refused to give the iPhone back – and are now publicly calling for its return – Burrows offered a new version of events this week in response to questions from this newspaper. He claimed that "to the best" of his knowledge a "Spanish consultant operative" gave Levi's phone to the Catalan authorities, although Byline Times can confirm there is no record to support this claim in the official reports of the Investigating Magistrate in Barcelona, Senor Francisco Miralles Carrio. Burrows did not deny offering to bypass the iPhone's security in order to "help find" Davis and identify a mystery suspect the sportsman cut short a holiday in Ibiza to meet in Barcelona, arriving by ferry on 29 October, 2022, with just a small backpack of belongings before vanishing five hours later. Instead, he justified the use of "any feasible means to help find a missing person," which he said would "naturally be utilised," insisting: "this is normal procedure in missing person cases," – potentially tainting what might have been a critical piece of evidence in the police's criminal investigation. According to three witnesses, Burrows started making unsolicited offers to bypass the phone's security in order to access Davis's private information in 2023. But his relationship with the family and others later deteriorated sharply following lurid and, it transpired inaccurate, tabloid stories that Davis was fleeing a Somali gang over an alleged £100,000 drugs debt and, separately, that police were going to imminently arrest people close to Levi – articles in which Burrows was a quoted source. Julie Davis said: "Mr Burrows got in touch out of the blue right after Levi went missing. He offered to help us at a time of great need but very soon it became clear he was more interested in using Levi as a vehicle for self-promotion. "He propagated a number of false and unhelpful allegations about my son to the press, muddying the focus of the search, and in my opinion cutting across police inquiries in the UK and Spain. "There are many questions around activity on Levi's WhatsApp and other apps which may have records of peopl...

Read our Digital & Print Editions And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY Nigel Farage has been paid by a cryptocurrency adviser to US President Donald Trump, who worked with Paul Manafort – Trump's former campaign chair, jailed for financial crimes after investigations into his Kremlin-aligned influence operations – to lobby the president on Bitcoin policy. David Bailey, chief executive of BTC Inc and a senior cryptocurrency adviser to Trump, brought Manafort into his lobbying operation in early 2024. Together, Manafort and Bailey spent the rest of the year working to persuade Trump to embrace Bitcoin and establish America's first Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. Bailey subsequently paid Farage a speaking fee through BTC Inc, months before the Reform UK leader unveiled a pro-crypto policy platform that mirrors the Trump administration's digital asset agenda. Paul Manafort's role in the development of Trump's entire cryptocurrency strategy raises questions about Bitcoin's role as a vehicle of Russian influence, in particular as a mechanism to weaken national fiat currencies. It also links Farage to one of the most controversial figures in modern American politics – and raises questions about whose interests are actually being served by Reform UK's proposed Cryptoassets and Digital Finance Bill. Trump's Campaign Chair Paul Manafort's involvement in shaping Trump's Bitcoin policy represents a remarkable political rehabilitation. The veteran Republican operative was convicted in 2018 on charges including tax fraud and bank fraud, stemming from his work advancing Russian interests. A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigation concluded in August 2020 that Manafort's activities "represented a grave counterintelligence threat" to the United States. The committee found that while serving as Trump's 2016 campaign chairman, Manafort regularly shared internal campaign polling data and strategy with Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the report identified as a Russian intelligence officer. The US Treasury Department later confirmed that Kilimnik "provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy." Manafort's work for Russian-aligned interests stretched back decades. From 2005, he held a $10 million annual contract with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska – described as closely aligned with Vladimir Putin – for work that Manafort said would "greatly benefit the Putin Government." The Senate committee concluded this influence work was "in effect, influence work for the Russian Government and its interests." Between 2004 and 2014, Manafort worked as chief political adviser to Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine's pro-Russian president, and his Party of Regions, which US diplomats described as "a haven" for "mobsters and oligarchs." Manafort received millions in undisclosed payments to rehabilitate Yanukovych's image in the West and advance pro-Kremlin policies, including blocking Ukraine's NATO membership. Trump pardoned Manafort, who has always denied representing Russian political interests, in December 2020. Trump and Musk Welcome Russian Propaganda After Sanctioning European Disinformation Experts If there's any question that the US is now more aligned with Russia rather than Europe, recent State Department decisions have removed all doubt Peter Jukes Manafort's Return By early 2024, David Bailey had recruited Paul Manafort to help orchestrate what would become one of the biggest political pivots of Trump's campaign: his transformation from crypto sceptic to Bitcoin champion. Bailey was first connected to Manafort after a meeting of fellow Bitcoin evangelists in Puerto Rico which included Tracy Hoyos-López – Manafort is her sister's godfather. Manafort then plugged Bailey into the heart of Donald Trump's campaign team. Over the next few months, Bailey and Manafort worked to educate Trump's inner circle on Bitcoin policy, craft messagin...

Read our Digital & Print Editions And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY One year into the second Trump Presidency and America is now a very different place. It may superficially look the same from the outside. Many of us are able to go through the motions of our daily lives in the same ways as before. But, everything is changed on the inside. America has become a place where it is no longer entirely safe to speak freely. Where criticizing the Government can get you into trouble, perhaps even cause you to be fired from your job, or deported. Where engaging in public protest can get you arrested. Where every day you wake up with a clenching stomach, wondering what new Government outrage has happened overnight. Where every day, hordes of masked men roam communities, terrorize individuals, wantonly grab people off the streets, from their cars, or places of business, rough them up and throw them into detention, on no evidence whatsoever that they are guilty of any wrongdoing. All of this sanctioned by the Government authorities that are supposedly here to protect us. I can't believe I'm actually writing these words. I can't believe I am actually living in a country where extra-judicial executions, such as happened with Renee Good in Minneapolis last week, killed by an ICE officer, can take place; where forced disappearances have become routine; where individuals with legal residency or citizenship status can be swept up in anti-immigration raids, if they happen to look foreign (translation – black or brown), or be hanging around in a place frequented by immigrants; where even young children can be snatched up and taken into detention. 100 People Detained in UK Immigration Removal Centres Say They Are Subjected to Extreme Physical and Emotional Abuse Individuals detained at two detention centres report experiencing physical, psychological and emotional abuse at the hands of officers Nicola Kelly I can't believe I'm living in a country where the authorities, instead of investigating the officer who killed Renee Good, are slandering her as a "domestic terrorist" and investigating her widow for potential obstruction of ICE agents. Those of us privileged to live in majority white, suburban, or middle-class communities can pretend to ourselves that life is still normal and that we won't be swept up in this madness. But, it's a delusion. Today, every interaction is overshadowed by the political climate. Today, when I meet friends, we don't just catch up with each other's news. We always ask each other, with deliberate meaning, "how are you doing?" – the subtext being, "how are you handling the stress caused by the latest Trump outrage?" When I meet strangers, we dance delicately around the subject of Trump, to find out whether we are on the same political page or not, before opening up more substantively to each other. With strangers, we use euphemisms to lead into a conversation about current events – "with everything going on", "in today's crazy world", and decode responses carefully to work out where we each stand. This is how I always imagined people living in authoritarian countries communicated with each other, in lowered tones, or using veiled references, in case someone hostile is listening. I no longer ask people of obviously foreign origin where they are from, how long they have lived in America or their current status. It's better not to know. I feel privately relieved and ashamed not to be a migrant, black or Hispanic myself. I imagine this is not dissimilar to how many Germans felt in the early 1930s, when they became uneasily aware that their Jewish neighbours were being harassed by Hitler's brownshirts. A year ago, I felt able to write articles or post on social media about current events without worrying about whether this might get me, or anyone associated with me, into trouble. Last summer, amidst the hounding of anyone who posted anything negative about...

Read our Digital & Print Editions And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY Protesters in Scotland arrested for carrying signs in support of the proscribed group Palestine Action have been offered £100 fines instead of prosecution. Critics of PA's proscription say this shows that the use of terrorism legislation on supporters of PA is "ridiculous". Adam McGibbon was first arrested in October last year for holding up a sign which read "I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action" in protest at the designation of the direct action group as a terrorist organisation and their proscription under the Terrorism Act. He was arrested again on one other occasion and was charged four times under the Terrorism Act. In late December, McGibbon and two other activists who spoke to Byline Times were sent letters with the offer of a £100 fine in lieu of prosecution for some of their offences in breach of section 13 by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. £100, they noted, is roughly equivalent to a parking fine. McGibbon, a seasoned climate activist, told Byline Times: "If supporting Palestine Action is so bad and so terrible like Dan Jarvis the security minister said it was in parliament in September, then how come you can get off for the same price as parking ticket?". "I mean do the Islamic State get this offer?" he added. The proscription of Palestine Action has seen protests up and down the UK in defiance of the proscription with activists holding signs in support of the group. Police have made thousands of arrests since the proscription of PA in July 2025. EXCLUSIVE Palestine Action Arrests Condemned as 'Deeply Alarming' While British Press Remains Silent The Liberal Democrats described the arrests of campaigners against the ban on the group as a "dangerous precedent" for free speech, yet the British press remains largely silent about it Josiah Mortimer Section 13 of the Terrorism Act makes it illegal to wear clothing or hold signs that might be reasonably understood as support for a proscribed terrorist organisation, meaning protesters showing their support for PA by holding signs risk a £5000 fine and six months imprisonment. While theoretically a relatively serious offence under the Terrorism Act, the authorities in the devolved administrations in the UK appear to be less inclined to prosecute than the CPS in England. In Northern Ireland section 13 is rarely enforced because statements or items that could constitute support for Northern Irish paramilitaries are commonplace, and police powers are devolved to Stormont. Catherine Allen, another activist who was offered the penalty said that the fines and the comparatively gentle treatment of the Scottish protesters by law enforcement "could suggest that even the police don't have their hearts in it given how ridiculous arresting peaceful protesters is, and that protesting genocide is not a crime". McGibbon, Allen and another activist spoken to by Byline Times said they would be rejecting the offer of the fine. In a letter sent back to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Allen and some of her fellow activists stated: "the offer of a fine equivalent to a parking ticket or a warning is both revealing and revolting. Revealing because it indicates that deep down the Procurator Fiscal Office in Scotland agrees that we are a million miles from being 'terrorists'. Revolting because it offers a fine like a sweetie – accept this sweetie, the offer states, and then stop asking us to get a moral compass". The group stated that they were demanding the Scottish police to stop arresting and charging them for their repeat protests. BREAKING Palestine Action Ban Branded 'Absurd and Dangerous' as Group Asks High Court to Overturn Proscription Hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the High Court in order to oppose the ban on the direct action group, Olly Haynes reports Olly Haynes The letter also stated that the g...