Byline Times Audio Articles

It was a stunning election victory. Despite a track record of lies and lawlessness, he romped home in a landslide, seeming to attract a new coalition of voters, from the conservative rural vote, to rust-belt post-industrial workers, and unexpectedly diverse sections of the cities and their suburbs. As the chaotic but iconic blonde with a chequered personal past took up the highest office in the land, it seemed like nothing could stop him. What could stand in the way of his big economic policy goal of national exceptionalism? He would erect trade barriers against capitalists from competing nations. He would stop freedom of movement and protect his labour force. And, though appealing to the public about their pocketbook issues, the new leader's administration would open the way to a raft of crony appointments and favours to his super-rich backers. Many said his coalition would dominate the nation for the next two or three election cycles. Three years later, in 2022, Boris Johnson was gone from Downing Street. Two years after that, the Conservative Party suffered its worst election result since it was created nearly 200 years ago. FROM THE DECEMBER PRINT EDITION OF BYLINE TIMES. SUBSCRIBE FOR AS LITTLE AS £3 A MONTH Compared to Johnson's 'Get Brexit Done' General Election of 2019, the success of Donald Trump this November is much more momentous and earth-shattering. But the question of how this authoritarian populism will play out in power - and the extent of its collision with reality - is still an open one. Trump - who once referred to himself as Mr 'Brexit Plus Plus Plus' and described Johnson as 'Britain Trump' - also vaunts an exceptionalist 'Amerexit': a project that assumes the US can somehow sail out of the modern world of interdependency and internationalism and go it alone. But here in Britain, Brexit is deeply unpopular four years on - especially with those who voted for it and have been impacted by its economic shortcomings, as Byline Times revealed in a major investigation last year. Trump has already sold to his voters the idea that tariffs on foreign goods will somehow solve the plight of inflation, though they will only aggravate it. Johnson's Vote Leave campaign also promised lower energy and food prices, though delivered the reverse. Trump's plans for the expulsion of millions of undocumented migrants, mainly from Mexico and South America, are as evocative and impractical as the various hostile environments and 'stop the boats' schemes the Conservatives have tried here, most notably the unlawful Rwanda policy. The US is even more reliant than the UK on migration for cheap labour, and the economic costs (let alone the moral and practical implications) of these mass deportations are likely to be much higher than the rhetorical advantage of attacking 'outsiders'. FREE PREVIEW The Psycho-Social-Techno Politics of 'MAGA' Trumps Democracy - And the Liberal Left Has No Answer Hardeep Matharu The contradictions are untenable. Just as Johnson claimed to have a policy of 'levelling up' but was really in hock to a millionaire concierge class for donations, then rewarded with honours or government contracts, Trump's appeal to the blue-collar vote, or black men or Hispanics, or disaffected Gen Z voters, sits ill at ease with his real alliance with billionaires and the tech 'broligarchs'. His coalition in 2024 remains as vulnerable as Johnson's in 2019. How will Trump satisfy both the hedge fund owners and the union vote? The angry Muslims who voted for him over Gaza, along with right-wing American Jews who thought he would be more pro-Netanyahu? Where's the commonality between soccer moms fearing transgender people and the cryptocurrency porn barons? The right-wing evangelicals and the Silicon Valley transhumanists? In this edition, Byline Times details how the Democrats lost this election, and the perils ahead for the world and the UK of another Trump presidency. On a note of optimism, it's worth remembering that we surv...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour. To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis. Help us build the better media Britain deserves Prince Harry's legal case against Rupert Murdoch's UK company looks likely to go to trial in two months' time following a court hearing in London on Friday. If there is no last-minute change, it will be the first time the newspaper group - News Group Newspapers (NGN) - has ever been forced to defend its record in court in 15 years of litigation about phone hacking and other unlawful reporting methods. Prince Harry is suing the publisher of The Sun and the now-defunct News of the World alleging NGN unlawfully obtained private information about him from 1996 until 2011. Counsel for the Prince, David Sherborne, said that in the past week NGN had reached out-of-court settlements with 12 people who had brought claims - as has happened in hundreds of previous cases - but that "two claims are going to trial". Those two are brought by the Prince and Lord Tom Watson, the former deputy leader of the Labour Party, who says he was subject to a politically-motivated campaign of phone hacking and other abuses. Sherborne reminded the judge, Mr Justice Timothy Fancourt, that on 13 previous occasions since 2011 planned trials involving the Murdoch company had failed to go ahead because claimants have been, as he put it, "bought off". EXCLUSIVE Public Demands Starmer Resurrects Leveson Press Corruption Inquiry Amid Collapse in Trust in UK Media The mother of late TV presenter Caroline Flack calls for Starmer to "find the courage" to restart it as exclusive new YouGov polling finds public wants reform Adam Bienkov The Prince and Lord Watson have not settled and Friday's hearing was devoted to preparations for a six-week trial scheduled to begin around 15 January. The only previous trials relating to phone hacking have related to the Mirror newspapers and both went badly for the publisher. Given the past history, and despite Sherborne's assertion, a settlement in the Murdoch case even at this late stage can't be ruled out. What is clear is that News Group has poured money into its effort to escape a trial - the total number of recent settlements is said by informed sources to be around 40 - but that the Prince and Watson have held out. In practice, a rich company holds the best cards in these matters. Claimants keen to have their day in court can be forced to settle if the offer exceeds what they could win at trial. News Group is thought to have paid out more than £1 billion over the years in such settlements, with costs. 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 - £39.50 A YEAR PAY MONTHLY - £3.75 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. The Prince has said he is determined to hold the company to account, and the complexity and scope of his case, which relates to hundreds of news stories over a lengthy period, may have made it harder for News Group to oblige him to settle.

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour. To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis. Help us build the better media Britain deserves Former Conservative minister and current Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick, and his colleague the former Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden, wasted £15.4 million of taxpayers money by fast tracking the purchase of a site for an asylum centre in Sussex which could not be used due to its contaminated land and asbestos-ridden buildings, a new National Audit Office (NAO) report reveals. The Home Office purchased the site despite officials highlighting "significant risks with the acquisition" to Jenrick. Repairs to the site would have cost a further £20 million to complete, according to the report. The owners of the property in Bexhill - used variously as a former RAF station, a prison, and latterly, a military training centre for the United Arab Emirates and left derelict for 12 years - made a profit of over £9 million on the deal within eight months. The report, published Friday, is scathing about the deal which broke Whitehall rules in the rush to find sites that could replace hotels used by asylum seekers. The Home Office used a private company to negotiate with the the owners, a limited Liability company called Brockwell Group Bexhill, which had been set up only a month before the sale. The Home Office later learned it was built on contaminated land and the buildings were full of asbestos, meaning they could not use it to house asylum seekers. UK's 'Worst Hotel Chain', Britannia Hotels, Makes Remarkable Profit After Joining Government's Asylum Seeker Hotel Network Britannia Hotels profits increased to £40 million in 2023, amid reports that at least 17 of the chain's hotels have been block-booked by the Government for asylum seekers Andrew Kersley The NAO report reveals that the last Government set up a small ministers group, chaired by Dowden, then Chancellor of then Duchy of Lancaster, to drive through the plans. Jenrick, then immigration minister, visited the site and took a leading role in purchasing it. According to the NAO, the Home Office was originally alerted to the Bexhill property in 2022 by Clearsprings, a private company which makes about £1 billion over 10 years housing asylum seekers at Napier Barracks in Kent and in Wales. Clearsprings is one of three contractors helping the Home Office identify sites for asylum accommodation. The vendors of the Northeye site approached them in order to offer the site to the Home Office. Clearsprings were negotiating leasing the site on behalf of the Home Office up until August 2022. The Home Office then dealt with the vendors directly. On 11 August, Brockwell Group Bexhill, purchased the property from the UAE for £6.3 million and on the same day, according to Companies House records, negotiated a very large loan from a mortgage broker. EXCLUSIVE Bibby Stockholm: A Year On, Campaigners Demand 'Most Vulnerable Be Taken Off Scrapped Barge Immediately' The Government announced the barge will close in January 2025 but figures released to Byline Times on 'health incidents' on the barge have reignited calls for the most vulnerable residents to be moved immediately Joshua Stein The Home Office moved quickly and chose to dispense with established processes, including the requirement for a full business case before approving the purchase. A full assessment of the remediation required on the site did not take place despite significant risks being flagged. The cost of the work was underestimated before contracts were exchanged, committing the Home Office to the purchase. It was at this point the Home Office discovered the full extent of the land contamination and asbestos but was unable to back out. The remediation costs...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour. To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis. Help us build the better media Britain deserves The UK has always been on a sliding scale between the US and the EU. Our architecture and royal family solidly European, our entertainment culture much more American. In terms of politics and business, we've always felt like a blend of the two. And when we were inside the EU, we had an incredibly enviable position in the world for our size. We were in the Single Market of Europe, acting as the "gateway to Europe" for Asian countries, we were in the policy framework of Europe. With our "special relationship" with the US, a term I loathe, but nevertheless, it made us the principal capital for the White House to call to discuss US-European issues. And we had the Commonwealth which we could balance with the EU and US. We were the connector of it all - a lynchpin of international teamwork around the globe. The Brexit advocates who pulled us away from that privileged position said that being within the EU was being "shackled to the corpse of Europe" and that as an independent entity, we could partner with the US and Asian countries, especially China, to hitch our trade to faster growing markets and get our own growth soaring as a result. It didn't happen. Instead, we just killed the goose that laid the golden egg. However, in the short window of time following the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump in the US in 2016, it looked as though the Brexit proponents were going to wrench the UK from the EU's orbit and push us into the arms of Trump, complete with NHS privatisation on the fast track, chlorinated chicken, hormone treated beef and other culinary horrors in exchange for our… well, we never found something that would be able to penetrate all 50 states and their protectionist walls. We formally came out of the EU in February 2020, but that was the outset of the COVID pandemic, which occupied nearly all policy bandwidth. We then left the EU transition period in January 2021 when vaccines were rolling out and the end felt in sight. However, it was the same month that Joe Biden came into power with zero interest in humouring Boris Johnson's fantasies of a celebratory US-UK Brexit trade deal. Donald Trump's Team of Yes Men and Ideologues Shows There Will be No Guardrails Around His Presidency The President elect's appointment of a group of fawning and ideologically blinded advisers should worry us all, writes former UK Diplomat Alexandra Hall Hall Alexandra Hall Hall Now Trump is back. But Johnson is no longer in power - it is Keir Starmer who is prime minister. Starmer's own inclinations and his party will pull in the direction of the EU, but Nigel Farage, in collaboration with elements of Britain's right-leaning press will try to help Trump throw a lasso around the UK and haul us into America's partnership, simultaneously punishing Europe but offering the UK rewards to embrace his munificence and betray our neighbourhood. Get ready to enter a psychodrama tug-of-love over values, culture, economics, and arguments about GDP growth rates versus quality of life, defence, security, innovation and AI regulation. The lot will be fought over. But wait - there's more, as they like to say in infomercials. Added to this test of Britain's transatlantic allegiances and identity soul-searching are the global defence and security issues opened up by Russia's war on Ukraine and Israel's war in its occupied territories and Lebanon. Both of these will make for era-defining decisions on America and Europe's roles in the world. Trump's mercurial character could tip the dynamics in a number of combinatorial ways that are hard to predict. But either way, that uncertainty leads to on...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour. To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis. Help us build the better media Britain deserves This coming week will mark 1,000 days since Russia launched their all-out invasion of Ukraine. In those 1,000 days, and through many hundreds of thousands of individual acts of bravery, Ukraine has demonstrated time and time again that the country and her people will not capitulate to Russia's attempts to subjugate this sovereign nation. And, going forward, as people search for ways to end this war, Ukraine will still not capitulate. The return of Donald Trump to the presidency will, for better or worse, have a major impact on world affairs. But it is perhaps in regard to the war in Ukraine that his decisions may have the biggest impact and the President-Elect needs to understand that means, therefore, that Ukrainians get a say in whether or not they accept whatever decisions he may make. At the outset of this phase of the war, after rejecting overtures to move himself and his Government into exile, Ukraine's President famously said, "I need ammo, not a ride", and the situation remains now as it was then. Volodymyr Zelenskyy refused to capitulate, and simply requested the tools needed to stand up to the challenge. Driven by the understanding that theirs was an existential fight, men and women flocked to take up arms to fight the invaders, and since those first days the mood for this fight was set. Ukraine, thought to have only a few days to stand, stood firm and fought back. It is the intention of Ukraine, from everything I read and hear, to continue to stand firm and fight back; nobody can deny them that right. EXCLUSIVE 'If you Hear That Sound, You're Probably Dead': How Drone Attacks are Making Evacuations in Ukraine Increasingly Unsafe Rescuers on the ground in Ukraine detail the 'massive risks' now involved in evacuating residents in areas under attack from Russian forces Kris Parker As things stand, there is no "peace plan" for Ukraine on the table. There are, as Trump likes to say, "concepts of a plan" though. We hear ideas being raised constantly (usually accompanied by qualifiers like "the simplest path to peace in Ukraine is…" because they are simple ideas not grasping the complexities or roots of the situation) about the kinds of concessions that Ukraine is going to have to make. Why? What single concession has Ukraine made to Russia in the 1,000 days since 24 February 2022? Why would Ukraine start to make concessions now? It has often been said that one of the problems with the approach taken by President Joe Biden was that he did not have a clear plan to end the war. There is some justification in that. However, and this is very important, Ukraine does have a clear plan to end the war and it is that plan - understood almost universally in Ukraine - that has kept this fighting spirit unbroken throughout 1,000 days of hardship, suffering, and pain. David Lammy Unleashes On Vladimir Putin in Remarkable UN Speech - Then Takes aim at Russian Ambassador The Foreign Secretary's attack on Russian President was in stark contrast to Joe Biden's final speech at the UN General Assembly on 24 September Alexandra Hall Hall The plan is to end the war by undoing the acts that came at the very beginning of it a decade ago, by making the Russian occupation of any part of Ukraine untenable. Yes, including Crimea. Those who are pushing Ukraine to cede part of the country to Russia, be that "just" Crimea, or all of the occupied territories, to bring the active fighting to a close all fail to understand what they are advocating for. They will have created a modern precedent for recognising borders redrawn by military force in Europe. Such things should be behind us. The peo...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour. To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis. Help us build the better media Britain deserves The End of Life Bill published this week marks a historic moment for a country with one of the most punitive approaches to assisted dying for terminally ill people in the liberal world. But here at Media Storm, something confuses us about the debate now unfolding in the news, which is the distinctive lack of voices of people for whom the bill is designed. They are out there, and they are not voiceless. So we can only conclude it is because the British are terrified of looking at death. But some have no choice but to stare death in the eyes, and to refuse to hear them is to abandon them to face it alone. This column is dedicated to the dying, dead, and their loved ones, who spoke to me on Media Storm podcast and forever changed my view on assisted dying. Theirs are the testimonies we must not look away from, and that anyone refusing legal reform must answer to. Kit is 38, and always will be. She is obsessed with animals and happiest in the middle of a salt marsh by the coast. When we speak, she has stage four breast cancer, and is spending her days fighting for a future she will not live to see. "I dream of a future where assisted dying is an option for people like me," she said, "that we get the option to die how we want". Donald Trump's Victory Shows UK Abortion Rights Are Not as Secure as You Think Six women were charged in the UK for ending their own pregnancy after the US overturned abortion rights in 2022. Investigations have also exposed how US lobby groups are funding UK anti-abortion organisations Mathilda Mallinson and Helena Wadia Helping a person to end their own life in the UK is a criminal offence with a penalty of up to 14 years jail. It is legal in 11 US states, Canada, most of Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Austria, Ecuador, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Germany, with more countries in the process of legalisation. The UK's stance confuses Kit. I like to delude myself that I've got more rights than a dog in this country. If a dog was left to die of cancer, you'd give that dog a cuddle and let the vet give it an injection. I don't fully understand why so many people would faint from horror at the thought of hearing a dog screaming in agony but have no real issue with the idea of a human doing that Kit, who has stage four breast cancer She tells me she has lost her voice screaming from pain in hospital wards, and it is not how she wants to die. She wants to die in her husband's arms. Written here, these words outlive Kit, just like the cause she fought for. She died a few months after we spoke. I will spare you the details, it was not the death she asked for. Opponents to reform focus on the sanctity of life, risks of abuse and the slippery slope of legalisation, but a scary phenomenon is happening in its absence. There is a suicide endemic among terminally ill people in the UK, with an estimated 650 taking their own lives each year through unsafe and often violent means. I am about to do something reporters should almost never do and include details of a method of suicide (suicide being a tricky term in this context). This is not done lightly, but because it is vital to understand what many people suffering with terminal illness resort to in lieu of medically-assisted alternatives. How the Media 'Justified' the Shooting of Chris Kaba and then 'Conducted a Merciless Autopsy' on his Life The headlines about Chris Kaba tell us more about the society and media in this country than his killing Mathilda Mallinson and Helena Wadia Norman Ward lived through 15 years of prostate cancer, withstanding hormone therapy, experimental drug trials and mul...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour. To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis. Help us build the better media Britain deserves In 1972, I was 11 years old, and having a gloomy day in hospital. I was waiting to see my mum by the entrance to the children's ward. There was always a feeling of hope and dread. Life had battered me so much already. I had pain and was often frustrated. But worse was the confusion and abuse inflicted by adults, some of whom were in charge of me. The abuse was sly, unexpected - the slow chipping away of confidence and a burgeoning self-belief as I paused on the troubling threshold of adolescence. Back then, I was told, at least once a week, that it would have been a blessing for my family - and for me - if I had not been born. Less suffering all round. After all, everything in my life was doomed with suffering. So I am familiar with the doubting stabs of where do I belong? and why am I alive? Those words are thorns that I have felt pierce my life ever since. I feel them again now, as we find ourselves at the precipice of another private members' bill - the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill - due to be debated in Parliament on 29 November, which states that a person requesting assisted dying must be expected to die within six months. If it wasn't so threatening it would be farcical. 'Life Unworthy of Life': The Lessons of T4 Stephen Unwin delves deep into the intellectual traditions and cultural mindset that produced the Nazis' 'wild euthanasia' of people with disabilities, and finds we have not yet put those prejudices to rest Stephen Unwin Legalising assisted suicide (as I term it) is so yesterday. So before disability rights and activism. So much the outdated 'medical model' of disability. When you dig deeper, those behind the headlines on 'compassion' are often the privileged few, determined to set out an argument that represents the height of individualism. An argument that is perhaps not quite what is claimed - in this case that the campaign to change the law is only for the terminally ill. So much evidence I have seen demonstrates that this is not the case. When I was critically ill last year, it was suggested that a 'do not resuscitate' (DNR) notice should be put in place for me. Since that time, my life has been a yo-yo of new pain and depths of frustration. But do I think I'd be better off dead? Of course not. Through friends, networks of support, and love, I kept hope. And I still do. I worry that allowing the slightest relaxation on assisted suicide could lead to the likes of Canada's medical assistance in dying (MAID) programme for those with a "serious illness, disease, or disability", including those in a "state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable". As actress and disability rights activist Liz Carr's BBC documentary Better Off Dead? demonstrated earlier this year, under programmes such as this, there can be an emphasis on people choosing assisted suicide rather than asking for support through social care - with subtle encouragement leading you to believe that you are a burden. This slippery slope is my big concern as such laws can lead to the literal ending of someone's life, in my view, in a way that is harmful and horrific - because it devalues all human beings (outside of the most narrowly-defined exceptions). I am so tired. Do I have to say again that I am a specialist in pain and suffering? I do not want to live with an ultimate threat of coercion hanging over me - coercion that many of us already live with on multiple levels. Like the arguments against capital punishment, how many innocent people are we okay with dying through coercion supposedly for a greater good? Except this is not for a 'g...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour. To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis. Help us build the better media Britain deserves It feels like a long time since the UK hosted the relatively well-received COP26 in Glasgow. That event marked the first time negotiators explicitly referenced the need to "phase down unabated coal" and "phase-out fossil fuel subsidies". Since then countries have largely failed to meet their commitments. There is a "massive gap between rhetoric and reality", argues the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) that must be closed by new climate pledges and implemented by governments. Many countries are not on track to meet current, inadequate, commitments, with policy projections from G20 nations exceeding them by a collective one billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions (in carbon dioxide equivalent, CO2e) in 2030. In the meantime global temperatures have risen sharply. 2023 saw a rapid, and sustained, rise in global temperatures that went far beyond the more incremental rise seen in previous years. 2024 is on track to become the hottest year on record. Not all of this increase can be attributed to rising emissions. Some may be temporary: the transition from La Niña to El Niño conditions significantly influenced the global temperature rise in 2023. Donald Trump is a Catastrophe for our Climate and we Must Start Preparing for the Disasters to Come Governments around the world need to act now to prevent the worst of what is coming our way Tom Scott But many scientists believe these factors do not explain the scale of the temperature rise, raising alarm at an unprecedented drop in nature's ability to absorb carbon. The planet's oceans, forests, soils and other natural carbon sinks have to this point absorbed about half of all human emissions. But as the Earth heats up scientists believe those crucial processes are breaking down. Preliminary findings show the amount of carbon absorbed by land collapsed in 2023. Forests, plants and soil absorbed almost no carbon, an unprecedented outcome. There are similar warning signs at sea. Greenland's glaciers and Arctic ice sheets are melting faster than expected, disrupting the Gulf Stream ocean current and slowing the rate at which oceans absorb carbon. This sudden collapse of carbon sinks was not factored into climate models, and would rapidly accelerate global warming if sustained. "Terrestrial ecosystems are losing their carbon store and carbon uptake capacity, oceans are also showing signs of instability," Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told an event at New York Climate Week in September. "Nature has so far balanced our abuse. This is coming to an end." Philippe Ciais, researcher at the French Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, argues that "in the northern hemisphere, where you have more than half of CO2 uptake, we have seen a decline trend in absorption for eight years. There is no good reason to believe it will bounce back". The consequences for climate targets are stark. Even a modest weakening of nature's ability to absorb carbon would mean the world would have to make much deeper cuts to greenhouse gas emissions to achieve net zero. EXCLUSIVE Kemi Badenoch and Shadow Net Zero Secretary Funded by Backers of Tufton Street Climate Science Denial Group The Conservative party leader and several leading members of her new Shadow Cabinet have ties to the opaquely-funded group campaigning against plans to reach Net Zero Adam Bienkov The weakening of land sinks - which has so far been regional - also has the effect of cancelling out nations' progress on decarbonisation and progress towards climate goals. This raises the stakes in Baku. Developing countries have been clear ...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour. To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis. Help us build the better media Britain deserves The PPE scandal shows no sign of ending after it was revealed this week that over one million pallets laden with unusable Covid protective equipment have so far been destroyed by the Government. In response to a Parliamentary question from Reform MP Rupert Lowe, Health Minister Karin Smith confirmed: "As of the end of September 2024, approximately 1,049,700 pallets, or 23%, of personal protective equipment (PPE) has been recycled through energy from waste and recycling. The original cost to purchase was £8.644 billion, and all stock categorised as excess has no residual market value". The purchase price of the unused PPE that has now been destroyed to date sits at £8.6 billion. In total the Department of Health and Social Care has written off nearly £14.9 billion spent on unusable medical goods it procured during the pandemic. During the pandemic the last Conservative government established a so-called VIP lane that prioritised offers to supply PPE from companies with access to political connections. Billions of pounds were paid to suppliers who were referred down this procurement route - often with disastrous consequences. BREAKING Heart Attacks on the Rise After Conservative Reforms Reverse Progress on Tackling Silent Killer A damning new report highlights a series of failures under the last Conservative Government David Hencke An investigation by Spotlight on Corruption revealed that 50% of companies who were awarded PPE contracts via the VIP lane supplied goods that were not fit for purpose and were subsequently labelled "do not supply". An astonishing 475 million items of personal protective equipment (PPE) worth over £1 billion fell into this category. These figures include 25 million gowns supplied by PPE Medpro that cost the taxpayer £124 million. The firm were referred to the VIP lane after Barone Mone repeatedly lobbied Government ministers. The controversial deal is the subject of an ongoing legal case with the DHSC as well as a criminal investigation by the National Crime Agency. The scale of the waste is staggering. If you were to line up 1,049,700 pallets of PPE that have been destroyed to date it would stretch for 780 miles - For comparison the distance between London and John o'Groats in Scotland is 692 miles. About £1.4bn worth of PPE was destroyed or written off from just one contract - the deal with Full Support Healthcare has been labelled the most wasteful government deal of the pandemic. 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 - £39.50 A YEAR PAY MONTHLY - £3.75 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. Figures obtained by the BBC revealed that at least 1.57 billion items of PPE provided by Full Support Healthcare under the contract, will never be used. Despite the PPE being manufactured to the proper standard, officials have confirmed some 749 million items have already been incinerated, and a further 825 million were earmarked for further incineration or recycling. The ongoing Covid Inquiry recently started to turn its attention to the procurement of PPE during the pandemic. Live hearings have been scheduled for March 2025. Lets hope the inquiry led by Baroness Hallett can force some accountability and transparency over the decisions that resulted in £8.6 billion worth of PPE literally going up in smoke.

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour. To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis. Help us build the better media Britain deserves As Donald Trump rolls out appointments to his Cabinet and White House staff, it is clear that personal and ideological loyalty to him and his agenda is more important than competence or adherence to ethical or constitutional norms. His most egregious hires include designating former Fox News host and Army veteran Pete Hegseth as Secretary of State for Defence, a man who has previously expressed support for overturning convictions against soldiers found guilty of war crimes, and scepticism about women serving in the military. Trump has appointed Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, neither of whom have any experience working in government, to head a new body to cut government spending, eliminate regulations and re-structure federal agencies. This will probably result in the shredding of vital environmental, health and consumer protection measures, and the firing or resignations of thousands of experienced officials, to the detriment of government services. Trump has also selected former Arkansas Governor Mick Huckabee to be the US Ambassador to Israel, a man who has supported the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, in direct violation of international law. Elise Stefanik, tapped to become US Ambassador to the UN, vigorously defended Trump through his two impeachments, has little foreign policy experience, and is primarily known for her staunch defence of Israel and criticism of the UN's approach there - hardly traits which will smooth her path in New York. Trump announced that former Congressman Lee Zeldin from New York would become Head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Zeldin has limited environmental experience, has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industries, supported Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords, and expressed scepticism about renewable energy targets. He was also one of 126 Republican House members to sign onto the Texas v. Pennsylvania lawsuit seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election. 'The UK and EU Must Stand Together to Secure Ourselves Against the Threat from Trump' Europe must wake up to the growing security threats posed by Russia and the new Trump administration Mike Buckley Trump has also appointed officials known for their willingness to adopt extremely harsh measures against illegal migrants, such as Tom Homan, a champion of Trump's family separation policy, to be his new "border czar", and immigration hardliner, Stephen Miller, to be his deputy chief of staff. Yet even worse than these appointments are the designations of Congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida as Trump's Attorney General, and Tulsi Gabbard to be his Director of National Intelligence, overseeing all 18 of the nation's intelligence agencies. Gaetz shot to fame for encouraging the rioters on January 6th, and has railed for years against both the Department of Justice and the FBI for alleged politicization. His resentment against them is probably fuelled by the fact that he himself has been under investigation for sexual misconduct, illicit drug use and dispensation of special favors to cronies. Tulsi Gabbard is a former democratic congresswoman turned Trump stalwart, who dabbles in conspiracy theories, has engaged with autocrats such as Syrian President Assad, and frequently propagates Russian propaganda. It boggles the mind to think how Justice and Intelligence officials are going to be able to work with leaders whose views are so utterly opposed to their institutions' values and missions. EXCLUSIVE Islamophobic World View of Tulsi Gabbard's Guru Revealed in Unearthed Recordings Shoc...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour. To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis. Help us build the better media Britain deserves Britain's official elections watchdog has called for an overhaul of election rules after concerns about people attempting to mislead voters by impersonating real candidates, or providing fake details to get on the ballot paper in this year's General Election. In a new report on the handling of July's election, the Electoral Commission highlighted the case of YouTuber Niko Omilana, who successfully encouraged his followers to stand as candidates, under his own name, in at least 11 constituencies. At the time it was unclear who the candidates were, or whether they were all the same person. It comes after similar concerns were raised about so-called 'invisible' Reform candidates during the General Election, for whom almost no information could be accessed by voters or even reporters. Reform UK fielded dozens of super-anonymous candidates in the 2024 General Election - potentially netting the party hundreds of thousands of pounds in extra public cash, or 'Short money', and hiking its national spending limits. There is no suggestion the candidates did not exist, but the affair highlighted the fact that those seeking election do not have to provide ID to apply to stand, while voters do need ID in order to vote. Councils are also unable to conduct checks on whether potential candidates actually exist or are providing accurate information. Don't miss a story SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES No Checks Under current election law in the UK, local Returning Officers must accept candidate nominations if only very basic paperwork requirements are met. Election staff have no power to investigate candidates' true identities or reject potentially misleading nominations. And candidates do not have to show identification when applying to run, despite voters having to do so at the ballot box. The Commission says this puts officials "in a difficult position" and risks confusing voters about who they are voting for. In its new report, the electoral watchdog recommends that candidates should have to provide proof of identity when standing for election - noting that voters currently face stricter ID requirements than those seeking to represent them. The watchdog also backed previous Law Commission proposals to give Returning Officers explicit powers to reject nominations that appear "designed to confuse or mislead electors". BREAKING Vast Majority of Those Turned Away Over Voter ID in Local Elections Were 'Non-White' According to Polling Station Observers The figure has surged compared to last year's local elections, raising concerns over discrimination, the UK's leading election monitoring group has warned Josiah Mortimer And while the report highlighted that while it is illegal for candidates to stand in multiple constituencies, there is currently no system to easily check if this rule is being broken. An Electoral Commission spokesperson said the recommendations aim to strengthen the nomination process while maintaining accessibility and protecting the impartiality of election officials. The report noted: "The requirements and checks for nominating candidates should be strengthened to make it harder for candidates to mislead voters about their true identity. "Voters must now provide proof of their identity when they register to vote, apply for an absent vote or cast their vote at a polling station - but candidates do not have to provide any proof of identity to be nominated… "There is currently no mechanism to easily identify whether any candidates have agreed to be nominated in more than one constituency. It may also be necessary to develop a process for collating details of all candidates at...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour. To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis. Help us build the better media Britain deserves Chancellor Rachel Reeves faces calls to beef up Britain's financial regulator following a string of scandals in the sector. It comes ahead of a key speech by the Chancellor to industry figures at the City of London's opulent Mansion House this Thursday. An open letter from finance sector figures and campaigners, led by the non-profit Transparency Task Force UK to Chancellor Reeves, identifies a significant "trust gap" in financial services that they argue is hampering the sector's growth potential. According to the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) research, only 11% of adults strongly trust the financial services sector, with trust levels remaining stagnant even as memories of the 2008 global financial crisis fade. Particularly concerning, the authors write, is the fact that young people show more distrust than older generations, while vulnerable and marginalised groups demonstrate the lowest levels of confidence in the industry. Don't miss a story SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES This lack of trust has serious economic implications, they argue, noting that consumers are hesitant to try new financial products or providers, which creates an "obvious barrier to innovation and growth." And the impact extends beyond individual consumers to affect pensions, investments, and small business lending, with many business owners reportedly reluctant to seek bank financing due to fear of mistreatment. String of Scandals The letter points to numerous regulatory failures and financial scandals that have contributed to the collapse in trust. These include the "exploitation of vulnerable, low-income workers by payday lenders", the ongoing plight of so-called mortgage prisoners trapped in hugely costly mortgage deals, and the Woodford Equity Income Fund scandal - which "saw a 'superstar' fund manager "jeopardise prudent savers' pensions" with the victims then being denied access to statutory protections and compensation. The 'peer to peer' lending sector has also been subject to 'light touch' regulation, which TT UK says came as the result of Treasury lobbying and which "allowed rogue platform operators to fleece consumers". The campaigners also point to a raft of complaints of alleged mistreatment of small and medium-sized enterprises by banks. Many of these cases remain unresolved, some for over a decade. UK financial regulators are viewed by some in the sector as soft-touch compared to traditionally tough US watchdogs. Since 2000, finance firms have been fined just over £6bn by regulators in the UK, according to the monitoring tool Violation Tracker. In the US, a single crypto firm - Binance Holdings - was fined over half that amount (£3.4bn) last year alone. Budget 2024: The Elephant in the Room is that Brexit Has Made Britain a Much Poorer Place The unspoken truth of Rachel Reeves' Budget is that leaving the EU has left Britain permanently worse off Adam Bienkov A recent Spotlight on Corruption report revealed a "serious accountability gap" when it comes to senior executives. "Those at the helm of large firms that engage in economic crime, financial wrongdoing or regulatory breaches rarely face any consequence at all…The organisations' leaders seem to treat [sanctions] as just 'the cost of doing business'." That's despite a "remarkably potent and well-conceived" set of powers to tackle wrongdoing, in a certification regime set up for senior managers by Parliament in the wake of the 2008 financial crash. Bad Actors Andy Agathangelou FRSA, Founder of Transparency Task Force and Chair of the Secretariat Committee for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Investment Fraud and Fairer Fin...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour. To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis. Help us build the better media Britain deserves The number of people prematurely dying from heart attacks is on the rise because life-saving health checks that could prevent early deaths are simply not taking place, the UK's official independent spending watchdog says in a damning report published today. The report which comes in advance of the Government's planned reforms for the NHS recommends a complete review of the health check system. Some 6.4 million people in England suffer from cardio vascular disease which is estimated to cost the economy some £15.8 billion. The NHS is spending £7.4 billion treating it but a lot of problems are preventable. Gordon Brown's Labour government introduced five year health checks in 2009 for everybody between 40 and 74 who didn't have a pre-existing condition. However, in 2013 under the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition the government transferred the responsibility for giving these checks to local councils. Now the NAO has found out that only three per cent of local councils provided full health checks for everybody from 40 to 74 and half the people are missing out. The legislation which gave councils their new role is also flawed. The NHS which has to pay later for treatment of cardio vascular disease has no power to monitor council's performance. And in turn local councils have no power to compel GPs to carry out the health checks. UPDATE Five News Stories that Got Buried by Donald Trump's Election Victory Wondering what you've missed amid the noise surrounding Trump's victory? Here are some stories you won't have heard much about this past week Josiah Mortimer The public health grant, which includes paying for health checks, has been reduced by successive Conservative governments from £4.48 billion in 2015-16 to £3.53 billion in 2023-24. Money for tackling obesity, smoking, and encouraging physical activity, which all help counter heart disease, was also cut over the same period from £340 million to £262 million. As a result the startling progress in halving premature deaths from heart attacks from 145 per 100,000 to 74 per 100,000 between 2001 and 2014 came to a grinding halt. And last year it rose again to 77 per 100,000 for the first time. The figure masks big discrepancies across the country. The lowest rates of between 40 and 60 premature deaths per 100,000 are in Devon, Dorset, Hampshire, West Sussex and Surrey, while the highest at up to 140 premature deaths per 100,000 are in Liverpool, Hull, and North East England. Deprived areas are suffering the most. The NAO is calling on the Government to review the health check system as it is not working effectively and also calling for incentives to be given to doctors to check those at most risk. Gareth Davies, head of the NAO, said: "Each year thousands of lives are lost to cardiovascular disease, with billions of pounds spent tackling it. "Health Checks can play a crucial role in bringing these numbers down, but the system isn't working effectively, resulting in not enough people having checks. This is an unsatisfactory basis for delivering an important public health intervention. "The Department of Health & Social Care needs to address the weaknesses in the current system for targeting and delivering Health Checks if it is to achieve the preventative effect it wants." Geoffrey Clinton-Brown, the Conservative chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said: "Health Checks have the potential to save lives and public money - it is a missed opportunity that less than half of those eligible are attending these checks. The Department of Health & Social Care needs to take action to systematically boost uptake, target c...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour. To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis. Help us build the better media Britain deserves The Daily Mail has been gifted a partial victory by its number one enemy, the European Court of Human Rights, in a case against the Government over high legal costs in defamation and privacy cases. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg - long a target of outraged front-pages from the Mail - sided this Tuesday with Mail owner Associated Newspapers (DMGT) in claiming its free speech rights had been violated. Associated Newspapers Limited, the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, had been obliged to pay extensive costs incurred by claimants who had successfully sued it in privacy and defamation proceedings, following articles the paper published in print or online in 2017 and 2019. One of the claimants had entered into a so-called conditional fee arrangement (CFA) with his legal representatives, and both had also taken out "after-the-event" (ATE) insurance which can result in significant cost demands on the losing side, for example following drawn-out and costly libel cases. As Press Gazette reported: "Associated complained about CFAs in relation to a privacy case brought by a man named by Mail Online after he was arrested, but never charged, on suspicion of involvement in the 2017 Manchester Arena terror attack… "Associated was ordered to pay the man £83,000 in damages plus costs of £822,421.79, which included £245,775 plus VAT for the success fee agreed between the man and his lawyer." Don't miss a story SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES In the 2019 defamation case which the Mail also lost, owner Associated Newspapers Ltd had been liable not only for the claimants' core legal fees, but also for fee uplifts, including the "success fee" as part of the conditional fee arrangement, and for their ATE insurance premiums. In a double irony, or perhaps hypocrisy, those schemes the Mail complained about to the Court have effectively replaced legal aid for large numbers of relatively low-income (but not completely impoverished) people. Legal aid was drastically cut back, amid cheering from the Daily Mail, under the last Conservative Government, bolstering the no-win-no-fee sector and the hefty premiums to pay for it. The paper had claimed its freedom of expression (Article 10 of the ECHR) had been infringed by having to pay the success fees to claimants' lawyers in defamation and privacy cases. The Court ruled in favour of the publisher on this front. But in a split verdict, the European Court found no violation regarding the requirement to pay "after-the-event" (ATE) insurance premiums. Human Rights Groups Rejoice Human rights groups, so frequently at the end of attacks as "lefty lawyers" or "woke activists" by the Mail, look forward to the paper throwing its weight behind the ECHR. Sam Grant, Director of External Relations at Liberty told Byline Times: "For over 70 years, the European Convention of Human Rights has defended us all; protecting, among others, LGBT rights, religious freedoms, and today the Daily Mail. "No matter our view on the ECHR, we all benefit from the rights it enshrines, which is why we must ensure that it remains an integral part of UK law." Tom Southerden Legal Programme Director for Amnesty, added: "We can only hope today's success at the European Court of Human Rights might make the Mail reflect on its tendency towards rights bashing. "Human rights have to apply to all of us equally in order to have any force at all. Even, and perhaps especially, those who might be less than wholly sympathetic." EXCLUSIVE Public Demands Starmer Resurrects Leveson Press Corruption Inquiry Amid Collapse in Trust in UK Media The mother of late TV prese...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour. To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis. Help us build the better media Britain deserves Trump's newly appointed Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, brings a complex political profile, with ties to Russian oligarchs and Chinese surveillance firms. Before joining Trump's 2024 campaign, Wiles was a co-chair at a firm that lobbied for sanctioned individuals and companies. A lobbyist who recommended Wiles to lead US President-Elect Donald Trump's campaign represented a Russian-born oligarch connected to the Russian President Vladimir Putin and a state-owned oil corporation Rosneft. Wiles' ex-husband has ties to a Kremlin-linked lobbyist known for attending the 2016 Trump Tower meeting, where "dirt" on Clinton was offered on the Russian Government's behalf. Wiles' daughter failed the White House background check. Examining her lobbying work and personal connections reveals the scale and reach of foreign affiliations, raising concerns over potential foreign influence within Trump's incoming administration. Introduction to Trump: Susie Wiles and Brian Ballard Susie Wiles, Trump's new Chief of Staff, led his campaign in Florida. Wiles met with Trump in New York and was named the Trump campaign's Florida co-chairwoman a few weeks later. She was introduced to Trump by Brian Ballard, a lobbyist who has a close relationship with Trump for nearly 30 years. Ballard served as Trump's Florida lobbyist and was one of the top fundraisers for Trump's campaign, raising millions for his reelection. During Trump's 2016 - 2020 presidency, he helped clients gain influence with the administration. Some of Ballard's clients warrant closer scrutiny given his longstanding, influential ties to the White House. Described as "the most powerful lobbyist in Trump's Washington," represented Russian oligarch and billionaire David Yakobashvili, who has close connections with Putin and is involved with Rosneft and Russia's defence industry. In 2018, Yakobashvili paid Ballard $450,000 to lobby the US government on immigration and trade policy. Yakobashvili's close, long-term business connections with Putin deserve attention as his attendance at the Kremlin meeting with the Russian President is not accidental. Yakobashvili's ownership of valuable land, often gifted to Putin's loyalists, might point to his privileged position within the Kremlin hierarchy. Yakobashvili co-owns a former poultry breeding facility and surrounding territory in Rublevka, one of Russia's most expensive real estate areas near Moscow, close to Putin's Novo-Ogaryovo estate. US Justice Department Case Against Paul Manafort Re-Opens Trump Campaign's Ukraine, Russia and Cambridge Analytica Connections As the US Justice Department sues pardoned Paul Manafort over undisclosed foreign banks accounts, Zamaan Qureshi follows the financial links with Putin's oligarch Oleg Deripaska and a Russian intelligence agent Zamaan Qureshi The two-hectare property here could be valued at over $22.7 million. In the mid-2000s, land in this area was gifted or sold at symbolic prices to Putin's former bodyguards and their families by Gorki-2, a company in which Yakobashvili held a 29% stake, according to the most recent report from 2015. Among the landowners are former security officials, along with their relatives. Other landowners include an assistant to President Putin, the wife of Dmitry Medvedev's security chief, and Arkady Rotenberg, Putin's close ally and childhood friend. On the former poultry farm, Yakobashvili built a major juice and dairy producer in Russia, Wimm-Bill-Dann. In 2011, PepsiCo acquired Wimm-Bill-Dann for approximately $5.4 billion, marking its largest deal outside the United States. Defense Industry and Rosneft Connections ...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour. To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis. Help us build the better media Britain deserves Islamophobia is sadly nothing new in the UK, but the last 12 months have seen a surge in violent and threatening behaviour towards the country's nearly 4 million Muslims. The escalation of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the riots that shook the nation over summer, emboldened the far-right and saw them spurred to often violent action by fake news and hateful rhetoric circulated on social media. In response, Islamophobia Awareness Month (IAM) has been launched this November with a campaign called Seeds of Change, which hopes that small, collective efforts can lead to large, systemic changes. "Islamophobia is not an abstract concept but a pervasive reality affecting countless lives daily", IAM says. The statistics are shocking - a Government-funded monitoring group recorded 4,971 incidents of anti-Muslim hate from 7 October 2023, through to 30 September 2024. That's an average of nearly 14 every single day, and is the highest total recorded since the group was founded in 2012. Of these cases, 63% were abusive in nature, and the remaining 27% involved threatening behaviour. And the issue is country-wide - most of the reported incidents occurred in London, the Midlands, Yorkshire, and the north-west of England. "This sharp rise demonstrates the disturbing reality that geopolitical events have a direct impact on the safety and well-being of Muslims in the UK," IAM says. institutionalizing Islamophobia Islamophobia Has Surged in the UK - Here's How You Can Help Fight It Chris York Why Yvette Cooper's Claim That Middle East Conflict is Behind UK Hate Crime Spike 'Completely Misses the Point - The Problem Runs Far Deeper' Mustafa Al-Dabbagh Labour Needs the Muslim Vote to Stabilise its 'Sandcastle Majority' Sufyan Gulam Ismail Lies and Violence: How the Southport Tragedy Turned into a Riot Katherine Denkinson Events both global and domestic have fuelled the rise. The escalation of the Israel-Palestine conflict in October 2023 saw an increase in cases of 365% compared to the same month in the previous year, the Islamophobia Response Unit (IRU) reported. Hundreds of cases of physical assault, vandalism, and threats were recorded, with Muslim women being the victims in two out of every three incidents. In London, one Muslim woman's car was daubed with a Nazi swastika, a Muslim family's home was graffitied with the word "Hamas", and across the UK, numerous cases of Muslim women being called "terrorists" in the street were recorded. Compounding the issue further are domestic events, most notably the riots that rocked the UK in the wake of the Southport knife attack in July, when three children were killed, and 10 other people were injured. False claims immediately circulated online that the offender behind the attacks was an asylum seeker named Ali Al Shakati, leading to a wave of anti-Muslim hate. Mosques were targeted, and hotels housing asylum seekers set alight in some of the worst violence seen on the UK's streets in modern times, prompting the mother of one of the murdered children to make an emotional plea. "This is the only thing that I will write, but please stop the violence in Southport tonight", Elsie Dot's mother said. "The police have been nothing but heroic these last 24 hours and they and we don't need this." UK Riots: How the Right-Wing Press Fought to Stop Laws to Combat Online Disinformation The story of how the Conservatives exempted their media supporters from laws against spreading dangerously false information online Julian Petley But louder and more notorious voices were egging it all on - "You're about to see the roar of the British lion", Laurence F...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour. To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis. Help us build the better media Britain deserves Keir Starmer this week became the first UK Prime Minister since Winston Churchill to take part in French Armistice Day services, invited by French President Emmanuel Macron. Both sides had an interest in communicating friendship and diplomatic business as usual, mere days after a destabilising US election. Macron, with political troubles at home, likely wanted association with a recent election winner, and will have been keen to offer a hand of friendship from one of the EU's key players to a Prime Minister deciding his terms for a reset of relations. Starmer has been keen to make an outward show of friendship to EU leaders since becoming Prime Minister, even if the details of the reset remain unclear. Both will have wanted to send a clear message that peace in Europe remains a priority; the commemoration of the end of war in Europe taking place in the context of the Russia - Ukraine conflict. Starmer and Macron discussed "Russia's ongoing barbaric invasion of Ukraine and the appalling humanitarian situation in Gaza," Downing Street said. No doubt the US election result, and Donald Trump's unknown plans for continued support for Ukraine, featured heavily. Trump has repeatedly criticised the level of US support for Ukraine's fight against Russia since the 2022 full-scale invasion and has promised to end the conflict swiftly, albeit without explaining how. Britain, France and other NATO allies argue it is essential to keep supporting Ukraine against Russia to protect the European continent as a whole. Europe is not powerless to help Ukraine - collectively the continent has been the biggest provider of aid, allocating €118 billion ($126 billion) since the start of the conflict, while the United States has provided €85 billion, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. Donald Trump is a Catastrophe for our Climate and we Must Start Preparing for the Disasters to Come Governments around the world need to act now to prevent the worst of what is coming our way Tom Scott But all are aware that Europe would find it near impossible to replace financial and military aid from the United States, including military resources such as F-16 fighter jets and Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), should Trump pull out. The result is a continent on edge, as yet unaware of how the returning President plans to follow through on his pledge to end the war 'on day one', and what that would mean for Ukraine, NATO and European security. Trump has repeatedly called for European nations to put more money into NATO. "Trump has [said] for decades that he thinks America's allies are freeloaders on America's protection," said former NATO official Edward Hunter Christie recently. In February, Trump said he would "encourage" Russia to launch attacks on any NATO countries he said were falling short of financial commitments to the alliance. The Biden administration denounced the remarks as "appalling and unhinged." Then-NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said any suggestion that "allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security. I expect that the US will remain a strong and committed NATO ally." Stoltenberg's successor, Mark Rutte, agrees, arguing that Europe "will have to spend more … It will be much more than the 2%. [Trump] is right, you will not get there with 2%." France had already used the possibility of a Trump presidency to urge other European countries to boost their military capabilities. "We cannot let voters in Wisconsin decide European security," said France's Europe Minister Benjamin Haddad, insisting Europe need to urgently decide how to navigate a world in whic...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour. To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis. Help us build the better media Britain deserves You'll be forgiven if all you've seen of the news this past week has been the return of Donald Trump. But there are plenty of important stories that have barely seen the light of day, but which deserve our attention too. Here Byline Times takes you through a non-comprehensive round-up of news stories buried over the past week. Don't miss a story SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES Bolt Drivers Win Worker Status in £200m Legal Claim Thousands of Bolt drivers have won their legal claim to be classed as workers, giving them rights that include paid holiday and to be paid at least the minimum wage. Lawyers believe the compensation owed to their 15,000 clients could be worth more than £200 million, or roughly £15,000 per wronged driver. In a judgment handed down last Friday (8 November), the Employment Tribunal ruled that the Bolt drivers represented by law firm Leigh Day are not, as Bolt claimed, self-employed contractors who run their own business. Instead they are workers, and as such entitled to workers' rights and protection under employment laws. The ruling affects all of the 100,000-plus drivers who take on work through the Bolt private hire hailing app. They can argue they should be classed as workers with all the employment rights and protection the classification includes. Those drivers who are part of the Leigh Day legal claim will also be entitled to backdated compensation for underpayment of the minimum wage and unpaid holiday pay. There is still time to join the legal claim and claim the right to compensation. MediaWatch: The Sun, the Lib Dems, and the 50% Bus Fare Hike that Never Was Transport chiefs have rejected misleading claims of a massive hike in bus fares in England, amid confusion and spin Josiah Mortimer Another hearing is likely to take place early next year, when the Employment Tribunal will decide how much compensation for unpaid holiday pay and lost income each driver will receive. Bolt drivers launched their own legal claim to be classed as workers following the 2021 Supreme Court ruling that Uber drivers are workers. Bolt drivers claimed that the ruling also applies to their working situation. Leigh Day also represented Uber drivers in their successful legal claim. The Employment Tribunal's ruling means that Bolt will need to provide paid holiday and ensure drivers are paid the minimum wage for any periods they work. The tribunal will hold a further hearing to decide how much compensation the Bolt claimants are entitled to. Glasgow Council to Trial Automatic Voter Registration Citizens in Glasgow are set to be part of a pilot scheme to be automatically enrolled on the electoral register in the future, following discussions between SNP councillors and the Scottish Government. With Automatic Voter Registration voters could be expected to opt-out rather than opt-in to being added to the electoral roll. It would mean that most citizens would be able to show up to vote at polling booths without having to register in advance while being confident their details are correct. Glasgow SNP Councillor Alex Kerr had written to Bob Doris MSP asking for his support for the SNP Glasgow Council Group's proposal to consider Glasgow as a pilot area for Automatic Voter Registration, to remove as many barriers to voting for Glaswegians as possible. Automatic Voter Registration was also supported by a Holyrood committee report and by the official Electoral Commission. At Westminster, the Labour Party pledged to "improve voter registration" in its 2024 manifesto, with the Guardian reporting in June that this meant the party would introduce automatic voter registration in En...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour. To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis. Help us build the better media Britain deserves The mother of the late TV presenter Caroline Flack has called for Keir Starmer to "find the courage" to resurrect the second part of the Leveson Inquiry into criminality in the British press, as exclusive new YouGov polling for this paper found most voters now want it re-opened. The Inquiry had been due to look at the corrupt relationships between parts of the British press and the police, but was scrapped by the last Conservative Government following pressure from newspaper publishers. Despite initially pledging to resurrect the Inquiry, Starmer later abandoned his support for doing so, amid reports of a secret deal struck with Rupert Murdoch's executives to secure their newspapers' endorsement for the Labour party prior to the general election. A Government spokesperson told Byline Times that the Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy now has "no plans" to restart the inquiry. However, an exclusive new YouGov poll, which was commissioned by campaigners Hacked Off, found that 52% of all those surveyed would like Starmer's Government to commit to relaunching the Inquiry, amid a collapse in public trust in the media. Asked if they would support the resurrection of the inquiry into "unlawful or improper conduct by newspapers and possible collusion with the police and politicians" more than half of all voters, and almost seven-in-ten (69%) of Labour voters agreed, with just 13% of all voters disagreeing. EXCLUSIVE Claim of a Deal Between The Sun and Starmer Is 'Conspiracy Theory Created For Clicks', News UK Insiders Say 'No such deal was done with Starmer. It simply did not happen', one of a number of sources told Byline Times Tom Latchem and Dan Evans Once those voters without an opinion were excluded, 80% backed relaunching the inquiry. The poll also found a plurality of support for placing the press under the oversight of an independent regulator. Asked whether they believed it mattered that the "largest national newspapers are not members of a regulator that meets the criteria recommended by the Leveson Inquiry", 50% agreed that it did, as opposed to 19% who disagreed. Overall almost half of those surveyed (47%) said the press should be brought under an independent regulator, compared to just 12% who wanted to keep the status quo. Among those demanding change, 50% said that newspapers should be compelled to join an independent regulator, with a further 27% saying that those who refused to join should be penalised. Trust in British journalism is at recent historical and international lows. According to a survey published by the Edelman Trust earlier this year, the UK's media is the least trusted out of all 28 countries it surveyed, with public trust among British voters in the media dropping more in the past year than in any other country. Overall, just 31% of Brits said they trusted UK media outlets, down six points from the previous year. Campaigners called for the Government to act, following the findings. 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 - £39.50 A YEAR PAY MONTHLY - £3.75 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. In a joint statement, victim of press abuse and the mother of the late presenter Caroline Flack and victim of press intrusion into grief Mandy Garner told Byline Times, "Every day that some newspapers remain unregulated, they are able to b...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour. To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis. Help us build the better media Britain deserves Driving Towards Donald Trump A year before the American election, I sat down in a succession of New York City taxis. The story was always the same. The drivers didn't much like Donald Trump, and weren't always comfortable with his approach. But they were all leaning towards voting for him against Joe Biden. "He's a businessman," one said. Another: "I may not agree with him but he knows how to get things done." One middle-class Punjabi Uber driver, who lived in a well-to-do community in Long Island, said he and his neighbours would all be opting for the Republican candidate. The one exception, a Greek New Yorker - who shared how devastating it was that he had never seen his country's Parthenon Marbles in Athens because he has never been to London (where they sit in our national museum as the Elgin Marbles) - tried to explain the phenomenon: "The thing about Trump is that he's not a politician." When Trump was re-elected to a second term as President on 5 November, I was shocked but ultimately not surprised. I thought back to those cab drivers who made their living in one of the most liberal parts of the United States (where the Democrat vote share fell from 76% in 2020 to 68% this year). They felt the city had deteriorated, that their material lives were in decline. More than that, though, I recalled how ordinary they all were. No MAGA hats or Trump rallies for these men. They were but a miniscule of a tiny sample of how life in America was no longer turning out the way they expected it to, and it bothered them. So much so that not even the prospect of Trump's eventual criminal conviction seemed to matter. The only candidate in this year's race who was speaking to them was the millionaire reality TV real estate entrepreneur born with a silver spoon in his mouth. And the Democrats seemed to have no idea. Politics Isn't About Politics Trump's triumph puts beyond doubt that the events of 2016 - the US Presidential Election of that year (and, to a significant enough degree, the vote for Brexit in Britain) - were 'freak' events momentarily disrupting politics as we know it. We don't know politics. Not anymore. The notion that it is fought and won, if it ever strictly was, on how the everyday lives of people can be improved through practical policies and traditional ideology is over. In this new era, pragmatism is viewed primarily through the prism of emotionality, with more visceral instincts amplified by populist politicians capitalising on the deep anger born of gross inequality, and tech disinformation feeding the polarisation and the need for a sense of 'psychic justice'. Until progressives are willing to understand and confront this - that the lens through which they view what politics is for and about, and how and where they form such ideas, is significantly different to how others, particularly those they disagree with, do - these 'shocks' will continue. Because politics isn't about politics anymore. That significant numbers instead see it as a vehicle to channel their fears and resentment-driven emotional instincts - beyond facts - is the existential challenge facing democracy today. The right, both in America and in the UK and across Europe, understands this. Well. If those of more progressive politics cannot produce a response - which factors in this uncomfortable reality: that they must engage with the world as they find it, not as they hope it to be - democratic politics will continue to be left vulnerable to the kind of far-right oligarchical forces now gathering around the entire United States Government. ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE Recei...