Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland to Demand Independence Vote

Sputnik – 14.09.2026

LONDON – The first ministers of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are set to sign a joint declaration on Monday demanding that London grant them the right to hold referendums on regional independence.

The signing is scheduled to take place on Monday during a meeting of representatives from these historically Celtic regions in the Welsh capital of Cardiff.

In a joint press release issued ahead of the summit, the leaders emphasized their intention to discuss strengthening cooperation and promoting “constitutional change” — a term implying either greater autonomy or outright independence.

The leaders will call on the British government to prepare, plan for, and facilitate constitutional change in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, the first ministers said.

Summit participants will also discuss partnerships in the areas of the economy, energy, and international cooperation, including with European neighbors.

Earlier, the office of the UK prime minister announced that he would hold a summit in October with Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland amid calls for independence in the autonomous regions.

Following the regional elections in May, pro-independence parties took the helm in all three of Britain’s autonomous regions.

September 14, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , | Comments Off on Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland to Demand Independence Vote

Britain stands against oppression in Palestine… by supplying F-35s

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 11, 2026

So, Britain announced with much fanfare this week that it was imposing sanctions on Israel’s illegal settlements in Palestine. Note that the sanctions are not against the Israeli state, but rather a much narrower definition: Israeli entities in the Occupied Territories.

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham claimed that the move was an example of Britain giving international leadership to stand against oppression and injustice.

Addressing the British Parliament, Burnham said: “In this difficult and dangerous world, Britain has to stand for something, Britain has to show leadership, Britain has to stand for fairness against injustice… That is what the British people expect of us, and that is what this government will do.”

Several other European states and Canada have also joined the British-led initiative to ban trade and investment with companies doing business in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank.

Israel’s occupation is illegal under international law, yet Britain, the European Union and the United States have done nothing in the way of imposing sanctions. Sanctions are something the West prefers to impose on Russia, Iran, China, Cuba, North Korea, among others.

In announcing the sanctions, the United Kingdom’s foreign minister Ed Miliband told the House of Commons that “Britain was a country that upholds its values at home and around the world, fighting against oppression and suffering, and standing up for what is right.”

The pious tones from London about Israel’s “ethnic cleansing” are not convincing.

For starters, the supposed sanctions do not cover British components for the F-35 fighter jets that the United States sells to Israel. The British parts are crucial for flying the US-made stealth aircraft. The warplane has played a major role in razing Gaza to the ground. Also not included in the sanctions are drones and surveillance equipment that British firms supply to the Israeli military. All those components are crucial for enabling the nearly three-year genocidal violence that Israel has conducted in Gaza.

If the British government were serious about “standing against oppression,” it would go a lot further than focusing on violations by Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories. The pogroms and construction of new settlements are carried out with the full assistance of the Israeli state, not just by gun-wielding fanatical settlers. Britain and other Western states have provided the legal and diplomatic cover for Israeli war crimes.

In any case, the supposed measures against Israeli business and exports from the West Bank are minimal. A recent Al Jazeera investigation found that Britain has billions of dollars invested in companies that are intimately involved in illegal settlement building. We can be sure that London is not going to cancel investments.

Total British-Israeli trade is estimated at $8 billion a year, including lucrative military items. The amount of business that Britain does with the Occupied Territories is about 1 per cent of its total trade with Israel.

Burnham and Miliband said the British government did not support boycott and divestment sanctions against the state of Israel. Both of them were at pains to emphasize that the measures are nominally limited to the violations going on in the Occupied Territories, not what Israel is doing right across Palestinian land, including Gaza, which is a genocide.

So there you have it. Britain’s “moral leadership” is nothing but tokenism and duplicity.

Should we expect anything else? After all, as former British diplomat Craig Murray pointed out this week, Burnham’s government has decided to give top-secret information for building cruise missiles to the corrupt Kiev regime. Murray warns that the Storm Shadow missiles will soon end up being sold on the black market, given the rampant corruption of Ukraine under the Zelensky cabal.

Britain is also supplying this NeoNazi regime with long-range drones that are being used to target Moscow and Russian civilians.

Is this standing up against oppression and for supposed British values?

What’s really behind London’s belated show of concern for Palestinians?

As Burnham and Miliband alluded, it’s all about Britain appearing to show international leadership. It’s a cheap way to burnish London’s “moral posturing” as a defender of “humanitarian values.”

Israel has hit back with the usual denunciations of “anti-semitism” and by closing down the British consulate in East Jerusalem. But for London, these repercussions are bearable for the bigger gains of British international PR.

As noted above, the lion’s share of its lucrative trade with Israel will go on, business as usual.

The other key motive for the Burnham government is that it realizes that a majority of the British public has become staunchly opposed to the Israeli regime. The three-year genocide has opened the eyes of many Britons (and those of other Western nations) to the historical injustices and illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. Israel is increasingly seen as a pariah, apartheid state that should be prosecuted for war crimes.

Britain’s role as the former colonial power in the Zionist annexation of Palestine is one of deep complicity and shame.

Andy Burnham was shoehorned into Downing Street to take over from the hopeless and hapless Labour leader Keir Starmer. The British establishment has bet on Burnham to shore up its imperialist interests by boosting military spending and deepening involvement in the NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.

However, Burnham’s popularity has quickly worn off as he looks like Starmer 2.0.

The tokenistic moves to support Palestinian rights and oppose Israeli violations are a cynical electioneering ploy. By talking up sanctions against Israeli illegal settlements, Burnham is calculating that it will garner votes from the growing public anger over the genocide.

But the measures that London is taking are negligible. They amount to a polite tap on the wrist of the Netanyahu regime as it continues its genocide.

Britain is fuelling the genocide by Israel, as it is with the NATO proxy war in Ukraine against Russia. British duplicity is as legion as its hypocrisy.

September 12, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , | Comments Off on Britain stands against oppression in Palestine… by supplying F-35s

Nonsense Drones and Novichok

By Craig Murray | September 3, 2026

Europe urgently needs to re-establish access to Russian oil and gas. Gas prices are high – as all UK energy consumers know – and German gas storage is at a record low for September. Gulf production is degraded, supplies are cut off and its long-term strategic stability undermined.

German manufacturing already suffered a 9.5% production loss from 2022 to 2026 following the Russian gas shutdown, with the loss in energy-intensive manufacturing (inc petrochemicals, chemicals, metals, glass/ceramics/stone, paper, mineral oil etc.) at 15.2%.

Western Europe can regain access to Russian hydrocarbons either by accepting a negotiated peace in Ukraine, or by attempting regime change in Russia. The political class in Europe have evidently decided to go all out for regime change.

It would of course be much easier, and much safer, to settle the Ukrainian conflict. We can identify the following reasons the European political “elite” is not taking that path:

  • Loss of face and political capital by in situ leaders who have gone all in for conflict with Russia – von der Leyen, Kallas, Merz, Rutte, Stubb etc
  • Generational family and national hatred of Russia by those wanting to reverse World War II in Eastern Europe – von der Leyen, Kallas, Merz, Stubb etc
  • Deep common interests between the political personnel and the military-industrial complex

Note that none of these motives has anything to do with the welfare of their people, and still less “democracy.” I find it very hard to think of any occasion when a drive towards war had such little foundation.

Consider this. The United Kingdom, like many Western countries, is openly supplying the Ukraine with long-range missiles, manufacturing plans for long-range missiles, and personnel to service them, in the full knowledge that Ukraine is using those missiles in an attempt to devastate civilian infrastructure deep within Russia, killing many Russian civilians in the process.

Yet we are repeatedly told by both politicians and the media that Russia is the threat to the UK, when very plainly it is the opposite which is the truth. Until this year, Russia had in three hundred years of history never had any plans to invade or occupy the UK – while the UK invaded Russia in 1854 and 1917. I presume the Russians are currently working on defensive plans against the UK, given the disgraceful warmongering of our government.

The notion that the boundaries of a Ukrainian state, which had never existed in history until 1991, are so sacrosanct they cannot be adjusted to avoid World War III, is mad. They were only ever internal Soviet boundaries. Ukrainian is a new nationality, but the Ukrainians are entitled to a state if they wish one. What they are not entitled to do is insist on the old Soviet boundary, when they have:

  • closed Russian schools, universities, bookshops, theatres, cinemas, libraries, kindergartens, banks and churches
  • banned the Socialist Party, Communist Party, Left Party, eleven other parties and eight trade unions
  • continued the systematic glorification of Nazi and genocidal figures from Ukraine’s past – alienating Poland in the process.

The notion that nuclear war should be fought over who is Mayor of Lugansk has so little public support that Russophobia is being assiduously stoked by Western governments and the EU itself.

The latest episode is the extraordinarily thin gruel of the “Leipzig airport attack” story. Yesterday we had the most incredible release of coordinated statements by Western European leaders all telling us that the evidence is plain of a “hybrid attack” by Russia.

All accompanied by no evidence whatsoever.

The German state of course has history with this sort of false flag. On the night of 31 August/1 September 1939 it staged false flag attacks by Polish forces on the German border post at Gliwice (Gleiwitz), and a couple of other locations. Murdered corpses of political prisoners were dressed in Polish uniforms and spread around. A radio broadcast was transmitted in Polish. This “attack” was the justification for the German invasion of Poland the next day.

Now the “Russian attack” on Leipzig Halle airport was on 4 August, and yet the carefully coordinated attribution to Russia, with identical statements from all western European powers, was not launched until 1 September. I have seen it suggested that this was deliberately on the anniversary of Gliwice. That seems to me unlikely, and yet not to have at least avoided the date of perhaps the most famous false flag in history – by the same state – is very curious, when the date was so obviously voluntary for an attack that occurred four weeks before.

If you reject the warmongers’ logic for a moment, the actual scandal is that there were Ukrainian aircraft in Leipzig stacked with German weapons to kill Russians, not that an amateur toy drone allegedly tried to stop them.

To be told that this is a Russian attack by precisely the same set of goons who lied to us that it was Russia that blew up the Nord Stream gas pipeline, is testing not just the gullibility of the public, but its patience.

In the UK the purveyors of Russophobia – including government ministers – fall back repeatedly on the farcical “Russian novichok on Salisbury” story to explain why we should prepare for war with Russia.

Nobody has ever even pretended to answer the dissection of the official line I published in my article Pure – Ten Points I Just Don’t Believe. I am now able to add a further point I was not aware of at the time, thanks to Tim Norman and his coverage of the Sturgess Inquiry. The use of a judicial inquiry to determine official cause of death, rather than a coroner’s court which exists for that specific purpose, is almost always a sign of a government cover-up – see also the Hutton Inquiry and the murder of David Kelly.

But one thing the inquiry did receive was the toxicology report on Dawn Sturgess from the NHS central toxicology lab in Birmingham. This is what it found in Dawn Sturgess’ blood.

It is worth noting that fentanyl was also found, but this was removed from this list presented to the inquiry as she had been given fentanyl in hospital. That does not, of course, mean there was, or was not, already fentanyl in her bloodstream. But what you do have for sure is cocaine, plus a synthetic opioid given by the NHS to heroin addicts, plus gin and tonic, plus two different antidepressants, plus sleeping tablets.

What you don’t have is novichok. The idea that the NHS central toxicology lab cannot detect organophosphate poisoning, or was not testing for it in the blood of someone in Salisbury when the entire media was already screaming novichok, is arrant nonsense.

Only the Ministry of Defence laboratory at Porton Down claimed to find novichok – and controlled the samples which the OPCW (an equally corrupt institution) got.

Dawn Sturgess was a frail, known long-term drug addict. The combination in her bloodstream could kill anybody – of course depending on the quantities. The astonishing thing is that the pathologist at the inquiry stated he had been given no quantities or concentrations for these substances. He was therefore in no position to say they did not kill her.

This is incredible. There is no such thing as a toxicology report which does not quantify concentrations. Otherwise the information is clinically meaningless. I have spoken with three doctors, two nurses and a senior NHS administrator. All say it is impossible the toxicology report came without quantification. I assume the pathologist was not lying; so they must have been deliberately deleted. Only government can do that, and the obvious motive is to cover up the actual cause of death.

Let us face it: from that list of substances in her blood the actual cause of death is extremely obvious.

The great structural weakness of the inquiry was that nobody had the job of scepticism about the official story. The only non-governmental representative was Michael Mansfield, who represented Dawn Sturgess’ family, and his brief was to argue that Dawn Sturgess was not a drug addict. That – I am sorry to say, completely untrue – version of events fitted the story which both the government and Sturgess’s family wished to be put forward.

I am genuinely upset to have to relate unpleasant things about a dead woman who was a victim of circumstance in her life, in order to tell the truth, but you don’t get cocaine and buprenorphine in your blood by accident. We therefore had the farce of the police apologising at the inquiry for having called Dawn Sturgess a drug addict.

So we have alleged novichok in Salisbury which killed nobody, and an explosive drone, or possibly two, in Leipzig which did not explode. To counter this massive threat, we need to push an entire continent to nuclear war. As a first step, we need to cut health and social spending to give trillions more to arms manufacturers, and prepare our children for conscription, to die on the battlefield.

Forgive me if I am not convinced.

September 10, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Militarism, Russophobia | | Comments Off on Nonsense Drones and Novichok

It’s OK to fight for a foreign army (as long as they’re our friends)

That’s the unwritten rule for Britain’s media

By DES FREEDMAN | Declassified UK | September 2, 2026

The death of a British national, Bradley Townsend, killed in Ukraine in June while fighting for Russian forces has been widely reported in the media.

“British traitor who joined Vladimir Putin’s army ‘killed by Ukraine drone’” splashed the Daily Star while former security minister Tom Tugendhat told LBC that Townsend was “extremely misguided” for “engaging in an army that is committing the most barbarous war crimes that the world has seen in decades.”

Compare this to the far more positive coverage in the media of individual British nationals who have served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during a genocide that has killed more than 70,000 Palestinians.

When Declassified, for example, revealed exclusively that more than 2,000 British subjects had joined the IDF since October 7, the only reference to this in the mainstream media was a short article in The London Standard.

There are, however, no stories describing British nationals as ‘traitors’ for joining the IDF, nor ministerial condemnations of subjects taking part in what the United Nations has described as “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity”.

On the contrary, British subjects enlisting in the IDF are routinely humanised and their justifications reported without criticism.

A Times story in October 2023, headlined “Meet the Britons defending ‘the only place Jews feel safe’”, described IDF soldier Sam Sank as a Tottenham fan and dog owner while also referring to another dual national, Joe, as a “Chelsea fan… camping out with an emergency supply of PG Tips tea.”

BBC News interviewed British-Israeli soldier Alex Moeller on 17 November 2023 drawing on his experience in an ‘IDF anti-terror unit’.

Moeller spoke, without rebuttal, about how Israeli forces had committed to “minimise civilian casualties and obviously minimise humanitarian impact”.

He opposed a ceasefire, describing it simply as a ‘tactical’ ploy by Hamas.

There was a marked distinction in the reporting of British nationals fighting for Russia, which is extremely negative, describing them as “thugs”, “yobs” and seriously misguided people.

For example, the Sun reported in November 2024 on Jay Fraser, the “Scots mercenary fighting for Vladimir Putin” while the Observer described him as a “university dropout” who was “captivated by ‘manly’ Russia”.

In March 2024, the Mirror reported on the “British traitors” fighting on the Russian side, Ben Stimson and his best friend Aidan Minnis, describing the latter as a “former National Front member and convicted thug.”

The article quotes former British army commander Colonel Richard Kemp: “These two are an absolute disgrace and are traitors who upon their return to the UK should be arrested and jailed.”

It then carries a Home Office statement saying that: “Any person who travels from the UK to conflict zones to engage in unlawful activity, should expect to be investigated upon their return.”

There are no stories that reveal similar threats being made against dual nationals fighting for the IDF other than a single reference on late-night BBC radio on 22 July 2025.

Defence journalist Tim Ripley suggested that the UK government could use a law to stop British citizens “commuting to the war in Gaza”.

The suggestion was not explored afterwards by any outlet.

Heroes in Ukraine

In contrast to the coverage of pro-Russian Britons, articles on British subjects fighting on the side of Ukraine have been far more positive.

The Sunday Times, for example, reported sympathetically about the case of ‘Baby’, a young Scot who signed up for Ukrainian forces but who, on his return from the frontline, was prevented from joining Police Scotland.

There was also blanket coverage in February 2025 – including on the BBC and Sky – of former Tory MP Jack Lopresti who joined Ukrainian forces after losing his seat in the 2024 general election.

This includes particularly sympathetic profiles in the Telegraph and Mail. The Guardian was equally positive in its account which highlighted Foreign Office advice that “it is illegal for British citizens to fight in Ukraine”.

Even though it was revealed in February 2026 that Lopresti had joined the neo-Nazi Azov Brigade, the Telegraph then carried a story the following month with the headline: “Jack Lopresti is a rare example of a politician who puts his money where his mouth is”.

The article was written by Colonel Richard Kemp, the same person who had called for the jailing of the two Britons fighting on the Russian side.

September 8, 2026 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , , , | Comments Off on It’s OK to fight for a foreign army (as long as they’re our friends)

US Warns UK Against Forcing Platforms to Promote Preferred News

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 8, 2026

The US government has urged its British counterpart to give up on plans to make social media and video sharing platforms give more prominence to news from mainstream media outlets.

The US government’s objection is that this would amount to “mandating that platforms algorithmically amplify government-preferred media.”

The UK proposal was contained in a green paper published in June, titled “Watch This Space: A New Strategic Direction for UK Media.” The document said that the government will “explore legislative options to require social media to make news content from PSM providers, and potentially also national and local news publishers, prominent and easily discoverable.”

The US response to the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s consultation, which closed on August 31, argues that the idea of official judgments about which media outlets are trustworthy is dangerous because it can be used to suppress others and thus harm free expression and competition.

Unlike direct censorship, this would work by promoting government-preferred media, but the effect would be to make it even harder for others to be heard. This is because of the way recommendation algorithms work, and the limited space on a user’s feed – promoting some content means suppressing other content, and thus, speech.

The US government also warned that this policy would have “significant effects beyond UK borders” because of the global nature of the platforms that would be forced to implement it. This could lead to “extraterritorial censorship of protected speech by Americans online.”

The US Embassy and Consulates in the UK published the US government’s response. The British government’s preference is to have voluntary industry agreements. However, if these prove insufficient, the government says it is prepared to legislate.

The UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport reacted to the US criticism by saying that it “strongly believes” in free expression and fair competition, and that any future action will ensure those are protected.

This is not the first time the UK proposal has been criticized. Among those who previously spoke against it were House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, YouTube, and Reform UK leader Nigel Farage.

The UK green paper cites countering “misinformation” during “crisis” or “unrest” as the reason to make sure that news from public service media providers is easily accessible and prominent. It does not set out a final test for deciding which national or local publishers might also qualify, but that is the crux of the US criticism, and the question remains unanswered.

September 8, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Comments Off on US Warns UK Against Forcing Platforms to Promote Preferred News

Mark Levin Trashes the Constitution to Protect Violent West Bank Settlers

By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | September 8, 2026

Mark Levin is at it again. He is livid over a decision by the UK government to ban trade with violent illegal settlers in the West Bank. Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband said this week the UK will ban imports of all goods from settlements in the occupied West Bank, in addition to services including financing, construction, infrastructure, real estate, and advertising for settlements.

For Levin and the Zionists in Israel and the United States, a boycott of Kahanist settlers is antisemitism, the same as public criticism of Israel over its slaughter of Palestinians, most of whom are women and children, is hatred of Jews.

Levin considers himself a constitutional lawyer. However, his interpretation of the US Constitution is highly selective. As an ardent and outspoken Zionist and defender of apartheid and genocide, he believes a boycott of Israel is not protected by the First Amendment. The right to boycott was reaffirmed in 1982 with a Supreme Court ruling on NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. It held that nonviolent political boycotts are a form of protected speech. However, this is irrelevant when it comes to Israel.

The case centered around a civil-rights boycott of white-owned businesses in Mississippi. The Court upheld the right to peaceful advocacy, association, and political expression that were integral to the campaign.

In 2022, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed Arkansas’ anti-boycott contracting legislation. The majority determined that the law governed commercial purchasing choices rather than safeguarding speech. In February 2023, the Supreme Court decided not to review an appeal.

However, court rulings in Texas, Arizona, and Arkansas have upheld the right to boycott as as a protected form of political expression under the First Amendment, challenging the legality of anti-BDS laws across the United States.

“Close to 40 states across the U.S. have laws that require ending contracts with and/or divesting from companies that engage in antisemitic boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel,” Levin posted to social media on September 7.

These states whose combined GDP is significant should publicly make clear to countries such as the UK that companies that engage in BDS because of their decisions will face consequences under state anti-BDS laws. By the way, Florida and Texas combined have a much larger GDP than the UK.

The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS) movement is now illegal in 38 states. Congress has also considered anti-boycott legislation. In 2019, the Senate passed S.1, which contains anti-boycott provisions. In 2023, Republicans, including Marco Rubio, reintroduced the Combating BDS Act.

Most Americans oppose anti-BDS laws by a wide margin. 72% oppose laws penalizing people who boycott Israel while 22% supported such laws, according to the University of Maryland’s Critical Issues Poll.

Levin is not opposed to BDS if it focuses on the correct target. In 2021, for instance, he demanded a BDS-style boycott of big tech and major television networks in response to criticism of Israel. “He argues that the way to fight against distortions and false claims, and to counter the media censors, is take a page from the anti-Israel activists’ playbook,” reported the Jerusalem News Syndicate in 2021.

Does Levin disagree with the colonial protests against British goods in the 1760s and 1770s that led to the Boston Tea Party? Does he believe the Montgomery bus boycott in the mid-1950s was illegitimate? How about the United Farm Workers boycotts in the 1960s, or the NAACP Mississippi boycott of white-owned businesses, also in the 60s?

No, probably not. The only legitimate opposition to BDS concerns Israel. The Zionist state gets a pass and the Constitution is null and void when confronted with spurious accusations of antisemitism.

September 8, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Mark Levin Trashes the Constitution to Protect Violent West Bank Settlers

UK Police Arrested 62,199 People Over Online Speech In Five Years

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 8, 2026

Britain’s police arrested at least 62,199 people over five years under laws governing what people say online or over the phone.

That’s a busy period for the written word. And the number of those charged over the same period is 18,510, while 12,292 people were convicted.

The Big Brother Watch report, Britain’s Free Speech Problem: How Growing Restrictions Are Stifling Speech Online and Offline, covers the period between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2025.

The laws are Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, and Section 179 of the Online Safety Act 2023.

What do they concern? Indecent or grossly offensive messages, electronic communications that are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing, as well as the persistent use of a public network intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience, or needless anxiety.

That’s as well as sending a message that the sender knows to be false, without reasonable excuse, and with the intention of causing non-trivial physical or psychological harm to a likely
audience.

These are the “crimes” that the 62,199 people are suspected of committing, but the rate at which people are arrested under these laws varies greatly across the country. By as much as 43 times.

Cumbria Constabulary is leading the way with 25.7 people arrested per 10,000 residents. And at the other end of the spectrum is Staffordshire Police with 0.58.
That’s a 43-fold difference.

The report also details the case of Child A, a “vulnerable” teenager from the West Midlands. She viewed a TikTok post about a teacher, but did not create, share, or comment on it.

However, her school inspected her phone, found no account connected to the post, and then gave her name to the police.

Two officers then visited the family home and demanded that Child A hand over her devices. The family was told that she could either attend a voluntary interview or face arrest.

The family chose the former and Child A gave a written statement, after which the investigation was closed with no further action.

And then there’s the case of Anneka Svenska, an animal rights campaigner. Two Sussex Police officers visited her over a social media video in which she said that MBR Acres, a company that breeds beagles for research, sent “hundreds of kilograms of animal remains” to incinerators.

This happened in July 2026, and is therefore outside the five-year period covered by the report. But Svenska was offered a community resolution that included taking an “online thinking skills” course and an online “impact exercise,” or face arrest.

After her lawyer sent evidence supporting her claims to Cambridgeshire Police, the matter was reportedly dropped, in about 15 minutes, although the evidence had been available in the original video.

Svenska did not accept the community resolution.

In the five years covered by the report, there were 43-fold fewer arrests in some postcodes compared to others. But Big Brother Watch said that the Online Safety Act has already had a devastating effect on free speech, with some 300 small community forums closing or changing ownership in order to avoid the new law’s requirements.

And while the group doesn’t want all laws regulating communications to be scrapped – because some messages can indeed constitute crimes – the three laws in question are formulated in a broad and unclear manner, leading to their uneven application across the country, and investigations that are “avoidable.”

These investigations can be “punitive” even when no conviction follows, as people are subjected to police visits, demands to hand over their devices, interviews, arrests, and charges.

The group is now asking Prime Minister Andy Burnham to review what it calls “anti-free speech laws.”

Svenska, at least, escaped the online thinking skills course. It took the police about 15 minutes to catch up.

September 8, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Comments Off on UK Police Arrested 62,199 People Over Online Speech In Five Years

US ambassador threatens Britain with economic retaliation over Israeli settlement trade ban

The Cradle | September 8, 2026

US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has said Washington will certainly hit back if Britain proceeds with trade sanctions targeting illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, telling BBC that a response could come from the federal government and from individual US states.

Huckabee said acting in this way against “a partner, Israel” risked a “huge economic impact on British businesses,” which he warned could find themselves “banned” from operating “in a number of states.”

He told BBC the planned ban on illegal Israeli settlement goods would be “discrimination against the Jewish people,” singling out Florida as a state that could move against British trade.

The ambassador had already accused the British government of “Jew hate” over the weekend, responding to criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza by British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, who is himself Jewish.

Florida Republican Congressman Randy Fine issued a parallel threat, saying legislation he pushed through as a state lawmaker “would ban any British company forced to comply from doing business with any state or local government in Florida.”

Firms joining the boycott would also be shut out of the state if they needed permits or tax dealings with authorities to function, he said.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog, in a filmed statement, said Britain would land on “the wrong side of history,” calling the step “a grave miscalculation” and “a gross interference in the democratic elections of a sovereign nation.”

This comes after UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham moved to impose a full ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, along with possible sanctions on Israeli ministers and individual settlers.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar has publicly attacked British Foreign Secretary Miliband, calling his statement on the E1 settlement project patronizing.

The illegal E1 settlement bloc would cut the occupied West Bank in half, isolate it from occupied East Jerusalem, and bury any prospect of a Palestinian state, an outcome Israeli officials have stated as the goal.

September 8, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on US ambassador threatens Britain with economic retaliation over Israeli settlement trade ban

Anti-War Activists Are Getting ‘Debanked’ In The UK

The UK’s decent into authoritarianism continues

By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | September 5, 2026

The UK has been, for years, waging an all-out war on its own people, particularly on those who are anti-war and anti-Zionist.

Journalists like Richard Medhurst and Asa Winstanley have had their devices seized by UK “counterterrorism” authorities for their reporting on the Israeli genocide in Gaza, while thousands of peaceful activists have been arrested on terrorism charges for holding signs stating they support Palestine Action, a non-violent direct action group which was proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the UK government at the behest of the Zionist lobby.

The war on anti-war and anti-Zionist figures continues, with multiple anti-war figures recently losing their bank accounts within a short time period.

George Galloway, a former Labour MP, known for his staunch firebrand opposition to Zionism and empire, had his bank account closed without explanation, preventing him from receiving his parliamentary and old age pensions, which he paid into throughout his career.

On X, Galloway wrote: “39 years ago I opened a personal bank account with Bank of Scotland in Byres Rd, Glasgow. Yesterday, without explanation or notice, they closed my accounts. My parliamentary and old age pensions are paid into these accounts. The mortgage on our family home is paid out of them. The mortgage is with them. They haven’t heard the last of this.”

Shortly before Galloway was debanked, the independent news outlet The Canary reported that it had its Bank account closed for the second time within months, the first time being in July.

“This has meant that once again, some staff were not paid for August,” the outlet noted, adding that, like Galloway, it received no explanation for why it lost its Bank account.

Due to the debanking, the outlet was forced to “suspend operations” which “is a necessary step to protect what remains of the Canary and to give us the opportunity to rebuild on a stable foundation.”

It wrote that “recent events have created circumstances in which we have been left with no responsible alternative but to suspend the Canary’s operations with immediate effect,” adding that, “It is the direct consequence of the debanking of the Canary’s funds, the resulting financial disruption, and the serious internal consequences that followed.”

It seems clear that this is a coordinated effort, almost certainly spearheaded by the British state, to debank voices critical of Zionism and warmongering, in yet another attempt to shut them down.

September 5, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Comments Off on Anti-War Activists Are Getting ‘Debanked’ In The UK

How Britain built a war network around Russia

The UK is spinning a web of influence designed to survive any Ukraine peace deal

By Oleg Yanovsky | RT | September 5, 2026

Last week, UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced in Kiev that defense manufacturer MBDA had been authorized to disclose information concerning the British components of the SCALP missile, the French version of the long-range Storm Shadow, to Ukraine.

Officially, the decision concerns documentation required to organize local assembly, but in practice, it could facilitate the transfer of blueprints, components, assembly kits or finished missiles.

Moscow regards this technology transfer as the UK crossing a red line, as London hasn’t even attempted to shift responsibility onto intermediaries and the decision was publicly authorized by the prime minister. Britain has therefore assumed direct responsibility for the resulting escalation and deepened its involvement in military operations against Russia.

SCALP was developed through a joint British-French program and its assembly requires classified information about British components and French sub-assemblies, as well as access to a secure facility. Ukraine doesn’t possess a complete production cycle, but even a partial transfer of classified data would integrate Ukrainian assembly into the British-French manufacturing chain and bind all three parties together for years.

Before this decision, Britain had been far more careful about covering its tracks. For example, the Flamingo missile, marketed as a product of the Ukrainian company Fire Point, is identical to a design unveiled in 2025 by the British-Emirati Milanion Group. That arrangement allowed London to keep its distance, with formal responsibility for the missile’s development and deployment resting with Kiev.

Britain is also attempting to free future missile projects from the American vetting process, so under Project Brakestop, the Ministry of Defense has commissioned MBDA UK, MGI Engineering and Rotron Aerospace to produce three prototypes of long-range missiles for Ukraine. The purpose is to reduce dependence on US authorization and, consequently, on the position of the administration in Washington. London wants to determine for itself when and under what conditions such weapons are transferred.

British drones are already being used by Ukraine to strike targets deep inside Russia. They include the Nyan jet-powered drone, manufactured by Callen-Lenz, a subsidiary of BAE Systems. For its developers, the battlefield offers something particularly valuable: operational data with which to refine the weapon.

Russia has also repeatedly pointed to the direct involvement of British specialists in the deployment of Storm Shadow missiles.

On the same day as the SCALP announcement, London secured access to Avengers AI Labs, an extensive body of data gathered by Ukrainian frontline sensors, so now British companies will be able to use this information to train target-recognition and autonomous-control systems, greatly shortening the journey from development to battlefield deployment.

Five British governments have come and gone during the active phase of the Ukraine conflict, but the country’s anti-Russian course has remained remarkably consistent.

Boris Johnson began a program to develop the Ukrainian navy, Rishi Sunak signed a ten-year security agreement, Keir Starmer followed with the Centenary Partnership Agreement and Burnham has now authorized access to classified missile technology. Each government has built upon the commitments made by its predecessor.

The same continuity is visible in Britain’s strategic doctrine, where Sunak’s Conservative government described Russia in its 2023 Integrated Review Refresh as the “most acute threat” to British security and Starmer’s Labour government retained that position. The 2025 National Security Strategy called Russia “the most obvious and pressing example” of confrontation, while the Strategic Defence Review described it as an “immediate and pressing threat.”

That review established the principle of “NATO first, but not only NATO” and committed Britain to preparing for war.

These doctrines are supported by long-term financial obligations, given London has promised Ukraine £3 billion, approximately $4 billion, annually until at least the 2030-31 financial year. The century-long partnership agreement provides for joint production, technology transfers and cooperation in the Baltic, Black and Azov seas where Britain’s presence is intended to endure for decades, regardless of when the current military campaign ends.

The declaration signed by Britain, France and Ukraine on January 6, 2026, already outlines arrangements for the postwar period. These include multinational forces, military logistics hubs, secure facilities and a special legal regime for foreign personnel. In London’s calculations, a ceasefire wouldn’t end its involvement, but it would consolidate a new phase of Britain’s military and industrial presence.

To coordinate these efforts, Britain is assembling several overlapping structures, such as the Joint Expeditionary Force, the Maritime Coalition, the “coalition of the willing,” the International Fund for Ukraine and Lancaster House 2.0. Meanwhile, a classified British-German program known as Deep Precision Strike also envisages developing weapons with a range exceeding 2,000 km during the 2030s.

The International Fund for Ukraine is financed by Britain and 15 other countries, while the British Ministry of Defense administers procurement. Participating states receive technology, contracts, guarantees and a place at the planning table while London turns the resources of its partners into instruments of British influence.

Ukraine is not the only front in this strategy, and across northern and eastern Europe, Britain’s coalition network already rests upon established military infrastructure.

The Joint Expeditionary Force coordinates national and NATO operations during the transition from crisis to conflict, at the same time Britain is doubling its contingent in Norway, expanding its presence in Estonia and deploying equipment stocks, command systems and targeting capabilities. A network of supply, communications and fire-control facilities is being constructed close to Russia’s borders to enable rapid combat deployment.

Britain also seeks a leading role in coordinating NATO defense initiatives. This allows London to shape allied plans, establish standards and monitor their implementation, while also influencing how other countries build their armed forces and prepare for a possible war against a specifically identified opponent. Yes, Russia, of course.

Britain’s elected governments merely provide public legitimacy for this strategic course, as beyond the electoral cycle, the same network of intelligence agencies, professional bureaucrats, City financial interests, defense corporations, foundations and think tanks continues to operate.

This network establishes the institutional framework, distributes contracts, attracts investment and moves personnel between government departments and corporate boards. Ukraine has become one of its principal hubs, bringing together British standards, European manufacturing, Western capital, defense conglomerates and Silicon Valley start-ups.

This is the essence of the British approach, where London compensates for its shortage of resources by coordinating the capabilities of others and turning that coordination into political power.

The British establishment understands two arguments, a threat to its status and the prospect of unacceptable costs, and this status gives the UK the ability to form coalitions, exclude opponents and write the rules, and fear arises only when the consequences of escalation reach Britain itself.

London will therefore support only a settlement that preserves its military and institutional position in Ukraine and it won’t accept any peace agreement that restricts British influence over the postwar order.

Russian attacks on port and logistics infrastructure in Yuzhny and Izmail affect more than supplies to the Ukrainian armed forces. For Britain, which leads the Maritime Coalition and has extended its century-long partnership to the Black and Azov seas, these ports possess particular strategic value, given that military logistics, export routes, insurance markets and future maritime programs all converge there.

Russian policy must recognize the networked character of Britain’s strategy and focus upon the coordination centers through which London harnesses foreign resources while diluting its own accountability. So long as Britain can raise the stakes while transferring the costs to its partners, its policy will not change.

Deterrence begins when the cost of a strategy is borne not only by those who execute it, but also by those who organize it.

This article was first published by Kommersant and was translated and edited by the RT team.

September 5, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on How Britain built a war network around Russia

The dangerous European illusion about a war with Russia

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 4, 2026

The Leipzig incident exposed something more troubling than the incident itself: the confidence with which German and European authorities seem to approach the possibility of a direct confrontation with Russia.

While German and European authorities go public, in what looks like a ridiculously rehearsed performance, accusing Russia of “hybrid attacks,” it seems clear to any attentive observer that Europeans are completely disconnected from reality.

The central question lies elsewhere: what would happen if Russia actually decided to attack Germany?

The answer would probably be very different from what Europeans seem to imagine.

First of all, the obvious needs to be repeated: Europe is not Ukraine.

The Special Military Operation in Ukraine is taking place in a specific territory, with its own military dynamics and within certain strategic limits. From the earliest stages of the conflict, Moscow established a clear list of strategic objectives to be achieved through conventional means of warfare, while respecting the civilian population and avoiding unnecessary escalation.

There are clear reasons for this approach in Ukraine. Despite the delusional Banderist attempts to rewrite history, the truth is that Russians and Ukrainians have always been one people, sharing common ethnic, cultural, and religious roots. Millions of Russians have Ukrainian relatives and vice versa. An unrestricted war against Ukraine would consequently affect millions of Russians. Therefore, there is nothing surprising about Russia’s strategy of military restraint.

None of this would happen in Europe.

A direct confrontation between Russia and a NATO member would produce completely different calculations. Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and other European countries would not be regarded as fraternal nations occupied by coup juntas. On the contrary, they would be regarded as total enemies, against whom the use of force would face far fewer constraints, if any.

The idea that a potential Russian offensive against Europe would simply consist of more drones, sabotage, and limited attacks against infrastructure seems extremely comforting. And precisely for that reason, it is dangerous. Europeans are provoking Russia while taking the experience of Ukraine as an example of what could happen to them in a potential direct war.

But this calculation is wrong. Russian actions against Europe would be completely different. In Ukraine, Russia’s foremost concern is to spare civilians. Attacks against infrastructure are avoided, offensives are restrained, and even retaliation for Ukrainian provocations on Russian territory is often ignored simply because Russia does not want the violence of a potential escalation to result in the deaths of more Ukrainian civilians.

In Europe, the immediate and total destruction of every enemy target would be the highest priority, regardless of the humanitarian costs. Europeans are not Ukrainians, and the ties between Russia and Western Europe are not the same as the ties Russia has with Ukraine. There would be no comparable pressure within Russian public opinion for restraint in the use of force.

Furthermore, it must be remembered that restraint in the use of force in a war with Europe could actually be dangerous for Russia, since it would be dealing with countries belonging to a collective-defense bloc with nuclear capabilities. Russia would therefore be forced to launch attacks powerful enough to dismantle the offensive capabilities of its adversaries, regardless of the costs. It would be a matter of security.

This does not mean that Russia wants to start a war against Germany. Nor does it mean that every incident on German territory is automatically part of a Russian military campaign. It means that European governments should take much more seriously the consequences of turning every incident on European territory into another step toward escalation. And, of course, it means that Russia has nothing to do with the recent suspicious incidents in Europe – which could be either sabotage carried out by local militants or carefully prepared false-flag operations.

Berlin has already announced diplomatic measures against Moscow, including the closure of the Russian consulate in Bonn and measures against Russian institutions on German territory. The European Union is discussing new sanctions. The more Europe turns incidents of this kind into direct political confrontation, the greater the need to understand where the limits of escalation lie. Russia certainly does not care about diplomatic actions, but Moscow is definitely growing tired of Europe’s participation in Ukrainian terrorism.

Europeans should ask themselves whether they are really prepared to discover, through their own experience, what the Russian response would be in the event of an open war.

They definitely should not try to see these consequences.

September 5, 2026 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Militarism | , , , , | Comments Off on The dangerous European illusion about a war with Russia

Another European country transfers gold out of US

RT | September 3, 2026

The central bank of the Netherlands has become the latest country to move gold holdings out of the United States, announcing on Wednesday that it had transferred 86 tons of bullion to London. The bank described the move as “crisis preparedness” during a time of “increasing geopolitical unrest.”

The transfer was carried out between March and August. The bulk of the gold was moved from New York, with the rest coming from Canada. Only about 27 tons were physically transported across the Atlantic, while the remainder was accomplished through sales in the Americas and repurchases in London. Prior to the transfer, the Dutch central bank (DNB) had held 313 tons in North America.

“With this relocation, we have improved the tradability of our gold reserves,” according to a written statement by DNB Governor Olaf Sleijpen. “We expect that we will never need to use them, but we do need to strengthen our resilience and preparedness.”

The DNB’s move comes after France’s central bank sold its remaining 129 tons of gold held at Federal Reserve vaults in New York between July 2025 and January 2026, leaving it with no bullion in the United States. The proceeds from the sale were used to purchase an equivalent amount of gold in Europe.

In 2017, under the first administration of US President Donald Trump, Germany’s Bundesbank announced that it had completed the transfer to Frankfurt of 300 tons of its gold held in New York. During Trump’s second term, several prominent German economists have called for the removal of the bank’s remaining holdings from the US.

Venezuela under President Hugo Chavez repatriated about 160 tons of its gold reserves from foreign banks, a move that was completed by January 2012. However, some 31 metric tons of Venezuelan gold are still held by the Bank of England. Efforts undertaken by then-President Nicolas Maduro to bring the bullion home were stymied by Great Britain, which did not recognize Maduro as the legitimate head of Venezuela’s government.

The DNB praised Bank of England-held gold as being “the world’s most easily tradable gold.” The Dutch central bank reported owning 612.4 metric tons as of the end of 2025, worth about €72 billion (about $84 billion).

September 3, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , , , , | Comments Off on Another European country transfers gold out of US

« Previous Entries