British authorities listed the cases of 1,579 people at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 30 July, holding cardboard signs opposing Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, according to the campaign group Defend Our Juries.
The group said the hearing had been pushed back to October, but that hundreds of defendants were never told, leaving them unsure whether they were required to appear, pointing to the confusion as evidence of a crisis the courts cannot absorb.
One court notice seen by Middle East Eye told the recipient they must attend on 30 July, then instructed them in the same letter not to come to court.
Defendants who arrived were handed a further letter addressed to whomever it may concern, adjourning all cases to 26 October.
The chaos came on the same day the Supreme Court ruled that Palestine Action can challenge its proscription.
Over 3,500 arrests have been made under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 of people holding cardboard signs reading, “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action,” Defend Our Juries said.
Those cases are tried summarily and carry a maximum of six months in prison, and include senior citizens, faith leaders, and first-time protesters.
In the past two months, 96 people have filmed videos inviting support for Palestine Action, with many also declaring membership.
The declaration of membership exposes them to Sections 11 and 12 of the same act, which are heard before juries and carry sentences of up to 14 years.
Eight of those who filmed have been arrested, seven in dawn raids on people’s homes, with another 14 detained outside New Scotland Yard on 5 July.
Home Office figures cited by the group show 92 percent of terrorism arrests in the year to March 2026 were linked to alleged support for Palestine Action, with the average demographic profile of the suspect being a 59-year-old white British woman.
A spokesperson for Defend Our Juries said UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham had inherited the crisis, asking “does he really want to be seen locking up pensioners, priests and 84-year-old Reverend Sue Parfitt while people convicted of violent offenses are released early?”
On 15 June 2026, the Court of Appeal ruled the government’s classification of Palestine Action as a terrorist entity was lawful, overturning the February 2026 High Court judgment that had called it unlawful and disproportionate.
Donald Trump entered the July 7th/8th NATO summit having recently condemned the alliance as a “paper tiger” over its collective failure to abet the calamitous Zionist-American war on Iran and repeatedly threatened to withdraw US forces from Europe, with reveries of Greenland’s annexation still abounding. He left boasting of the intense “love” and “unity” within NATO, while praising member states for their reaffirmed commitment to spending ever-increasing vast sums on ‘defense’. Meanwhile, the Ukraine proxy war’s world-threatening continuation appears assured for potentially years to come.
As such, the NATO summit signifies a significant triumph in Britain’s never-ending battle to exploit the US Empire to further its own objectives. Highly revealing leaked files amply spell out how the alliance is a key mechanism by which Washington’s “interest” in Europe and West Asia is insidiously maintained, via London’s covert and overt machinations. NATO provides an invaluable “umbrella”, by which Britain projects economic, intelligence, military, and political power throughout these regions and the wider world, while countering competitors.
The documents were authored in March 2021 by Chris Donnelly, a veteran British military intelligence apparatchik who masterminded NATO expansion into the former Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, and Yugoslavia throughout the 1990s. Now an influential Ministry of Defense advisor guiding London and Kiev’s escalatory strategies in the proxy war, he writes in the leaks of Britain’s perpetual struggle to retain the “security” provided by “US military power.” This, combined with access to Washington’s globe-spanning intelligence network, “underpins our own position in the world.”
From Britain’s perspective, “the political solidarity between member nations” within NATO and “the permanent political and military mechanisms that enable collaboration between its members and with its partners,” are as vitally important as the alliance’s capacity for “collective defence and security.” For example, “interoperability” between NATO members is considered “both a political and a military asset” and “a valuable product”, enabling countries “with vastly different political and military systems to operate together.” That includes “[undertaking] complex and stressful military activities,” and other joint functions.
This makes NATO “a civilian-led political organisation… whose main tool is armed force,” intimately entrenched within its 32 members. Lacking any democratic structures internally and accountable to none externally, the alliance exerts enormous, often unseen influence over members’ constituent governments, security and intelligence services, militaries, police forces, and more. These “extensive political collaborative mechanisms” mean states can be corralled into adopting policies or taking actions regardless of local public will, or whether such moves actively harm their safety and/or national interests.
“Without the US, there is no NATO,” Donnelly notes. Hence, to “keep the US interested” in the alliance, Washington “must see a return on its (still very large and disproportionate) investment.” The 2026 NATO summit ended with European leaders pledging to plunge tens of billions into US-made military equipment for Kiev over this year and next, a prospect offering Washington quite some “return”. But the British have other means of encouraging and maintaining US hegemony, for their personal profit.
‘Symmetrical exchange’
Elsewhere, Donnelly writes of the “special relationship” – the “political/military/security/intelligence” alliance between Britain and the US, “which has existed since World War II.” He notes how from inception, Washington was driven “by how much the US needed something from the UK to help the US develop and maintain its superpower status.” In other words, “what the UK could provide the US… the US could not itself produce.” Accordingly, London “traditionally contributed” its historical “knowledge and experience” to Washington’s crusade for global domination.
This frequently entailed “intelligence-gathering and analysis; technical expertise, especially inventiveness, ideas, and scientific information; the experience of having dealt with a situation new to the US.” Meanwhile, “political and military support” was provided by London “wherever this supported US policy interests and to help the US get what it wanted in the world.” While Britain’s methods in every regard have evolved significantly over time, these ultimate underpinning and overriding objectives in so many matters military, intelligence, foreign, and even domestic have not changed:
“Being able to provide something the US wants and needs is still the only reliable way to get US respect and to maintain the ‘special relationship’… Today, this is translated into whatever will help the US maintain its position in the world, promote US interests… and ensure US economic well-being. If we can still provide something useful for the US, something they cannot do for themselves, then they will be prepared to reciprocate very generously.”
Donnelly frames this concord as a perpetual “barter deal” – not a “symmetrical exchange” or “issue of cost and payment,” as “if the US can buy what it is deficient in on the world market, then there is no basis for the ‘special relationship’.” He references Britain’s consistent “willingness and ability to deploy a significant contingent of effective army… to reinforce US military operations… readiness to share casualties… [and] continued readiness to host US forces on UK soil or on overseas dependencies” as historic pull factors.
Britain can also “employ other kinds of power to achieve an effect which supports US policy or interests.” This includes “economic power, political influence, a technical ability, such as cyber-warfare, or a civilian state-building or humanitarian relief capability.” Accordingly, files leaked by Edward Snowden indicate British signals intelligence agency GCHQ is acutely aware it “must pull its weight and be seen to pull its weight” by its NSA ‘partner’, to reap vast US funding for elaborate foreign spying operations.
Donnelly concludes, “On balance, the special relationship is of real importance to the UK, but also of some worth to the US… The burden of sustaining the special relationship falls principally to the UK. The US may well lose out if the relationship fails, but it will not notice the loss as much as the UK will. However, the special relationship is neither permanent nor guaranteed. We cannot take it for granted. It needs to be worked at constantly, refreshed and renewed.”
‘Defense capabilities’
On the subject of renewal, Donnelly lamented how London’s utility to the US Empire had been “significantly diminished” over recent years. This resulted from the British Army’s “indifferent military performance in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the “run-down of our intelligence capability,” and “the perception (on the part of the US and other allies) the UK is no longer investing sufficiently in its military to be able to play the leading role it used to do in Europe, both as an operator and as a technical innovator.”
Donnelly moreover noted Britain “used to be at the cutting edge of some aspects of military thinking,” but had in many respects “lost this edge.” For example, “we can no longer instruct the US on how best to conduct counter-insurgency operations.” Furthermore, the “special relationship” was “put under pressure” by President Barack Obama’s “reorientation of US strategy to focus on China.” Instituted in 2011, this “pivot to the Pacific” was sustained under subsequent administrations, with varying degrees of intensity.
Donnelly cheered how “the Ukraine and Syrian conflicts have reawakened US interest a little” in Europe and West Asia, meaning “Russia can no longer be ignored” by Washington. Nonetheless, he warned, “we have not yet turned the corner.” Unmentioned by Donnelly was his personal role in disrupting Washington’s “pivot” toward China by inflaming the Ukrainian war, to ensure the Empire didn’t “ignore” Russia. He openly articulated this malign mission while testifying to a British parliamentary defense committee in July 2014.
Donnelly proposed establishing a permanent British “standing force” in the Baltics, to conduct military exercises on Russia’s border, while serving as a “tripwire” to “dissuade and deter” Moscow. He believed it “very important” for London to pursue this strategy, as “Britain’s leadership… will encourage the Americans to take a greater interest in NATO and reinforce their support of the organisation.” He added, “we have an important role to play in bringing the Americans in more,” as “US eyes” had recently been directed “away from Europe.”
Resultantly, London provocatively dispatched thousands of soldiers to Russia’s periphery. Moreover, Britain took the lead in training Ukrainian forces – including notorious Neo-Nazi paramilitary factions such as the Azov Battalion. At the time, Washington adhered to the “Obama Doctrine”, which stipulated the US should avoid escalation against Moscow and prohibited provision of “lethal aid” and other military assistance to Kiev. A February 2015Kyiv Post report on Britain’s training program quoted Donnelly at length, suggesting his central involvement in its delivery:
“This is just the sort of help Ukraine needs now. The British Army obviously brings considerable operational experience and a pretty good reputation.”
As Donnelly predicted in his defense committee testimony, Britain’s tutelage of Ukrainian forces had the desired effect of “bringing the Americans in more.” In July 2015, it was announced the US would formally begin training Kiev’s military by the end of the year. Still, a State Department spokesperson stressed the effort was merely “small unit training… to help strengthen Ukraine’s internal defense capabilities.” They firmly asserted Washington’s focus in the country remained on “nonlethal aid” and “there is no plan to change that.”
Fast forward to December 2017, and Trump greenlit the provision of weaponry to Kiev. It was among a number of hostile acts during his first term that ratcheted tensions between Washington and Moscow, placing Ukraine firmly on the warpath with Russia. The recent NATO summit, and subsequent pledges by the US to assist Ukraine directly with drone and patriot missile production, show the Empire has “turned the corner” at last. US “interest” in Europe is assured, for at least as long as the proxy conflict endures.
There are many people who only believe in or write about what they like. Their opinions are not so much derived from facts but are an expression of what they want to see happen. I say this because I want to be clear that the merging of the wars in Iran and Ukraine is neither ‘cool’ nor something I desire, but as they say ‘here we are’ and things will surely only get worse. Over the last two weeks we have seen news headlines demonstrating an interweaving of the conflicts into one. This is more so than just presumed (or in the case of the EU and Ukraine overt) proxy support.
One can only speculate as to why, but Zelensky with great glee has claimed responsibility for targeting an Iranian cargo vessel. There is a presumption that this was done to appease Trump or somehow win favor or attention from Washington. Trump has shown bitter disdain for Zelensky, especially after their spat at the White House early in the American President’s second term. But, we cannot forget that a president’s personal feelings on an individual do not necessarily become reflected in U.S. foreign policy. George Bush Jr. had nothing but praise for Vladimir Putin, while the Deep State was orchestrating the ultimate destruction of Russia behind the scenes. The attack on the Iranian ship has been confirmed by both Western media and RT: Iran has condemned a Ukrainian strike on a cargo ship in the Caspian Sea that killed one sailor and injured another. The Foreign Ministry summoned Ukraine’s acting chargé d’affaires over the attack.
In a post on X on Saturday, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky boasted about what he called “very strong results” from long-range strikes targeting “vessels used in military cargo shipments involving Iran, as well as a warship.”
The Iranian Foreign Ministry condemned the attack, saying it “risks further fueling and expanding the flames of war.” It urged other nations to take a “responsible stance toward this reckless action by the Ukrainian regime” and hold its leadership accountable.
At about the same time, the Iranians have declared that they can and may hit the UK. They shared what could become an infamous image for future generations about climbing the escalation ladder to WWIII – a map showing the range of Iran’s strike capability. The key thing to note again is that Tehran wanted to make the point that they can hit the United Kingdom. This is in connection with the US attacking Iran via a British base, but perhaps there is more to this, because the U.S. has used plenty of foreign territory against Iran, but for some reason only the UK seemed marked for total destruction because of it. The City of London is a very special place indeed.
In the broader picture as time goes on the war in Ukraine and to an extent the one in Iran smells more-and-more like the vile streets of London and is even perhaps the last round of the ‘Great Game’ taking place in the 21st century. No one has been more enthusiastic for using Ukraine as one big suicide drone against Russia than the ever-rotating nosferatu that loom at 10 Downing Street. It was Boris Johnson who put the final nail in the coffin of millions of lives by destroying any sort of peace agreement back in 2022. But we should not forget that the birthplace of Zionism, the blood enemy of Iran, was the British Empire. And, at the very least the British owe the Iranians plenty of money.
At the time of writing no one has yet to be blamed for the explosion(s) at the industrial facility in Essex, but if Parliament and their overloads want, this could be the casus belli for engaging Russia, Iran or both full scale and thus the start of a true WWIII. Tehran did just threaten London after all.
It is obvious that the enemies of Russia and Iran (and China) are essentially the same, however the conflicts seemed to be fairly compartmentalized until this strike by the ‘Junkie Fuhrer’ as Dmitry Medvedev calls him. Anyone with YouTube level knowledge of geopolitics could see there is a sort of soft or compartmentalized WWIII already happening as the West goes into decline and the Monopolar World buckles under its own tremendous bulk. But each ‘front’ in this conflict, including ones that were resolved quickly like Venezuela, seemed to be at least factually separate. Yes, the EU is leading the way on the Ukrainian front and the USA on the Persian one but there’s tons of interplay behind the scenes, however ultimately they have remained separate conflicts despite this. Now, with this attack on Iran by Kiev it looks like these fronts may merge from officially separate ones to potentially turning into one big long arc along the western half of what Mackinder called the ‘rimland’ (the inter marginal crescent).
We also cannot ignore that Zelensky has attacked former supporter Turkey all while Erdogan’s anti-Israel rhetoric only continues to heat up. Interestingly, Kiev’s strike on Caspian oil infrastructure has a deep impact against seemingly neutral Kazakhstan and the United States. It was ultimately the critical infrastructure of these two countries that was effected. We also cannot forget that, although it is obvious where President Lukashenko’s allegiances lie, and that his nation has not entered the war yet, Kiev has still managed to continuously murder innocent civilians in/around Belarus including the now infamous incident against a bus filled with children. The Belorussian side is convinced, that the attack on the bus was meant to provoke them into entering the war directly.
On the other side of the big global strife the Saudis have attacked the Houthis and the other pro-western regimes of the Gulf States are waking up to the fact that if the USA loses then so do they and are trying to counter Iran’s actions to the best of their ability.
There is escalation happening everywhere across the ‘rimland’ except for Taiwan and the Korean Peninsula, probably to keep China from helping its like-minded neighbors too directly, or more importantly, too soon. Then again, the Russian rumor mill has it that the North Koreans are gathering an army of 50,000 volunteers to fight against Kiev in the Special Military Operation. This is not escalation in the east, but from the east for certain.
At the beginning of the Special Military Operation in Ukraine one could only hope and pray that something would change and that the West would go quietly into the Multipolar night on its own volition, but alas it has not. It is unclear whether Zelensky’s will is at play or that of his handlers, but Kiev’s ever growing attacks on third-parties in their war with Russia is only synthesizing the two major fights into one. We all remember how in the recent past the Iranians famously rejected Russian “help” in arming themselves, they have probably deeply reconsidered this position. If Zelensky is allowed to further attack Iran we will wake up to find ourselves no longer in a pseudo or soft WWIII but one that is very real and rock solid.
This broadening of conflict presents a danger as the rules of engagement are quite different in both conflicts. The Russians want to save the locals in Ukraine and thus they can’t just ‘nuke it’. The Iranians don’t have nukes thus they trade missiles with the American navy and its various army bases in neighboring countries along with strikes on the source of Zionism in Israel. These are two very different games: one a mission to save locals from extinction from fascists created by the West, and the other a fight back against an unprovoked Zionist bombing campaign. Ukraine is being used as a proxy, protecting Europe from retaliation, whereas Iran is directly hitting the U.S. military and Israel directly. The key take away is that if Zelensky’s authorization of anarchy, possibly planned and orchestrated by London and beyond continues, these two will merge into something truly horrific for all humanity as two wars with no immediate nuclear threat will merge into one with nukes at the ready on both sides. Regional conflicts are now synthesizing into WWIII and the dynamic of this unified war will be nuclear.
There appears to be some uncertainty in the British intelligence services about what is wrong with Peter Mandelson.
On the one hand, a former MI6 officer with undisclosed, but possibly continuing connections to the agency, claims that Peter Mandelson may actually have been a long-term Russian agent or asset.
On the other hand, the secret briefing materials produced by MI6 as part of the process of vetting Mandelson for the job of British Ambassador to the US, the most significant red flags were his connections to Israel or Zionist assets.
Is MI6 uncertain, or internally split? Or is there a distinction between the materials they produce secretly to advise government, and materials which are “leaked” by former officers to the Daily Telegraph for propaganda purposes? You can see where I am going with this. So, let’s jump right in.
The recent apparent leak to the Daily Telegraph is said to have come from Christopher Steele, who is reportedly a former MI6 officer from deep inside the River House, as MI6’s Thames-side HQ is so quaintly called in humanising TV dramas. Steele worked on the Russia Desk at a time when Russia was declining in the degree of attention that was devoted to it by the British intelligence services.
Steele joined MI6 in 1987 and was immediately posted to the Russia Desk. He retired in 2009, having been three years as head of the Desk. For all of his career in MI6, the proportion of attention given by MI6 (and British intelligence more broadly) to Foreign State Threats of which Russia was the pre-eminent example had reportedly markedly declined, according to the Intelligence and Security Committee. No wonder he thinks we are not paying enough attention. It was only after the “reunification” of Crimea with the Russian Federation in 2014 that the British intelligence services started to focus much more attention on Russia, foremost among all State Threats.
After MI6, Steele went off to Orbis Business Intelligence. His most famous role there was as the author of the dossier on the alleged relations between Trump and Russia. These were comprehensively debunked in the so called RussiaGate affair, most notably in a four part investigation by Jeff Gerth and in the relentless deconstruction of the Mueller report and the technical flaws of the initial crowdsourced claims by Aaron Maté. It is frankly amazing that even the Telegraph would have anything to do with Steele after that debacle. But here we are. According to Steele, Mandelson was considered a “privileged contact” of Russian intelligence.
Of course, it’s not insignificant that the “journalist” who wrote the story, Camilla Turner, has parents who literally run UK Lawyers for “Israel”, as the Canary has previously pointed out. Turner has been at the Telegraph for years, but it’s also important to point out that it has recently been taken over by hardline Zionists who are on record as saying staff who are not pro-“Israel” should look for other jobs.
Mandelson’s official vetting reportedly threw up five separate links of concern. These were to China’s minister of finance, Lan Fo’an, the sanctions-hit Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and a former Israeli military intelligence general, Tamir Hayma. Another concern identified was a £1m loan Mandelson received to invest in an Israeli startup. United Kingdom Security Vetting also noted Mandelson had a “very close” relationship with another individual, who is British, that could be compromising.
But Mandelson was not the only British official to have relations with the Chinese Finance minister. Both Rachel Reeves (the Chancellor) and Keir Starmer as PM did so too.
On the Russian connection, as the Zionist press like Times of Israel and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency never tire of pointing out, Deripaska is one of Russia’s prominent Jewish oligarchs. And he is no stranger to elite Zionist networks. After all, when Mandelson met Deripaska in famously controversial circumstances in 2008, it was aboard the oligarch’s yacht as a guest of Nat Rothschild, who also reportedly played a key role in financing Deripaska’s business activities. It was aboard Rothschild’s own yacht that Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump later “discovered” the Albanian island paradise that has become so controversial in recent weeks. Nat Rothschild also famously allowed Mandelson to “rent” a “modest” farmhouse on his Wiltshire estate in England, which was one of the two addresses raided by the police when Mandelson was arrested.
But that is not all. Mandelson is perhaps best known for his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the same financier/Zionist asset who revealed in a once secret email to Peter Thiel of Palantir that “I represent the Rothschilds”. The circles of influence and corruption are closed by the final connection. In 2018, Deripaska was allegedly involved in trafficking young women for prostitution. He was accused of raping at least one 15-year-old. Though his alleged associates were prosecuted, charges were in the end – in 2025 – not preferred against Deripaska. So the “Russian” connection to Mandelson in the vetting report, in the end, is actually a connection to Zionist influence networks, with a striking Epsteinian flavour.
Of the two specific “Israeli” connections raised by MI6, one was with the former head of the Zionist regime military intelligence agency Aman. Tamir Hayma was chief of Aman between 2018 and 2021 following a decades-long career in the occupation forces. He then transitioned to the Institute for National Security Studies, a regime-connected think tank, and reportedly spoke bi-monthly to Mandelson.
The other connection was that Mandelson, though he had declared a £1million holding in an Israeli gaming tech start-up, called Moon Active, which was behind Coin Master, had not disclosed that he had been loaned the money to buy the stake. The British resident behind the loan has not so far been identified. It would be surprising if they were not connected to the same Zionist networks in which Mandelson is embedded.
The final red flag reported by the vetting process was to another British individual. There has been very little reporting on who that individual might be. Speculating who it is is difficult because there are so many instances of Mandelsonian corruption that it is hard to tell which would have triggered warning bells in MI6. It could, of course, be Nat Rothschild, who has been central to so much of this, but equally it could be the former “Prince” now known as Andrew Mountbatten. A 2019 internal JPMorgan report flagged that Jeffrey Epstein maintained an intertwined, “particularly close relationship” with both Andrew and Lord Mandelson, creating overlapping reputational risks. Then there is Ghislaine Maxwell. In 2014, Mandelson signed on as a “founding citizen” for Terramar, an ocean conservation charity founded by the British socialite and funded by Epstein, which was later scrutinized during sex-trafficking investigations.
As can be seen from this list and from all that we know about Mandelson’s career, almost all of his multifarious connections are deeply inserted in the Epstein web or connected to Zionist influence networks. It was after Christopher Steele retired from MI6 that the agency massively increased its focus on Russia as a result of the “reunification” of Crimea with the Russian Federation. The HMG Russia Unit was created inside the Foreign Office for this purpose, and it co-operated very closely with the Russia Desk in MI6, which Steele had headed. The unit was given civilian cover and announced publicly, but as was later disclosed by the Intelligence and Security Select Committee, it was staffed by spooks from all seven then-existing British intelligence agencies. It was from there that the whole Skripal “poisoning” operation was run, as well as several other covert ops including the “Integrity Initiative” exposed in mass leaks in 2018 and indeed many covert ops in Ukraine after 2022. Given the reported connection between Steele and Skripal’s handler Pablo Miller, both of whom worked at Orbis Business Intelligence, it is reasonable to assume that Steele may have played a role in the Skripal op, at a time when he had been out of the service for nine years. So, it is not entirely clear that this latest intervention from Steele is entirely separate from the machinations emanating from spooks who currently inhabit the River House.
It is perfectly plain that the major link that Mandelson has is with Zionist intelligence-linked networks. If anyone in MI6 (or formerly in MI6) tells you differently, you will know they are ignoring the actual data held in their files and trying to treat you as a propaganda patsy. Don’t fall for it. Mandelson is a Zionist asset.
The UK has canceled a major army exercise in Kenya after the two countries failed to resolve a dispute over Nairobi’s powers to prosecute British soldiers accused of committing crimes in the East African nation.
The planned Exercise Haraka Storm, involving the 1st Battalion and The Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, was reportedly scheduled to begin in September in central Kenya’s Laikipia County. It will instead be held outside Kenya, the British Ministry of Defence said on Thursday, according to The Guardian. Kenya’s Standard newspaper reported that the training would be moved to neighboring Tanzania.
“It is with regret that the necessary licences required to allow training to take place in Laikipia later this year have not been forthcoming,” a Ministry of Defence spokesperson said.
The African state hosts a permanent British Army training support unit, known as BATUK, in Nanyuki, about 200km (125 miles) north of the capital, Nairobi. British troops have trained there since Kenya’s independence in 1963, conducting infantry exercises, as well as engineering and medical deployments under a bilateral defense cooperation agreement.
Kenyan lawmakers have, however, withheld approval for a renewed bilateral defense agreement amid demands for greater jurisdiction over serious offenses committed by British troops. Funding for BATUK is also reportedly under negotiation.
The unit has faced widespread allegations of misconduct, including murder, rape, and environmental pollution. A two-year Kenyan parliamentary investigation report released last December accused British soldiers of murder, sexual assault, torture, and forcibly evicting residents near Nanyuki. It also documented claims involving civilian deaths and injuries from unexploded ordnance, pollution, toxic-waste disposal, and damage to wildlife habitats.
Former serviceman Robert Purkiss has been charged in Kenya with the 2012 murder of 21-year-old Agnes Wanjiru. He is contesting extradition from Britain. Wanjiru’s body was found in a septic tank near a Nanyuki hotel after she was last seen with British troops. Purkiss denies the charge.
Last year, Britain agreed to pay £2.9 million ($3.9 million) to more than 7,700 Kenyans and an environmental group over a 2021 wildfire accidentally started by British troops. The blaze destroyed more than 12,000 acres of the Lolldaiga Hills and reportedly caused one death.
The Ministry of Defence said it remained committed to its defense partnership with Kenya and would continue talks aimed at resuming training.
Nelson Koech, chairman of the Kenyan parliament’s defense committee, said Nairobi is seeking stronger accountability measures, greater protection for local communities, and implementation of the BATUK inquiry’s recommendations.
The two governments are “actively engaging to address these outstanding issues,” The Guardian quoted Koech as saying.
The U.K. government recommended a risky drug combination for COVID-19 patients in 2020, just 16 days after warning doctors to use the medications together only as a last resort, medical commentator John Campbell, Ph.D., said this week.
For years, Campbell has criticized the widespread use of midazolam and morphine and other palliative drugs to treat COVID-19 patients, questioning why so many patients appeared to receive drugs commonly associated with end-of-life care — even though they didn’t necessarily have a terminal illness.
But in his latest video, he said he had overlooked a key piece of the puzzle: The U.K. government itself had backed guidance recommending the combined use of opioids and benzodiazepines for certain COVID-19 patients — just days after warning that the drug combination could cause fatal respiratory depression.
Campbell, who said a former member of the British Parliament brought the issue to his attention, called the apparent reversal “a national scandal which is being ignored.” … Full article
Iran’s foreign ministry has strongly condemned the British government’s decision to allow the US to use UK military bases and facilities to prepare and facilitate military strikes against Iran, declaring the move a violation of the UN Charter and international law.
“British policymakers, fully aware that US military strikes against Iran – which began with the participation of the Zionist regime and are still ongoing – constitute a clear act of aggression and a gross violation of the fundamental principles of the UN Charter and peremptory norms of international law, have decided to join these actions,” the ministry said in a statement Thursday.
The decision, the ministry said, is “clearly contrary to the fundamental principles and rules of the Charter of the United Nations and international law” and, under paragraph (f) of Article 3 of UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 on the Definition of Aggression, “constitutes an act of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran”.
The foreign ministry sharply criticized Britain’s role as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
“The UK government, both as a state and as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, instead of fulfilling its legal and moral responsibilities to condemn the military aggression and war crimes of the United States and the Zionist regime against Iran, has stepped onto the path of aligning with the aggressors and has degraded its position to that of an accomplice in their war against the Iranian nation.”
“This decision,” the ministry added, “further undermines London’s claims about supporting the rule of law, human rights, and international peace and security.”
The statement drew explicit parallels with Britain’s long history of intervention in Iranian affairs.
It listed “the coup of August 19, 1953; full-scale support for Saddam Hussein’s regime during the imposed war; the imposition of illegal sanctions under the pretext of the nuclear issue; complicity with the United States in the so-called ‘snapback’ mechanism; and the designation of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC).”
“The Islamic Republic of Iran is determined to defend its national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interests, and national security against any aggression,” the ministry emphasized.
“Any party that in any way participates in the military aggression against Iran will be responsible for the consequences and repercussions of its own decision.”
According to a report from Bloomberg, the new British prime minister has agreed to allow the United States to use UK territory to continue its aggressive strikes against Iran.
The report said Andy Burnham has permitted the US to use British military bases for “defensive strikes” against Iran – meaning that UK bases such as RAF Fairford and the Diego Garcia naval base in the Indian Ocean will likely be used in the current round of US aggressive strikes.
The report added that former prime minister Keir Starmer, in his final hours at 10 Downing Street, chaired a government meeting on Britain’s policy following seven days of renewed US bombardment of Iran.
Sources revealed that ministers at the meeting decided to continue the existing policy of using UK bases to counter missiles from Iran and facilities used to target the Strait of Hormuz.
Burnham was briefed on the decision and appears to have agreed to it, despite the risk of angering anti-war Labour Party supporters, the report said.
Some Labour MPs, as well as members of the Green Party and Liberal Democrats, have argued that US use of the bases makes Britain complicit in war crimes.
Ian Proud discusses why the anti-Russian sanctions will not work, and also how the war will likely end. As a former British diplomat, Proud performed a number of roles, including the Economic Counsellor at the UK’s embassy in Moscow between 2014 and 2019.
Andy Burnham took over as British prime minister this week, promising to bring “hope and change” to poverty-stricken Britain amid a political crisis in which public contempt for governing parties is at record levels.
In his first speech outside 10 Downing Street on Monday, Burnham said: “I will put the care of people at the heart of everything I do… Let us make this the moment when Britain starts to believe again, the moment we bring back hope.”
British media headlines were swooning over this supposed radical new beginning for Britain. At 56 years old, Burnham brings a fresh face to tired British politics.
Notably, he said his top priority was to end “rough sleeping” on the streets for thousands of homeless Britons. And he announced a budget of £340 million (€400 m, $450 m) over the next five years to fix the problem by building affordable homes.
This apparent commitment to improving social conditions may sound laudable. It buffs Burnham’s image as a caring politician on the side of working-class Britons. He likes to talk about his North of England credentials and empathy for popular concerns during his tenure as Mayor of Greater Manchester (2017-2026).
But let’s put his homeless budget in a realistic context. On his first day in Downing Street, Burnham also made Britain’s military support for Ukraine another of his priorities. He said there would be “one hundred per cent” continuation of the policy under his predecessor Keir Starmer that made Britain one of the most gung-ho backers of the Kiev regime in NATO’s proxy war against Russia.
Significantly, Burnham appointed former defense minister John Healey as the new Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister). Healey will be London’s man in control of all government budgets. As defense minister in the previous Starmer Cabinet, Healey was an ultra-hawkish figure when it came to supporting Ukraine and calling for greater military spending. It was Healey’s shock resignation on June 11 as defense secretary that was the last nail in Starmer’s premiership. Healey quit because he claimed that Starmer had not allocated enough money to enable Britain’s NATO commitments for reaching a military spending target of 3.5 per cent of GDP. He claimed that Starmer was undermining Britain’s national security and leaving it vulnerable to an alleged Russian threat. Healey and the military establishment wanted additional funds amounting to at least £15 bn more than what Starmer could muster in his Defence Investment Plan.
If Healey gets his way as the new finance minister, he will commit Britain to increasing its annual military spending from £63 bn to £90 bn. This will have to be paid for by massive cuts in public services and social welfare, austerity that has already driven British society into widespread poverty, where one-in-three children live in deprivation.
That Burnham has surprised many observers with the appointment of Healey to the second-most powerful position in Downing Street is a sure sign that he, as prime minister, is fully committed to Britain ramping up its militarism and support for Ukraine.
Burnham’s first phone call in office was to U.S. President Donald Trump. His second call was to Vladimir Zelensky, the puppet president of Ukraine, to assure him of Britain’s ongoing support.
Doesn’t it seem a bit incongruous that “caring, sharing Andy” should make support for Ukraine and assurances about NATO spending his first foreign policy priority while at the same time posing with concern about homelessness in Britain?
Under a bilateral defense pact between Britain and Ukraine signed last year by Starmer and which Burnham will uphold, London is committed to supplying £3 billion (€3.5 bn, $4 bn) in military aid to the Kiev regime every year over the next five years and “for as long as Ukraine needs support”. This is on top of Britain’s own national military spending.
Burnham’s budget to end homelessness in the UK works out at £68 million per year over five years. This is paltry, equivalent to only 2.3 per cent of the money that his government will be supplying every year to a NeoNazi regime to fight a futile war against Russia – paid for by British taxpayers.
What’s going on in Britain is not a supposed renaissance of people-centered democracy. The British media are hyping Burnham as a “people’s prime minister”. He is talking about decentralizing political power from London to create a “No 10 of the North”. All the sentimental aspiration about hope and change is reminiscent of when Barack Obama became U.S. president in 2008. It’s all hokum and empty rhetoric.
Lord Peter Ricketts, a former British national security advisor, let the cat out of the bag when he told CNN in an interview that Burnham’s task will be to use his populist communication skills to “sell” the agenda to the public of Britain continuing its support for Ukraine and intensifying the militarism of the British economy. This agenda depends on convincing the British public that Russia is a threat to Europe.
Already, Burnham has shown that he buys into that geopolitical project of making Britain ready for war against Russia. He is being an obedient politician to promote the interests of the British imperialist deep state and the military-industrial complex. As soon as he announced the appointment of Healey as chancellor, the stock prices of British weapons companies spiked.
Before he became prime minister, Burnham gave an interview to the London Times in which he pointedly said that he would not be “squeamish” about cutting social welfare funds to pay for increasing military spending. He was signalling to the British establishment that he would be a “safe pair of hands” in Downing Street.
During his first speech outside Downing Street this week, he said he would find a “sustainable way to bring the welfare bill down, to meet our fiscal rules, and honor our commitments on defense to our international partners.” For “international partners” read “NATO and Ukraine.”
If Burnham were genuinely seeking to overhaul Britain’s politics and economics to serve the pressing democratic needs of the British people, he would be challenging the irrational, undemocratic and reckless agenda of pushing NATO militarism and a proxy war in Ukraine. He would reject the relentless propaganda demonizing Russia that is driving Britain and Europe to the abyss of all-out war.
Andy Burnham is not going to save Britain from political and economic collapse. He’s just another manikin brought in to fob off the mass of angry people while the British imperial state siphons more money out of the economy for war. Under Andy Burn ’Em, Britain’s homelessness problem will take on a whole new meaning if he lets the country slide into a world war.
The small, leafy, village of Piddington has voted to hold a referendum for independence from the United Kingdom because the government is planning on dumping over 1,000 illegal aliens into the village of just 370 people.
The vote came after the Home Office – the United Kingdom’s lead government department for immigration, passports, homeland security, and law and order – announced in late June that it would convert a vacant military storage facility on the outskirts of the village of Piddington into general accommodation for single men aged 18 to 65.
Needless to say, the residents were not pleased by the news. It did not help matters that despite the significance of the move, no government official came to talk to the villagers before the plans were announced, which smacks of sheer arrogance.
The village of Piddington has no shops, no pubs, and not even a police force. It must rely on outside communities for all of its needs. They have no way of providing any protection for their residents. So this isn’t an asylum seeker issue as far as the townspeople are concerned, it’s about the practical realities regarding how to protect the older people and the kids in the neighborhood from a new presence that promises to be dangerous.
Incredibly, the villagers were told that no women or children would be sent to live with the illegal male migrants because it would not be safe for them. Yet the people of Piddington, without so much as a single police officer, will have to fend for themselves against all odds.
Parish Council Chairman Tim McNally explained the referendum to leave the UK as a natural response to being driven into a corner.
“We had an incredible result, with almost two-thirds of the village voting, the rest were children, and an acceptance of 96%. It was truly astonishing. Self-determination is what people want whilst they are being ignored and driven into a corner. This is a natural human instinct and reaction. The Principality of Piddington, the village that roared, will put together their council and representatives to empower themselves.”
Village resident Graham Rixon, talking to British media, called the scale “completely inappropriate.” “We’re a village of 350 people – there’s another village down the road of even less people, and they’re going to dump 1,200 people here.”
“Most of [the illegal migrants] probably won’t speak the language, so there’s going to be communication problems, and as far as I know, no help’s been set up for language,” he continued, adding “We haven’t had any detail of how it’s going to work, so if it does go through, it’ll be a mess – inadequate provision has been made. We’re supposed to live in a democracy, and this is just trying to bypass democracy and get it all done before anyone notices.”
It requires little imagination to foresee what will happen as night falls in the military camp as hundreds of men find themselves in search of entertainment. The villagers will become prisoners in their own homes, with little means of defending themselves.
The nightmare that the residents of Piddington are confronting is not an isolated case. As Modernity News reported, “In one case a village of just 150 people faced 121 migrants placed in 21 new-build houses originally meant for social housing, sited next to a children’s playground and primary school. Locals reported teenage girls taking longer routes to avoid the area.”
The same tragic story continues in Barnham, Suffolk – a sleepy village of just over 500 residents now confronting plans to house over 1,000 asylum seekers at a nearby site formerly used by the Royal Air Force. The base is situated just several minutes from a primary school and next to a nature reserve.
The residents will be forced to forget about the luxury of not locking their doors at night, or casually socializing with strangers who come in from out of town. Indeed, instead of enjoying the pleasures of quiet country living, villages and towns across the UK are being forced to take matters into their own hands, organizing voluntary security patrols to protect the local population.
“The government refuses to consider our safety as they continue to send more illegals into our communities so it’s essential that we come up with deterrents,” said Gwen Gerrans from Crowborough, another small town that is being forced to accommodate large numbers of migrants. “We are tired of living in the corner they have forced us into.”
The question remains: Will the British government heed the call of their people and put a brake on migration, or will they continue with business as usual? Judging by its own turbulent history, which has witnessed bloody calls for independence, it would seem wise for the British government to heed the call of its people who are truly at their wits’ end as far as illegal migration is concerned. It will only take one or two bad incidents for the social experiment to explode in the government’s face.
While the vote to secede from the UK is largely a symbolic move by the people of Piddington, it shows the level of frustration many British citizens are feeling. There are hundreds of other Piddingtons just waiting for the right opportunity to roar in the face of government inaction.
Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is the author of ‘Midnight in the American Empire,’ How Corporations and Their Political Servants are Destroying the American Dream.
An undercover investigation by Al Jazeera reveals how western donors evade charity law to provide aid to illegal Israeli settlements.
Since October 7, 2023, Israel has killed more than 1,000 Palestinians in the West Bank. More than 230 of them are children. Attacks by settlers on rural Palestinian communities have increased, destroying property and capturing livestock, driving families from their homes. At the same time, the Israeli military has launched a large-scale assault on the densely populated Jenin refugee camp.
This film provides a comprehensive picture of the tactics the Israeli government uses to support the settlers and then, through infrastructure and building programmes, annex Palestinian land.
Western governments claim to oppose Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and uphold international law. However, undercover reporters from Al Jazeera expose how donors based in some Western countries fund the expansion of illegal settlements.
Al Jazeera journalists secretly film meetings with pro-settler organisations in Israel, claiming to be donors based in the UK looking to make large contributions to their projects. They’re told how funds can be paid as tax-deductible donations to charities in the UK and Canada who then pay the money on to their organisations. It is unlawful for charities in the UK and Canada to use donations to support the illegal settlement of the West Bank.
The Israeli organisations tell our undercover reporters how donations can be used to campaign for the demolition of Palestinian homes and provide military-grade security equipment such as drones and night vision cameras to settlers. We are also told that funds can be used to buy guns for settlers in occupied East Jerusalem and equipment for soldiers serving in the Israeli army.
The Israeli organisations are aware that their activities are considered unlawful in Canada and the UK and suggest ways to disguise the intended purpose of the donations, routing the funds through affiliated third parties and, in some cases, misreporting the true nature of their spending.
Charities in the UK and Canada are required to do extensive due diligence on how funds paid overseas are spent and to ensure they comply with the law. Al Jazeera’s evidence points to serious failings in this process.
Is Britain’s new prime minister about to stand up to the hugely powerful Israeli lobby? A recent glimpse of his views about Israel and its genocide carried out in Gaza might have been a clue for things to come. The interview itself was carried out not with a journalist but with a sports celebrity whom most Brits associate with a brand of potato chips – which is indicative of how Andy Burnham is going to deal with media: in other words, ignore it altogether.
Burnham has at least done the impossible and steered the debate and the narrative away from Keir Starmer’s all-out pro-Israel stance, and has at least started calling the war in Gaza what it really is – which is not a war at all but a genocide. His appointment as PM may well reduce the mad simmer of blind, dogmatic support for Israel and play into the hands of minority groups in the UK who feel politically lost over Downing Street’s Middle East policies, which have seen U.S. bombers leave the country’s military bases to bomb children in Gaza. Burnham’s interview with Gary Lineker – his first interview – before formally taking office gives a clue to where he wants to take the Labour party before the country goes to the polls in three years’ time.
Yet how long will it take before Israel’s cash and influence get to him? The real test of this new strategy is not the narrative but the endurance of it, especially given that there are so many Labour MPs around him who are on Israel’s payroll – which recently, we presume, extended to even Reform officials who recently returned from an all-expenses-paid trip to Gaza, magically converted to Zionists spouting IDF talking points.
Money is everywhere now in UK politics, as the country has succumbed to the American system. The scandals piling up against Nigel Farage have shocked a nation, although in reality most people in the UK are still very naïve about cash in politics. Indeed, Farage’s scandal is merely prompting a new debate as to even how much money is involved in luring conservative politicians to jump ship to Reform, with Liz Truss taking some media oxygen as many speculate that she’s about to make the leap – when the numbers make sense.
But Britain is only doing what the U.S. is doing, on all levels, even when it comes to Israel. Recently, three primaries were lost to Democratic candidates in the U.S. who had strong anti-Israel views, shocking many in the U.S. who believed until now that Israel’s cash always wins at the end of the day within the political system. In fact, over 100 Democrats recently voted in Congress to end Israel’s $3.3 billion USD military aid which U.S. taxpayers hand over each year, while most Americans can’t afford basic healthcare. Yet it’s hard to see if this is a political initiative as such by the Dems or whether this is people power at the ballot. Many Americans are very troubled by the relationship between the U.S. and Israel, and it took the recent Iran war for many of them to even educate themselves as to the extent of the relationship and how far Israel went to manipulate Trump. The post-February 28th campaign that Trump got tricked into going ahead with at least served one purpose, in that it threw a spotlight on this subject like never before. But this came at such a high price, which is what many Americans are waking up to – especially given that Israel as a country is doomed by its history and cursed by its present leaders, and that it can only drag the U.S. down with it.
“Israel is a highly traumatized country. It exists in a sociopsychological bubble built around victimhood, relying on a government system dominated by the military,” argue Dr Andreas Krieg recently. “In such a militarized society, there is no room for political strategy. It is a system built for perpetual war… Military leaders are terrible rulers and terrible at strategic decision-making outside the battlefield. This is why Israel has never strategically won a war – because it is still fighting 80 years on.”
And so any backlash from voters or renegade politicians on both sides of the Atlantic might be the beginning of a new way of thinking about Israel and the region, as Western leaders are realising that the closer they get to Israel, the more they suffer if not ultimately perish. The EU’s plans to block settlers’ land grabs in the West Bank is encouraging, but too little, too late to be taken seriously. The Norwegian national football team’s donation of its collective salaries to a Palestinian charity got more media coverage, although FIFA seems to be an organisation breaking all records on corruption, so perhaps it sent mixed messages. Trump’s war in Iran has confirmed wholesale that Israel owns him and the U.S. taxpayer, as Netanyahu’s ruse paid off big time. What can stop the madness?
By portraying Chinese characters as perpetrators of ruthless violence while casting Japanese Self-Defense Forces (SDF) intelligence operatives as defenders, the season 2 of the Japanese drama Vivant has recently drawn criticism from Chinese netizens, who argue that its depiction turns historical reality on its head while ignoring Japan’s wartime atrocities.
The TBS drama series – a spy suspense story in which an alleged unofficial intelligence unit of the SDF operates across the globe — has attracted a passionate fanbase. Its currently airing season 2 opened with a household rating of 18.8 percent, the highest for a TV drama this year, according toa commentary article by Japanese media Toyo Keizai.
What draws attention is the portrayal of the enemies in the series, the article noted. Scenes in which the Chinese organization subjects kidnapped members of the SDF unit to brutal torture are repeated with unrelenting intensity.
It is rare for Japanese TV dramas to explicitly portray a real-life country as the enemy, the article noted.
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi also made a reference to the drama, saying that she has been recording Vivant and hopes to binge-watch it over the year-end and New Year holidays, according to Japanese media outlets.
China’s CCTV News report on Sunday revealed that the drama features scenes in which Chinese personnel cut off the fingers of and stab Japanese intelligence operatives in the abdomen. Such acts bear striking similarities to the torture inflicted on Chinese nationals by invading Japanese troops during the World War II.
The drama distorts the truth by attributing these atrocities to modern Chinese characters. Beneath the surface, it subtly glorifies Japan’s cross-border overseas operations, blurs the functional boundaries of the SDF and implicitly promotes an expansionist narrative, per CCTV News. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
