Lebanon is being bombed by Israel AGAIN – despite a ceasefire [Israel][1] launched a new wave of illegal airstrikes across [southern and eastern][2] Lebanon on Monday 5 January, flouting a US-brokered ceasefire and [inflicting further devastation][3] on communities already shattered by years of conflict. The Israeli military claims it was striking “[Hezbollah and Hamas targets][4]” in villages including Hammara, Ain el-Tineh, Kfar Hatta and Aanan — terminology critics argue is cynical cover for wanton aggression. ## Israel strikes Lebanon again Dozens of families fled their homes under threat of bombardment, gathering belongings and scrambling to safety as drones whirred overhead and explosions rocked the countryside. Emergency services rushed to the scene after a drone strike in the village of Braikeh wounded civilians. This was the latest in a string of attacks Israel insists are directed at militants. This fresh offensive comes after Israel and Hezbollah [agreed to a ceasefire][5] in 2024 that was supposed to end more than a year of bloody fighting. Rather than honouring peace, Israel has repeatedly violated the truce, occupying Lebanese territory and unleashing near-daily strikes that have terrorised communities and blurred the line between “military target” and civilian suffering. Human rights advocates and UN officials [have criticised][6] Israel’s operations as disproportionate and indiscriminate, warning that the toll on civilians amounts to war crimes. Southern Lebanon has endured waves of bombardment that have killed hundreds and displaced thousands, destruction that crosses every acceptable threshold of proportionality. Lebanese authorities fear today’s escalation could be a deliberate ploy to pressure Beirut into disarming Hezbollah — a demand domestically controversial and regionally explosive. But ultimately, this pattern of strikes is part of a broader strategy of intimidation rather than a legitimate defence imperative. As bombs continue to fall, families pay the price — innocent lives caught in the crossfire of power politics and unending conflict. *Featured image via the Canary* By [The Canary][7] [1]: https://www.thecanary.co/topics/israel/ [2]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/5/israel-bombs-southern-lebanon-saying-it-targeted-hezbollah-and-hamas [3]: https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2025/12/09/1923-lebanon-palestine-boundary/ [4]: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-urges-evacuation-two-villages-southern-lebanon-ahead-strike-2026-01-05/ [5]: https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2025/12/11/lebanon-faces-betrayal-in-trump/ [6]: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/12/30/israeli-drones-make-life-miserable-for-residents-of-southern-lebanon_6748939_4.html? [7]: https://www.thecanary.co/author/thecanary/ https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-news/2026/01/05/lebanon-bombed-by-israel/

The asset stripping of Asda and Morrisons reduces the entire finance industry to hot air Private equity has raised £6.5bn from asset stripping Asda and Morrisons’ properties after purchasing the supermarkets, according to the [*Financial Times*][1]. The properties that Asda and Morrisons own are worth more sold individually than the private valuation of the whole companies under their brands. But when compared to publicly owned supermarkets the type of finance private equity operates under is reduced to hot air. ## Private equity: rigged, as Asda and Morrisons show People are always going to need food, hence they need food distribution centres (supermarkets). So when TDR Capital bought Asda in 2021 and when Clayton Dubilier & Rice bought Morrisons in 2022 it was a low risk investment, to say the least. These private finance funds used a lot of debt to buy the companies, minimising the amount of capital they had to provide and enabling them to avoid tax. This increases profit when compared to initial investment because the investment funds aren’t using much of their own money, as well as the tax benefits. The hot air comes into sharp focus when considering that Clayton Dubilier & Rice [sold][2] 337 of Morrisons’ petrol stations for £2.5bn to the Motor Fuel Group, which, by chance, it also owns. ## Bubble It’s clear overall that finance is a bubble when compared to a society that provides essentials publicly based on organised demand. Supermarkets, like Asda and Morrisons (now owned by private equity), are profit extracting middle men between people and agriculture. There’s no need for these organisations to be owned privately when they are necessary for the very basics of being human (eating food). On top of private ownership, Asda and Morrisons are now being asset stripped by private equity, which will increase long term costs because the property being sold is, in most cases, rented back to the supermarket. Those costs may well increase [grocery prices further][3]. Instead, supermarkets should be non profit and high tech through incorporating self-service systems like the ‘Dash Cart’. There’s no need for people to slave away in supermarkets if the process can be automated. Polling suggests people are tired of the hot air of capitalism. 82% of UK people support a different economy [organised][4] around need with universal public services. *Featured image via the Canary* By [James Wright][5] [1]: https://archive.ph/6McJ4 [2]: https://archive.ph/6McJ4#selection-2203.10-2207.16 [3]: https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2025/10/24/greedflation-reason-for-food-inflation-except-corporate-greed/ [4]: https://www.thecanary.co/uk/news/2025/12/20/zarah-sultana-82-of-britain/ [5]: https://www.thecanary.co/author/james/ https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2026/01/05/asda-morrisons-private-equity/

#RightToShelterGaza: urgent campaign needs your support The Government Operations Room for Emergency Interventions in the Gaza Strip, together with the Ministry of Public Works and Housing, has launched the #RightToShelterGaza campaign in response to the rapidly deteriorating living conditions faced by displaced families. ## #RightToShelterGaza: prefabricated housing units urgently needed in Gaza Hundreds of thousands of people are currently surviving in fragile, poorly equipped tents that offer little protection from rain, cold, and strong winds, due to the Israeli occupation deliberately preventing life-saving humanitarian aid and shelters in the Strip. Through this campaign, authorities are urging the international community to exert pressure on ‘Israel’ to permit the immediate entry of prefabricated housing units as an urgent humanitarian necessity. Officials from both bodies have explained that recent severe weather conditions have clearly demonstrated how inadequate tents are as shelter. Heavy rainfall and strong winds have flooded or destroyed thousands of tents, leaving families exposed and placing children and elderly people at serious risk, especially in the absence of safe heating options. More than [53,000 tents][1] across the Gaza Strip were damaged during r[ecent weather depressions][2], worsening the already dire humanitarian situation and increasing urgent needs among displaced households. The #RightToShelterGaza campaign comes at a time when two million people are currently displaced in Gaza, including close to one million children. Most are living in extremely harsh conditions inside tents that lack basic necessities. ## Extra problems faced by disabled Palestinians Before the genocide, Gaza had approximately 55,000 persons with disabilities. According to the WHO, in September 2025, around [42,000][3] additional individuals had suffered severe, life-changing injuries requiring long-term rehabilitation. This brings the total number of people with disabilities or serious injuries to roughly 97,000. Many are now living in tents that are unsafe and unsuitable for their needs. And their dignity and well-being is further undermined. Figures from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics also show around [60,000 pregnant women][4] are currently in the Gaza Strip. Most face acute shelter shortages and are forced to live in inadequate tents, which provide neither warmth nor privacy. This situation increases health risks under extremely difficult conditions. According to the Ministry of Public Works and Housing, Israeli attacks have devastated Gaza’s housing sector. About 90 percent of civilian infrastructure has been damaged or destroyed. More than 355,000 housing units have been affected, including approximately 295,000 homes that were either completely destroyed or rendered uninhabitable, greatly intensifying displacement and the shelter crisis. The Government Operations Room has stressed that humanitarian organisations and local authorities are unable to meet shelter needs. This is due to severe shortages of materials and fuel caused by the Israeli occupation’s blockade. Lack of fuel has also limited the use of heavy machinery needed to clear rubble, open roads, and drain floodwaters. The Israeli occupation, at the same time, continues blocking the entry of prefabricated housing units. It allows only limited numbers of tents into Gaza, further exposing displaced people to danger. ## Gaza needs 200,000 prefabricated housing units but their entry has been blocked by ‘Israel’ The Ministry of Public Works and Housing has emphasised that prefabricated housing units represent the most suitable temporary shelter option. This is especially true given the long timeline required for reconstruction and the ongoing harsh weather. Gaza urgently [requires around 200,000][5] prefabricated units. However, continued restrictions on their entry have forced humanitarian NGOs to rely on tents, despite their obvious shortcomings. These housing units are intended as an interim solution, not a permanent replacement for homes, until reconstruction can begin. In addition, tents are only appropriate during the initial emergency phase of displacement. They are [not suitable for winter conditions][6], as they cannot withstand rain and wind and are difficult to heat safely. The #RightToShelterGaza campaign aims to raise media attention and political pressure. It emphasises that access to safe shelter is a basic human right that cannot be postponed. By preventing the entry of prefabricated housing units, ‘Israel’ is endangering the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Children and the elderly are particularly affected. Through this campaign, the Government Operations Room and the Ministry of Public Works and Housing are calling on the United Nations, international organisations, and states party to the Geneva Conventions to fulfil their legal and humanitarian obligations. They urge immediate action to pressure the Israeli occupation to allow the entry of prefabricated housing units into Gaza. This emergency measure will protect lives, provide safe shelter, and preserve a minimum standard of human dignity amid ongoing displacement and harsh weather conditions. *Featured image via the Canary* By [Charlie Jaay][7] [1]: https://english.palinfo.com/news/2025/12/17/353888/ [2]: https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2025/12/10/gaza-flooding-a-trapped/ [3]: https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/hq-whe/estimating-trauma-rehabilitation-needs-in-gaza-september-2025.pdf [4]: https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/site/512/default.aspx?lang=en&ItemID=6137#:~:text=Severe%20Health%20and%20Nutritional%20Crisis,intestinal%20diseases%2C%20particularly%20among%20children. [5]: https://yaffaps.com/en/page-74387.html#:~:text=The%20Government%20Operations%20Room%20confirmed,face%20of%20harsh%20weather%20conditions. [6]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/03/tents-supplied-to-displaced-palestinians-inadequate-for-gaza-winter [7]: https://www.thecanary.co/author/charlie-jaay/ https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2026/01/05/righttosheltergaza-campaign/

UK border officials gain new powers to seize migrants’ phones The[ Home Office][1] has stated that [it will begin to seize migrants’ mobile phones][2] at the Manston migrant processing centre in Kent as of Monday 5 January. The announcement follows new powers permitting the seizures even without arresting the owner of the phone coming into force. Alex Norris, minister for [border security,][3] stated that: > We promised to restore order and control to our borders, which means taking on the people smuggling networks behind this deadly trade. > > That is exactly why we are implementing robust new laws with powerful offences to intercept, disrupt and dismantle these vile gangs faster than ever before and cut off their supply chains. ## New powers and sanctions to seize migrants’ mobile phones The government has claimed that the authoritarian measure will help in gathering intelligence on people-smuggling gangs. The National Crime Agency also stated that such intelligence might help speed up investigations into [small-boat][4] ringleaders. The Manston processing facility reportedly has technology ready to download data from the seized mobiles. The new powers permit [immigration][5] officers to search immigrants’ mouths for SIM cards. They will also be able to order migrants to take off the outer layers of their clothing in order to search them for devices. Along with the greater powers for border forces, the UK is also introducing new offences aimed at cracking down on people-smugglers. These include up to 5 years in prison for downloading maps intended for small-boat crossings. Likewise, storing or supplying engines intended for small-boat trafficking could result in a sentence of up to 14 years. ## ‘That doesn’t take away compassion’ Minister for migration and citizenship Mike Tapp stated that officials might later return the seized phones. However, this would: > depend on the individual circumstances… what’s found on that phone. That’s for the guys on the ground to make that operational decision. He also added that: > If people have devices… that could hold intelligence, then we are right to be able to seize that. But that doesn’t take away compassion. Quite how searching terrified asylum seekers’ mouths for SIM cards is an act of compassion is anyone’s guess. Natasha Tsangarides – associate director of [NGO Freedom from Torture][6] – called out just that fact: > Subjecting desperate and traumatised men, women and children to invasive searches – including examinations of their clothing and even inside their mouths – immediately after they have survived a terrifying Channel crossing is profoundly inhumane. > > Applying these powers indiscriminately to everyone arriving by small boat risks treating all refugees as a security threat, regardless of evidence, and shows a shocking disregard for the fundamental right to privacy. ## Nothing new with seizing migrants’ mobile phones Of course, immigration officials seizing mobiles from immigrants[ isn’t exactly a new phenomenon][7]. Rather, the new legislation simply gives officials the backing of the law. Back in 2022, the Home Office lost a[ High Court][8] case against three [asylum seekers][9]. Border security officers seized their phones as part of a blanket policy targeting arrivals from the English Channel. The three didn’t even have time to tell their family of their safety after the dangerous crossing. However, High Court [judges rules that:][10] > the Home Office’s seizure and retention of asylum seekers phones violated their human rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which grants a right to family and private life. > > They also said that the Home Office had wrongly demanded PIN’s for the phones “without any lawful authority” and that their was no offence that asylum seekers could be prosecuted for if they failed to do this. The High Court said that “using a threat of prosecution for a non-existent offence to enforce the demand” was a clear breach of the asylum seekers’ human rights. If you’re wondering what’s changed in the nearly-four years since this case – and why the human right to privacy apparently no longer applies to immigrants – don’t worry; you’re not the only one. [Jonah Mendelsohn,][11] of Wilson Solicitors, highlighted the fact that the government hasn’t instated any independent oversight to ensure that the new powers are used fairly, or even legally. He stated that: > To comply with the legal standards identified by the high court, the use of intrusive searches and data extraction requires independent authorisation and oversight. It is not clear whether the legislation embeds such safeguards. > > The suggestion that mobile phone searches will be rolled out at Manston also heightens concerns that searches will be carried out on new arrivals on a blanket basis, risking a re-run of the very failures previously identified by the courts. ## Human rights? Not our problem So, to summarise: * In 2022, the UK High Court already stated that seizing immigrants’ phones is a violation of human rights. * In spite of that, Labour have introduced new legislation permitting the seizure of immigrants’ phones. * The government have put no safeguards in place to ensure that immigrants’ rights aren’t violated by these new powers. This is simply the latest in a long line of demonstrations that the UK government – whether [Labour][12] or Tory – doesn’t care about human rights when immigrants are involved. Whether it’s searching asylum seekers’ mouths for SIM cards,[ stealing immigrants’ jewellery][13] at the border, or [denying the right to family reunion][14], there simply isn’t a depth to which these racist politicians will not stoop. *Featured image via the Canary* By [Alex/Rose Cocker][15] [1]: https://www.thecanary.co/?s=Home+Office [2]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm240jvnen0o [3]: https://www.thecanary.co/?s=border+security [4]: https://www.thecanary.co/?s=small+boat [5]: https://www.thecanary.co/?s=immigration [6]: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/04/uk-plans-seize-asylum-seekers-phones-condemned-campaigners [7]: https://iasservices.org.uk/home-office-illegally-confiscated-asylum-seekers-phones/ [8]: https://www.thecanary.co/?s=high+court [9]: https://www.thecanary.co/?s=asylum+seekers [10]: https://iasservices.org.uk/home-office-illegally-confiscated-asylum-seekers-phones/ [11]: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/04/uk-plans-seize-asylum-seekers-phones-condemned-campaigners [12]: https://www.thecanary.co/?s=Labour [13]: https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2025/11/17/labour-jewellery-asylum-seekers/ [14]: https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2025/11/18/refugee-labour-peer-slams-asylum-plans/ [15]: https://www.thecanary.co/author/alexrosecocker/ https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2026/01/05/migrants-mobile-phones/

Now Trump has caused North Korea to test its hypersonic missiles AGAIN Signs are already emerging that Donald Trump’s [kidnap of Venezuelan leader][1] Nicolas Maduro is making the world more dangerous. Days after US forces [bombed Caracas][2] and snatched Maduro, North Korea tested [its hypersonic missiles][3]. Leader Kim Jong-Un cited the “geopolitical crisis” of the moment as a motive for the tests. ## North Korea on the war path North Korea, which is nuclear-armed, has so far avoided being attacked by the US. *France24* reported other states in the region [picked up the launch][4]: > Seoul and Tokyo said Sunday they had detected the launch from near Pyongyang of two ballistic missiles – the country’s first test of the year just hours before South Korean leader Lee Jae-myung headed to Beijing for a summit. Kim [told][5] North Korea state media: > Why it is necessary is exemplified by the recent geopolitical crisis and complicated international events. He said the test showed that North Korea’s nuclear forces were ready. > Important achievements have been recently made in putting our nuclear forces on a practical basis and preparing them for an actual war ## A more dangerous world US special forces [raided Caracas][6] on 3 January 2026. Supported by air power and cyber-attacks, they kidnapped Maduro and his wife. Trump’s forces have been them to New York to stand trial. [The stated rationale][7] for this act of frontier justice is Venezuela’s massive oil reserves. The US military build-up was framed as a war on drugs. It wasn’t. America has further hollowed out[ international law][8] with the attack. And the US has sent a message to it’s official enemies around the world: the rules don’t count anymore. Gaza, Iraq and Libya show that term like ‘international law’ and the rules based system’ are just jargon. This is just the latest sign of the decay of international order. The US once again finds itself the real ‘rogue state’ But it also says something else. Trump’s open turn towards unliteral posse justice tells smaller states that a deterrent on the scale of North Korea’s is worth having. This is a recipe for more, not less, militarism. *Featured image via the Canary* By [Joe Glenton][9] [1]: https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2026/01/05/mps-tell-the-canary-labours-stance-on-trumps-venezuela-attack-is-pathetic-and-reckless/ [2]: https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2026/01/05/glenn-greenwald-venezuela/ [3]: https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20260105-north-korea-hypersonic-missiles-nuclear-forces [4]: https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20260105-north-korea-hypersonic-missiles-nuclear-forces [5]: https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20260105-north-korea-hypersonic-missiles-nuclear-forces [6]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/4/how-the-us-attack-on-venezuela-abduction-of-maduro-unfolded [7]: https://fortune.com/2026/01/03/trump-venezuelan-regime-change-nicolas-maduro-oil-us-energy-companies-investment/ [8]: https://www.justsecurity.org/127962/maduro-capture-operation-and-presidents-duty-to-faithfully-execute-un-charter/ [9]: https://www.thecanary.co/author/joeglenton/ https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-news/2026/01/05/north-korea-missile-test/

MPs tell the Canary Labour’s stance on Trump’s Venezuela attack is ‘pathetic and reckless’ Donald Trump’s [attack on Venezuela][1] reportedly killed [around 80 people][2], and resulted in the abduction of its president, Nicolás Maduro. And UK MPs have told the *Canary* that Labour’s bootlicking position on this breach of international law is ‘pathetic and reckless’. ## “The UK is nothing more than a vassal state of the US” – and not just over Venezuela Your Party’s Jeremy Corbyn called Trump’s assault on Venezuela: > a blatant and flagrant violation of international law. He added that Keir Starmer’s: > failure to condemn this illegal act of war typifies a government that is completely devoid of morality, common sense or independence from US foreign policy. And remembering the disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq, he stressed that: > Many of us were there the last time a Labour PM blindly followed the warmongering whims of a US President. Your Party’s Zarah Sultana, meanwhile, said: > This Labour government’s claims to respect international law, human rights, and sovereignty were exposed as a sham in Gaza, and they’ve been exposed again now. Starmer refuses to condemn this blatantly illegal imperialist aggression, this outright gangsterism from the US, because he stands for nothing – and because under his leadership, the UK is nothing more than a vassal state of the US. ## “Shameful and reckless” appeasement Labour MP Richard Burgon, meanwhile, attacked his party’s position on Venezuela by saying: > European governments, including our own, have responded with pathetic weakness — effectively giving Trump the green light. The Prime Minister’s statement was shameful and reckless, casting aside international law to appease Donald Trump. The response should have been exactly the same as if Putin had carried out an illegal bombing and kidnapping. You either believe in international law or you don’t — and you don’t get to pick and choose. He added that allowing the US to get away with its behaviour could have negative repercussions for the whole of Latin America, insisting: > What we are witnessing is a new form of US gangster politics, where might is right and naked colonialism is openly embraced once again. Today the immediate target is Venezuela, but this is only the first step in a much wider strategy. This is not just an oil grab — it is a power grab, aimed at reasserting US control over the entire region and beyond. > > Trump’s National Security Strategy makes this agenda explicit. It openly signals support for installing far-right governments in Europe and makes clear that Latin America is once again to be treated as a US colony. By pledging to ‘return to the Monroe Doctrine’, the United States is claiming total control over the region’s resources, geography and security — a threat already felt from Colombia and Mexico to Cuba and the wider Caribbean. The US has long seen Latin America as its sphere of influence, and the [Monroe Doctrine][3] insisted in the 19th century that European powers should not interfere in the politics of the Western Hemisphere. Instead, Washington has long asserted its own [dominance in the Americas][4]. Trump has openly asserted that his actions are updating the policy into a ‘[Donroe Doctrine][5]‘. *Featured image via the Canary* By [Ed Sykes][6] [1]: https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-news/2026/01/03/venezuela-trump-latest/ [2]: https://www.democracynow.org/2026/1/5/us_venezuela_trump_maduro [3]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/4/what-is-the-monroe-doctrine-which-trump-has-cited-over-venezuela [4]: https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2019/02/06/three-terrifying-reasons-never-to-trust-us-intentions-in-latin-america/ [5]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/4/what-is-the-monroe-doctrine-which-trump-has-cited-over-venezuela [6]: https://www.thecanary.co/author/oso/ https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2026/01/05/mps-tell-the-canary-labours-stance-on-trumps-venezuela-attack-is-pathetic-and-reckless/

Greenstein judge gives Starmer green light for Israel bias in prosecutions Tony Greenstein at Kingston Crown Court this morning. A judge’s ruling in the prosecution of Jewish anti-genocide activist Tony Greenstein appears to have given the Starmer regime a green light to have officials with ‘allegiance’ to Israel make prosecution decisions. ## Tony Greenstein: the prosecution… delayed Tony Greenstein appeared at Kingston Crown Court today, charged under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 with encouraging support for a ‘proscribed’ organisation. His barrister Lawrence McNulty argued that the prosecution should be ‘stayed’, or cancelled, because of [obvious pro-Israel bias on the part of Starmer’s Attorney General Richard Hermer and (then-)Solicitor General Sarah Sackman][1]. Sackman was, until late 2024, a vice-chair of the pro-Israel ‘Jewish Labour Movement’ (JLM) and has personal history with Greenstein. Before she was solicitor general, she [lobbied for Greenstein’s expulsion from the Labour party][2]. Sackman has [described Israel as a “deeply personal and emotional” issue][3] to her, [condemned the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrant][4] for Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes and worked at Israel’s Supreme Court. Her grandfather was an Israeli ambassador and she has family there. So does her former boss Hermer, who described relatives in the Israeli military as “dear family members”. As McNulty put it in his submission, this represents more connections with Israel “than you can shake a stick at”. This might seem, to many readers, to be an open and shut case of bias that would make any decision to prosecute unsafe. But McNulty’s argument wasn’t finished. He also pointed to the case of [*Kombou vs Wood Green Crown Court *][5](Kombou), in which the judge ruled that officials who stand to gain financially from a prosecution must avoid all perception of bias. Clearly, McNulty argued, the deeply Zionist Sackman in particular stood to gain by prosecuting an anti-Zionist like Greenstein. ## “Allegiance” One of the most interesting parts of the defence and prosecution arguments was in the word “allegiance”. McNulty argued that Sackman’s devotion to Israel is far more than merely a favourable opinion. Instead, it represents an “allegiance” to it. The prosecution did not challenge this assertion, instead focusing on arguing that Kombou is about *financial* incentive and shouldn’t be applied as case law to political incentives. Unsurprisingly given the political context – judge Sarah Plaschkes decided to side with the prosecution. In her ruling, she affirmed that “*Kombou* was concerned with the prosecutor having a financial interest in the outcome”. Plaschkes also made a distinction between Hermer and Sackman ‘providing permission’ to prosecute and the CPS actually prosecuting, as if the prosecution did not depend on ‘permission’ being given and as if there was no possibility of conflicts of interest in the CPS, which used to be run by Keir Starmer: > The decision of the Solicitor General is limited to permitting and not initiating the prosecution. To put it extremely mildly, Plaschkes’s conclusion on the issue of bias was noteworthy. Sidestepping the fact that Sackman only stepped down as JLM vice-chair in late 2024, she dismissed the evidence of bias as being *too old to still be relevant*: > Some of the open-source material is ten years old. These are no more than personal statements made in Sarah Sackman’s personal capacity of her capacity as an MP… or published accounts of her background and personal life, **none of which when taken singly or together, demonstrate that she is incapable of discharging her constitutional and public duties solemnly and impartially.** > > The **assertion of the appearance of bias, at best could be described as flimsy and at worst politically motivated**. ## Wider implications Let’s recap that in plain language. Sackman was the vice-chair of an Israel lobby group until a little over a year ago; she demanded Tony Greenstein’s expulsion from Labour; she condemned the ICC for issuing an arrest warrant for wanted war criminal Netanyahu; the prosecution did not dispute Sackman’s “allegiance” to Israel; she considers the whole issue of Israel to be “deeply personal and emotional”. None of that constitutes a conflict of interest. No indeed. Instead, even to assert that there is even “*an appearance of bias*” is “at best flimsy and at worst politically motivated”. Hmmm. It’s hard to see how this ruling does anything other than give the Starmer regime a green light to appoint as many ardent supporters of Israel to key positions as it wants. If they then pursue opponents of Israel’s genocide and apartheid, that’s not bias. No, it’s those who are complaining who are politically motivated, not an official signing off on an attempt to put a pensioner in jail for up to fourteen years for supporting resistance. Plaschkes *did* agree the defence’s application to postpone Greenstein’s trial until a number of other relevant appeals had been decided, namely [‘ABJ & BDN’ at the Supreme Court][6], which also concerns supposed support or a banned resistance group, and Greenstein’s own appeals against decisions to block him from entering evidence on Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians and a report by journalist Alistair Cook. Since the prosecution had no objection to the delay, it would have been remarkable if the judge had ruled against it. The case is now scheduled to recommence 19 August, still in Kingston. *Featured image via the Canary* By [Skwawkbox][7] [1]: https://www.thecanary.co/skwawkbox/2025/12/28/tony-greenstein-trial-israel-lobby/ [2]: https://tonygreenstein.com/my-prosecution-for-terrorism-required-the-permission-of-attorney-general-richard-hermer/ [3]: https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-london-a-close-race-where-british-jewish-voters-matter-most/ [4]: https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-jewish-chronicle/20240531/281638195335947 [5]: https://www.shearmanbowen.co.uk/content/uploads/Kombou-judgment-approved-for-hand-down-on-12.06.20-Final.pdf [6]: https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0079 [7]: https://www.thecanary.co/author/skwawkbox/ https://www.thecanary.co/skwawkbox/2026/01/05/tony-greenstein-trial/

The BBC has been caught telling its staff not to say Maduro was ‘kidnapped’ If armed agents drag a head of state [out of a country][1] without consent, most people would call it a kidnapping. The *BBC* would prefer you didn’t. The *BBC* has [told its journalists][2] not to describe the seizure of [Venezuela’s][3] president as a “kidnapping”. The *BBC*’s News Editor sent the guidance internally and it has since circulated widely online. It is supposedly meant to ensure “clarity and consistency”. What it actually does is show how language gets cleaned up when power is involved. Because [words do more][4] than describe events, they frame them. “Kidnapping” is an uncomfortable word. It suggests force, illegality and wrongdoing. “Captured” sounds more respectable. It belongs to the language of war. “Seized” sounds calmer still — almost administrative, like someone found it on a supermarket shelf. ## BBC not being impartial By suppressing one word and promoting others, the *BBC* isn’t [avoiding bias][5]. It’s curating which reality sounds most acceptable. This kind of thing is familiar. When the West uses violence abroad, the narrative often softens. Bombs become “airstrikes”. Civilians die after being “caught in the crossfire”. Actions occur without clear subjects or actors. Responsibility politely evaporates. The end result is reporting that sounds reasonable, even when the events in question are extreme. The *BBC* would call this impartiality. But impartiality doesn’t mean simply copy-pasting the language of the most powerful country involved and calling that balance. Journalism should describe what happened, not sanitise it. If armed agents take a foreign leader out of his country by force, many people will naturally call that a kidnapping. Telling journalists they must not use the word is not neutral. It is an editorial choice. It’s bias. Defenders of the *BBC* will argue that “kidnapping” is too loaded. Too emotional. Too political. But banning the word is political too. ## Client journalism This is how modern media control works. Not through obvious censorship. Not through shouting or threats. But a quiet word about “appropriate language”. Change the words, and you change what people are allowed to think. You do not need to support Venezuela’s government to see the problem here. This has nothing to do with liking or condemning Nicolás Maduro. It is about whether a publicly funded broadcaster can call things as they are. If you can’t describe the forcible removal of a foreign leader by armed agents as a kidnapping, then the question is pretty simple: When exactly can you call a kidnapping a kidnapping? Because if it only applies to enemies and never to allies, it isn’t journalism anymore. It’s branding. #clientjournalism *Featured image via the Canary* By [Ranjan Balakumaran][6] [1]: https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2026/01/05/uk-involvement-venezuela/ [2]: https://x.com/i/status/2008166331552514466 [3]: https://www.thecanary.co/topics/venezuela/ [4]: https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2026/01/05/glenn-greenwald-venezuela/ [5]: https://www.thecanary.co/?s=BBC+bias [6]: https://www.thecanary.co/author/ranjan-balakumaran/ https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2026/01/05/bbc-maduro-venezuela/

Hack by trans activists exposes ‘Free Speech Union’ funders Trans direct action group [BASH BACK][1] has published a leaked list of donors who fund the Free Speech Union (FSU). This is a group founded by far-right activist and eugenicist [Toby Young][2]. Young recently commissioned a “security briefing” which called BASH BACK a “militant group”. ## Fundraising for transphobes The leaked records – [published on BASH BACK’s website][3] – expose the individuals who donated £50 or more to various FSU crowdfunding campaigns. The list includes those who raised funds to defend transphobe [Graham Linehan][4], racist ex-cop Rick Prior and transphobic ex-prison officer David Toshack. Some individuals donated upwards of £10,000 each to various campaigns. A spokesperson for BASH BACK said: > The Free Speech Union has always been an organisation for defending bigots. Instead of fighting for the free speech of pro-Palestine activists, such as the prisoners currently on hunger strike, they move heaven and earth to defend every sexist, racist, and transphobe that crosses their path. > > The FSU has said nothing about the police banning the use of common Arabic phrases, the abuse of activists in prison, or the censorship imposed on the public around Britain’s involvement in genocide. Instead, their focus is on defending those who preach hatred. The public deserves to know who is funding the FSU’s activities, and we are glad to be able to reveal it. The leaked data reveals that far from being a grassroots group of ordinary citizens, the FSU is in fact funded by ultra-wealthy individuals with deep pockets. Individuals who donated the most include: Paul Cook: £25,000 (for the Hamit Coskun Fundraiser) David Franks: £11,000 (to the FSU) Craig Turner: £10,000 (for the Graham Linehan Fundraiser) Alexander Gerko: £9,500 (for the Jamie Michael Crowdfunder) Philip Chesterfield: £5,000 (to the FSU) Other notable donors included *Daily Mail* columnist Richard Littlejohn (£500 to the FSU), Conservative baroness Jacqueline Foster (£200 for Graham Linehan and PC Prior), hereditary peer David Verney (£4,750 for a variety of campaigns), radio host Julia Hartley-Brewer (£1,000 to the FSU) and [anti-trans campaigner Sarah Phillimore][5] (£150 for Graham Linehan and PC Prior). The BASH BACK spokesperson added: > The FSU purports to be an advocacy group for freedom of expression, but, as this leaked information shows, they represent a security fund for attention-seeking reactionaries backed by the ultra-wealthy. > > They use their funders’ deep pockets to repress ordinary people and impose a two-tier justice system where wealthy transphobes and racists can preach hate whilst those who oppose genocide are imprisoned and abused, or otherwise subject to police violence. > > In a time where free speech is under attack, not by “wokism” or minorities, but by an increasingly authoritarian state, the so-called ‘Free Speech Union’ sets its sights instead on protecting powerful bigots from the consequences of their public tantrums. ## Free Speech Union supporters’ vile views In addition to such criticisms of the FSU itself, certain donation messages also raise concern. According to records seen by BASH BACK, those funding the FSU have shown support for conspiracy theories, such as: “Islamic infiltration” (in a £10 donation to the FSU) A “[governmental] racist march on white British citizens” (£20 for PC Prior) “[Discrimination] against the indigenous population in our country” (£25 for PC Prior) “Immigrants […] ever demanding to have Sharia Laws” (£10 for PC Prior) Donors have also expressed violent ideals, including: Calling for “No prisoners” (£25 for Julian Foulkes) Supporting Charlie Kirk (£50 to the FSU), Tommy Robinson (£100 to the FSU), and JD Vance (£20 for PC Prior) Calling for “the Government to eradicate these awful people [Muslims]” (£25 to the FSU) Finally, one funder was very explicit with their racism, stating “I hate [n-word]s“ in a £250 subscription renewal. *Featured image via the Canary* By [The Canary][6] [1]: https://www.transbashback.com/ [2]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/university-college-london-eugenics-probe-secret-conference-campus-ucl-white-supremacists-debate-lci-a8153326.html [3]: http://www.transbashback.com/fsu.html [4]: https://www.thecanary.co/?s=Graham+Linehan [5]: https://goodlawproject.org/i-knew-it-wouldnt-end-trans-journalist-files-complaint-with-barrister-regulator/ [6]: https://www.thecanary.co/author/thecanary/ https://www.thecanary.co/uk/news/2026/01/05/hack-by-trans-activists-exposes-free-speech-union-funders/

Leaked WhatsApp seemingly shows Labour MPs disdain for Starmer The Chief Political Correspondent for the *Times *Aubrey Allegretti has received a message from a [Labour][1] MP which seemingly reveals how unpopular Keir Starmer is among his MPs. > A Labour MP texts: “Pretty brutal to get just 5 reactions in 5 hours in the 2024 MPs’ group on the only message praising the PM on Laura K today.” > > Apparently a message wishing another MP happy birthday has had more positive reactions. [pic.twitter.com/T44KxxZ99I][2] > > — Aubrey Allegretti (@breeallegretti) [January 4, 2026][3] ## No longer ‘Mr Popular’, are you Starmer? Allegretti suggests that Starmer simply isn’t popular among the 2024-elected Labour cohort of MPs, only receiving encouragement from a measly five MPs. Considering how loyal and devout the recently elected bunch were in 2024, Starmer seems to have fallen from grace among Labourites. > And let’s remember that the 2024 Labour MPs are the rankest, hand-selected most Starmerite loyalists of all MPs – if he’s lost this bunch of sycophants he’s gone. > > — Juliet Brown [🇵🇸][🍉] (@JulietB270880) [January 4, 2026][4] Speaking to the potential dismay ahead of the upcoming local elections: > I’d imagine they’re more concerned with how many councillors their constituencies will be losing in May. > > — The TV Grump (@TheTVGrump) [January 4, 2026][5] Another X account points out that internal Labour opposition doesn’t amount to all that much: > This is the level of opposition to western imperialist aggression in the Labour Party. A rancid sewer. [https://t.co/PmvQy0Ey8m][6] > > — Sii [🇵🇸] (@skippy_0h) [January 4, 2026][7] It’s also sparked curiosity over who the loyalist MP is: > Was that Luke Akehurst? > > — James Foster (@JamesEFoster) [January 4, 2026][8] However, others have drawn issue with the editorial priorities of the *Times:* > The man from The Times. > The newspaper of record. > Gossipy garbage, Aubrey. You realise there’s a war on presumably. > > — scarlett636 (@shhhyounohoo) [January 4, 2026][9] When the *Times* do report on global conflict, of course, they will have to reference that Labour are refusing to voice an opinion: > Not commenting on Venezuela is one thing, but Starmer's ministers not even being willing to say "no of course the US shouldn't invade a peaceful sovereign democratic NATO country, which is one of our closest allies" is quite another. > > — Adam Bienkov (@AdamBienkov) [January 5, 2026][10] Our own Rachel Swindon wrote about the abysmal failure of the Labour government and the [(un)likelihood of Starmer making it past one term.][11] ## How the mighty have fallen The 2024 General Election saw a huge majority afforded to the PM and the Labour government, with loyalists cheering for Starmer to lead the country. As we go into 2026, Starmer doesn’t seem to have much sway with his own MPs. That hardly inspires hope for Labour’s performance in the upcoming local elections, when they will have to answer to struggling communities who are always left to foot the bill. *Featured image via [Institute for Government][12]* By [Maddison Wheeldon][13] [1]: https://www.thecanary.co/topics/labour-party/ [2]: https://t.co/T44KxxZ99I [3]: https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/2007869743643144505?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw [4]: https://twitter.com/JulietB270880/status/2007940252586123709?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw [5]: https://twitter.com/TheTVGrump/status/2007888899889414449?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw [6]: https://t.co/PmvQy0Ey8m [7]: https://twitter.com/skippy_0h/status/2007908540565082504?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw [8]: https://twitter.com/JamesEFoster/status/2007896838058471802?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw [9]: https://twitter.com/shhhyounohoo/status/2007940133727957205?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw [10]: https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/2008124604045513023?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw [11]: https://www.thecanary.co/opinion/2024/11/17/swindonssundaysermon-labour-hung-parliament/ [12]: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/government-majority [13]: https://www.thecanary.co/author/maddison-wheeldon/ https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2026/01/05/leaked-whatsapp-starmer/