Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey has ramped up his calls for far-right US billionaire Elon Musk and his platform X to face prosecution, in an interview with Byline Times.

Elon Musk has threatened legal action against Sir Ed in recent days after the Lib Dem leader branded him a "criminal" for his alleged incitement of violence on Britain's streets at the recent Tommy Robinson rally in London, and for allowing hate speech and child sexual abuse to run rampant on his platform.

Speaking to this outlet from the party's Autumn conference in Bournemouth on Monday, Davey said: "I'm afraid the X platform being run by Elon Musk looks like it's breaking the law, and he needs to be held to account."

"Just because he's a wealthy man who's found himself very powerful doesn't mean he's beyond the law. The Online Safety Act, which is the law I think he and X have broken by allowing videos of child sexual abuse to appear on their platform and promoting grooming and self-harm, is a law that he hates because it's going to hit him in his pocket."

ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.

PAY ANNUALLY - £39.50 A YEAR

PAY MONTHLY - £3.75 A MONTH

MORE OPTIONS

We're not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.

Davey added that "only Nigel Farage" is saying the Prime Minister should get rid of the Online Safety Act, which introduces tough new standards for platforms to clamp down on illegal content, and material which harms children.

"Nigel Farage looks like he's sucking up to tech billionaires like Elon Musk. That would make a wild west of social media in our country, and it means more children, young people and families are exposed to this appalling material," the former coalition minister added.

Asked if he planned to fight any legal threats from Musk, Davey said: "We're not worried about that. I think we're speaking up for the vast majority of British people who don't want this stuff and want powerful people to be held to account."

"We're not going to allow this tech billionaire from the United States to interfere in our country and damage the welfare of our children," he said.

Davey pointed to Musk's comments that "civil war is inevitable" in the UK. "It's bad enough that he calls for the overthrow of the democratically elected Government or incites violence. This is not a man who cares about Britain. He doesn't care about people. He certainly doesn't care about our children," the Lib Dem leader claimed.

However, asked why the Lib Dems remained paying members of X, Davey said: "While he owns the platform, he should face the full force of the law. [But] I'm not going to deplatform myself. I want to be there taking him on and taking on the sorts of ideas that he promotes with his algorithms, which sow division and hatred. It's right that politicians are there arguing back against him."

Davey did recently "deplatform" himself by refusing an invite to Donald Trump's state dinner during last week's UK visit.

But Davey claimed the two scenarios were not comparable: "Having had this huge honour to go to six state banquets before, I know you never get to speak to the visiting head of state. I wouldn't have had a chance to speak to Trump. But by doing what I did, I actually changed the debate in the country."

EXCLUSIVE

Whose Party? Your Party Backers in Call to 'Democratise' Left-Wing Group as Corbyn and Sultana Clash Over 'Sexist Boys Club'

As Corbyn-Sultana tensions explode into the public arena, a new group is mobilising members to demand a 'genuine say' in the new party's direction

Josiah Mortimer

He added: "I was saying...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

When 100,000 people marched through London last Saturday for the far-right "Unite the Kingdom" rally, it was the first time I felt grateful for the fact I broke my foot a few weeks ago and am currently house-bound. I had already experienced a summer of missing out, and was feeling quite sorry for myself going into September. But on Saturday, as a woman with brown skin, I was thankful that I didn't have to pretend to feel brave and step outside - because the truth is, I didn't. I felt dread, anxiety and fear.

The march, facilitated by convicted far-right criminal Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (most commonly known as Tommy Robinson), and the events that led up to it, have dominated media recently - both legacy and social. The campaign to hang England flags on every UK lamppost and roundabout, the mobs outside hotels housing asylum seekers, the hypocritical cries of 'save our women and children'. But absent from the coverage was the profound impact this was having on communities of colour. This was and continues to be completely underrepresented in the media.

Where was the outrage about the British born Sikh woman, raped by two white men in a racially aggravated attack in Birmingham? Where was the outrage about the brown women chased during the far-right march, as one man yells "smack her, smack her"? Or the nine-year old girl left traumatised in Bristol after being hit three times in a racist airgun attack, or the Muslim couple verbally abused by a white elderly man in Leicester?

Why were counter-protestors so outnumbered at the far-right march?

EXCLUSIVE

Whose Party? Your Party Backers in Call to 'Democratise' Left-Wing Group as Corbyn and Sultana Clash Over 'Sexist Boys Club'

As Corbyn-Sultana tensions explode into the public arena, a new group is mobilising members to demand a 'genuine say' in the new party's direction

Josiah Mortimer

There are many factors, but a key one is mobilisation. It is easy for the likes of Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage to galvanise their fan base, energising people under broad, sweeping statements, pointing the finger at those with far less power than themselves, and disregarding logic and accurate information. It's not about immigration in any factual sense: the migrant crimewave these pundits decry is fiction - though the number of immigrants in Britain has doubled over 20 years, over this time, surveys show the amount of crime has actually halved, and there is no substantial evidence to show that immigrants are more likely to commit crime than British nationals.

Anti-migrant marchers often use this false narrative to frame their rage in defence of women's safety - yet as marchers in one breath shouted 'save our women!', in the other they shouted misogynistic chants of 'get your tits out for the lads!'.

Keir Starmer should recognise these falsehoods and stop attempting to fight racist violence with xenophobic rhetoric and policies. It's not about migrants, and it's not about women's safety - it's about people desperately wanting to belong to something.

John, who now works for the charity Exit Hate which helps people leave far-right groups, fell into the grips of the radicalised right by sharing a post on Facebook: 'Share this if you think British soldiers shouldn't be on the streets'. "I had an uncle at the time who was struggling really bad mentally. He used to be a soldier, and that was sort of my ticket into this online group", John told us on Media Storm.

"The group didn't immediately start sending me pictures of people doing Nazi salutes or anything like that. It started off very, very slowly, with people messaging me saying, 'John, the only reason your uncle is struggling so much right now is because we sent billions off in foreign aid'. Not everybody gets involved in the far-right immediately because they hate somebody of a different sk...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

As they gather in Bournemouth for their annual conference, it is worth reminding ourselves that life for Liberal Democrats is relentlessly tough. You're either ignored, despite moving from a total of MPs that barely broke double figures to over 70, or once in a very blue moon you might get to share power but are eviscerated as the junior partner who take the blame for everything that's unpopular and gain none of the plaudits for what the public actually like.

If anything, it is the incredible tenacity of the Liberal Democrats that shines through. "Great deeds are won,w" wrote Samuel Johnson, "not by brute strength but by perseverance".

In normal times the ebb and flow of Liberal Democrat support with a gentle uptick in its trend vote over the last few decades would be good enough just to stay in the game. But these are not normal times. The economy has not functioned effectively since the global crash. Living standards are in decline. The environmental and nature crisis start to engulf us all. Brexit, much to the dismay of Liberal Democrats in particular, looks unlikely to be reversed anytime soon. Many seem to be giving up on a political system that is liberal and democratic. 200,000 people marched through our capital demanding a different kind of liberty - the liberty to go back and to exclude, to be closed and not open. And coming from the USA is powerful and resourceful ways of pushing for an explicitly 'post-liberal' future.

In all this maelstrom what does it mean to be a liberal, where is the centre and can it hold, indeed should it hold? If we add in the conundrum of a party whose beating heart is essentially socially liberal, how does that centre left stance square with a now centre right facing electorate or former Conservative blue wall seats?

EXCLUSIVE

Whose Party? Your Party Backers in Call to 'Democratise' Left-Wing Group as Corbyn and Sultana Clash Over 'Sexist Boys Club'

As Corbyn-Sultana tensions explode into the public arena, a new group is mobilising members to demand a 'genuine say' in the new party's direction

Josiah Mortimer

None of this is easy. Ed Davey conjured an incredible result out of a first past the post system designed purposely to marginalise his party. And 70 is way better than 10. But the standing, the voice and the influence of the Liberal Democrats has not changed dramatically. Some of this isn't their fault but that of the system. Labour have a huge majority, although cracks are starting to appear like the recent revolt on disability benefit payments. And the media of course play to the Farage gallery and it's infuriating.

But given the existential threats facing a country that is still just a liberal democracy, where are the big ideas, the big thinking and the policy positions that speak to a bigger story coming from in the Liberal Democrats? The tensions between what their MPs and activists believe, and what their voters want are apparent. The party is against putting VAT on school fees and taxing farmers more. They rail against water companies failing their customers but refuse to back the logical step of putting this essential utility into the hands of the public. This is real raw politics. And it's tough.

The game it seems is largely not to offend anyone in the hope that seats won won't be lost and in the event voters hand the country a balanced parliament then the game is back on. The polls suggest this is more than a possibility, but with more than three years to go frankly anything could happen and probably will. In the meantime, what can the party do to stake out more robust terrain, while maintaining that difficult balancing act between principle and electoral pragmatism?

First the Liberal Democrats must set out the moral and intellectual case for liberalism as it comes under sustained attack from the post liberals. What...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The new left-wing party temporarily known as Your Party has descended into public chaos just months after its launch, with co-founders Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana now publicly clashing over the party's direction and membership process.

On Thursday, Sultana launched a membership portal for the new left-wing party, only for Corbyn and fellow Independent Alliance MPs to immediately disavow it as "unauthorised" and seek legal advice.

Sultana responded by complaining about being "sidelined" by her colleagues and being "effectively frozen out of the official accounts".

"I have been subjected to what can only be described as a sexist boys' club", she said in a statement.

Against the backdrop of internal strife, concerns are mounting about whether Your Party can avoid the sort of democratic deficits that backers believe have plagued the Labour party for decades, and which the new party was meant to solve.

EXCLUSIVE

Peter Thiel's Race Science Network Extends Its Reach Into Reform UK, Conservatives and Labour

A Byline Times investigation can reveal how Donald Trump's key backer is now exporting discredited race science into mainstream politics in the UK

Nafeez Ahmed

As a result, a new group launched on Thursday within the party, called 'the Democratic Bloc.'

The group is a response to concerns that decisions are being made behind closed doors by a small circle around Corbyn, potentially replicating the top-down approach that alienated some Labour members during his leadership.

It was, in a sense, a timely launch - but was overshadowed by the open spats at a leadership level. To the Democratic Bloc, it proved their point.

The party's founding conference, scheduled for before New Year, was meant to establish democratic structures and policy priorities - but the current turmoil raises questions about whether it can deliver the grassroots-driven alternative to Labour that supporters hoped for.

It's in this context that Mish Rahman, co-founder of the Democratic Bloc, has emerged as a voice pushing for 'genuine member control' over Your Party's future.

A former left-wing member of Labour's National Executive Committee, Rahman has organised over 500 activists so far to demand that the founding conference be truly democratic rather than a rubber-stamping exercise for predetermined decisions. His group represents a faction determined to prevent Your Party from repeating what they see as Labour's failures - centralised control, member exclusion, and the sidelining of grassroots voices in favour of leadership diktat.

Mish Rahman spoke to Byline Times about the project.

Josiah Mortimer: Following the chaos this week - with Sultana launching a membership portal and then it being cancelled by Corbyn's side - what are your thoughts?

Mish Rahman: We launched the Democratic Bloc today explicitly stating, nobody is coming to save us, the grassroots must get ready to deliver democracy for the new left party. Thursday showed that this is true, you cannot rely on an individual or individuals, collectively we must take control of the direction of the party, its bigger than any one individual, our future depends on it

Josiah Mortimer: You were a left winger on Labour's NEC. Are you feeling more at home now in Your Party?

Mish Rahman: The Labour Party made big mistakes, even under Corbyn. Too often it failed to respond to the real needs of the day because it acted more like an election machine than a democratic party. The old system of people at the top telling everyone else what to do has bred distrust and opened the door to far-right populism. People don't want lectures from politicians in suits who don't share their life experience when bills are rising, wages are low, and the cost of living keeps climbing.

This new party must not repeat those mistakes. It's a rare chance for the left to build...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Trump-supporting Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel is set to extend his financial reach into the UK, after Keir Starmer and the US President announced a new transatlantic tech partnership incorporating his data mining company Palantir. As part of the deal Thiel's company will invest a further £1.5 billion into Britain, on top of its already extensive interests in the NHS.

However, a Byline Times investigation can reveal that Thiel's far deeper impact on the country could be an ideological one, focused on a network seeking to rehabilitate discredited race science and authoritarian ideas into the Conservatives, Reform UK and Labour.

At the centre of the network is his friend, admirer, and leading figure in the "neo-reactionary" movement, Curtis Yarvin, the blogger known as Mencius Moldbug.

Thiel's venture firm has already invested in Yarvin's company Tlon, and his main political protégé JD Vance - now US vice president - is also a big admirer. What began on fringe blogs is increasingly embedded in Washington, and is now being exported to Britain.

The 'Dark Enlightenment'

Yarvin is not well yet known among the UK public but his "Dark Enlightenment" writings have been deeply influential on the US right and increasingly in the UK right too. These ideas include calls for the end of democracy, with Yarvin arguing that Western democracies should be replaced by what he has referred to as a "monarchy" run by an unelected dictator, or "CEO".

They have also included the endorsement of discredited ideas about the "natural inferiority" of black people.

In a 2009 essay Yarvin argued that "the obvious statistical differences in the average talents of human races" justified eliminating the system of representative government.

"Obviously, once you stop believing in democracy, it is easy to stop seeing the failure of this political design in societies with a high percentage of non-Eurasian genetic ancestry as a moral reflection on persons of non-Eurasian ancestry, and start seeing it as a mere engineering failure…" he wrote.

Yarvin is also known for his repeated use of the n-word. In an interview with Byline Times, his associate and founder of the 'Blue Labour' movement, Maurice Glasman, confirmed that Yarvin had shown the racial slur to him during a London portrait sitting. Glasman said that he had reacted with disgust but admitted he remained interested in Yarvin's views on artificial intelligence.

EXCLUSIVE

Silicon Valley Whistleblowers Warn Elon Musk 'Hijacking' Republicans to Control Entire US Government

Former followers of the 'Dark Enlightenment' say a planned 'neo-reactionary' hollowing out of government is happening in real time

Nafeez Ahmed

In February 2025, Yarvin appeared at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) summit in London, co-founded by Jordan Peterson and funded by GB News investor Paul Marshall. Its advisory board includes Peterson, commentator Douglas Murray, Lord Glasman, and Reform UK policy chief James Orr. Both Peterson and Murray have defended The Bell Curve, which claimed racial hierarchies in intelligence. The event was addressed by other leading figures on the right of British politics, including Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch.

Yarvin is also scheduled to appear at this year's How the Light Gets In festival in London, where he will take part in three panels, including one in which Tony Blair's former press secretary Alastair Campbell says he will interview him for a "lively discussion" as the "philosopher behind JD Vance".

The upcoming Byline Times investigation will show how Thiel's ideological network cuts across Britain's political spectrum:

Conservatives: Yarvin admirer Dominic Cummings' former adviser Andrew Sabisky, who argued Black people are predisposed to lower IQ, now influences Civic Future's Conservative leadership pipeline.

La...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Last week I finally deactivated my X account for good. It's still going to take a few weeks for the content to be permanently deleted, because Elon Musk's website gives you up to 30 days to change your mind. However, this time, I am determined not to go back.

The immediate cause was a feeling of both shock and shame at the extreme reactions I received in response to a post I made about the death of Charlie Kirk - where I reiterated my genuine condemnation of his vile murder, but also expressed the view that he did not deserve to be hailed as some sort of saintly martyr. I was deluged with hateful comments, accusing me of glorifying his death, and of hypocrisy, since I had not been similarly critical of those mourning the death of George Floyd.

I must admit the comments gave me pause. Was I just adding to the toxic stew of polarization and hatred in America, and insulting those who genuinely admired him, by daring to venture that Charlie Kirk was not perfect? I didn't think my comments were dreadfully barbed, or even unjustified. However, on reflection, I concluded that they were inappropriate, especially given the circumstances of his killing. I felt mortified, immediately deleted the post, and decided that I actually ought to take a step back from X, if only to give myself time to reflect on how I came to this point.

I subsequently realized I was feeling a deeper emotion - fear. Fear at the extreme tone of some of the reactions to my post, some explicitly aggressive. And fear that, in today's toxic climate, anything I post on X might one day be used against me. We've all seen the experiences of others on X who've unthinkingly tweeted something which they've later regretted, and tried to delete - only for screen shots of those posts to be recirculated endlessly by others, haunting the original poster forever.

EXCLUSIVE

GB News Ramps Up Migrant 'Invasion' Rhetoric as Channel Veers Far Right

Exclusive: Analysis reveals surging use of rhetoric about migrants and refugees being of "fighting age", "scavengers", "dirty foreigners" and part of an "invasion", as campaigners warn of channel's radicalising effect

Josiah Mortimer

The very nature of social media encourages hasty reactions to things we've seen or read. It's caused me to make my own fair share of posts on X, which I've later regretted. When I first started using twitter, rather than use the "cowardly" option of deleting poor posts, I used to try to own up to my mistake, apologise to those I had offended, and pledge to try to do better. On the whole, I used to receive an understanding response.

Increasingly, however, I've found that genuine remorse no longer leads to any forgiveness, leeway or grace, but instead to more censure, for having been so wrong in the first place. Not just the content of my offending post is criticized, but my entire character is attacked and found wanting. More and more comments are becoming personal, insulting, and, in some cases, threatening.

Even more carefully drafted posts now generate extreme reactions. For example, it is almost impossible to say anything about the situation in Gaza, without being attacked from all sides - for appearing to condone Israel's actions in Gaza, supporting genocide, or being a terrorist sympathizer. It's almost impossible to say anything negative about political developments in the UK, without being lambasted as a failed Ambassador, a loser, a traitor, or someone who hates the UK. It's almost impossible to criticize Trump, without being told to "go home, if you don't like it here", being accused of being a "libtard", or of suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I am not a well-known public figure. My posts rarely receive more than a few hundred likes or reposts. So, the risk of actual danger to me is relatively low. I can barely imagine how awful it m...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Dehumanising and sensationalist language about immigrants and asylum seekers is on the rise on right-wing news channel GB News, new research for Byline Times suggests.

Analysis of GB News transcripts for this outlet, conducted by campaign group Stop Funding Hate, reveals a big increase in language about a supposed "invasion" of migrants to the UK, as well as incendiary rhetoric about people fleeing war being of "fighting age".

There has been a nine-fold increase in "invasion" rhetoric about immigrants and refugees on GB News from May-August this year, compared to the same period last year - from 16 instances May-Aug 2024 to 138 instances May-Aug 2025.

The UN Human Rights Commissioner has condemned language around refugees supposedly "invading" countries as harmful. The United Nations' commissioner Volker Türk denounced the language in November 2022 when Suella Braverman used it, calling it a "horrible word."

ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.

PAY ANNUALLY - £39.50 A YEAR

PAY MONTHLY - £3.75 A MONTH

MORE OPTIONS

We're not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.

The analysis of GB News transcripts for use of the words "invasion", "invaded", "invading" and "invaders" in an immigration context, shows:

Between 1st May 2025 and the end of August 2025, GB News aired 138 claims of an immigrant "invasion" (over one claim every day).

On the 26th July, after Trump had given a speech in Scotland alleging a "horrible invasion" of immigrants in Europe, saw 17 claims from GB News contributors of an supposed 'invasion'.

These findings of 138 immigrant invasion claims from May to end of August 2025 contrast starkly with the same four months in 2024, where there were only 16 references to the far-right trope.

It shows this period in 2025 therefore saw almost 9 times as many claims of an invasion than in 2024.

There is a big up-tick in the use of the phrase "fighting age" regarding male refugees and asylum seekers coming to Britain. Stop Funding Hate estimates it marks an increase from around 15 from May - Aug 2024) to around 65 (May - Aug 2025) - an increase of around four times.

Stop Funding Hate have filed several recent Ofcom complaints into dehumanising language on GB News which were not investigated.

They include a broadcast on 2nd April 2025, GB News host Patrick Christys said in reference to Donald Trump's quote about "foreign scavengers", "I think that a lot of Brits can relate to someone wanting to clamp down on, quote, unquote, 'foreign scavengers'".

And on 23 March 2025, regular GB News 'comedian' guest Lewis Schaffer appeared on the show Headliners, during which he used the phrase "dirty foreigners" multiple times - e.g. "you watch this country that you've worked hard for basically being given to dirty foreigners" (23:10) and "why don't we just admit that we just want as many dirty foreigners into the country as possible?" (23:13). The host told him to stop, but there was no apology or acknowledgment of harm.

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

On the frequency of the word "illegal" before discussion of migrants (the vast majority of migrants are here legally), Good Law Project published separate stark data recently. It showed that the word "illegal" was the single most common way the channel describes people arriving in the UK - despite so-called illegal migration accounting for less than five per cent of the UK's annual immigration total.

The Good Law Project research went on: "Shouldering aside every other word in the English language, the adjective "illegal" appears before the words...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

An advertising van displaying a photograph of Donald Trump with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein was taken away from the scene by police after travelling around Windsor as President Trump stayed with King Charles at Windsor Castle.

Journalists nearby who were covering the intervention by viral protest collective Everyone Hates Elon were stopped and informally questioned by officers.

Thames Valley Police told Byline Times the van was taken out of the area for being "at risk" of breaking the Road Traffic Regulations Act, though it's not clear what part of this act they were referring to. The van was later returned to the activists.

It comes after four Led By Donkeys activists were detained on Tuesday (16th) night after projecting video of Donald Trump with the late convicted paedophile and sex trafficker Epstein onto Windsor Castle.

President Trump is visiting the UK for a historic second state visit and is facing huge protests, including today (17th) in central London. Police have a heavy presence in Windsor and in central London.

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

In the Activists' Own Words

An activist with Everyone Hates Elon who was in the protest ad van when it was stopped by officers in Windsor told Byline Times: "We got in the van and drove for about five minutes up the high street towards the castle. Even just where we started, there were a lot of police around."

"We were right next to this big metal wall that's been erected around the Long Walk - a big part of the park, a big path that goes up to the castle - and we drove on the road next to that.

"We drove for about five minutes with the big photo of Trump and Epstein on the side of the van. As soon as we got into sight of the castle, the police came straight up into the middle of the road and flagged us down, so we immediately pulled over.

"Straight away the police went to the driver: 'No, you can't have this, you can't be here.' They stopped him under some [traffic] law.

"I got out of the van and carried on taking pictures and filming. They took the driver to the side, and straight away another policeman jumped in the van, kept saying 'How do you turn it off? How do you turn it off?'

"They wanted to turn off the massive, huge photo of Trump and Epstein as quickly as they could. As soon as they turned it off, they grabbed the van and drove it away from where we'd just been pulled over.

"At the same time, I saw a few other journalists from Reuters and photographers all getting stopped by the police and being asked for their details."

ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.

PAY ANNUALLY - £39.50 A YEAR

PAY MONTHLY - £3.75 A MONTH

MORE OPTIONS

We're not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.

The activist continued: "I was surprised: surprised at how quickly they reacted and with how much force….Clearly we were just showing a photo, so…there was no law being broken.

"[But] I was surprised at how quickly and how desperate they were to turn it off and get the van out of that spot, and how many other police came and were trying to speak to any other person with a camera, anybody else that was in the vicinity. It was very strange - an almost desperate atmosphere from the police, it seems."

Another campaigner for Everyone Hates Elon added that the police are being "super heavy-handed."

"They're just everywhere. We basically had that advan live for 10 minutes or less before they stopped us."

They added: "I don't want to [suggest] 'there's no free speech in the UK'…But if we can't even drive a van, then what is that about?

"We were going to...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Donald Trump's state visit to the UK is the ultimate demonstration of soft power - combining the pomp and circumstance of the British Monarchy, with a series of events designed to showcase British pageantry and history at its finest. The visit will include overnight stays at Windsor Castle, cannon-fired royal salutes, military bands and parades, a carriage procession, a private visit to St George's Chapel where the President will lay a wreath on the tomb of Queen Elizabeth II, a state banquet inside the castle, and a day of meetings at the Prime Minister's country retreat at Chequers, where there will be more guards of honour, and an opportunity to tour the Winston Churchill archives.

The visit has been carefully designed both to flatter the President with ostentatious displays and exclusive viewings of historical items, and keep him away from the public eye as much as possible. This is to try to avoid encounters with anti-Trump demonstrators, or opportunities for him to make embarrassing off-the-cuff remarks - as occurred during his last state visit, when he kneecapped his host, Prime Minister Teresa May, by lavishing praise on Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson.

Who knows whether this charm offensive will work? Trump may just bask in the occasion, and play nice with the Royal Family, but let Starmer down as soon as he is back in the US. He could continue to play tough on tariffs, reject Starmer's lobbying on Ukraine and Gaza, and let his associates continue to criticize the Starmer government as too woke, too weak on immigration, and too restrictive on free speech.

EXCLUSIVE

Anti-Racist Protesters Accuse Met Police of 'Two Tier' Policing of Tommy Robinson Far-Right Rally

Mass arrests at a peaceful pro-Palestinian demonstration were followed by a light-touch approach to last weekend's violent far right protest, say campaigners

Jaydee Seaforth

The UK at least still has the sense to recognize the value of this kind of soft power, which is uniquely suited to appeal to the President's sense of vanity, and his reverence for the Royal Family. By contrast, Trump has shown himself to be deeply disdainful of soft power - particularly the American kind, based on the projection of US values, ideals, and culture to persuade other countries to support US policies.

The US launch of the Marshall Plan in 1947, pouring billions of dollars into European countries, including its World War 2 adversaries, Germany and Italy, is a classic example of a soft power success - turning a shattered, fractured region into one of the most stable and prosperous blocks in the world, creating a network of reliable US allies and massive market for US companies.

According to Thomas Garrett, a former Secretary-General of the Community of Democracies, and now a Professor at Cornell University teaching a course on American soft power, Trump is not just hostile to the concept of soft power, but actively working to dismantle the institutions which promote it - for example, through his administration's closure or slashing of funding to a host of institutions which used to project a positive image of America to the world, such as the US Agency for International Development, the US Institute of Peace, the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty.

Garrett describes soft power as working best as a complement to, not a replacement for, hard power, which relies solely on coercion. He references Joseph Nye, the international scholar who popularized the concept of "soft power" in the 1980s, who answered the rhetorical question by Machiavelli: "Is it better to be feared than loved?" - by asserting "it's both." He also quoted the famous testimony of General James Mattis, then Head of Central Command, to Congress in 2013 when he said "If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammuni...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Anti-racist campaigners have accused the Metropolitian Police of adopting a 'two tier' approach to policing, after hundreds of people were arrested at a peaceful pro-Palestinian protest in the capital, followed by only relatively small numbers of arrests of far right rioters at the 'Unite the Kingdom' rally last Saturday.

On Saturday an estimated 150,000 protestors joined the 'Unite the Kingdom' demonstration, organised by the far-right extremist, known as Tommy Robinson. The rally culminated in violent scenes, with protesters shouting racist chants, and assaulting police officers.

Yet despite trouble being widely predicted in advance, the Met deployed just 1,000 officers and arrested just 24 protesters. This compares to the 2,500 officers deployed at the recent 'Defend our Juries' protest in support of banned pro-Palestinian campaign group Palestine Action, after which nearly 900 peaceful protesters were arrested.

From Maggie to MAGA: The Transformation of the Conservative Mind

James Bloodworth examines how the rise of the radical-right is not a sudden aberration but the product of decades of neoliberal policy and the collapse of alternatives

James Bloodworth

Jan Nielson, an anti-racism activist and steward at the Stand Up to Racism counter-protest, told Byline Times that the differing response to the two protests was stark.

"We were kettled until the police received reinforcements. But the number of police deployed to arrest peaceful demonstrators at the 'Defend Our Juries' demonstration just a week earlier was double those deployed against the far-right", she said.

Ben Jamal, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, also voiced concern that the police's approach may have been inconsistent, given the political nature of the protests.

"These violent people [far-right protestors] were attacking officers. But they had more police officers intervening in the Defend our Juries protest, to go and arrest old age pensioners holding placards, than they had for this demonstration."

Police Under Scrutiny for Response to Unite the Kingdom Rally

Just a few 100 yards behind the billionaire-backed Unite the Kingdom stage, gripping rain-soaked pro-immigration placards, and separated from Robinson supporters by a single line of police officers, stood an estimated 5,000 Stand Up to Racism counter-demonstrators. As the far-right crowds increased, it didn't take long for the counter-protesters to find themselves flanked on all sides by members of the opposing demonstration.

What followed was nearly five hours of tense stand-offs between the Metropolitan Police and members of the 'Unite the Kingdom' rally, during which 24 arrests were made, and 26 officers were injured trying to fend off the growing crowds attempting to muscle their way into Whitehall.

A Two-Tiered System?

Jamal, who regularly speaks at pro-Palestinian protests, also raised issues with what he perceives as a difference in the way that different groups are protected by the police.

"We've been so demonised that if we're marching anywhere where there's a synagogue in the vicinity, that's grounds for the police to stop the march. However, when representatives from the Muslim community said they were frightened to go into London [because of the protests], the police said they had no reason to be."

"When I asked about the plan to get everybody out of Whitehall safely, and how long it would take. The response I got [from a police officer] was that the far-right were down the road, and he wasn't going down there to confront them because he had two small children".

Jamal also says that he observed men from the opposing protest being allowed through the police blockade before later shouting verbal abuse at suspended Labour MP Diane Abbott, but that the police did nothing. Instead, he claims that officers said they couldn't...