Byline Times Audio Articles

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...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The Reform UK-led Kent County Council has put forward a motion which questions whether climate change is anthropogenic and relies on discredited sources as its evidence, with the aim of rescinding the council's 2019 declaration of a climate emergency.

The motion, proposed by two of Reform's Kent councillors Chris Hespe and Paul Chamberlain, argues that anthropogenic climate change is "unproven" and claims that the science on climate change is not settled. The motion also calls on the council to be "openminded but sceptical of anthropogenic climate change" and claims that "bodies pushing the narrative of anthropogenic climate change" such as NASA, have used "inaccurate data".

Numerous studies have found that there is a consensus between 97-99+% of climate scientists that climate change is anthropogenic, i.e. caused by human activity.

Sources for the motion's claims include the World Climate Declaration, a climate-change denial document that states that "there is no climate emergency" signed by 1,200 supposed experts. A 2022 fact check of the document by Euro News Green found that several of the signatories have backgrounds in the fossil fuel industry, work as lobbyists, fishermen, pilots or in scientific roles unrelated to climate change.

EXCLUSIVE

Reform UK Accused of Breaking Climate Law as Opponents Challenge Local Net Zero Ban

Opposition councillors in one of the party's flagship new councils are challenging the legality of its decision to ban all climate and Net Zero pledges

Josiah Mortimer

Another source listed in the motion's notes was Climate The Movie: The Cold Truth, a 2024 documentary directed by Martin Durkin, described by critics as a "propaganda film". An analysis of the documentary by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment found that several of the film's claims relied on misrepresentations of data.

Referring to the motion's claims, Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment told Byline Times that: "all of its rubbish. They are talking points that have been made up over the years and discredited numerous times, the thing that really undermines their case, most of all, is the fact that they cannot explain why the earth is warming now. They do not have an explanation. And saying it's natural is like saying it's magic. They just cannot explain it".

Ward added "there's not a single reputable scientific organisation that doesn't accept anthropogenic climate change and the risks associated with it, though you can find cranks who will claim that's not the case".

Ward has recently written to Nigel Farage and Richard Tice urging Reform UK to take the science on climate change seriously.

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 KCC motion attacks the integrity of the Intercontinental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stating that: "the scientific compendium [published by the IPCC] is rarely radical, even stating that there has been no discernible increase in the number or severity of extreme weather events including droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires and heat and cold extremes. However, the politically produced shorter document meant for wider dissemination tends to doctor and catastrophise the messages for the general public".

The most recent IPCC Synthesis Report, AR6, states that "there is strong evidence that characteristics of many individual extr...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The UK Government is refusing to release information on what the taskforce set up to protect Britain's democracy is actually doing - leading to accusations it "ironically" evades democratic scrutiny.

The Defending Democracy Taskforce has been mentioned repeatedly by Government ministers as being at the core of the Government's efforts to tackle foreign threats to democracy, such as illicit donations, disinformation campaigns and social media manipulation by hostile states like Russia. It may also increasingly be concerned with the risk of the US far-right seeking to influence British politics, such as through extremist billionaire Elon Musk's control of X/Twitter, and his apparent threat to donate millions to UK political projects.

A Freedom of Information request by Byline Times to the Home Office has now been met by the department refusing to disclose the vast majority of info requested about the Defending Democracy Taskforce, the body set up under Rishi Sunak in 2022 to "protect the democratic integrity of the UK from threats of foreign interference."

There is very little information about the Government body available online - with no website, social media accounts, meeting minutes, agendas, reports or lists of attendees.

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

The Home Office told this outlet: "The Home Office cannot disclose the agenda, minutes, readouts, or briefings for ministers from the Defending Democracy Taskforce," citing national security exemptions.

The department also refused to publish a full list of attendees, instead only releasing to Byline Times a list of ministers who attended. Then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper chaired the last meeting in July, while previous ones were chaired by Minister of State Dan Jarvis MP.

Other attendees under this Government include the Cabinet Office minister Abena Oppong-Asare MP, the Communities Secretary Angela Rayner MP, and Baroness Jacqui Smith from the Department for Education. Typically around five Government departments are represented by ministers at the meetings.

The most recent 15th July meeting was also attended by then Leader of the Commons Lucy Powell MP - potentially to give an update on the upcoming Elections Bill which seeks to close some loopholes in Britain's political funding system.

The Home Office has however admitted that the taskforce has no dedicated budget. And the partial disclosure revealed that staffing appears to be declining, from the equivalent of 12 full-time members of staff for two years after its launch in 2022. It has dropped to 8.5 full-time equivalent staffers for this year, 2025-2026.

Tom Brake, director of campaign group Unlock Democracy, told Byline Times: "With no independent budget for the DDT, the number of dedicated DDT staff falling and the seniority and numbers of elected officials attending meetings on the decline, it's hard not to conclude that defending democracy is slipping down the Government's agenda.

"This, at the very moment when threats, external and internal, are growing. To make matters worse, the Home Office will not release suitably redacted minutes of the DDT meetings. This means, ironically, there is no democratic oversight of the Defending Democracy Taskforce's activities which would enable interested organisations to contribute positively to its work."

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.

Rose Whiffen, Senior Research Officer, Transparency International UK ...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Campaigners are calling on the Government to introduce strict penalties for firms like X (formerly Twitter) accused of promoting disinformation and hate speech - alongside an overhaul of Britain's media - to help restore accountability and trust in public debate.

In a letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer to mark the International Day of Democracy (September 15), leading democracy and civil society advocates also caution the PM against the temptation to "hoard power in Whitehall" as he seeks to get his Government back on track.

In a new report, Democracy SOS, the signatories - including Unlock Democracy and Labour-facing group Compass - call on the Prime Minister to crack down on disinformation, including sanctions for social media companies doing too little to combat deceptive material about matters of public interest.

Backers of the campaign urge PM Starmer to use the recently-announced 'Phase 2' of his premiership to "lead a democratic revolution - rewiring the relationship between Whitehall and the rest of the country, and unleashing the full potential of people across the UK."

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

They also want to see a cap on political donations alongside restoring the independence of the Electoral Commission, to "ensure politics serves citizens, not vested interests." The Government has previously rejected calls for a cap on donations but pressure is growing for strong action ahead of Labour's upcoming Elections Bill.

And they urge the PM to tackle the "expansion of plutocratic control over the media" through stricter limits on media ownership, to "guard against the erosion of fair and objective reporting." In a new proposal, local communities would also be given financial and regulatory support to take community ownership of local media outlets.

Dr Simon Duffy, Director of Citizen Network, which comprises 315 organisations from over 50 countries, said that in many parts of the UK, "people feel dispossessed, while in London a handful of people make all the key decisions."

"We have lost hope that the existing political system will address the extreme inequalities and many of us are turning to more extreme alternatives. We really need a different kind of democracy, one that is rooted in our neighbourhoods and town halls. One where ordinary people are allowed to be involved in debating and deciding things for ourselves."

A new Democracy SOS action plan sets out how the Government can make the shift. But the report also warns of the consequences of inaction: without serious reform, trust will continue to erode, disengagement will deepen, and those who exploit fear and division will gain ground.

Dr Henry Tam, writer, former Head of Civil Renewal for the UK Government, and author of Democracy SOS, added: "A weakened democracy is so much easier for charlatans to exploit and bring in arbitrary rule. If politicians don't save democracy while they still can, they'll be the ones to blame when the abuse of power becomes the norm under an unscrupulous regime.

"We've seen it happening elsewhere, and we don't want the UK to end up the same way. Democracy SOS sums up what leading advocates say urgently needs to be done. The Government should act on it."

The report argues that Britain cannot hope to tackle poverty, climate disruption, housing shortages or health crises without a functioning democracy.

Tom Brake, Director of Unlock Democracy, said the Prime Minister "now has a chance to show real leadership by giving citizens the tools, rights and opportunities to bring about the change they want to see."

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 - ...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

We've done defence. We now need to go on the offensive.

With the far right marching in our streets, paid for by foreign billionaires and bolstered by Putin's cyber-warfare machine, we cannot afford to sit back. This is not just a passing nuisance but a deliberate attempt to destabilise our democracy.

I was one of the first Labour MPs to leave Twitter back last summer, when its owners' obvious conflict of interest in being donor, administrator, and platform-turned-propaganda outlet owner became apparent. That was a basic defensive move to protect against a website which has become a highly-partial cesspit of misinformation and algorithmically-charged hate.

From Epstein to Starmer: Mapping Peter Thiel's Web of Influence in the UK

The tech billionaire Trump-backer is rapidly gaining influence over politics and public services in the UK, reports Peter Jukes

Peter Jukes

But we in the centre and on the left also need to get our own house in order. I hear and understand that the left need to be properly heard, and the frustration that their views have not been given enough weight by a government that has lost more voters to smaller left parties than even to Reform since last year, at least in my constituency. But now, more than ever, we must ourselves unite and stop indulging in conspiracy theories about Labour being captured by sinister forces when the truth is simpler: That the Party has been guided by people who wanted, above all, to make us electable again, with an analysis that, in 2024, was proven to be correct. Equally, the left must stop sounding like apologists for a broken migration system, as though it were acceptable to risk one's life crossing the Channel on a dinghy. It is not.

This is a problem that must be fixed, for humanitarian reasons as well as social cohesion. But equally, we must be clear: this is not some orchestrated "invasion" as some would like us to believe. We must put ourselves in the shoes of those who, understandably, want to make the journey, fleeing home nations where their lives are, at worst, in danger or, at best, severely lacking in hope and opportunity. We must also remember that there is surely a reason they are choosing the UK as opposed to other European nations - perhaps due to family links, or for linguistic or historic reasons. And, finally, we must also be honest with ourselves that, at 0.1% of GDP, it is not the cost of migrant hotels that has broken our public services, but 14 years of Conservative austerity.

But we must also, as the far-right so often call for, call out scapegoating and blatant racism for what it is, and ensure that social media platforms provide the same protections. Vile, threatening racism didn't suddenly become lawful because it's spouted online, and what many people allow to pass them by on social media would be shocking to read in print, or hear from a family member or friend around the dinner table.

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.

UK Government departments would do well to recognise the same: that Twitter is not an impartial platform, nor, given its increasingly narrow user base, a place where our Government needs to be. But we must go further and root out these malign influences on our politics, tightening our rules on online transparency, the foreign funding of campaigns, and the regulation of disinformation.

And, now that Musk is out of the White House and openly backing an even more extreme version o...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Thirty-two-year-old Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, father of two young children, was murdered while speaking about gun violence at Utah Valley University on 10 September 2025. His alleged killer, identified as Tyler Robinson (22), was apprehended a day later after a family intervention and remains in custody facing charges of attempted aggravated murder.

According to the Daily Mail, his grandmother, Debbie Robinson, described the family as "staunch Trump supporters." She stated that her son - Tyler's father, Matt Robinson - is a Republican "for Trump," and that she didn't know "any single one [in the family] who's a Democrat."

The family's reaction, as reported, was one of shock and intervention. The Daily Mail reported that it was Tyler's father who turned him in after he allegedly confessed. The Daily Beast added that Matt Robinson recognised his son in law enforcement images and urged him to surrender. The Wall Street Journal confirmed that, while both his parents are registered Republicans, Tyler himself was registered as a nonpartisan voter.

Robinson was admitted to Utah State University on a prestigious academic scholarship, a moment of pride captured in a video of him reading his acceptance letter posted to a family member's social media account. However, his tenure there was fleeting. A university spokesperson confirmed he attended for only a single semester in 2021.

After leaving Utah State, Robinson's path turned away from the academic and toward the vocational. He enrolled at Dixie Technical College, a small school in southern Utah near his family's home in Washington City. Described as a "shy, quiet kid" Robinson was a third-year student in the college's electrical apprenticeship program at the time of his arrest, training to become an electrician, lighting technician, or repair specialist.

A family member also told authorities that Tyler "had become more political in recent years" and had expressed negative views of Kirk before the event. The Guardian's report that a high school friend recalled Robinson was a "leftist" has since been removed.

A Halloween Costume and the 'Groyper' Meme

Though there are few direct political statements online from this "shy, quiet kid", there are more indications that Tyler Robinson might have been radicalised by far-right online movements rather than the far left.

An image posted by his mother, Amberson Robinson, on Facebook around Halloween 2018, describes her son as "some guy from a meme" and shows Robinson squatting on some grass. The uniform is precise - Adidas-style track pants - and the pose is significant, a meme that became known as a low 'Slav squat'.

By 2018, this 'Gopnik' aesthetic - the squat, the tracksuit - had fully converged with the 'Pepe the Frog' meme in the alt-right online sphere. The 'Gopnik Pepe' was common currency on 4chan and adjacent platforms, a symbol of a certain nihilistic, post-Soviet edge. It then evolved into many variants.

To understand the potential significance of Robinson's 2018 costume, one must trace the complex genealogy of its symbols.

The journey begins with Pepe the Frog, an apolitical comic character co-opted by the alt-right around 2015-2016. By September 2016, the Anti-Defamation League had designated certain variants of Pepe a hate symbol. Its march into the mainstream was confirmed in 2017 when a Pepe emoji trended heavily during the Super Bowl.

This period of 2016-2018 saw the 'Gopnik squat' meme merge with Pepe, creating the 'Gopnik Pepe' - a symbol of defiant, low-life resistance that resonated deeply within the nihilistic communities of 4chan. This is the exact cultural moment Robinson's Halloween costume inhabits.

By 2018-2019, this meme culture crystallised into a formal political project with the rise of Nick Fuentes. A new, chubbier frog variant called the '...