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

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced that the UK Government will unilaterally recognise the State of Palestine. However, the announcement was tainted by a grim caveat: that his Government will move down this path unless Israel takes "substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza" and commit to a two state solution, effectively making the recognition of Palestine contingent upon Israeli good behaviour.

This is of course obscene, considering that Israel has already massacred well over 55,000 Gazans, and is now subjecting them to what the World Food Programme has described as a "man-made famine," in which "more than 500,000 people - nearly a quarter of Gaza's population - are enduring famine-like conditions, while the remaining population is facing emergency levels of hunger."

Israel's leader Benjamin Netanyahu - who, let us not forget, has an ICC arrest warrant out on him for crimes against humanity - has openly stated his intention to ensure the people of Gaza have no homes to return to.

For decades, successive UK Governments have insisted that recognising a Palestinian state must wait until the right political conditions emerge, as part of a negotiated peace deal. Indeed, Starmer's spineless announcement - in the face of what UN experts have called a genocide - is but a continuation of that same policy.

The Palestinians - who are being relentlessly bombed in their homes, hospitals and streets, and now starved to death en masse - must wait for the "right conditions" before their dystopian nightmare ends and they are finally given what they have been calling for since 1948: a state of their own.

There are, however, some signs of a rising tide of morality among British politicians: more than 200 MPs from across the political spectrum publicly called on the Government to recognise the State of Palestine.

UK Charity Sanctioned Over 'Distressing' Fundraising Video for Israeli Military

The action by the Charity Commission followed a Byline Times investigation into the video, which appeared to show a Palestinian being hit by Israeli munitions

Iain Overton

Starmer's weak-kneed policy looks a lot like an attempt to placate those voices, while at the same time not frustrating the Trump administration which would likely oppose any immediate recognition, as it has with France's decision to recognise Palestinian Statehood in the upcoming UN General Assembly meeting in September.

While Starmer's aides are said to have dismissed the French move as mere "symbolism," this is trivial and misses the point. Across Europe, the tide appears to be turning: Spain, Ireland, Norway and others have given recognition and 147 of the UN's 193 member states - that's over three-quarters - now recognise Palestinian statehood. Canada is the latest UK ally to announce its intention to formally recognise Palestine.

Change at Home

There is of course an almost incomprehensible brutality fuelling this urgency. Alongside the famine itself, since Israel canceled the UN's aid delivery mechanism into Gaza in May, the IDF has shot dead over 1,000 Palestinian civilians trying to access the little bit of food that has managed to enter the war-torn strip.

A leading expert on food health recently said, "there is no case since World War II of starvation that has been so minutely designed and controlled," as what Israel is currently doing in Gaza. Cases of malnutrition among children have increased by over 300% since May of this year.

In the face of this unbridled barbarity, British Government equivocation must end. The British public is no longer fooled by arguments that this is all in the name of Israel's "self-defence". Poll after poll shows that a growing majority among Britons want their Government to stake a morally decisive stance.

Cambridge University Takes Own Professor to Court for Joining P...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

As the country basked in the afterglow of the Lionesses' triumph - a team that has come to embody a new kind of sporting heroism grounded in merit, solidarity, and freedom from the male gaze - the Prime Minister cut-through the public mood with an announcement.

In the same breath as celebrating women who have redefined what power, skill, and leadership can look like, Keir Starmer appointed David 'the dinosaur' Dinsmore - a man whose career was built on The Sun's Page 3 sexism, phone-hacking denialism, and media intrusion - to a civil service role as his chief communications advisor.

It represents less a fresh start and more a return to the worst clichés of Fleet Street. Akin to asking Roy Chubby Brown to keynote the Women's Equality Party conference, Starmer's choice was not just jarring - it was insulting.

This isn't a political mis-step but a deliberate signal.

A regressive statement of priorities that places a man with a criminal conviction (related to his editorship of The Sun) and a catalogue of ethical failures in a position of considerable power and influence - at precisely the moment the public is crying out for change, decency, and progress.

Dinsmore is no harmless media veteran. In 2016, he received a criminal conviction under the Sexual Offences Act after publishing a pixelated image of a sexual abuse victim without consent - a serious legal and ethical breach that would disqualify someone from most professions.

His editorial legacy is littered with similar lapses.

Britain Needs Wide-Ranging Media Reform - Now

It's not just Harry and Meghan, we are all paying the price for a dysfunctional, corrupted established media - opposition politicians must take action, writes Brian Cathcart

Brian Cathcart

A decade before, in 2006, as Editor of the Scottish Sun, Dinsmore bore editorial responsibility, in part, for the publication of a highly-controversial and sensitive story containing private medical information about a senior public figure. That information had been sourced from a highly unethical source - a deeply invasive act that raised serious legal and ethical questions, never satisfactorily answered. Dinsmore was then involved in the cover-up about the sourcing of that story in 2011.

Dinsmore's senior role at News Group Newspapers (NGN) during the height of the phone-hacking scandal placed him squarely in the frame of a media empire built on the industrial-scale violation of privacy.

Under his leadership, The Sun issued years of false denials about its role in unlawful information-gathering. However, the truth was finally admitted by NGN last January in a High Court settlement with Prince Harry and former Labour Minister Lord Tom Watson. The historic admission stated that private investigators working for The Sun had engaged in unlawful information-gathering.

Rather than a clean house, Dinsmore presided over a newsroom that denied wrongdoing and smeared its critics. He didn't reform the culture - he defended it.

He also famously clung to The Sun's degrading Page 3 feature - championing the publication of topless images of women as "what readers wanted" long after public sentiment had moved on. While others in journalism recognised the need to challenge sexism and modernise, Dinsmore held the line - not out of courage, but out of commercial cynicism and a smidge of smutty personal preference thrown in.

As someone who worked alongside men like Dinsmore at The Sun, I know that these fossilised attitudes to women don't just change: misogyny isn't incidental it is woven into the culture.

Yet, here he is stepping into a significant unelected position in British politics. The man forced to resign from the board of Parkrun in 2023 after a public outcry over his appointment - backed by more than 20,000 signatures - now gets a desk at the heart of government. How is it...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Privacy campaigners have told Byline Times of their concern that millions of Britons are being forced to hand over sensitive personal data to opaque overseas firms with questionable privacy records, due to the new Online Safety Act.

From 25 July 2025, social media companies operating in the UK have been compelled to block under-18s from content deemed unsuitable for children - a process known as age-gating. The Government claims that the measures will make children safer online, preventing them from accessing pornography, self-harm and eating disorder-related content.

However, social media companies and dating apps often outsource the age-gating process to third-party providers. These firms collect biometric data (facial scans), passport and personal identification documents, and even banking and credit card information to verify users' identities.

The third party age verification companies used by leading social media platforms, include a firm tied to Trump-supporting billionaire Peter Thiel, and another firm set up by former Israeli intelligence officers.

Some of the firms used by the social media companies have been criticised in the past for presiding over privacy breaches.

Campaigners say that the lack of regulation and oversight of these third party companies could be putting the public's data privacy at risk.

Digital rights activists at Open Rights Group called on the Government to further regulate the age verification industry.

"Thanks to the Online Safety Act, people in Britain are being compelled to use unregulated age verification tools in order to access content online," Platform Power Programme Manager James Baker told Byline Times.

"Many of these providers are based outside of the UK and have questionable privacy policies. But users don't have a choice if they want to have full access to social media sites such as X, Reddit, and Bluesky, or to use dating apps like Grindr.

"The risks from handing over sensitive data are real and people are understandably worried about what could happen. The government needs to take these privacy concerns seriously by regulating the age verification industry and ensuring that providers have high standards of privacy and security. But they also need to limit the scope of the Act so that people aren't forced to risk their privacy whenever they go online."

'Free Speech for the 0.1%: Why the Online Safety Act Is Failing'

This broken law isn't only failing to prevent the spread of hate and misinformation, it's actively protecting the ability of the most powerful and privileged to do so, argues Kyle Taylor

Kyle Taylor

Who Are the Age Verifiers?

Several of the companies involved in age verification have chequered histories, including data breaches and controversial ties.

AU10TIX (Used by 'X')

Elon Musk's X (formerly Twitter) has used Israeli firm AU10TIX for ID document and selfie-based checks since 2023 - originally to verify premium 'blue check' users, and now to comply with age assurance requirements. The company, spun out of ICTS International - founded by former Shin Bet (Israeli domestic intelligence) officers - also employs engineers with backgrounds in Israel's military cyber-intelligence unit, Unit 8200.

In 2023, digital rights activist and MENA specialist Mona Shtaya described the partnership as "alarming."

"Hiring a company with ties to former secret intelligence, Shin Bet, puts us all at risk," Shtaya said. "This move threatens to fortify and weaponise our digital realms. A fate Palestinians already endure due to the ongoing military occupation. It's a disaster in the making for all its users."

AU10TIX's privacy policy lets it process data under the broad umbrella of "legitimate interests," potentially allowing reuse or sharing beyond age checks.

In 2024, 404 Media revealed a major data breach: administrative credent...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

A new UK parliamentary report has confirmed what many of us in civil society have been saying for years: the Online Safety Act isn't working. But it's not just failing to stop harmful misinformation and abuse - it's failing to even understand how those harms spread.

Here's the crux of it: 0.1% of users are responsible for 80% of the disinformation circulating online. That's not a free speech problem - that's a virality problem. And yet, our laws treat every user, every post, and every platform interaction as if it carries equal weight and risk, carving out special exemptions for those users who are most likely to share demonstrably false information. Pretending this isn't the case is why the Act is falling short.

The Illusion of Equal Speech

The idea that all users are created equal online is seductive - and yet completely detached from reality. In practice, influence on digital platforms is wildly unequal. A tiny minority of accounts generate the vast majority of views, shares, and clicks. These users aren't just louder - they're structurally amplified by algorithms that reward outrage and attention.

But the Online Safety Act doesn't account for any of that.

It applies obligations to platforms based on content type, not content impact. A hate-fuelled post seen by ten people is treated the same as a near-identical post seen by ten million just because the latter was posted by a prominent political figure or commentator. And that's before you account for the fact that some of the most harmful content comes from voices the Act goes out of its way to protect.

UPDATE

Keir Starmer's Government Still Hasn't Reviewed Use of Musk's X Despite Platform 'Amplifying Hate Speech and Misinformation'

Downing Street continues to refuse to explore communicating through alternative platforms, like Bluesky, despite the role of X in last summer's violent disorder

Josiah Mortimer

The result is a law that fails to distinguish between an anonymous troll with 11 followers and a tabloid with a multimillion-person reach - despite the fact that one is far more likely to go viral and do real-world harm.

This isn't about whether someone can say something online. It's about whether those "free speech" rights extend to the structural incentivising and algorithmic boosting for maximum reach and, by extension, maximum profit. That's what these platforms do best. That's also what the law ignores.

Instead, the Act leans heavily on individual content moderation. But that kind of whack-a-mole approach is hopeless against modern information ecosystems. The real threat lies in the systems themselves that allow, and even encourage disinformation, hate speech, and conspiracies to spread at scale.

The most viral content online isn't necessarily the most true, the most thoughtful, or the most important. It's the most clickable - and often the most harmful. The Online Safety Act should recognise that amplification is what turns harmful ideas into societal threats. But it doesn't. And that's a systemic failure.

A Two-Tier Internet

Worse still, the Act doesn't just overlook structural power - it actively entrenches it. Even the completely insufficient rules in the Act still have three key carve-outs which create what can only be described as a two-tier internet:

A media exemption means that content published by outlets meeting low and easily gamed criteria is shielded from takedown - even if it's harmful and even if it targets children.

A journalism exemption ensures that anyone claiming to be publishing "for the purposes of journalism" gets added protections - with no obligation to demonstrate responsible practice or editorial oversight.

A democratic importance exemption gives special status to content that contributes to political debate - which, in practice, privileges politicians and party-affiliated voices....

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The Government's use of X - formerly Twitter - hasn't been reviewed since well before Labour came to power last year, it has emerged.

A parliamentary question from Liberal Democrat peer Mark Pack asked whether the Government has considered creating official accounts on the smaller open-source rival Bluesky, set up by former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and launched publicly last February.

The minister, Ruth Smeeth (Baroness Anderson), replied that there had been no Government review of its use of X since April 2023. Some major platform changes and controversies have exploded over the site since then.

The Government frontbencher also said it does not pay for ads on the platform. But Government figures have shown little sign of reducing their usage of X, despite the Elon Musk-owned company standing accused of 'profiting from hate', as a recent Centre for Countering Digital Hate report argued.

The April 2023 review date given by the minister is particularly striking, Lord Pack says, given what's happened since then:

The platform's comprehensive rebrand from Twitter to X

The launch and integration of AI-tool 'Grok' into the platform, which has repeatedly spouted conspiracy theories, and called itself 'Mecha-Hitler' recently, in a reply that appeared to encourage genocide

The platform's role in spreading incendiary misinformation during last summer's anti-migrant riots in England

Owner Elon Musk's own predictions of 'civil war' in Britain, and many users' apparent backing for racist strife being amplified by the platform

The move from official verification of notable users to gain 'Blue Tick' status - to it being available to anyone who pays, and handing them a disproportionate engagement boost via the algorithm

Major advertisers pulling out due to owner Elon Musk's conduct and lack of moderation on the site

Bluesky's explosive growth (from around 580,000 users in April 2023 to nearly 36 million by April 2025)

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.

Critics have questioned why there's been no official review into the use of X, despite its dramatic shift towards the far-right under Musk's ownership.

There are growing concerns about public sector organisations' continued presence on X, though few have dropped use of the platform altogether.

Lib Dem peer Mark Pack, who asked the question and who is prominent on Bluesky, told Byline Times: "It is surprising and disappointing that at the same time as the Government is saying it is taking a 'test and learn' approach to improving how it does things, the Government is failing to acknowledge the major changes for the worse at X under Elon Musk.

"With so many people moving from X to other places, such as Bluesky, the Government should be embracing the variety of social media rather than sticking so tightly to X."

Imran Ahmed, CEO & Founder of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, also told this newspaper: "Not only has X changed significantly since April 2023, with developments such as the introduction of Grok and a change in leadership, our latest research also shows that X has done nothing to address violent incitement and threats against Muslims and migrants.

"These calls have already led to serious consequences across the country. Given the platform's broad influence on communities, it is fair to question whether an assessment that has not been conducted in over two years is truly sufficient."

A Year Since the UK Riots, Elon Musk's X Is St...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

For decades, London's courthouses have served as cherished hubs for powerful Russian interests seeking to advance their business, shield their assets, silence critics, and shuffle dirty cash around.

Drawn by the UK legal system's reputation as a global leader in dispute resolution, coupled with the capital's less illustrious role as veritable haven for illicit finances, many are the Kremlin allies who've turned to the British courts with "collusive litigation" over the years, suing one another on secretly pre-agreed terms so as to launder their wealth through the resulting settlement fees.

Others still have taken advantage of the nation's punitive defamation laws, bringing vexatious claims against critical journalists and activists so as to both intimidate them from further reporting or campaigning, and to drain their resources through lengthy and costly legal proceedings.

Perhaps the most spectacular cases of such 'lawfare', however, are those that have seen Russian oligarchs engaged in the vicious pursuit of strategic lawsuits as part of wider wars of attrition waged against their business rivals, with the promise of handsome profits for the droves of lawyers, consultants and litigation funders only too willing to help them along the way.

Byline Times' new investigation delves deep into the latest of these bitter and winding legal sagas, laying out how Russian businessman Alexander Gorbachev's litigation against former Kremlin politician Andrey Guriev for lucrative shares in a Moscow fertiliser company was bankrolled by a controversial Israeli businessman, a UK group owned by "enablers" of Georgia's autocratic regime, and a scandal-ridden Miami firm that once held sizable investments in several European football clubs.

That these actors held a stake in the lawsuit is no secret to Guriev himself, who was sanctioned in 2022 for his control of assets generating significant revenue for Russia's war in Ukraine. But the Vladimir Putin ally now believes that another, perhaps more powerful set of hands may ultimately have been behind Gorbachev's claims - and he is determined to find out who.

Assets, Dirt Cheap

With holdings worth more than $7.6 billion, PhosAgro is one of the world's largest producers of phosphate fertilisers. Based in Moscow, its roots go back to the early 1990s, with oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky's purchase of a lucrative mining complex in Russia's far northwest during the anarchic privatisation of state assets that followed the Soviet collapse.

Better known by his reputation now as one of Putin's harshest critics, Khodorkovsky would eventually flee Russia in 2013 for exile in London, having served eight years on fraud, embezzlement and money laundering charges he says were politically motivated.

Guriev, a co-director at Khodorkovsky's holding company and a member of the Russian Federation Council who built PhosAgro during the wildcat years of Russian capitalism, was joined there by Gorbachev, an old friend from his days as a Communist Party youth secretary, as vice-president of the new firm.

After prosecutors seized Khordokovsky's mining interests following his 2003 arrest, PhosAgro moved swiftly to purchase those assets from the state at below-market rates. Guriev went on to become a wealthy man - with a current net worth of roughly $9.5 billion, he was at one point the owner of the $450 million Witanhurst estate in Highgate, London's second largest private residence after Buckingham Palace.

He eventually stepped back from politics in 2013. While some of his shares in PhosAgro have since been sold back to the Kremlin, he and his family continue to control a sizable portion of the group through an offshore trust, which saw them targeted with Western sanctions following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine for ownership of assets feeding Russia's war machine.

By...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

"You have to assume that at some point something's going to be cooked up about you - some sort of smear - or there will be another vote, and then they will suspend you."

I'm speaking to a Labour MP who voted against the Government's recent disability benefit cuts and now fears they will be the next victim of what they describe as the "punishment beatings" being dished out to Labour rebels suspended from the party.

"I'm on a hair trigger. I know that".

"And you can go around worrying about it, but I think there's a sense now that it's going to happen, and it probably doesn't really make much of a difference what I do."

"Either I'm going to come out of the room dead, or a made man. You just have to assume that. It's the only way, psychologically, that you can continue to operate."

'Keir Starmer's Government is Sleepwalking Britain Into the Grip of Trump-Supporting Big Tech'

The new 'partnership' between the UK Government and OpenAI is in reality a sellout to the one-sided interests of US tech corporations, argues Donald Campbell

Donald Campbell

We're speaking after Starmer's Government, following the reported advice of Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney, green-lit the suspension of four more Labour MPs for their roles in recent parliamentary rebellions.

The suspensions, which included the well-liked moderate soft-left MP Rachael Maskell, have been a clarifying moment for many in the party.

"I think when it was only happening to the hard left, most MPs thought 'oh it's fine, it's not my problem'", the MP says,

"But now with what they did to Rachael, the soft left are beginning to realise what's really going on here."

A day after Maskell's suspension, veteran left-winger Diane Abbott was suspended for a second time over comments she made about race and minority groups.

Taken together, it adds up to what looks to many like a campaign of revenge for the recent series of U-Turns forced on the Prime Minister by his MPs.

"When something like [the U-Turns] happen, you can do one of two things. You can either say, 'what do I learn from this? How do I make sure that doesn't happen again? What can positively come out of this?' Or you go away, lick your wounds and plot your revenge" the Labour MP tells me.

"They chose the latter".

McSweeney Unleashed

The suspensions appear to carry all the hallmarks of McSweeney.

In the run up to the recent welfare vote, Starmer's chief of staff reportedly pushed for mass suspensions of Labour rebels - ten an hour - in order to force Labour MPs back into line.

It was strategy that was only abandoned by the Prime Minister after it became clear it could have led to the Government losing their parliamentary majority altogether.

In the wake of the vote Starmer promised to forge better relations with his party and described the new consensus on welfare as being "common sense".

The Prime Minister also signalled a broader intention to change course, apologising for his "island of strangers" speech, and dialling down his rhetoric on immigration.

However, while Starmer may have briefly retreated, some of this closest advisers did not.

And with some Labour MPs already signalling their intention to vote against the Government about other upcoming cuts, the Prime Minister appeared to have been persuaded to let allies of McSweeney off the leash.

The timing of the resultant suspensions could not have been worse, however, coming as they did on the same day that news emerged of the Conservative party's involvement in spending hundreds of millions of pounds covering up the Afghan leak scandal, along with the revelation that their leader Kemi Badenoch had refused an official security briefing on the issue earlier this year, because she thought it wasn't important enough to bother turning up to.

'How the Green Party Should Respond to Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana's N...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Apparently if you're awful enough to cut the legs off one side of a spider then it walks round in circles. It's this image that sticks in my mind as a tiny faction of the Labour right looks to sever the link to anything that can discernibly be called left wing in the party.

The latest manifestation of this operation to separate Labour from the left was the recent suspension of the whip from five MPs, four for voting against the Government and then Diana Abbot for refusing to back down on comments she made about the structure of racism. All this on the anniversary of seven MPs being suspended just after the election for voting against two child benefit cap and now chiming with the launch of a new left party.

Pundits and commentators have tried to make sense of this oddly timed and weirdly focussed act of looking tough. Why these four and not the actual effective ringleaders of the disabled benefits revolt? And why respond to that revolt by agreeing to change the legislation and say you'll begin to listen to backbenchers, but then arbitrarily begin summary expulsions?

The Parliamentary Funding Loophole Allowing Murdoch To Dodge Scrutiny

'MPs engaging with these groups may have no idea whose interests dominate the funding… allowing wealthy interests to quietly steer policy'

Olly Haynes

Clearly an internal row has been raging inside Number Ten, and the crackdown kings have won. With tough votes coming up in the autumn on issues like special needs in education, the two-child benefit cap and the budget itself, markers are being put down. In anticipation of further revolts, the leadership are attempting to show that they can and will crush dissent.

But this isn't just some flash in the pan internal squabble in one political party. It's a fundamental insight into the very substance and style of UK politics.

Machiavelli wrote that the successful Prince, by which he meant leader, must be both feared and loved. Labour strategists, in the total absence of any love, have doubled down on fear. It's a brutal and crude form of politics. But they're not alone. It echoes the Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings approach to Brexit dissent within the ranks of the Conservative party when scores of MPs had the whip withdrawn in the run up to the 2019 election. It broke the Conservatives as a broadly based party of the centre right and ended four years later in them receiving their lowest share of the popular vote since 1832.

But further echoes of this approach could be found even among those who have left the party, as the build-up to Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana's fledgling left-wing party saw dissenters simply deleted from WhatsApp groups. The urge to impose and not negotiate outcomes is not a question of being left or right, indeed an old anarchist slogan claims that 'inside every socialist, there is a policeman waiting to come out'.

As such the internal discipline and intolerance to difference, is part and parcel of the mood to crush external opposition. Witness the absurd and frightening designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. There is an enemy within and without and in the framing of Stuart Hall the crisis is something to be policed not solved. In cinematic terms think of modern political leadership as more Reservoirs Dogs when they turn their guns on each other than Field of Dreams - build it and they will come.

Two big things are going on here. The first is that the more the party system fragments, the greater control people in those parties try to exert, such that fragmentation in the country goes hand in hand with hyper factionalism within the parties. Labour is now suffering from unprecedented levels of the narrowest kind of factional dominance. But the increasingly bitter fight in the Greens for leadership control in that party and the fact that all progr...

Newsletter offer

Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.

Sign up

The team appointed by Nigel Farage to slash spending at Reform's new flagship local authority Kent County Council (KCC) has submitted a progress report based on inaccurate and misleading information derived from the party's own former chairman's social media account, opposition councillors claim.

The 'Progress of the Kent Department of Local Government Efficiency' report, released on July 16, was delivered with the stated aim of providing "an introduction to the work of the Kent DOLGE and the priorities of the administration", and followed an announcement by the new leader of KCC, Linden Kemkaran, about proposed savings to the council budget.

However, the appendix, issued as a "reply from Reform Head Office to some questions" asked of DOLGE by the local authority scrutiny committee are simply references to tweets sent by former Reform chair Zia Yusuf between 4 June and 16 June 2025.

EXCLUSIVE

Reform Council Bans All Mentions of Climate Change While Quietly Taking Green Funds From Government

Reform-run West Northamptonshire is removing all references to 'climate change' and 'net zero' from official documents, yet continuing to take government green grants

Josiah Mortimer

Many of them have been found to contain inaccuracies and distortions of the truth, and the appendix - which appears to try and counter some of the backlash the tweets received - fails to address the core concerns.

The three-page report came under heavy opposition scrutiny at a council meeting the day it was released, with members stating that "never has a committee waited so long, for so little".

Reform members were also asked by committee members if any of them would be willing to distance themselves from Yusuf's tweets, which were accused of causing reputational damage to the council.

Central to the complaints were four widely circulated assertions from Yusuf cited in the appendix, relating to the work of DOLGE since the May election.

Firstly, he claimed on 15 June that: "Kent County Council is using taxpayer money to pay for TV licences for asylum seekers. Remember that next time you are asked to pay for yours." The tweet was not backed up by evidence.

The DOLGE document refers to his post as evidence of a "national scandal".

Nigel Farage Says He Wants to Scrap the Two-Child Benefit Cap - But There's Something He's Not Telling You

The Reform leader needs to be reminded whose idea it was to push hundreds of thousands of children into poverty in the first place, writes Josiah Mortimer

Josiah Mortimer

Yusuf's claims were later reported on by a number of media outlets, which appeared to take at face-value, the idea that 'illegal migrants' were not only being given free TV licences but treated to taxpayer-funded activities like bowling, cinema trips and trampolining.

In response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request sent to KCC on 14 July 2025, the council confirmed it "does not have a policy or scheme to fund TV licences for asylum seekers".

This first allegation hinges on a conflation of two legally distinct groups; adult asylum seekers (the responsibility of the Home Office) and Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children (UASC) - individuals under the age of 18 in the care system, who arrive in the UK seeking asylum and who have been separated from parents or guardians.

Every local authority has a legal duty to protect both British nationals and UAS children in care, and to provide basic amenities for them. This includes access to activities crucial to a child's development like recreational activities (swimming, the cinema, etc). The money for UASCs comes from the central Government, and is not paid for by council taxpayers.

It's also inaccurate to state that the money is exclusively for individual TV licences. The council receives a Home Office grant to cover the costs of licences in care homes, to UAS Children in reception centres in Kent, as we...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Charities who say they have "done the right thing" by investing in electric vehicles will face a new daily charge of £9 to drive a zero-emissions van in central London from December.

The charge from Transport for London could add over £3,000 to the annual running costs of each electric van - a major financial hit at a time when they are facing higher wage bills and the recent employer National Insurance hike.

From December 2025, the 100% Congestion Charge discount for electric vehicles is set to be reduced. Publicly-owned TfL, which is chaired by Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan, is consulting on a new 25% discount for electric cars and 50% discount for electric vans.

A spokesperson for green campaign Clean Cities said they were worried that this will mean charities who operate vans in central London either won't be able to afford the shift to electric, or will shift back to diesel.

This will have negative impacts on air quality and decarbonisation, and doesn't support a just transition, the non-profit argues.

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.

Clean Cities is pushing for an 100% discount for electric vans and trucks operated by an SME or charity.

Food banks and food redistribution organisations like the Trussell Trust and The Felix Project are expected to be hard hit. Felix recently purchased a fleet of electric vans which they'll now have to pay over £3,000 a year to run in central London.

Charities collecting for charity shops are also likely to be hit by the measure.

Zak Bond, Campaign Manager at Clean Cities said: "The Mayor is right to back electric vehicles, we can't reach net zero or clean up the air without them. These proposals need improving given charities and small businesses who have gone green will be hit with a new £9 daily charge per electric van. Costs of over £3,000 a year would be a huge blow to charities like food banks and small firms who need the greatest support."

"The Mayor should continue the 100% congestion charge discount for electric vans run by SMEs and charities."

A spokesperson for London food charity The Felix Project told Byline Times: "We're proud to rescue high-quality surplus food and redistribute it to Londoners who need it most. In central London we do this with a fleet of electric vans so that we can contribute to cleaner air and our shared net zero journey. Every penny we spend on operational costs is a penny we aren't spending on helping Londoners, so this new charge of over £3,000 for each of our electric vans is very concerning."

Raj Singh, director of charity at Thomas Franks, a group supporting disadvantaged children and young people, added: "Charities provide a vital lifeline to the cities most vulnerable. We urge the Mayor to take us into consideration when making this decision."

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

Responding to the concerns, a Transport for London spokesperson said: "The Congestion Charge has been in place since its introduction in 2003 to manage traffic and congestion in the central one per cent of London during the busiest times of day.

"Without the changes proposed in our consultation, the charge would become less effective, with an estimated additional 2,200 vehicles in the zone on an average weekday. Under these proposals, we are proposing a new Cleaner Vehicle Discount (CVD) for those who need to drive in the zone to do so in the cleanest vehicles possible."

The spokesperson added that under the new s...