Support Our Mission

Read Our Latest Edition

BYLINE TIMES IMPACT: Find out about the changes you made happen

A French parliamentary inquiry has described the UK-France border deal as "irrational, ineffective and dangerous", warning of its consequences for human rights.

The inquiry, which was published last month, is the first democratic evaluation of the UK-France border deal since the initial Le Touquet agreement, which allows UK border checks to be carried out on French soil and French checks in the UK, came into force in 2004.

The findings have highlighted the violent consequences of the policies implemented in northern France. The inquiry found current border policy to be "irrational from a democratic standpoint, dangerous for human rights, and ineffective regarding their stated objectives".

The inquiry has recommended stopping the use of tear gas against children and vulnerable people, as well as addressing the severe living conditions experienced by migrants at the border, such as insufficient access to shelter, sanitation and other fundamental rights.

Katie Hall, advocacy lead at Project Play, a charity that supports families and children in northern France, responded to the report's findings:

"The conclusions of the French inquiry confirm what we see every day – a situation of violence and inhumanity manufactured by a politics devoid of empathy, funded in no small part by UK taxpayers."

The inquiry also found that no public record had been kept of how money from the UK had been spent. This means that since 2018, there are no accounts of how £648 million of UK taxpayers' money has been spent.

Ms Hall added: "The UK Government's obsession with borders to distract attention from their failures at home is leading to taxpayers funding serious human rights abuses against men, women and children – with zero transparency about how that money is used."

Given that the UK Government is set to spend a further £660 million over the next three-year period ending in 2029, the report calls for "greater transparency of data" to ensure "democratic control".

Despite the inquiry's strong condemnation of UK-funded policy, the report has received little coverage in UK mainstream media.

Since the time of this article's publication, mainstream outlets such as BBC News, Sky News, Channel 4 News, the Guardian, the Telegraph or the Times have not reported on the inquiry.

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

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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.

Since the first agreement in 2004, at least 444 people have died attempting to cross the Channel, including at least 54 children.

Despite increasing investment from the UK Government into border security, the frequency of deaths in the Channel has been growing in recent years.

Since the previous deal in 2023, when then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak agreed a £460 million pact with French President Emmanuel Macron, there have been at least 146 deaths and missing persons recorded in the Channel, according to Calais Appeal.

Figures compiled by the Centre for Sociodigital Futures at the University of Bristol and Swiss research agency Border Forensics have revealed that deaths in the Channel have risen alongside an increase in spending on border securitisation.

Travis Van Isacker, research fellow at the Centre for Sociodigital Futures, told the Independent the significance of these findings:

"These distinct but entangled border policing practices have had the cumulative effect of creating more dangerous circumstances for migrants.

"They have shown state policies to prevent small boat crossings as being a clear driver in the increased number of deaths amongst migrants in the Channel."

The research also argued that increased French policing, a result of t...

Support Our Mission

Read Our Latest Edition

BYLINE TIMES IMPACT: Find out about the changes you made happen

The USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) has been making headlines for all the wrong reasons. After over 260 days without a port visit, and 6 months on station off the coast of Iran, there are reports that sailors are dealing with inoperative toilets, washing machines, and showers. The "heads" (bathrooms) are covered in mildew and black mold. The food is disgusting and portion sizes suggest a starvation diet. The Lincoln and the USS Boxer have also supposedly run out of hygiene products like soap, toothpaste, shampoo, and menstrual products. Conditions are so bad that sailors have attempted suicide by throwing themselves off the ship: the 60-foot fall from the flight deck to the water has the potential to cause serious injuries.

The response of the Pentagon was to deny only the most outlandish claims, but not the ones published in the Navy Times and Stars and Stripes. President Trump when asked whether the Lincoln had been left on station for too long, responded in his inimitable way that the there were no problems, and that the deployment wasn't "nearly long enough."

There have been people on social media criticising these sailors for being "soft" or weak, but from a historical perspective what they are being subjected to is unprecedented: this is six straight months of combat operations without a port visit, while at the far end of a stretched logistics pipeline.

During the Vietnam War, individual continuous stints "on the line" at Yankee Station typically lasted around 30 to 35 days before a carrier headed to a port like Subic Bay in the Philippines for maintenance and rest. However, individual milestones were pushed further— for instance, the USS Ranger (CVA-61) set a notable historical benchmark when it spent a then-record 59 continuous days on Yankee Station in March 1965.

Prior to the USS Abraham Lincoln's modern record-breaking stretch, the longest consecutive period a US aircraft carrier had gone without a port visit was 206 days, set by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, these were not combat operations. Which leads to the second part of the problem for sailors on a carrier in combat operations: which is crew rest.

The US Navy surface and submarine fleet has long had a problem with working people beyond the point of exhaustion. During an Operational Reactor Safeguard Exam (ORSE) on board the USS Augusta in 1995, I was working 36 on, 6 off, on 6-hour shifts for two weeks because I wasn't allowed to sleep during the "day" when drills were going on, and that meant that I only got to sleep every other night effectively. At the end of that time frame, I was a hollow-eyed zombie that routinely fell asleep standing up.

The Navy determined that fatigue was a major cause in the collisions at sea of the USS John S. McCain and USS Fitzgerald in two separate incidents in the 2010s. These mishaps occurred after only a few weeks' worth of time at sea and the accumulated fatigue. The crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln has been working 18-hour shifts for at least 6 months, if not longer. The fact that combat operations, general quarters, drills, threats of Iranian attack, and other disruptors mean that even this brutal schedule is likely being routinely disrupted. I cannot even begin to imagine the level of tiredness these people are facing, and neither can you: no one has ever had a deployment like this before.

Fatigue is not just a symptom of depression; severe physical and mental exhaustion can actively drive depressive states and increase suicide risk. Chronic exhaustion impairs brain function, lowers coping capacity, and makes life feel unmanageable, which deeply amplifies feelings of hopelessness and suicidal ideation. The conditions on the ship only make it worse.

Ships haven't been meant to spend 9 months away from port, even in the age of sail. When I deployed to the Gulf on ...

Support Our Mission

Read Our Latest Edition

BYLINE TIMES IMPACT: Find out about the changes you made happen

A Reform council has descended into a series of resignations, email leaks and lurid allegations – as a councillor quit the party over the leader allegedly mocking mental health as "woke."

Former Reform councillor Kenny Hope – now sitting as an independent – alleges that Durham's Reform council leader Andrew Husband said "mental health is woke" during an April 2026 cabinet working group meeting, while two cabinet members are said to have opened wine and one vaped.

Another former Reform councillor – again now sitting as an independent – Cllr Kate Rowland, said a Reform meeting "includ[ed] drinking wine at 3:30 in the afternoon, vaping openly, laughing, joking, showing blatant disinterest, and belittling mental health."

"[It] showed an appalling lack of seriousness," she claimed, in council-wide emails shared with Byline Times.

Leader Cllr Andrew Husband told this outlet: "I stated Virtue Signalling about mental health in such a way is woke". He did not deny branding some of his colleagues "narcissists".

On Tuesday, emails flew around to all councillors between the Reform leader and his own councillors – and former members – concerned about the handling of complaints and the leadership's attitude to mental health issues.

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

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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.

Amid a flurry of personal attacks, on Wednesday, Cllr Husband wrote to councillors: "This is a request to quit the spamming. The three amigos [former Reform councillors] have now had multiple warnings about abusing this platform. I will be reaching out to individual group leaders to put this nonsense to bed.

"I suggest training for those who don't understand how local government works."

He added: "Rest assured the Reform leak has been found so business as usual. These people can't even leak properly."

"I will be asking the council to conduct a risk assessment of this abnormal behaviour, for the benefit of members to safeguard against such levels of harassment that we are experiencing. It seems that no lessons have been learned from last month's embarrassing behaviour."

Responding to the claims at the heart of the dispute, Cllr Husband continued: "'Mental health is woke?' Random. I mean who even says that?

"What is 'woke' is weaponising the mental health card in a standards process to try and call out officer conduct and behaviour. With no powers or local government legislation to underpin this – a fruitless exercise that results in a complete episode of virtue signalling.

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

"Virtue signalling in politics is woke. Google it. I stand by my advice which (previous) standards ignored."

A vote of no confidence has now been called by one of the former Reform councillors, Cllr Kenny Hope. Cllr Husband told councillors: "Good luck getting two parties to support this farce.

"Regardless, I will enjoy the challenge should it reach the chamber."

He also claimed on X Cllr Hope was a "bitter ex reform misfit who was suspended [and] now Restore wannabe nut job."

On Thursday morning, the Chief Executive also reportedly sent an email to the all-members distribution list telling councillors their behaviour was unacceptable.

The saga follows a row over how a Reform councillor (an independent at the time), Cllr Paul Sexton, was cleared over bullying and harassment claims by a panel with a Reform majority. The one non-Reform councillor on the panel is understood to have found he breached the member's code this January, following a drawn-out process going back to at least 2023.

There were four complaints about his alleged treatment of council officers in 2023. However, th...

Support Our Mission

Read Our Latest Edition

BYLINE TIMES IMPACT: Find out about the changes you made happen

Unions have launched a campaign to defend the "freedom of libraries and librarians" from anti-LGBT+ political interference following a spate of clampdowns by Reform-run councils.

In recent months, Reform councillors in the Midlands counties of Staffordshire and Warwickshire have sought to reduce the visibility of LGBTQ+ books and other materials in local libraries.

In Staffordshire, library staff have reportedly been instructed not to celebrate Pride and to remove Pride-related displays, events and communications. A spokesperson for the council told this outlet a decision to "review and refocus the use of discretionary library display space" was made by the Reform Cabinet member for culture.

"Whilst the review takes place, all displays that do not promote the core library offer or wider council services have been paused or removed. This has included Pride displays but applies to all other discretionary displays too. No books or materials have been removed from library stock, and LGBTQ+ titles and resources remain available to borrow as part of the wider library offer," the spokesperson said.

In Warwickshire, the Reform council leader has criticised librarians wearing LGBT+ Pride rainbow lanyards, and displays of books he claims promote "gender ideology". He indicated that new policies for libraries and other public spaces are being developed.

It comes as a new report from the Trades Union Congress (TUC), 'LGBT+ Workers – threats to workplace equality and community inclusion', sets out the scale of political hostility to LGBT+ events on Reform-run councils – despite continued public support for diversity and LGBT+ rights.

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

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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.

It finds strong public support for maintaining key workplace rights and equality protections. YouGov polling for the report, exclusively seen by Byline Times, suggests 77% of Brits support retaining provisions in the Employment Rights Act 2025 requiring employers to take "all reasonable steps" to prevent sexual harassment and introducing protections from third-party harassment, while 74% support retaining the Equality Act 2010 which enshrines LGBT+ rights in law.

"Support for these protections exceeded support for repeal across the wider public, including among Reform voters," the TUC analysis notes.

In February 2026, Reform's Deputy Leader and business spokesperson Richard Tice announced plans for a 'Great Repeal Act'. If passed, t would repeal "key legislation that provides workers with fundamental protections," the TUC says, including the Employment Rights Act 2025 and the Equality Act 2010.

The union body states: "If Reform were to enact their 'Great Repeal Act' it would remove a range of employment rights, including sick pay, bereavement leave, pregnancy protections and protections against discrimination at work. They could also allow the return of fire-and-rehire practices.

"These are not simply regulations; they are hard-won rights that help make work fairer, more secure and more equal."

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

Reform has pledged to introduce a "Women and Motherhood Protection Act" to replace some lost rights, but the details so far are sparse.

The majority of LGBT+ respondents (around 300) to the YouGov poll believed that repealing the Equality Act and Human Rights Act would negatively affect LGBT+ workers and lead to "increases in discrimination, bullying, harassment and exclusion at work, alongside wider impacts on mental health, confidence, physical health and work performance."

The report notes that Reform-run councils such as Durham and Warwickshire were ...

Support Our Mission

Read Our Latest Edition

BYLINE TIMES IMPACT: Find out about the changes you made happen

Successive Government clampdowns on the right to protest have had a "chilling effect", human rights campaigners have warned, as large parts of the UK remain in a state of drought, and wildfires continue to rage.

The human rights organisation Liberty argues that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the Public Order Act 2023, and the Crime and Policing Act 2026 have significantly curtailed the capacity of the climate movement to participate in protest and other forms of direct action.

The Acts include various new restrictions on protest and impose much harsher sentences for people who break these laws. For instance, people found to be in breach of the Public Order Act can also face unlimited fines.

In July 2024, five Just Stop Oil activists were sentenced to four to five years for conspiracy to cause a public nuisance under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, after discussing an M25 protest on Zoom. Following an appeal supported by Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace UK, the court found the sentences "manifestly excessive" and reduced them.

Hundreds more have been arrested for taking part in climate protests.

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

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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 most recent Home Office data on the use of protest powers was published earlier this year and found that since 2022, around 90% of the protests with police restrictions applied to them were 'environment' related.

Liberty has also raised concerns that the Crime and Policing Act 2026 was rushed through before the publication of Lord Macdonald's Independent Review of Public Order and Hate Crime Legislation, which was commissioned by Keir Starmer's Government and is expected to make key recommendations on reforming protest laws.

The campaigners argue that protest is critical to a healthy democracy and are urging the new Prime Minister to "change course" from previous governments.

A recent Ipsos poll showed that 74% of Britons are concerned about climate change following a severe heatwave summer, up from 69% before the summer.

In an interview with Byline Times, Melissa Dring, interim head of policy and campaigns at Liberty, said a spate of anti-protest laws have "layered on new restrictions, new offences and new penalties" onto protestors – from arrest and imprisonment to electronic tagging and unlimited fines in some circumstances – as well as giving police new powers to enforce the law.

"We've ended up with quite a confusing situation, both for protesters and for the police in terms of enforcing it. It's difficult for people to know how to protest in a way that is within the bounds of the law, how to do so lawfully and safely. That's why we say it has become harder and riskier for people to protest," she said.

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

The recent Crime and Policing Act is now in force, giving police the power to designate an area as a mask-free zone, so that no one is allowed to wear a face covering within it.

Dring said: "There was a defence inserted for health, religious and work purposes – but it's a defence, not an exemption. That means anyone who does wear a mask, for example for health purposes, and happens to be in an area designated as a mask-free zone, can be arrested, and only then, at charging stage or even at court, can they use that defence and say, 'Well, I was wearing a mask for health reasons.'"

Other anti-protest laws – passed under both the Conservatives and Labour in recent years – mean "there's a clear line to be drawn between those new restrictions and why we're not seeing really big environmental protests," according to Liberty.

The non-...

Support Our Mission

Read Our Latest Edition

BYLINE TIMES IMPACT: Find out about the changes you made happen

On Friday 31 July, Andy Burnham made history, even if he did so in his trademark style. He triggered a process that points in a genuinely radical direction. Yet its destination remains unmapped and uncertain, leaving potential supporters broadly sympathetic yet sceptical.

He was speaking in Sheffield. The occasion was the launch of his far-reaching, seven-page Cabinet Statement that proposes to decentralise power across England. It promises legislation that will empower regional mayors to raise their own income as well as having a share of tax revenues as a right. Its ambition is to "fundamentally re-wire the way our country works". The Prime Minister acknowledged that the Cabinet paper points towards "a new constitutional settlement" and "will increase the case for … a written constitution", and "a new clear set of principles about how this country should be run."

In saying this Burnham unlocked the safety-catch on the fundamental feature of British rule: that the totality of its arrangements remains uncodified and informal. A feature that ensures our government belongs to those who govern us and not to the people as citizens.

It's important to say that Burnham did not pull the trigger. But until that July day, no British prime minister when in office has ever endorsed the possibility of a "written constitution" in a positive fashion – a fact which makes this a watershed moment.

Indeed, from what I can work out, no prime minister when in office ever used the phrase 'written constitution' until 1989, when Margaret Thather was obliged to respond to a letter sent to her from the constitutional and electoral reform campaign group Charter 88. Its lead signature was Lady Ewart Biggs. I should admit that I drafted it.

Having been on Reform UK's target list as a winnable seat, Andy Burnham's new constituency is a microcosm of Brexit Britain and the failed legacies of Thatcher and Blair. Peter Jukes and Hardeep Matharu paid a visit ahead of its seminal by-election

Peter Jukes and Hardeep Matharu

Our request: "Basic rights to be entrenched in law; accountable and open government; electoral reform; regional power and a written constitution."

Thatcher replied that, "The government consider that our present constitutional arrangements continue to serve us well…" with her unmistakable sense of a Royal 'we'. She added: "the government does not feel that a written constitution in itself changes or guarantees anything: Everything depends on how constitutional guarantees, whether written or unwritten, are interpreted and applied in daily life." An important observation I will return to.

Prime Minister Burnham faces a barrel-full of major issues: economic, diplomatic, military, environmental and social. Why should he add to these by unleashing the historic process of a written constitution? What is the problem to which it is the answer?

The problem has three parts: First, how do we decentralise the British state to release and empower regional judgment and creativity? Or, to put it negatively, how do we stop what is now the husk of an Empire State throttling our democracy in the all-too-familiar way it is programmed to do? Second, how do we protect and enhance our rights and freedom as citizens? Or, to put it negatively, how do we reverse the attacks on, for example, our right to protest, to privacy on the internet, and to vote? Third, and crucially, how do we restore popular consent to how we are governed?

All constitutions, whether written or not, contain the rules for changing the rules. In so doing they establish three things:

1. Relations of power between different part of society: who can do what to whom

2. The liberty and rights of citizens

3. What kind of society the country aspires to be

The British state is undergoing a breakdown on all three fronts. Burnham seems most concerned about the first. Many activists care most abo...

Support Our Mission

Read Our Latest Edition

BYLINE TIMES IMPACT: Find out about the changes you made happen

The death of Jason Arday has prompted an uncomfortable question for British journalism: when does legitimate scrutiny become something cruel and destructive?

The 41-year-old resigned from Cambridge University as Professor of Sociology of Education after allegations of plagiarism and questions about aspects of his public biography. Arday denied plagiarism, while acknowledging errors in his work.

He described "an unrelenting level of public scrutiny and personal attack", saying that the "relentless accusations, speculation and public commentary have taken a profound toll on me and on those I love".

In the days before his death, friends described a man overwhelmed by what had happened.

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, director of Cambridge University's Autism Research Centre, said that Arday told him "they've destroyed my life". He said that "the personal attacks on him have been so immense".

Academic and author Kehinde Andrews said that Arday "felt that there was no way out".

Arday's family has said that a "campaign of misinformation" became too much for him.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan described what happened as "an unacceptable public hounding and campaign of abuse" – "a pernicious public shaming".

The Prime Minister called for "a moment for reflection".

In that reflection, perhaps we might contemplate the author George Eliot's comment that "cruelty, like every other vice, requires no motive outside itself; it only requires opportunity". And there was plenty of cruelty; white hacks lining up to outdo each other in their cruelty towards Arday.

The volume and tone of the attacks on the man were quite shocking.

There is no check to fetter power when unfettered power resides in the check

Hardeep Matharu

In the fortnight before his death, the Spectator published a succession of articles in which its writers repeatedly turned Jason Arday into an object of personal ridicule.

On 31 July, Toby Young wrote that "the more I read about Jason Arday… the more convinced I am he's [Sacha Baron Cohen's] greatest creation". He later imagined him as an "Ali G-like character".

On 6 August, John Power penned a purported fact-check of Arday as a guide to the claims of "our modern-day Walter Mitty".

That same week, the Spectator's Commissioning Editor Lara Brown described Arday as a "charlatan" and wrote that "even in the world of racial grievance peddling, Arday was mediocre".

On 10 August, Owen Matthews called him "the serial fantasist poster cry-bully of our times" and dismissed his work as "twaddle". That same day, Peter Wood put Arday in the tradition of "imposters", "tricksters", and "cozeners".

On 11 August, Julie Burchill called him "daft Jason Arday" and "the nutty professor".

Together, it took on the appearance of a gang of leering, bullying faces crowded over a cowed man, each eager to be the next to weigh in, each finding clever ways to turn their anger and violence into something that might, in a London salon, sound even witty.

Clearly, it wasn't to Jason Arday.

To add injury to their insult, the Spectator published a piece after it was announced that Arday's body had been found with the headline 'The tragedy of Jason Arday.' In it, Melanie McDonagh said that "in death we all should be remembered in our humanity, even in our flawed humanity. And Jason Arday was very human; he bled". She did not note that it was the Spectator that was there doing the stabbing, the cutting, the slashing, and the gouging.

It was not just The Spectator.

In the three weeks before Jason Arday's death, the Telegraph published dozens of articles, columns, and news reports about him.

"Cambridge's diversity poster boy in plagiarism row" on 24 July.

"The Cambridge fantasist is proof that stupid intellectuals…" on 4 August.

"Jason Arday reflects a much deeper rot within universities" on 5 August.

"Jason Arday is living proof that you reap what you sow" on 6 Aug...

Support Our Mission

Read Our Latest Edition

BYLINE TIMES IMPACT: Find out about the changes you made happen

Jason Arday, a 41-year-old academic who resigned as Cambridge's Professor of Sociology of Education, was found dead on Friday following intense scrutiny of many aspects of his qualifications and personal life by the majority of the established press.

His coordinated targeting by an explicitly anti-black race science network did not come out of nowhere, Byline Times can reveal.

Backed by the pro-Trump Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel, this network has spent a decade penetrating Cambridge University before reaching Reform UK, Restore Britain, and the pan-European far-right.

This phase of the campaign against Jason Arday began when academic and anti-black racist Nathan Cofnas raised claims of plagiarism in Arday's work in a Substack post last month.

The story it fuelled was then dissected in more than 200 articles across the majority of the British press in the weeks that followed, both in print and online.

It was striking that many of these articles did not acknowledge that the central accusations were being made by a man who believes that inherited racial differences make black people less intelligent and would leave black people absent from virtually every elite position in public life outside of sport and entertainment.

They also did not mention that Cofnas had used the terms "retarded", "illiterate", and "mentally disabled" to describe Jason Arday, while noting that he was "black".

Cofnas said that an unidentified male Cambridge faculty member had supplied him with information about Arday. Before even examining Arday's PhD thesis, completed at Liverpool John Moores University, Cofnas had dismissed him as "just another DEI hire", referring to 'Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion' schemes.

At the ideological centre of the network is Aporia, an online magazine which serves as the public-facing arm of the Human Diversity Foundation – now known as Polygenic Scores.

The Human Diversity Foundation was a rebranded and relaunched version of the Nazi-era Pioneer Fund, which sought to mainstream its eugenics doctrines through Aporia.

Tech billionaire Peter Thiel has cultivated ties to key actors in this network: to Cambridge Professor James Orr, through whom he channelled a donation to Cambridge; to Orr's Cambridge circle; to online magazine Quillette which published attacks on Arday; and directly to Nathan Cofnas and Aporia senior editor Noah Carl.

Orr linked this infrastructure to politics. Reform UK's Head of Policy, and an advisor to the Free Speech Union organisation, he invited Aporia into national conservatism.

At The Sanctuary, a right-wing hub in Westminster, the Orr-backed Cambridge Scrutonian Society has an office provided by crypto-billionaire Ben Delo; while Aporia is able to book spaces for events there through the venue's internal booking system.

Delo gave Reform £4 million in early 2026. He has also sponsored the Free Speech Union.

By understanding this network and its ideology, a more accurate picture can be developed of the motivations behind the disproportionate attacks on Jason Arday that continued even after his resignation from Cambridge University.

On 21 July, Nathan Cofnas published the article which launched the campaign against Jason Arday.

Titled 'DEI Fraud and Cover-Up at Cambridge', he portrayed Arday's appointment to Cambridge University in 2023 as evidence that it had "grabbed a random black person" and abandoned academic standards in pursuit of diversity.

On 9 August, Cofnas said that a male faculty member at Cambridge University – who he said he was not allowed to name – had contacted him on 13 June with information about Jason Arday. He referred to this person as a whistleblower who feared professional retaliation.

Cofnas then examined Arday's PhD thesis and published his allegations about alleged plagiarism.

Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) had already formally tested the central ...

Support Our Mission

Read Our Latest Edition

BYLINE TIMES IMPACT: Find out about the changes you made happen

In February 2025, Reform's then-Chairman Zia Yusuf wrote: "We are pleased to announce that, as promised, Nigel Farage has handed over ownership of Reform UK to its members.

"Reform UK is now a non-profit, with no shareholders, limited by guarantee."

Previously, Nigel Farage literally owned Reform UK. He held the vast majority of shares, in a highly unusual arrangement for a political party.

Farage pledged to change that. The party remains a company, but the majority-shareholder model is gone, and a formal constitution, member conferences, and voting rights are now in place. Up to a point.

Byline Times has got hold of a copy of Reform UK's constitution, adopted in September last year, and it shows that Reform UK is still not the member democracy its leading lights have suggested.

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

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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 resolution adopting Reform's new constitution states that it "robustly democratises participation within the party by the membership."

What the actual constitution itself suggests however is that Reform UK is a DINO – Democracy in Name Only.

While the new governing document introduced a party Board, containing (some) elected members, and formalised member ballots for the leadership, Nigel Farage retains an extraordinary degree of power.

Some of the arrangements will be familiar to frustrated members of other parties. Motions carried at Reform's conference are advisory only, and simply have to be discussed by the Board.

Members vote in internal elections – but those are at the whim of the party Board. Article 4.3 of the constitution notes the Board has absolute discretion over party ballots.

But the democratic sheen comes off completely when we look at how Farage could be removed. The answer is: it's almost impossible.

To call an emergency general meeting or to issue a vote of no confidence in the leader, requires written requests to Farage's appointed Chairman, currently ex-Conservative MP Lee Anderson, from at least 50% of all members "in good standing" (There is another mechanism to call such a vote, but only once Reform has over 100 MPs).

Reform has around 270,000 members, according to recent tallies, meaning around 135,000 members would have to write to Anderson, within 60 days, to demand a no-confidence vote in the Chairman's boss.

Imagine, if you will, Lee Anderson combing through 135,000 hand-written letters and deciding if each of the writers are a) members and b) in 'good standing'.

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

Members are deemed of 'good standing' if their subscriptions are up to date, they are not subject to any suspension or exclusion by the party, and they owe no debts to the party older than 30 days and more than £100.

The leader-appointed Chairman has extensive powers over what counts as 'good standing'. He can refuse new membership and renewals, revoke membership in specified circumstances, exercise emergency disciplinary powers "in cases of exceptional gravity and urgency", suspend candidates (subject to Board approval after the fact), oversee the membership database and exercise overall responsibility for party organisation.

The Discipline Committee of the Board, composed of serving members, calls most of the shots on member suspensions or expulsions – and it is chaired by the party secretary. That role is appointed by Nigel Farage. (There is an appeals process which is more independent, for those who want to keep fighting).

Should a no-confidence motion in Farage be called – after meeting that impossibly-high bar – the decision goes to the Board.

Farage sits on that Board, and there's no requ...

Support Our Mission

Read Our Latest Edition

BYLINE TIMES IMPACT: Find out about the changes you made happen

The Department for Health and Social Care has launched a legal challenge against Uniserve for tens of millions of pounds, claiming the company, which has close ties to the Conservative party, supplied 11 million faulty gowns during the pandemic.

The legal action comes as new documents obtained by Byline Times, reveal how Uniserve, and a Conservative MP linked to the company, successfully lobbied ministers to push through the deal, which ultimately left the Government tens of millions of pounds worth of unusable PPE.

The deal was hugely controversial due to the involvement of a Conservative peer and the fact that the firm owns an office complex which houses the constituency office of Conservative Party MP and ex-Cabinet Office minister Julia Lopez.

The company, owned by businessman Iain Liddell, prides itself on being the "UK's leading logistics & global trade management provider.

However, despite the company having no track record of supplying PPE to the NHS, they were awarded multiple contracts in 2020 to provide vast quantities of masks, gloves, aprons, face shields and goggles.

Uniserve saw its turnover and profits surge during the pandemic as a result of the contracts, which generated payments of £1.15 billion from the DHSC, up to April 2023.

The contracts, valued at £303 million, were made possible after Conservative peer and Cabinet Office minister, Lord Agnew referred Uniserve onto the so-called 'VIP lane' for preferential contracts.

It was subsequently discovered that huge volumes of PPE supplied by Uniserve under these deals were not fit for purpose. According to data obtained by Spotlight on Corruption, 182 million items of PPE supplied by Uniserve, totalling £178.5 million were assigned into the 'do not supply' category.

Uniserve was also handed a £572m contract in March 2020 to provide freight services to the DHSC. The deal required the firm to assist the Government in delivering PPE located in China and South-East Asia to the UK and included the management of sea freight arriving at Felixstowe – where container storage was causing a major headache for officials due to the shear volume of PPE ordered by the DHSC.

A spokesperson for Uniserve said they procure products for customers, and had a global network of contacts that specialise in PPE. "We did not actively sell our procurement services to the DHSC, we were asked to help".

New documents released to Byline Times following a lengthy Freedom of Information battle with the Cabinet Office can reveal the true extent of the political lobbying between Conservative party Ministers and Uniserve in the build-up to the huge VIP lane deals being awarded.

Despite having no track record of supplying PPE, the lucrative deals were awarded to Uniserve without any competition. The company does however share the same address as former Cabinet Office Minister Julia Lopez MP and is based in her constituency.

Liddell and Lopez, who continues to rent an office space from Uniserve, spent years denying they were in contact with each other regarding the PPE deals, in 2020 Uniserve explicitly told reporters at the Guardian, "Uniserve or Mr Liddell were never in contact with Julia Lopez regarding bidding for these contracts." A statement echoed by the then Conservative-controlled Cabinet Office. However in late 2025 the pair finally came clean and admitted that they were in email contact prior to the VIP lane deals being awarded.

Lopez declined to explain to the Guardian whether or not she acted on Liddell's email.

However, for the first time, Byline Times can reveal what happened next.

By March 2020 DHSC and Uniserve were already in discussion over the transportation of medical goods, however attention soon turned to the supply of PPE.

Uniserve lobbied Lopez on 02 April 2020, complaining that PPE procurement needed "serious thought" and officials were "taking too long" to deal...