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

A Labour MP has accused the Environment Secretary of misleading Parliament for claiming that nationalising the water sector in England would cost £100 billion for the Treasury.

The figure amounts to roughly the annual spend of the Department for Education, though nationalisation would be a one-off move.

On Monday in the House of Commons, Labour's Environment Sec Steve Reed brushed off Labour left-winger Clive Lewis' call to nationalise the water sector, in a debate on the landmark Cunliffe Review into the scandal-hit industry.

Reed said: "We have to take a rational, not ideological, approach to tackling this problem. Nationalising the water companies would cost £100 billion.

"Those are not figures, as I have seen my honourable friend claim, from the water companies; they are provided by officials in my Department under the influence of nobody externally."

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

He added: "To pay that money - £100 billion - we would have to take it away from public services, such as the national health service and education, to hand it to the owners of the companies that have been polluting our waterways. That makes no sense to me and it makes no sense to the public. Frankly, I am surprised that it makes any sense to him."

The Department for the Environment, Food, Rural Affairs (Defra) has now confirmed to Byline Times that the Government is using the (soon to be abolished) regulator Ofwat's Regulatory Capital Value (RCV) calculations as the basis for monitoring the cost of nationalising the sector.

Ofwat's latest figures for water companies in England and Wales put the RCV of the sector at around £106 billion, at the end of the 2024/25 financial year.

Defra says the RCV reflects the value of water companies' assets and therefore provides a 'reliable cost' for any change in ownership, including moving to a nationalised model.

The independent Consumer Council for Water has previously come to a similar conclusion.

But Norwich South Labour MP Clive Lewis says the figures are misleading - because they do not account for the amount of financial distress the water companies are facing, or what shareholders could be forced to accept.

The RCV value of Thames Water, according to Ofwat, is currently £21 billion.

But the firm is on the brink of collapse and could be taken over by ministers under a so-called Special Administration Regime, a form of temporary nationalisation.

Only in June private equity firm KKR pulled out of a £4bn rescue bid to acquire a major stake. Thames Water is in £20bn of debt despite siphoning billions of pounds to shareholders in recent years. (Thames Water was also revealed as England's worst polluter this month, with the firm responsible for 33 or the 75 most serious pollution incidents last year.)

Clive Lewis told Byline Times the Environment Secretary was being "naughty" and "misleading" with the figures, adding that "I wouldn't say [he's] lying, but misleading.""

For Steve Reed to value water nationalisation at £100 billion, he's also valuing Thames Water at £21 billion. It's for the birds. He got away with that, and repeatedly used that figure."

The Ofwat/Defra figures echo that of a 2018 Social Market Foundation report which produced almost the same price-tag for nationalisation. The report was sponsored by Anglian Water, Severn Trent, South West Water and United Utilities.

Lewis plans to put in a point of order when Parliament returns in September, to challenge Reed.

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 ...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

On Tuesday night, in the largest public demonstration since Russia's full-scale invasion began, thousands of Ukrainians took to the streets of the capital to protest against a controversial new law that threatens to dismantle the country's hard-won anti-corruption infrastructure.

Earlier in the day Ukraine's Parliament voted 263 to 13 (with 13 abstentions) to pass the bill, which brings the nation's two leading anti-corruption institutions under the direct authority of Ukraine's Prosecutor General. Holding handmade placards with slogans like "No Corruption in government," protestors urged Zelenskyy to veto the law and to refuse to sign his assent to it. Many were shocked when, in the evening, while the protests were ongoing, Zelenskyy ratified the bill with his signature.

Power Grab

The bill was initially unrelated to the work of the anti-corruption organisations and focused on "the specifics of pre-trial investigations" related to the disappearance of missing persons in Ukraine. However, its scope was radically altered by unexpected amendments introduced at the last minute during a second reading on Tuesday morning, which pulled the anti-corruption agencies into the bill's purview according to sources inside the Parliament.

The amended bill confers broad new powers on Ukraine's Prosecutor General, a political appointee chosen directly by the President, and grants him wide-ranging authority over the country's two independent anti-corruption agencies. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), created as an independent agency following the Euromaidan Revolution of 2014, is responsible for pre-trial investigations of members of Parliament, Government officials, prosecutors, and leaders of the National Bank.

It passes cases to the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutors Office (SAPO), which oversees investigations and prosecutions, representing the state when cases are brought to trial. Freedom from Government influence and exclusive jurisdiction over cases have been vital cornerstones of both NABU and SAPO's independence - as well as the agencies' ability to actually bring cases.

'What Trump's Ukraine U-Turn Really Tells Us About His Psychology'

Trump's shift from betraying Ukraine to turning on Putin reveals a lot about the man and his Presidency, argues George Llewelyn

George Llewelyn

Under the new powers granted by the bill, the Prosecutor General has the authority to appoint and dismiss SAPO prosecutors, to order it to close investigations into top-ranking "Category A" officials and to take over plea negotiations with those who are charged. The Prosecutor General also gains access to NABU with the power to issue mandatory instructions to both agencies, including compelling NABU to hand over materials uncovered during investigations and to reassign cases to other law enforcement agencies under the direct control of the Government.

For example, the case of former Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) employee and advisor to the President's Office, Artem Shylo, who was accused in 2024 of embezzling funds from Ukraine's national rail company, could be reassigned to the SSU and overseen internally and without scrutiny.

According to Transparency International, Zelenskyy's signing the bill into law takes meaningful power out of the hands of the NABU and SAPO, bringing Ukraine's only independent anti-corruption agencies with the power to investigate and prosecute cases under the control of the President, who can, through the Prosecutor General, influence or even dismiss investigations and trials of corruption.

Why Now?

The addition of provisions which curtail the powers of Ukraine's independent anti-corruption bodies follows the formal naming of Deputy Prime Minister, Oleksii Chernyshov, as a suspect in a high-profile corruption case regarding a scheme in which a Kyiv propert...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Former MPs including Caroline Lucas are considering whether to appeal a landmark ruling from the European Court of Human Rights that (ECHR) which found the Government had not failed to investigate Russian interference in British politics.

Ex-MPs Ben Bradshaw (Labour), Caroline Lucas (Green Party) and Alyn Smith (SNP) brought a case to the ECHR against the UK Government, arguing that Russia has engaged in "widespread and pervasive" interference in democratic elections in the UK and across Europe.

They argued that the aggressive tactics included "weaponising disinformation" to undermine democratic institutions, deliberate cyber-attacks against key public bodies, including election infrastructure, "hack and leak" operations, and the use of "cyber troops" and "troll farms" to manipulate public discourse and to sow discord between social groups.

Lucas and the other then-MPs told the court there was no public body with the legal responsibility to prevent and combat foreign interference in UK elections, no legal obligation for online political advertisements to indicate who had paid for them (this has now changed), no legal requirement for social media companies to cooperate with security and intelligence agencies, no clear-cut ban on foreign donations to political parties, and no obligation on foreign state agents to register (again, this has since changed).

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

And they claimed that despite the existence of credible allegations that Russia sought to interfere in the United Kingdom's democratic processes, the Government "neither investigated those allegations nor put in place an effective legal and institutional framework" to protect against the risk of such interference.

The court accepted that if hostile state interference posed a real risk of impairing the "very essence" of free elections, Governments would be required to adopt "positive measures" to protect election integrity.

The court also found that states cannot remain "passive when faced with evidence that their democratic processes are under threat."

And the court found there was sufficient evidence of Russian interference of adequate intensity to make the case valid.

Despite this, on Tuesday (22nd July), the court also ruled that the Government had not violated its duties when it came to protecting electoral integrity.

And despite acknowledging "undoubtedly shortcomings in the Government's initial response," the court found the UK had conducted two "thorough and independent investigations" into foreign interference through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament which published the 'Russia Report' under Boris Johnson.

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.

Since the case was filed, three pieces of legislation were passed - the Elections Act 2022, National Security Act 2023 and Online Safety Act 2023 - which were supposedly meant to limit potential election meddling by foreign powers.

Ministers had also set up the Counter Disinformation Unit and Defending Democracy Taskforce to track and respond to the potential problem.

Caroline Lucas, now president of the European Movement, told Byline Times in an interview following the ruling: "It is significant that the European Court of Human Rights has said the right to free and fair elections is engaged in this case. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that free and fair electio...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The Charity Commission has issued an Official Warning to a British charity that raises funds for Israeli soldiers, citing serious governance failings after a fundraising video was found to contain distressing imagery - footage first exposed in a Byline Times investigation.

The regulator said the trustees of the UK Friends of the Association for the Wellbeing of Israel's Soldiers (UK-AWIS) had "breached their legal duties" by allowing a video to be published on its website and YouTube channel that appeared to show a person being killed. While a Commission review concluded the footage did not, in fact, show a killing, it found the content to be highly distressing and inappropriate for a UK-registered charity.

In January 2024, Byline Times first reported on the video, which included thermal imaging and a sequence appearing to show a Palestinian being hit by a munition moments after throwing an object. The video also featured airstrikes and combat footage that seemed to be in a style of material typically released by Israeli military sources.

Charity Commission Still Hasn't Concluded Investigation Into UK Charity One Year After Revelation It Raised Money for Israeli Soldiers Using Video of Killed Palestinians

The investigation was launched after Byline Times revealed the charity had potentially breached UK law

Iain Overton

The Commission - who register and regulate charities in England and Wales - found that the charity's trustees had also been "responsible for misconduct and/or mismanagement over failing to have any policies or procedures in place around the charity's website and social media platforms". The trustees had outsourced control of its website and social media to a former executive, and had failed to review or vet the video before publication.

"All of the trustees have failed to act in the Charity's best interests," the regulator said, "and manage its resources responsibly by exposing the Charity's reputation to unnecessary risk. This is a breach of trust or duty or misconduct and/ or mismanagement in the administration of the Charity."

As part of its enforcement action, the Commission has ordered UK-AWIS to conduct a full review of its digital content, implement a formal social media policy, and ensure its trustees have read and understood relevant regulatory guidance. The case remains open.

The charity's response to the investigation raises further questions of appropriate spending of charitable funds. Its most recent accounts show that it spent over £53,000 on legal and professional fees during the 2023-24 financial year, a sum attributed to the ongoing regulatory investigation to a person believed to be based in Israel. UK-AWIS no longer appears to maintain a public-facing website.

EXCLUSIVE

UK Charity Under Investigation as Fundraising Videos for Israeli Military Appear to Feature Palestinians Being Killed

Iain Overton investigates a UKAWIS video which is a source of concern for the Charity Commission

Iain Overton

Despite raising over £750,000 in donations last year, the Commission, however, found no evidence that funds were sent directly to the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). Previous donor materials seen by Byline Times promoted packages such as 'Adopt an IDF Combat Unit' and 'IDF Enlistment Festival' sponsorships.

In the last reported financial year, the company sent to The Association for the Wellbeing of Israeli Soldiers donations amounting to £468,625.

The person who made the formal complaint to the Commission about the video following Byline's reporting, but who wishes to remain anonymous, told this paper: "The Charity Commission must publish the full findings of its investigation. The International Criminal Court has stated it suspects the Israeli Defence Forces may be committing genocide."

"My original complaint demonstrated that UKAWIS is directl...

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-run council in West Northamptonshire is systematically removing all references to climate change and net zero from its strategies, website and documents, Byline Times can reveal - while simultaneously continuing to take Government cash for green projects.

The move follows the council scrapping its net zero targets, in a controversial decision last Wednesday that sparked local protests. The news was announced in an article in The Telegraph - around two hours before the actual decision had been voted on.

An email from the council's Chief Executive last Thursday (17th July), seen by this newspaper, states: "You may also be aware that a report went to last night's Cabinet taking forward the new administration's proposals to refocus the Council's work around sustainability and removing local net zero targets (for 2030 in the council and to support wider achievement by 2045) in favour of prioritising practical, high-impact projects.

"The report was subject to extensive debate and last night's meeting understandably drew a large amount of public interest and media coverage, but ultimately with [the Reform] Cabinet approving all the recommendations put forward."

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

And the internal memo reveals a drastic change in language for the local authority: "Following [the] decision, we will now be reviewing and updating our council's existing strategies in line with the agreed new approach, which will include practical steps such as reviewing and removing references to 'net zero' and referring to 'environmental impact' instead of 'climate impact' within our reports, policies and strategies to better reflect the broader focus."

Council staff were told: "Your support and involvement in helping us with this review will be really important as we now start to work on refocusing our sustainability approach."

But the authority has been accused of hypocrisy, as it will continue taking Government grants and cash for climate-related projects.

The Chief Executive notes: "I would like to emphasise that our Council is continuing with its wider sustainability work, still publishing our Annual Sustainability Report and will continue to work towards our environmental accreditation.

"We will also continue with projects that deliver long term savings like solar power and warm home initiatives. We will also develop and deliver a Sustainability Strategy and all services across our organisation will continue to play a key role in this work to protect and improve our local environment."

The Cabinet decision to scrap net zero targets has been 'called in' for review by a committee of councillors, so the row shows little sign of ending soon.

One opposition councillor said: "When are we burning the books? Because that's what "don't mention climate" is…It's nonsense.

"And that's extra effort, time and energy that people have now got to do just to put a different word in because they don't like the word "climate." It's so frustrating."

EXCLUSIVE

Reform's Darren Grimes Accused of Lying After Police Deny Telling Him Not to Hold Council Surgeries for 'Security' Reasons

EXCLUSIVE: Local police have rejected the Reform UK deputy council leader's claim that they advised him not to meet his constituents

Josiah Mortimer

And the councillor pointed to the figure at the millions Reform UK has taken from climate-change deniers and fossil fuel interests: "There's no coincidence, I don't think, that we're suddenly having to eradicate "net zero" and "climate" from everything, given who pays their bills…

"It's completely duplicitous to abolish net zero mentions while taking solar and warm homes cash," they added.

Another, Lib Dem Councillor Christine Ware, told the fiery Cabinet meeting on Wednesday: "Councils should be focusing their resources across those projects that p...

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 has now confirmed what many suspected: Britain's global priorities are shifting. A new Foreign Office report reveals that foreign aid spending will be slashed by 40%. The cuts will hit hardest in Africa, with children's education, women's health and access to clean water all facing steep reductions. Funding for the Occupied Palestinian Territories will fall by 21%, despite earlier assurances it would be protected. Officials have admitted that the decision was driven in part by pressure from Washington to increase defence spending.

This is not a mere budgetary adjustment. It reflects a deeper redefinition of what British power now means. Britain's 2025 Strategic Defence Review, launched last month, set out to redefine the UK's national power. The Ministry of Defence is being strengthened with fresh billions; the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is being hollowed out. Aid is no longer seen as strategy. It is collateral damage.

The numbers are unambiguous. Defence spending will rise to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, with ambitions for 3% in the next Parliament. That growth is already under way: £5 billion was injected into tech investment immediately after the SDR's publication. Other pots of money are being found for defence.

'Why We Need a Coordinated Media Revolution'

Alternative media platforms cannot thrive in a vacuum and policy reforms will not succeed without grassroots pressure, argues Tom Hardy

Tom Hardy

In contrast, aid spending is set to fall from 0.5% to 0.3% of Gross National Income. It is the lowest level since 1999 and comes at a time when aid funding is already under severe strain, increasingly diverted to cover the growing costs of supporting refugees and asylum seekers. In 2020, the UK spent £628m on such support within its borders; by 2024, that figure had surged to £2.8bn. In 2023, such support accounted for 43% of the UK's bilateral aid, which is intended to fund specific projects in developing countries. As the Government itself says, it is "putting the defence industry "at the heart" of its… industrial strategy".

A new Defence Industrial Joint Council - co-chaired by the Defence Secretary and BAE Systems' CEO - has replaced the older Defence Suppliers Forum. Private investors are now welcomed into procurement discussions. Trade unions are at the table, but so are firms like Palantir and venture capitalists from the NATO Innovation Fund. The new consensus: what benefits BAE benefits Britain.

It certainly does. In the last six months, BAE's share price rose 65%, up to 1,936.50p from 763.00p. Rolls-Royce surged more than 50% in the first half of 2025, its market cap surpassing £75 billion. The arms company Babcock International shares have more than doubled in value since January.

These are not speculative rallies. They reflect the surety of guaranteed public contracts. The MoD has committed to new submarines every 18 months. Six domestic munitions factories are being built. The UK's production of shells is, reportedly, to be up sixteen-fold within two years. Fat cat war capitalism hasn't seen it this good since before chunks of the Berlin wall were sold off as souvenirs.

Innovation is now less about societal good than it is about battlefield advantage. In January 2025, the UK launched the Janus Accelerator at Imperial College. Pitched as a crucible for dual-use technologies, its purpose is clear: selected as a NATO development site for 2026, Janus offers start-ups fast-track access to both military buyers with heavy cheque books and to light-touch investors. Its brief is not just to encourage invention, but to militarise it. In this way, civilian tech firms are encouraged to reshape into defence contractors. The dividing line between app developer and arms manufacturer seems increasingly blurred.

Cybersecurity, too, is being fol...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

At the epicentre of today's most urgent global crises - climate breakdown, rising inequality, war, and social division - stands a captured media.

Driven by political and industrial interests, and propelled by algorithmic manipulation, it amplifies deceitful narratives that serve the interests of its owners and sponsors.

Despite UN Special Rapporteur Elisa Morgera's calls to criminalise fossil fuel disinformation and condemn Israel's violations of international law, disinformation and denial emanating from the billionaire press and broadcast media have become so embedded in the public consciousness that they are blocking the urgent change needed for any chance of an equitable and survivable future.

Meanwhile, the failure of supposedly objective outlets to hold their rivals to account deepens the crisis. By refusing to call out bad faith reporting, they allow false narratives to take root and grow.

Disinformation spread by opinion pieces on behalf of vested interest groups, denying climate science on behalf of the oil-funded ideologues of Tufton Street think tanks, is in effect rubber-stamped by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), the complaints panel of which consists of the very editors of the newspapers most often under investigation.

FREE PREVIEW

From Z to X: How Russian Information Warfare Primed the World for Trump and Musk

"Money and information are the twin tactical nukes of modern politics" according to Steve Bannon. But the the seeds for this tech dystopia were sown more than a decade ago

Peter Jukes

In 2024, the Press Recognition Panel published a report censuring IPSO for never having issued a single fine, launched a standards investigation, or imposed significant sanctions on any publishers despite serious breaches of the Editors' Code of Practice.

Similarly, broadcast regulator Ofcom's chair Lord Grade has declared war against what he called "woke warrior apparatchiks", echoing the culture warriors of GB News described by Jennie King from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue as a "central hub" for climate scepticism in the British media".

Under such a regime, accountability is nothing more than a façade.

But a paradigm shift is, arguably, occurring.

Across the world, a decentralised 'movement-media' revolution is already underway. Independent newsrooms, climate-focused campaign groups, anti-racist platforms, and youth-led media justice movements are all pushing back; challenging narratives, building alternatives, and demanding reform.

Platforms such as The Voice and Black Ballad, campaigns to ban fossil fuel advertising such as Fossil Ad Ban and grassroots media literacy initiatives like Media Literacy Now are all evidence of this shift. But these efforts are too often siloed, limiting their collective power.

This is where Media Revolution comes in - not as a new organisation, but as a connective force to unify and amplify what is already happening and to bring the most affected, those systemically othered or ignored by the media, to the party.

Collaboration between the four core responses already driving media transformation is key:

Resisting: confronting harmful narratives and holding the media accountable.

Radicalising: reshaping public consciousness from the grassroots.

Replacement: the creation of independent, community-driven media platforms.

Regulation: demanding robust, independent oversight, free from political or corporate influence.

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

Positive responses to this initiative are growing from a wide range of media stakeholders, both mainstream and alternative.

Working closely with the Independent Media ...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Young people are failing to register to vote because they do not see politics as representing them, or offering anything substantive to their lives, a new report by MPs has warned.

The House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee found that eight million people did not register to vote at the last general election, many of whom were young people, contributing to the second lowest voter turnout since universal suffrage was introduced 95 years ago.

The findings come as the Government announces its intention to extend the vote to 16 and 17 year olds for the next general election, expected in 2029 but the report suggests that young people are becoming alienated from politics.

The report finds that half those who failed to register to vote were in 18-24 year old age group and according to Vijay Rangarajan, chief executive of the Electoral Commission, there is a sharp difference between different groups in engaging with the system.

Bungs from Billionaires: Do Labour's Political Funding Reforms Really Pass the 'Musk Test'?

Josiah Mortimer investigates whether the Government's new reforms will stop the likes of billionaire X owner Elon Musk from funnelling millions of dollars into British politics

Josiah Mortimer

He told MPs: "About half of young people are not on the register and do not think it is important to be on the register. They do not think that engaging in politics is important."

He added that "the long-term secular decline in the turnout" is coupled with a degree of alienation from the process of voting, from the political system and a feeling of 'Why vote?' and seems to come through quite strongly in the public polling… and that is a real concern for us."

MPs warn in their report: "While it may be uncomfortable for those directly involved in politics and government, the decline in voting risks undermining the authority and legitimacy of government in the UK. Reversing the decline in turnout is a task for the whole of government, Parliament and the wider political system."

The risk of Voter ID laws further disenfranchising young people is raised by the committee. While there is a very high knowledge among the electorate - as high as 90% - that people need Voter ID , there are still up to 1.9 million who say they were put off from voting because of it at the last general election.

The report says: "When asked in an open format, four per cent gave the requirement to show voter ID as a reason, but when directly asked if voter ID was the reason for not voting, 10% of people gave it as a reason."

MPs are concerned that when voting is extended to 16 and 17 year olds they will not have adequate ID.

"If a Bill is introduced containing provisions to change the voting age to 16, an analysis needs to be undertaken of what forms of ID people aged 16-17 are most likely to possess, and a plan set out for how the impact of the voter ID requirement on this age group will be mitigated", the report states.

The report also expresses concern about the workload facing staff organising future general elections because of complex electoral law, the rise in postal voting and a shortage of suppliers of ballot forms.

holding farage to account #reformwatch

While most the rest of the media seems to happy to give the handful of Reform MPs undue prominence, Byline Times is committed to tracking the activities of Nigel Farage's party when actually in power.

BREAKINGEXCLUSIVE

Reform's Darren Grimes Seeks Help From European Convention on Human Rights After Previously Calling It 'Utterly Bent'

15 July 2025

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

14 July 2025

Reform UK's 'Children's Book Bans' Could Open the Floodgates for Censorship

8 July 2025

BREAKING

Reform UK Tells Prospective Candidates Who Faile...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

A group campaigning and raising money for the Palestinians say they have had their bank account frozen by Virgin Money with over £10,000 in funds trapped - much of which was destined as aid to Gaza.

Greater Manchester Friends of Palestine says the bank, which is now owned by Nationwide, has provided "absolutely no explanation" for the freeze, despite 40 years of banking without problems and is refusing to answer any questions about the decision.

The freeze occurred in the days after a separate organisation, the direct action group Palestine Action, was banned as a 'terrorist' organisation by the Labour Government.

On 10th July 2025, treasurer John Nicholson discovered their internet banking access had been completely blocked. A ban on Palestine Action came into effect on 4th July.

Unlike bank account closures which require two months' notice to customers, GM Friends of Palestine says the freeze gives them no access to funds and no way to make representations.

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

The group say the bank has refused to provide any reason for the freeze, with staff allegedly stating "I can tell you nothing" and hanging up on enquiries, with no process for appeal or further discussion.

In a letter to Nationwide, treasurer John Nicholson wrote: "I pointed out that it was not that they 'could' not tell me anything - it was that they did not want to do so. They put the phone down on me…

"It is our opinion that the bank is now complicit in the genocide…Holding onto our money, seemingly indefinitely (there is no determination of the time they will do so) amounts to permanently depriving us of what is ours. That is theft."

He added: "We can all see a state increasingly frightened of even the mildest criticism and they appear to be attempting to close down all protests, through all means at their disposal."

Nicholson told Byline Times: "We know absolutely nothing. Now, what do you want me to guess? That this is about an organisation who we're not allowed to name was banned ridiculously, shamelessly, pitifully, by the useless Home Secretary. And guess what? Palestine-related accounts around the country are being threatened…

"This isn't my money: this is hundreds of individual donors and supporters who are putting small amounts of money into our bank, which we are then using, in our own small way, to help non-Governmental organisations on the ground in Gaza and the West Bank."

The Palestine campaigner added: "We've been effectively 'de-banked'." Reform's Nigel Farage made front pages for weeks when he lost access to his elite Coutts account in 2023. The Conservative Government then brought in rule changes for banks to make it harder to close customer accounts. The rules come into force in April next year.

Greater Manchester Friends of Palestine has been using donations to support Palestinian NGOs, including the Middle East Children's Alliance, Palestinian doctors, and the Palestinian Amputee Football Association which provides sports facilities to disabled Palestinians.

Bungs from Billionaires: Do Labour's Political Funding Reforms Really Pass the 'Musk Test'?

Josiah Mortimer investigates whether the Government's new reforms will stop the likes of billionaire X owner Elon Musk from funnelling millions of dollars into British politics

Josiah Mortimer

Over the past 18 months, GM Friends of Palestine says it has distributed approximately £30,000 worth of aid to Palestinian groups in Gaza and the West Bank.

The frozen funds represent small donations from hundreds of individual supporters. Treasurer John Nicholson claims it is part of a wider pattern affecting Palestine-related accounts across the country.

Nicholson argues the bank's actions amount to "complicity with genocide" by preventing aid from reaching Palestinians, comparing it to Israel blocking UN truc...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Following the controversial suspension of four prominent Labour backbenchers last week, including welfare reform rebel-in-chief Rachael Maskell, three leading left-wing groups united to release a joint condemnation of the Government's latest misstep.

Compass, Open Labour and Momentum joining together on this is a clear signal that the delicate broadchurch of our party is splitting even further, and so it should.

When we came into Government last year, it felt - at least briefly - like what I imagine 1997 must have been for those who remember it. There was elation, joy, and relief. But reality hit fast. Fourteen years of Conservative mismanagement had left the country's foundations shattered. The 'Change' that brought us into power quickly evolved into a mission to rebuild our national infrastructure, restore the social contract, and deliver justice to communities ravaged by austerity, a mishandled pandemic, and years of cruel governance.

No one expected the damage of fourteen years to be undone in just one. And I truly believe the country is and should always be better off under Labour. But belief alone is no longer enough. The hope we instilled in voters is slipping away, and with it, our moral authority.

EXCLUSIVE

'Grassroots' Pressure Group Opposing Equality Act Is Bankrolled by Tufton Street-Linked Funder

EXCLUSIVE: Supposedly independent campaign group Don't Divide Us, is funded by body that has anonymously funnelled millions to right-wing groups

Max Colbert and Josiah Mortimer

The breaking point was, of course, the ill-advised welfare reform bill, which would have held potentially devastating impacts on the lives of disabled people. As backbencher after backbencher spoke out against it, the inner failures of the Government were exposed for all to see, and the inevitable last-second U-turn proved embarrassing, if necessary.

It was the latest poorly-thought out scheme that had all the hallmarks of a typical OBR-demanded, Treasury-led decision to save money off the backs of disabled people's dignity and lives. The Government's U-Turn was right, and originally it seemed that would be the end of the matter, with the Timms-review hopefully ensuring disabled people's voices are heard after they were deliberately silenced originally.

And yet we now find ourselves with the rather sudden and out-the-blue suspension of four backbenchers - described by Government sources as being due to "persistent knobheadery". That phrase alone exposes the wider rift between the Government and many of its backbenchers, and the contempt some at the top of the party have for those with whom they disagree.

Are we truly arguing, as a party, that not wanting to destroy the lives of disabled people means you shouldn't be a Labour MP? Are we really calling Labour MPs who refuse to agree to Conservative-style welfare cuts "knobheads"? Indeed, the Government themselves have since admitted that they got this particular policy wrong.

There's a clear difference between constructive challenge and destructive rebellion. We must deal with those who act in bad faith.But as a Councillor, I go back to what I said in my first ever interview to become a candidate, back in time for the 2019 elections. I was asked about how I would handle a disagreement with a whipped decision, and my answer was clear: I would do everything I can to positively and privately engage with the leadership and whips to find a suitable compromise, but fundamentally I would do what I believed to be right for my residents. This was, at the time at least, the correct answer according to the panel, and I have since enjoyed 6 years as a proud Labour & Co-Operative Councillor in Macclesfield.

Obviously, it goes without saying that action needs to be taken against serial rebels who do nothing but damage the Labour Party's image, but person...