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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The team set up by Reform UK to slash spending in the local authorities it now runs across England already appears to be falling apart.

On Monday, the party's flagship council in Kent was the first to receive a visit from the team of self-appointed 'auditors' sent in by the party to supposedly slash the authority's "wasteful" spending. Within days, the grouping has suffered two senior resignations.

The Reform HQ team visited the council to meet officers and party representatives, including the council leader - led by (then) Reform chair Zia Yusuf. He conducted media interviews in the council chamber, despite not being elected there, nor, it would appear, being a Kent resident.

Zusuf quit the party on Thursday saying he no longer believes, "working to get a Reform Government elected is a good use of my time".

Nathaniel Fried, hired to run Reform's DOGE program, also resigned just a week after being appointed to the role. He was one of a handful of Reform 'auditors' - including Brexiteer Arron Banks - present at Kent County Council (KCC) on Monday.

One opposition source said Yusuf and Fried were "strutting around like they owned the place".

The new administration at Kent County Council (KCC) has established a "DOLGE" (Department of Local Government Efficiency) initiative involving unelected party volunteers, appointing a cabinet member with that remit, alongside the separate 'DOGE' team of officials and activists from HQ sent in on Monday.

But it has been rocked by the resignations, soon after its launch, which came after Yusuf's role as party chair was reportedly side-lined in recent weeks.

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.

His resignation came hours after he criticised newly-elected Reform MP Sarah Pochin's call at PMQs for a ban on burqas as "dumb" and not party policy.

Yusuf, a practicing Muslim, was reportedly "very upset" by the burqa comments and public backing of Pochin from MPs Lee Anderson and Richard Tice.

Kent Green party councillor Stuart Heaver told Byline Times: "Mr Yusef was only holding court in the Council Chamber on Monday extolling the virtues of DOGE - now he isn't even a member of Reform UK. It's a complete shambles and the residents of Kent deserve a lot better."

The Kent council leader, Reform's Linden Kemkaran, recently wrote a stark warning to Kent County Council staff alongside Yusuf - saying anyone who might "obstruct" party officials' demands for information would be considered guilty of "gross misconduct" and sacked - despite the partisan team having no apparent legal status.

'Misinformation' Claim

Shortly after the 'DOGE' visit, but before his resignation, Yusuf claimed in a tweet that KCC had tendered a four year recruitment contract at a cost of £350m.

He wrote: "[It's] £87.5 million per year of taxpayer money being spent on 'advertising vacancies' and 'interviewing' people. That's a staggering 22% of their annual payroll. What a racket."

However, another opposition councillor, who declined to be named, said the story was "complete misinformation".

"It only goes to underline the concerns many councillors have about giving unelected volunteers with no knowledge of the council's services access to large volumes of sensitive data."

Political commentator Bearly Politics noted on X that the contract was "a national framework agreement, hosted by Kent but open to every public body in the UK - councils, NHS trusts, schools, civil service arms-len...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.

For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….

SUBSCRIBE

The collapse of KKR's planned rescue of Thames Water has exposed something even murkier than the sewage flowing into our rivers: the ideological bankruptcy at the heart of Britain's privatised water model.

Thames Water, burdened by £20 billion of debt and escalating pollution fines, now teeters on the edge of a special administration regime. Done the wrong way, that could morph into a taxpayer-funded bailout.

This fiasco isn't just corporate mismanagement; it reveals profound flaws in the Labour Government's timid approach to water reform. One vividly underscored by the narrow technocratic remit of the recent Cunliffe Review, which recently published its interim findings.

When Sir Jon Cunliffe, former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, was tasked last year with leading "the largest review of the water sector since privatisation," cautious optimism emerged.

Perhaps, after decades of catastrophic underinvestment, ecological ruin, and public outrage, Labour ministers had finally grasped the nettle. Instead, they ensured the Cunliffe Review explicitly restricted itself to "reforms within the privatised regulated model," excluding any meaningful exploration of public ownership - despite overwhelming public support.

This deliberate limitation was both predictable and tragic, highlighting Labour's broader political timidity - one born, in part, of No10 and 11's unimaginative, technocratic approach to governance.

Prospective Thames Water Private Equity Buyer 'Sent Bills Soaring' in UK and US

Campaigners say the preferred buyer of the failing UK water firm has a record of "rampant profiteering and financial abuse of service users" on both sides of the Atlantic

Olly Haynes

The interim Cunliffe report repeatedly admits that decisions around water governance are inherently political. Paragraph 85 explicitly states, "only Government can set overarching strategic goals," acknowledging the profound, systemic issues facing the industry extend beyond technocratic solutions.

Cunliffe effectively told Environment Secretary Steve Reed: 'This is a huge sh*t sandwich, filled with strategic-level decisions, and it's you - with societal backing - that must take a big bite.'

Time to Show You Really Keir

Keir Starmer's Government now faces a stark choice: confront this challenge decisively or continue stumbling from crisis to crisis.

This attempted technocratic evasion is likely to leave profound questions unanswered about ownership, accountability, and the very nature of public services in an era of political and ecological crises.

The approach is symptomatic of a deeper malaise. From paralysis over Gaza to a vacillating stance on welfare, the Starmer Government seems adrift - defined less by vision than by caution.

It offers little more than empty gestures toward "growth," while quietly discarding long-held principles and inching closer to the authoritarian right on social policy. What we're left with is not leadership, but management - Government by spreadsheet and soundbite, devoid of moral compass or political courage.

New 'Emergency Board' Puts Pressure on Thames Water and Government Amid Court Chaos

Activists tap into public anger over 'fundamentally broken' water industry

Josiah Mortimer

Unsurprisingly, defining oneself merely as "not Jeremy Corbyn or the Tories" has proved inadequate as a governing philosophy.

Yet, with its strong mandate for transformative change, this was avoidable. The public are hungry for change. On water, opinion has been clear: consistently over 80% of the English public support returning water to public ownership.

Organisations like Compass, Up Sewage Creek, Ilkley Clean River, and Henley Mermaids submitted compellin...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.

For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….

SUBSCRIBE

On the night of 2 June, more than 120 Ukrainian drones carried out the largest strike on Russian-occupied territories since 2022, targeting military infrastructure in the Zaporizhia and Kherson regions, according to Petro Andryushchenko, Head of the Center for the Study of Occupation of Ukraine.

Ukrainian drones hit ammunition depots and destroyed substations supplying power to Russian military facilities. Up to 44 Russian military sites, bases, and storage facilities were damaged. The attack caused widespread blackouts across occupied Zaporizhia and parts of Kherson, and postponed the reconnection to the Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Plant by at least a month, significantly disrupting Russian logistics and complicating offensive operations in the south.

In response, Russian forces launched strikes not on military positions, but on civilian infrastructure in Ukrainian-held Kherson.

Vladimir Saldo, the Russian-installed head of occupied Kherson, said Russian President Vladimir Putin was "closely monitoring the situation" as Russian troops fired guided aerial bombs, FPV drones, tanks, and artillery at Kherson's city center. Grocery stores, the central post office, residential buildings, and administrative offices were destroyed

While Ukraine targeted military infrastructure, Russia escalated deliberate attacks on civilians, under direct Presidential oversight. Putin praised "the effective actions" of the Russian military, saying they made it possible "to reduce the possible consequences."

Under international humanitarian law, political and military leaders may be held criminally responsible for war crimes if they knew or should have known such crimes were being committed and failed to prevent or punish them.

UPDATE

How Ukraine Used Cheap Drones and a Lot of Ingenuity to Strike a Major Blow Against Russia

"I spent most of the early hours of Saturday in my hallway feeling the walls shake as the ballistic missiles exploded", Chris York reports from Kyiv

Chris York

Combined Arms Attack on Kherson City Centre

On the evening of 4 June, a major grocery store was damaged and the city's central post office was destroyed by fire during a round of artillery shelling. At 05:20 on 5 June, Russian forces struck again. Within fifteen minutes, four guided aerial bombs (KABs) hit the city center.

"The whole city woke up, the beds jumped up in the air," said Victoria, a business owner, in an interview with Byline Times. Her restaurant was hit by a heavy shock wave that damaged the most iconic building on Freedom Square.

The Kherson Regional State Administration building had been heavily damaged in previous strikes before Kherson was liberated in November 2022, and had remained vacant ever since. It became symbolic after mass protests against Russian occupation took place in Freedom Square in March 2022, and again during celebrations of the city's liberation in November 2022.

A Russian military-affiliated Telegram channel claimed the strikes were carried out by Russian aviation using FAB-500 bombs. Shortly afterwards, Russian tanks and artillery shelled the area, followed by FPV drone attacks on cars and pedestrians.

Later in the day, at approximately 15:30, a second airstrike targeted the Kherson Regional State Administration building, this time completely destroying it. Russian sources stated that an FAB-1500 aerial bomb was used. No military personnel were present, but several local journalists were reporting from the site.

Oleksandr Andrushchenko, a photographer for local news outlet V Hory, had just finished filming and was waiting at a bus stop about five minutes' walk from Freedom Square when the second bomb struck. He rushed back to find the build...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.

For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….

SUBSCRIBE

Jordan is bracing for a nightmare scenario in which Israel is expected to annex much of the occupied West Bank and thereby torpedo an already fragile peace treaty between the two countries that has lasted for more than 30 years.

The stakes could hardly be higher.

For Jordan the latest alarm bell was Israel's decision last week to approve the building of 22 new settlements in the West Bank, the largest extension in decades. An estimated 3.3 million Palestinians live alongside them.

Some of them will be constructed in the Jordan Valley, separating the West Bank from the Kingdom, along a 400 Km (245-mile) border with Israel. Others will be in areas deep inside the West Bank, which in all negotiation frameworks have been considered areas for a designated Palestinian State, along with Gaza.

In Jerusalem Defence Minister Israel Katz said the move "prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger Israel."

Labour Minister Defends RAF Gaza Surveillance Flights Amid Growing Scrutiny of UK-Israel Relationship

Defence Minister Maria Eagle spoke at a private Israel Independence Day meeting and said the UK would continue to back the country

Olly Haynes

However, Jordan sees it as a further step towards annexing Judea and Samaria, biblical names for the West Bank, occupied by Israel since 1967.

It fears that such a move would be followed by the forced expulsion of huge numbers of Palestinians into Jordan, risking massive political destabilisation and destroying all remaining hopes of a two-state solution.

The government in Amman would not sit by and let that happen. As one official told me: "Any forced expulsion of Palestinians and we will mobilise the army."

It is unlikely, though, that such rhetoric will deter Israel and its Far Right ministers whose influence has increased steadily under Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and who have frequently referred to Jordan as Palestine.

If Israel pushes ahead with annexation, as expected, Jordanian officials believe it would initially take over around 60% of the West Bank (the so-called Area C) followed by Area B, giving them a further 22% of the territory.

Area A would then be subject to negotiation, with the Palestinians represented by a corrupt and moribund authority. Any emerging entity would be forced to seek support from Jordan to survive.

Jordan has long called for a two-state solution to ensure lasting peace.

The debt-riddled country is grappling with yawning poverty and unemployment. Amman has repeatedly said it would reject such an arrangement out of hand.

There will be no Palestinian State in Jordan and no tampering with Jordan's historic role in guarding both Muslim and Christian shrines in East Jerusalem.

And, while anxious not to create panic, the Government has quietly sent reinforcements to the Jordan valley.

It is monitoring the number of Palestinians crossing the rickety Allenby Bridge, linking the Kingdom with the West Bank.

In Amman the hope is that Donald Trump will become ever more frustrated with Netanyahu, whose hardline policies are ruining the President's dream of economic prosperity for the oil-rich region - and of course for his country and family.

Jordan is also counting on Saudi Arabia to stick to its promise to reject normalization with Israel, unless Israel opens a clear road to Palestinian statehood.

But the Arab states have never been much interested in unity, more so these days.

Gulf heavyweights Saudi Arabia and the UAE appear to have cut their own business deals with the US to buy stability - including heaping lavish presents on Mr Trump himself.

And the new Islamist leader in Syria, Ahmed Sharaa, has been welcomed into the American fold, despit...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.

For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….

SUBSCRIBE

"Nations depend on rules, fair rules. Sometimes they're written down, often they're not. But either way they give shape to our values, guide us to our rights of course, but also to our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to each other. Now in a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them we risk becoming an island of strangers".

This speech, made by Prime Minister Keir Starmer last month, marked the moment when it became clear that the Labour Party leadership believes Reform UK is now the main obstacle to its reelection in four years time. With the Conservatives as their main opponents, Labour could always point to 14 years of decline in order to see off criticism, but Reform have never held power, so the Government, reportedly acting on the advice of Morgan McSweeney, has decided to instead mimic Reform UK in an attempt to defeat it.

This predicament, of a mainstream political party panicking at vote losses to the radical right, is not new. Indeed it is a story that has been replicated across most of Europe over the last decade. Byline Times spoke to four European-based political experts to discuss what happened on the continent when other centrist politicians decided that the path to defeating the far right lay in copying them.

Reform-Led Kent Council Cancels Swathes of Meetings Amid Claims They 'Don't Know What They're Doing'

Nigel Farage's party accused of running a "decision-free" administration, after being forced to scrap a third of its upcoming scheduled meetings

Josiah Mortimer

France

Macronism was never particularly popular, achieving just 24% in the first round of the presidential election. For a long time French politics has been split between three blocs; left, "centre" and far right since 2017. This meant Macron's electoral strategy has been one of "en meme temps" (at the same time) as he put it during his 2017 campaign. According to Ugo Palheta, a lecturer at the University of Lille and author of the forthcoming Why Fascism is on the Rise in France, "In Macron's first campaign in 2017, he was pretty liberal - on immigration, but also on Islam and Muslims" he had not yet started using the far right language of 'islamo-leftism', 'immigrationism', 'de-civilisation' that he would go on to pick up later.

But, "in 2017 when he became president he understood that his electoral and social base […] was very narrow and to stabilise his power he would have to expand his electorate and go on the right wing. Because Francois Fillon, the candidate of the traditional right got 20% with very radical right positions".

This "post-Sarkozyist" turn for Macron was consistent with his program of cutting public spending. Palheta says that Macron has presided over a process of "fascistisation" and that his presidency has largely been characterised by a "hardening of the state", in "terms of police repression of [protests], preventing the National Assembly from voting on certain things notably about pensions, and a series of laws around immigration, Islam and Muslims' rights".

These laws include the ending of birthright citizenship in Mayotte, the French overseas territory (with a further hardening to come), the botched attempt to introduce national preference, meaning only French citizens could access certain forms of welfare - including non-emergency healthcare and the 'seperatism law' which gave the state significant power to dissolve religious organisations and civil society groups if they did not sufficiently "respect the principles of the republic". Critics such as the Human Rights League say the seperatism law has been used to dissolve and deprive of funds, groups that op...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.

For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….

SUBSCRIBE

In a recent speech at Chatham House, the UK Attorney General, Richard Hermer, launched a principled defence of international law and attacked what he called the 'pick-and-mix' approach of those who seek to discard our principles whenever it is inconvenient.

His explicit targets were Conservative and Reform UK politicians who have attacked the UK's agreement to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. Indeed, he subsequently apologised to them for comparing their attitudes to those of the political theorist Carl Schmitt, who notoriously supported the Nazis - although on the merits, what he said was appropriate.

Hermer's credentials

Hermer is persistently targeted by the far right, particularly over the imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, the Conservative councillor's wife who tweeted in favour of burning down asylum hotels. Although the decision to prosecute was made by the Crown Prosecution Service and Connolly pleaded guilty, with her sentence decided by a judge, Conservative and Reform politicians have blamed Hermer. The opportunist Conservative leadership wannabe, Robert Jenrick, has also targeted him because of the individuals Hermer defended as a barrister.

Even the Trump-sympathetic wing of the Labour Party have Hermer in their sights too. In an extraordinary attack earlier this year, the 'Blue Labour' founder, Maurice Glasman, reported to be close to Keir Starmer's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, told the New Statesman that Hermer was 'an arrogant progressive fool who thinks that law is a replacement for politics'. Hermer certainly came to office with progressive credentials. A Jewish lawyer who was critical of Israel before he joined the government 11 months ago, he told LBC on 28 October 2023 that 'it is almost impossible to conceive of how a siege that deprives a civilian population of the basic necessities of life… is in compliance with international law'.

After Nearly 600 Days the End of the Israel-Gaza War Looks as Far off as Ever

As the world continues to wring its hands, the suffering of the people at the heart of this conflict only continues to grow, writes Alexandra Hall Hall

Alexandra Hall Hall

UK support for Israel

19 months on, Hermer's rejection, at Chatham House, of the idea that Britain "should abandon the constraints of international law in favour of raw power" obviously brings to mind the Labour Government's complicity in the vastly greater crimes that Israel and the USA, two of its key allies, have since committed, and are still committing, in Gaza. Starmer and his Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, both of them also lawyers, have been unusually critical of Israel in recent weeks. The Prime Minister even joined the French President Emmanuel Macron and Canadian leader Mark Carney in denouncing Israel's denial of humanitarian aid to the population of Gaza, promising "further concrete actions" if Israel continued. Yet this mystified observers, since few actions against Israel have been observed.

Despite occasional criticisms, most of the UK Government's "concrete" actions have effectively supported Israel's campaign. The UK signed a military cooperation agreement with Israel in 2020, when Boris Johnson was Prime Minister. Under this deal, the RAF has conducted very regular surveillance flights over Gaza since October 2023, apparently sharing information with Israel on the pretext of assisting them to rescue hostages held by Hamas. This claim has long been threadbare: it is obvious that Israel's main purpose is to assault Gaza's civilian population, despite the loss of hostage lives which this has caused, while spurning agreements to secure their release. Indeed, Israel has now clearly stated its intention to per...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.

For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….

SUBSCRIBE

Next May's Welsh Parliament (Senedd) election is a three horse race - with Wales facing dramatically different options to determine its future.

In May, left-wing nationalist party Plaid Cymru hit 30% in a YouGov poll, followed not by Labour, but Reform UK. Labour's 26-year domination of Welsh politics appears to be crumbling before voters' eyes.

Reform UK support was at 25% - quite a feat for a party that does not even have a leader in Wales, and no clear frontrunner for First Minister should the far-right party succeed. It does not have a single representative in the Senedd yet. But things change fast these days.

Anti-establishment sentiment against both UK Labour under Starmer and Welsh Labour is on the rise. And the opposition comes from highly contrasting camps.

Labour First Minister Eluned Morgan, who took over from her scandal-hit predecessor Vaughan Gething in 2024, has tried to set what former leader Rhodri Morgan called 'clear red water' between Labour in Westminster and in Wales. Her version - the 'red Welsh way' does not appear to be cutting through.

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

Why? In an interview with Byline Times, Plaid Cymru leader Rhun ap Iorwerth claims the First Minister and baroness only distances herself from PM Starmer when politically necessary, unlike the late Labour premier and left-winger Rhodri Morgan who "genuinely meant it".

Morgan has been clear she wants to abolish the two-child limit on benefits - and appeared to reject Keir Starmer's "island of strangers" speech on immigration in May, saying she opposed "divisive rhetoric".

But when Rhun ap Iorwerth pushed Morgan to make it clear if she was rejecting Keir Starmer's rhetoric directly, a Labour spokesperson jumped in to say she was criticising other people, not her PM.

How Wales Became the Target of a Right Wing Culture War

Rachel Morris on the politicians and media organisations now cynically trying to exploit Wales for their own political gain

Rachel Morris

It is one of many reasons, he argues, that Labour are today viewed as "the establishment" in Wales, stemming from both their decades-long domination of politics there, but now by unpopular decisions made by a Labour PM in Westminster too.

"We know what's happening globally, with the growth of the right in politics as a backlash against the establishment. Well, Labour is the establishment in Wales…

"The Labour vote in particular is collapsing and tending to come to us. The Conservative vote has collapsed and gone to Reform. Our appeal is: let's corral that progressive pro-Wales voice around Plaid Cymru. We are the only realistic, genuine pro-Wales alternative Government that we have on offer for next year."

"Her instinct was to back Keir Starmer. Her instinct was to not criticise the cut to the Winter Fuel Payment, was to not criticise the two-child benefit cap…She mocked us for calling for scrapping the two-child limit, and she in fact voted against a Plaid Cymru motion calling for scrapping of the two-child limit.

"Now that she has seen the perilous position that Labour in Wales is in…she knows that somehow she has to put some distance between herself and Keir Starmer."

In contrast to Labour, Plaid Cymru has been vocal in calling for wealth taxes, rather than funding the huge hike in UK defence spending through cuts to foreign aid and disability benefits.

There's a real chance that next year it might be necessary for Plaid Cymru and Labour to work together in the Assembly, to hold out a Reform Government in Wales.

ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, sha...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.

For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….

SUBSCRIBE

The recent publication of BP's damning internal memos exposes what many artists, performers, writers and arts workers have long argued: that corporate sponsorship is a transaction, not a donation.

In its own words, these documents reveal how BP uses cultural sponsorship as a means to "secure public support and advocacy from partners to mitigate risks and advance business interests".

For BP, influential cultural figures are co-opted as fossil fuel industry "enablers and defenders", and our cultural institutions leveraged in order to reach "high-level decision-makers" and - exceeding even the most sceptical of expectations - to "mitigate against the impacts of possible litigation".

This poses an urgent question for those museum directors who continue to take BP's dirty money: will you cut ties to BP now that its cynical use of your institutions has been laid bare and an ethical red line has clearly been crossed?

Captured Culture

BP is, as always, in need of some good PR. In February, BP completed an astonishing yet hardly surprising U-turn by backtracking on its already weak carbon reduction targets, deciding that it could make more money by simply having no targets at all.

At the same time, it has also come under scrutiny for its role in providing a significant source of fuel to the Israeli military, enabling the genocide of Palestinians.

Whistleblower Alleges Systemic Failures in UK-Approved US Biofuel Sustainability Certification

Ex-auditor claims compliance has been 'eroded into a rubber-stamping process'

Stuart Spray

Who were virtually the only voices to rush to BP's defence as it announced its pivot 'back to petroleum' and increasing oil and gas production? The British Museum and the Science Museum of course, apparently eager to play their part as BP's "powerful third party advocates for issues that are critical to our business".

Right on cue, they both named BP's support as "vital" to their institutions, giving BP its only positive publicity in the same week that it decided to openly stop caring about the death and destruction that it fuels as one of the world's biggest contributors to climate breakdown.

The Director of the Science Museum, Sir Ian Blatchford, has for years given credibility to BP's previously desired image as "a fossil fuel company that is playing its part in addressing the climate challenge", as outlined in one of the newly exposed documents.

As if reading from the same script, Blatchford has repeatedly repeated the line that "the major energy companies have the capital, geography, people and logistics to be major players in finding solutions to the urgent global challenge of climate change", even while BP continued to invest in new oil and gas extraction and obstruct the solutions that were so urgently needed.

Despite BP changing its line, the Science Museum is still finding a way to justify its sponsorship deal and argue that BP plays a positive role in the world against the unchanging scientific reality that we must urgently reduce carbon emissions.

Just Stop Oil Has Called It Quits, but They Say Their Fight Is Far From Over

The climate movement has announced an end to its direct action campaigns. The group's spokesperson tells Josiah Mortimer what's next

Josiah Mortimer

Similarly, when The British Museum's announcement of a new 10-year deal with BP at the end of 2023 was met with resounding criticism, Nicholas Cullinan, Director of The British Museum, chose to defend the institution's decision to accept BP's £50 million payment on the rather low-bar basis that the money was "legally acquired", and made the readily refutable claim that, without BP, the Museum would no longer remain free to the public.

Po...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.

For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….

SUBSCRIBE

Plans for the UK's biggest clean up of nuclear waste is already 13 years behind schedule and costing over £21 billion more than planned, a report by MPs warns today.

The report by MPs on the Public Accounts Committee is highly critical of the Sellafield management and oversight of the Sellafield nuclear waste facility by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. It includes a warning from Sellafield's own nuclear safety experts that "the site is becoming increasingly unsafe" because of the delays in retrieving the waste from outdated buildings.

The removal of the waste and its disposal to safe underground chambers for thousands of years is now estimated to cost £136 billion and take 100 years. But to achieve this MPs estimate management performance will have to improve 24 fold over the next decade, despite already missing most targets over the last seven years.

'How the Media is Cashing in on the Rise of Nigel Farage'

News organisations are failing the country at the moment when responsible independent journalism is most needed, argues Mathilda Mallinson

Mathilda Mallinson

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, Chair of the Committee, said: "The intolerable risks presented by Sellafield's ageing infrastructure are truly world-class. When visiting the site, it is impossible not to be struck by the fact that one can be standing in what is surely one of the most hazardous places in the world. This is why we expect Sellafield's management of its assets, and the delivery of the project to decommission it, to be similarly world-class.

"Unfortunately, our latest report is interleaved with a number of examples of failure, cost overruns, and continuing safety concerns. Given the tens of billions at stake, and the dangers onsite to both the environment and human life, this is simply not good enough."

"As with the fight against climate change, the sheer scale of the hundred-year timeframe of the decommissioning project makes it hard to grasp the immediacy of safety hazards and cost overruns that delays can have. Every day at Sellafield is a race against time to complete works before buildings reach the end of their life. Our report contains too many signs that this is a race that Sellafield risks losing."

The most hazardous place in Sellafield is an old Magnox silo storage which is leaking radioactive water into the ground for the last seven years. This is the equivalent to the size of an Olympic swimming pool every three years, but the management say there is no danger to the public.

Another project- a new laboratory to analyse ways of storing plutonium - is likely to be abandoned after spending £127 million because it was ill conceived and would end up costing hundreds of millions more than planned.

Nigel Farage's '£7 Billion DEI Savings' Don't Actually Exist

The media is widely reporting Reform UK's claims they could save billions by cutting equality schemes. The real figure appears to be around 250 times smaller, reports Josiah Mortimer

Josiah Mortimer

MPs are highly sceptical of claims by management during a hearing with MPs that relations with staff are improving. Instead figures showed it had paid out £377,000 last year to resolve staff complaints and issued 16 non disclosure agreements to staff over three years - a legal device used to keep disputes between staff and management secret.

Alison McDermott, a former whistleblower and management consultant at Sellafield, who produced a report revealing bullying and harassment there, said:" This report horrifically vindicates everything I've said about the toxic, dangerous culture at Sellafield. I was hired to report on the problems - and when I did this honestly, they turned on me. They then tried ...

Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.

For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….

SUBSCRIBE

New police powers to ban facemasks being worn at protests would hit disabled activists, dissidents and Muslim women, a human rights group has warned.

The Crime and Policing Bill being proposed by Keir Starmer's Government and making its way through Parliament now rehashes many of the same proposals put forward in the Conservatives' Criminal Justice Bill before it ran out of time ahead of the General Election.

Police would gain expanded powers to impose bans on wearing face-coverings at protests. The new powers would affect Muslim women wearing niqabs, disabled activists avoiding infection, and dissidents protesting outside foreign embassies, according to campaign group Liberty.

While there would be legal exemptions to protect those covering their faces for religious or health reasons, this defence would only be available after arrest. In other words, plenty of people would be caught up and arrested before being released without charge.

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

Liberty says it would add another chilling effect to peaceful protest in the UK, following several major pieces of strict legislation in recent years - the Conservatives' Public Order Act and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, neither of which the Government plans to repeal.

Once the conditions are put on a particular protest, police could compel anyone covering their face to remove that covering at that point, and then if they don't comply, they can be arrested.

In an interview with Byline Times, Ruth Ehrlich, Head of Policy & Campaigns at Liberty, said: "When you think about the kinds of people who might rely on a face covering to take to the streets, we're thinking of dissidents who are protesting outside foreign embassies. We're thinking about Muslim women who might wear the niqab to cover her face. We're thinking about disabled activists who want to stay healthy and avoid infection."

"We have seen in recent months arrests happening outside the Chinese Embassy…It's very difficult when you start dictating how people can and cannot protect themselves at a protest, and the message that that sends to them - and to the regimes that they're protesting against," she added.

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.

Police will also be given broader powers to shut down protests near religious buildings, imposing orders which could effectively ban demonstrations from even going near churches, mosques, or synagogues if an order was in place. "In most cities, towns, villages, there will be places of worship near a protest. When you introduce a power as broad as that, does that effectively mean there's a risk that protests will be shut down because of that," Ehrlich told Byline Times.

And junior officers will be allowed to be authorised to impose protest conditions. Under the bill, chief officers would be able to delegate powers to relatively low-ranking officers to impose restrictions on large demonstrations, removing previous safeguards around seniority.

British Transport Police will also gain expanded protest powers, with new authority to impose stop and search, demand the removal of face coverings at protests, and impose tough conditions on assembly at transport hubs, stations, and for people on the move.

Ehrlich said much of the Crime and Policing bill was "c...