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

Thousands of Brits, including leading barristers, have signed an open letter to Labour Home Secretary Yvette Cooper opposing the planned ban on Palestine Action.

The letter argues that in banning the non-violent civil disobedience group, the Government is dangerously "conflating peaceful protest with the real dangers of genuine terrorism". The move is set to become law by Saturday July 5.

The lawyers and signatories condemn the "double standards" of the Government, arguing they are "seeking to criminalise direct action whilst themselves at risk of breaching international law, given the International Court of Justice's findings of plausible genocide in Gaza." And they argue a ban would be a "drain on public resources" adding an "unjustified burden on the justice system" through criminalising potentially thousands of pro-Palestine activists who back the group.

"It is our hope that the Home Secretary will recognise both the moral arguments and the strength of feeling in civil society in this matter and resile from this proscription," the spokesperson 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.

Backers will be handing over the letter to the Home Secretary at Parliament on Wednesday July 2, before the vote in the House of Commons.

A spokesperson for the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, which coordinated the letter, said: "In a few days our letter to the Home Secretary has been endorsed by a coalition of thousands of diverse voices ranging from stonemasons to vicars, KCs, Peers, MPs, actors, teachers, trade unions and campaigners for peace and justice."

Two other groups will be banned this week, Russian neo-Nazi groups the Maniacs Murder Cult (MMC/MKU) and the Russian Imperial Movement (RIM).

It will make it a criminal offence to be a member of one of these groups or to "invite or recklessly express support" for them, punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

The Government said in a statement today that the move to ban PA follows "its orchestration and enaction of aggressive and intimidatory attacks against businesses, institutions and the public, which has crossed the thresholds established in the Terrorism Act 2000," particularly following the break-in to the RAF Brize Norton base in Oxfordshire, allegedly by Palestine Action, earlier this month.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper added: "National security is the first duty of any government, we will always take the action needed to protect our democracy and national security against different threats…

"The right to protest and the right to free speech are the cornerstone of our democracy and there are countless campaign groups that freely exercise those rights. Violence and serious criminal damage has no place in legitimate protests."

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

Joint Letter Opposing Government Moves to Outlaw Palestine Action

Dear Home Secretary, we, as individuals or as organisations representing a broad spectrum of civil society and the legal community, are writing to you, in response to the threat of proscribing the grassroots solidarity and direct action group, Palestine Action.

The United Kingdom has a long and proud history of direct action that opposes military intervention. From Greenham Common to the 2 million marching in London against the invasion of Iraq, British governments of different political persuasions have respected people's right to peacefully protest.

Indeed, as the leading case of R v Jon...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

"I believe another future is possible", declared Keir Starmer as he launched his campaign to become the next Labour leader back in 2020.

Promising to make "the moral case for socialism", Starmer pledged to heal the division of the Corbyn years and unite his party behind a clear plan for radical, but deliverable change.

Fast forward to 2025 and that alternative future is still looking a long way off.

Despite making some early and welcome changes - boosting investment in green energy, committing to nationalise the rail network, and increasing workers rights - Starmer has spent most of his first 12 months as Prime Minister engaged in arguments that more closely resemble the political era he was elected to overturn.

Far from making the moral case for investment, after a decade of austerity, the Prime Minister has instead spent his first year in Government making the case for yet more cruel and self-defeating cuts. And far from building the "immigration system based on compassion and dignity" that he promised, he has instead doubled down on the ugly rhetoric and undignified immigration clampdowns of his predecessors.

'Keir Starmer Has Missed His Chance to Make a Bold Break With the Past on Foreign Policy'

The Labour Government has so far pursued a timid, unambitious, foreign policy, marked by inconsistency and in some cases moral failure, argues Alexandra Hall Hall

Alexandra Hall Hall

The internal division that so defined the series of Conservative governments that preceded him, has also continued, with overly powerful advisers locked in internal warfare almost from day one of his premiership. His election day pledge to lead a "Government of service" - badly needed after a decade of cronyism and outright corruption under the Conservatives - ran immediately into rows about freebies from donors and cash for access.

Beseiged at home by a hostile press and an increasingly hostile parliamentary party, Starmer has often looked far more comfortable representing the country abroad. Here he has had much more success. Unlike Boris Johnson, who was more interested in cosplaying as "world king" than doing the hard miles of international diplomacy, Starmer has worked doggedly to secure Donald Trump's support for Ukraine and NATO, while starting to heal the divide between Europe and Britain that opened up after Brexit.

It has not all been positive. His reluctance to condemn Israel's genocidal ambitions in Gaza, or to cut off UK arms supplies to the country, has made a mockery of his campaign pledge to "put human rights at the heart of foreign policy", while his closeness to an increasingly authoritarian US president has too often veered into the sycophantic.

Yet his performance abroad has shown glimpses of the Prime Minister Starmer could have been and still could be. Unflashy, but serious, hard-working but at ease, there have been signs that despite all of his troubles, another future for Starmer really is possible.

There are signs that a similar realisation may be dawning on the Prime Minister as well. In recent weeks he has made a series of apologies for his ill-judged anti-migrant "island of strangers" speech. Speaking to his old friend Tom Baldwin at the Observer, Starmer said that he "deeply regrets" the speech and signalled his desire to edge away from the 'Blue Labour' strategy of his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, insisting that "If we're to win that battle [against Nigel Farage] we have to be the progressives fighting against the populists of Reform - yes, Labour has to be a progressive political party".

Meanwhile with winter fuel and disability benefits cuts both running into a wall of opposition from Labour MPs, there are signs that the Prime Minister is being forced, willingly or not, into shifting course.

An Island of Neighbours: Rebuilding Labour from the Ground-Up

Cle...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

This Friday marks a year since the Labour Government took office. It's not been smooth sailing, and we've covered scandals, policy rows, and the headwinds PM Keir Starmer has faced extensively at Byline Times.

But the Government has certainly been busy - even if much of it does not make it on to the front pages of Britain's largely right-leaning press, a media that save for this week's welfare row, tends to prefer discussing polling and personal spats over policy.

So here's a collection of some news from Westminster and Whitehall you may have missed.

This list is by no means conclusive, and it is up to you whether you think the news is either good or bad. Mostly, as you'd imagine, they are things the Government sees as positive developments - as we've picked out Government announcements which haven't been extensively reported on.

However, they do offer a flavour of some of the things that we could, but aren't, talking about thanks largely to the priorities of the British press.

BREAKING

Protest Crackdown in Britain Now Amounts to 'State Repression' And the Labour Government is Continuing the Trend, Warn Campaigners

Infringements on the right to protest have been 'emboldened' by successive governments, report argues

Josiah Mortimer

A Green Energy Revolution

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has published its 'Solar Roadmap', a 'landmark' strategy for solar energy with over 70 actions pledged to rapidly boost solar deployment in Britain, from 18GW now to 45-47GW by 2030.

It's part of the Government's push to get to 100% - or near-100% - clean energy by the end of the decade.

The Government is also establishing a 'Solar Council' between Government and business to monitor delivery and provide a forum for industry-Government engagement on the issue.

Heat pump grants of up to £7,500 are being extended until 2030, and the Government is expected to set up a loan scheme for home energy upgrades such as installing solar panels. The vast majority of new homes will have solar panels installed on them by default under Ed Miliband's plans.

Meanwhile, Ministers are looking at how to boost the use of 'solar canopies' covering car parks, as is common in France. The energy department has launched a call for evidence on the idea.

Mike Childs, head of science, policy and research at Friends of the Earth, welcomed the new strategy, noting that it makes clear "only a tiny fraction of land [0.4%] is required…and that solar farms can work in harmony with wildlife."

The Government says families could save around £500 a year on their energy bills by installing solar panels as part of Labour's "rooftop revolution".

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.

An EU 'Customs Convention'

The Government will consult on whether Britain should join a European customs convention, to simplify international supply chain rules, according to Politico.

Ministers will consult on whether Britain should join the "Pan-Euro-Mediterranean" convention to simplify rules around international supply chains, a new trade blueprint states.

Politico reported that the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean customs convention relaxes 'rules of origin' regulations and tariffs between nations, helping firms with international production chains that cross borders.

This one probably should have got more attention, though it is still early days. A Global Vaccine Alliance

A Global Vaccine Alliance

The UK has pledged £1.25 billion towards ren...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The Government has laid down the law that will see the civil disobedience group Palestine Action banned across the UK - alongside two neo-Nazi groups which glorify racist murder.

On Monday (30 June) Ministers laid a 'statutory instrument' - a form of law-making by ministers that means MPs and peers cannot amend the legislation, but have to simply approve or reject it as a whole.

The 'Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025' will become law a day after it is signed by the minister at the end of the week, following 90-minutes of debate in the Commons and Lords each.

The terrorism law requires the "affirmative scrutiny procedure" meaning both Commons and Lords must debate and approve it, unlike less important SIs that use negative procedure.

So this one is getting slightly more scrutiny than usual. That's no surprise, however, since it is hugely controversial.

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

Also being banned this week, in the same act, are the neo-Nazi 'Maniacs Murder Cult' (known by their Russian acronym of MKU) and the 'Russian Imperial Movement' (RIM/RID), including the Russian Imperial Legion (RIL).

NBC reports that this May, the alleged leader of MKU - who the group refers to as 'Commander Butcher' - was extradited to the US from Moldova, "following his arrest last summer for allegedly instructing an undercover federal agent to dress as Santa Claus and hand out poisoned candy to Jewish children and racial minorities," in New York, prosecutors said.

The New Jersey Department for Homeland Security says of the Maniacs Murder Cult that in 2023, they co-authored a "Kill Guide", which "provided attack tactics, techniques, & procedures" with Neo-Nazi terror group No Lives Matter. The latter calls MKU 'brothers in arms' who together can 'strike anywhere' through racist killings.

In 2020, the US state department designated the Russian Imperial Movement (RIM) and members of its leadership as Specially Designated Global Terrorists, "the first time in history the Department has designated a white supremacist terrorist group."

"RIM has provided paramilitary-style training to white supremacists and neo-Nazis in Europe and actively works to rally these types of groups into a common front against their perceived enemies. RIM has two training facilities in St. Petersburg."

The International Centre for Counter-Terrorism states that the Russian Imperial Movement is a "loose conglomerate of extreme right-wing, nationalist and imperial groups that insist on conducting a more active and aggressive military campaign in Ukraine, including possible use of nuclear weapons." RIM is reported to be actively involved in fighting for Putin in the war on Ukraine.

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.

Palestine Action, which is accused of breaking into RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire earlier this month and spray-painting military planes, is therefore being banned alongside a neo-Nazi murder cult.

The Commons debate on banning the three groups is likely to be scheduled for Wednesday, with the Lords likely to debate it on Thursday.

Usually, the Lords must either wait for a Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to scrutinise the legislation. Alternatively, a 'business motion' must be passed to set aside the Lords' requirement for this scrutiny.

But it seems likely that the Government will ask peers to waive their usual committee scrutiny, and have just a debate o...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

"I suggest that the organisers of Budapest Pride don't put much effort into planning this year. It is a waste of time and money." - said Viktor Orbán in late February in his annual address to his faithful. A few months later, his party, Fidesz, modified the Hungarian constitution so that "the display and promotion of homosexuality" can be banned from public spaces under the guise of "child protection." Those who would organise and partake in such events were threatened with fines, possibly as high as £400.

Orbán had to make his annual early-year address in a tense environment for a second year in a row. Last February, Hungary was engulfed by a major political scandal when President Katalin Novák resigned after it emerged that she pardoned the deputy principal of an orphanage who tried to cover up the systemic sexual abuse of children.

Since then, Fidesz has struggled to take back control of the narrative. While the party won the European elections last June, Péter Magyar's new Tisza Party, directly spawned by the clemency scandal, gained 30% of the votes. Since then, by constantly touring the country and highlighting the dire state of Hungary's railways and healthcare, Magyar's party has slowly overtaken Fidesz and is now in a consistent, clear lead with even a possibility of a constitutional majority in 2026.

Blue Labour on MAGA Square: Maurice Glasman's Journey to Trumpism

Jon Bloomfield and David Edgar look at the nationalist populist drift of Labour's anti-progressive tendency

Jon Bloomfield and David Edgar

This sparked a visible panic in Fidesz, resulting in increasingly authoritarian measures. Apart from the Pride ban, in the past few months, Fidesz attempted to dismantle the independent Hungarian press by banning any form of foreign funding. In a speech in March, Orbán called his opponents "bedbugs." Earlier this year, the government introduced legislation allowing for the suspension of dual nationals' Hungarian citizenship.

Meanwhile the Government upped their dehumanising rhetoric towards the LGBT community, with ministers cynically suggesting that Pride should be held at Kincsem Park, Hungary's national horse race course. Fidesz elevated their anti-Ukraine rhetoric too. Prominent Fidesz politician Alexandra Szentkirályi posted a video of herself with a handcuffed man behind her in the trunk of a car, suggesting that if Ukraine joins the EU, Hungarians will fall victim to people smugglers.

However, what is really different from the Government's current aggressive communications campaigns, compared to previous years is that this time, they simply do not seem to work. Fidesz keeps making unforced errors, previously uncharacteristic of Viktor Orbán. Efforts to relaunch Hungary's battered economy have been failing constantly despite repeated grandiose statements.

Orbán's endorsement of the far-right politician George Simion, who partly rose to prominence through his vandalising of graves of Hungarian soldiers in the presidential elections of Romania drew backlash even among his own supporters. Orbán even failed to push through the proposed legislation intended to target independent media due to opposition from within his own party. This is an extremely rare occurrence, both because of the size of his majority and his grip on the party.

The Budapest Pride ban failed spectacularly, too. Upon Orbán's original remarks, organisers immediately announced they would go ahead with the march anyway. The exact plans were kept under wraps for a long time, but two weeks before the event, it was revealed that the Budapest City Council would help organise Pride. Mayor Gergely Karácsony announced the council would revive a tradition of holding an event on the last Saturday of June, commemorating the Soviet troops' departure from Hungary.

The event was named Budapesti Büszkeség ...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The Cato Institute has just published a long paper arguing that public concern around misinformation is overblown, politicised, and harmful to free speech. It's slick, readable - and fundamentally misleading.

Here's why.

One of the author's central complaints is that no one agrees on what "misinformation" actually means. And he's right - there is confusion. So let's be precise.

Media scholar Clare Wardle and colleagues have developed a helpful typology:

Disinformation: false or misleading information spread deliberately to deceive or manipulate

Misinformation: false or misleading information shared by people who believe it is true

Malinformation: true information used in misleading or harmful ways

These categories help us move beyond vague fears and examine the different forms that harmful information can take.

But even this isn't the full picture. The real danger comes when such material forms 'disordered discourse' - systems of belief that reinforce themselves, reject correction, and disconnect people from any shared standard of reality.

The Cato paper treats harmful information as a few false claims floating around online. It argues that people rarely fall for such claims, the damage is minor, and the real problem is elite overreaction.

From Murdoch to Musk: Hacking the State

While the media mogul spent more than half a century building up back-door political influence, the social media broligarch stormed into the US Government in just two years. Peter Jukes explores how the use of power through media has evolved

Peter Jukes

This radically understates the scale and nature of the issue.

The danger isn't just that people believe lies. It's that entire communities can become locked into belief systems that cannot be challenged - where loyalty replaces evidence, and disagreement feels like betrayal. That doesn't merely distort truth; it breaks trust.

When this happens at scale, it isn't just bad information - it is a breakdown in how society makes decisions. We lose the ability to deliberate, to find common ground, to hold anyone accountable.

That's what disordered discourse really is: a collapse in collective reasoning.

And when debate collapses, power doesn't disappear - it just becomes unaccountable. Truth becomes tribal. Institutions become hollow. People are left shouting across a void, each group convinced the others are insane or evil.

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

That isn't freedom. It's fragmentation.

We have seen this repeatedly: QAnon, COVID denial, election lies, war crimes denial. In every case, the issue was not merely what people believed - it was how those beliefs hardened into identity, making correction impossible.

The Cato paper ignores this entirely. Instead, it clings to a comforting idea - that "more speech" will fix everything. That if everyone is free to speak, the truth will naturally rise to the top.

That was never quite true. Today, it is a fantasy.

We no longer live in a neutral marketplace of ideas. We live in an attention economy shaped by algorithms, tribal identity, outrage incentives, and profit models that reward engagement over accuracy.

'I Was Targeted by a Hostile Crypto Spambot Swarm That Revealed How X's Algorithm Has Been Truly Broken'

The automated block attack tricks the algorithm into thinking your account should be suppressed, reports Iain Overton

Iain Overton

Cato argues that freedom means letting all ideas compete without interference. But this rests on a narrow definition of liberty - what philosopher Isaiah Berlin called 'negative liberty', or freedom from interference.

Berlin also describ...

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.

To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis.

Help us build the better media Britain deserves.

A wealthy heir to a major German chemicals manufacturer has detailed just how heartless the super-rich can be in prioritising the pursuit of profits over all other considerations.

Marlene Engelhorn, who convened a citizens assembly in Austria to decide how to redistribute €25 million of her inheritance, told the Excessive Wealth Concentration and Democracy conference in Budapest on 23-24 June that "our comfort is always at the centre of what we are trying to protect and this has a direct effect on you because we will burn the planet to protect our comfort zone".

She continued:

We will literally look sideways as people die in the very supply chains of our businesses that we are proud of. You must understand this

Marlene Engelhorn

The annual conference at the Central European University campus focussed on three central questions: how does excessive wealth harm democracy, can hyper-wealth produce public goods, and how can we contain excessive wealth?

The keynote address was given by Katharina Pistor, a law professor at Columbia University and author of The Code of Capital: How the Law and Wealth Create Inequality, on 'Transforming the Law of Capitalism'. Engelhorn - whose inheritance will go to 77 NGOs and organisations over the next five years - concluded the conference with a talk titled, 'Inside the Bubble: How the Hyper-Rich View the World'.

Englehorn told the conference that she was "furious" when she learned of her inheritance despite knowing, "I should be grateful and demure, and be like, 'oh thank you'."

She continued: "I was furious. I was angry. And I was angry because I knew it wasn't justice. Nobody should be born and then just get money for it. That is a reflection of a feudal system that stands in stark contradiction to democracy. So, I should have never gotten this wealth to begin with, it shouldn't have been mine."

Donald Trump, Elon Musk and the 'New Authoritarianism' Leading the US Down an Increasingly Dangerous Path

The early stages of Trump's new administration are following an alarming and predictable pattern, argues Christian Christensen

Christian Christensen

Englehorn went on to explain that the rich believe that they deserve their wealth, and therefore think, those who aren't deserve it, before saying: "If you think some people are worth more and some are worth less, politically what this means is that you are more prone to believe in a feudal structure, or a fascist structure, than a democratic one, because democracy in essence believes that everyone is worth the same."

Engelhorn told Byline Times that she participated in the conference, "because I see the ever-growing accumulation and concentration of wealth in the hands of the richest 1% as one of the biggest threats to our democracies, worldwide. And it's important to analyse this properly in order to be able to create structures that will eventually correct inequality and all the crises it fuels."

In her speech, Pistol spoke about the rise of the shadow-banking system which is being used to subvert regulations - drawn up after the 2008 financial crash - by firms, such as hedge funds or private equity funds. She explained that while these firms operate like banks, by not naming themselves as such, they can escape regulations designed to reign in bankers.

Pistor said: "It's like we're playing soccer, and we would usually assume that the soccer players have to abide by the rules of the game. But they're actually actively changing the rules of the game as the game is in motion. And the [referee] basically is wobbling around and thinking about which rules they now have to enforce."

Another spe...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Reform councillors appear to be missing out some fairly basic information from their public registers of interest.

In Reform-controlled Durham County Council, three of ten council cabinet members in Durham do not declare they are members of any political or professional organisations…including Reform UK. In addition, Adult and Health Services chief Cllr Howard Brown declares he is a paid official for the National Education Union but not a member of Reform.

The council's Deputy Leader Darren Grimes, who rose to prominence during the EU referendum over £675,315.18 landing in his bank account as donations from Vote Leave (he was cleared of any wrongdoing), also does not list being a member of any political organisations.

That's despite Grimes proudly declaring on X that he is a member of the right-wing Free Speech Union last August - and of course, being a member of Reform.

The interest form, a legal requirement for local authorities, asks councillors to declare: "I am a member…of the following body/ies, one of whose principal purposes include the influence of public opinion or policy (including any political party)."

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

Byline Times asked Darren Grimes if any memberships were missing - and if so, was this an oversight. We have not received a response.

In Warwickshire, 18-year-old Reform councillor George Finch has become council leader after the Reform leader of just six weeks stood down over "ill health".

Cllr Finch is listed as an online tutor with the company 'Superprof', charging £15 an hour for his education services. "I'm 18 turning 19, I have just finished A-Level and I know what you need to pass your exams, the Knowledge is [sic] the most important area of A-Level or GCSE's."

"[I] specialise in Tudor History, Cold War, USA politics, UK politics and many other areas in history too," the profile adds.

The work is not listed on his council declaration of interests. It is possible he hasn't earned any money from it. If he has however, he may have broken the rules on failing to declare financial interests. (This outlet put the tutoring questions to Cllr Finch but has not yet received a reply).

Byline Times understands that Cllr Finch plans - or had planned - to return to university in the East Midlands in September for his second year of studies.

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.

Meanwhile, Byline Times can reveal that the council have rejected a complaint against Cllr Darren Grimes over a 'joke' he made on Facebook at the weekend (22nd June) about grooming gangs. The post said: "Hey it's humid, mind. I'm sweating like a Labour-ran council in a rape gang inquiry."

One local voter who complained about the comments, Andy P, told Byline Times: "Using victims of sexual abuse like Grimes did bother[s] me, and it would regardless of whatever party such an individual represented. He represents Durham County Council and his sick 'joke' casts a bad light on both the local authority and local area."

The council responded to the complaint, quickly rejecting it: "[The post] was apparently made under the name "Darren Grimes" rather than "Councillor Darren Grimes", and..the post makes no reference to him being a Durham County Councillor.

"We also note that there is no reference to Durham or to Durham County Council. For these reasons, we do not think a reasonable member of the public who read this post would have assumed that Cllr Grimes was ...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Campaigners have called for a legal loophole to be closed which potentially allows foreign donations to flow into UK parties via cryptocurrencies.

In a new warning from the non-profit watchdog Spotlight on Corruption, researchers note that the risk of funds of criminal origin, or from hostile foreign actors entering UK politics has increased in the age of untraceable cryptocurrencies - with Reform becoming the first this May to accept donations in crypto.

The risk is that crypto donations are used to avoid already-weak laws limiting foreign interference in UK politics.

Dr Susan Hawley, Executive Director of Spotlight on Corruption, told Byline Times crypto donations to parties "poses unique risks".

"Under the current rules, I would say all the donations in crypto that happen between now and the new elections bill are going to be extremely high risk. The Government clearly needs to tighten the rules."

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.

And although Reform's donations page for crypto requires donors to prove their identity through a third party verification service, Hawley notes that it's not currently illegal for "gifting" to take place. "For instance, as long as the donation comes from a permissible donor, it doesn't matter who gave that permissible donor the money. And the permissible donor route is now so wide, given that it includes overseas voters as well."

The last Conservative Government scrapped the previous 15-year limit on how long a Brit could live abroad before they could no longer vote or donate to parties from overseas.

Hawley added: "Under the current regime, it seems to me that just having the identity of the last handler of the crypto, so to speak, is not really much protection for British democracy."

A report released by the Centre for Information Resilience in June 2025 identified that the new A7A5 cryptocurrency, which Spotlight on Corruption says has been used in sanctions evasion, was "used in electoral interference in Moldova and may play a role in future political interference schemes." However, there are hundreds of cryptocurrencies, many of which boast about users' anonymity and un-traceability.

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

"Some crypto currencies, such as Monero or Zcash, are designed to obscure the identity and location of an individual or entity, making it extremely unlikely parties will be able to verify the true source of their funds," Spotlight says, adding that this poses "distinct transparency and enforcement challenges."

"It is particularly easy for a single actor to donate using multiple crypto wallets with different addresses, fragmenting large donations into smaller amounts to bypass the reporting threshold," a new briefing from the group says.

"Because digital currencies are inherently borderless and bypass banks and central oversight - and many countries lack adequate regulation - these transactions often avoid any anti-money laundering scrutiny," the briefing adds.

Spotlight is calling for the Government to look at prohibiting cryptocurrency donations altogether, as Ireland and Brazil have recently done, to "prevent political interference and ensure full transparency of political donations."

"At the very least, consideration must be given to banning donations using cryptocurrencies that are designed to enable anonymity and mixing of legitimate and illicit funds, and those without a public or open ledger [record], and...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features…

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Successive UK Governments have dismantled British safeguards against wrongful immigration decisions - forcing claimants to rely solely on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Amnesty International argues.

It comes as the Labour Home Secretary reviews the human rights framework Britain helped establish.

The Government has confirmed a review of how the European Convention on Human Rights is applied to UK immigration law, following a number of high-profile cases of non-British criminals successfully 'avoiding' deportation.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's review will look at how the courts are applying the law on a 'right to a family life' for people who enter the UK irregularly.

She seems set to restrict the powers of judges to grant asylum under the European Convention on Human Rights. Yvette Cooper told MPs the Government would draw up a "clear framework" for judges to ensure decisions fit "what I think the public would want to see".

ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE

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

PAY ANNUALLY - £39.50 A YEAR

PAY MONTHLY - £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.

Last week, justice secretary Shabana Mahmood also said Britain will pursue reform of the European convention itself, as "public confidence in the rule of law is fraying", following growing right-wing hostility to the ECHR.

Her claims came in a speech to the Council of Europe, which oversees the convention.

The Government has ruled out leaving the ECHR, but Reform UK - which is leading in the polls - is committed to leaving, and the Conservatives are widely expected to announce their own commitment to doing so later this. Opposition leader Kemi Badenoch has launched a review into potentially quitting the ECHR, which would see the UK joining the likes of Russia and Belarus.

But in briefings published this week, Amnesty details how "political decisions and media distortions" have misled the public about the role of Article 8 - the section of the ECHR which protects everyone in Britain's right to a private and family life.

Amnesty argues this has "stoked hostility, undermined justice, and paved the way for damaging legal reforms" in the face of right-wing hostility.

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

The briefings explain how post-2006 changes - including the removal of key protections over deportation decisions and, in 2014, a restriction of deportation appeals to human rights grounds only - have made Article 8, the right to private and family life, the sole legal safeguard for many facing removal, even those with deep roots in the UK.

Under current law, most immigration appeals - except those for asylum cases - can only be made on human rights grounds. Automatic deportation applies to non-British people sentenced to 12+ months in prison, unless it breaches their human rights. And deportation powers can be used even against people born in the UK or with decades of lawful residence.

EXCLUSIVE

Resignations, Cancelled Meetings and Culture Wars: How Reform UK Councils Are Descending Into Chaos

Nigel Farage's band of newly-elected councillors are already starting to struggle, reports Josiah Mortimer

Josiah Mortimer

These strict laws create a high-bar for people being wrongly deported to overcome by relying on the European Convention.

Catch-22

Steve Valdez-Symonds, Amnesty UK's Refugee and Migrant Rights Programme Director, said: "This is a classic Catch-22: Governments dismantled their own safeguards, forcing people to rely on Article 8 and then blamed Article 8 for simply doing the job they requ...