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

As the far right movement gathers pace in the UK, and violence and hostility towards women deepens, a new study has found that gender inequality is worsening financial hardship in economically deprived regions.

The findings, from Kings College London, come weeks after polling by IPSOS for JOE Media Group of Gen Z voters revealed over half of men believe they're expected to do too much to support gender equality and that it has gone "too far" and 54% of Reform voters - many of whom are young men - believe that males are being discriminated against, as do 44% of Brexit voters.

Some of the most gender unequal regions in Britain are "left behind" communities in the north and midlands, where Reform UK saw significant gains in the May local elections.

The UK Is Failing to Tackle Violence Against Women Amid Rise of Misogynistic Influencers

Reduced budgets, rising online hate and the lack of an effective national strategy, are deepening the threat faced by women and girls, warn MPs

David Hencke

Report author Dr Caitlin Schmid told Byline Times: "We're seeing a lot of narratives that try to take us back to more traditional gender norms, even though our research shows that is the exact opposite of what we need, and will not address the legitimate grievances that women and men have, across the country, which have come out of decades of austerity."

Yorkshire and the Humber, Wales and Northern Ireland have the lowest levels of gender equality, researchers found, while London and the north-west of England are the most gender equal. No local authority in the UK has achieved gender equality.

Women shouldering a larger burden of childcare and domestic work, and being under-represented in politics and leadership roles are key factors blocking regional progress towards gender equality.

'For Too Long, Men Have Been Invisible in a Media Conversation Focusing on "Violence Against Women", Not "Male Violence"

The latest episode of the hit Media Storm podcast focuses on how journalism is still failing to challenge the structural forces of patriarchy and misogyny

Mathilda Mallinson and Helena Wadia

The report also found that gender inequality leads to poor outcomes for both women and men, such as lower wages for women, and poorer health outcomes for men.

Dr Schmid stresses that investment in childcare infrastructure is critical if we want to "unlock greater productivity" in these deprived regions, particularly in rural areas.

In regions where men are more actively involved in childcare and domestic work, they tend to experience positive health outcomes such as higher fertility and a lower risk of suicide.

The point I always want to come back to is that it's not a zero sum game: women's progress does not mean men's regress, our society and our economy depends on both doing well

Dr Caitlin Schmid, report author

Young men captured by the 'manosphere' often rely on this narrative to counter claims of misogyny, which was a central theme in Netflix's Adolescence series which ignited public debate after its release in March, made UK TV history, and led to its creators meeting with the Prime Minister about how best to "protect our children".

According to The Centre for Countering Digital Hate, the world's largest incel online forum received 2.7 million visits between January and March 2025 which illustrates the scope of the problem impacting young men, and the role of the internet in spreading the message.

Laura Bates, author of 'The New Age of Sexism', also found that it takes just 30 minutes for TikTok to show extreme misogynistic content to teenage boys when they set up a new account.

But while the media focuses on young men and their far-right leanings, and painstakingly tracks the rise of Reform and its leader, Nigel Farage, little attention is paid to young women and their move to the political...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features…

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

This article will not be about how closed borders don't work. The verdict for that was in long ago, and (while suicidal policymakers keep pinning their political fates on 'taking back control') the annual displacement report confirms it.

I will go into the data (briefly), but I will not waste time arguing a historical truth so incontestable it should be step 0 in our response to the 'refugee crisis'. Closed borders don't work, cool. This piece will be about what does.

To jump forward a few steps: the answer lies with us, the people, exacting the power that we are entitled to beyond marking x in a box every four years.

How Our Politicians Created an 'Island of Strangers' So They Don't Have to Make Our Lives Any Better

By presenting tougher immigration as a solution to people's discontent, Keir Starmer and others sidestep the real reasons why people feel estranged in their lives - it's a cynical and simplistic political ruse that keeps everyone alienated, writes Hardeep Matharu

Hardeep Matharu

It lies in the small day-to-day community-building that all of us do far more than we engage in party politics. And you could easily miss it, judging by stories in our media, which do more to divide society than reflect it.

First up, I want to flag some key points from the latest data on the global displacement crisis. I prefer 'displacement crisis' to 'refugee crisis' because displacement happens to refugees not because of them.

Displacement is a sad but constant reality of a planet, and species, that erupt and shake and get too hot and too cold. It affects over 120 million people and that number is growing. Governments have two choices: develop an infrastructure to deal with it, or stick their heads in the sand - and get their asses kicked.

The annual report, by UNHCR, makes one thing clear: governments are burying their heads in the sand. The first number I looked for when I opened the report was the number of people 'resettled'. This is the number of refugees who, rather than taking "illegal" and dangerous journeys to safe countries, are given lawful passage.

How Negative Media Headlines About Small Boat Crossings Are Turning Brits Against All Migrants

New research finds that disproportionate coverage of the relatively low numbers crossing the English channel is turning British people against all incomers

Josiah Mortimer

In 2024, 188,800 people were resettled, meaning if you're in need of asylum, your odds of getting it legally are 0.1%.

Not every displaced person can be resettled, of course, and war-torn countries need repopulating. These are common rebuttals, but they go without saying because the vast majority of displaced people already stay in their home countries.

In 2024, 26 million people were forcibly displaced and 10 million others returned home, meaning some 16 million people became in need of international community protection (about half the population of Tokyo); 80% of them stayed in their home countries, while 3 million sought asylum abroad (about a third of the population of London).

This is not an overwhelming number. It is also unavoidable: some people must go abroad because they will die if they do not, and because if they don't go, others cannot stay and live.

While foreign governments stick their heads in the sand, most refugees work their asses off to send money home, so that relatives squandering in displacement camps can survive.

Evidently, we cannot leave this global problem up to our idiotic policymakers. Nor do we have to.

'Keir Starmer's Painful Immigration Speech Is a Direct Affront to the Diagnosis He Was Voted in On'

The PM's white paper was not the 'evidence-led' policymaking he promised, rather it was 'cheap, short-termist, headline politics', writes Mathilda Mallinson

Mathilda Mallinson

This year's Refugee Week theme is 'Community as a Super...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features…

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Even during the 2003 Iraq war, the people of the Middle East did not appear to feel as terrified and alarmed as they have been since Israel's aggression against Iran kicked off on 12 June.

What is extraordinary is that this is barely reflected in the western media obsessed with the threat to Israel or western interests.

Many American and European actors appear to have forgotten the horrors of war, and even the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. But the people of the Middle East who have endured so many forever wars, often promoted by western powers, have a very sharp understanding of the ugliness of conflict and how their consequences last decades.

It is the people of the region who are on the frontline with the most to lose. Iranian and Israeli civilians are scared, with no idea how this ends? Civilian infrastructure is being smashed. The death count mounts daily.

Americans Oppose Trump Joining Israel-Iran War and Do Not See the Iranian Nuclear Program as an Immediate Threat

New polling suggests that voters do not want the President to further involve the US in the Middle East conflict

Martin Burns

But above all, Israel has not halted its atrocities against Palestinians in Gaza, where more die every day than in Israel and Iran. They are still being bombed and starved as Israel's genocide continues. Palestinians, not their Israeli settler neighbours, are under lockdown in the West Bank, with its economy on the brink of collapse. How long will that lockdown last?

Israel, and in particular Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, appears out of control, unwilling even to listen to its allies. Israel has been bombing Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen with no consequence, and now Iran.

US President Donald Trump has given him the green light.

The Iranian regime has its own awful record, backing the Assad regime for decades, and undermining the security of Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, Palestine and elsewhere. Neither Israeli nor Iranian governments have demonstrated respect for civilian life or human rights of others. International law is simply not at the races.

The fact that Netanyahu is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity is glossed over in the US and Europe, but in the Middle East everyone is aware of the double standard and the threat he poses.

Residents in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are scared that this war could spread. If the US does get involved, then Iran might target its neighbours across the Gulf in retaliation, or try to block the straights of Hormuz where 20% of the world's oil passes. Iran has an extensive network of sleeper agents across the region who could be activated.

The Nuclear Fear

Another major fear is nuclear fallout from attacks on Iranian nuclear infrastructure on air and water. Iran has a nuclear reactor on the Gulf at Bushehr. What happens if Israel decides to destroy it? The Israeli leadership has not categorically ruled out striking Bushehr. Fallout could hit GCC states, including contaminating sea water vital for their desalination plants.

The leadership in GCC states are acutely aware of this. Many of them are not historically friendly with Iran but have a working relationship. Some might like the Iranian regime to be weakened but not at the risk of wider conflagration, hence they condemned the Israeli strikes.

Oman, which hosted the US-Iran talks, was the first to do so referring to Israel's "barbaric military attack" on Iran. Nearly every government outside of Israel wanted the US-Iran talks to reach successful conclusion, so blame Netanyahu for having bombed the negotiations out of existence.

Inside the Collapse: How Putin's Russia Turned Its Opponents into Exiles

There is a deliberate policy by the Kremlin to exile, neutralise, and effectively erase alternative political life within th...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features…

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The triumph of Paris-Saint Germain in the recent final of the UEFA Champions League marked the end of a long wait for continental supremacy for the dominant French club of the last fifteen years. It was also a triumph for one of their sponsors, online sports betting operator and casino 1XBet, which also saw their other main football partner, FC Barcelona, crowned Spanish champion a few weeks earlier.

But to others, starting with the regulatory bodies which seek to exert control over an online gambling industry whose growth has gone virtually unchecked in the last decade and a half, this triumph was hard to swallow.

Corentin Segalen, the president of the Copenhagen Group set up by the Macolin Convention to combat sports manipulation and illegal sports betting, describes 1XBet as "the Wagner Group of sports betting" and told Byline Times how the company is "unafraid to operate illegally, fuel corruption and aggressively target the African market".

The parallel with Vladimir Putin's mercenary army was not a throwaway line. What Segalen referred to as well, was the ambiguous relationship between the operator and the Russian regime which Byline Times can reveal in the first in-depth investigation into the 1XBet betting empire published in the United Kingdom, and explains why it was sanctioned and banned in Ukraine on President Zelenskyy's personal orders after his country's invasion in February 2022.

The size of 1XBet's operation defies belief, but is in keeping with the size of the illegal gambling industry as a whole. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimated, in a December 2021 report, that it was worth 1.7 trillion USD - the combined GDP of all Scandinavian countries, or about three times the value of the world's narcotics trade.

But is 1XBet 'illegal'? Yes, according to the definition of the Council of Europe's Macolin Convention (*), which defines an illegal operator as one who offers odds, and takes bets, in jurisdictions where it is not licensed.

1XBet does this in countries such as Morocco, where the Budget Minister and president of the Moroccan football federation Faouzi Lekjaa castigated their "illegal activities" and in France, until the authorities forced their unlicensed French site to shut down. It also did it in Somalia, where it is now outlawed. The list goes on, and on.

Yet this has not stopped 1XBet from garnering more gambling industry awards and distinctions than any other operator over the past few years, from Africa to Europe and Latin America.

As one African regulating officer, who prefers to remain anonymous, told Byline Times, "this is the biggest problem for us. They're everywhere, they're advertising everywhere, they win all these awards - so people think they're legal when they are not."

Gambling industry experts Byline Times spoke to believe 1XBet may be the world's biggest visible illegal - under the Macolin Convention definition - sports betting operator in the world.

What is known is that they are now among the three most visited gambling websites on the planet - and that is just through their main incarnation, 1XBet.com, not taking into account the tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands (**) of affiliated companies and mirror websites which they have set up to broaden their offer and avoid detection by regulators over the past decade.

Inside the Collapse: How Putin's Russia Turned Its Opponents into Exiles

There is a deliberate policy by the Kremlin to exile, neutralise, and effectively erase alternative political life within the country, reports Denis Mikhailov

Denis Mikhailov

As they do not file corporate accounts in jurisdictions where those accounts are publicly accessible, their exact turnover is unknown, but, according to industry sources approached by Byline Times, it is likely to be in excess of 10 billion USD.

...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features…

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Polling from the Economist/YouGov and the Washington Post shows that contrary to President Donald Trump's demand for Iranian unconditional surrender, most Americans oppose involvement in the conflict between Iran and Israel and do not see the Iranian nuclear program as an immediate threat to the United States. Even Republicans who normally fall in lockstep behind Trump break from him on the issue of war with Iran.

The Economist/YouGov polling finds that 60% of respondents believe that the "US military should not get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran". Democrats (65%) and Independent voters (61%) are especially disapproving of US involvement in the Israel/Iran conflict.

Most significantly for the Trump team, 53% of Republican voters don't not want to see the US get involved in the developing conflict.

Given the current polarised state of American politics, the fact that Democrats, Republicans, and Independent voters all oppose American involvement in the conflict is incredibly significant.

Americans aged 65-plus, who are most likely to turn out in next year's midterm election, are especially opposed to US involvement at 69%.

In Washington Post polling, a 45% plurality say they "oppose the US military launching airstrikes against Iran over its nuclear program," while one in four (25%) say they support military strikes.

Almost a third (30%) are unsure how the US should respond. Two-thirds (66%) of Democrats oppose military strikes on Iran as do 44% of Independents. A 47% plurality of GOP voters support military strikes.

Raining on his Parade: Trump's Military Blunder

A clear majority of Americans are opposed to the US President's army parade, and his handling of immigration and the economy

Martin Burns

The bottom line in the Washington Post data is that military action against Iran is not even supported by a majority of GOP voters.

While Americans are opposed to US involvement in the Israel/Iran conflict, how do they feel about the Iranian nuclear program and is there a reservoir of fear and distrust that Trump could tap into to support American involvement in the conflict?

The short answer is, no.

Just under one in four (24%) of respondents in the Economist/YouGov polling see the Iranian nuclear program as an immediate and serious threat to the US. Republican voters are more likely (32% immediate and serious threat) to feel threatened by the Iranian nuclear program, though the number is far short of a majority.

The data from the Washington Post poll confirms what the Economist/YouGov polling finds: a majority of Americans do not see Iran's nuclear program as "an immediate and serious threat". Just over one in five (22%) do; 48% view it as a "somewhat serious threat".

JD Vance's 'British Sherpa' Chairs Organisation Funded by Billionaires Urging a Second US Civil War

The man described as the Vice President's "philosopher king" is linked to a series of right-wing billionaires who have condemned democracy and called for a "limited dictatorship" in the US

Olly Haynes

Complementing reluctance to get involved militarily in the Israel/Iran conflict, in the Economist/YouGov polling, 56% support the US engaging in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Significantly, 63% of those who said they voted for Trump in 2024 support negotiation with Iran.

When asked in the Economist/YouGov polling what options the US should pursue in dealing with the Iranian nuclear program, 28% say that the United States should threaten Iran with harsher economic sanctions, 26% say incentivise Iran with resumption of diplomatic relations, and 24% support incentivising Iran by the easing of economic sanctions.

Less than one in five (18%) say that the US should threaten Iran with the use of military force. Incentivising Iran with a guarantee of no use of military force is the pr...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features…

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

On 13 June 2025, retired Colonel Richard Kemp appeared on BBC Radio's Stephen Nolan Show to discuss Israeli military strikes on Iran. Introduced simply as a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and counter-terrorism expert, Kemp praised Israel's actions as "very successful" and speculated that the Iranian regime might collapse under the pressure of Israeli airpower.

What listeners were not told - again - is that Kemp is a director and trustee of UK Friends of the Association for the Wellbeing of Israel's Soldiers (UK-AWIS), a British charity that raises money to support the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF).

This omission by the BBC is all the more striking given that, just days earlier, the UK Charity Commission issued an official warning to UK-AWIS for serious regulatory failings, citing misconduct and mismanagement in the administration of the charity, after investigating the charity for using footage of the killing of Palestinians as a fund-raising tool.

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's June 9 warning accuses UK-AWIS trustees - with the retired Colonel Kemp among them - of failing to exercise adequate oversight of the charity's digital content.

The breach involved a video, hosted on the charity's website and YouTube channel, which contained what the Charity Commission called a "distressing scene". This footage, first flagged in investigative reporting by Byline Times, appeared to show thermal imagery of Palestinian individuals being targeted by the Israeli military.

The concern was that a UK charity had used footage of Palestinians being killed by the IDF to raise money that then offered support for members of the IDF.

According to the Charity Commission, the trustees had outsourced editorial control of the website to a PR agency and a former executive director, and allowed third-party material to be uploaded without review. In so doing, the trustees had "failed to act in the charity's best interests" and "exposed the charity's reputation to unnecessary risk".

The Commission ordered UK-AWIS to review all its media content, implement a proper social media policy, and ensure trustees familiarise themselves with official guidance.

UK-AWIS's latest financial account show that the charity spent more than £53,000 on legal and professional fees in the year to 31 March 2024 - a large sum for a charity of its scale. The trustees attributed this expense to the Charity Commission's investigation into its fundraising materials.

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

An "overseas consultant" - presumably from Israel - was also listed as being paid over £52,000 but is not named.

The accounts also refer to UK-AWIS adhering to social media guidelines provided by an unnamed "third party," possibly the IDF.

Meanwhile, the charity still does not maintain a public-facing website, despite raising more than £750,000 in donations that year.

That Kemp remains a public voice on matters relating to Israel and its wars, even after damning regulatory scrutiny, should raise serious questions for the BBC.

This is not the first time the broadcaster has failed to declare his links to UK-AWIS. In November 2023, following a Newsnight segment on Gaza, the BBC admitted it "should have made [Kemp's] connections with Israel clear."

On the Nolan Show, Kemp was once again presented as a supposed independent analyst. He confidently as...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features…

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

If Tom Wolfe's The Bonfire of the Vanities defined the 1980s in America, then Alan Hollinghurst's The Line of Beauty did the job for us here.

Both novels captured the feeling of that decade - the heady materialism, unapologetic greed and the sense, too, that on both sides of the Atlantic a great many people had got into the business of selling out their countries, their values, and maybe also their souls.

Feelings that find perfect expression on the printed page, alas, often lose their resonance on celluloid. Wolfe was badly let down by Brian De Palma in his film adaptation of his novel - a strangely clunky, humourless affair that starred Tom Hanks. Saul Dibb's rehash of Hollinghurst's classic as a BBC mini-series, meanwhile, turned out to be long-winded and boring with a peculiarly listless central performance by Dan Stevens.

Sometimes, not often, you find yourself getting so close to books that you take it personally when film-makers make such a Horlicks of them: I remember both these cack-handed adaptations from people with no feel for the original books annoyed me intensely.

My hopes are, however, high that Michael Grandage will finally crack The Line of Beauty in his stage version at the Almeida Theatre in north London this October.

'In a World of Influencers, We Have Waved Goodbye to the Theatre Critic'

Great theatre requires that a conversation should begin about it after the curtain comes down, writes Tim Walker

Tim Walker

Theatre is a lot more sensitive and intellectual a medium than film and I think it's where this particular story has its best chance of finding a worthwhile new life and maybe a whole new generation of fans.

Grandage is a thoughtful, intelligent, and highly empathetic director for whom great actors, writers, and technicians want to work. His decade in charge of the Donmar theatre in London's Covent Garden was a masterclass in cutting-edge artistic directorship: big star names, well-chosen classic and contemporary plays, and a seamless professionalism that meant there were no more highly-prized tickets in theatreland during his tenure.

Although Grandage has still to announce his cast, he has already guaranteed the all-important zeitgeist of The Line of Beauty will be captured by bringing in Christopher Oram as his set and costume designer. Auspiciously, Oram did a superb job of evoking the 1970s in Grandage's original stage production of Peter Morgan's Frost/Nixon - I recall Michael Sheen as Frost taking an especially evocative British Airways flight - and the ensuing decade should pose no great challenges for a set designer with his unique flair.

The adaptation is by the highly-experienced writer, actor, and producer Jack Holden: the Almeida's outgoing boss Rupert Goold has described what he has done with Hollinghurst's book as "one of the most compelling new takes on modern literature we've ever staged".

For my generation, this production will have to be done right because the book and the decade were important to us.

We were, of course, all younger then, making our way as 'yuppies' (young upwardly-mobile professionals) and it was a tremendously exciting time so it's difficult not to feel some misty-eyed nostalgia for it.

There was also an awareness - a lot keener in retrospect - of the cruelty to that decade: the casual indifference to the three million unemployed, the way AIDS had not elicited compassion for its victims but virulent homophobia that found its screechy voice in newspapers such as the Sun, and maybe, most of all, the country so obviously starting to lose its cohesion that was decades later to be laid bare with Brexit.

The Upside Down: Vegetable Leather

In his monthly column, John Mitchinson explores the unnatural history of natural rubber

John Mitchinson

L P Hartley might have observed that the past is another country and ...

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

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features…

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Media reporting of small boat crossings appears to be reducing support for all forms of immigration - even for those groups who arrived in the UK through regular approved routes, new research suggests.

Migrants arriving by small boats make up just 2% of all immigration to the UK, but have become dominant in the coverage of migration issues over recent years.

However, a new working paper for the Centre for Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE) at the University of Warwick, seen by Byline Times, finds that even small increases in the coverage of small boat crossings reduces overall support for immigration - helping to drive hardline anti-migrant policies affecting all migrant groups.

Highly-visible migration stories can drive major shifts in public opinion and policy through media amplification - with effects varying dramatically based on people's media consumption preferences, the authors find.

The paper, led by University of Birmingham assistant professor Dr Apurav Bhatiya, uses the British Election Study's mass polling of Brits alongside data on irregular (often dubbed illegal) small boat crossings across the Channel, to trace the impact of media coverage on Brits' views on immigration.

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

Until now, researchers have lacked evidence on how the visibility of "irregular entries" to Britain shapes the public's response.

But the analysis finds that "unauthorized entry, even from genuine asylum seekers, can trigger sharper backlash than legal migration and may generate broader spillovers, including declining support for legal migration pathways." And media reporting plays a major role in that.

The research focuses on small boat crossings in the English Channel - a "politically charged and visually prominent form of entry into the UK" often given front-page treatment by UK newspapers.

"Although these crossings account for a small share of overall immigration [around 2%], they receive disproportionate media and political attention. Daily arrival figures are regularly reported in major news outlets both online and offline, and even small fluctuations often feature in headlines, allowing for high-frequency public exposure," the authors note.

The decline in support for immigrants following a rise in small boat crossings is largest against foreign students, followed by non-EU workers, family migrants, and EU workers. The decline in support for types of immigration is actually smallest for asylum seekers following a surge in small boat crossings.

Don't miss a story

SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

18-35 year-olds show the strongest negative response of all age groups to reporting about small boat crossings. It suggests the effects of negative coverage spread widely through Britain's broader media ecosystem - particularly on social media.

Of all social classes, the strongest declines in immigration support in the days following high numbers of small boat crossings are seen among economically vulnerable groups, especially those who are not in work or who are on low incomes.

The decline in immigration support is most pronounced among readers of right-leaning newspapers. But consumers of left-leaning outlets show a mild increase in support in the days after small boat surges.

Left-leaning news sources are more likely to focus on the human and individual stories behind the crossings, whereas right-leaning ones focus on alleged security risks, or frame the migration as some kind of invasion.

EXCLUSIVE

BBC Bosses Draw Up Plans to Win Over Reform Voters by Changing News and Drama Output

The Director General Tim Davie and other executives discussed alteri...

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

I can't believe I'm asking this question again. Who the hell are the disabled?

In light of recent announcements by the Government, and darker responses from some non-disabled people, it plainly needs answering once more.

When it comes to our threatened benefits and faltering freedoms - even our right to exist - how do we respond to this increasingly bleak narrative that asks questions such as 'it's nothing to do with me, why should I pay for them?' and 'why should I be bothered about these others?'

Others.

There are more than 16 million disabled people - 24% of the population. One in four. That's a considerable amount of others. A family unit. A group of close friends. Immediate work colleagues.

Considering we are a huge minority group, how is it that we attract such negative perceptions, right up to the cruel 'blame-game' rhetoric of this Government?

Why is it that we continue to be othered, oppressed, and marginalised to an extent that other minority groups may experience less, even while sharing many of the same grassroot issues?

'Letters To My Younger Selves - And the Quiet Women Who Made Me Who I Am'

The voyage of my life could never be described as 'easy', writes Penny Pepper, but it has been built around friendships that brought illumination in the toughest of times

Penny Pepper

The social model of disability is relevant again when considering the Government's inability to confront the daily barriers disabled people face.

Regarding its latest attacks on the Access to Work (ATW) scheme, here is an example: a wheelchair user needs to eliminate the barrier of inappropriate, inaccessible public transport to get to work - it is not her fault that she is a wheelchair user, is it? She's not 'workshy' and has skills, but it seems the Government believes that she can manage with less ATW funding - in this case, less money for a taxi, which would circumvent transport barriers.

Another example relates to the specialist technology the ATW scheme has funded in the past. I was once supplied with voice dictation software, Dragon Professional, at a time when there were no equivalent apps to do this. Even now, not one is as sophisticated as the latest version of Dragon. Without it, I cannot write, and these days, I work in a combination of old software and support which includes actual human beings who are worth every penny I am able to pay them. Yet, the direction of ATW is to fob us off with useless free AI apps (more here). This simultaneous 'cost-cutting drive' to ATW is occurring as attacks to the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) are also proposed.

It leaves me speechless at the inane and illogical approach the Government is taking - it wants us to work but won't support the removing of barriers that disabled people did not create in the first place that prevent us from doing so.

Calling, as always, on my networks within the disability community to answer the question 'what's it got to do with me?' brought up grave responses.

The first retort is obvious: disability occurs randomly, to anyone, at any time. And disability could easily happen to someone you know, however much people don't want to think about it. As one person said, "don't we all hate what we fear until we understand it?"

The Government's policies are compounded by the lack of our presence in any balanced sense across culture, media, politics.

Non-disabled people may shrug away the statistics because there is very little out there that reflects the disability experience in all its variety. It's easier to cancel out disability when we are hidden - and worse: pilloried, targeted, and hated.

'Who's Virginia Woolf Afraid Of?'

Stephen Unwin explores how the famed author's v...

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

When Labour returned to power last July it spoke of 'national renewal'. But, almost a year on, that promise feels a bit thin.

There have been commendable moves - including the partial renationalisation of railways and the creation of the Government-owned renewable energy investment body GB Energy. But these sit alongside decisions that have arguably alienated people across the country: greenlighting a new runway at Heathrow, approving oil and gas drilling at Rosebank, and proposing deep cuts to social security.

In both tone and policy, Labour has begun to treat fear, not hope, as the starting point for change. Many of its long-standing members feel estranged from a leadership increasingly seen as managerial, risk-averse, and devoid of vision.

That vision gap is part of a much deeper crisis, one that defines our political moment. At the heart of this is a profound sense of alienation - the product of an economic model designed to enrich the few while leaving the rest behind, and of a political system that disempowers people.

This is the real crisis behind Keir Starmer's "island of strangers" speech. It struck a chord because we are increasingly a society unmoored from itself.

From lower voter turnout at elections, to the rise of the populist-right, and plummeting trust in politicians - there is a crumbling of our democratic institutions and political culture.

Neighbours have become strangers. Citizens have become spectators. Hope has been displaced by quiet resignation. Many feel they have no say, no control, no future.

How Our Politicians Created an 'Island of Strangers' So They Don't Have to Make Our Lives Any Better

By presenting tougher immigration as a solution to people's discontent, Keir Starmer and others sidestep the real reasons why people feel estranged in their lives - it's a cynical and simplistic political ruse that keeps everyone alienated, writes Hardeep Matharu

Hardeep Matharu

The question that Compass' recent 'Change: How?' conference addressed was simple but urgent: how can the Labour Government deliver the decade of radical renewal the UK so desperately needs?

Gathering more than 450 citizens, politicians, and experts, we explored the nuts and bolts of change that is practical, grounded, and genuinely transformative.

Three core ideas came to the fore.

Community Power

Pam Warhurst, founder of the Incredible Edible project - which focuses on local food and community allotments - made the case for a 'right to grow' that would give communities a stake in food production, the cultivation of health and wellbeing, and the stewardship of nature.

Dr Simon Opher, Labour MP for Stroud, championed common ownership as a means of responding to the climate crisis, drawing on work in his own constituency to prove that this is both feasible and desirable.

Dan Firth, of the New Economics Foundation think tank, urged Labour to invest in the development of leaders from local communities.

Wandsworth Councillor Aydin Dikerdem spoke about the importance of housing and development being led by communities with skin in the game.

A Social Economy

Labour MP for Sheffield Heeley, Louise Haigh, and Miatta Fahnbulleh, Labour MP for Peckham and Minister for Energy Consumers, respectively made the case for social spending and investment in co-operative principles.

Danny Sriskandarajah, chief executive of the New Economics Foundation, called on the Government to balance 'Treasury brain' with a 'progressive heart'.

Nadia Whittome, Labour MP for Nottingham East, called for growth that is felt by ordinary people.

Jovan Owusu-Nepaul, who stood against Nigel Farage as Labour's candidate in Clacton last July, and who now works for Social Enterprise ...