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

Last July, in her first speech as culture secretary, Lisa Nandy declared that "the era of culture wars is over".

Then, later that month, education secretary Bridget Phillipson paused the enactment of one of the previous government's most provocative culture war measures just days before it was due to come into force. This was the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.

A furious reaction ensued on the part of the culture warriors, and this included the deep-pocketed Free Speech Union (FSU), led by the newly ennobled Toby Young, announcing that it would seek judicial review of Phillipson's action.

This was on the grounds that she had acted ultra vires - that is, exceeded her legal power or authority - and had also breached the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 by removing protections for "people of certain protected groups", such as "gender critical persons or those who espouse minority political views".

As I previousl concluded in Byline Times, "How the Government deals with the ongoing fall-out from its pausing of the egregious Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act will be an early test of its mettle on this particular front."

Just days before the judicial review was due to take place, the Government backtracked. To quote the title of its press release on 15 January 2025: "Government reaffirms commitment to Free Speech in universities."

Admittedly, it dropped two of the most contentious elements of the Act, namely the inclusion of student unions within its remit and the statutory tort that allowed legal action to be taken by anyone claiming that their freedom of speech had been restricted by a university.

'The Higher Education Act is a Culture War Tactic Designed by Right-Wingers to Ensure Their Views are Heard'

'It is difficult not to regard the Act as a classic piece of doublethink designed to censor freedom of expression in the guise of protecting it'

Julian Petley

The latter in particular would have put an intolerable burden on universities, already in considerable financial difficulty, and would have been a gift to those determined to stage events calculated to provoke protests that would enable them to claim that their free speech rights under the Act had been infringed: climate change and Holocaust deniers, anti-Muslim racists and myriad other aggrieved extremists of one kind or another would have been queuing up to mount such provocations.

The revised legislation still imposes a duty on universities to promote free speech on campus and create appropriate codes of conduct. It also retains the oversight role for the Office for Students (OfS), England's higher education regulator, and for its Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom, inevitably known as the free speech tsar.

The OfS maintains the power to investigate complaints about breaches of free speech from students, academics and external speakers. Universities which break the rules will be publicly held to account and could be required to pay compensation and fines; at worst, their registration could be suspended.

Freedom of expression on university campuses, and anywhere else for that matter, is obviously a serious issue. But the much vaunted "free speech fundamentalism" of Trump, Musk and Zuckerberg, faithfully amplified in the UK by the right-wing press, and particularly in the Telegraph by the likes of Alison Pearson and Isabel Oakeshott, has served to demonstrate all too clearly the highly partisan and provocative ends to which arguments for freedom of speech (albeit of a very specific kind) can be put.

The Real BBC 'Impartiality Crisis' Is...

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

William McCallum, the Co-Executive Director of Greenpeace UK was one of six people arrested outside the US embassy today following a peaceful protest in which activists dyed the embassy pond blood red in protest at the US government's continued sale of arms to Israel.

McCallum has been arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause criminal damage. Five other activists were also arrested near the embassy on suspicion of criminal damage and conspiracy to cause criminal damage.

Last week the US senate voted down two resolutions introduced by Bernie Sanders to block $8.8 billion of new arms sales to Israel. The US is Israel's largest arms supplier accounting for 66% of its imports according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Since taking office in January, Donald Trump has continued his predecessor's policy of supplying weapons to Israel, approving nearly $12 billion in military sales, according to the US State Department

Twelve activists tipped the dye, which Greenpeace emphasised was non-toxic and biodegradable, from containers bearing the words 'Stop Arming Israel' into the pond located in front of the embassy building in Nine Elms, south-west London.

The containers were delivered to the Embassy on bicycles with trailers disguised as delivery bikes.

The protest follows Gaza's health ministry issuing an urgent plea for medicine, saying Israel's more than month-long blockade of the Strip has left hospitals with 'dangerous' and 'unprecedented' low stocks.

Sacha Deshmukh, CEO of Amnesty International UK said "Amnesty International has serious concerns about these reports. The right to peacefully protest is a fundamental human right. The police have an obligation to act proportionately and only make arrests when strictly necessary. It is not clear why they thought it was proportionate and necessary to arrest people for adding non-toxic biodegradable dye to a large open-air pond.

He added "Of even greater concern is the decision to arrest the CEO of a major national NGO on conspiracy charges. The use of conspiracy charges in this way is a growing trend in policing in this country, which turns participating in organising peaceful protests into a criminal act. It is having a chilling effect on free speech, and our right to peacefully protest."

Areeba Hamid, co-executive director at Greenpeace UK, said "These arrests are further proof that the right to protest is under attack in the UK. This protest used biodegradable pond dye that is designed to disperse and wash away naturally.

"We took this action because US weapons continue to fuel an indiscriminate war that's seen bombs dropped on schools and hospitals, entire neighbourhoods blasted to rubble, and tens of thousands of Palestinian lives obliterated. As the biggest supplier of weapons to the Israeli military, the US government bears a heavy responsibility for the horrors unfolding in Gaza".

Graeme Hayes a reader in Sociology at Aston University whose work focuses on the trials of climate activists said "The repeated use of conspiracy charging by legislators, prosecutors and police has been one of the main weapons used in order to stamp down on democratic peaceful disruptive protest. This has been particularly apparent since the Police Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill of 2022 and the Public Order Act of 2023". He added that "It demonstrates that the government's approach is just as authoritarian as the previous government's".

The Met police said "At 07:30hrs on Thursday, ten April officers on duty at the US Embassy in Nine Elms became aware of a group of protesters putting red dye into the pond at the ...

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

Keir Starmer's Government must seize a "once in a generation opportunity" to properly reform the House of Lords, a leading constitutional scholar has told Byline Times.

The Labour party had promised to "abolish" Parliament's second chamber. However, this promise was watered down to a commitment to eliminate the remaining hereditary peers as part of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, with further more fundamental reforms delayed.

However, Professor Meg Russell, director of the UCL Constitution Unit, a research centre which advises on constitutional change, argues that opportunities for such reform typically only come around every 30 years, so the Government must seize the opportunity for real change now.

'A Trump Trade Deal Would Open the UK's Doors to the Big Tech Robber Barons'

The only deal the US President and his oligarch beneficiaries are interested in is one that would allow them to feast on our public services and consumer rights, argues Nick Dearden

Nick Dearden

She told Byline Times that "politicians argue constantly about Lords reform. There are lots of differences between the parties, but most importantly within the parties about what direction House of Lords reform should take - should it be elected? Should it be appointed? - and that tends to get in the way of legislation ever being introduced. Nick Clegg was the last person to introduce a bill, but it was killed in the House of Commons".

The slim bill contains one measure, removing the hereditary peers who are able to vote on legislation by birthright, in keeping with Labour's manifesto.

The measure is a continuation of reforms initially passed by Blair in 1999 when the then Labour Government removed 667 hereditary peers, leaving 92 in place as a compromise.

The passage of the bill has already been bogged down by dozens of opposition amendments from the Conservatives who oppose the reform.

Russell said "there are arguments and different interpretations of what's been going on in the Lords some people would say it is to a degree filibustering, deliberately slowing it down".

She added "obstructing this bill is not a way of retaining hereditary peers. That is not going to happen. It was in the manifesto, the House of Lords does not block manifesto bills, if it tried to block this bill it wouldn't have public support".

In a rare interview with the Telegraph Shadow Conservative Leader of the House, Lord Nicholas True, accused Keir Starmer of "jumping on the graves of 80 hard-working public servants, of whom over half are Conservatives" and said he "can end 600 years of history, reduce the number of independents in the House and sort of adjust the numbers marginally and put in a few trade unionists. That's not a very proud legacy".

Lord True warned that if Starmer went ahead with the bill and did not allow a "goodly number" of hereditary peers to remain, the Conservative party would play an obstructing role and engage in "very aggressive procedural action".

Russell argued that Starmer should push ahead with further reforms such as introducing a retirement age for peers and a minimum attendance requirement within this bill, rather than waiting for a second opportunity.

She said "this is the first bill [on Lords reform] to reach the Lords from the government since 1999, 26 years ago, so if we want some reform just put it in this bill and then it will happen, because if we wait for the next one, we could be waiting for ever".

She added, "This bill has got quite bogged down already, it speeded through the House of Commons very quickly. It's had five days of debate at committee in the Lords as well as i...

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

High Court Judge refuses to overturn anonymity order in new case brought by former colleague

Wootton allegedly posed as 'Maria Joseph' in order to obtain sexual images and video by deception

It is the first case to stem from a Byline Times investigation into Wootton's alleged use of fake avatars to trick men into compromising themselves online

The 42-year-old former GB News star was not present at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Tuesday as Judge Roger Eastman ruled there was "clear evidence of potential adverse and serious adverse effect" if the identity of the man - a former colleague known as YXN - was made public.

It came as first details emerged of a personal injury case Wootton's former colleague is bringing against him for allegedly using the fake online identity 'Maria Joseph' to unlawfully obtain intimate photos and an explicit video of him.

Mr Justice Eastman heard that Wootton sent partially and naked photographs of a woman, as well as a video of a couple having sex, while pretending to be Joseph in Facebook and WhatsApp messages in 2010 in order to deceive the man into sending private material of his own.

EXCLUSIVE

Five GB News Men Accused of Sexual Impropriety as Channel Engulfed by Wootton-Fox Misogyny Storm

As GB News goes into meltdown following Dan Wootton and Laurence Fox's on air comments about Ava Evans, Byline Times reveals the controversial personal histories of five employees - including CEO Angelos Frangopoulos, who enjoys the protection of a non-disclosure agreement over sexual harassment allegations

Tom Latchem and Dan Evans

Barrister Justin Levinson said that Wootton, by hiding behind the fake profile, had "tricked" his client into believing he was exchanging messages with the woman in the images, allegedly causing "injury (including psychiatric injury)", adding that Wootton had not denied being Joseph.

In written legal submissions, Mr Levinson said: "The Claimant now brings this claim for damages for personal injuries and losses consequent on the Defendant's intentional infliction of harm, misuse of confidential information, infringement of privacy and deceit."

He added that by the "very nature of the unusual facts on which the claim is based, the Claimant's anonymity is necessary to prevent compounding and aggravating the very matters which give rise to the claim".

Wootton's barrister Samuel Rowe argued that when the anonymity order was made in January this year, Mr Wootton had insufficient notice to challenge it in court. This was rejected by the judge.

Mr Rowe also claimed the court would not have been justified in granting the order had it been aware of relevant information at the time, including that Wootton had been investigated by the Metropolitan Police and Police Scotland and faced no charges and that the order offended the principle of open justice.

But Levinson told the court that the police investigations did not relate to the claimant's complaint, but to similar ones, and the judge refused to lift the anonymity order, instead awarding costs against Wootton, with future hearings in the case to be held publicly.

It follows the publication by Byline Times in 2023 of a three-year investigation into the pseudonymous activities of former News of the World, Sun, and MailOnline journalist Wootton, posing as Joseph and another avatar - a fake showbusiness agent called 'Martin Branning'.

EXCLUSIVE

The Truth About Megxit: How Dan Wootton and a 'Cash-For-Leaks' Scandal Split the Royal Family

As Scotland Yard probes the journalist Dan Wootton over allegations of blackmail and serial sexual catfishing after a three-year special in...

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

In the recent history of miscarriages of justice, the case of Danny Major is uniquely shocking. Whilst working as a police constable in 2003, he claims to have been fitted up by colleagues who had beaten up an 18-year-old detainee in Leeds Bridewell custody suite in the early hours of a Saturday morning. He believes his fellow officers conspired to pin the blame on him, a young constable six years into his policing career, when the teenager had to be rushed by ambulance to hospital because they thought he was going to die.

In 2013, Greater Manchester Police began a review into this appalling episode, optimistically called Operation Lamp. It's been 10 years since I spoke to West Yorkshire's Police and Crime Commissioner, Mark Burns-Williamson, who had commissioned the review.

Expecting to be brushed off, I was surprised to be told: "The evidence supports the premise that there may have been a miscarriage of justice and that there is sufficient fresh evidence to support the case being referred back to the [Court of Appeal] by the Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC)."

Operation Lamp vindicated Danny Major.

"In 30 years in the police service, I've never seen a report as critical of one police force by another force," said Chief Inspector Ian Hansen, chairman of the Greater Manchester Police Federation.

I wrote about Danny's case six years ago for Byline Times. This month, the troubled miscarriage of justice watchdog finally referred the case to the Court of Appeal. Why the wait?

THE JUSTICE TRAP: Was a Police Officer Sacked and Jailed for a Violent Assault actually the Victim of a Cover-Up?

PC Danny Major spent four months in prison for a crime he says he didn't commit. Faced with an unhelpful and inactive miscarriages of justice watchdog, he is still fighting to clear his name.

Jon Robins

It has been a devastating experience for Danny Major, his young family and parents. The only job Major could find on release was working in a call-centre where he manned the phones at a desk overlooking HMP Leeds where he served some of the four months he spent in prison; meanwhile, the three officers who he believes framed him progressed their careers.

Major gave up working after Operation Lamp. The stress was too much. For him to clear his name (like any innocent person claiming to be wrongly convicted), the CCRC has to send his case back to the Court of Appeal which has the power to overturn his conviction.

Last month, I was shocked to discover that the CCRC hadn't done this. Major told me that the commission informed him last August a decision had been made - but they wouldn't tell him whether it is good news or bad. He said his stress levels have never been as high as they were as a result of a 22-year injustice.

This month, the good news was confirmed.

The Post Office Scandal: Why Do Miscarriages of Justice Take So Long to Expose?

Veteran Crime Reporter Duncan Campbell examines the sad history of wrongful prosecutions and the decline of deeply researched investigations

Duncan Campbell

Danny Major comes from a policing family. His father was a serving police officer for more than 30 years. Eric Major was almost killed when policing the miners' strike, struck by flying masonry. The incident left him with a detached retina and brain injury. Ironically, Eric had briefly been a miner before joining the force. The family has now seen another side of our justice system. "I can take one corrupt police officer - you expect good and bad anywhere - but not a corrupt police force," his late mother Bernadette told me six years ago.

What happened that night was never about one 'rogue' off...

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

An arrest has been made as part of an HMRC criminal investigation into a company awarded a £25 million Covid PPE contract during the pandemic, after being referred by a senior Conservative Government minister.

It comes five years after Byline Times revealed how the company, Luxe Lifestyle Ltd was awarded the contract despite Companies House records at the time suggesting it had no employees, no assets, no turnover and was £9,000 in debt.

The firm was awarded the bumper PPE deal via the government's unlawful VIP Lane, which helped secure contracts for politically connected individuals and companies.

An investigation by Good Law Project discovered that the firm's offer to supply PPE was referred to civil servants by former Conservative Party Chairman and Minister Greg Hands.

EXCLUSIVE

Matt Hancock Used His Personal Email Account to Help 'VIP' Supplier Win £25 Million COVID PPE Contract

Excalibur Healthcare, which supplied the UK Government with tens of millions of pounds worth of unusable PPE, ultimately folded owing taxpayers £22 million

Russell Scott

News of the arrest was revealed by Good Law Project. According to their report "The firm's director, Karen Brost, was arrested on suspicion of fraud by failing to disclose information, conspiracy to cheat the public revenue and fraudulent evasion of income tax. Her husband, Tim Whyte, is suspected of acting as a shadow director and is also being investigated in connection with the same offences".

Former Minister Greg Hands forwarded on the Luxe Lifestyles PPE offer to officials, after being approached through his personal email account, by Conservative Party activist Mark Higton - the then chairman of the Hammersmith Conservatives. The same month Luxe Lifestyle were subsequently awarded a £25m contract by the Department of Health and Social Care to supply gowns and masks.

Furthermore leaked documents, obtained by the Good Law Project, later listed a PPE contract as "Minister Hands/Luxe Lifestyle" and the point of contact as "Mark Higton".

A subsequent freedom of information request revealed that nine million items worth £20m, provided by Luxe Lifestyle, had been labelled "do not supply" by officials, meaning they were not used and have subsequently been destroyed.

Civil Servants Felt Pressured Into Giving 'Special Treatment' to Conservative-Connected COVID PPE Suppliers

Private correspondence reveals officials felt threatened by firms benefiting from "back-scratching" by Conservative ministers

Russell Scott

Byline Times previously reported on the firm's failure to publish any company accounts covering the period from December 2019 onwards - four months prior to the first national lockdown.

However, reports suggest Luxe Lifestyle 'made a profit in excess of £5m' from the VIP lane PPE deal, despite supplying millions of items deemed unsuitable for use.

Despite the controversy surrounding the previous government's unlawful VIP Lane, the number of arrests are low - with only one other known arrest made public - In June 2024, A 46 year old man was arrested in connection to the NCA's ongoing criminal investigation into PPE Medpro.

PPE Medpro secured PPE contracts from the DHSC valued at £203 million after being referred onto the VIP lane by Conservative Party Peer Baroness Mone.

Are More Arrests on the Horizon?

Back in January, following a Parliamentary Question from Phil Brickell, Labour MP for Bolton West, it was revealed that a number of investigations were being conducted by HMRC in relation to the fulfilment of "government contracts relating to the procurement and onward supply of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and...

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

Campaigners against Elon Musk are inviting Londoners to smash up a Tesla in the latest of a series of protests and artistic stunts against the Trump-supporting billionaire that are spreading across the UK.

Titled 'London vs Musk', the art piece is to be put on by Everyone Hates Elon, the group behind satirical posters referring to Teslas as "Swasticars" which have appeared across London.

The event is billed as an opportunity for "Londoners to safely and legally smash up a Tesla to vent their rage at Elon Musk, the far-right and billionaires", will see a second-hand Tesla which was set to be scrapped, smashed and auctioned to raise money for foodbanks this Saturday.

EXCLUSIVE

'Don't Buy a Swasticar': Tesla Hit by UK Boycott Campaign Over Elon Musk's Far-Right Support

Electric vehicle producer Tesla has been targeted by activists due to its far-right owner's interference in British politics

Josiah Mortimer

"There are more billionaires than ever before and there are more food banks than ever before. These things are obviously connected," said an Everyone Hates Elon spokesperson.

Tesla owners who feel betrayed by Musk's recent actions will be given priority access to smash the Tesla, the group said.

The Tesla brand has suffered considerable damage since Musk joined Trump's administration as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency. Tesla stock has fallen by 38% since 02 January of this year.

According to the Financial Times, Tesla has just experienced its worst quarter since 2022. The company delivered 336,681 vehicles between January and March, this is 13 per cent fewer than a year earlier and well below the 390,000 expected by analysts.

Other actions as part of the recent wave of anti-Tesla protests have included Just Stop Oil vandalising a Tesla robot by pouring liquid latex over it and an international day of action in which protesters picketed Tesla showrooms in London, Berlin, Paris and several US cities.

The Elon Musk Online Outriders Hoping to Take Control of UK Politics and Oust Keir Starmer

The world's richest man is amplifying a series of often extreme Alt Right voices bent on radically reshaping our politics

Olly Haynes

Vandalism of Teslas in the USA led Trump to refer to those attacking the cars as "domestic terrorists" and the FBI, led by Trump acolyte Dan Bongino has convened a taskforce to deal with threats against Tesla.

The spokesperson for Everybody Hates Elon stated "This is a one-of-a-kind art piece using a Tesla that was already destined for scrap. We strongly urge everyone not to damage or vandalise any other vehicles. London vs Musk has proper safety measures in place. We absolutely do not condone damage to any other vehicles. We urge the public not to damage ANY other Teslas in any other location - you would face serious legal consequences."

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.

They added that they would like for the stunt to get Musk's attention saying "Elon Musk was on TV the other day crying about how people are being mean to his companies. The word he used was 'suffering', I don't think he knows what suffering feels likes to be honest. So it would be good to see more of him realising the consequences of his actions".

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

It is hard to imagine a politician less like Donald Trump than Keir Starmer. A lawyer and bureaucrat by trade, the Prime Minister has made much over the years of his "cool-headed" approach to politics.

Nowhere has this tendency been more obvious than during the current global trade war being waged by the US President.

Refusing to openly criticise, or even mention, Trump by name, Starmer has refused to engage in what the Health Secretary Wes Streeting referred to on Tuesday as "placard waving" during this crisis.

Yet at the same time as rejecting Trump's bombastic approach to global diplomacy, Starmer's Government has also sought to embrace some of the President's own anti-globalist rhetoric.

'A Trump Trade Deal Would Open the UK's Doors to the Big Tech Robber Barons'

The only deal the US President and his oligarch beneficiaries are interested in is one that would allow them to feast on our public services and consumer rights, argues Nick Dearden

Nick Dearden

After the Business Secretary insisted on Sunday that the era of globalisation was now "over", Starmer gave a speech on Monday in which he also insisted that the UK must now "back British brilliance" instead.

Speaking at a Jaguar Land Rover's factory in Birmingham, Starmer said that his aim was to provide "British cars for British workers".

This slogan is uneasily reminiscent of the "British jobs for British workers" slogan first used by the far-right National Front and BNP, before later being controversially appropriated by former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 2007.

Yet if Brown's use of the phrase felt out of character, Starmer's use of a somewhat modified version of it felt doubly so.

Just like his other recent attempts to mimic the far-right rhetoric of "open borders" there is something deeply off-putting about this most un-Trumpian of politicians attempting to cosplay as a Trump-style politician.

The rhetoric is reportedly part of an attempt by the Prime Minister to find a "third way" between the anti-globalist rhetoric of Trump and globalist embrace of Blair-era Labour.

However, as well as feeling uncomfortable, such dual-horse riding by the Prime Minister also feels deeply dishonest. Because for all the talk of backing British, both Starmer and his ministers are also refusing to back any calls to either boycott US goods, or to focus on buying British products instead.

Asked on Tuesday whether she would support a 'Buy British' campaign, the Chancellor Rachel Reeves told MPs that she would not, as it would make us "inward looking".

"If every country in the world decided they only wanted to buy things produced in their country, that's not a good way forward," she said.

A spokesperson for the Prime Minister reiterated this point, insisting that the UK must remain an "open trading nation".

Donald Trump's Claim That Marine Le Pen's Conviction is a 'Witch Hunt' Doesn't Hold Up

Friends and opponents of the far-right French politician need to be honest about what her barring from the next Presidential election is really about, argues Olly Haynes

Olly Haynes

So while on the one hand Keir Starmer is insisting he wants to "back British brilliance" and provide "British cars for British workers" he is also explicitly rejecting doing anything to actually deliver on that rhetoric.

This conflict is particularly apparent in the Prime Minister's response to Trump.

Because while his refusal to ever publicly criticise the President may well turn out to be a wise decision, albeit not one that has borne much fruit for the UK so far, it is also at complete odds with the Prime Minister's concurrent attempts to pose as a f...

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

"Children are the ornament of the world," goes one famous Serbian poem by Ljubivoje Ršumović. Today, in Serbia, they are on everyone's mind.

A generation written off by many as disconnected social-media addicts has proven to be quite the opposite, galvanizing society with their singular brand of civil disobedience, at once rebellious and virtuous, digitally savvy and frankly analogue. They've been compared to the liberators of 1945; they've been called the avant-garde of Europe; they've been nominated for a Nobel Prize and received shout-outs from the likes of Novak Djoković and Madonna.

At the same time, President Aleksandar Vučić insists that he'll defeat the "colour revolution," while daily acts of manipulation, intimidation and violence against the students and their supporters continue. After five months of protests, how this all will play out is anyone's guess. But the students show no sign of giving up.

How Did it Begin?

In coverage of events in Serbia, international news media make passing reference to it - it didn't make headlines in the midst of wars, fires, and pre-election madness - but it is the beating, bleeding heart of the movement.

At 11:52 am on 1 November 2024, the concrete canopy of the train station in Novi Sad, Serbia's second-largest city, collapsed. Thousands of people pass through the station daily (I myself use it twice a week). On that clear, sunny, autumn noon, fourteen were killed, three others grievously injured; one of them succumbed a month later in hospital, and another died in March, five-and-a-half months after the collapse. All but two of the victims were under 25, and four were children.

The station had been recently reopened - without the required authorisation - after reconstruction and renovation. While the public reeled in grief and rage, the response from the Government, led by President Aleksandar Vučić and his Serbian Progressive Party (SNS), was characteristically inadequate, which many regard as an attempt to cover up its own culpability due to widespread, systemic corruption.

But to narrate all this is nearly impossible, since there are so many actors and so many confusing, conflicting reports from officials, including whether or not the canopy had been part of the reconstruction. In the weeks following the collapse, there were no immediate arrests; television was filled with expert panels speculating on how it happened and why, and which companies were involved - but to date (early April), there has been no official explanation for how it fell. It bears mentioning that state-run and pro-regime media dominate the national broadband; only one cable provider includes the two independent news channels.

Trump Family Looms Over Serbian Political Crisis

Jared Kushner wants to build a Trump tower in Belgrade, beleaguered Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić needs allies - will the deal be made?

Brawley Benson

Immediately after the collapse, peaceful protests were held in Novi Sad and elsewhere in the country. Most strikingly, every Friday at 11:52 am, people would walk out of their universities, schools, or places of employment, and observe fourteen (later, fifteen, and now sixteen) minutes of silence, one for each of the victims.

At the Faculty of Philosophy in Novi Sad, where I teach as a foreign lecturer, we stood on a campus green; at other places, people blocked the roads. To stand with a group of people in silence for a quarter of an hour is quite an experience: a mass gesture of solidarity, both collective ritual and individual meditation. It is heavy with grief - even months later, you can read it on faces, in bodies. T...

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 war crimes complaint against ten Britons who served with the IDF in Gaza has been submitted to the Metropolitan Police.

A team of legal experts, including renowned human rights lawyer Michael Mansfield KC, lodged an extensively researched 240-page report with the War Crimes Team at London's Metropolitan Police on Monday.

The landmark dossier, the first of its kind, was submitted on behalf of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) and the Public Interest Law Centre (PILC), which are representing Palestinians in Gaza and Britain.

Almost 100 legal and human rights experts have also signed a letter of support urging the War Crimes Team to investigate any and all complaints regarding involvement in war crimes and crimes against humanity.

It comes as Israel continues to break the ceasefire agreed with Hamas. Last week the UN condemned Israel for the killing of more than 1,000 Palestinians since the ceasefire was agreed.

'Israel's Genocide in Gaza is the Fatal Flaw in Starmer's European Alternative to Trump and Putin'

If we are to build a broad consensus in Europe against Trump, we need to bring Palestine into equal focus with Ukraine, argues Martin Shaw

Martin Shaw

The ten Britons in the report, including Israeli dual nationals, are suspected of crimes such as murder, extermination, attacking civilians, and deportation or forcible transfer of population.

The report compiles open-source evidence from video footage, social media posts and other forms of publicly available information.

For legal reasons, neither the list of suspects, which includes officer-level individuals, nor the full report are being made public.

In a speech at the submission of the report, Michael Mansfield KC said "after the Second World War […] the United Kingdom was at the forefront of law and principle and institutions to match, in order to prevent the recurrence of the horror that everyone was familiar with during the Second World War […] yet, slowly over the years, the efficacy of the structure which they established at that time through the various conventions, the United Nations charter and so on is slowly falling, and we are standing on the brink of the collapse of the rule of order because certain states, and Israel is not the only one, have taken it upon themselves to act with impunity".

Referring to the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory which ruled in 2004 that the construction of the Separation Barrier in the West Bank was illegal, Mansfield said: "There are measures which could have been taken in 2004, there are measures that could be taken now, economic embargos and so forth. But one measure that is being taken today is a practical one indicating that as citizens of a country that has held out on this, we can do something about it".

Police Force Faces Backlash Over Facial Recognition Technology Linked to Surveillance in Gaza

Officers have been using technology used by Israel during its operations in Gaza and the West Bank

Iain Overton

Paul Heron, legal director of PILC, told Byline Times that it is "a condemnation of the system that a little law centre has had to galvanise all this pro-bono".

When asked why the state had not acted of its own accord against British nationals suspected of war crimes he said "the position of the British government is continuing to sell arms to Israel and provide logistical support to Israel" and asked "is there the political will?".

The submission of the evidence was supported by Iqbal Mohamed, MP for Dewsbury and Batley and Ayoub Khan, MP...