Byline Times Audio Articles

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

A failing care home for vulnerable girls owned by reality TV personality Ampika Pickston and funded by billionaire West Ham United owner David Sullivan has been permanently shut by Ofsted to prevent more child residents coming to harm, following an 18-month Byline Times investigation.

The Real Housewives of Cheshire star and OnlyFans model, 43, opened AP Care Homes Ltd sole facility, Moss Farm, in July 2023. She had bought the 'luxury' property with a £1.2 million loan from her 76-year-old porn baron fiance Mr Sullivan, who with a £1.12 billion fortune is the UK's 143rd richest person.

But as this newspaper has previously reported, the home was shuttered twice in its first seven months by regulator Ofsted, whose inspectors uncovered a catalogue of serious safeguarding incidents, including one child who had not eaten for 48 hours, another who was hospitalised, and a third who had to be moved to a hotel after being bullied.

Rejecting an appeal by AP Care Homes against its latest closure by Ofsted, a Care Standards Tribunal found Pickston had threatened to stab one manager if she spoke out about the company, and that she had taken a girl to her own home without informing her social worker.

Judge Siobhan Goodrich noted in her judgement "serious and continuing regulatory failures", found large parts of Ms Pickston's witness evidence lacked credibility, and stated "little or no confidence" that she would ever be capable of safely carrying a children's care home.

EXCLUSIVE

The Porn Baron Football Boss, his Glamour Model Fiancée and a War With Ofsted Over their 'Failing' Children's Home

When a care home for vulnerable children funded by billionaire West Ham United Chairman David Sullivan, and run by his OnlyFans model reality TV star partner Ampika Pickston, had its registration suspended over safeguarding issues, it led to a strange chain of events and legal threats to this newspaper

Tom Latchem and Dan Evans

Despite Judge Goodrich saying Pickston's desire to "provide a home where children with emotional and/or behaviour difficulties [could be] well looked after, and be happy and safe" was "laudable", she wrote: "The risk of harm to the health, well-being and safety of children who may come to live at the home is significant and has been amply demonstrated by…the experiences of many of the children who have lived there.

"We are satisfied that cancellation of registration is necessary, justified and proportionate to the risks to the health, safety and well-being of children who might otherwise live there."

The judgment said a cancellation notice meant Pickston and anyone else who had a financial interest in the company would not be permitted to be involved in running a care home, or to foster or child-mind children, without Ofsted's permission.

Sullivan was not among the parties involved in proceedings, meaning he was not represented in court. There is no suggestion he had any involvement with the firm beyond the provision of financing.

The week-long hearing, which took place at Warrington Magistrates in March, heard eight managers had quit in just 13 months, raising concerns over their lack of autonomy, as well as Pickston's ability to run the home within the law while keeping children safe.

Celebrity-Run Children's Home 'Twice Misled' Ofsted Over Serious Safeguarding Incident Which Saw it Shut Down

Ampika Pickston's AP Care Homes Ltd has been barred for caring for children since late January and is now subject to a Care Standards Tribunal

Tom Latchem and Dan Evans

Judge Goodrich said: "We do not consider that Ms Pickston will be able to restrain herself from interfering with the exercise of professional judgement that needs to be under...

The Non-Solution to Life's Struggles

'Today, I feel like I've woken up a stranger in this country'. I was discussing the "shock vote" for Brexit with another remainer on the afternoon after the EU Referendum. Immediately described by the commentariat as a "protest", one newspaper noted that, after years of people 'waking up and feeling like strangers in their own country', those who voted to leave had finally demanded to be heard.

That was the last reference to British estrangement I remember, before Keir Starmer's recent speech on the need to stop the UK becoming an "island of strangers".

In 2016, the Brexit vote launched a frenzied analysis of the problems that had led to it. They have all been consistently ignored since.

While tackling immigration was a prominent reason, the analysis was that who was coming to the UK and why was a secondary problem brexiters landed on when looking for answers to many others: industry had declined, the nature of work had changed, economic inequality was continuing to rise, town centres went neglected, public services of all kinds were stretched, insecurity pervaded, the very fabric of community had frayed.

Boris Johnson paid political lip-service to this with his promise of a 'levelling up' that didn't materialise. The hard Brexit Britain ended up with on his watch was merely a psychic victory: the 'will of the people' prevailed, but their lot hadn't actually improved. Brexit, the pandemic, a cost of living crisis, Liz Truss' mini budget, and public services that never recovered from austerity have meant things are only getting harder.

And there are no solutions: only immigration.

Tackling immigration was a solution before Brexit. Tackling immigration is now a solution after Brexit. In highlighting it so prominently, Starmer has joined a long line of politicians using it to distract from the absence of any more tangible fixes to complex issues - aided by a media that interrogates none of the deeper questions this is meant to avoid.

EXCLUSIVE

The Story of Brexit is the Story of Empire: Why Did Asian Immigrants Vote to Leave the EU?

The complicated love-hate relationship of immigrants from former colonies with the British Empire cannot be ignored if lessons are to be learned in post-Brexit Britain, says Hardeep Matharu

Hardeep Matharu

His suggestion that immigration is a key reason why we risk becoming an "island of strangers" is a cynical ploy: a hyper-real solution for people's discontent, when those in power know it's more complicated than that.

"I think Nigel Farage is trying to speak the truth but I don't trust any of them anyway," one resident of Dartford told this newspaper on a visit to the town just days after it elected three new Reform UK councillors in May's local elections. "I've heard it off everybody else. He's going to do this, he's going to do that, whatever."

Nothing, indeed, changes - except for the certainty that immigration is both the cause of and solution to life's struggles; a key reason why people should be dissatisfied, why their lives don't seem to be improving.

By trying to convince us of this, while doing nothing about any of the systemic issues causing people's daily struggles, politicians like Starmer are both the creators and sustainers of this "island of strangers" - a place not only of supposedly 'alien foreigners', but a land of Brits alienated from themselves and from a political system of no use for their troubles.

Alienated from the Truth

Beyond the political rhetoric and nativist undertones - designed to appeal to those residents in Dartford now opting for Nigel Farage's Reform - the reality is too big and complicated to confront: everything has changed, and that change has impacted people in different ways, while things continue to shift all around us, imperceptibly and then as if all at once.

We are estranged and it is an estrangement - from our society, from our communities, from ourselves - that politicians like Starmer reinforce by refusing to add...

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

Five years ago, an 8 minute 46 second video evidenced the public police execution of a Black man while he pleaded for his life, uttering the now achingly familiar cry, "I can't breathe". Despite what I recognise as our collective duty to bear witness, I could not watch George Floyd's murder then, and still can't now.

At the time, I was a politics teacher at a sixth form in Hackney, east London. It was lockdown, and all my students had seen the clip. They had an ability to digest violence in a way that is perhaps the refrain of youth, but for many - especially the Black boys - there was a more proximate and personal familiarity with police harassment that made the violence register as both spectacular and predictable.

Many at the time claimed that Black Lives Matter (BLM) was importing US issues into UK spaces, and that our policing history was entirely separate from the US experience, ignoring that the seeds of empire have a deep, perennial quality, and the US' racism problem is one we shaped.

'Half Measures Will Not Decolonise International Development'

Genuine anti-racist internationalism calls for much greater radicalism, writes Sunit Bagree

Sunit Bagree

The 2020 protests may have been prompted by a US based murder, but the causes it spoke to were distinctly domestic and home-grown.

The deaths of Chris Kaba and Oladeji Omishore, who died within three months of one another in 2022 at the hands of London's Metropolitan Police, are a painful reminder of this truth. So too are the countless statistics which highlight how disproportionately Black people are policed in this country, whether deaths in police custody, stop and search, or strip searches on young children like Child Q, who as a student in Hackney, could easily have been a student of mine.

The 2023 Casey Review followed a trend of government reports which found the police to be institutionally racist, and homophobic and misogynistic, which the Met's Commissioner accepted minus the term "institutional".

2023 also marked 30 years since Stephen Lawrence was murdered, after which UK policing was first labelled institutionally racist. BBC reports at the time highlighted the levels of police corruption involved in convicting his killers, most of whom still walk freely. I attended the memorial service to mark the 30th anniversary, alongside the Met Commissioner, who still denies the institutional nature of racism within UK policing.

The Chris Kaba Shooting and the Shocking Reality of Armed Policing in Modern Britain

Iain Overton reports on the statistics that reveal the police's institutional racial bias

Iain Overton

It is not a stretch to say that confidence in UK policing has reached an all time low. Sarah Everard's murder and the treatment of Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry by police officers caused widespread mistrust amongst British people.

While conversations on defunding the police are smeared as 'woke' and associated with unhinged radicals, upcoming Runnymede Trust work shows that actually, a large proportion of British people support community based, policing alternatives - when they aren't asked these questions in sensationalist ways.

There are alternative paths that can be taken, but in the past five years, successive governments have remained in a stale and repressive political space; they have imposed the most dangerous legislative agenda for people of colour in generations.

How the Media 'Justified' the Shooting of Chris Kaba and then 'Conducted a Merciless Autopsy' on his Life

The headlines about Chris Kaba tell us more about the society and media in this country than his killing

Mathilda Mallinson and Helena Wadia

Taken together, legislation including the 2022 P...

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.

Our monthly print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, features and columns ONLINE NOW

A trial is unfolding in UK courts, closely connected to millions of Brits - who remain blissfully unaware, despite desperate bids by the challengers for coverage.

Niger Delta civilians are accusing a UK corporation of devastating their habitat, livelihood, culture and bodies. It's the corporation that supplies 10% of UK fossil fuels and delivers a fifth of its gas to our workplaces and homes.

And yet, if the story of Shell oil spills in the Niger Delta appears at all, it does so as a faraway feature under the 'World News' tab.

'MPs Need to Listen to the Scientists, Not the Oligarchs' - Scientists Sound the Climate Alarm at Westminster

Chris Packham was joined by more than 150 scientists in a demonstration urging Westminster to start listening to the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change

Stuart Spray

Oil spills in the Niger Delta have seen bursts of fantastic coverage, with the Guardian and BBC World Service leading the charge. But the victims are as frustrated by international media as they have been in their decades-long fight for justice.

The worst leak Lazarus Tamara remembers was in 1968, a decade after Shell first drilled for oil in the region. "There was oil everywhere," he said on this week's Media Storm podcast. "Our cultural heritage has been completely destroyed as a result."

Tamara joined the fight in 1990, alongside Ken Saro-Wiwa, whose high-profile hanging as an activist in 1995 saw Nigeria expelled from the Commonwealth for over three years. Shell ultimately paid a $15.5 million settlement to families of victims of summary execution and alleged crimes against humanity in the Delta, though the company has always denied liability for Saro-Wiwa's death.

Tamara took up his comrade's mantle as one of the leaders of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP). "It was out of that desperation that the movement was born," he told us.

Dr Emem Okon fights her battle through academic research, laying down evidence of the poisonous impact of oil pollution on women's health, fertility and rights.

'The Case for Climate Popularism in the Green Party'

The future of UK politics is a fight between the Greens and Reform and its clear which Green candidates are the best placed to lead that battle, argues Rupert Read

Rupert Read

"It is very important for the world to know the effects of hydrocarbons on women," she said on Media Storm, citing her own early-onset menopause as well as the local blood samples she tested, which delivered hydrocarbon levels thousands of times above WHO's permissible limit.

The resulting infertility, miscarriages, and stillbirths are more than just physical in impact, she said. "This causes confusion, misunderstanding, conflict within the family."

"People were blaming the women for being promiscuous, of having their wombs removed, and all kinds of unfounded allegations," she continued. "It's traumatic. But before the research, people were not linking this to pollution, because we live with pollution - we drink polluted water, we inhale polluted air."

Dr Okon appeared at Shell's AGM this week, held at Heathrow (which feels random until you remember the airport has an injunction against climate activists, enabling the meeting to go ahead without disruption).

'Why Tony Blair's Intervention on Net Zero Is the Most Irrational Contribution to Climate Discourse in Some Time'

There can be no "third way" to tackling the existential threat of man made climate change, argues Russell Warfield

Russell Warfield

Tamara, meanwhile, has spent the week in court. While in the UK, they visited the Media Storm studio, to assess our national media's coverage of climate and environmental news.

"People here in the UK - whe...

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.

Our monthly print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, features and columns ONLINE NOW

The UK Government has been accused of being "disingenuous" in both court and Parliament and of "facilitating genocide" over its position on shipments of F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel.

The claim was made by Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) and Al-Haq who took the Government to the High Court last week in an attempt to stem the supply of parts that may be used - in breach of international humanitarian law - in Gaza.

Al-Haq, a group based in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, took legal action against Britain's Department for Business and Trade over its decision to exempt F-35 parts when it suspended some arms export licences last year. The case, which concluded on 16 May, was supported by a raft of British human rights groups including GLAN, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam.

Following the hearing, Gearóid Ó Cuinn, director of GLAN, said the Government has now been "exposed as being disingenuous in Parliament and in court" and added that "this merry-go-round of delay and inaction is facilitating genocide and needs to stop".

He lamented that a decision in its challenge, will "come far too late for the people of Gaza who are being starved to death", but urged the Government to "immediately end arms sales and other forms of military support to Israel and apply sanctions".

On Thursday, The Guardian reported that 29 children and elderly people had died from starvation in Gaza in the last two days, and the UN warned this week that 14,000 Palestinian babies could die over the coming year unless action is taken to ease the crisis.

Ó Cuinn comments also came as Britain issued fresh sanctions against Israel over its "morally unjustifiable" escalation of violence, and demanded an end to its "cruel and indefensible" 11-week block on humanitarian aid which Foreign Secretary David Lammy branded as "monstrous".

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

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

Olly Haynes

In parliament, the Government has maintained its claim that it is for the courts to decide whether Britain is complying with its legal obligations in respect of the shipment. On 14 May, Hamish Falconer, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan stated: "Whether or not we abide by our legal obligations is a question that will be determined by the courts. It is being determined by the courts this week, so I will leave it to the courts to make judgments on our obligation".

Yet in court, the Government argued the opposite, saying the matter was not for the judiciary to examine.

The Government has been telling parliament that it is unable to answer questions regarding its decision to indirectly arm Israel because that decision is being tested in the courts, and at the same time telling the judiciary that it cannot examine that decision because that is the role of parliament

Charlotte Andrews-Briscoe, lawyer at Glan

Andrews-Briscoe added: "All of this is happening in the context of Israel's ever-escalating efforts to annihilate the Palestinian people. The UN's humanitarian chief has warned that 14,000 babies could die in Gaza in the next 48 hours without aid. Will nothing move this government to act?"

The Government's lawyers argued during the hearing that there is "a tenable view that no genocide has occurred or is occurring".

The court heard that, although the Government accepted that "conduct which could, in principle, satisfy the physical component of genocide continues to take place in Gaza" - they believe the Israeli Government has shown no intent to commit ...

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

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

SUBSCRIBE

The recent local elections in the UK have revealed starkly where British politics is at. There were serious forward advances for the Lib Dems and Greens. Labour and the Conservatives both fell back calamitously. And Reform, of course, was the biggest winner of all.

What was clear is that the old duopoly parties are dying and 'populism' is on the rise.

Reform has undeniably connected with the British population at greater scale thus far than the Green Party has. That situation cannot stand: for the high likelihood is that the future of British politics will be fought out between the Greens and Reform, as the old parties fade into irrelevance, in the crucible of the dire challenges now upon us.

These two new insurgent parties, Reform UK and the Green Party, both of which stunned by unprecedentedly winning multiple seats at the 2024 General Election, both of which have genuine anti-establishment appeal, will surely be the huge gainers at the next general election.

If Reform gain far more than the Greens, that is a grim prognosis for this country.

So what is badly needed is a way of beating them at their own game, albeit without descending to their level. What must be avoided is the stoking of culture wars, let alone spreading lies and disinformation to whip up hate and mutual mistrust.

'MPs Need to Listen to the Scientists, Not the Oligarchs' - Scientists Sound the Climate Alarm at Westminster

Chris Packham was joined by more than 150 scientists in a demonstration urging Westminster to start listening to the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change

Stuart Spray

In short, what we need is climate popularism. Reform is weaponising climate policy as part of their latest culture war. We don't get to beat them unless we de-weaponise climate: but that requires making real climate action into the new common sense.

This begins with focussing on the lived impacts of climate decline, and resilience to them. Rather than beginning with questions of footprint and abstractions like 'net zero'. Both of which are far less relevant to ordinary working people.

Climate is relevant to ordinary Brits primarily by way of its impacts: rising flood waters and seas, gathering storms, extreme droughts, heatwaves, and wildfires; food price rises and food scarcities. It is deeply relevant also in terms of the way that our grossly high energy prices are a result of dependence on fossil fuels and of the pitiful state of insulation of most buildings in this country.

So climate popularism synergises climate action with reducing the cost of living. Plus, making more direct sustenance available to people: we need community orchards, forest gardens, agri-wilding, edible landscapes, and more - at scale - and we need them soon.

'Why Tony Blair's Intervention on Net Zero Is the Most Irrational Contribution to Climate Discourse in Some Time'

There can be no "third way" to tackling the existential threat of man made climate change, argues Russell Warfield

Russell Warfield

How do we pay for it? Well, most of this agenda saves money. But if there are aspects of it that require an initial pump-priming, then we pay for it by taxing the rich.

But what we don't indulge in is class war rhetoric. Nor do we rely on the phrase 'climate justice', which for most voters will be opaque and remote. Instead, we come from the basis of the shared emergency: what I outlined in the previous paragraph, and forms of rationing (starting with a frequent flyer levy) are simply the new common sense, in this crisis that we are all in.

This approach has the great benefit of depolarising, of dialling down the temperature of public debate, even while attracting wide support for being authent...

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

Armed police raid a peaceful meeting at a Quaker meeting house. Activists are given lengthy prison sentences for taking part in a video call. Protesters on trial are banned from mentioning their motivations in court. A woman is arrested, charged and tried over a satirical placard.

It's hard to believe, but these are just some of the real-world consequences of anti-protest laws that we have seen in the UK over the last 12 months.

Each year Bond tracks and analyses trends impacting UK civic space - the environment within which civil society exists and the core rights and freedoms upon which it depends.

This year many of the trends identified concern our right to protest and how it's been impacted by laws, judicial decisions, police tactics and new technologies. Our report, out today, lays bare the realities of what it's like to exercise your right to peaceful protest in 2025.

Over the last 12 months, we have seen several egregious examples of over-policing, including the decision to raid a meeting at a Quaker Meeting House, where six young women were discussing climate change and the war in Gaza. Another was the arrest of a woman attending a pro-Palestine demonstration whose placard went viral on social media.

Police charged her with racially aggravated public order offences, only for a judge to acquit her, ruling that her placard was instead "part of the genre of political satire".

Warning Over UK 'Slide Towards Authoritarianism' After Raft of Just Stop Oil Prison Sentences Are Upheld

The Court of Appeal upheld sentences totalling 35 years for climate activists

Josiah Mortimer

Another harmful trend is longer prison sentences for protesters. In July 2024, five climate protesters were convicted for participating in a video call in which they planned to block the M25. Four of them each received a four-year sentence, and one received five years. These sentences are the longest prison terms given to peaceful protestors in the UK, ever.

While they were later reduced on appeal, the sentences of others were upheld, including those of two young women for throwing soup over Van Gogh's sunflowers at the National Gallery in London, one who was jailed for two years and the other for 20 months

Rulings made by senior judges have continued to heavily reduce the defences available to protesters, who are often prevented from mentioning their motivations in court.

Those demonstrating outside of courts can also face restrictions. Last summer, police arrested 11 people for holding signs outside a court about the rights of a jury to hear the whole truth and acquit according to their conscience.

Police use of live facial recognition and other technologies to monitor protests has also accelerated in the last 12 months.

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

Between January and August 2024, the Metropolitan Police used live facial recognition technology 117 times, compared to just 32 times over the three-year period between 2020 and 2023.

The technology uses live video footage of crowds passing a camera and compares their images to a specific list of people wanted by the police. It is controversial, and campaigners have raised concerns about its impact on civil liberties and human rights, especially its tendency to misidentify people of colour.

But there is hope.

The Court of Appeal recently upheld a ruling in favour of the human rights campaign group Liberty, which found that the pre...

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

29 May will mark the 600th day since the brutal attacks by the terrorist organisation, Hamas, on Israel on 7 October 2023, which killed over 1,200 people, including peace activists, men, women and children living in kibbutzes along the Israeli-Gaza border, and youngsters attending a music festival.

29 May will mark the 600th day in captivity for the last twenty or so Israeli hostages still believed to be alive in Gaza, the 600th day of anguish for their friends and families, and the 600th day of trauma for all those caught up in or affected by the 7 October attacks, including many Jews around the world, for whom the attacks brought back horrific memories of the Holocaust, or who have faced anti-semitic abuse since then.

29 May will also mark the 600th day since Israel's dreadful retribution on Gaza began - first with a bombing campaign, six days later with the introduction of ground troops, and twenty days later with a full-scale invasion. This has resulted in the deaths of over 53,000 Palestinians, according to the latest Gaza Health Ministry figures, most of them civilians, including thousands of young children. Tens of thousands more Palestinians are missing, presumed dead under the rubble, which is all that is left of most buildings in Gaza. The remaining population has been displaced multiple times, and is facing acute food insecurity verging on famine, following a months-long blockade by Israel of all food supplies into the territory. Gaza's infrastructure is destroyed.

'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 period since 7 October has also been marked by attacks on Israel from Iran, and Iranian-backed proxies Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen, and devastating Israeli responses.

Amidst all this death and destruction, what has been achieved?

On Hamas' side, the 7 October attack appears to have been a disastrous miscalculation which has brought nothing but misery and death on the Palestinians, in the West Bank as well as Gaza, and ensured that it will never again be allowed to establish formal rule over Gaza.

On the Israeli side, they can take comfort from the death of many prominent Hamas leaders, including Yahya Sinwar, who orchestrated the vile attacks, political leader Ismael Haniyah, and former military commander, Mohammed Deif; the weakening of Hizbollah in Lebanon, and the death of many of its commanders, including leader Hassan Nasrallah; and the destruction of much of Iran's military capability. 147 of the 251 hostages have been freed, either through negotiated exchanges, rescue missions, or in one case last week, the unilateral release by Hamas of an Israeli-American hostage.

But Israel's overall goals - the release of all the hostages, and the complete elimination of Hamas - have not been achieved, while its international reputation has plummeted due to its harsh conduct of the war, which many allege has involved war crimes, such as launching disproportionate attacks, firing on aid convoys, bombing schools and hospitals, and blockading food and medical supplies into the territory. Prospects for a grand reconciliation between Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are on indefinite hold.

Many international analysts have decried Israel for appearing to have no long-term strategy. Some critics believe Netanyahu is motivated to prolong the war for personal reasons, in order to delay elections and stay on in power. Hundreds of 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.

Our monthly print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, features and columns ONLINE NOW

A US federal court ruling that Google illegally monopolised the market for open-web digital advertising will have profound implications for markets, regulators, and the future of the open internet and has been lauded as a "decisive step to restore fairness in digital markets".

The 17 April decision, followed a 15-day trial in which the US Department of Justice (DOJ) proved Google's dominance of advertising technology harmed competition, distorted pricing, and undermined the viability of independent online publishing.

The ruling represents the most significant antitrust decision against a technology company since the Microsoft case over two decades ago.

Musk's DOGE Is Inspired by Pro-Kremlin Monarchists and 1930s Technofascism

Musk's top DOGE operative is linked to a Russian American network of anti-West pro-Kremlin monarchists inspired by the 1930s counter-democracy "Technocracy" movement, of which Musk's grandfather was a member

Nafeez Ahmed

The central issue in the DOJ's case was Google's end-to-end control of the ad tech "stack" - the suite of technologies that facilitate the buying, selling, and placement of digital adverts. Google simultaneously operates the leading ad exchange (AdX), publisher ad server (DoubleClick for Publishers, or DFP), and advertiser buying tools (such as DV360).

This vertical integration enables Google to act as both referee and player in every advertising transaction, presenting an unavoidable conflict of interest. The court found that Google exploited this position to manipulate auctions, disadvantage rivals, and consolidate its control over digital advertising revenues.

Judge Leonie Brinkema noted that Google had consistently deployed exclusionary tactics, including shutting off interoperability with rival services, conditioning access to its products on exclusivity, and leveraging user data across services to entrench its market position. These practices, the court found, were not the result of superior efficiency or innovation, but deliberate strategies to eliminate competition.

The ramifications of this decision extend far beyond US borders. In Europe, regulators have been investigating similar concerns about Google's ad tech practices for several years and the ruling validates claims made by civil society groups, publishers, and advertisers that Google's conduct is not only anti-competitive but structurally harmful to the internet ecosystem.

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

UK-based non-profit Movement for an Open Web (MOW) has long campaigned against Google's dominance in ad tech, and in 2020, it complained to the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), highlighting the risks posed by Google's proposed Privacy Sandbox initiative.

Ostensibly presented as a privacy-enhancing reform, the Sandbox would in practice have removed the ability of third parties to access user-level data for ad targeting, thereby locking them out of key advertising functions while preserving Google's access through its browser and search monopoly. The CMA launched an investigation, and in 2022 secured legally binding commitments from Google, based in part on MOW's submissions.

The DOJ's successful prosecution reinforces the strategic value of early regulatory intervention. The US government is now seeking structural remedies, including the divestment of technological tools that make up AdX and DFP - the core infrastructure of Google's ad empire.

These remedies echo proposals ma...

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

The houses are blind as moles … as Captain Cat there in the muffled middle by the pump and the town clock, the shops in mourning, the Welfare Hall in widows' weeds. And all the people of the lulled and dumbfound town are sleeping now

Dylan Thomas, Under Milk Wood

Long ago, I ran a research unit at Cardiff University on law and policy affecting Gypsy and Traveller communities. My PhD thesis was about how they're invisible and ignored until presented as a 'problem', when they're stigmatised, discriminated against, and worse. This dreadful dynamic will be familiar to all marginalised communities. But I believe it can also apply to nations with a troubled history of occupation and exploitation.

Many in England forget Wales until they go there for weekends or holidays. It's not uncommon to see "in the UK" in a headline, when the story only involves London, or the Midlands. Too few know which powers are devolved to the Senedd, or the extent to which Cymru has its own ancient culture and language.

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch just called Senedd members (MSs) "MSPs", while addressing the Welsh Conservative Conference in my hometown of Llangollen.

Without being martyrish about it, you can justifiably say Wales is generally overlooked by Westminster and status quo media - folded into 'Britain' or 'England-and-Wales'. When you suddenly see Cymru all over the media and social media, you can be sure there's a race for power in the offing. The next Senedd elections are under a year away. So guess what?

Britishness … is a political synonym for Englishness which extends English culture over the Scots, the Welsh, and the Irish

Gwynfor Evans, 1980

Wales, under Labour leadership in one form or another since 1999, was widely weaponised before the 2024 UK General Election. The most aggressive trope in the "you don't want a UK Labour government, look what they've done to Wales" campaign was the default 20mph policy applied to some roads from September 2023. This got caught up in manufactured 'culture wars' over other roads policies, like London's ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ).

A 20mph limit in built-up areas is common around England, and was originally a Welsh Conservative initiative with cross-party support in Wales, but such truths were conveniently forgotten. Fervent 'Welsh' anti-20mph Facebook groups were found to be run by English people with Conservative connections, backing 20mph in their own areas.

'Wales Is Leading the Way on Ending Lying in Politics. Westminster Must Now Do the Same'

The Welsh Government looks set to impose bold new restrictions on lying in politics. It's time for Westminster to follow suit, argues Jennifer Nadel

Jennifer Nadel

Now it's being pushed again - often by social media accounts with numbers in their 'names' - despite data showing its first year saw around 100 fewer people seriously injured or killed, and other benefits.

Reform UK has jumped aboard, saying it would get rid of the limits if it won the Senedd. That this would result in more emissions, accidents, and fatalities, and higher costs for NHS Wales, insurers, and the insured is totally cool.

Welsh Conservatives were censured for repeatedly and dishonestly calling 20mph a "blanket policy". Now 'Reform UK Wales' is doing the same, while denigrating said Conservatives.

Another culture war is over Wales aiming to be the world's first Nation of Sanctuary. A Twitter account called Doge Wales has appeared, named for the unelected Elon Musk's drive to reduce US government 'waste'.

The Magafication of UK politics by Reform is amplified by English Conservative interests. It's unclear whether...