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.

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

What will happen at the UK's next general election? It feels insane to even guess. Indeed, why bother when we are just nine months out from the last and seemingly decisive ballot. Normally a majority of 172 would have people thinking about the election after next just like after the last Labour landslide of 1997. But these are not normal times.

I tried to second guess the outcome of 2024 after 2019 and got it horribly wrong. Back then Boris Johnson looked impregnable not just in terms of his 80 parliamentary majority but a seemingly permanent post Brexit realignment of British electoral politics around the Red Wall. Surely only a progressive alliance could combat the shift to the right and stop a second Johnson victory? But around the corner and out of sight lurked not just COVID but the wanton self-destruction of the Conservative party and the fall of the SNP. Parliamentary majorities now just ensure the winning party stays in office - it doesn't make them powerful as the flip leaders, merely try the survive the day and hope something turns up. Which it usually doesn't.

And so, the only question voters had to answer on the 4th July 2024 was not who had the best vision and policies to transform the country, but who could you vote for to kick the Conservatives out. So successfully did the progressive parties focus their efforts, and so systematically and determinedly did the electorate place their tactical votes a record number of over 500 progressive MPs were returned to parliament.

But you wouldn't know it because not being the Conservatives was never going to be enough. To govern demands a vision and a plan to implement, and commentators as politically far apart as Rafael Behr and Michael Gove have, from different vantage points, begun to point out that Labour has neither. Without any directional or operational guide, especially in a poly-crisis world, Government eventually and inevitably becomes a matter of surviving the day. Just nine months after an electoral landslide, Labour has lurched from pessimism to optimism and back again and enacted policies that were once deemed only fit for the Conservatives.

Keir Starmer Urged to Seize a 'Once in a Generation' Opportunity for Real House of Lords Reform

The Prime Minister previously watered down his commitment to "abolish" Parliament's unelected second chamber

Olly Haynes

The consequence is a dramatic drop in the polls, from the already historic low but winning mark of 34% at the election to about 24% today. While the Conservatives show little sign of electoral recovery, Reform has jumped in the opposite direction to Labour adding at least another 10% to their 14% tally at the election. Meanwhile both the Liberal Democrats and the Greens have seen some vote share uplift. Polls regularly have five parties in double digits in a system designed for two. The next election is not just impossible to predict but, if this trend continues, is likely to end up in electoral chaos as tiny shifts in votes from one party to another lead to massive changes in seat allocation.

Add into that the possibility that Keir Starmer won't survive a full term and Labour could very well flip its leadership, just like the Conservatives, in a desperate attempt to revive their fortunes. Also like the Conservatives there is little chance of a comprehensive or convincing vision and plan from any newcomer and so everything will soon spring back to surviving the day.

In all this unprecedented unpredictability what do we know that can help us think about the shape of the next election? The first and biggest point is that living standards is the only ...

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

According to the website www.simplypsychology.org, projection is a "psychological defence mechanism that involves attributing one's undesirable traits, feelings, or impulses to other people. For instance, someone who is dishonest might accuse others of being dishonest, thereby shifting attention away from their dishonesty".

Projection works as a defence mechanism by helping to protect the ego from anxiety-provoking thoughts or feelings. "By attributing these unwanted aspects to someone or something else, the individual distances themselves from what they find unacceptable within themselves".

I am not a psychologist, but Donald Trump strikes me as a classic case of someone "suffering" (if that is the right word, since in fact it is everyone else who suffers from his behaviour) from projection.

Trump launched his tariff wars because he believes other countries are "ripping off" America with their allegedly unfair trade practices. This, from the man who, throughout his business career, routinely stiffed others - whether by defaulting on bank loans, defrauding investors, failing to reimburse building contractors for their services, or duping students into paying thousands in tuition for fake courses at his now-defunct Trump University.

Trump launched his war on "woke," targeting "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" initiatives, because these allegedly discriminate on the basis of race and gender. Yet this is the administration that is now quite deliberately eradicating the record of prominent African American people, Native American people and women from the nation's museums and institutions, pushing for schools and colleges to stop teaching the history of race relations, threatening to cut funding or cooperation with private businesses and organisations that maintain DEI programmes, while celebrating the "achievements" of known racists, such as former President Andrew Jackson.

An executive order issued in late March cites the National Museum of African American History and Culture by name and argues that the Smithsonian Institution as a whole is engaging in a "concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history." It empowers Vice President JD Vance to review all properties, programmes and presentations to prohibit programmes that "degrade shared American values" or "divide Americans based on race," and orders Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to determine if any monuments since January 2020 "have been removed or changed to perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history." Trump has long criticised the removal of Confederate monuments - a movement that gained steam after the May 2020 murder of George Floyd.

EXCLUSIVE

How Nazi Race Science Conquered the White House, and is Coming for Your Democracy

One of the major 'Dark Enlightenment' influencers has stepped into the light, talking of the 'negro problem'. Nafeez Ahmed explains how the Silicon Valley broligarchy has resurrected Nazi-inspired eugenics ideology and is already putting it into action

Nafeez Ahmed

Critics argue that the cumulative impact of these actions will be to sanitize America's history of racism, including slavery, and roll back decades of advances in racial and gender equality.

Trump has also claimed to be a champion of free speech, signing on day one of his new Presidency an executive order decreeing that "no federal officer, employee or agent may unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen."

Yet, in practice, his administration has been busy intimidating opponents into silence - including by threatening Democratic members of Congress with investigation for criticis...

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

'Trump officials to monitor immigrants' social media for antisemitism' - the harrowing headline made UK and US media this week, far too frequently without so much as an inverted comma around the term 'antisemitism'.

As one Bluesky user remarked: "You know they aren't talking about actual antisemitism and you are free to write a headline that accurately portrays this smokescreen for what it is."

To give editors the benefit of the doubt, the absurdity of reporting under Donald Trump is such that you cannot even write a headline announcing "reciprocal tariffs" because they turn out to have nothing to do with tariff-reciprocity at all.

And you certainly can't call antisemitism "antisemitism" when it's judged by a man who's right-hand man pairs Nazi salutes with AI-generated territorial claims over Gaza.

But you know antisemitism is not what they're searching for. What they're searching for is sedition.

With this revoking of First Amendment rights from migrants, the MAGA 180 on free speech is complete. Trump and his inner circle have gone from parading as free speech absolutists, to illegally banning access to media organisations that criticise them, sanctioning law firms that represent political opponents, rigging social media algorithms to push party propaganda, pulling federal grants that include language they oppose, publishing a literal list of 'banned words', and attempting to deport critics for non-criminal protest.

Despite this, the UK's right-wing media is busy celebrating Trump's "free speech ultimatum" to the UK, after he reportedly warned Keir Starmer "no free trade without free speech".

How The Media Is 'Economically Exploiting' Survivors of Image-Based Sexual Abuse

Five things you probably didn't know about the crime better known as 'revenge porn'

Mathilda Mallinson and Helena Wadia

The Spectator's greatest minds can declare without a hint of irony: "The US position at least comes across as liberal and principled". GB News ran the title: "I thank Donald Trump for his free speech ultimatum." This is the libertarian Right that tore us out of the EU because of foreign influence. Now they're cheerleading imperialist US intrusion into our UK policymaking?

The sheer hypocrisy could spark an identity crisis (are we even the word-police anymore, or are we liberalists now?) It's actually pretty straightforward, Femi Oluwole, outspoken political activist, told Media Storm. "It's a really good example of how free speech operates in terms of power.

When Trump didn't have power, he wanted free speech to be absolute so he could say whatever he wanted without being punished for it so that he could win the election. Now he's in power, he needs to make sure that only his narrative is allowed to thrive. Free speech works for you if you don't have power and free speech works against you if you do have power

Femi Oluwole, political activist

The thing is, power imbalances are not reserved to the hierarchies of state. Society is unequal in many ways. And the first thing not being said nearly enough, is that the Right's position on free speech reflects a hierarchy of rights that has a lot to do with race. White people's right to freedom of speech overrules POC's right to freedom from discrimination and violence, but not the other way around.

This explains why the Right saw Starmer's heavy-handed reaction to the anti-immigrant riots last summer as the "biggest threat to free speech in history" (Nigel Farage on Fox News).

But when it comes to Trump's detention of pro-Palestine activists, they suddenly argue there's "a very fine line when your free speech is actually inciting viole...

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 Ministry of Justice has been found guilty of racial discrimination, harassment, and constructive unfair dismissal by an Employment Tribunal, following allegations first revealed by Byline Times last year.

The case centred on Uzo Mbonu, a former prison officer at HMP Swaleside, whose harrowing account of racism, bullying, and neglect, which we reported as part of a Freedom of Information-led investigation that revealed the MoJ had failed to centrally collect data on complaints of racism made by staff or prisoners.

At the time, Byline Times reported how this lack of data had fuelled fears that the true extent of racism in Britain's prison system was being deliberately obscured. Mbonu's account - of being left on probation for nearly double the usual period, racially abused by colleagues, and denied bonuses due to forged paperwork - painted a troubling picture of institutional neglect and hostility.

Ministry of Justice Accused of Hiding Scale of Racism in British Prisons

The Government is refusing to reveal how many complaints have been made by inmates and guards

Iain Overton

Following a nine-day tribunal hearing and deliberation in late 2024 and early 2025, the panel upheld Mbonu's claims of direct race discrimination, racial harassment, and constructive unfair dismissal. His claim of victimisation was dismissed, but the judgement is damning in its detail.

The tribunal found that senior colleagues called Mbonu a "dirty, money-grabbing Black c**t" and a "lazy Black c**t". It ruled that his boss, custodial manager James Richardson, had dishonestly fabricated the record of a disciplinary meeting that never took place - a document later used to exclude Mbonu from a performance bonus scheme.

Despite the forgery being proven, the MoJ failed to discipline Richardson before he left the service. The tribunal criticised this inaction, calling it "more than just mismanagement" and evidence of differential treatment grounded in race.

The judgement concluded that the language used against Mbonu, the institutional indifference to his complaints, and the dishonest actions of his line manager cumulatively created a working environment that was "intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive".

MOJ Slammed for Hiding From Parliament £500m in New Contracts to Companies Probed by SFO for 'Deliberate Fraud' Against It

Serco and G4S overcharged the Ministry of Justice for the same service - then the MOJ tried to hide from the House of Lords that it gave both firms new contracts

David Hencke

In the words of the tribunal: "The burden of proof shifts to the respondent and the respondent has failed to discharge its burden… We are not persuaded it was merely unreasonable treatment."

Speaking after the ruling, Mbonu told Byline Times: "This has been a long, painful journey. I stood alone for years while those around me stayed silent. I raised complaints, wrote emails, followed the rules - and I was punished for it. This judgement proves what I knew all along: that racism is real and rampant in the prison system, and it destroys lives."

He added: "Byline Times told my story when others looked away. Without that exposure, I don't think justice would have been served."

The tribunal also criticised the Ministry of Justice's conduct throughout the process, noting serious failures in disclosure, unresolved internal complaints, and what it described as the "unusual tolerance" of racist language within the prison system.

It was clear, the judgement said, that Mbonu was ostracised by colleagues and that his attempts to challenge racism were repeatedly ignored.

In its original investigat...

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

Conservative Former Health Secretary Matt Hancock personally helped top secure a Covid PPE contract for a former pizza company controlled by a Conservative donor, newly released documents reveal.

NKD International, owned by George Farha, repeatedly lobbied Hancock prior to securing a £135,000 PPE contract from the Department for Health and Social Care.

Farha had personally donated £11,450 to the Conservative Party and a further £12,500 to it via another company he controls.

The company had no record of previously supplying medical equipment and remarkably, just two days prior to the successful contract award, on 15 April 2020, it changed its name from 'NKD Pizza International Limited' to 'NKD International Limited' - dropping any reference to its previous record of selling fast food.

Woman Arrested in Fraud Investigation Linked to £25m 'VIP' Covid PPE Deal Referred by Conservative Minister

The director of the company awarded a multimillion pound Government contract was arrested on suspicion of fraud, conspiracy to cheat the public revenue and fraudulent evasion of income tax

Russell Scott

According to official records, NKD International was referred to the VIP lane by Dame Donna Kinnair, formerly of the Royal College of Nursing (RCN). Reports from 2021, reveal Kinnair was suspended from the RCN "amid concerns over her friendship with a multi-millionaire businessman" - George Farha.

Kinnair repeatedly lobbied Hancock via text message and email regarding Farha's NKD International's offer to supply medical gowns - with Hancock replying to one message stating: "Get him to email me again with the problems - I am working on this directly."

Farha's firm also tried to secure a second multi-million pound PPE deal via the VIP lane, but was unsuccessful.

Documents provided to the COVID Inquiry reveal Hancock's close involvement:

On 11 April 2020, Kinnair had previously sent multiple WhatsApp messages to Hancock introducing Farha. One stated: "George Farha one of your party donators and my friend can get FDA approved gowns here by Wednesday."

According to Kinnair, On 13 April 2020, Hancock "replied by text message and asked me to get Mr Farha to contact him directly - four days later NKD International secured its VIP lane deal from the DHSC.

"On 22 April 2020, according to the witness statement of health officals and less than one week after NKD secured its first PPE contract: "Mr Farha put forward an offer to supply 7.5 million sterile and non sterile gowns from Anhui Medpurest. The offer was to deliver 250,000 gowns per week over a period of 30 weeks on condition of a 50% advance payment per shipment." However, the offer ran into problems as NKD struggled to provide the correct certification for the PPE and officials raised concerns over the financial risks associated with the deal.

On 23 April 2020 Kinnair messaged Hancock and said: "I have to tell you after George has secured a regular supply with China at a fantastic price he is now being given the usual bureaucratic nonesense. With absurd scenarios being suggested. He has delivered and I am always unsure if those around are supporting your endeavours to get gowns and other PPE to the frontline."

According to Kinnair's Witness Statement to the Inquiry, Hancock replied saying: "Get him to email me again with the problems, I am working on this directly"

Hancock repeatedly chased officials regarding the progress of the NKD International offer and also spoke directly with the firm.

Officials highlighted to the Inquiry the "completely atypical" nature of the NKD International contract process, due specifically to the "interest...

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...