Far-right and pro-Palestine protests in London dominate this weekend’s headlines, alongside the prospect of Andy Burnham returning to parliament and challenging for the leadership of the Labour Party. With mainstream media once again focused on the UK capital and events in Westminster, Bylines Network is proud to champion the issues that matter to citizens in our devolved nations and regions. Chief among them are concerns about the impact of new forces in Welsh politics on the country’s national identity.

Just over a week ago, Plaid Cymru became the largest party in the Senedd, winning 43 seats in the Welsh national elections. This seismic shift saw the previous dominance of Welsh Labour evaporate, as its share of Senedd seats plummeted from 29 before the elections to just 9 afterwards. Whilst Plaid rose and Labour sank, Reform UK became the second biggest party with 34 seats.

But, as citizen journalist Niklas George argues, the emergence of Reform might be the biggest danger to the Welsh language and culture in more than four centuries.

It is perhaps a bold statement to claim that a contemporary political party is a greater threat to Welsh history than everything which happened between Henry VIII in the 16th century and the present-day. It is, however, a statement backed up by years of empirical evidence. It takes some doing for a modern political party to be comparable to Henry VIII in terms of the scope for damage to Welsh history, culture and identity, and yet here we are in 2026.

Henry VIII was a man of clear Welsh heritage through his father, Henry Tudor – a Welsh-born noble once viewed by the Welsh people as being the almost messianic living embodiment of an ancient-to-early medieval prophecy (spoiler: he wasn’t) which spoke of a Briton/Welshman crowned king in London. This same messianic figure was also prophesied to bring about an end to Saxon dominion (spoiler: he didn’t).

Though some historians might disagree, Henry Tudor represented the aristocratic Welsh and was far more culturally ‘British’ in the modern sense of the word when it relates to Wales than Welsh. Yet, it was this same Henry VIII, son of Welshman Henry Tudor, who introduced the most damaging measures to Wales since Edward I’s Conquest of Wales in 1283: the Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542. Edward, himself, didn’t go nearly as far as Henry and would have blushed at the lengths this supposed Welshman went to erase Wales and just about everything relating to it.

The laws that bound Wales to England – and silenced its voice

Firstly, Henry annexed Wales into England through the Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542. These acts saw the full extent of English law implemented in Wales for the first time; effectively ending the Laws of Hywel Dda, which had been weakened by Edward I’s Statute of Rhuddlan (1284). The Welsh language was banned in Welsh administration and legal proceedings and thus began the lengthy decline of the Welsh language, which has been threatened in some way by almost every single leader since Henry. This was all further solidified in 1746 with the Wales and Berwick Act, which officially recognised England as including Wales and Berwick-Upon-Tweed. Solidarity, Berwickians.

In contrast, Edward I’s Statute of Rhuddlan only went so far as to extend English rule over Wales and break up the Kingdom of Gwynedd into numerous counties without annexing Wales into England, though one is entitled to say that Edward I certainly got the ball rolling and set the stage for the future oppression of Wales and its people. Wales was officially part of England between Henry VIII and the mid-20th century and all whilst clinging, tooth and nail, to its distinct culture and identity.

Reform UK and the question of cultural survival

So, with all of that being said, how does Nigel Farage and Reform UK pose something of an equal (or perhaps bigger) threat to Wales?

In the time of Henry VIII’s childhood, the Welsh language and cultural identity was still thriving. Yes, it had been dampened and was far from its early medieval peak, but it was inarguably in a much stronger position that it finds itself today. For example: in 16th century Wales, while no data exists to categorically prove this, it is a safe assumption that the vast majority of Wales spoke Welsh as their first language – perhaps as much as 100% of the Welsh population. Fast forward to the 2021 census and this number is drastically and devastatingly smaller, sitting at a measly 17.8%.

It was easier for the Welsh language to survive in 16th century Wales than it is today because it started at a point of enviable strength. The Welsh language is holding on in the 21st century but only because there have been measures introduced to protect it. One need only look at our Brythonic brethren in Brittany to see what happens when a government seemingly continues to do everything it can to erase a language, as Breton, the language of Brittany and sister language of Welsh, is only spoken today by 2.7% (just under 2,900 people) of the 107,000 Bretons in Brittany. Welsh’s other sister language of Cornish is also hanging on by a thread, with just 1% of Cornwall’s population able to speak the language after centuries of measures to extinguish the flame that is Cornwall’s own unique identity.

Let’s be clear here: Reform UK is a threat to the Welsh language and one only need look at their Welsh manifesto to see it.

Sign up for journalism by the people, for the people

Democracy is under threat across the world. There has never been a greater need for truth-telling journalism that holds power to account. Bylines Network is independent, free from oligarch owners and political paymasters. Our stories are researched and written by citizens embedded in their communities.

We need your help to continue telling the stories that matter. Upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, or become a Friend of Bylines Network, to join the 1000s of citizens supporting journalism by the people, for the people.

For £3.50 a month, you’ll also get behind-the-scenes insights. For £10 a month, you’ll get to engage with our editorial teams. For £30, you’ll have even more opportunities to connect with our growing community. And, at the end of May, you will get the latest issue of our standout monthly periodical – the Bylines Network Gazette – packed with powerful stories that speak truth to power and hold democracy to account.

Subscribe now

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Reform’s agenda and the risk to the Welsh language

Farage has already spoken somewhat about the Welsh language and Reform’s intentions to scrap the Welsh government’s target of reaching one million Welsh speakers by 2050 whilst simultaneously abolishing the Welsh Language and Education Act (2025). A Reform led Senedd (which probably wouldn’t last very long, given this is a party with ties to figures wishing to abolish Welsh devolution) could seek to gradually weaken and erase the distinct Welsh culture of Wales and replace it with the more “British” identity (think back to Henry Tudor) which, essentially, is just an extension of the English identity.

It could do this first by removing Welsh language education wherever it can; then by burying the Welsh cultural identity beneath the ‘British’ one. There’s also the risk that a Reform-led government may seek to demote Welsh history in favour of a ‘British’ curriculum. Welsh areas most likely to vote Reform are also areas more likely to include English retirees, and are often more deprived areas (like my hometown of Rhyl, which I am certain will have a majority of Reform voters at the election) where Welsh identity is not as distinctly Welsh as it is ‘British’. Let’s talk a bit more about that.

A generation disconnected: how Welsh history was left untaught

When I attended Rhyl’s now extinct and replaced Blessed Edward Jones Catholic High School between 2005 and 2010, Welsh history was not taught. Even after taking history as a GCSE, there was no mention of our Welsh history – no ancient Britons; no medieval Welsh princes; no Welsh uprisings and no Welsh industrialism. I was blissfully unaware of everything related to Welsh history.

Wales was touched on very briefly in year seven when we covered Boudica, perhaps, but it was made clear to us that this Brythonic warrior princess belonged to Norfolk. Yes, we covered a little bit of Roman Britain around this time, too, but there was no mention of the Welsh tribes who fought against them, nor of the miracle that the Brythonic language – which would evolve into Welsh, Cornish and Breton – endured despite centuries of Roman oppressive rule.

We covered the Tudors in-depth and there was mention of Henry Tudor’s being Welsh, but this was done so celebratorily and without any critical analysis regarding his abandoning of the Welsh identity and his son being the one to devastate his ancestral homeland. We covered both world wars, but this was quite clearly an indoctrination into British togetherness concealed as education.

Undoing years of cultural absence

This was my high school experience with history and it is why I had very little regard for Wales’ history, its language (it is my biggest regret that I am not a Welsh speaker) and its culture until I matured enough to realise something is very, very wrong with the way I was deprived of my Welshness. It might surprise some, then, that despite my very clear love for Welsh history today, I deliberately attended university in England to escape what I perceived as a historically lacking Wales. My specialism was French history because France’s history, to me, was exciting and rich whilst Wales’ own history, to my teenage self, was non-existent.

Welsh Histories, my social media page which has existed since 2023 to share our history with the world, is more than just that – it is also my own learning experience as I am actively seeking to rectify my educational past and understand (or reunderstand, perhaps) my Welsh identity. Certainly, there are tens-of-thousands of Welsh people out there who feel as I felt about Wales and it is this type of Welsh person Reform will be counting on. Reform will also want more Welsh people of this mindset.

A warning from the past as Wales faces a political choice

Children in Wales today are slightly more blessed as there have been measures taken to improve the quality of Welsh history education over the past few years. While not a perfect Welsh history education, it is a start towards something better and celebratory of our own historic Welsh achievements. There is every risk that a Reform-led Senedd could attempt to undo all of this recent progress and revert back to the British togetherness which, really, only celebrates English history and leaves us as little more of a footnote in their own significant successes. This cannot be allowed to happen.

The next generation of Welsh people should be educated to love and share their Welsh history and culture with the world. Living in Maharashtra, India, I am impressed on an almost daily basis by the extent to which the distinct identity and language (Marathi) of this state has survived and thrived in spite of its own enduring centuries of oppression. We must be sure that our lengthy period of oppression in Wales is over. It is time, at last, to turn the page and move on from the Edwards and Henrys, and even on from the Churchills and Thatchers. Voting for Reform UK is a vote for a past which they desperately wish to keep in place.

More than any other individual, David Attenborough – who turned 100 on May 8 – has brought natural history and biodiversity to global attention. He has inspired generations of naturalists, biologists and environmentalists with fascination, adoration and a yearning to protect the living world.

Writing for Sussex Bylines, Ross McNally speaks for many of us when he says that without Attenborough, “I wouldn’t be the person I am”. Yet our planet has suffered greater environmental devastation in Attenborough’s lifetime than during thousands of years before. Sadly, Ross argues, the legendary programme maker may have been slow to confront the forces fuelling this destruction.

Earning his stripes at the BBC

Born in London and raised in Leicester, where his father was principal at what is now the University of Leicester, Attenborough was an avid collector of fossils during childhood. He studied natural sciences at Cambridge towards the end of the Second World War.

By 1950, Attenborough was a trainee producer at the BBC’s Talks Department and began producing interviews and factual programmes. One such project was Animal Patterns, a short natural history series fronted by renowned evolutionary biologist Sir Julian Huxley, exploring how animals use camouflage, mimicry and aposematism (bright or contrasting colours warning predators of toxicity or bitter taste). This series brought animals into the studio from London Zoo, and thereby introduced Attenborough to Jack Lester, the curator of the zoo’s reptile collection.

Together, Attenborough and Lester developed the idea for Zoo Quest, a series filming expeditions around the world to collect animals for the zoo. Originally, Lester was supposed to present the programme but he became ill after the first episode aired, so Attenborough stepped in. The rest, as they say, is history.

Although with hindsight Zoo Quest was based on a rather exploitative premise reminiscent of the plundering of wildlife by Victorian collectors, it earned Attenborough recognition as a presenter of travel and nature programmes, as opposed to merely a producer.

After seven series of Zoo Quest, Attenborough took a hiatus from the BBC, before being lured back as the controller of a fledgling BBC2 in 1965. In this role, he made an indelible mark on television, pushing the channel to be more experimental and overseeing the advent of colour. Taking advantage of colour, Attenborough commissioned the first snooker coverage and also oversaw such programmes as Monty Python’s Flying Circus, a considerable risk for a channel controller given the show’s surreal and absurdist humour, and how vaguely the show was originally pitched.

Attenborough revolutionised wildlife filmmaking

Towards the end of the 1960s, having commissioned several in-depth documentary series such as Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation, Attenborough was keen to make a similar series about the evolution of life, and discussed the idea with producers at the BBC’s Natural History Unit. Wishing to be involved in making and presenting the series himself, in 1973 he resigned his administrative position and returned to making programmes, with negotiations in progress for the planned evolution epic.

When Life on Earth was broadcast in 1979, it revolutionised wildlife film making, documenting species and behaviours never filmed in the wild before and communicating current scientific research in a competent and serious way. It also provided one of the most extraordinary and emotionally resonant sequences in wildlife television when Attenborough filmed with mountain gorillas in Rwanda.

The series was a resounding success, and cemented Attenborough as the face – and the cosy eiderdown voice – of wildlife documentaries, and he proceeded to narrate every episode of the BBC’s Wildlife on Oneover the next 30 years. Life on Earth was followed by several companion series, such as The Living Planet, The Trials of Life, The Private Life of Plants and Life in the Undergrowth. These were among my earliest introductions to the awesome complexity of wildlife.

Over the last several decades, Attenborough has shown little sign of slowing down, providing voiceovers for, and occasional appearances in, major series such as The Blue Planet, Planet Earth and Frozen Planet, all with Alastair Fothergill as the producer or executive producer.

These latter series have shifted in tone from purely natural history to emphasising threatened species and habitats, and championing efforts to conserve them. Sequences from some of these films have been harrowingly poignant and generated huge public attention, in some cases contributing to government action, such as on single-use plastics.

Sign up for journalism by the people, for the people

Democracy is under threat across the world. There has never been a greater need for truth-telling journalism that holds power to account. Bylines Network is independent, free from oligarch owners and political paymasters. Our stories are researched and written by citizens embedded in their communities.

We need your help to continue telling the stories that matter. Upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, or become a Friend of Bylines Network, to join the 1000s of citizens supporting journalism by the people, for the people.

For £3.50 a month, you’ll also get behind-the-scenes insights. For £10 a month, you’ll get to engage with our editorial teams. For £30, you’ll have even more opportunities to connect with our growing community. And, at the end of May, you will get the latest issue of our standout monthly periodical – the Bylines Network Gazette – packed with powerful stories that speak truth to power and hold democracy to account.

Subscribe now

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Was there a reluctance to confront power?

But these series have also drawn criticism from environmental circles, where it’s argued that they’ve downplayed the situation we face, presenting blinkered and selective pictures of unspoiled wilderness and tending to individualise responsibility for environmental crises rather than calling out powerful industries or failures of government.

This instinct for avoiding confrontations with power and misdirecting blame isn’t just a problem with the BBC, but extends to Attenborough personally. A patron of the charity Population Matters, he has long argued that much of our environmental predicament is due to human population. He even went so far as to argue in 2013 that sending food aid to famine-stricken countries was ‘barmy’ because it would only prolong crises caused by overpopulation.

This neo-Malthusian attitude has contributed to a litany of global injustice, allowing powerful industries and the wealthy to dodge responsibility for their disproportionate impact on the planet and instead lumping the blame onto the global poor for having too many children. The very fact of Attenborough’s universal appeal is evidence of his unwillingness to confront power – in stark contrast to the horrifying levels of vitriol directed towards Chris Packham, for instance.

The greatest figure in promoting the natural world

Notwithstanding these limitations, Attenborough has been the single greatest and most respected figure in promoting the public understanding of, and passion for, the natural world. Whether he is explaining the principles of natural selection, or on all fours squeaking at a blind rhino calf, he seems deeply sincere, unpatronising and engaging. To his credit, his recent work also seems to have taken some of the criticisms on board.

While the state of the planet today is far worse compared to the beginning of his career, those working to combat environmental threats, from climate change to biodiversity destruction to wildlife diseases, will owe some of their earliest inspiration to him.

His legacy is therefore not his alone to determine; it’s shared by all of us who have looked up to him. As he turns 100, we should all reflect on how we can help to continue to shape it.

Whilst most of the legacy media have focused on Westminster-centric issues ahead of these elections, our citizen journalists have been sharing the stories that really matter to communities. The ongoing housing crisis has been front and centre, with Scotland having declared a national housing emergency, Wales experiencing rental growth of 4.8% a year, and 8.5 million people in England unable to access the housing they need.

Across the country, people are no longer waiting for politicians to resolve the issue, as this powerful article by Paras Acharya demonstrates. Writing for Central Bylines, Paras reveals that leaseholders from Windsor Mews, Sutton Coldfield, have challenged their housing association – Sanctuary. This follows numerous complaints made for several years regarding the association’s alleged incompetence. ACORN, a union that represents tenants, recently organised residents to take action.

It started with a demonstration held at Sutton Coldfield’s Town Council meeting on 10 February, where residents addressed councillors on the issues they claimed to face in their homes. Sanctuary are one of the largest housing associations in the UK, managing around 125,000 units of accommodation, according to their website.

Sanctuary was approached for comment; you can find their response at the end of this article.

Sutton Coldfield residents describe appalling conditions

One resident, Anne, told the council that she had been living on her property for over 10 years and has paid over £18,000 to Sanctuary, which had “done nothing to her property in that time”.

Anne continued: “With that £18,000 I could have enlisted a reputable company, had all my repairs done. The longer I stop here, the repairs are increasing. I should be enjoying my retirement, but I can’t because of all the stress and worry.

“The buildings and grounds are constantly deteriorating because of bad repairs and a lack of upkeep by the landlord, Sanctuary Housing.”

Sylvia is another resident, who said that there were “dead rats” in her loft. According to her, the rats were given poison and died in January, but she has been forced to deal with flies. “14 days I have been killing flies”, she said, adding that two men from Sanctuary who were meant to deal with the issue “stared for 15 minutes” and left. She told the council that she has spent three weeks waiting for pest control.

“I’ve lived in the property just over three years”, said Emma, another resident, “and deeply regret my decision to move there”. She added that roots had grown across her garden, covering drains, and appeared at the front of the property. She was not able to flush the toilet properly, which meant “I had to use a bucket in my bedroom”.

When people arrived to deal with her issue, they told her that “it was nothing to do with them” because “where the drain is the landlord’s responsibility”. “I have a gut feeling they’re hoping we all die”, she said. “They’re hoping that none of them sell, and they’ll take them down and put another sort of development up.”

Sanctuary condemned by town councillors

Town council leader Simon Ward said at the meeting: “I don’t think I’ve had anything like this in the 10 years I’ve worked here.

“It’s not much to ask to allow you to live a decent life in places that you’ve chosen. It’s absolutely heartrending to hear some of the things that you’ve had to experience.”

Windsor Mews, which contains 42 residences, is in Sutton Trinity Ward, where David Pears is councillor. He said at the meeting: “It really is deplorable, and I think it’s terrible, it’s caused undue stress for all of you.

“Now, this is a bigger issue than just one or two houses, it’s happening across you all. And I bet my bottom dollar, you’re not the only people who are suffering as a result of Sanctuary in the way they do things.”

Thinking about Thursday’s elections? So are we - with the help of Professor John Curtis, Femi Oluwole, and powerful citizen voices

This week sees pivotal elections to the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and a host of English councils. Our citizen journalists will be broadcasting live as Holyrood and Senedd results are announced on Friday this week, with an array of special guests. Join the broadcast on YouTube for free.

Our latest Bylines Network Gazette shares vital perspectives on these elections from Professor John Curtice, Femi Oluwole and citizen journalists from across the UK. The Gazette is delivered direct to the inboxes of anyone who has a paid subscription on Substack or is a Friend of Bylines Network. Click one of these buttons to sign up and that all important Gazette will be sent to you.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

Demonstration outside Sanctuary’s head office

What followed was another demonstration down inside Sanctuary’s head office in Worcester on 23 March, involving nine residents and three members of ACORN. Milo, one of the ACORN organisers, said at a union meeting that they were “terrified”, sending three of their “highest paid directors” to mediate.

The officials, according to ACORN members, included Director of Independent Living Schemes Jen Tennant Foster, Director of Housing and Customer Services Kathryn Fox-Rogers, and Chief of Customer Services Lizzie Hieron.

Ben Auton, an ACORN member, said they had a “very productive meeting”, adding that Sanctuary apologised to the residents. They were also “briefly” joined by Cllr Neil Laurenson of St Stephen Ward in Worcester.

Sanctuary officials consult leaseholders in Sutton Coldfield

This protest was celebrated at an ACORN meeting held in Birmingham on 25 February. According to ACORN, 18 residents from Windsor Mews joined the union. The campaign was also backed by five councillors and Sutton Coldfield’s MP, Andrew Mitchell.

Sutton Coldfield Town Council allowed officials from Sanctuary to meet with residents at the town’s Methodist church on 2 March. A few dozen residents joined, with members of Sutton Coldfield Town Council, Cllr David Pears and the council’s CEO Olive O’Sullivan. Around five officials were from Sanctuary, including Jen Tennant Foster, Area Manager Sianne Fellows, and Housing Services Director Ian Hawarth.

O’Sullivan said the meeting concerned “resetting the relationship” between Sanctuary and the Windsor Mews residents.

Residents brought up their issues with Sanctuary officials, providing lists of all the issues they have in their homes. It was said by the residents that they stopped going to meetings with officials from Sanctuary as their complaints were never followed on.

Hawarth responded to the issues residents had with staff members, saying: “For all of you here now, I am telling you clearly and categorically that it’s not acceptable and that is not how we would want to work. The team are here to help.”

Tennant Foster told residents: “We’ll look at your individual repairs issues, and I think some of those issues are covered by the Section 20.”

Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1995 states that any repairs for leaseholders’ residences over £250 count as “major works”, and require consultation between the tenants and the landlord. It was estimated by Hawarth that it would possibly cost £10,000 for repairs.

Afterwards, Sanctuary officials spoke to residents individually about their issues. It was said work could begin within three to six months.

Mixed feelings from leaseholders

“I’m broadly confident and I think we’ve made good progress today”, said Auton. “I think it’s brilliant to have Sutton Coldfield Town Council behind us as well as councillors from Worcester City Council.”

“Well, we’ve made some progress, but there’s still a ways to go. We’ll see how it pans out”, said resident Sallie Morgan in an interview.

Regarding comments from Sanctuary officials, Morgan added, “I’ll believe it when I see it. They don’t care about old people, they care about their standing in the world compared to MPs and people like that”.

When interviewed, Milo said: “I think the campaign in general has set the precedent that they actually need to listen to leaseholders now. They can ignore one individual, they can’t ignore 18 people.” He also added that he spoke to “several Sanctuary staff” who said they were “dissatisfied with conditions of Sanctuary. And they have not been able to unionise because Sanctuary refuses to deal with them”.

It was agreed at the Methodist Church that a further meeting would be held on 8 June.

A spokesperson for Sanctuary said: “We are committed to working with residents from Windsor Mews – and their representatives – and have made excellent, positive progress over the past few weeks. We will continue to liaise closely with them to address all the concerns raised and will ensure that regular updates are provided as work is completed.”

More from Central Bylines

Editor in chief Gemma Gould discusses the risks of using Agentic AI and ask: who really stays in control? As artificial intelligence develops with agentic AI, it must not come at the expense of accountability, democracy and human agency. Read the full story here.

Writing for North West Bylines, Maryam Syeda reveals that Labour rights groups have accused the fashion brand of stepping back from one of the most robust safety frameworks in the global garment industry.

Campaigners from Labour Behind the Label and the Rana Plaza Solidarity Collective have called on the company to urgently rejoin the Pakistan Accord. They argue that its withdrawal risks weakening protections for thousands of workers across supplier factories.

The call was marked by a protest outside a London store. The timing was deliberate. It coincided with the anniversary of the Rana Plaza factory disaster, where 1,138 people lost their lives and more than 2,500 were injured. Many were young women working long hours in unsafe conditions.

More than a decade on, the scale of the global garment workforce remains vast. Around 75 million people are employed in the sector worldwide. Roughly 75 per cent are women. A significant proportion work in South Asia, where safety standards can vary sharply between factories.

Why the Pakistan Accord matters

The Accord system was created in the aftermath of repeated industrial disasters, including the Ali Enterprises factory fire in Pakistan, which killed 260 workers and injured more than 50 others. It introduced something rare in the fashion industry. Legally binding commitments.

Unlike traditional auditing systems, the Accord relies on independent inspections. It also requires brands to fund safety improvements and ensure remediation. That combination has been widely credited with tangible results.

Since its introduction, tens of thousands of factory inspections have been carried out in countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan. According to campaign groups, over 90 per cent of identified safety hazards in covered factories have been addressed or are in the process of being fixed. Fire doors installed. Electrical systems upgraded. Emergency exits cleared.

Progress, however, is uneven. And incomplete.

Concerns over ongoing risks

Campaigners say recent Accord inspections in HUGO BOSS-linked factories in Pakistan identified persistent issues. Blocked exits. Poor fire safety. Inadequate escape routes. These are not minor faults. In past disasters, they proved fatal.

Anna Bryher of Labour Behind the Label said the decision to leave the Accord sends the wrong signal at a critical time. She argues that voluntary systems, often used by brands as an alternative, have repeatedly failed to prevent serious safety breaches.

There is data to support that concern. Prior to Rana Plaza, many of the factories involved had passed standard social audits. Yet structural cracks and unsafe conditions were overlooked or ignored.

Critics say this highlights a core weakness. Audits can be inconsistent. They are often paid for by the brands themselves. And they rarely carry legal consequences.

Thinking about Thursday’s elections? So are we - with the help of Professor John Curtis, Femi Oluwole, and powerful citizen voices

This week sees pivotal elections to the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and a host of English councils. Our citizen journalists will be broadcasting live as Holyrood and Senedd results are announced on Friday this week, with an array of special guests. Join the broadcast on YouTube for free.

Our latest Bylines Network Gazette shares vital perspectives on these elections from Professor John Curtice, Femi Oluwole and citizen journalists from across the UK. The Gazette is delivered direct to the inboxes of anyone who has a paid subscription on Substack or is a Friend of Bylines Network. Click one of these buttons to sign up and that all important Gazette will be sent to you.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

Voices from Pakistan

Concerns are not limited to campaigners in Europe. Trade union leaders in Pakistan have also raised alarm.

Nasir Mansoor of the National Trade Union Federation described a pattern of negligence that continues to affect workers on the ground. He pointed to overcrowded factories, weak enforcement of safety rules, and limited worker representation.

For many workers, the risks are immediate. Long shifts. Low pay. Limited protections. In some cases, locked doors, and unsafe buildings. The International Labour Organization estimates that nearly 3 million people die each year globally from work-related accidents and diseases. While not all are in the garment sector, the figure underlines the broader scale of workplace safety challenges.

A wider industry debate

HUGO BOSS has suggested that alternative approaches, including in-house monitoring and broader multi-stakeholder initiatives, can deliver similar outcomes. Campaigners strongly dispute this.

They argue that without legally binding obligations, improvements depend largely on corporate goodwill. And goodwill, they say, can change. This disagreement reflects a wider debate within the fashion industry. Should safety be enforced through binding agreements, or managed through voluntary commitments?

Many major brands remain signatories to Accord-style programmes. Others have chosen different paths. The consequences of those choices are still playing out.

Growing pressure

The protest in London is unlikely to be the last. Campaigners have already signalled further demonstrations in Belgium and Germany. The aim is to keep the issue in the public eye.

For Hugo Boss, the challenge is both reputational and ethical. Consumers are increasingly aware of supply chain conditions. Investors are paying closer attention too. The memory of Rana Plaza is still at the forefront. It reshaped the industry once. Campaigners warn it should not take another tragedy to do so again.

For now, the demand is clear. Rejoin the Accord. Fix the risks. And ensure that the people making the clothes are not the ones paying the highest price.

HUGO BOSS’ statement on the issue

HUGO BOSS is firmly committed to respecting human rights and ensuring safe working conditions across our entire value chain.

Following a thorough internal review, we have decided not to continue our participation in the Pakistan Accord. Regardless of this decision, we will of course continue to consistently meet our due diligence obligations in Pakistan. To this end, we work closely with our partners and carry out targeted human rights assessments as well as social compliance audits. In addition, further monitoring is conducted through our accredited membership in the Fair Labor Association (FLA).

In case we identify deviations from or violations of our own high standards – which are ultimately aligned with internationally recognized benchmarks such as those of the International Labour Organization (ILO) – we address them in a focused and dedicated manner. Our aim is to ensure compliance with our required standards in close cooperation with our partners.

Our engagement in the International Accord for Health and Safety in the Textile and Garment Industry, as well as in the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety, has been ongoing since 2016 and will continue unchanged.

More from North West Bylines

After reading Labour’s dossier on Reform – ‘Reform Revealed’ - Steve Basings shares his thoughts on the issue. Should you judge a politician by the people they choose to surround themself with? Read the full article here.

This month’s Gazette digs deep into analysis, commentary and citizen stories about the elections taking place across the country on 7 May. In what could be a huge moment in the UK’s devolved nations, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd will be wholly re-elected, whilst 100s of English councils are set for fierce contests with rising contenders on both the left and right of British politics.

To make sense of what can be a chaotic and confusing electoral picture, this special edition of our monthly Gazette brings you a bumper 14 articles, including:

• An EXCLUSIVE interview with Professor John Curtice, breaking down the key issues, battlegrounds and likely outcomes in Scotland, Wales and English councils, and arguing that these elections will fundamentally change the shape of British politics.

• An EXCLUSIVE interview with activist and commentator Femi Oluwole, discussing what’s really at stake in these elections, the myths behind the rise of Reform UK, how progressives should use their vote, and why we still need electoral reform.

• Deep dives into the electoral systems in Scotland and Wales, and powerful stories from citizens on the ground, explaining why this year’s elections matter so much to people in both countries and many beyond.

• A host of articles considering the context and prospects for elections across the country, including analysis of Reform UK, Labour, The SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the Green Party from our best citizen writers.

• First-hand citizen reviews of what recent by-elections tell us about the May elections and the changing face of politics in the UK.

These are the perspectives you need to get behind legacy media narratives, quiet the noise of disinformation, and make up your own mind about the runners and riders on 7 May. This is citizen journalism doing what it does best – sharing public service news and views.

As is the case every month, this Gazette is presented in a beautiful, specially designed flipbook which you can read online or download as a PDF. How do you get yours? Easy, just click this link:

Our Gazettes are presented in a specially designed flipbook that you can view online or download and keep as a PDF. They are available to anyone with a paid Substack subscription and all Friends of Bylines Network.

We’re proudly independent, but it costs us over £150,000 every year to run our network. By becoming our Friend, you’re supporting grassroots journalism, investing in stronger communities, and strengthening democracy. For as little as £3.50 a month, you’ll get behind-the-scenes insights, chances to engage with our editorial teams, access to special events, merchandise…and monthly Gazettes delivered to your inbox.

Sign up by clicking the button below, or upgrade your Substack subscription – we treat all paid subscribers as Friends, so you’ll receive all the same benefits.

Sign up as a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

“The Bylines Network is tremendously inspiring…it’s crucial that journalism speaks truth to power, but the great majority of it unfortunately speaks with the voice of power…it’s really inspiring to see networks like yours filling that huge gap and doing what journalism ought to do.”

George Monbiot

You can choose from the following tiers – only Friend and Best Friend are available via Substack. If you would like to be a Champion or Patron, click the “sign up” button above.

Don’t want to be friends? No problem, we’re not going anywhere

If you don’t want to become a Friend of Bylines Network, that’s fine – you will remain a newsletter subscriber, nothing else will change, you will still get brilliant articles delivered to you every week, you can visit the free content on our Substack anytime, and you can access all 10 of our publications on their websites without paying a penny.

At a time when war, fossil fuel profiteering, and worsening living standards have devastated our environment and driven bills up, a clean, cheap energy solution should be headline news. Thanks to East Anglia Bylines, it is, and as a Best of Bylines newsletter subscriber, you’re getting the story direct to your inbox.

Too often, misinformation and sensationalism get in the way of the stories that matter to everyday citizens. That’s why our 10 UK national and regional publications publish grassroots journalism that tackles the subjects people truly care about. This time, the subject is Hornsea 3 – set to become the world’s largest offshore wind farm – linking up its first export cable and sending power ashore at Weybourne on the North Norfolk coast.

It’s a significant moment that we should all pay attention to, especially as some people asking for your vote at next week’s elections want to abandon renewable energy altogether.

The project, developed by Ørsted, with a planned capacity of 2.9 gigawatts, is expected to generate enough electricity to power more than 3.3 million homes when it is completed in 2027. The turbines themselves will stand around 120 kilometres off the Yorkshire coast, but the electricity they produce will not enter the UK grid there. Instead, it comes ashore in Norfolk.

From Weybourne, the cables will run more than 30 miles underground through North Norfolk, Broadland and South Norfolk to a converter station at Swardeston, before connecting into the National Grid at the Norwich Main substation. In effect, East Anglia is becoming a gateway for renewable energy, with power generated in the North Sea brought ashore here and then carried south to meet demand in London and the south-east.

A political debate moving in the opposite direction

This moment comes at a time of growing political division over the UK’s energy future. Reform UK, currently leading in polls ahead of the local elections, has called for an expansion of North Sea oil and gas production and for net zero policies to be scrapped, arguing that they are driving up costs. That argument has gained traction as global energy prices have risen after the US and Israel’s war with Iran led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting oil and gas supplies.

However, the cause of those rising costs is precisely the UK’s continued exposure to fossil fuel markets. When oil and gas prices spike globally, the UK feels the impact quickly through energy bills and the wider economy. That contrast matters. At the very moment fossil fuel dependence is exposing the UK to global shocks, the country is investing in infrastructure designed to reduce that exposure.

Speaking of right-wing politics…

On 7 May, generation-forming national elections will take place in Wales and Scotland, alongside local elections in a host of English councils. Populist right-wing parties will be on the ballot paper, representing a worrying shift in national and global politics. A few days before polls open, Bylines Network is proud to bring back a seminal play that tackled similar questions 50 years ago and helped launch a movement against fascism.

Leading British playwright David Edgar wrote Destiny in 1976. It was an instant critical and public success and started a vital national discussion. Its study of far-right politics is strikingly relevant to 2026. That’s why we’re working with Byline Times - a separate organisation with a similar mission but a different model to our citizen network - to put David’s play back on the stage, featuring a stellar cast of actors.

Each reading of the play will be followed by a panel discussion with leading experts and commentators, examining how we can put Destiny’s lessons to use today. If you are in or near London on Sunday, 3 May, we would love you to join us. You can book tickets from as little as £5 here.

Renewables already cutting costs

New analysis from Carbon Brief shows how far the shift to renewables has already gone. In March 2026, record electricity generation from wind and solar avoided the need for around £1bn of gas imports. Together, these sources produced 11 terawatt hours of electricity, while gas-fired generation fell to its lowest level ever recorded for the month. This is not a marginal change; it is already reshaping the energy system.

It also affects how electricity prices are set. In the UK market, the price of electricity is usually determined by the most expensive source needed to meet demand, which is typically gas. Even when most power comes from cheaper renewable sources, gas can still set the overall price. However, as wind and solar generation increase, gas is used less often, meaning it sets the price less frequently. In simple terms, the more renewable energy the UK produces, the less our electricity costs are tied to volatile global gas markets.

A system changing in real time

Hornsea 3 will add significantly to this shift. The UK currently operates around 15 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity, with a target of 50 gigawatts by 2030, and projects of this scale are essential to reaching that goal. They are also reshaping the geography of the energy system. As demand rises – driven by electric vehicles, heat pumps and data centres – large volumes of renewable power need to be moved from coastal regions to major population centres, which is why infrastructure in places like Norfolk matters. East Anglia is no longer at the edge of the system – it is becoming central to how the country is powered.

The project itself reflects the scale of the transition. Hornsea 3 is valued at around £8.5bn and is expected to support up to 5,000 jobs during construction, with around 1,200 permanent roles once operational. Its supply chain stretches across Europe and Asia, and its construction has been in planning for nearly a decade.

From climate ambition to economic reality

What is changing now is not just the scale of renewable energy, but how it is understood. For years, projects like this were framed mainly in terms of climate targets. That remains critical, but the immediate economic benefits are now clearer: lower costs, greater stability and less reliance on imported gas. Renewables help shield households from volatile global markets while strengthening energy security.

At a moment when geopolitical instability is pushing up the cost of fossil fuels, those advantages are no longer abstract. Hornsea 3 reaching the Norfolk coast is one step in a much larger shift, showing how the UK is beginning to build an energy system that relies less on volatile global markets and more on domestic, renewable sources. The wind farm may be out at sea, but its impact is already being felt on land in lower gas demand and in changing electricity prices.

As regions like East Anglia play a growing role in powering the country, the direction of travel is clear. The question is whether those arguing for more fossil fuels will recognise it.

Sign up for journalism by the people, for the people

Democracy is under threat across the world. There has never been a greater need for truth-telling journalism that holds power to account. Bylines Network is independent, free from oligarch owners and political paymasters. Our stories are researched and written by citizens embedded in their communities.

We need your help to continue telling the stories that matter. Upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, or become a Friend of Bylines Network, to join the 1000s of citizens supporting journalism by the people, for the people.

For £3.50 a month, you’ll also get behind-the-scenes insights. For £10 a month, you’ll get to engage with our editorial teams. For £30, you’ll have even more opportunities to connect with our growing community. And, at the end of April, you will get the latest issue of our standout monthly periodical – the Bylines Network Gazette – packed with stories about the upcoming May elections.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

Until last Thursday, Sir Olly Robbins was the most senior civil servant in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. That evening, Sir Keir Starmer phoned him – and sacked him. Robbins’ supposed wrongdoing was that the FCDO had given ‘the green light’ to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to Washington. This was despite the Whitehall vetting process raising severe reservations about Mandelson’s suitability for the post.

Robbins’ evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee this week revealed that the story behind the blame game surrounding the Mandelson decision is not as simple as some might suggest. It’s a mess of structural ambiguity, political pressure and hurried processes, none of which does our democracy any favours.

As is so often the case, a citizen journalist, armed with the facts and a sharp eye for analysis, is able to cut through the confusion and bring some sense to the chaos. Over to John…

We all now know that Mandelson’s appointment was a huge error. It’s a mistake that Starmer has acknowledged and apologised for. It has already cost the prime minister a significant chunk of political capital.

Only in the last week has the fact that now emerged that ‘red lights’ were in fact flashing throughout the vetting process. This new disclosure has made Starmer almost apoplectic, outraged at the fact that he was kept in the dark. Robbins had to go because it was his decision to give Mandelson security clearance, despite the serious reservations expressed in the clearance documents.

Structural ambiguity in the vetting system

There has been a lot of misunderstanding, not only in the media but in 10 Downing Street and parliament about the nature of the process of granting or denying security clearance.

What has become clearer (largely through the Foreign Affairs Select Committee meeting on 21 April 2026) is that the vetting process is subtle and nuanced. It is operated confidentially by the United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV) unit in the Cabinet Office, a specialist unit which carries out a template assessment that concludes with two boxes marked “high concern” and “clearance denied or withdrawn” respectively. Even if either of these boxes are flagged, this still does not constitute a final decision (see Q638).

Top representatives of UKSV will discuss their findings with the FCDO Permanent Under- Secretary and their security team. Most significantly, it seems that the established process is that the Permanent Under-Secretary never gets to see the original UKSV document.

The Permanent Under-Secretary (in this case, Robbins) makes the final decision based only on the joint discussion with UKSV.

In the words of Ciaran Martin, former director of GCHQ’s National Cyber Security Centre, “Not only is there no duty to disclose details of the vetting case” [to, for instance, the prime minister, but that] “there is a duty not to disclose them”. It is clear that this current convention is a recipe for disaster.

While we’ve got your attention…

On 7 May, generation-forming national elections will take place in Wales and Scotland, alongside local elections in a host of English councils. Populist right-wing parties will be on the ballot paper, representing a worrying shift in national and global politics. A few days before polls open, Bylines Network is proud to bring back a seminal play that tackled similar questions 50 years ago and helped launch a movement against fascism.

Leading British playwright David Edgar wrote Destiny in 1976. It was an instant critical and public success and started a vital national discussion. Its study of far-right politics is strikingly relevant to 2026. That’s why we’re working with Byline Times - a separate organisation with a similar mission but a different model to our citizen network - to put David’s play back on the stage, featuring a stellar cast of actors.

Each reading of the play will be followed by a panel discussion with leading experts and commentators, examining how we can put Destiny’s lessons to use today. If you are in or near London on Sunday, 3 May, we would love you to join us. You can book tickets from as little as £5 here.

The Mandelson decision

In the Mandelson case, it seems that the UKSV checklist did include significant concerns, but they were somewhat under-played. Instead, the UKSV’s views were expressed as Mandelson’s was “a borderline case, and that they were leaning towards recommending that clearance be denied”. (Q.556)

Talk then moved on to a discussion of the risks identified, and whether the Foreign Office security team could put in mitigations. This was felt to be achievable, leading Robbins to grant security clearance.

Any talk of UKSV having ruled against Mandelson and Robbins over-ruling the decision-makers is totally misplaced.

Rushed timing, faulty systems

Sending Mandelson to Washington as UK ambassador was something that was pushed hard by Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s Downing Street chief of staff.

To free up the post required the sacking of Karen Pierce, the then ambassador, who was “respected” and “liked by both Joe Biden and Trump” The government then made the premature announcement of the appointment of Mandelson to the post, before the vetting of the candidate had been completed.

Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser (and one of the wisest heads in Whitehall) has complained that the whole process was “weirdly rushed”. The truth is that Starmer, McSweeney and others were determined to get Mandelson in post in time for President Trump’s inauguration

Decision preceding process

All this put Robbins in a difficult position. Starmer’s choice had already been made public, while the vetting form containing lots of red flags was still sitting with the UKSV team. Addressing the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 3 November 2025, Robbins commented:

“…it was clear the prime minister wanted to make this appointment himself”.(Q310)

On his second appearance before the committee, Robbins spoke of “an atmosphere of pressure” (Q526) surrounding the appointment and of “a certain dismissiveness about the [vetting] process” emanating from 10 Downing Street. (Q615).

Who is to blame?

My favourite “bête noir” Morgan McSweeney, must take a large share of the blame for being so pushy in advancing Mandelson as a candidate for the post. Indeed, it emerged when Robbins appeared before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee (21 April) that McSweeeney had contacted Sir Philip Barton (Robbins’ predecessor, who had initially fielded this security vetting) with the instruction “Just fucking approve it” (Q615).

Downing Street’s somewhat ambivalent attitude to the security vetting of the intended new ambassador to Washington is also a factor. Initially, the attitude of key players seems to have been ‘this is a done deal’ so ‘let’s not fret too much’. Only when disaster (inevitably) strikes does it all become the fault of the Permanent Under-Secretary in the FCDO, for not telling Starmer and his advisers that, in the words of the media, Mandelson had “failed his security vetting”(Q659). (Despite the fact it is not a simple pass/fail exercise).

Mandelson himself must also carry some responsibility for acting, well, as Mandelson always has. Starmer may be considered as basically decent and honest, but he suffers badly from being both incurious and easily led.

I have a lot of sympathy for Pierce who did not deserve to lose her position. I have much sympathy also for Robbins, who was put in an invidious position by the prime minister acting pre-emptively.

Lord Peter Ricketts, former national security adviser who watched the Select Committee session closely, concluded on Radio 4’s World At One programme (21 April, from 20:30 and available for 28 days) that Robbins had given “an enormously impressive performance” (20:48) at the end of “a distinguished civil service career”(21:33) and had “followed scrupulously the system, the process that was long established and agreed”(26:40)

And now, two decent and high-performing civil servants have been thrown under the bus.

Sign up for journalism by the people, for the people

Democracy is under threat across the world. There has never been a greater need for truth-telling journalism that holds power to account. Bylines Network is independent, free from oligarch owners and political paymasters. Our stories are researched and written by citizens embedded in their communities.

We need your help to continue telling the stories that matter. Upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, or become a Friend of Bylines Network, to join the 1000s of citizens supporting journalism by the people, for the people.

For £3.50 a month, you’ll also get behind-the-scenes insights. For £10 a month, you’ll get to engage with our editorial teams. For £30, you’ll have even more opportunities to connect with our growing community. And, at the end of April, you will get the latest issue of our standout monthly periodical – the Bylines Network Gazette – packed with stories about the upcoming May elections.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

So, grab your pre-dinner beverage of choice and enjoy this fascinating analysis of Mark Carney’s political journey and philosophy, from Bylines Scotland’s regular contributor Ben Beveridge.

As Ben explains, Carney wrote a book, became Canadian prime minister, and – just Last week – secured a majority government. The question now is whether a man who diagnosed the failures of democratic capitalism can govern according to his own diagnosis, or is doomed to reproduce the same problems.

Value(s): a diagnosis on record

In 2021, before he entered politics, Carney published his book Value(s): Building a Better World for All. It argues that market economies have become market societies. That price has replaced worth. That the institutions of democratic capitalism require moral renewal, not through speeches, but through structural change. He calls for sustainability, solidarity, and responsibility to be embedded in decision-making at the institutional level. The book is specific, detailed, and 400 pages long. It exists. It cannot be unwritten.

The majority – when arithmetic becomes power

On Monday, Carney’s Liberals swept three federal by-elections, bringing the party to 174 seats in the House of Commons. It is Canada’s first majority government since 2015, and the first in the country’s history assembled partly through floor-crossings. Five opposition MPs – four Conservatives and one New Democrat – crossed to the Liberals over the past five months. No election required. No mandate renewed. The arithmetic simply changed.

A majority government in Canada is, for practical purposes, an unobstructed authority for the duration of its term. No coalition partners to negotiate with. No opposition vetoes to hide behind. Fewer than half the government bills Carney introduced in the past year became law. That constraint is now removed. The machinery of government is entirely his.

This is the moment that matters, not because a majority changes the man, but because it removes his last excuse.

While we’ve got your attention…

On 7 May, generation-forming national elections will take place in Wales and Scotland, alongside local elections in a host of English councils. Populist right-wing parties will be on the ballot paper, representing a worrying shift in national and global politics. A few days before polls open, Bylines Network is proud to bring back a seminal play that tackled similar questions 50 years ago and helped launch a movement against fascism.

Leading British playwright David Edgar wrote Destiny in 1976. It was an instant critical and public success and started a vital national discussion. Its study of far-right politics is strikingly relevant to 2026. That’s why we’re working with Byline Times - a separate organisation with a similar mission but a different model to our citizen network - to put David’s play back on the stage, featuring a stellar cast of actors.

Each reading of the play will be followed by a panel discussion with leading experts and commentators, examining how we can put Destiny’s lessons to use today. If you are in or near London on Sunday, 3 May, we would love you to join us. You can book tickets from as little as £5 here.

Now back to Mark Carney…

The behaviour – when values become transactional

Start with the floor-crossings, because they reveal the operating logic most clearly. Carney welcomed each defection by speaking of unity, not uniformity. One of the MPs who crossed voted against banning conversion therapy and promoted unproven Covid-19 treatments. Carney’s response was that she would “vote with the government” on values questions.

This is not a party broadening its values. This is a party that has consumed the functional policy space of its opposition, while retaining its own branding. The Canadian political spectrum has not shifted. It has collapsed into a single operative position that presents as pluralism. Canadians are processing this as normal politics because the surface signals – party name, rhetorical tone, institutional furniture – are familiar enough that the analysis stops before it reaches the structure underneath.

Value(s) diagnoses exactly this failure mode: the elevation of transaction over meaning, of price over worth. Absorbing an MP who opposed conversion therapy bans into a party that claims to champion LGBTQ+ rights is not embedding values. It is substituting arithmetic for principle. Carney’s book sets this as a test. His caucus management fails it.

The challenge – systems that cannot yield

The second test is housing, and it’s the more revealing one.

Carney pledged to double construction to 500,000 homes a year – nearly double the historical record set in the mid-1970s. He created a new federal housing agency. He committed billions to prefabricated construction and provincial partnerships. The Ontario agreement claims to reduce taxes and fees on a new home by up to $200,000. The rhetoric is transformational.

The mechanism is not. TD Economics has assessed that the measures will fall well short of the target. The National Bank of Canada shows mortgage costs consuming roughly 52% of median household income, against a long-run norm of around 40%.Abacus Data found that Canadians endorse the priorities but do not believe progress is being made. His own housing minister, asked directly whether prices would come down, said no.

The structural reason is one Carney understands better than almost anyone alive. Investment in housing accounts for more than 40% of Canada’s total fixed capital formation, the highest share in the G7. Real estate is the single largest component of household wealth. A meaningful price correction would trigger a financial crisis. Carney, whose entire career was built around preventing financial crises, cannot deliver the affordability he promised because the cure would harm the financial system he spent his life protecting.

Value(s) names this precisely. Resilience sacrificed to efficiency. Short-term financial logic overriding long-term societal need. The system must be restructured at the level of values, not merely managed at the level of policy. Carney is now managing at the level of policy, performing action within the constraints of a financial architecture his book argues must be transformed.

The narrative is present. The mechanism is absent.

The test – power meets its premise

Any country with natural resources, a housing crisis, and leaders who speak the language of transformation while operating within systems designed to resist it will recognise this pattern. The question of whether rhetoric translates to outcome is never academic. It determines whether citizens can afford to live in the places they were born.

Carney now has the power to act without excuse. He set the terms himself, in a book he published before he entered politics.

The standard is not ours. It’s his.

Sign up for journalism by the people, for the people

Democracy is under threat across the world. There has never been a greater need for truth-telling journalism that holds power to account. Bylines Network is independent, free from oligarch owners and political paymasters. Our stories are researched and written by citizens embedded in their communities.

We need your help to continue telling the stories that matter. Upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, or become a Friend of Bylines Network, to join the 1000s of citizens supporting journalism by the people, for the people.

For £3.50 a month, you’ll also get behind-the-scenes insights. For £10 a month, you’ll get to engage with our editorial teams. For £30, you’ll have even more opportunities to connect with our growing community. And, at the end of April, you will get the latest issue of our standout monthly periodical – the Bylines Network Gazette – packed with stories about the upcoming May elections.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

More from Bylines Scotland

Read David Murray on the denial surrounding the cost of living denial. The handwringing around impending cost-of-living pressures highlights the ignorance and ineptitude of political decision-makers in the UK. Read more here.

Today, a few weeks ahead of major elections in Wales and Scotland, and a host of council elections across England, we bring you a reflection on Lord Jeremy Beecham by veteran journalist Peter Morris. Lord Beecham was the longest-serving Newcastle City Council leader of modern times. Peter, writing for North East Bylines, argues that he was also “the finest”. Restoring faith in the integrity of the council, only a few years after the corruption scandals of the Dan Smith era, steering it through the disruptive aftermath of local government reorganisation and managing its finances astutely through years of what we now call austerity.

Dan Smith’s immediate successors as leader of the council were honourable men, but it was Jeremy’s long period in the top job between 1977 and 1994 that enabled the council to put that era firmly behind it. That is not to say a few individuals were not involved in mainly petty cases of financial misconduct and even one case of corruption, but is a tribute to Jeremy that no one thought of laying them at his door.

He was assisted in his leadership by his independence of powerful factions within the Labour group. Jeremy did not dominate because he had the support of, say, a West End group or a trade union group. He led because of his formidable intellect, which enabled him to master detail, solve problems and put down the Tories in council meetings with his, never unkind, wit. He had the tact, too, to soothe those with a grievance.

Nor was he part of the drinking culture that was so prevalent in the council at the time, as elsewhere in society (including journalism). He was rarely, if ever, to be seen in the Civic Centre bar or any of the nearby pubs, and certainly did not rely on glad-handing for his influence and popularity.

As a solicitor, Jeremy was ever-conscious of the danger of finding himself with a conflict of interest if, for example, a client sought his representation in a case involving a council development. He avoided that risk by leaving planning and development matters, of which there were many going on in the city at the time, to others.

He preferred to concentrate on the needs of his constituents in Benwell (later Benwell and Scotswood), which were far removed from the grandiose schemes in the city centre at the time – the Metro, central motorway and Eldon Square shopping centre. This was made easier for him by the fact that responsibility for first two of those had been taken out of the city council’s hands and passed to the new Tyne & Wear Metropolitan County Council – much to the dismay of some of Jeremy’s city colleagues.

This left Jeremy and the city council free to concentrate on the issues that were most important to many of their voters in areas of multiple deprivation – council housing, education and his own personal interest, social services. Under his leadership the council designated the impoverished wards along the banks of the Tyne, from Scotswood to Walker, as priority areas, into which millions of pounds were poured.

That the council was able to do this without getting into trouble with the government was due to Jeremy’s non-confrontational approach, for it was not long before he took over the leadership that local government’s first age of austerity had begun, when a Labour Environment Secretary, Tony Crosland, told councils in 1975: “The party’s over”. This parsimonious approach to council spending continued with a vengeance when the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher returned to power in 1979, and every year thereafter I seemed to be reporting in the Evening Chronicle that Beecham was heading down to Whitehall to ask Environment Secretary Michael Heseltine for more.

Some council leaders (and deputy leaders) in other parts of the country, most notably Liverpool and Lambeth, reacted angrily by setting illegal budgets, and won themselves reputations as defiantly heroic left-wingers. Not Beecham and Newcastle. He was happy to attack ministers, but not to break the law.

If I have two criticisms of the council during Jeremy’s time as leader, one is that he allowed staffing levels to soar out of control; numbers reached 19,000 at one point. Today, in admittedly very different circumstances, it is a small fraction of that. The other criticism is that the council was too secretive, with too many meetings held behind closed doors and too many documents printed on pink paper (i.e. confidential). Fortunately, there was nearly always someone willing to leak them.

These are not trivial criticisms, but they do not negate Jeremy’s fine overall record as leader of the council over 17 years and his membership over 55 years.

When a Labour councillor from another authority (later an MP) asked me if I thought Newcastle’s was a left-wing council I said “Yes”. Asked why, I replied that the city was spending up to the hilt on the people’s priorities – council housing, education and social services – while staying just on the right side of the law and avoiding futile gestures. Looking back, I still think that was a fair assessment and one Jeremy would not have been displeased with.

*A fuller appreciation of Jeremy by some of those who knew him, including a chapter by this author – Jeremy Beecham: A Quiet Altruist, edited by Jon Gower Davies, – was published in 2022 by Ergo Press, Hexham.

Sign up for journalism by the people, for the people

Democracy is under threat across the world. There has never been a greater need for truth-telling journalism that holds power to account. Bylines Network is independent, free from oligarch owners and political paymasters. Our stories are researched and written by citizens embedded in their communities.

We need your help to continue telling the stories that matter. Upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, or become a Friend of Bylines Network, to join the 1000s of citizens supporting journalism by the people, for the people.

For £3.50 a month, you’ll also get behind-the-scenes insights. For £10 a month, you’ll get to engage with our editorial teams. For £30, you’ll have even more opportunities to connect with our growing community. And, at the end of April, you will get the latest issue of our standout monthly periodical – the Bylines Network Gazette – packed with stories about the upcoming May elections.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

Speaking of politics…

On 7 May, generation-forming national elections will take place in Wales and Scotland, alongside local elections in a host of English councils. Populist right-wing parties will be on the ballot paper, representing a worrying shift in national and global politics. A few days before polls open, Bylines Network is proud to bring back a seminal play that tackled similar questions 50 years ago and helped launch a movement against fascism.

Leading British playwright David Edgar wrote Destiny in 1976. It was an instant critical and public success and started a vital national discussion. Its study of far-right politics is strikingly relevant to 2026. That’s why we’re working with Byline Times - a separate organisation with a similar mission but a different model to our citizen network - to put David’s play back on the stage, featuring a stellar cast of actors.

Each reading of the play will be followed by a panel discussion with leading experts and commentators, examining how we can put Destiny’s lessons to use today. If you are in or near London on Sunday, 3 May, we would love you to join us. You can book tickets from as little as £5 here.

In this important story, Geneviève Talon, a regular contributor to West England Bylines, investigates the lived experience of migrants in Bournemouth. At a time when immigration dominates the headlines, Geneviève shares unique grassroots insights that reveal vital truths about the way Britain responds to asylum-seekers.

But before you dive into this powerful article…have you signed up for our webinar, happening tomorrow, 15 April at 7 pm? Don’t miss out!

This event brings together survivors of abuse at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein and Mohammed Al-Fayed, with a leading politician and veteran of feminist campaigns. Join us for 75 minutes of powerful testimony, smart analysis and participatory discussion about women, justice and equality.

If you’re a Friend of Bylines Network or a Substack subscriber, you get free access to the livestream webinar. If you’re not a Friend, you can sign up now or click here to book a one-off ticket.

Book your webinar ticket now

Subscribe now

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Life in Iimbo – how the asylum debate is reshaping a coastal town

There are no published figures for the number of refugees with formally settled status across the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council area. For asylum-seekers – those whose claims are still being processed – numbers fluctuate. According to Home Office figures reported by the BBC, about 500 were being housed in hotels as of December 2025, a proportion broadly in line with other UK councils using hotels (around a third of all councils). A further 70 people were in other forms of housing, less than half the average for councils providing non-hotel accommodation.

What is certain is that the presence of migrants has become a lightning rod for local debate. Asylum-seekers, in particular, face a familiar mix of support, mistrust, and, at times, open hostility.

A patchwork of support

BCP Council supports refugees and asylum-seekers through a dedicated resettlement team, focusing on accommodation, but also providing wraparound care. In addition to the Homes for Ukraine scheme and specific initiatives to help Afghan refugees, both part of the national response, the area also hosts refugees from Iraq, Syria, and other countries. This includes Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children (UASCs), whose care, because of their age, is the responsibility of the local authority. This has presented significant challenges locally. In January 2023, for example, the BCP area had 56 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in care, or 10.7% of the total number of children in its care – considerably higher than both the national and regional averages.

To tackle these issues, the Council works in partnership with a number of local voluntary organisations, such as Bournemouth Churches Housing Association, which helps secure accommodation. In 2023, Refugee Support EU launched its first UK project in Bournemouth: the Dignity Centre. They stepped in because, while some support exists for those granted refugee status, far less is available to people seeking asylum, who must wait months or even years in temporary accommodation and are not permitted to work. Initially, the Dignity Centre aimed to support the residents of the infamous Bibby Stockholm barge in Portland, Dorset. When that closed down for health and safety reasons, they shifted their focus to Bournemouth.

“We got our identity back”

There have been a remarkable number of other initiatives to address the difficulties faced by migrants, whether from large organisations or small-scale groups powered by volunteers. Football offers a telling example. An issue often cited by migrants is isolation from the host community, caused by language barriers and the ban on working. To counter this, football teams made up of refugees have sprung up, facilitated by the Dignity Centre (‘Dignity FC’), AFC Bournemouth, and Bournemouth University’s Sport Therapy department, among others. Ben Maatoug, a personal adviser with BCP Council, has masterminded United Players FC. The impact is summed up by the players:

“We came to this country with no ID, we belong nowhere, we have no visa, no refugee status. This is the first [place] that we felt we got our identity back”.

Grounded Community is another good example of a small charity supported by the National Lottery Community Fund, BCP Council, and Bournemouth Foodbank. The charity welcomes asylum-seekers at their ‘Secret Garden’ in the heart of town, where they can grow food, feel valued, and regain a sense of purpose.hen tensions spill into the open

Perhaps the saddest thing is that one of the most active of these local charities, well known for helping migrants by providing English language lessons, welfare support, and programmes for UASCs, has declined to be interviewed for this article. They explained that, at the moment, they do not want to expose themselves to unwanted attention from the far-right, which has put them and their service users at risk.

In Bournemouth, an established tourist destination, there’s a clear backlash from some residents who feel that using hotels to house asylum-seekers might deter visitors. However, it isn’t just about the hotels, and one charity featured in this article, which asked not to be named, is correct in stating that the far-right is getting bolder.

Since August 2025, groups calling themselves Bournemouth Patriots and Poole Patriots have been seen most weeks demonstrating against the presence of migrants outside the landmark Roundhouse, the most prominent of these hotels. Counter-demonstrators, such as Stand Up to Racism, are present and vocal too. In January 2026, those ‘Patriots’ even protested outside the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI), whose national headquarters are in Poole. They accused the RNLI, whose role is to save lives at sea under international maritime law, of acting as a “taxi service for illegal immigrants”. There, too, they were outnumbered three to one.

“Protecting our community” – or policing it?

A vigilante group calling itself ‘Safeguard Force’ has recently appeared on the streets of Bournemouth. It was founded by a local man, Gary Bartlett, who claims to be responding to a sense of fear among residents and to “protect our community”. Members can be seen patrolling the town centre in self-styled ‘uniforms’, although Dorset Police have made it clear they do not endorse or condone the group.

In an effort to create an apolitical, even benevolent, image, Bartlett took part in a podcast produced by Dodge Woodall, a content creator sympathetic to Bartlett’s cause, who, among other interests, documents the lives and times of criminals in Britain. As it happens, Bartlett has since had to admit that some members of his ‘Safeguard Force’ have past or even unspent criminal convictions, as reported in the Bournemouth Daily Echo. This raises serious safeguarding concerns and is one reason Dorset Police are keeping the group at arm’s length. Not only that, but if you pull down the masks you find that the same names appear in a Facebook group called ‘Taking Back Our Country’, which contains Islamophobic and anti-migrant posts, as revealed by reporter Olly Haines in Bylines Times.

What the data actually shows

As so often, perception and reality diverge. There is no evidence of a drop in visitors; quite the reverse. According to an article published in October 2025 on the BCP website, “businesses in Bournemouth are reporting a successful summer after people made more than 10 million trips to the town centre across June, July, and August”. The same applies to the level of criminality. According to the same article, “independently measured statistics show crime in Bournemouth is down year on year and, as a county, Dorset remains in the top 10 safest places to live”. Taken together, the available evidence demonstrates that the presence of asylum-seekers in Bournemouth has become a focus for far-right activities, suggesting that hostility is being driven less by evidence than it is by perception.

Making a contribution

Interestingly, asylum-seekers from the Roundhouse Hotel were asked by volunteers supporting them how they felt about the heckling taking place outside. They reported feeling less anger or fear than embarrassment – shame, even – for being so obviously unwanted and rejected by a section of the local population.

A good news story, on the other hand, came from Mark (not his real name), a young Ghanaian. In September 2024, he arrived at Gatwick, where he was held in a detention centre. He was relocated to Bournemouth pending the decision on his asylum claim. As a way of giving back for the help he received, he started volunteering at Grounded Community’s Secret Garden, where he has also improved his English. His application for refugee status was granted in January 2026. He is now entitled to work and will look for a job in construction.

Labour’s plan to reset the system

Any long-term solution will be decided in Westminster. This is what Jessica Toale, the Labour MP for Bournemouth West, told West England Bylines:

“We’re trying to close asylum hotels because it’s not good for asylum-seekers, not good for the local community, and not good for the taxpayer […] There are also people – and I meet them all the time – who are not happy with where their lives are, who are struggling with the cost of living […] We are tackling those underlying issues that drive people towards a real fear and allow people to weaponise immigration as an easy answer to some of the really complex challenges we face as a nation […] We need to restore trust in the system, as well as introduce safe and legal routes […] The new refugee model [shifting from permanent to temporary for those who claim asylum from March 2026] is about making the system fairer, founded in the reality of the world today.”

You can watch the full interview with Jessica here.

‘Lift the ban’: the case for the right to work

Meanwhile, the Lib Dem-led BCP Council has joined the ‘Lift the Ban’ coalition. In January 2024, the Council formally moved to join the campaign to allow asylum-seekers the right to work, aiming to help them support themselves and reduce pressure on public services. Supporters argue that this would also help restore these people’s sense of dignity, set them off on the path to integration, and reduce the mistrust that the far-right feeds on, in Bournemouth and elsewhere.

More from West England Bylines

Read Dr Hazel Dawe and Steve Dawe’s report on a fascinating discussion involving Michael Morpurgo, Chris Packham, and Isabella Tree at the Oxford Literary Festival.

Bylines Cymru contributor Robert G Davies reveals that the Creative Europe programme is investing €2.44bn of European Union funds in the arts. Designed to promote cultural diversity, strengthen creative industries and support cross‑border exchange, the programme remains open to non-EU countries. Yet, even as British artists and cultural organisations continue to struggle, the UK has opted out and shows no intention of rejoining.

While Europe pushes forward with coordinated cultural investment, many UK creatives describe a landscape increasingly defined by travel restrictions, lost funding, and shrinking international opportunities.

Sector calls for reconnection as barriers grow

A 2026 UK–EU Arts Sector Survey reveals that collaboration between the UK and Europe is still alive but heavily constrained by bureaucracy, reduced mobility, and the disappearance of previously accessible funding. Organisations across the UK, particularly in the devolved nations, continue to call for reassociation with Creative Europe – warning that the current environment is stifling both innovation and cultural exchange.

Musicians speak out: “Brexit has changed everything”

Among those most acutely affected are professional musicians whose careers once depended on fluid European touring.

“My whole career used to be built on European work.” – Owen Roberts

Swansea-born, Owen Roberts, a seasoned musician with extensive experience performing across Germany, Scandinavia, Cyprus and the Alpine nations describes a stark shift in his professional reality.

“I used to spend a huge part of the year working in Europe – it was the backbone of my career. Since Brexit, that work has almost disappeared. Not because I’ve changed, but because the paperwork and hassle mean people just stop calling.”

Roberts explains that while he remains active as a musician, the loss of international opportunities has forced him to focus far more heavily on domestic gigs:

“It’s not that I don’t want to work in Europe – it’s that the demand isn’t there anymore. It’s too complicated for organisers, so they choose someone from the EU instead.”

He notes that Irish musicians he works with have not faced the same decline, highlighting the unique post‑Brexit disadvantage now faced by UK artists.

Visa restrictions reshape touring life

For drummer Paul Stewart of The Feeling, the administrative and logistical pressures of working in Europe have fundamentally reshaped professional routines.

“Before Brexit, touring Europe was completely stress‑free. Now every trip has to be calculated, logged and double‑checked just to stay within the rules.”

Under the Schengen 90/180‑day system, UK musicians may now work in Europe for only 90 days within any rolling 180‑day period – a system Stewart describes as “a constant balancing act”. Musicians must now carefully track their days in Europe, often using apps, to avoid overstaying.

He recounts a recent job when drummer Steve Barney, was forced mid‑tour with internationally renowned singer Anastacia, to leave Europe after utilising his permitted days:

“Imagine having to walk away from a tour you’ve rehearsed for months, not because of the music, but because you’ve hit some bureaucratic limit. It’s heartbreaking – and it’s happening all the time.”

Artists generally prefer ‘long-term, consistent lineups’ to foster a “band family” atmosphere, so forced changes due to visa restrictions negatively impact performances.

The restrictions affect not only working schedules but personal lives:

“You end up avoiding family holidays in Europe because you have to protect your working days. It’s ridiculous that even taking your kids away can jeopardise your ability to do your job.”

Stewart also points to the negative impact of US visa costs which are restricting British musicians’ ability to work in America, pushing promoters to hire local talent instead.

Speaking of arts and culture….

On 7 May, generation-forming national elections will take place in Wales and Scotland, alongside local elections in a host of English councils. Populist right-wing parties will be on the ballot paper, representing a worrying shift in national and global politics. A few days before polls open, Bylines Network is proud to bring back a seminal play that tackled similar questions 50 years ago and helped launch a movement against fascism.

Leading British playwright David Edgar wrote Destiny in 1976. It was an instant critical and public success and started a vital national discussion. Its study of far-right politics is strikingly relevant to 2026. That’s why we’re working with Byline Times - a separate organisation with a similar mission but a different model to our citizen network - to put David’s play back on the stage, featuring a stellar cast of actors.

Each reading of the play will be followed by a panel discussion with leading experts and commentators, examining how we can put Destiny’s lessons to use today. If you are in or near London on Sunday, 3 May, we would love you to join us. You can book tickets from as little as £5 here.

A new trend: Irish passports for easier access

Many UK musicians with Irish ancestry – including Stewart – have chosen to pursue Irish citizenship to regain EU mobility.

“Getting an Irish passport isn’t just practical – it’s symbolic. It’s saying: I want to be part of that cultural space again, even if my own government made it harder.”

Government stance under pressure

Multiple industry figures highlight that the EU previously offered a reciprocal arrangement to allow UK musicians to work freely across Europe post‑Brexit – an offer the UK government declined.

Stewart expresses frustration about this decision:

“The EU was willing to make it work, and we turned it down. So now we’re all paying for a choice we didn’t make.”

Although wider trade discussions continue, many creatives argue that progress is slow and insufficient.

Beyond the music industry: ripple effects across sectors

Stewart also points out that the challenges facing musicians mirror those affecting many UK industries post‑Brexit – from food exporters burdened with certification requirements to small businesses wary of entering European markets.

“This isn’t just about music. Anyone trying to work with Europe now faces higher costs, more paperwork and more delays. It feels like barriers are being put up everywhere.”

A cultural sector at a crossroads

Despite mounting challenges, UK artists continue to demonstrate resilience. But many warn that without renewed engagement with EU cultural frameworks – such as Creative Europe – the UK risks falling behind its European neighbours in artistic innovation, international collaboration and cultural influence.

As one musician summarised:

“We haven’t lost our talent – we’ve lost our access. And unless something changes, that loss is only going to grow.”

Don’t miss our webinar - Wednesday 15 March, 7 pm

Every month, we bring together an expert panel to share unique insights on a seminal topic. This month, we’re bringing together survivors of abuse at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein and Mohammed Al-Fayed, with a leading politician and veteran of feminist campaigns. Join us at 7 pm on 15 April for 75 minutes of powerful testimony, smart analysis and participatory discussion about women, justice and equality.

Our livestreamed webinars follow the publication of our monthly Bylines Network Gazette. The latest edition features 14 stories by female authors in recognition of International Women’s Day. If you’re a Friend of Bylines Network or a Substack subscriber, you get free access to the livestream webinar. If you’re not a Friend, you can sign up now or click here to book a one-off ticket for this month’s webinar.

Book your webinar ticket now

Subscribe now

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Inside the Manosphere sees Theroux bring his signature baffled dad Gonzo journalism to bear upon social media influencers creating extremist, bigoted, aggressively masculine and misogynistic content – riding the coattails of Andrew Tate. Sadly, as Ross discovers, the programme’s analysis of the dynamics that enable these influencers to target disempowered young men is woefully inadequate.

By combining extremism with crude, half-baked critiques of capitalist exploitation, these influencers, instead of advocating for systemic change, prey upon their followers’ despair by boasting that they know the ‘cheat codes’ to game that system and get rich, and that their followers can do so too. If they buy into the range of scams or pyramid schemes that they’re selling. This channelling of popular discontentment into hatred and personal enrichment is straight from the playbook of the far right, with which the manosphere greatly overlaps.

A week before the documentary was released, a global survey was published assessing views on gender roles among different age categories. A key finding was that Gen Z men (born between 1997 and 2012) were twice as likely as Baby Boomer men to hold ‘traditional,’ i.e. misogynistic views. Thirty-one per cent of Gen Z men agreed with the statement that a wife should always obey her husband, for instance, compared to 13 per cent of Baby Boomers.

With that being said, the sample size used was relatively small, so these results should be taken with a pinch of salt – indeed, other surveys of UK men and boys paint a different picture. Nevertheless, the generational trend presented should give pause for reflection about online culture. Recent scandals over Elon Musk’s X, with its AI chatbot Grok being used to generate non-consensual explicit images of women and girls, also provide important context.

As I read more about the documentary and saw clips, I knew that the subject was depressingly relevant but began to question whether the film was actually helpful. I decided, with some trepidation, to watch it.

Every month, we bring together an expert panel to share unique insights on a seminal topic. This month, we’re bringing together survivors of abuse at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein and Mohammed Al-Fayed, with a leading politician and veteran of feminist campaigns. Join us at 7 pm on 15 April for 75 minutes of powerful testimony, smart analysis and participatory discussion about women, justice and equality.

Our livestreamed webinars follow the publication of our monthly Bylines Network Gazette. The latest edition features 14 stories by female authors in recognition of International Women’s Day. If you’re a Friend of Bylines Network or a Substack subscriber, you get free access to the livestream webinar. If you’re not a Friend, you can sign up now – check the link at the end of this article – or click here to book a one-off ticket for this month’s webinar.

Some revealing moments

Over multiple interviews focused mainly on four of these influencers, Theroux sought to establish the extent to which they really believed the odious attitudes and behaviour that they promote for social media, seeking to get some idea of where this culture came from. These interviews had some revealing moments.

When talking to Harrison Sullivan, known as HSTikkyTokky, about his content, Theroux asks him why he doesn’t try to be a good person and uplift people instead of playing to their worst impulses. The briefest flicker of something resembling guilt flashes across his face, before he states matter-of-factly that he wouldn’t have got where he is now – likely worth millions from streaming views and brand deals – by being a good person. This is almost certainly true, and a grave indictment of our economic system. Social media algorithms actively promote hateful, bigoted content as rage-bait, because anger and provocation drive user engagement, and this user data is what the platforms sell to advertisers.

Also of interest was Theroux’s realisation that many of these manosphere influencers lacked healthy relationships with their fathers, which he suggests could have led them to cultivate a macho sense of self-reliance and aggression as a shield.

Woefully inadequate and lacking insight

As I feared though, the documentary was in most respects woefully inadequate. One major flaw I found was that little time was spent talking to the girlfriends or families of these influencers. A couple of the influencers did allow Theroux to talk to their partners about their relationships, which they characterised as ‘one-way monogamy’ (the man could sleep with other women).

However, these discussions were brief and conducted jointly with the influencers themselves. As a result, they were awkward, stunted conversations in which the woman, channelling the ambience of a hostage video, gave unconvincing support to her husband/boyfriend’s positions. These relationships appeared to approach domestic abuse.

It would likely have been more interesting and fruitful for Theroux to talk to these women one to one, perhaps even making them the focus of the documentary. But that probably wouldn’t have made for such sensationalist television. Perhaps Theroux was not so much interested in interrogating or challenging the manosphere but rather sought to piggy-back on its shock value.

The documentary also failed to trace real-world impacts of the online manosphere on women and girls more widely. The Office for National Statistics estimates that almost a fifth of girls aged 16-19 have experienced domestic abuse in the last year, with abuse among this age cohort growing faster than in any other.

The lack of solutions offered to combat the manosphere culture were glaring. There has been much discussion lately surrounding the regulation of social media, such as a recent UK bill (since defeated) to ban it for those under 16. Whilst I had reservations about that idea, you’d think Theroux might have mentioned it. Other moves, such as banning the use of smartphones during school hours, better coverage of online ‘toxic masculinity’ in the RSHE curriculum, or ideas being floated for nationalising social media platforms, were also conspicuously absent.

While Theroux mentions at the beginning of the documentary that being a father of teenage boys is a motivating factor for making the documentary, he gives little reflection on the role that parents, particularly fathers, can play in helping boys to explore notions of masculinity and providing positive alternatives to this online bile.

Fundamentally, we must confront an economic system which treats the majority of people as disposable, in which meritocracy is a punchline and the promise of a secure future with a decent standard of living is for most an ever-receding pipedream – while at the same time the wealth of the few is idolised.

Under such circumstances, is it any wonder that many young men, socially conditioned to believe that they should be masters of their destiny and provide for families, are falling prey to the snake-oil salesmen of the manosphere?

Journalism by the people, for the people – help us do more

There has never been a greater need for truth-telling journalism that holds power to account. Bylines Network is independent, free from oligarch owners and political paymasters. Our stories are researched and written by citizens embedded in their communities.

We need your help to continue telling the stories that matter. Upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, or become a Friend of Bylines Network, to join the 1000s of citizens supporting journalism by the people, for the people.

For £3.50 a month, you’ll get every Bylines Network Gazette for free, free access to our webinars and other behind-the-scenes insights. For £10 a month, you’ll get to engage with our editorial teams. For £30, you’ll have even more opportunities to connect with our growing community.

Subscribe now

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

In this revealing expose, North West Bylines investigates why a secondary school in Greater Manchester has removed scores of books from its library. According to reporting by Index on Censorship, removed titles include works dealing with race, gender identity and LGBTQ+ themes – subjects that have increasingly become flashpoints in wider cultural debates.

The removals were not announced publicly. There was no national directive, no ministerial intervention, no headline-grabbing ban. Instead, decisions appear to have been taken within the school itself, with little transparency about how or why particular books were deemed unsuitable.

That, in many ways, is the point.

What has happened in Manchester may feel local and specific. But it reflects concerns identified in survey data from school librarians across the UK – particularly in England, where decisions about library content are largely made at school level.

A local decision – or part of a wider pattern?

Education is a devolved matter, with separate systems in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are no UK-wide rules governing school libraries but concerns about access to books and pressures on librarians have been raised across all four nations.

In England, there is no statutory requirement for schools to provide a library or employ a qualified librarian. Decisions about what is stocked, displayed or removed are typically made locally by schools or academy trusts.

That autonomy allows schools to respond to the needs of their pupils. But it also creates inconsistency – and, increasingly, vulnerability to pressure.

Surveys of school librarians suggest that requests to remove books are not uncommon, particularly titles dealing with identity, race and sexuality. In some cases, books are formally withdrawn. In others, they are simply not replaced, not displayed, or quietly set aside. The result is not always a dramatic act of censorship. More often, it is a gradual narrowing of what is available.

What makes the Manchester case notable is not just the number of books involved, but the visibility it brings to a process that is usually opaque.

Enjoying this article? Don’t just read the headlines – join a live discussion about the stories behind them. Every month we bring together a high-profile panel to share their unique insights as we tackle a seminal topic from recent news. Join us at 7 pm on 15 April for 75 minutes of powerful testimony, smart analysis and particpatory discussion about women, justice and equality.

This month, we’re bringing together survivors of abuse at the hands of both Jeffrey Epstein and Mohammed Al-Fayed, with a leading politician and veteran of feminist campaigns.Ask your questions, get bold answers and help us make sense of an increasingly chaotic world.

Our livestreamed webinars follow the publication of our monthly Bylines Network Gazette. The latest edition features 14 stories by female authors in recognition of International Women’s Day. If you’re a Friend of Bylines Network or a Substack subscriber, you get free access to the livestream webinar. If you’re not a Friend, you can sign up now – check the link at the end of this article – or click here to book a one-off ticket for this month’s webinar.

Now back to North West Bylines fascinating investigation of quiet cencsorship in a Manchester school.

The quiet nature of censorship

In the US, book banning has become overtly political. Lists are published. Campaigns are organised. Legislation is proposed and passed.

In England, the picture is different.

There are no official lists and no centralised bans. Instead, decisions are diffuse, fragmented and often undocumented. A book removed in one school may still be widely available in another. A title quietly taken off a shelf may never be publicly missed. This does not mean censorship is absent. It means it operates differently.

In England, challenges to books are often handled informally and locally, rather than through formal bans.

Safeguarding or suppression?

In many cases, decisions to remove books are framed in terms of safeguarding or age appropriateness. Schools have a clear duty to protect children, and few would argue against the need for care in selecting material. But that framing can also obscure more difficult questions.

Who decides what is appropriate? On what basis? And how are those decisions scrutinised?

In the Manchester case, the reported focus on books dealing with race and LGBTQ+ themes raises concerns about whether particular perspectives are being disproportionately excluded. Without transparency, it is difficult to know whether removals are driven by educational judgement, parental pressure, or a desire to avoid controversy altogether.

The line between safeguarding and censorship is not always clear. But it is a line that matters.

A system without clear rules

Part of the challenge lies in the structure of the system itself.

With no statutory framework governing school libraries in England, responsibility is dispersed. Headteachers, academy trusts and governing bodies each play a role, but there is little consistency in how decisions are made or reviewed. This lack of framework creates space for local discretion. It also creates space for inconsistency, opacity and, at times, overreach.

Where there are no clear rules, there is also limited accountability.

The chilling effect

The impact of these dynamics extends beyond the books that are explicitly removed.

Librarians and teachers may anticipate complaints and adjust their choices accordingly. Over time, entire areas of discussion can become less visible, not through formal prohibition, but through quiet avoidance. This is the chilling effect of informal censorship.

What is visible in Manchester – a reported removal of books – may only be the most tangible expression of a broader shift.

Why it matters

School libraries are not just repositories of books. They are spaces where young people encounter ideas, perspectives and experiences beyond their own. For some pupils, they may provide the first opportunity to see their own identity reflected in what they read.

Removing books is not a neutral act. It shapes what is accessible, what is discussed, and ultimately, what is understood. The Manchester case brings that into sharp focus. It is not simply about a list of titles, but about the principles that underpin decisions in education.

The question beyond Manchester

What has happened in one Greater Manchester school will not, on its own, define the national picture. But it does raise questions that extend far beyond it.

If decisions about what children read are made quietly, locally and without clear oversight, how do we ensure they are fair? How do we balance safeguarding with intellectual freedom? And who, ultimately, gets to decide what is on the shelf?

England may not have the spectacle of book bans seen elsewhere. But that does not mean the debate is any less urgent. Because when books disappear without explanation, so too can the conversations they enable.

A full list of the books banned from the Manchester school can be found here.

Journalism by the people, for the people – help us do more

There has never been a greater need for truth-telling journalism that holds power to account. Bylines Network is independent, free from oligarch owners and political paymasters. Our stories are researched and written by citizens embedded in their communities.

We need your help to continue telling the stories that matter. Upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, or become a Friend of Bylines Network, to join the 1000s of citizens supporting journalism by the people, for the people.

For £3.50 a month, you’ll get every Bylines Network Gazette for free, free access to our webinars and other behind-the-scenes insights. For £10 a month, you’ll get to engage with our editorial teams. For £30, you’ll have even more opportunities to connect with our growing community.

Subscribe now

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Today, it’s the turn of Dean Conway, a popular contributor to Central Bylines, whose latest article reveals how some of Reform UK’s recent recruits previously described the party. Words like “racist”, “offensive”, “useless” and “pathetic” have often been levelled by opponents. But as recent Tory defections have shown, these criticisms are now shared by some of the party’s most prominent members.

What might this tell us about Reform and its future electoral prospects?

In the last few months, Nadhim Zahawi, Robert Jenrick, and Suella Braverman have all moved from the Conservative rogue’s gallery into Reform’s political circus. This defection wave is not a new phenomenon; the Best for Britain defection tracker notes that 120 Tories have defected to Reform since its founding, including 27 MPs. But what makes this batch unique is their apparent previous mutual hostility.

Between them, Farage and these new recruits have accused each other of espousing and harbouring “offensive” and “racist” views and being motivated by little more than political self-interest. This enmity extends through the party, with home affairs spokesperson Zia Yusuf having attacked Jenrick and Braverman – the party’s new economic spokesman and spokeswoman for education and equalities respectively – for their handling of 2022’s Afghan data leak, blaming the two for covering it up.

But despite all this ill will, these Tory traitors seem right at home in Reform. Each sums up a moral bankruptcy, of which Reform is the natural conclusion. Let’s see how, in their own words.

Before you read on, want to join our next webinar?

Most media oligarchs and owners are wealthy men, and you are more likely to find a white, privately educated man running a newsroom in the UK than anyone else. Bylines Network is proud to be different. All 10 of our citizen journalism publications have female leadership, and our most recent Bylines Network Gazette featured only stories by female authors in recognition of International Women’s Day.

After the publication of every Gazette, we hold a livestreamed roundtable event with special guests who bring unique experience, insights and perspectives – helping us make sense of an increasingly complex and chaotic world. This month, we’re bringing together survivors of abuse at the hands of both Jeffrey Epstein and Mohammed Al-Fayed, with a leading politician and veteran of feminist campaigns.

If you’re a Friend of Bylines Network or a Substack subscriber, you get early and free access to book your place for the livestream webinar. If you’re not our Friend, you can join now – check the link at the end of this article – or click here to book a one-off event ticket for no more than £3.50.

Now back to

Nadhim Zahawi: Farage is “as establishment as they come”

The former Conservative Party chair has been critical of Farage since 2015, when he called Farage’s statement to Channel 4 that he would not be in favour of keeping laws that ban race-based employment discrimination “offensive&racist”, writing in a tweet deleted after his defection that he “wld [sic] be frightened 2live [sic] in country run by [Farage]” and likening him to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. In an article for Conservative Home that same year, he wrote that Farage’s “stock in trade” was substituting “deep thought and serious long-term reform” for “angry slogans”.

But a more revealing criticism came when Zahawi pointed out that “​Farage has run for political office SIX times and been an MEP for FIFTEEN yrs – he’s as establishment as they come”. It’s a criticism that has been levelled against the privately educated millionaire, who once attempted to relate to steelworkers on the basis that he traded for the London Metal Exchange, many times over the years. This contradiction expresses itself in Reform, the self-proclaimed “party of working people” funded by CEOs and billionaires. Most of its major donors are one percenters, including capital investment fund CEO David Lilley, billionaire property developer and Reform Party treasurer Nick Candy, aristocrat and convicted fraudster‘Posh’ George Cottrell, and Richard Tice, the party’s deputy leader and CEO of property investment firm Quidnet Capital. OpenDemocracy and DeSmog have also pointed out the various corporate interests funding Reform, including energy firms and fossil fuel giants.

Evidently, Zahawi was right on the money, which makes his shift more transparently craven. Farage made his feelings about the man clear in a 2022 GB News interview responding to Zahawi’s appointment as Chancellor of the Exchequer following Rishi Sunak’s resignation: “I thought Zahawi had principles, but tonight we learned all he’s interested in is climbing that greasy pole”. Indeed, Zahawi’s pole climbing demonstrates one of the key reasons the hard right has come to power in recent years: the willingness of establishment figures and capital to collaborate with racists rather than give any concessions to workers or the progressive left.

Robert Jenrick: kowtowing in the name of careerism

If Zahawi’s defection is cynical, Robert Jenrick’s feels pathetic. The former Tory leadership contender joined the party on 15 January, arguing that Reform is “uniting the right” (a telling choice of words). Badenoch has been brutal in her public mentions of Jenrick since, saying he “wasn’t a team player” and that the party is stronger without him. Farage’s past comments on Jenrick reveal that none of his bosses find it easy to respect him, having previously called him “a fraud” who believes in nothing.

But perhaps the person who has the least respect for Jenrick is himself. In July 2025, Zia Yusuf liked an X post calling Jenrick “a traitorous Zogbot [a known antisemitic slur] with a Jewish wife and family”, blaming him for “import[ing] infinite brown savages to rape our women and children”. Yusuf later claimed that a member of his team ‘accidentally’ clicked like on the post, an excuse that Jenrick publicly called out as “bullshit”. In response to calls for Yusuf’s sacking, Farage defended the action while simultaneously humiliating Jenrick: “Robert Jenrick in government made a lot more mistakes than Zia making one little mistake for which he immediately apologised”.

Since joining Reform, Jenrick has further degraded himself by praising the man who supported the antisemitic abuse of his wife: “Zia co-founded a business worth hundreds of millions of pounds and has now dedicated himself to fixing Britain”, he posted to his X account. “I look forward to working with him to turn Britain around”. This shameful kowtowing captures something dark about the right: how willing some of the most high-profile Conservatives – and ex-Conservatives – are to forgive racial abuse in the name of careerism.

Suella Braverman: a precursor to fascism

If Jenrick’s defection is pathetic, Suella Braverman’s is poisonous. Farage himself called her “useless” and “absolutely pathetic” as home secretary. But this presentation covers an extremism that has shaped British political culture into the nightmare Reform represents.

Braverman has quietly defined our era of far-right politics. Her 2022 description of the uptick in asylum seeking as an “invasion on our southern coast” was likened to Nazi dehumanisation by a Holocaust survivor. In 2023, her statements that grooming gangs are predominantly comprised of British-Pakistani men – contradicted by the Home Office’s own research – prompted 50 child sexual abuse researchers and organisations to urge the government to stop “perpetuating misinformation, racism and division”. That same year, her illegal immigration bill was decried by the UNCHR as “an asylum ban”. Gary Lineker likened it to measures taken by Nazi Germany. Journalist Brad Blitz didn’t go quite so far, but did write that it was “a dangerous source of incitement” and arguably “a precursor… to fascism”.

Political scientists Behr & Gianoncelli argue that European conservatism has radicalised in the past 15 years, leading to a “blurring of the political divide between the right and the far-right”. Braverman exemplifies this shift in the UK. As Adam Bienkov has argued in the Byline Times, her endorsement of Rishi Sunak’s leadership campaign in 2022 indebted the Tory party to the extreme fringe she represented. In the years since she has carefully networked within the international extreme right wing elite, attending and speaking at multiple Conservative Nationalism Conferences. These events have been attended by the likes of Viktor Orbán and Steve Bannon, and Byline Times has linked the movement to tech-billionaire Peter Thiel and the rise of Christian nationalism.

Opportunism, cowardice, and extremism

Taken together, these three defections tell us how the Tories have enabled Reform. Zahawi’s captures the faux-populist self-portrayal of the far-right, dressing themselves up as the voice of the people in suits stitched by billionaire oil barons. Considered with Jenrick’s defection – a man whose total lack of belief earned him the nickname ‘Robert Generic’ among Tory critics – both reveal how Conservatism’s opportunistic insincerity has aided the rise of reaction. And Jenrick’s failure to stand up for his wife parallels how the Conservative Party has sold itself out to the extreme right, leading to the nightmare summed up by Braverman.

It remains to be seen how these defections will affect Reform. Recent polling suggests that the public increasingly sees the two parties as similar. This could make the party more appealing to former Tory voters, which, per political economist Ben Ansell’s bloc theory, is where the majority of its voters are likely to come from. Or it could sink Reform with the Conservative ship that voters fled in 2024; while the party will want to build momentum from the name recognition of these Tory trophies, absorbing so many Conservatives risks undoing the iconoclast mask he’s spent his political career crafting, fuelling the growing view that Reform is simply a “Tory 2.0”.

But regardless of what happens next, Zahawi’s opportunism, Jenrick’s cowardice, and Braverman’s extremism tell us that Reform is the natural conclusion of a Tory party that sold its soul, and the country in the process.

Sign up now to get access to all future Bylines Network Gazettes and webinars

There has never been a greater need for truth-telling journalism that holds power to account. Bylines Network is independent, free from oligarch owners and political paymasters. Our stories are researched and written by citizens embedded in their communities.

We need your help to continue telling the stories that matter. Upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, or become a Friend of Bylines Network, to join the 1000s of citizens supporting journalism by the people, for the people.

For £3.50 a month, you’ll get every Bylines Network Gazette for free, free access to our webinars and other behind-the-scenes insights. For £10 a month, you’ll get to engage with our editorial teams. For £30, you’ll have even more opportunities to connect with our growing community.

Subscribe now

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Today it’s the turn of North East Bylines contributor David Keys, with a sharp explanation of the way successive British governments – both Tory and Labour – have laid the ground for the current Israel/US/Iran war.

Don’t forget that our monthly Bylines Network Gazette will also be released this weekend, packed with powerful citizen stories from across the UK and an exclusive interview with Sangita Myska. Friends of Bylines Network, regular donors and subscribers to our Substack, will get the Gazette for free - if you aren’t signed up yet, click here, or look out for a special Gazette email arriving in your inbox very soon.

For now, over to David, who begins by explaining why all the evidence shows, quite clearly, that the key initiator of the current war was Israel.

Indeed, a quarter of a century ago, Israel’s current leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, was caught on camera explaining just how easy it was (and tragically still is) for Israel to manipulate America. “I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily,” he boasted.

But why, in Britain, are the Labour and Tory parties partly also to blame for the current war?

They are not the main culprits – but, without doubt, both political parties (and indeed many other UK politicians) have contributed to the political circumstances which have led to the current war.

So why do I say that?

The answer is disturbingly simple. It’s because successive UK administrations (and other western governments) have led Israel to sincerely believe that the West will never do anything really serious to try to stop Israel from doing anything.

For decades, the West (including the UK) has sadly done absolutely nothing to seriously incentivize Israel to bring the occupation of the West Bank to an end. Neither has it done anything to seriously encourage Israel to stop illegally building settlements on occupied Palestinian West Bank land).

Likewise, it never even attempted to exert real economic and political pressure on Israel to seriously negotiate a genuinely fair ‘two state’ solution.

In 2018 and 2019, when Israeli snipers murdered more than 220 Palestinian demonstrators on the Gazan side of the Israel/Gaza border, the UK government merely describe the loss of life as ‘tragic’ and expressed concern about Israel’s ‘large volume of live fire’. But Britain and indeed other Western countries actually did absolutely nothing that might have seriously encouraged Israel to cease its live fire against demonstrators who were not even on Israeli territory. Britain did not even want a UN enquiry.

Then during the Gaza war (which started in 2023) the UK government was, to say the least, relatively muted in its condemnation of Israel’s slaughter of over 80,000 Palestinians.

Britain quite rightly very robustly condemned Hamas 7 October 2023 attacks against Israel (which cost 1200 Israeli lives) – but has never really robustly condemned Israel’s slaughter of 80,000 Gazans since then. Top UK politicians have tended to condemn the suffering of the Gazans, rather than the actions of the Israeli government and the Israeli army which were responsible for that suffering. Sanctions against Israel have been weak in the extreme (only around 10% of UK arms export licences to Israel have been suspended – and other measures have been even weaker).

So it’s absolutely no surprise that the current Israeli government has concluded that the West, including Britain, was unlikely to do anything to seriously oppose Israel and America’s current war.

At worst, the Israeli government assumes that the British government and other western administrations will huff and will puff – but never do anything more. That, in effect, has contributed to giving Netanyahu a green light to start the current conflict – a conflict that, at the end of the day, is likely to be bad news for Israel, for the Middle East, for America, for the UK and for the rest of the world.

What’s more, Israel’s main ally, Donald Trump, also knows that the world is not going to robustly and actively oppose the war.

Indeed the UK government is de facto actively encouraging America and Israel in the current conflict by allowing US warplanes to use UK-run bases and by sending senior UK military personnel to Washington to help Trump develop plans to oppose Iran in the Strait of Hormuz.

If we really want to see peace and justice in the Middle East (and global economic and political prosperity and stability), the West must cease being complicit in ill-advised wars and appalling injustice.

The West must learn to not continue making the same horrific mistakes that were made in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere

Sign up now to get the next Bylines Network Gazette - released this Friday

There has never been a greater need for truth-telling journalism that holds power to account. Bylines Network is independent, free from oligarch owners and political paymasters. Our stories are researched and written by citizens embedded in their communities.

We need your help to continue telling the stories that matter. Upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, or become a Friend of Bylines Network, to join the 1000s of citizens supporting journalism by the people, for the people.

For £3.50 a month, you’ll also get behind-the-scenes insights. For £10 a month, you’ll get to engage with our editorial teams. For £30, you’ll have even more opportunities to connect with our growing community. And, on 27 March, you will get the latest issue of our standout monthly periodical – the Bylines Network Gazette – packed with stories about women, by women, and championing the issues that women care about.

Subscribe now

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

More from North East Bylines

In his latest article, North East Bylines regular looks for tips on how to beat the populist right in France’s municipal elections. Whilst they did not deliver a decisive defeat for the far right, they did reveal something more valuable - read the full article to find out what.

This time we hand over to our team at Kent and Surrey Bylines, with an important article about the recent meningitis B outbreak in the UK, which has caused the death of a University of Kent student and a Haversham sixth-former called Juliette.

As well as sharing vital facts that could save lives, author Lydia Pearson goes beyond the current situation to discuss controversial views on vaccines expressed by Reform UK leaders at Kent County Council.

It has been confirmed that there are now over 20 cases of meningitis (MenB), including a 9 month-old baby in hospital, and that the illness has spread to London and even France.

What is meningitis?

According to the NHS website, “Meningitis is an infection of the protective membranes that surround the brain and spinal cord.”

The symptoms are as follows:

• A high temperature.

• Headaches.

• Vomiting.

• Seizures.

• A rash that does not fade when a glass is rolled over it (but a rash will not always develop).

• Stiff neck.

• Sensitivity to bright lights.

• Cold hands and feet.

According to BBC News, it is spread by little droplets that have been coughed or sneezed into the air that have been breathed in. However, you can also get it from sharing a drink, kissing someone, or sharing a vape with somebody.

Many people may have it and not know it, due to not presenting with the symptoms above, and not being unwell. Sometimes, the symptoms look similar to a cold, flu, or a hangover. If you are ill, keep an eye on your symptoms and if you present with any of the above, do not hesitate to seek emergency treatment.

It could save your life.

This is because, if not treated, meningitis can lead to septicemia, which then leads to sepsis (blood poisoning), which is deadly. In fact, in the UK, it is estimated that up to one in ten of bacterial meningitis are fatal.

Even if it does not kill you, meningitis can be very physically disabling. It is not worth the risk, regardless. According to WHO, one in five people have long lasting impacts afterwards, including hearing loss, seizures, limb weakness, and difficulties with vision, speech, memory, and communication. Then, for sepsis, it carries risk of limb amputation.

According to The Guardian, “treatment for meningitis includes antibiotics, intravenous fluids, oxygen if there are breathing difficulties, and in some cases steroid medication to prevent swelling around the brain.”

Antibiotics and vaccinations may save lives.

What is happening at the University of Kent?

One student at the university, a fourth year student by the name of Izzy Kenny, told the BBC that, “everyone’s just feeling a lot of anxiety at the moment.” This is completely understandable, given that bacterial meningitis kills 10-15% of sufferers, even with prompt treatment, and approximately 20% of sufferers end up becoming permanently disabled, according to the Meningitis Research Foundation.

A student called Mariam told Sky News: “I remember when I found out Sunday night everyone was…surprised,” she told them. She mentioned that several people texted her to ask if she was okay. “It’s a bit dreary, a bit gloomy, it’s a bit scary as well…It’s been quite a tragic situation, two people have died,” she added.

A third-year student, Mohammed Olayinka, told the BBC that the campus is, “a bit of a ghost town, isn’t it? It’s been mixed, have people saying best off to stay here, people that panicked and left. I really can’t blame them. (There’s) an air of uncertainty to go out.”

Sky News have reported that a university official has said the following: “Today, the University – in partnership with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) – are rolling out the first targeted MenB vaccination programme to all students living on our Canterbury campus. Alongside this, we will continue to offer precautionary antibiotics to staff and students that might be affected.

This is part of our ongoing commitment to offer a swift response and reassurance to support Kent students at this difficult time.”

Approximately 8,400 doses of antibiotics have been given out as a precautionary measure, according to the BBC.

What is the government doing?

Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, has described it as a “rapidly developing situation” and referred to the outbreak as “unprecedented”.

He has added that, “people can and should still go to school and college”, that the risk to the general public was “low,” and that people do not need to buy the jab privately. He has also insisted that there is “plenty of stock.”

This comes at a time where there is a shortage of meningitis vaccines available. Those who were born before 2015 will not have been vaccinated against meningitis as a baby, and so may not be vaccinated against the disease. The jab costs £220, which may be prohibitive for some people – and, even then, many private clinics are facing the same shortages.

Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has urged Kent club-goers to ‘come forward’ for treatment.

Sign up now to get the next Bylines Network Gazette - released this Friday

There has never been a greater need for truth-telling journalism that holds power to account. Bylines Network is independent, free from oligarch owners and political paymasters. Our stories are researched and written by citizens embedded in their communities.

We need your help to continue telling the stories that matter. Upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, or become a Friend of Bylines Network, to join the 1000s of citizens supporting journalism by the people, for the people.

For £3.50 a month, you’ll also get behind-the-scenes insights. For £10 a month, you’ll get to engage with our editorial teams. For £30, you’ll have even more opportunities to connect with our growing community. And, on 27 March, you will get the latest issue of our standout monthly periodical – the Bylines Network Gazette – packed with stories about women, by women, and championing the issues that women care about.

Subscribe now

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Reform and vaccines

Reform UK, the UK’s most popular political party at the moment, given their current poll lead, are often sceptical of vaccines. In September 2025, the Reform Kent Council Leader, Linden Kemkaran, showed scepticism towards the COVID-19 vaccine during an interview with Radio Times.

When asked if she thought that the Reform Party should open up an inquiry regarding a link between COVID vaccines and cancer, her response was: “I think it’s something we should talk about. Definitely.”

She also claimed the government ‘pushed’ the vaccines on children, and talked about how adults were allegedly ‘tricked’ into having their children vaccinated. At current, she is still the council leader of Kent, and given that she has been criticised for not disavowing, and perhaps even going as far agreeing with anti-vaxx perspectives, this could have wider implications in Kent (such as people choosing not to vaccinate themselves or their children), where the situation is still rapidly unfolding.

Some people online are blaming immigrants and immigration for the spread of the disease. One blamed Labour and the Conservative Party, implying that the outbreak was due to immigrants coming in on boats: “if they werent allowed in on f***ing boats it wouldnt be here”.

Another user, sarcastically, replied to them, pointing out where the outbreak had happened: “Why did Labour and the Tories let in British students to the University of Kent? Weird question”. Another pointed out that meningitis B is a bacterium, not a virus,

According to Maiden Lab, which has ties with the University of Oxford: Neisseria meningitidis, also known as meningococcus, is a Gram-negative diplococcus bacterium. It was first identified in 1887 by Weichselbaum, although outbreaks of possible meningococcal meningitis had been reported since 1805 in Europe.

The first cases in Africa appeared in the 20th century, while the British Empire was still in effect, suggesting that (if anything), Brits and perhaps other European colonisers spread the disease to the continent, and not vice versa.

Such rhetoric by a prominent leader can cause concern, as there was already a great distrust of vaccines post-COVID, largely, in part, for political reasons. Statements made by non-scientist officials about the supposed danger of vaccines could influence the people in their constituency, who are already afraid and distrustful, particularly after criticisms of how the previous government handled the COVID pandemic.

Although Reform and Kemkaran have not made any statements against the safety of the meningitis B vaccine, such posts made by the public show how important it is for politicians to rely on data, science, and research, instead of speculation.

What are other officials saying?

The deputy chief medical officer, Dr Thomas Waite, stated that it was the quickest growing outbreak he had seen in his career.

The chief officer of the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), Susan Hopkins, has not yet been able to confirm where the initial infection came from, although she said it looked as though there had been a super spreader event amongst university students. She also alluded to its “explosive” nature and that, in her 35 years in medicine, it was the most cases she had seen in a single weekend with this type of infection.

The UKHSA declared a national incident on Sunday, which is allegedly to preserve antibiotic stock, according to the BBC’S Health Correspondent, Nick Triggle. A top pharmacist, Dr Leyla Hannbeck, has called on the NHS to implement a national vaccination programme.

She said: “The NHS must urgently launch a nationally coordinated vaccination programme, delivered through community pharmacies, to ensure teenagers and young people across the country can access Meningitis B vaccines quickly and easily.

We are already seeing demand rise rapidly. Many pharmacies, particularly those in the south, are getting requests every minute from worried parents asking for the meningitis vaccination.

“The majority of pharmacies have run out of stock and cannot order any in from the suppliers. This underlines why a localised response is not sufficient and risks creating a postcode lottery in access to protection.

We are asking JCVI to approve a nationwide pharmacy-led rollout to reach teenagers and young adults at pace, protect vulnerable groups, and prevent further spread. The government must act now to deliver this without delay.”

Should we be concerned?

For many, phrases such as ‘unprecedented times’ are eerily reminiscent of the early days of COVID-19, and some have even remarked online about this being the same time of year that the COVID-19 infection began to spread in the UK.

Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, has pointed out that cases are likely to rise. That said, he has insisted on not having a “knee-jerk” reaction to rolling out jabs nationally. He explained that cases are likely to rise again due to the 2-14 day incubation period which accompanies the disease.

According to Tom Clarke, writing for Sky News, the disease is ‘thankfully rare’ but a ‘cruel reminder,’ about the impact on young people. He goes on to add:

“There’s been less and less disease thanks to the effectiveness of vaccines, which are now available on the NHS,” said Dr Tom Nutt, chief executive of charity Meningitis Now. “So, to get a big cluster like this in Canterbury, I think, is pretty shocking and pretty unusual.

Babies, children and young adults are most at risk, and the bacterial infection…has more chance to spread through the social scene and shared accommodation of colleges and universities.’

Although the public risk may be considered “low” by the Health Secretary, taking the following precautionary measures is recommended:

• Wearing respirators.

• Taking antibiotics as a precaution when sick.

• Checking up on loved ones, especially those who are immunocompromised, young or ill.

• Being aware of the symptoms.

• Being vigilant.

• Masking.

• Potentially avoiding human interaction.

• Getting the vaccination.

At the very least, taking antibiotics, getting the vaccine, masking in public, checking up on loved ones, and being vigilant and aware of the symptoms is a good place to start.

If you or someone you know presents with headaches, vomiting, confusion, seizures, high temperature, a rash that does not go away when a glass is rolled on it (not always present), stiff neck, cold hands and feet, or sudden sensitivity to bright lights, do not hesitate. Call 999 or get to an emergency room immediately.

Don’t panic, but do stay vigilant and aware. Take urgent action if needs be.

It may just be the difference between life and death.

More from Kent & Surrey Bylines

As the Hungarian elections approach, Magdalena Williams explains how Péter Magyar and his Tisza party are successfully challenging Viktor Orbán by ‘reclaiming’ nationalism. Read the full story here.

Lisa takes a close look at Reform UK Limited’s presentation as champions of freedom and common sense, going behind the slogans to reveal a network of ideas and alliances that should alarm anyone who cares about women’s rights.

To understand Reform UK Limited’s long-term vision, we have to look at what is already happening in America, to abortion rights, the availability of birth control and much more.

Some will dismiss these concerns as exaggerated. Britain is not America, they say, and abortion rights here are settled law. But the past few years have shown how quickly long-standing rights can unravel when political movements, funding networks, and ideological allies begin to push in the same direction. The question is not whether Britain is just like the United States: it is whether the same political strategy can take root here.

Reform UK and other hard-right parties share many ideals, and they draw heavily on US Republican and MAGA-inspired politics. Nigel Farage has called for the “reindustrialisation” of Britain and for a “180-degree shift” to reverse the declining birth rate. He also praised “our Judeo-Christian culture”. This coded language tells us their aims – for the country “to breed more white Christian babies to help Reform achieve its net-zero immigration policy”.

Farage is a master at disguising hard-right policies with soft language, and in the last couple of years he has begun to address the topic of abortion, seeing it as “fertile political territory”.

A manufactured crisis

Farage has said, “I am pro-choice, but I think it’s ludicrous, utterly ludicrous that we can allow abortion up to 24 weeks,” adding that it would be “worthy” of discussion and parliament should get more time “to debate things people talk about at home.”

But this is not a national crisis with voters demanding a fresh debate, it is a fake crisis being manufactured through repetition. Farage works to normalise such language without evidence or clinical understanding. He has also said that under Reform, there would be fewer abortions and fewer divorces.

In England and Wales, about 90% of abortions happen before 9 weeks, with less than 1% after 20 weeks. The later cases usually involve severe foetal anomalies or risks to the mother. The data simply does not support the alarmism around late-term abortions.

Sign up for journalism by the people, for the people

Democracy is under threat across the world. There has never been a greater need for truth-telling journalism that holds power to account. Bylines Network is independent, free from oligarch owners and political paymasters. Our stories are researched and written by citizens embedded in their communities.

We need your help to continue telling the stories that matter. Upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, or become a Friend of Bylines Network, to join the 1000s of citizens supporting journalism by the people, for the people.

For £3.50 a month, you’ll also get behind-the-scenes insights. For £10 a month, you’ll get to engage with our editorial teams. For £30, you’ll have even more opportunities to connect with our growing community. And, at the end of March, you will get the latest issue of our standout monthly periodical – the Bylines Network Gazette – packed with stories about women, by women, and championing the issues that women care about.

Subscribe now

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

US anti-abortion and Christian nationalist influencers

Last year, the group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) orchestrated Nigel Farage’s appearance in the US Congress. The ADF is known for its role in helping to overturn Roe v. Wade and ending the constitutional right to abortion in the US.

Its lawyers have said they believe British politicians and the public can be swayed to roll back abortion rights in the UK. More broadly, ADF aims to empower conservative Christianity in Europe and sees Britain as a key player.

Reform adviser’s extreme views

In October last year, Reform UK appointed Dr James Orr as a senior adviser to the party. Orr’s role is to oversee talent recruitment and strengthen the party’s network. He is considered a ‘British sherpa’ to US Vice President JD Vance and has close ties to American conservative circles, including the ADF.

A theologian, Dr Orr is known for his strict anti-abortion position, having previously described UK abortion laws as “extreme” – he argues against termination of pregnancy in all circumstances, including cases of rape, incest and serious risk to health.

Recent rollbacks in the US are killing women and babies. In the US, researchers identified an estimated 478 additional infant deaths in 14 states with abortion bans. Maternal mortality was nearly twice as highcompared to states where abortion remains legal. In Texas, the first state to implement a 6-week limit, pregnancy-related deaths rose by 56% in the first full year of the ban.

Clearly, restricting abortion leads to tragic consequences. Is this the sort of pain and suffering we want inflicted on our daughters, sisters and other women in society?

American funding links

The American anti-abortion movement is already funding UK groups. Kerry Abel, Chair of Abortion Rights, said: “The fact that anti-abortion MPs and ex-MPs are flocking to Reform is deeply worrying. This is not about being ‘pro-family’ – it is about stripping women of their rights and rolling back decades of progress.”

The UK arm of ADF International (UK) has received some £3.4m in funding since 2019 and spent nearly £3.2m, according to Charity Commission filings. Its stated aim is “To advance Christianity…by promoting Christian principles and ethics”. This means rolling back women’s rights in support of fixed gender roles where men are firmly at the top – like things used to be, you know, when women had no autonomy.

Reform figures who oppose abortion

There is nothing abstract about these views, they are embraced by real figures within Reform UK and its orbit, many of whom have strong religious beliefs and long records of opposing women’s rights.

Danny Kruger (former Conservative, Reform MP for East Wiltshire) believes women do not have “an absolute right to bodily autonomy” and claims that the UK suffers from a “totally unregulated sexual economy”, suggesting politicians should play a role in reshaping sexual culture. He also opposes no-fault divorce.

Lee Anderson (former Conservative, Reform MP for Ashfield) has backed restrictions on abortion access, joining an amendment tabled to the criminal justice bill in 2024 to scrap the “pills by post” method of early medical abortion.

Ann Widdecombe (former Conservative, Reform member) has spent decades campaigning against abortion rights and has long been involved in parliamentary pro-life groups.

Maria Caulfield (former Conservative MP, Reform member) has repeatedly voted against measures expanding abortion access, including opposing buffer zones around clinics and at-home early medical abortion.

Sarah Pochin (former Conservative, Reform MP for Runcorn and Helsby) voted against decriminalising abortion and has called for the current 24-week limit to be reduced.

Restricting abortion is just a start

And the rhetoric goes beyond abortion. Reform’s Matt Goodwin (their recent failed candidate in the Gorton and Denton by-election) has argued that women and girls need a “biological reality check” about having children and suggests a “reverse child benefit” where childless women would pay higher taxes.

What would that look like in practice? Would women need to prove infertility to avoid punishment? Would the state decide which women are fulfilling their ‘duty’ to have children?

Reform and MAGA talk of ‘traditional families,’ and being ‘pro-family,’ which sounds innocent enough, but what they mean is that women should be in the home raising children, which can only be achieved on a mass scale by limiting the life choices women have.

Without doubt, anti-abortion and ‘pro-family’ rhetoric will amplify, and we know already where that can lead because we know what the goal is for conservative Christian nationalists in the USA. It started with abortion restrictions, then full bans in some states, with the end goal being a total ban. Now, some want women to face execution for having abortions.

Contraception and wider rights

Republicans have increasingly targeted the availability of emergency contraceptives, and Senate Republicans succeeded in blocking the Right to Contraception Act, a bill intended to codify the right to contraception into federal law.

Some states have moved to limit access to contraception for minors without parental consent, while others allow pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions based on personal beliefs.

Next on the list is the removal of women’s voting rights (guaranteed under the nineteenth amendment), in favour of the so-called ‘household vote’, but that is another article.

Heeding the warning signs

Nothing like this will happen overnight in the UK. Rights are not torn away in one dramatic moment; they are chipped back slowly, softened by language about ‘family values,’ ‘common sense,’ ‘justifiable concerns’ or ‘reasonable debate.’

This is exactly how abortion rights disappeared in parts of the United States, and the same religious and far-right political networks are now investing huge amounts of time, money and influence in Britain.

The warning signs are already visible. The question now is whether we take them seriously or wait until it’s too late.

More from Yorkshire Bylines

Andy Brown discussed the long-term impact of a reckless war with Iran, exploring how history shows America’s wars are never over quickly. Can Britain protect itself from the inevitable consequences this time? Read the full story here.

Motaz Amer, a New Scots Advisor to the Scottish Government with the Scottish Refugee Council, argues that the acount presents immigration enforcement as fast-cut spectacle.

Raids, handcuffs, and deportation flights are edited using dramatic music under slogans promising to “restore order and control to our borders”. One clip ends with the words: “And it’s just getting started.”

Since launching earlier this year, the account has gathered tens of thousands of followers and more than one million views. Its bio declares: “The incentives that draw illegal migrants to the UK are being removed.” Enforcement is not simply being implemented but it is being performed instead.

Critics warn that turning state power into social media content risks deepening division, including here in Scotland, where communities already feel some of the impact fuelled by hostile migration rhetoric.

Political messaging or public information?

Miss Catriona Forrest, Lecturer in Media and Communications at the University of Glasgow, argues the account should be understood as political messaging rather than neutral public information.

Unlike journalists, government departments are not bound by independent editorial codes when producing social media content. On platforms such as TikTok, algorithms reward emotive, high-impact material. Context, nuance, and legal complexity rarely fit the format.

The framing matters. Individuals appear briefly on screen unnamed and voiceless before the edit cuts to statistics or slogans. Arrests are stylised. Deportations are framed as victories.

Forrest has questioned who authorised the strategy and whether it aligns with the Home Office’s own commitments to transparency and public trust. Responsibility ultimately sits with the Home Secretary. In the context of looming elections, the tone raises legitimate questions about the boundaries between governance and campaigning.

Sign up for journalism by the people, for the people

Bylines Network is independent, free from oligarch owners and political paymasters. Our stories are researched and written by citizens embedded in their communities. We need your help to continue telling the stories that matter. Upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, or become a Friend of Bylines Network, to join the 1000s of citizens supporting journalism by the people, for the people.

For £3.50 a month, you’ll also get behind-the-scenes insights. For £10 a month, you’ll get to engage with our editorial teams. For £30, you’ll have even more opportunities to connect with our growing community.

Subscribe now

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Real-world consequences in Scotland

For organisations supporting refugees in Scotland, the concern is not abstract.

Glasgow has long been a dispersal city for people seeking asylum. Community groups report that inflammatory political messaging can increase anxiety among those already living with trauma, uncertainty, and isolation.

The Scottish Refugee Council has strongly criticised the Home Office’s TikTok account. In a statement provided to us, it described the videos as “an act of performative cruelty” that turn “people in desperate situations” into social media content. It said political leaders should focus on bringing communities together rather than using “scaremongering tactics,” and stressed that people seeking asylum make up just 0.16% of the UK population. The organisation argued the real problem is a broken asylum system and harmful government rhetoric, not those fleeing war and oppression.

That figure 0.16% highlights how easily public perception can drift from statistical reality to whatever misinformation or disinformation is being spread, especially when it comes from a place of power.

Dr Paul Reilly, Senior Lecturer in Communications, Media, and Democracy at the University of Glasgow, has suggested there is little evidence that such content will significantly change minds. Those who favour stricter border controls are unlikely to need persuading and those opposed to raids and deportations are unlikely to be swayed by viral clips.

He added, while social media may not change entrenched views, what it can amplify strong reactions. Platforms reward outrage and affirmation rather than thoughtful debate. In that environment, migration risks becoming reduced to imagery and slogans instead of evidence and policy.

Enforcement as entertainment

According to the Home Office, it is acting in response to public concerns regarding irregular migration. However, critics claim that portraying enforcement as a spectacle runs the risk of normalising the public display of state power while ignoring human dignity.

Researchers and charities note that misinformation about migration is still rising because of false claims about preferential access to housing or benefits to exaggerated views of small boat arrivals. It could be argued that dispelling those myths would advance public awareness more than creating shareable raid footage.

For Scotland, the stakes are tangible. Political language does not stay online. It shapes conversations in neighbourhoods, schools, and even streets.

Critics contend that if the UK government wants to increase public trust in the immigration system, it should do so through evidence, transparency, and human decency rather than through viral content meant to garner views and clicks.

The issue is no longer limited to border enforcement as discussions about migration become more heated. It concerns the communication of power and whether it unites or divides communities.

More from Bylines Scotland - major fire guts historic Glasgow building

Sadia Sikandar explains how businesses have been destroyed, but people saved, as Forsyth House - a 175 year old landmark of Glasgow’s built heritage – is reduced to ash and rubble. Read the full story here.

In the last week, we have seen war escalate in the Middle East, heard more confusing and contradictory statements from Donald Trump, and witnessed further revelations from the Epstein Files. It’s no surprise that our recent webinar on American democracy and power was extremely popular. Standby for a release of the recording very soon, featuring , , , and .

You can get access to all our future webinars, and our Bylines Network Gazette – the latest showcasing powerful stories from citizens in Minneapolis, New York, Chicago and around the world – as a Friend of Bylines Network.

But today, we offer hope in Finn’s fascinating analysis, first published in West England Bylines. Fin suggests that our domestic identities, international perceptions, feelings, and opinions are products of concepts woven into our culture over time. If we are prepared to think differently, we will discover war is not inevitable – we have the power to prevent it.

Before breaking down social constructs and demonstrating their influence, it is critical to understand constructivism. And no, it’s not the idea that labourers should rule us.

What is constructivism?

Constructivist thought centres on the idea that the world is socially constructed through our relations with one another. Social constructions are primary in shaping how we relate to each other and are interpreted differently by different actors.

The international world is not ruled by any singular authority and is therefore considered an anarchical system. Historically, the dominant logic – realism – has argued that, as a result, states must ensure survival by seeking relative power over one another.

The security dilemma: fear creates fear

Ironically, it is these actions that create the ‘security dilemma’ as states continuously attempt to keep up with each other, predominantly through military advancement. In turn, this creates a perpetual cycle of mistrust and fear.

Constructivists challenge this way of thinking. Most notably, Alexander Wendt stated: “Anarchy is what states make of it”, emphasising that anarchy does not naturally create the self-help cycle; it is rather our interpretation of anarchy that makes this occur. This can change if we choose to interpret anarchy more cooperatively.

Rivalries are often stories, not fate

Constructivists want us to understand the importance of rhetoric, identity, and choice of interpretation. They target the way various media present stories and how politicians frame situations when determining how public fear is shaped.

When this is taken into account, it becomes easier to understand the idea that rivalries are often attributed to stories states tell about both themselves and others. A state’s perception of itself shapes who it feels threatened by. An example of this is the emphasis on ideology (capitalism versus communism) during the Cold War period.

The United States and the politics of hegemony

The USA was able to assume the role of global hegemon after the end of the Second World War, primarily due to its economic power and military superiority.

Its overarching global authority is exemplified best through the country’s 128 international military installations, involvement in 23 proxy wars since the last world war, as well as Trump’s recent ‘intervention’ and capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolàs Maduro.

But this isn’t just a naturally assumed role. It is claimed by both actions and rhetoric which have led to this hegemonic perception becoming absorbed into US identity, both domestically and internationally.

Sign up for journalism by the people, for the people

Democracy is under threat across the world. There has never been a greater need for truth-telling journalism that holds power to account. Bylines Network is independent, free from oligarch owners and political paymasters. Our stories are researched and written by citizens embedded in their communities.

We need your help to continue telling the stories that matter. Upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, or become a Friend of Bylines Network, to join the 1000s of citizens supporting journalism by the people, for the people.

For £3.50 a month, you’ll also get behind-the-scenes insights. For £10 a month, you’ll get to engage with our editorial teams. For £30, you’ll have even more opportunities to connect with our growing community. And, at the end of March, you will get the latest issue of our standout monthly periodical – the Bylines Network Gazette – packed with stories about women, by women, and championing the issues that women care about.

Subscribe now

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

China’s rise: a threat to identity, not just power

Internationally, this narrative has become a slight problem as China’s economic, technological, and military advancement, combined with evidence and perception of US decline in recent years, has raised questions about who the actual hegemon is.

But why is this such a problem? Simply put, it is constructed as one. China is neither fully accountable nor transparent, meaning many of its actions are left subject to interpretation. Nevertheless, the problem with China’s rise does not lie in its material capability, but rather in its inseparable relationship to US identity and hegemonic status.

The fragility shown by the US through both rhetoric and policymaking towards China, most recently exemplified through one of Trump’s cited reasons to colonise Greenland, demonstrates not a legitimate fear of China, but instead, a desperation to ensure it isn’t viewed as a hegemon.

This is important to Trump as the MAGA campaign ran on the back of America’s decline, both domestically and internationally.

Constructivism and the power of interpretation

This is what constructivism helps dismantle.

Alexander Wendt, arguably the most well-received constructivist theorist in International Relations, emphasises that political rivals are not inherently threatening, but it is rather the perception of threat that emerges through social interpretation, not genuine peril to sovereignty.

China’s emergence as a potential world leader should then be understood as a threat to US identity, not a bona fide material threat.

It would be damaging to Trump’s political image if a perceived ‘soft’ stance were taken towards dealing with China, especially regarding rhetoric towards the latter.

Trump and his MAGA campaign’s primary approach in convincing the electorate was based on the claim that he is a strong leader, an image greatly enhanced by the assassination attempt on his life. This approach clearly worked because it encompassed hegemonic US identity.

This identity, embedded in the public psyche over the last 75 years, is a hard notion to depart from. Yet departure may be necessary if there is any ambition to develop better relations between the two superpowers.

Fear as a political weapon

The Machiavellian term “it is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both” is central to our understanding of why a sceptical stance on China is a politically powerful and paramount mechanism for Trump to adopt. Trump, as a leader, benefits from fear.

Creating fear allows him to enact policies that would otherwise seem unacceptable. Rebranding certain immigrants as “aliens” and portraying certain leaders as drug traffickers gives him the go-ahead to take often extreme actions, as fear creates legitimacy. This is what MAGA ran the election campaign on and continues to exploit today.

There is no denying the damning evidence of US domestic decline, such as the lasting problem of homelessness or the continual rise of inequality. However, these are domestic, not internationally attributed issues.

Trump uses domestic decline to excuse international actions which are often largely unaccounted for. Societal fear and US identity are constantly reinforced in Trump’s rhetoric, removing the need for explanation. This has pushed the Overton window to the point where previously unthinkable actions are merely daily occurrences.

Conflict is not inevitable, it is socialised

But this is not about Trump; it’s about choice and socialisation. This is what constructivists aim to break down.

Israel-Palestine also demonstrates this clearly. Israelis and Palestinians are not born hating each other; they learn to hate one another, not only through genuine conflict, but also through constructions of identity.

This is most evident in Israel’s delegitimisation of Palestinians, a narrative that is often displayed to the world, though more importantly, to Israeli citizens themselves. Analyses of Israeli textbooks, newspapers, and the conduct of those with political authority point towards these methods being an apparent attempt at socialising hatred towards Palestinians.

This is a repeated characteristic of global insecurity and a constant dynamic in the international world. Rivalries do not occur because war is a human desire, but because fear is a politically useful weapon. Leaders gain legitimacy by appearing strong and by creating enemies, which is a strategy for deterring any potential leadership challenge.

So, what does constructivism actually teach us?

Constructivism does not deny conflict, nor the problems associated with an anarchical international space. It questions the inevitability of conflicts by placing emphasis on the analyses of rhetoric, identity, political gain, and the manufacturing of fear.

It serves to remind us that insecurity is not always the product of objective danger, but mostly an interpretation of action and that interpretations are open to change. It rejects the notion that international politics is only about missiles, borders, and power.

Instead, constructivism teaches us that international politics is about stories states tell about themselves and others, and the narratives citizens absorb without critical thought.

Establishing a rival as a socially constructed enemy makes future cooperation politically costly, turning mistrust into a norm. The great tragedy is that despite many societies’ genuine desire for mutual security, their own behaviour tends to push it further out of reach.

While understanding constructivism does not dissolve rivalry, it does shine a light on something essential: Enemies are rarely inevitable, but are reproduced through repetition, socialisation, and fear-based leadership. When society recognises this phenomenon, we become less vulnerable to the rhetoric that treats hostility as common sense.

Perhaps the greatest lesson constructivism offers is that international politics is shaped not only by what states have, but by what they believe, what they choose to fear, and what they want to become.

Countries do not have to be enemies, but peace requires more than baseless treaties. It requires a mutual willingness to unlearn the identities and rhetoric that make enemies feel like a natural feature of society in the first place.

The international system may be anarchic, but hostility is a human construct.

Author’s note: For Wendt’s description of constructivism, see Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics, pages 285-305

More from West England Bylines

The Epstein files: listen to the women, is a powerful new article from West England Bylines co-editor in chief Michelle Cook.

Following International Women’s Day, Michelle reveals how the androcentric handling of the Epstein files spotlights how badly our society is still failing women and girls. Read the full article here.

Cecilia Jastrzembska is the founder of European Movement Women and a co-founding member of Women In AI. In this important article, she reveals why artificial intelligence is now one of the singular most powerful arbiters of human rights across the globe. No longer an experimental technology operating at the margins, it is an active geopolitical force embedded in the fabric of our society. For those tasked with anticipating, mitigating, and underwriting systemic threats, one truth is now unavoidable: AI risk is human risk, and women are suffering the most from its development.

This year’s United Nations’ call to Unite to End Digital Violence Against Women and Girls is a recognition that technology-facilitated abuse has become a transnational, high-impact risk category, and one that current governance frameworks are nowhere near containing. It calls attention to a fact which far too few practitioners have internalised: technological violence has real-world consequences.

From code to corporeality

We can already see the fact that the digital does not stay digital manifesting in the worst possible ways. In Australia for one, 15-year-old Matilda “Tilly” Rosewarne died by suicide after a doctored nude image of her was circulated widely among peers on Snapchat and other platforms; a horrifying example of deepfake image-based abuse that started on a phone screen, and ended in her tragic demise. Similarly, in the United States in 2025, 16-year-old Elijah “Eli” Heacock took his own life after being sextorted using AI-generated nude photos of himself; material that never existed in reality, but which was real enough to terrorise him.

Women and underrepresented groups are demonstrably bearing the overarching brunt of digital violation. Research from UNESCO shows that online harassment has chilling effects on women’s participation in public life: 44% of female parliamentarians receive death and sexual violence threats, 30% of women journalists self-censor on social media, 20% withdraw completely, and over a quarter report negative mental health impacts linked to online violence. These are not fringe figures; they are professional realities that diminish societal resilience and democratic legitimacy. This also causes a dangerous negative feedback loop; the more that women are deterred from public service or bullied out of it, the less representative governments become. And as a litany of studies have shown, when representation suffers, outcomes, economies, policies, diplomacy and overall social equality suffers as a result.

One particularly urgent emerging category of digital violence against women and girls (DVAWG) is deepfake pornography. 96% of this is directed at women, with 99% of cases being sexualised. This isn’t merely another sexist genre of multimedia content; in her seminal book The New Age of Sexism: How AI is Reinventing Misogyny, Laura Bates has classed this as the next sexual violence epidemic facing schools and workplaces alike. Recently, X has been flooded with pornographic deepfakes made by the platform’s AI tool Grok, estimated at one nonconsensual image generated per minute, predominantly of women. When complaints are made, the tool issues “apologies” yet continues to generate further imagery. As founder of Full Fathom Five Claire Roberts said, “Musk’s move to restrict this to paying subscribers isn’t a safeguard, it’s a business model that treats the sexualisation of children as a premium feature”. Global backlash has now catalysed watchdogs from the UK’s to Australia’s to launch investigations into the tool.

Sign up for our webinar - taking place 12 March

What is America’s role in the nexus of power, big tech, and misogyny? How can survivors of Jeffrey Epstein get justice? In the era of Donald Trump, what can citizens do to protect democracy from authoritarianism? What can the UK and Europe learn from events in Minneapolis?

All this and more will be discussed at our livestreamed event on Thursday, 12 March, at 6 pm. Bylines Network co-founder, Mike Galsworthy, will be joined by former UK diplomat and Washington DC resident , truth-telling journalist , Epstein survivor Anouska de Georgiou, and , founder of the largest independent media network in America.

Sign up to put your questions to the panel and join in the discussion too.

Our monthly webinars are open to everyone in the Bylines Network community. If you’re a Friend of Bylines Network or you donate regularly to support our citizen journalism, you should already have an email with details. But we’re also opening bookings to anyone who wants to join. Just click here to book:

Sign up for our webinar now

Artificial affection: the age of AI companionship

Another category where AI is bridging the digital-physical divide is one with exponentially growing influence; AI driven sex and companion robots almost solely marketed to men. This new lucrative, extractive and globally exploding frontier is set to become one of the greatest altering forces of human relationships and a key, defining factor in the direction of travel on gender based violence. Millions of men are already using these “companions”, -virtual girlfriends, available and subservient 24/7, whose breast sizes and personalities they can customise and manipulate.

Insidious narratives being used to justify these products are fast taking hold, such as the aggressively promoted idea that these robots are a potential solution to male loneliness. Responsible Robotics arguesthat they in fact risk increasing it, given that they do not meet the species-specific needs of humans. In fact, by creating unrealistic “frictionless intimacy” they may end up desensitising men to empathy instead, which can only be developed through real world interaction and mutually consenting relationships.

“Negotiation, conflict repair, and empathy are pretty hard to practice when your partner is programmed never to challenge you.” -Dr Tara Logan, AI Researcher

This laudable apparent philanthropic motivation of sex robots being altruistic creations that prevent MVAWG falls apart against the fact that manufacturers actually make frequent efforts to enable the simulation of real-life abuse, thereby monetising sexual violence. Rather than normalising the dehumanising sexual objectification of women by providing misogynists with robots to abuse, we need to be interrogating the societal disintegration that contributes to their loneliness and misogynistic behaviours which women are increasingly, and rightly, refusing to tolerate.

“Femicides often sit on a continuum of violence that can start with controlling behaviour, threats and harassment-including online”. -Sarah Hendriks, Director of UN Women’s Policy Division

Who the algorithm amplifies – and who it silences

The second is that algorithmic bias in AI systems is continuously and actively rewriting our realities. When moderation algorithms suppress gender equality advocacy while not just allowing, but encouraging misogynistic abuse to flourish, the outcome is not neutral error, it is corrosive structural distortion. These distortions carry measurable downstream consequences: withdrawal from public life, career attrition, psychological harm, and as aforementioned, actual loss of life.

Bias in AI systems is also certainly not theoretical. It determines who is believed in courtrooms, who is flagged by moderation tools, who is excluded from credit, healthcare, employment, and whose content is made visible or ultimately hidden. In December 2025, women on LinkedIn from the US to the UK participated in a collective experiment by changing their genders to male on linked in and using more agentic language. The results were staggering; content reach for many as much as quadrupled almost immediately after making the switch. For example, Kamales Lardi, a CEO and thought leader saw her post impressions increase by 421% in a few days , while Megan Cornish, a top voice on LinkedIn watched her views increase 400% on the platform.

The implications for this in terms of representation are seismic, as this materially affects reach and both political and corporate influence for women. It must also be remembered that AI bias does not in fact stay at the same level, but often steadily increases in a feedback loop, as shown by the racially biased Predictive Policing algorithm which incorrectly predicted reoffending rates for black residents in Chicago at twice the rate for white residents even when controlling for actual crime rates. Many have also drawn parallels on this to the Amazon recruitment algorithm scandal, which downgraded CVs containing the word “women” for two years before discovery. The upshot is, AI is now indubitably an active decider in what and whomgets normalised.

“Equality in AI shows up in very ordinary places. Who gets an appointment, who gets a follow up call, whose concern is taken seriously. It is not abstract”. -Katy Cherry, CEO, HTL

No innovation without inclusion

The duality is clear; though the current and potential harms of AI are deeply problematic, on the flip side, the shared benefits of well-governed systems are of huge significance. This can look like AI detecting coercive control patterns earlier than human-only models, revealing hidden trends in abuse data, supporting law enforcement with trauma-informed design, as well as strengthening resilience across education, healthcare, and justice systems. However, these benefits do not emerge spontaneously. They require shared responsibility. AI can either be the most powerful accelerant of inequality we have ever built, or one of the most effective levellers at our disposal.

Where the expectation of ethics in application lies is of paramount importance. Currently, the onus of responsibility is grossly inverted, with women and ethnic minorities being expected to operate in a state of hypervigilance both offline and online, including self-policing, reporting, even proving harm, all the while absorbing the consequences. This can be downright retraumatising.

During a recent summit I organised, Championing Equality in AI which was featured by Politics UK, Head of Al at Globeducate Clara Hawking described four forces shaping online misogyny: AI algorithms that reward engagement, content that spreads quickly because it elicits strong reactions, generative tools making creating abusive content “incredibly easy,” and malicious groups using gamification to recruit and radicalise youth. This environment, she warned, is becoming “a training ground for a belief system of our entire generation.” What we design and deploy now is not just generating incredibly serious consequences for today’s users, but is also quietly codifying the values that will govern tomorrow’s world.

“Secret systems create public problems” Cha’Von (CJ) Clarke Noelle, AI Psychology & Root Ethics Strategist and author of ‘The Digital Polycrisis’

Excellent regulation and responsible design does not stifle innovation; on the contrary, as widely observed, it is simply good business, engendering trust, adoption and customer retention. For AI products and programs to stay competitive, feminist design with inclusion at its core needs to be reframed from a moral preference or “activist ask” to the strategic upgrade it is. In essence, AI can either be a gateway, or a gatekeeper. Whether it expands freedom or entrenches harm depends on architectural choices being made now by those designing and implementing it. It’s high time to stop expecting the most vulnerable in society to keep playing physical and digital whack-a-mole. What is permissible in design becomes probable in deployment; essentially, that which we do not reject, especially within AI, we reinforce.

Friends of Bylines Network

There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free. Become a Friend of Bylines Network today, and support independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger.

Become a Friend of Byllines Network

More from North East Bylines

Read former MEP Julie Ward’s powerful and important article on reform of the electoral system: “My vote doesn’t matter? Why women deserve a fairer electoral system. As Julie explains, too many women still feel their vote doesn’t matter.