Why are we doing this? NOA put it best:

Mohamed AI Fayed died three years ago this August, in his own bed: unarrested, uncharged and politely eulogised. Thirteen months later, the BBC broadcast what hundreds of women and girls had been paid, sued and disbelieved into not saying – and showed each survivor, many for the first time, that what happened to her had happened to others.

The BBC did not name it trafficking. Survivors did, later, and this edition shows some of NOA’s fight to expose the truth: the owner of Harrods ran a trafficking operation through some of Britain’s best-known institutions. At least 500 victims are now known. The offending centred on Harrods, crossed borders, and ran for five decades.

This edition of the Gazette is about what happened next – and what still hasn’t.

This is not only the story one man’s abuses. It is a shocking revelation about organised coercion, control and movement of people, apalling crimes, police failure, state inaction, use of the machinery of power to silence those who suffered, and justice unserved for three decades.

It is not an easy read. It is a necessary one, and we urge you to share what you learn with others.

How do you get this special Bylines Network Gazette?

Our Gazettes are presented in a specially designed flipbook which you can read online or download as a PDF. How can you get access? You have two options:

1. Become a Friend of Bylines Network. You can choose from the tiers described in this graphic. As well as the Gazette, your monthly donations give you access to a host of other benefits and - crucially - support powerful citizen journalism.

Become a Friend today

2. If you prefer to manage things through Substack, then please consider taking out a paid subscription to Bylines Network there. We consider paying Substack subscribers the same as Friends of Bylines Network, and give them access to all the same benefits. We are entirely not-for-profit, don’t take advertising, or charge for services, and treat Substack subscriptions like any other donations that support our work.

Subscribe now

Find out more about No One Above

No One Above (NOA) fights for meaningful accountability for Fayed survivors – because no one is safe when anyone is above the law. Click here to learn more.

Have you heard about our People before Profit project? This is your chance to hold power to account, right now

For too long, some organisations have acted as if they were only accountable to their shareholders or paymasters rather than the public, regardless of the damage their policies inflict on communities. To set a cycle of change in motion, we invite you to take part in our People before Profit initiative. This is your chance to use truth as power and let your voice be heard. We’ve set up a secure portal that will allow writers, students, journalists and concerned citizens to:

• Nominate an organisation that deserves scrutiny

• Raise legitimate concerns about unethical or shady practices

• Work with us to research and investigate those who flout the law

• Investigate a company that appears to put profit ahead of its employees’ safety

• Ensure accountability

• Enhance awareness about organisations that damage both members of the public and entire communities

Visit the People before Profits website and make your submission here.

With children heading back to school and universities ready to welcome a new intake of students, we’re discussing education in the UK and beyond. This 90-page deep dive is packed with stories from teachers, students, policymakers, campaigners, and an exclusive, inspirational, wide-ranging interview with children’s author and literature professor Michael Rosen.

To get a copy of this edition for £3.50, click here. Alternatively, become a Friend of Bylines Network, or a Substack subscriber, and you will get a new edition of our Gazette every month.

What’s inside?

This is a bumper edition, with 13 articles, including:

• Why education needs to change so children can find their voices and develop real language skills, with Michael Rosen

• Expert views on the UK government’s education white paper

• Citizen perspectives on education around the world

• The rebirth of vocational courses in Wales

• Arguments for Gaelic language teaching in Scotland

• Insights into classroom struggles with technology and the need for political education for teenagers

• Why Reform UK’s approach to some libraries is raising alarm bells

• Reviews of education for children in social care and the increasing importance of “virtual schools”

This is a primer on the key topics, stories and challenges affecting education in the UK in 2026, with the kind of investigations, expert views and sharp analysis you only get from powerful citizen journalism.

How to get your Bylines Network Gazette

Our Gazettes are presented in a specially designed flipbook which you can read online or download as a PDF. How can you get access? You have three options:

1. Buy this edition as a one-off, and get access to the glorious online flipbook, which you can download as a PDF:

Buy the current issue

1. Become a Friend of Bylines Network. You can choose from the tiers described in this graphic. As well as the Gazette, your monthly donations give you access to a host of other benefits and - crucially - support powerful citizen journalism.

Become a Friend today

2. If you prefer to manage things through Substack, then please consider taking out a paid subscription to Bylines Network there. We consider paying Substack subscribers the same as Friends of Bylines Network, and give them access to all the same benefits. We are entirely not-for-profit, don’t take advertising, or charge for services, and treat Substack subscriptions like any other donations that support our work.

Subscribe now

What are you doing on Thursday? Why not join us?

Featuring vital voices and smart thinkers, Bylines Network webinars get under the surface of the issues shaping our society. They are conversations everyone can join - the next one is happening on Thursday 3 September, 7 pm - 8.15 pm.

With a new Prime Minister in Downing Street promising a better kind of politics, can we finally clean up democracy? Join our fantastic panel:

• Neal Lawson - political commentator, co-founder and chair of Compass.

• Professor Christina Pagel - inventor of the Trump Action Tracker.

• Dominic Grieve KC - former politician and attorney general.

• Gina Miller - democracy campaigner.

• Mike Galsworthy - Chair of European Movement UK and co-founder of Bylines Network.

Book a ticket and join the event from anywhere. All you need is an internet connection. Standard tickets are £5, and there is a free option for those who can’t afford the ticket price - with no questions asked.

Book your place now

This time it’s the turn of regular Yorkshire Bylines contributor John Cole. As a former district councillor who spent most of his career teaching economics, he wonders why most politicians see the pursuit of economic growth as one of their prime objectives.

Driving up gross domestic product (GDP) per capita seems to be their eternal aim, and economic growth is often presented as the basis of material well-being – in “real terms”, after inflation has been filtered. But how good is GDP as a measure of improvement in people’s lives? As John reveals, for years, economists have had reservations about the numbers.

There is also a wider and deeper question: even if GDP were a perfect measure of economic activity, should continuous economic growth necessarily be our objective?

Whilst we’re talking about politics…

Featuring vital voices and smart thinkers, Bylines Network webinars get under the surface of the issues shaping our society. They are conversations everyone can join - the next one is happening on Thursday 3 September, 7 pm - 8.15 pm.

With a new Prime Minister in Downing Street promising a better kind of politics, can we finally clean up democracy? Join our fantastic panel:

• Neal Lawson - political commentator, co-founder and chair of Compass.

• Professor - inventor of the Trump Action Tracker.

• Dominic Grieve KC - former politician and attorney general.

• Gina Miller - democracy campaigner.

• - Chair of European Movement UK and co-founder of Bylines Network.

Book a ticket and join the event from anywhere. All you need is an internet connection. Standard tickets are £5, and there is a free option for those who can’t afford the ticket price - with no questions asked.

Book your place now

When bad things are good for GDP

Assume that there is a major oil spill causing significant pollution. It may cost, say, £2 million to clean up the environmental damage and restore the status quo ante. The £2 million will enter the flow of national income statistics, but in the end, we are no better off.

Most police officers are diligent and hardworking, but again, much of their work is devoted to clearing up (or preventing) “bads”. If there were a societal move to zero criminality, then perhaps half of police time could be saved, and society could employ fewer police officers. GDP per capita would fall, but we would be no worse off.

The work that GDP doesn’t count

Another limitation is that much valuable activity takes place outside the market and is therefore not captured by GDP.

An extended family with a number of young children might be able to arrange childcare within the family. This is done “for free”. If the arrangement breaks down and use is then made of private nurseries, market transactions now arise and GDP increases, even though broadly the same childcare is being provided.

In instances such as this, our data from the market represent an under-recording of economic activity.

Who benefits from economic growth?

GDP per capita gives an average figure for the whole economy. The population’s welfare depends on how the total is divided up. Taking the US as an extreme example, the distribution of income is very unequal. According to the US Census Bureau, in 2024 the top quintile (20%) of households received 51.5% of aggregate household income, leaving the remaining four-fifths to share less than half. The bottom quintile received just 3%.

Income and wealth inequalities have been studied by two academics, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. Some years ago, they jointly published The Spirit Level, which examined the relationship between inequality and a range of health and social problems. They argued that more equal societies tend to enjoy better health and social outcomes, drawing comparisons between countries including the USA and the Scandinavian nations.

So even where GDP per capita is rising, the average alone tells us little about who is benefiting from that growth.

Championing citizen voices

Unbiased. Independent. Honest. A community that champions everyday citizens and unheard voices. We don’t have oligarch owners, corporate controllers or political paymasters – we have a community of 2,500 volunteer writers and editors, and over 350,000 readers. Help power Britain’s biggest citizen journalism movement. Become a member of our Friends of Bylines Network scheme today.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

Can growth continue forever?

Politicians might push for more economic growth, but we live in a world of finite resources. Some economists have argued instead for a “steady-state economy”, with low or zero growth. Very much on the same page is Kate Raworth with her book Doughnut Economics, which I reviewed previously for Yorkshire Bylines.

Given the short-sighted pursuit of economic growth by most countries, the world might seem bent on going to hell in a handcart.

Is happiness a better measure?

If GDP has these limitations, what other measures might tell us more about how well people are actually living?

The World Happiness Report is published annually, and the most recent results (2026) place Finland at the top, with Afghanistan at the bottom. Finland has now been top for nine years running. The rankings are based on people’s own assessments of their lives. Six elements are used to help explain the differences between countries:

• GDP per capita

• social support

• healthy life expectancy

• freedom to make life choices

• generosity

• perceptions of corruption.

European countries dominate the top ten, with Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway among the highest ranked. These nations have been described by the Happier Lives Institute as “wealthy, homogeneous, high-trust states with generous welfare systems”.

The UK ranks 29th.

If we compare nations for total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP (2023 figures), we may note that the figure for Denmark is 46.3%, Sweden 43%, Finland 42.1% and the UK 33.5%.

At first sight, this suggests that high taxation and high levels of reported life satisfaction are not necessarily incompatible. It does not, however, establish that higher taxation itself makes people happier: many other economic, political and cultural factors are involved. UK political parties please note!

So what should we measure?

GDP per capita has some use as a guide, but it is a crude statistic that should be used with the limitations above kept in mind. It can rise because we are paying to rectify damage; it excludes much valuable unpaid work; and an average tells us little about how income is distributed.

The World Happiness Report captures more factors than GDP and, in my view, provides a more useful picture of how well people are actually living.

Finally, we should bear in mind the finite nature of our world. Even if GDP were a perfect measure of economic activity, that would not answer the question of whether continuous growth is desirable or sustainable. Excessive consumption today risks putting the well-being of future generations at risk.

Perhaps, then, the question for politicians should not simply be how much the economy is growing, but whether that growth is improving people’s lives, who is benefiting from it and whether it can be sustained.

More from John

Contrary to populist politicians’ rhetoric, the data shows that immigration is a necessary and beneficial force in the UK economy. Read John’s review of In praise of immigration.

In another instalment of our series featuring powerful grassroots stories from around the world, Jess Hillary of Bylines Scotland speaks with Gazan citizen Mahmoud about his family's experience since 2023.

Before the war

Before 7 October 2023, Mahmoud lived with his family in Gaza. Like any family home, theirs was a place where they experienced joy, celebrated achievements, faced everyday challenges and, above all, lived life together. They shared meals, laughed together, and watched the younger children play in the comfort of what they believed was a safe home. It was a place of stability and familiarity. Looking back, Mahmoud reflects that their “days were filled with ordinary moments that now feel priceless”.

Mahmoud was a talented student who excelled academically, most notably achieving 82% in his Tawjihi examinations. For him, the result marked the beginning of the future he had worked hard towards: a university education, the opportunity to support his family, and the hope of building a better life. But that future would be bleakly different to what Mahmoud had hoped for so long.

The displacement

For Mahmoud and his family, as for countless other families across Gaza, the home that had anchored their lives became uninhabitable within days of the war beginning. The love and togetherness that had characterised it and the lives that had unfolded within it were replaced by overwhelming fear and an absolute incompatibility between staying and surviving. The neighbourhood they knew became a war zone. Bombs fell nearby, people were killed, and hospitals quickly became overwhelmed.

Mahmoud’s family left their home on 10 October 2023. A day later it had been bombed and completely destroyed. They fled with only a handful of belongings, leaving behind not only their possessions but the place where they had felt safest. Mahmoud still speaks about the family home with grief:

“Our home was not just a building; it was where we shared our happiest moments as a family. When it was destroyed, it felt like we lost a part of our lives forever.”

Losing their home was only the beginning. To date, Mahmoud and his family have been displaced six times, moving from Gaza City to Al-Bureij, then Nuseirat, Deir al-Balah, Rafah, back to Deir al-Balah and finally Al-Bureij once more. Each move has been driven by the same hope: finding somewhere safer than the place they had just left.Today, Mahmoud says each morning begins with the same questions: where will the family find food, clean water and medicine? The search for those essentials now shapes every hour of their lives.

A child caught in war

Among the family’s greatest concerns is Ahmed, Mahmoud’s sister’s son. Like any child, he should be thinking about school, playing and spending time with his family. Instead, his days are shaped by illness and a desperate search for the medicine that keeps him alive.

Ahmed is suffering from a severe, life-threatening illness that requires daily treatment. The condition remains undiagnosed due to the lack of medical resources in Gaza, but inflicts severe skin peeling and changes in skin colour amongst other things. The five-year-old boy, who once “had a beautiful smile and was full of life like any child his age”, experiences serious pain and suffers daily due to his symptoms.

Mahmoud and his family live in constant fear for Ahmed’s life, watching helplessly as he endures pain they are powerless to relieve.They face the excruciating daily decision of choosing between supplying food and clean water to their household of 13, or giving Ahmed the life-saving medication he so desperately needs.

On the days when giving him this medication is not feasible, the family watch on helplessly as his pain and suffering worsen and the risk posed to his health becomes greater. Every day, they:

“Pray that he will get better and have the childhood he deserves”.

This situation is of course nightmarish for any family, but is especially painful to Ahmed’s mother, as she has already faced the loss of one child, Ahmed’s sister.

Mahmoud harrowingly reflects on the loss: “Her absence left a painful emptiness in our home. We still remember her smile, her laughter, and the happy moments we shared with her.

”This was a heartbreaking loss for the entire family and is a pain they live with each day, Mahmoud continues.”

Her mother lost a part of her heart.

Appalling conditions

The war has compounded that grief. During the conflict, her husband was killed by shelling, leaving her widowed and solely responsible for raising her four children in circumstances that would be overwhelming for any parent. Mahmoud describes watching his sister carry that burden with extraordinary resilience. Despite her own grief, he says she continues to do everything she can to protect her children.

Since his brother-in-law’s death, Mahmoud has taken on much of the responsibility for supporting the wider family, using the donations they receive to provide food, medicine and other necessities whenever he can.

“I try my best to provide… [for the] basic needs of everyone, but the responsibility is very heavy, especially during these difficult times.”

The family believes that the poor health faced by the children is not only worsened by the war due to the lack of access to medicine, but is caused by the environment the children have been subjected to due to it. These difficult living conditions include exposure to pollution, contaminated food and water, and other effects of the ongoing war.

“As a family, we feel exhausted, scared and helpless. We would do anything to take Ahmed’s pain away, but we are struggling to find the medicine and care that could help him.”

Holding on to hope

After nearly three years of war, repeated displacement and unimaginable loss, Mahmoud explains that his family keeps on going simply because they must. His dreams of going to university have become notably more modest: he hopes now to reach somewhere safe where his family may live without the fear of being killed and can have a home once again. More than anything, he hopes that Ahmed can receive the medicine he so desperately needs.

His message to those reading his story is simple: he does not want people in Gaza to be remembered only through headlines or casualty figures, but as individuals whose lives, hopes and memories matter.

“I hope people remember that behind every story there is a human life, a family, and children who deserve safety and a future. I hope they do not see us only as numbers, but as people with dreams, memories and feelings.”

For Mahmoud, his mission for the future has become rebuilding a home and a life for his family.

“My dream is simple: to have a real home again, not a torn tent.”

If you would like to help Mahmoud look after his family and orphaned children in Gaza, click here.

Championing citizen voices from around the world

Unbiased. Independent. Honest. A community that champions everyday citizens and unheard voices. We don’t have oligarch owners, corporate controllers or political paymasters – we have a community of 2,500 volunteer writers and editors, and over 350,000 readers. Help power Britain’s biggest citizen journalism movement. Become a member of our Friends of Bylines Network scheme today.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

North East Bylines journalist Michael Lawler has embedded himself in the Cruddas Park community centre in Newcastle upon Tyne. Here he reports on what he found and shares his new documentary film about the place, its people and what they need.

Welcome to Community Space.

The piano is out of tune and no tune is being played. The player joyfully and intently offers a discordant rhythm. Nobody seems to mind. Layers of voices fill the room: Spanish, English, Arabic, Geordie. People arrive and embrace like they haven’t seen each other in years. Someone offers you soup. The carpet is scruffy and enhanced by safety tape. The office furniture doesn’t match. Soft light diffuses through a large glass shopfront from the mall outside. A tea urn hisses. On the noticeboard, a laminated picture of the late Queen and a St George’s cross flag is draped over the office divide.

The Community Hub

The Community Hub is an advice and information resource set in the Cruddas Park Shopping Centre, not far from the banks of the Tyne in the west end of Newcastle. Apart from a satellite campus of Newcastle College and a branch library, there is little else there. Vacant shop units, long empty with shutters down, line each side of the large echoing mall. A short documentary, Community Space, filmed inside the hub earlier this year, captures something of the texture of a typical day. It can be viewed on the Bylines Network YouTube channel.

Sirak Hagos is founder and CEO of Triangular – the umbrella organisation which manages the hub along with another centre in Gateshead. He explains that the advice and support activities began many years back in a church hall nearby before finding this site. They enquired about the vacant unit but progress was slow. They eventually paid for their own electricity certificate to get things moving. Gradually other communities followed: Roma, Latin American, Middle Eastern, African. For a while there was even a bingo night, drawing in older local residents. Then Covid came and changed everything.

“For more than a decade we’ve seen first-hand how something as simple as a welcoming community space can change lives,” he says. “Our Cruddas Park Hub has become a trusted place where people find advice, friendship, opportunities and hope. But we’ve long outgrown the building.”

“We’ve been working here for a long time,” he adds. “Not a lot of people know about us because we were just getting on with it.” Now they are getting on with rather a lot. A foodbank. English classes. Computer classes. Feeding Families. Fair Share. Embroidery and sewing. Advice and information across 19 community groups, none duplicating the others.

The single shop unit hums with competing needs. People crowd around small desks as advice workers talk through cases – immigration letters, housing issues, benefit forms. There are queues. The space is not designed for this. It has never been enough and privacy and client confidentiality is an issue .

Irma Karchnakova is Director of the Roma Rights Project which provides support to the Roma community. She is matter of fact about it. “We have no space, and sometimes we should have one-to-one and private space. It’s very difficult because sometimes they will come with letters and details that are very private.” And yet people come anyway, she says, because they have no choice. “They give you full trust. They are in a situation where they’re desperate and they want help, so they don’t mind doing it with us in open space.”

Championing citizen voices

Unbiased. Independent. Honest. A community that champions everyday citizens and unheard voices. We don’t have oligarch owners, corporate controllers or political paymasters – we have a community of 2,500 volunteer writers and editors, and over 350,000 readers. Help power Britain’s biggest citizen journalism movement. Become a member of our Friends of Bylines Network scheme today.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

The Chieftain – a potential new site

The hub has identified a potential new site – The Chieftain, a former pub forming part of the Cruddas Park complex but facing outward onto the street, free from the constraints of the centre’s opening hours. Sirak describes the ambition as “bringing a much-loved former pub back into community use as a lasting community asset” – a centre for learning, wellbeing, culture, volunteering, employment support and community leadership. Rather than allowing a prominent vacant building to remain empty, he says, it could once again become a place where local people come together. A feasibility study and business plan are underway.

For Sirak the case is straightforward. Every day the hub balances multiple activities in a space never designed for them. Community groups compete for space. Volunteers work alongside clients. Activities are carefully staggered because there simply isn’t the capacity to meet demand. He sees The Chieftain not as an upgrade but as an investment in social infrastructure – the kind of long-term commitment, he says, that programmes like Pride in Place – the government’s community regeneration initiative – were created to encourage. By bringing people together and creating opportunities for everyone who calls Cruddas Park and Elswick home, he believes it could strengthen pride in the neighbourhood while giving a forgotten building new purpose for generations to come.

When they make the case to those with the power to help, the response has not always been encouraging. “When we go to people in power and ask for a bigger place,” Sirak says, “they say: ‘Who are you? Come and see.’”

Newcastle City Council was approached for comment but at time of publication they had not responded. The staff at the Community Hub say that the council is looking to work with them to resolve their accommodation issues.

By late afternoon the hub begins to quieten. Advice workers make phone calls, following up on casework. People ebb away. Outside in the mall, the shuttered units stand in the half-dark. Footsteps echo. The space is vast and mostly empty.

Inside, for a few hours each day, it is anything but.

Watch the full film on Bylines Network’s Youtube channel

Reflecting on what has happened since, Don argues that Nigel Farage is a special case when it comes to our media…or at least he was until very recently.

Eye-watering sums

When I wrote on Farage’s links to Christopher Harborne I reported that Harborne had donated £13,700,000mn to Reform / Farage. Today, that figure has risen to an eye watering £30,000,000. In less than one year the already gargantuan donations to the ‘Nigel Farage party’ have doubled. Coincidence?

It’s only fair to remove Harborne’s questionable £5mn from the equation until the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards reports back. However, Harborne has invested £25mn in someone he presumably sees as a future prime minister; one who has openly declared a plan to deregulate the crypto industry and advertised Harborne’s cryptocurrency on live radio – with no recourse. Coincidence?

The vast swathes of money from Chakrit Sakunkrit, (Harborne’s alias) is not the only thing that has been overlooked by the media in Farage’s case. As is becoming more and more obvious, most media outlets are loath to go near Farage, especially concerning any whiff of corruption.

Comparing apples and skyscrapers

In exploring how Farage has been treated as a special case, we have to note that some of the sums involved are eye watering compared to the hullabaloo that was made over the donation of £2,485 Keir Starmer received from Lord Alli for glasses.

In total, Lord Alli contributed £39,122 to Starmer. Add this to the £40,000 that Angela Rayner inadvertently underpaid in stamp duty during the sale of a house, the total rises to £79,122. This is only 0.26% of the amount Harborne has given Farage … so far. We’re comparing apples and skyscrapers.

However, the incidents surrounding Starmer and Rayner occupied our national media’s attention for several months at a time, were brought up constantly by opposition MPs in interviews, and resulted in the term ‘scandal’ being used repeatedly. Neither required an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, despite the Conservatives pushing for one over Starmer’s glasses.

The investigations

Compare these two uninvestigated ‘scandals’ with Farage and his odd lack of scandal. Immediately prior to Farage standing down as MP for Clacton, he was undergoing his third investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I’d wager that most people had no idea about this, let alone the reasons for the investigations. From the first investigation:

On 16 July 2025, I received a complaint that, despite no reference to a commercial fishing vessel in Nigel Farage MP’s entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, he stated during an interview with GB News on 23 April, 2025 that:

“I’m the only Member of Parliament that has a financial stake in the commercial fishing industry […] I own a commercial fishing boat […] I have a skipper who runs that boat…”

Farage escaped punishment for his undeclared, partial ownership of a commercial fishing trawler. The reason is because it is declared as an asset of his company, Thorn In The Side Ltd, despite the fact that he is the sole shareholder of said limited company. So, in essence, he can take money from any source he likes and, providing it runs through that one specific company, he does not have to declare it in his MP’s register of interests. Fishy!

His second investigation was a fundamental breach of his role as an MP — failing to declare income from outside sources. I wrote in October 2025 that there were glaring omissions from his register of interests. He was found guilty of failing to declare seventeen payments, and his excuse (‘I don’t do computers’) was allowed to pass. It was declared an inadvertent breach — seventeen times.

The third investigation, whilst currently on hold during the Clacton by election Farage called, if resumed, will potentially be career-ending for him. On the 13 May 2026, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards opened an investigation into an undeclared donation of £5mn from Thai businessman, crypto billionaire and part owner of the global defence and security company, QinetiQ, Christopher Harborne.

Since this bombshell dropped, Farage has removed himself from public scrutiny and imposed an exile upon himself that only saw him pop up in 𝕏 videos or on his own show on GB News. He carefully avoided all possibilities of meeting curious minded journalists around Makerfield, holding only one press conference where no-one in attendance asked about the £5mn. During his Clacton campaign, he has failed to take a single question from journalists.

Truth-telling citizen voices

Unbiased. Independent. Honest. A community that champions everyday citizens and unheard voices. We don’t have oligarch owners, corporate controllers or political paymasters – we have a community of 3,000 volunteer writers and editors, and nearly 500,000 readers. Help power Britain’s biggest citizen journalism movement. Become a member of our Friends of Bylines Network scheme today.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

The dodgy excuses

Farage has used three main excuses to explain the donation: a personal gift, a donation to cover a lifetime of security, and a reward for Brexit.

If we apply the parliamentary code of conduct, none of these stands up to scrutiny.

• If it was support for Farage’s political activity, parliamentary activity, or candidacy:

It may fall under Category 2, which covers support worth over £1,500 for activities as an MP or for candidacy at an election.

• If it was a personal gift/benefit but related in some way to his political activities or future role:

It may fall under the gifts/benefits categories. Gifts over £300 from UK sources, or from sources outside the UK, are registrable if they relate “in any way” to membership of the House or political activities.

• If it was a genuinely private gift, unrelated to politics, parliament, candidacy, or political activity:

It may not need registering. But the rules say motive and use should be considered. “If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered.”

Farage’s whole case rests on persuading the commissioner that the funds were purely personal and not politically connected. I fail to see how this can be the case in any and all circumstances, but we wait. If Farage wins the Clacton by election, the case will be resumed and a verdict awaits.

Finally – the long-awaited grilling

But what about Farage’s special treatment by the UK press? His return to the bright lights of our studios began on 23 June with an eight-minute appearance on BBC Breakfast to discuss, among other things, the resignation of Keir Starmer.

He may well have thought Starmer’s resignation a large enough story to bury the scandal of his own £5m and that he could piggyback the prime minister one last time. But Sally Nugent had other ideas.

She calmly and methodically took him to task on the donation. Farage started by trying to claim that nobody cared and ended up asserting that it was nobody’s business and that, ultimately, he could do whatever he wants with his money.

He was rattled, and, at one point, actually trembling. It was a grilling that, for once, he couldn’t just laugh off. When the very same thing happened on Radio 4, LBC and even Talk TV, a veritable avalanche of effluent rained upon Mr Farage’s head, and he lurched from one excuse to another. He told Nick Ferrari that he might have put it on the horses or bought some Ferraris and that it wasn’t for a house, but then, actually … maybe it could have been.

Underneath the scratched surface

He tied himself in knots and, when even Ferrari and Julia Hartley-Brewer got in on the action, he might well have entertained Caesar’s thoughts in his last moments, “Et tu, Julia?” I assume there is a Grimm fairy tale which highlights the plight of a little boy who changes his story so many times that he can’t remember his own truth. Probably in that tale, he’ll be eaten by a witch living in a giant flying bowl of some sort — no, this is not an allegorical allusion to certain media interviewers … this time.

And herein lies the rub. It is abundantly clear that, until the toppling of Keir Starmer, Farage has been untouchable, protected. And now? Are the gloves finally off? Because, as my examples above indicate, it takes very little digging, to unearth the skeletons buried in one of seven back yards that Nigel Farage owns. And, with only three minutes and forty-five seconds of light interviewing, he crumbles into a wittering mess.

Why have they not been doing this all along? We could have avoided so many awful circumstances engineered by Reform’s owner.

I sincerely hope this scrutiny continues, but I doubt we’ll see him rearing his head on the BBC Breakfast sofa for the foreseeable future. Hats off to Sally Nugent for showing us how it should be done.

You can find further articles on politics by the same author in his Substack.

Comments? We want to hear them. Please write to editor@westenglandbylines.co.uk

For more than 30 years, local residents have been fighting to protect Ryebank Fields, a rewilded and biodiverse green space in Chorlton – that campaigners say has become one of the area’s most valuable urban wildlife habitats – from housing development.

The latest chapter in that dispute has seen residents submit their own community-led planning application in direct opposition to proposals for housing development on the site. Campaigners argue that there is no justification for building on Ryebank Fields when Manchester already has sufficient brownfield land to meet its housing targets, while concerns over contamination, biodiversity loss and the destruction of a unique community asset continue to dominate the debate.

A thirty year fight and no end in sight

The campaign dates back to 1996, when Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) was refused planning permission to build 90 houses on the site. Residents say the site has been regarded as community land since the 1970s, when it operated as public playing fields following remediation works carried out by Manchester City Council (MCC) after the former clay pits were used as landfill. The land was subsequently made available for use as sports pitches by Manchester Polytechnic, the predecessor institution to MMU. A further attempt at development of the fields in 2004, involving the proposed sale of the land for housing development, was not validated by planning officers and did not progress any further.

Why Ryebank Fields matter

Ryebank Fields Community Group (RFCG) explains that there is no justification for destroying one of South Manchester’s most valuable urban wildlife habitats. The area now contains more than 1,400 trees and acts as an important urban wildlife corridor connecting green spaces across South Manchester and Trafford. Campaigners say that the woodland also functions as a carbon sink, natural floodplain, and buffer against air pollution in a densely populated part of the city.

Under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), previously developed ‘brownfield’ land should be prioritised for housing development before undeveloped ‘greenfield’ sites. Ryebank Fields is officially classified as greenfield land and, according to MCCs Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), the city already has a surplus of brownfield sites capable of meeting its housing targets. The group is also seeking designation of Ryebank Fields as Local Green Space through MCC’s Local Plan process, arguing that the fields meet the criteria for special protection because of their environmental, recreational and heritage value.

The proposed development also appears to conflict with MCCs own environmental policies. The Council’s Green and Blue Infrastructure Strategy and Our Parks, Our Plan 2025–2028 seek to protect, improve and expand the city’s natural environment to support public health, increase biodiversity and help tackle climate change.

RFCG members question why a site that aligns so closely with these objectives continues to face development pressure. Campaigners argue that Ryebank Fields has become an informal community asset used for dog walking, recreation, wildlife watching and even stargazing, serving residents on both sides of the Manchester-Trafford boundary. RFCG says the land has become a focal point for community activities, including guided walks, educational projects, nature events and links with local schools and social prescribing initiatives aimed at improving health and wellbeing.

Wildlife, heritage and environmental value

Tom Butler, RFCG Secretary and one of its spokespersons, says:

Ryebank Fields has been allowed to rewild naturally for decades and now supports a rich variety of wildlife and habitats,. At a time when both local and national policy recognise the importance of biodiversity and access to green space, its destruction would be difficult to justify.

Residents describe the fields as a rare example of urban rewilding, containing mature woodland, meadow habitats and what campaigners describe as a unique aspen grove.

The group also says the fields contain one of the UK’s rare native black poplar trees, confirmed through DNA testing, alongside protected hedgerows that have been recognised as “important” under national criteria. Ryebank Fields also contains part of the historic Nico Ditch, an Anglo-Saxon earthwork dating from between the seventh and tenth centuries. Campaigners say the feature is recognised as a nationally important, although non-scheduled, archaeological monument requiring consultation before works can proceed nearby.

Championing citizen voices

Unbiased. Independent. Honest. A community that champions everyday citizens and unheard voices. We don’t have oligarch owners, corporate controllers or political paymasters – we have a community of 2,500 volunteer writers and editors, and over 350,000 readers. Help power Britain’s biggest citizen journalism movement. Become a member of our Friends of Bylines Network scheme today.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

Contamination concerns and the legacy of Jackson’s Brickworks

There are concerns about the history of the land. Ryebank Fields consists of former clay extraction pits that were backfilled with unregulated waste many decades ago. Ryebank Fields consists of former clay extraction pits associated with historic brickworks operations which were later used as landfill before being remediated and capped during the 1970s. The group says the fields formed part of the former Jackson’s Brickworks and was remediated under the publicly funded Operation Eyesore programme before being transferred to Manchester Polytechnic, now MMU, for use as playing fields.

RFCG argues the scale and depth of contamination was considered too extensive to remove safely at the time and that disturbing the cap today could create environmental and public health risks. They warn that disturbing the ground could potentially mobilise contaminants, including hydrocarbons present in groundwater, and increase the risk of pollutants affecting neighbouring land. RFCG describes Ryebank Fields not as a “low risk” contamination site but as a “known risk” contamination site because of its historical use as landfill. The group fears that large-scale excavations might expose local residents, schoolchildren and users of the nearby Longford Park Conservation Area to airborne toxic and carcinogenic substances.

Given the known contamination history, the safest and most environmentally responsible option is to leave the ground undisturbed.

Butler added. RFCG’s planning consultant has advised that MMU’s housing application (Planning Application Ref: 142223/FO/2025) should include a detailed remediation strategy and argues that, without a comprehensive remediation plan, there is insufficient information available for decision-makers to determine whether the scheme is viable or deliverable.

The community’s alternative proposal

RFCG has submitted what it describes as a positive alternative to development. The community-led and funded planning application seeks to retain Ryebank Fields as a Community Woodland and Meadow (Planning Application Ref: 143413/FO/2025). The application was submitted to Manchester City Council on 11 July 2025 and was validated on 28 August 2025. According to RFCG, all issues raised by statutory consultees and the Council’s Highways Services team were resolved to their satisfaction by February 2026. The group says its application attracted approximately 700 to 800 expressions of support during consultation, which campaigners describe as an unprecedented level of community backing.

Still waiting for a committee date

However, almost twelve months after submission, the application has yet to be determined by the Planning Committee. The delay has prompted growing frustration among campaigners. RFCG says the application process has been entirely community-funded, with residents raising approximately £15,000 through donations to cover professional costs associated with preparing the submission.

Tom Butler says:

Our application is ready to be heard, yet we are still waiting for a committee date. We believe the community deserves clarity on why a fully validated application that has addressed all consultation responses remains undetermined.

A wider debate about urban green space

The group also questions MMU’s continued pursuit of development on the fields. Tom Bulter says on behalf of the group:

In my opinion, Manchester Metropolitan University presents itself as a sustainable and environmentally focused institution. I am concerned that some of its decisions may not fully reflect those stated values. I believe there are unresolved questions regarding potential impacts on wildlife, community wellbeing and possible contamination issues that deserve careful consideration.

RFCG says its proposal would deliver environmental, health and community benefits while preserving a unique green space for future generations. Campaigners envisage a ‘light-touch’ management approach that would preserve the area’s ecological value while allowing continued public access. The group has even explored obtaining charitable status to support long-term management of the site and enable access to environmental and community grant funding if the application succeeds. The group’s longer-term vision includes educational activities, volunteering opportunities, conservation projects and community events designed to strengthen residents’ connection with nature and local heritage.

Tom Butler:

We believe community engagement in planning decisions is essential if developments are to reflect the needs, aspirations and values of the people most affected by them. Local authorities have a responsibility to listen to communities and properly consider their views when making decisions that affect our future health, wellbeing and environment.

Ryebank Fields reflects a wider national debate

RFCG argues that Ryebank Fields reflects a wider national debate over the loss of urban green spaces to development and says stronger protections are needed for community green spaces across the country.

The future of Ryebank Fields now rests with Manchester’s planning system. For campaigners, however, the issue extends beyond a single site. They argue that the decisions taken over Ryebank Fields will determine not only the future of one rewilded green space, but also the extent to which community voices, environmental considerations and long-term public wellbeing influence planning decisions in the years ahead.

Short statement by Chorlton Cllr Kerr-Sheppard of the Green Party

Ryebank Fields is a functioning green space that would see significant biodiversity loss, unresolved contamination risks, and a planning case that relies heavily on issues being addressed after permission is granted.

At a time when Chorlton already has hundreds of homes being delivered on brownfield land, the question isn’t whether we need housing, it’s why we are losing green space to deliver even more.

In a city with enough brownfield land to meet housing needs, and not enough green space, the justification for building here is extremely difficult to make.

More on this story

North West Bylines brought you this story first, back in January last year when we carried a story written by local residents. Here is what they said in their article: What do Ryebank Fields mean for Manchester?

This time we turn our lens on Clacton and Thursday’s by-election, in the company of Central Bylines co-founder and Bylines Network social media manager Mark Cunliffe. Who could be better to guide us through an election that has, almost inevitably, been as notable for comedy memes as speeches?

There are political campaigns. There are protest campaigns. And then there are byelections that even cabinet ministers describe as a “farce”, and which might be best remembered for a man wearing a bin on his head, announcing he has come to save democracy.

As Mark reveals, the candidate known as Count Binface has inspired the satirical flair of countless internet creators, drawing attention from 100,000s of people on social media platforms, whilst opening spaces for reflection on some far more serious underlying issues.

Nigel Farage’s apparent stunt, which some have described as a ploy to avoid parliamentary scrutiny over his financial affairs, was quickly scuppered when all the major parties announced they would not stand in the byelection. Politicians were quick to make fun of Nigel Farage standing against Count Binface, with former Chancellor Rachel Reeves posting on X, “It is a farce and a desperate distraction, and the people of Clacton deserve better. But if he wants to spend the summer arguing with a bin, I won’t stop him”.

Binface was ready and his campaign quickly gathered momentum with a number of high profile media interviews, with Binface delivering one of the shortest and sharpest political put-downs of any election and a clear jibe at Nigel Farage’s appalling record of visiting Clacton and only mentioning Clacton twice in Parliament the last year as their MP and representative. Asked by BBC’s Breakfast show, Sarah Campbell, whether he had ever visited Clacton, quick-witted Binface replied:

“No, because I understand from the current incumbent that is part of how you do the job, so I deliberately stayed away. Is that how it works?

Politics is back, baby! “

When “intergalactic space warrior” Count Binface landed safely in Clacton, many assumed he was just there for laughs. The internet, however, had other ideas.

Cleaning Up Clacton

The memes kept coming, escalating with Binface’s supporters running beautifully simple slogans such as “It’s time to clean up Clacton”.

What about the cost of Farage’s self-initiated byelection? Reform claimed they would pay the bill. Didn’t they know that this was impossible under UK law? The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) spokesperson told LBC, “To maintain the independence and impartiality of the electoral process, the law is clear that the cost of running elections must be met from public funds, and not by candidates or political parties.”

Nigel Farage is no stranger to accusations of being a “grifter”, and some have argued that recent high-profile questions inflicted serious damage on his reputation. I will let readers make up their own minds on these matters, but wonder if many of you will be more focused on struggling to afford a holiday this year, or scraping enough money to feed the kids in an enduring cost-of-living crisis.

Binface inspiring others

Binface’s campaigning style has engaged of a lot of other people, inspiring a rash of posting on social media. Some portrayed black bin bags hanging from the windows of Clacton in support of Count Binface.

A particularly inspired meme imagined Nigel Farage rowing away from the white cliffs of Dover in a tiny boat named the Brexit Belter with Count Binface on the beach holding up a sign reading “Leave Means Leave”.

Others went with the boat theme but referred to the ongoing questions surrounding some rather large and donations.

Family voting

Karl Turner MP, took a swipe at Farage’s complaint to the Greater Manchester police that there had been Muslim family-voting during the recent Gorton and Denton by-election.

In my opinion, perhaps Nigel Farage should have issued a public apology for wasting valuable police time since they found no substance to his allegations. Should they not be out fighting real criminals on the streets of Manchester, not having ultra-rich politicians waste their valuable time?

The binmaker’s son

Just when observers thought things couldn’t get any more surreal, the fun took a new twist. Candidates traditionally boast about humble beginnings. Some speak of growing up in council houses, some tell stories about working in factories. With this clear reference to Sir Keir Starmer, “My Father was a bin maker”.

Britain’s catchiest campaign song

Seems like Count Binface’s supporters have borrowed from classic children’s TV shows: “Oh, my MP’s a dustbin, He wears a dustbin’s hat…”

It may not have been Land of Hope and Glory. But it is undeniably memorable. And so is this creation by James Cunliffe:

Political strategists spend millions attempting to create slogans that voters remember; have we found a new one for fans to sing on the terraces of Clacton Town FC, which I am sure Farage and Binface have visited many times.

Championing citizen voices

Unbiased. Independent. Honest. A community that champions everyday citizens and unheard voices. We don’t have oligarch owners, corporate controllers or political paymasters – we have a community of 2,500 volunteer writers and editors, and over 350,000 readers. Help power Britain’s biggest citizen journalism movement. Become a member of our Friends of Bylines Network scheme today.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

This time, Farah Hassan invites you to walk beside her through the streets of Gaza. To feel the heat of the day, hear the voices of people around you, and see the small details of life that often disappear behind the headlines.

Farah is a journalist at Ghad News magazine, a field photographer, and a member of the Guild of Palestinian Journalists. Writing for Bylines Cymru, she brings us into the heart of a story that we should all pay attention to.

This is not just a story about a place. It is a story about people – about families who wake up every morning trying to find the things that every human being deserves: food, water, safety, and dignity.

Counting the cost of a simple meal

If you walked with me today, our first question would not be where we want to go, but where we can find what we need. Buying food in Gaza is no longer a simple daily task. It has become a journey filled with waiting, searching, and difficult choices. Let me take you with me on my last trip to buy food.

The road to the shop was long. As we walked, we could see people carrying bags, children moving through the streets, and families searching for basic supplies. Everyone seemed to be carrying a story of their own. The sun was strong, and the heat followed us along the road. When we reached the shop, it was crowded. People were standing close together, asking about prices and looking for whatever was available.

Inside the shop, the air was warm and the place was filled with voices. A mother was trying to choose food for her children. An elderly man was counting the money in his hand before buying what he could afford. A shopkeeper was answering questions about prices and explaining what was available.

Everyone was making careful decisions. Nobody was buying extra things. People were choosing only what they needed because every amount of money mattered.

I went to buy simple ingredients for a meal for my family. I bought rice and a chicken breast, but even these basic items cost around $32. That didn’t include the other ingredients we needed, like spices, and the wood we use for cooking.

Not everyone in Gaza can afford to buy everything they need. Prices are very high, and many families have to choose between necessities because their money is not enough to cover everything.

When I carried these items home, I thought about how a simple meal had become a difficult task. In the past, buying rice and chicken was something ordinary. Today, every ingredient has to be carefully considered, and every dollar counts.

What was simple – it is now survival

At home, I started preparing the meal using the resources available to us. Cooking is no longer just about making food; it has become another challenge. Because fuel for cooking is not always available, lighting a fire can take a long time. While I was trying to cook, the fire kept going out because there was not enough wood. Smoke filled the room, and I sat there trying again and again while my eyes were streaming from the smoke. But I continued because preparing a meal for my family was what I had to do.

That moment made me realise how much life has changed. Things that were once simple – buying food, lighting a fire, and preparing a meal – have become struggles that require patience and strength.

The smell of the rice and chicken filled the room, but behind this simple meal was a story of searching, waiting, and trying to survive.

Championing citizen voices

Unbiased. Independent. Honest. A community that champions everyday citizens and unheard voices. We don’t have oligarch owners, corporate controllers or political paymasters – we have a community of 2,500 volunteer writers and editors, and over 350,000 readers. Help power Britain’s biggest citizen journalism movement. Become a member of our Friends of Bylines Network scheme today.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

A quiet table for food, hope and a little laughter

After preparing the meal, it was just my husband and me sitting together. We sat in our small space at home, sharing the food we had worked hard to prepare. The meal was simple — rice and chicken — but to us it was much more than just food. It was a moment of peace in the middle of a difficult life. We sat together, talking about our day, the challenges we faced, and hoping for better days ahead.

We did not talk only about the difficulties. We also tried to find moments of comfort, to laugh a little, and to remind each other that we were still together despite everything happening around us. Looking at that simple meal, I thought about how things that once seemed ordinary had become precious. A meal with my husband, sitting together for a short time, and sharing what we had became a memory worth holding on to. A meal that might seem ordinary to someone else carries a much deeper meaning for us. It represents effort, patience, and the hope that tomorrow will be better.

Water, kindness and faith

Water is another part of our daily reality. If you walked with me through Gaza, you would see people waiting for water, carrying containers, and trying to secure clean water for their families. Something as simple as a glass of water has become something people deeply appreciate.

But if you spent this hour with me, you would also see something else: kindness. You would see neighbours sharing what they have. You would see families supporting each other. You would see people refusing to lose their humanity despite everything they have experienced.

And on Fridays, you would witness another powerful scene. Many mosques in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed, but people still gather to pray. They stand in the streets and among the rubble, beneath the open sky, and perform the Friday prayer.

The broken stones around them tell a story of loss, but their prayers tell a story of hope. The buildings may fall, but the faith and spirit of people remain.

Gaza is not only a story of destruction. It is a story of people who continue to live, love, help each other, and dream. I wanted you to spend this hour with me because numbers and headlines cannot tell the whole story. Behind every meal, every drop of water, every step to a shop, and every prayer among the ruins, there is a human being with feelings, memories, and hope.

This is Gaza. This is my story. And this is the story of many people who are still holding on to life.

Farah Hassan writes professionally as Farah Rebhy, and she’s on Instagram. If you enjoyed this post, please contribute to her fundraiser – paid work is scarce in Gaza’s shattered economy, and she will be very grateful!

This time, we hand over to Susan Kerrison and a fascinating shorter read about the places we get our news from, first published in Sussex Bylines. Susan has found a new source, with some interesting and valuable voices, offering a revelatory alternative to legacy news media.

In the evening, feet up on the recliner with knitting in hand, I plug into YouTube for the latest on the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. An international cast of ex-military men, ex-CIA and MI6 analysts, bond traders, ex-ambassadors and academics provide me with what’s lacking in the mainstream media – an in-depth, multi-faceted account of international politics.

Some commentators are in their late seventies with nothing to lose by speaking truth to power and perhaps settling old scores. Others are brave academics on a mission to try and save the world from further destructive wars. They bring practical experience of war and international politics with an in-depth history surrounding previous conflicts and a sophisticated knowledge of weaponry.

Previously, I had not taken much interest in international politics; but clearly something was in the air. Just after the attack on Iran, sardines disappeared from the shelves in my local Waitrose and my neighbours all bought wind up radios! I needed to find out more and a friend recommended Alistair Crooke, a former MI6 agent, on Judge Neopolitano broadcast on YouTube.

One interview led to another and more complex questions appeared. Is this the end of NATO? Should we re-arm to fight the Russians? Will the Israelis scupper the latest peace agreement by continuing to bomb Lebanon and so on. I have learnt new vocabulary – such as security architecture and realism.

A big favourite of mine is Charles Freeman, the former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Mandarin translator for the now famous Nixon trip to China. He provides an in-depth overview of the situation in the Middle East. Hard facts about the military operations come from Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst. Very early on it was clear that contracting out weapons manufacture was negatively impacting the US war effort, as stocks of weapons were being depleted far quicker than they could be replenished.

Some weapons like Tomahawk needed rare earth minerals that can currently can only be obtained from China. Would the Chinese allow the export of such minerals for use in weapons that could be aimed against them? Is the nature of warfare changing so much that aircraft carriers are now redundant when you have to keep them 100 miles offshore as a drone swarm might come after them?

A new entrant to my viewing habits has been Mario Nawfal. Based in the UAE, Nawfal runs a Blockchain consulting company. His honesty about the way his world has been turned upside down has been painful to watch as he expresses shock at the bombing of the Gulf states. Nawfal is interested in the nuts and bolts of business and conducted an hour-long interview with Matt Smith from Kpler, a company which analyses global commodity trading. Smith analysed, in detail, how oil stocks are being depleted to the point where the world economy will crash.

But it has not been all hard, cool analysis; there have been some keenly felt emotional moments. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell was being interviewed by Nima Alkhorshid, an Iranian engineering professor now based in Brazil. In the winter, Alkhorshid was on a family trip to Iran. Wilkerson’s analysis was that a major bombardment of Iran by US was imminent, potentially using nuclear weapons. His concern for Alkhorshid was heartfelt.

One of my favourite hosts is Prof Glenn Diesen, Political Scientist at University of SE Norway. Diesen recently interviewed Trita Parsi of the Quincey Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Both Parsi and Diesen describe themselves as realists. They are concerned to understand the motivations and rationale of the opposing side – Russia and Iran. Those who approach international relations in this way are now pilloried as there is a drive by Western governments to frame all international conflict as a battle between good and evil. Diesen notes that public opinion has been cynically manipulated to ensure that the US or Europe occupy the moral high ground.

For example, WikiLeaks revealed that when European support for war in Afghanistan appeared to be flagging, the CIA advised that as Europe was keen on women’s rights, framing the war as liberating Afghan women and girls would invigorate that support. Another big revelation for me has been Diesen’s interview with George Beebe, former CIA Director for Russia Analysis.

Beebe’s outline of the lead up to the war in Ukraine and how the Russians view the West’s actions as provocative is a revelation. He is not optimistic that war against Russia can be avoided, unless the West begins to understand the Russian point of view. Both Russia and Iran see the West’s actions as a challenge to their very existence and so are likely to fight to the bitter end.

Many commentators are united in arguing that rather than seeing international relations in terms of the West fighting against countries who they view as evil enemies, politicians need to concentrate on developing a new security architecture. That is an overarching framework of institutions, alliances, treaties and defence polices which can be used to maintain regional stability and manage threats.

The comparison between how the debate has been conducted on mainstream media and this alternative way of looking at the world has been a revelation to me.

Giving voice to the unheard - championing justice

Unbiased. Independent. Honest. A community that champions everyday citizens and unheard voices. We don’t have oligarch owners, corporate controllers or political paymasters – we have a community of 2,500 volunteer writers and editors, and over 350,000 readers. Help power Britain’s biggest citizen journalism movement. Become a member of our Friends of Bylines Network scheme today.

And that’s not all! Every month we release a Bylines Network Gazette, which is delivered directly and free to all our Friends. This month’s Gazette is devoted to survivors of abuse at the hands of Mohammed al Fayed and their quest for justice – which is still routinely denied. This 86 page special features articles from the No One Above organisation, survivor stories in their own words, and exclusives from Nazir Afzal and Meirion Jones. Become a Friend now to get yours.

If you prefer to take out a paid Substack subscription, you can do that too. It’s exactly the same as setting up Friends of Bylines Network registration, just managed through the Substack platform.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

Little did we know of the farcical storm that awaited us as Nigel Farage decided that the best way to stop people talking about allegations about his finances was to parade around Clacton talking to a bin.

If you wish to contribute to our cause, we have a crowdfunding page to help the Network expand. Donate only if you can and whatever you can, every little really helps. ⁠https://chuffed.org/project/ng7b7xwqwlze⁠

The Bylines Network has also relaunched the Bylines shop, where you can get anything from hoodies to mugs, and featuring all merch from all 10 of our publications. ⁠https://bylines-network.teemill.com/⁠


Our online Gazette is now free if you sign up to any of our 10 newsletters, Join the mailing list: ⁠⁠https://bylinesnetwork.co.uk/sign-up/⁠

Music is by Harry Binns: https://www.instagram.com/harrybinnsmusic/

This time Stephen McNair, of East Anglia Bylines, provides a vital update on Donald Trump’s attempts to sue the BBC for defamation over a Panorama item about the January 2021 attack on the Capitol.

Last December, the American President claimed to have suffered financial and reputational damage because the programme juxtaposed two unrelated video clips in a way that implied he actively incited rioters. The BBC accepted this was a mistake and apologised. However, Trump has persisted in his demand for $10bn compensation – almost double the BBC’s annual income. It is a dramatic claim, designed to attract headlines, but the Corporation has come out fighting.

Throughout his career, Trump has used lawsuits aggressively against opponents, and even when they believe themselves innocent, they often choose to settle out of court rather than fund a long and expensive court case.

But the BBC is made of sterner stuff. They have offered a symbolic response to the US’s 47th President. They have issued 47 subpoenas for witnesses to testify, exposing Donald Trump to far more scrutiny than he may have expected.

A slender case

Online, a number of lawyers have discussed the case. Two California lawyers, Brian Kabateck and Shant Karnikian, have discussed this on their YouTube channel. They explain the legal hurdles Trump now faces.

The first issue is that, because he is a public figure, Trump has to prove actual malice, showing that the BBC knew the material was false or acted with reckless intent. A mere editing mistake would not be enough for a defamation win.

The BBC has moved to dismiss the case, on the grounds that the court in Florida, where the case has been brought, has no jurisdiction, since the material was never broadcast in the United States. The judge gave Trump a deadline to respond to this, warning that sanctions could follow. The deadline has passed and Trump has not complied, The court has yet to rule on this.

But meanwhile, the BBC has other weapons up its sleeve.

Giving voice to the unheard - championing justice

Unbiased. Independent. Honest. A community that champions everyday citizens and unheard voices. We don’t have oligarch owners, corporate controllers or political paymasters – we have a community of 2,500 volunteer writers and editors, and over 350,000 readers. Help power Britain’s biggest citizen journalism movement. Become a member of our Friends of Bylines Network scheme today.

And that’s not all! Every month we release a Bylines Network Gazette, which is delivered directly and free to all our Friends. This month’s Gazette is devoted to survivors of abuse at the hands of Mohammed al Fayed and their quest for justice – which is still routinely denied. This 86 page special features articles from the No One Above organisation, survivor stories in their own words, and exclusives from Nazir Afzal and Meirion Jones. Become a Friend now to get yours.

If you prefer to take out a paid Substack subscription, you can do that too. It’s exactly the same as setting up Friends of Bylines Network registration, just managed through the Substack platform.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

And now back to Stephen’s important article about the BBC.

The discovery trap

Trump seems to have expected a quick win: that like many of his previous enemies, the BBC would settle quickly out of court. What he was unprepared for was a fight. But his decision to sue gives the BBC the legal right to ‘discovery’. This entitles both parties to call for evidence and summon witnesses to justify his claims in depth.

So far, in response to discovery requests from Trump’s lawyers, the BBC has produced 87,000 pages of documents. In contrast, Trump’s lawyers have produced 735 pages, which the BBC claims are mostly news articles and material from the internet.

The list of subpoenas includes key people and companies in Trump’s orbit, including all close family members and some very high profile associates, like Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller. They will have to testify in open court to Trunp’s reputation, and his state of mind on 6 January, to prove that, when he told people to ‘fight’, he did not intend to incite a riot.

And to justify the claim of financial damage, Trump must release detailed information on some 400 companies owned by the trust created to manage his investments while he is President. Trump’s lawyers have now tried to avoid producing the financial information, by withdrawing the claim of financial loss. But the court has ruled that, because of the scale of the claim, which would threaten the viability of the BBC, the financial records are relevant and must be disclosed. And the cutoff for discovery is in October

Looking for the ‘off ramp’?

Trump’s next line of defence may be to claim that some of the deposition materials are confidential, but the lawyers doubt that this will satisfy the court. They suspect that Trump will now be seeking a “graceful exit”, which he can present as some sort of victory, before the scheduled hearing date next February. Or, perhaps everyone will quietly forget about the whole affair.

He will probably lose. It would be a huge relief to all who believe in independent public broadcasting. It seems he picked the wrong enemy when he chose the BBC.

Running updates on this issue can be found on these websites Legal AF, and Katie Phang.

Share

Why has it become such a struggle for university graduates to find work?

In an article that will resonate with many young people and their families, Tetiana Toma makes a direct and personal appeal to the UK government and potential employers.

Having graduated in 2025, Tetiana is well qualified, has volunteering experience, and has a raft of articles published by Kent and Surrey Bylines. Like most recent graduates, she wants to develop herself and to do something useful. Here, she investigates why she and many others are struggling to find post-university work.

Personal story

In 2019, I began studying law at Queen Mary University of London. In 2021, I moved to Paris to study at Pantheon-Sorbonne University as part of my course. During my academic studies, I faced problems – difficult studies, fatigue, lack of sleep, and not passing exams. I endured all of this because I believed, in the end, I would be rewarded with a stable job, allowing me to earn money to meet my basic needs and eventually gain financial independence from my family. So, when I finished my studies in July 2025, I embarked on a search for a job or for opportunities to gain work experience.

From November until May, I volunteered. It is now June 2026, and I have just secured my first job as a freelance interpreter. The main skill that made me suitable for the job was being a native Ukrainian speaker. Despite this, my search continues for other opportunities, in another job or in work experience.

When I see the news about youth unemployment, I know the challenges they face, because I am one of them. I know the feeling of being forgotten, and that a willingness to work and make something of our lives is not respected. I know the feeling of many graduates: that their hard work and efforts in earning their degree are not being rewarded.

Unfulfilled ambitions and struggling to build a career

Over the last few months, the media has been speaking about the rise in youth unemployment. Young people who are not in education, employment or training are labelled as ‘Neets’, and those same young people have been sharing their own experiences of struggling to get a job, with their job applications being rejected or receiving no response at all. There is talk of the risk of a ‘lost generation’ and of how young people are facing fewer opportunities for jobs and education.

The reasons have been various: low economic growth, businesses’ financial constraints, the popularity of AI (which is slowly replacing human work), the reluctance of businesses to hire people without work experience or desired skills, and the mental health crisis amongst young people.

Graduates have become part of the unemployed youth as there has been a sharp decrease in graduate jobs. Many graduates have dedicated their time to their studies, leaving little scope to pursue valuable work experience. The outcome: some graduates are either unemployed or working jobs unrelated to their degrees.

The statistics show that over 700,000 graduates are unemployed and claiming benefits. The graduate statistics for 2025/26 show that 56.4% of graduates were in full-time employment after graduation, while 6.2% were unemployed or due to start work. The others were working part-time, pursuing further studies or volunteering.

A report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has revealed that around a quarter of graduates would be financially worse off upon completing their degrees, but this also depends on the course, as those who take creative and performing arts degrees are expected to be hit the most.

We see that for many graduates, the ambition to find a fulfilling, stable job that will allow them to utilise the skills and knowledge gained from their degrees does not become a reality. Many graduates have to either work a job that does not require their degree, face unemployment, or pursue other opportunities such as further study or volunteering.

The loss of trust in a university degree

An inquiry shows that 34% of people in the UK say that university is not worth the amount of time and money, while 36% agree that a university degree makes life better for the graduates.

A YouGov poll asked participants whether they would choose to go to university or pursue an apprenticeship if they were 18 years old again; only 33% chose university, while 51% chose an apprenticeship, and 7% chose neither. Another similar YouGov poll asked people whether they would choose university or another career path; only 35% said that they would go to university.

Championing citizen voices

Unbiased. Independent. Honest. A community that champions everyday citizens and unheard voices. We don’t have oligarch owners, corporate controllers or political paymasters – we have a community of 2,500 volunteer writers and editors, and over 350,000 readers. Help power Britain’s biggest citizen journalism movement. Become a member of our Friends of Bylines Network scheme today.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

We see that the university degree has lost its reputation as the best ticket to a stable, financially rewarding career, as other options, like going straight into work after A-levels or taking an apprenticeship are readily available to young people.

There also exists a split between the courses and their financial rewards, as some courses offer routes to well-paid jobs, while others fail to give graduates a career which allows them to live independently and without financial difficulties. Young people might feel passionate about studying a particular subject at university, but ultimately choose not to, as it may not offer them a route to a financially rewarding job.

University education is both hard and stressful. Students work themselves very hard in demanding courses, often resulting in sleep deprivation. It is also expensive – students either take out a loan or their families cover their tuition fees and living costs. Ultimately, universities provide people with knowledge and develop critical and analytical skills, an important strength needed for later life.

It is disappointing to see that many employers overlook a university degree as they place more of an emphasis on experience and demonstrated evidence of skills, such as communication, organisation, ability to multi-task, ability to work under pressure – skills which students can gain during their studies at university, including through participating in university extra-curricular activities (like I did), but it seems like being at university is no longer enough for employers. As a result, many young people lose the willingness to go to university and choose other routes for their lives.

Much needed changes in university education

UK universities are amongst the best in the world, with many universities scoring highly in world university rankings. Every year, they attract many international students who choose to study in the UK.

To preserve their reputations, to restore trust amongst young people and employers, and to once again be a pathway to a stable, financially rewarding career, universities must adapt to changing trends around the world. For instance, the rise in the use of technology and AI, and changes in the labour market.

The necessity of giving graduates a chance

Many graduates are leaving universities without the necessary work experience. Still, they are intelligent, hard-working, resilient, determined, and overall driven to contribute to UK economic growth and improvements within society.

Many employers ask for years of experience, even when there are few entry-level roles available that are connected to graduates’ degrees, and even then there is fierce competition amongst hundreds of graduates. Even volunteering or internships are competitive and hard to get involved in.

The other thing I noticed is the attention the employers pay to how the applicants present themselves on their CVs and during interviews. Many ask for references, and, in the case that work experience hasn’t been gained during their study, some graduates do not know whom they should use.

But the employers should realise that graduates do have what they need – the commitment to work hard, the commitment to learn, the commitment to grow, the commitment to develop. Many graduates have other important characteristics: politeness, honesty, punctuality, the ability to listen and to support others, confidence, seriousness, and resilience. It is disappointing that employers pay little attention to these qualities in graduates.

The businesses, institutions, and organisations must give graduates a chance. They must notice that graduates with university degrees are also looking for jobs. They must give respect to graduates’ hard work. They must realise that intelligent graduates have considerable talent and potential. They must realise that graduates have the capacity to learn, work and contribute to the functioning of their businesses, institutions and organisations. They must realise that the graduates need jobs to build their lives.

Let us work. We can do it.

A little something from our allies - 50% off tickets!

Bylines Network is proud to work alongside democracy-defending publishers and broadcasters. Sometimes we share investigations, or organise collaborative events. Sometimes we work together to champion voices that would otherwise go unheard. And we like to update our supporters on what our friends are up to.

Next week there will be a special evening of live discussion involving the excellent Quiet Riot, the brilliant Lincoln Square, and our sister publication Byline Times - we’re separate entities who share some common interests.

The topic of discussion is how Trumpism, populism, media capture, and democratic decay are shaping politics in America and the UK – and, crucially, what we can do to protect democracy on both sides of the Atlantic.

Taking place at Leicester Square Theatre on Thursday 30 July, 7 pm, the event is titled The authoritarian playbook: what Britain can learn from America. And as highly valued Bylines Network supporters, you can get tickets for half price by using the code playbook50 when you book:

Book your tickets here

Share

As a champion of citizen voices, Bylines Network is pleased to share the expertise and opinions of non-profit grassroots networks that might otherwise go unheard. Marinet researches issues affecting our seas, in particular sewage pollution, marine aggregate dredging, ocean mining, and pollution of UK rivers caused by water companies. In this article, they argue that previous governments have failed to find the right approach to tackling these issues, and that the policies of potential future governments may not work either.

Some argue for renationalisation, but will this work or push the cost of improvements onto taxpayers? Is the answer tougher action against the current shareholders of water companies, or using legal measures to force them to do a better job?

This is Marinet’s proposed way ahead. As always, you can use the “message” button at the bottom of the page to send us your thoughts, and we welcome articles by citizens with alternative views on the same topic. Democracy thrives when everyone has a voice.

At the end of 2024, Ofwat agreed to increase customer’s bills every year, for the next 25 years, to fund the investment needed to expand sewage treatment works. Government and the water companies say that this programme will cost £56bn at 2022 prices, and every penny will be paid by us through our water bills, rather than by government or the company owners.

That figure excludes inflation and the likely possibility of serious cost overruns. As a result, water bills are going to get a lot more expensive, every year, for 25 years.

Some argue that there are alternatives to making us pay for this capital investment. So, what are they?

Nationalisation is not a solution, it’s an illusion

The most frequently mentioned alternative is some form of public ownership, including nationalisation. Many environmentalists favour this.

Marinet (Marine Conservation and Environmental Campaign Network) – a UK-based environmental advocacy organisation focused on marine and water-related environmental issues – argues, however, that nationalisation is politically and financially unrealistic.

The organisation says that the nation would have to compensate shareholders for the value of the companies, with estimates commonly placed at around £100bn. Raising that figure through taxation or borrowing, Marinet argues, would be unacceptable to the Treasury and most MPs.

Some campaigners say that struggling companies, such as Thames Water, are nearly bankrupt and so are, in reality, worth considerably less. Marinet believes that taking that approach would simply raise another problem.

The Treasury’s dependence on foreign capital

According to Marinet, much of the UK’s water industry is almost completely foreign-owned, reflecting a wider pattern of overseas ownership across much of the UK’s infrastructure, including electricity generation, energy distribution networks, airports and Royal Mail.

Marinet asserts that acquiring these assets for significantly less than their market value could damage investor confidence and, in the longer term, discourage crucial overseas investment.

For that reason, Marinet believes that nationalisation is highly unlikely to gain government approval. Meanwhile, it says, customers are being made to fund water companies’ clean-up through higher bills.

Championing citizen voices

Unbiased. Independent. Honest. A community that champions everyday citizens and unheard voices. We don’t have oligarch owners, corporate controllers or political paymasters – we have a community of 2,500 volunteer writers and editors, and over 350,000 readers. Help power Britain’s biggest citizen journalism movement. Become a member of our Friends of Bylines Network scheme today.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

Looking water company owners in the eye

Marinet proposes a different approach.

“There is another solution,” says Marinet director Stephen Eades, “but we refuse to see it, although it is staring us in the face.”

That solution, according to Marinet, is to make the owners of the water companies provide the investment capital themselves, either by injecting their own money or by issuing new shares to raise additional capital.

“Actually, it’s the obvious solution,” says Eades. “Water companies are shareholder-owned companies, and under this model of running companies the obligation to provide the investment capital the company needs falls upon the shareholders. This is how every limited company works. It is company law, pure and simple. This way, we make the owners provide the funds, not the public.”

Restoring the power of market forces

Marinet argues that the government should compel all water companies to relist on the London Stock Exchange, returning them to public markets, rather than remaining privately owned.

It believes that publicly-traded companies would once again be subject to market discipline. Poor performance would reduce share value and put pressure on company owners to improve operations.

“At that point,” says Eades, “government and a strengthened regulator that is proposed in legislation later this year can go to the high court and ask it to enforce the laws that forbid sewage pollution.”

Marinet cites the Environment Act 2021, which states that the polluter (the owner) must pay for cleaning up pollution. It also cites the 1991 Water Industry Act and the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016, that place a legal obligation on all water companies to have adequate treatment capacity at all sewage works.

If these existing obligations are actually enforced, says Marinet, storm overflows of raw sewage will almost entirely cease.

“The law is really specific on this,” says Eades. “government should get the high court to enforce the law. The court must say to the owners that they have got five years to supply and use the capital that’s needed to enlarge all of their sewage works and, most importantly, the court must insist that the owners alone provide the capital.”

Imposing severe fines on the owners of the water companies

“At that point, the court also fines the owners the same amount of money that’s required to deliver this upgrade but waives payment for the five years needed to make the upgrade. Then, after five years, the owners must return to the court, and if the regulator says they’ve failed to make the upgrade, the court enforces payment of the fine and government uses the fine to deliver the upgrade.”

According to Marinet, in this way the owners pay for the upgrade, rather than customers.

Because the companies would once again be listed on the Stock Exchange, the market would judge the owners’ performance and thus the value of their shares. In other words, markets would control the industry, rather than the state.

“We’ve explained this,” says Eades, “to over one hundred scientists, politicians, academics, environmental NGOs and the water company CEOs. We’ve told them, here is the way we solve the industry’s financing and solve sewage pollution and keep the financial burden away from the public and government. It’s very simple, take capitalism at its word, and make the owners pay.”

But will anyone listen?

So far, says Marinet, no one is listening.

The organisation argues that the answer lies in market discipline and the use of existing laws and the High Court to compel water company owners to meet their legal obligations. If that happened, then company owners, rather than customers, would pay to eradicate sewage pollution.

The question is, is anyone prepared to make it happen?

Share

This time, Pilar Girvan of Bylines Scotland reveals something quietly disorienting about the idea of Ravenscraig, in part, being reborn as a data centre. Where furnaces once burned and 10,000 workers shaped steel into substantive products, the proposed Ravenscraig AI Energy Campus will produce little that is visible.

No smoke. No flames. No tangible product. Just data moving invisibly through servers across 160 acres of remediated ground, consuming 550MW of electricity, the equivalent of half a million homes, in near-total silence. A power guzzler propelling data through an ephemeral global landscape.

Apatura Energy’s £3.9bn proposal, to be built upon one of Europe’s largest brownfield sites, will sit within the Ravenscraig Masterplan. It includes a 600MW battery storage facility, and is framed in the language of opportunity. Apatura claims it will contribute 0.4% of Scotland’s annual GDP once operational, and will support 2,399 jobs, 1,044 of them permanently located in North Lanarkshire. Local MP Pamela Nash has called it “the next chapter”, a romantic narrative of industrial heritage repurposed for the digital age. The language is seductive, but it is also worth interrogating.

What exactly is a “green data centre”?

Ravenscraig is one of 24 data centre proposals advancing through Scotland’s planning system, representing 4.45-4.95 GW of energy demand (according to a press release by Ravenscraig) – larger than Scotland’s entire winter peak electricity consumption. Under National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), “green data centres” are designated national developments, granting them a privileged position within the planning system. This carries significant weight. It is therefore alarming to discover there is no consensus around the definition of a “green data centre”.

When Ariane Burgess MSP asked the Scottish Government to outline the criteria determining whether a data centre qualifies as “green” under NPF4, the response was equivocal: planning authorities should “interpret and apply NPF4 according to the circumstances of each individual case”. It is a concept without substance. There are no binding standards. In practice any data centre drawing from Scotland’s grid could designate itself as green. Furthermore, the analysis underpinning NPF4’s position on “green data centres” was published in 2022, predating the mass proliferation of Chat AI models which have entirely reshaped energy demands.

Apatura and other developers recently drafted their own charter, Delivering Green Data Centres in Scotland. However, writing your own standards, again vague on detail, is not the same as being held to account by external bodies. More substance is required to refute claims of greenwashing, with its concomitant illusory narratives.

“Green” concerns: water consumption and emissions

One of the biggest environmental issues surrounding hyperscale data centres, in addition to their vast energy use, lies in their water consumption. A single Google search requires approximately half a millilitre of water. By comparison, ChatGPT consumes roughly 500ml, the equivalent of a bottle of Highland Spring, for every 10 to 50 responses. A medium-sized data centre uses the equivalent of 110 million gallons of water per year for cooling alone. Globally, AI infrastructure may soon consume around six times more water than Denmark. Scottish data centres have already been reported as using enough water annually to fill 27 million bottles. None of these data centres are required to disclose how much water they actually use.

Ravenscraig’s developers claim a closed-loop cooling system, but the publicly available detail is thin. Water uptake in the energy consumed off-site must also be counted. While Scotland faces less water stress than many regions, it is not a licence to proceed without scrutiny, disclosure or limits. It is a starting point for a candid conversation we need to have sooner rather than later.

On emissions, specific details are similarly lacking. The full speculative pipeline of hyperscale data centre proposals in Scotland could add up to 5.8 million tonnes of CO₂ per year. Indeed, the rejected proposal at Edinburgh South Gyle was projected to produce emissions equivalent to 10% of Edinburgh’s annual total. Most recently, the data centre proposal at Larbert (another Apatura site) has attracted over 1,657 public objections, with serious concerns about its proposed diesel generators, placing it among Scotland’s top 10 sources of exhaust emissions. This does not include greenhouse gas impacts during both construction and operation. An EIA was however required and its scrutiny has therefore been visible and substantial. Most proposals, including Ravenscraig, do not face the same requirement.

A little something from our allies

Bylines Network is proud to work alongside democracy-defending publishers and broadcasters. Sometimes we share investigations, or organise collaborative events. Sometimes we work together to champion voices that would otherwise go unheard. And we like to update our supporters on what our friends are up to.

Next week there will be a special evening of live discussion involving the excellent Quiet Riot, the brilliant , and our sister publication - we’re separate entities who share some common interests.

The topic of discussion is how Trumpism, populism, media capture, and democratic decay are shaping politics in America and the UK – and, crucially, what we can do to protect democracy on both sides of the Atlantic.

Taking place at Leicester Square Theatre on Thursday 30 July, 7 pm, the event is titled The authoritarian playbook: what Britain can learn from America. Tickets can be booked here: bit.ly/LPplaybook.

And now back to Pilar’s revealing article…

Local concerns, broad ambitions, but no cumulative assessment

The job figures attached to Ravenscraig warrant attention. The proposed 1,044 permanent roles appear a lean return for a project of this scale and ambition. Data centres, once built, typically run on skeleton staff. The bulk of employment lies in construction, as well as indirect economic activity, which is often overstated in comparable UK announcements.

Local residents previously raised concerns about unfulfilled promises related to the Masterplan, and these concerns are being reinvigorated by the proposed data centre. One such concern relates to the potential repercussions of an AI bubble burst. If the market turns sour, large language models such as Chat GPT could be at risk of collapse, with a huge knock-on effect for data centres like Ravenscraig and their localities. Circumspection and opposition to Ravenscraig is therefore not irrational, and mirrors other proposed data centre sites, such as Larbert.

In addition to Ravenscraig and Larbert, Apatura proposes seven other data centres across Scotland’s central belt, with a combined 1.6GW of confirmed grid connections. And 4.4 miles north of Ravenscraig, DataVita’s Airdrie site was awarded AI Growth Zone status in January 2026, with a promised investment of £8.2bn. Between Ravenscraig and Airdrie alone, over 1,000MW of capacity is proposed in North Lanarkshire. The cumulative impact of this concentration has not been formally assessed.

Scotland’s planning system currently determines each application at local authority level. There is no mechanism for assessing the combined effect of 24 proposals on the national grid, on emissions targets, on water supply, or on communities. Action to Protect Rural Scotland (APRS) have created an interactive map detailing each proposal, bolstering their call for a moratorium on hyperscale development.

Additionally, First Minister John Swinney was recently challenged by Ross Greer MSP to pause hyperscale approvals above 50MW pending a coherent national strategy. He declined, noting existing planning policy was sufficient for councils to make their own decisions. The fact that if all 24 proposals proceed, they will consume more than Scotland’s current peak energy demand, has not been publicly addressed.

Beyond the local grid: global footprints

A moratorium on new hyperscale data centres is not without precedent elsewhere in the world. New York recently approved a one-year moratorium on permits, citing the need to study impacts on the energy grid, water supply and consumers – a pause for breath other US states are considering.

And it is not just environmental concerns we should focus on. AI generation as a result of data centre power is far from neutral. Training data carries the biases and inequalities of the world it draws from. Algorithmic systems shape decisions in healthcare, welfare, law and employment, embedding those biases at scale, with consequences felt most acutely by those least fairly equipped to challenge them. Those in creative industries whose work has been used to train these models also receive nothing in return, and are even now competing directly with the tools built on their labour. Even Pope Leo XIV’s recent encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, has cautioned against the direction AI development is following, warning of a tendency towards concentrations of power, environmental degradation, and the erosion of human dignity. It is a powerful read regardless of faith.

A new UN report projects that by 2030 global data centres powering AI will consume 945 terawatt-hours of electricity. This is nearly triple the combined annual electricity use of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria. The associated water footprint will equal the basic domestic water needs of all 1.3 billion people in Sub-Saharan Africa.

These are not abstract numbers. They are the context in which Ravenscraig and Scotland’s 23 other proposed data centres must be evaluated. The case for a pause is not a case against technology, nor against investment in North Lanarkshire per se. It is a case for carefully thought-out decisions, for ethics to be considered, for binding standards to be implemented, and to ensure the planning framework is appropriate for the scale of development. The near-silence emanating from Ravenscraig’s 160 acres should not be the loudest thing in the room.

N.B. The planning application is expected for submission later this summer. A Proposal of Application Notice was submitted in 2025, with the outcome indicating no major impediments had been identified.

Unbiased. Independent. Honest. A community that champions everyday citizens and unheard voices. We don’t have oligarch owners, corporate controllers or political paymasters – we have a community of 2,500 volunteer writers and editors, and over 350,000 readers. Help power Britain’s biggest citizen journalism movement. Become a member of our Friends of Bylines Network scheme today.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

This time we'll be looking eastwards as we talk to Anna Damski and Peter Thurlow of East Anglia Bylines, talking to them about the last 5 years.

If you wish to contribute to our cause, we have a crowdfunding page to help the Network expand. Donate only if you can and whatever you can, every little really helps. ⁠https://chuffed.org/project/ng7b7xwqwlze⁠

The Bylines Network has also relaunched the Bylines shop, where you can get anything from hoodies to mugs, and featuring all merch from all 10 of our publications. ⁠https://bylines-network.teemill.com/⁠


Our online Gazette is now free if you sign up to any of our 10 newsletters, Join the mailing list: ⁠⁠https://bylinesnetwork.co.uk/sign-up/⁠

Music is by Harry Binns: https://www.instagram.com/harrybinnsmusic/

This is the day Andy Burnham becomes leader of the Labour Party and, as a result, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. In his latest speeches, he has said social care will be a key priority for his new government. But how will the country’s significant disabled population fit into his social and economic policies?

This insightful article from James Waterson of North East Bylines asks why cutting disability social security is often presented as an easy way to save taxpayers’ money. Whilst it may sound simple, the picture appears much more complex when you examine what happens after the benefits money disappears. Drawing on examples from the Tees Valley, James reveals the impact of such policy changes on individuals and the wider economy.

Andy Burnham has previously championed an “inclusive growth” model in which disability, health and employment are treated as central issues rather than peripheral costs. And a decade of austerity has shown that cutting public spending doesn’t automatically make costs vanish.

Language matters

Before we go any further, it’s worth asking why we rarely hear the phrase “social security” anymore. Over time, it has largely been replaced by the word “benefits“ – a subtle but important shift in language.

Social security describes a system that we all contribute to and may rely on at different points in our lives. By contrast, “benefits” has increasingly come to imply a one-way handout rather than a shared safety net.

Reclamation

Reclaiming the language of social security means reclaiming its original purpose: providing security when people face circumstances beyond their control.

That distinction matters because social security for disabled people is often misunderstood. It is not a reward for being unable to work, or a financial bonus. It exists to help meet the unavoidable extra costs of disability, from mobility aids and specialist equipment to accessible transport, higher energy bills and personal care. For many people, it is the difference between participating in society and being excluded from it.

Social model of disability

This reflects the social model of disability, which recognises that people are disabled not simply by their medical conditions but by the barriers society creates.

Those barriers can include inaccessible transport, unsuitable housing, workplaces that fail to make reasonable adjustments, or the extra costs that accompany living with a disability.

Remove the barriers

Social security for disabled people helps remove some of those barriers, enabling people to work, study, care for their families and participate in their communities. It is not about paying people to be disabled; it is about reducing the economic disadvantages that disability too often brings.

And that support doesn’t disappear into a savings account. It is spent on groceries, heating, taxis, pharmacy bills and other everyday essentials. That spending supports local businesses, keeps people in work and circulates through communities. Economists call this the multiplier effect.

The Tees Valley example

You don’t have to look far to see why this matters. The Tees Valley is still rebuilding after decades of deindustrialisation. Steelworks, shipyards and heavy industry may have declined, but local businesses still depend on customers walking through the door.

Today, around 74,000 working-age people in the Tees Valley are disabled, almost one in five adults of working age, a higher proportion than the England average.

They are employees, parents, carers, volunteers, business owners and customers. When disability support is cut, it’s not just disabled households that feel the impact. It’s a café losing regular customers, a taxi firm getting fewer bookings and a corner shop seeing less money through the till.

Social security doesn’t stop people working

Another persistent myth is that social security for disabled people discourages people from working.

The government says it wants to boost economic growth by helping more people move from welfare into employment, but its current approach appears to assume that reducing financial support will push people into jobs.

In reality, without tackling structural barriers such as inaccessible transport, inadequate workplace adjustments and the extra costs of disability, cutting support is more likely to push people into poverty than into work as evidenced in the austerity years.

Being disabled costs more

Disability social security is not paid because someone is unemployed; it is paid because living with a disability costs more. A wheelchair does not become cheaper because you have a job, nor do the costs of running medical equipment, paying for accessible transport or buying assistive technology simply disappear. For many disabled people, social security is what makes employment possible, not what prevents it.

False economy

To be fair to policymakers, the pressure on public finances is real. The cost of disability social security has risen significantly in recent years (most likely induced by the mass disabling event of Covid-19) and it makes an obvious target for a Treasury desperate to balance the books and reduce the national deficit.

However, cutting disability social security might reduce spending on one government spreadsheet, but it can increase costs almost everywhere else.

People without adequate support are more likely to need NHS treatment, social care, housing assistance and mental health services. Family members may reduce their own working hours to provide unpaid care. Any short-term savings can quickly be swallowed by higher costs elsewhere.

This is not efficient. It’s moving the bill from one department to another.

Championing citizen voices

Unbiased. Independent. Honest. A community that champions everyday citizens and unheard voices. We don’t have oligarch owners, corporate controllers or political paymasters – we have a community of 2,500 volunteer writers and editors, and over 350,000 readers. Help power Britain’s biggest citizen journalism movement. Become a member of our Friends of Bylines Network scheme today.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

The Purple Pound

Then there’s another part of the story that’s often overlooked: the Purple Pound. This is the spending power of disabled people and their households.

While the UK spends tens of billions annually on disability social security, this must be weighed against the economic engine that is the Purple Pound. When you subtract the support that enables disabled people to spend, you shrink that multi-billion-pound market, ultimately costing the Treasury more in lost tax revenue than it saves on welfare.

One fifth of all consumer spending

Estimates of the Purple Pound vary depending on how it is measured. Most place it in the region of £274 billionbut research by the University of Bristol puts it at £446 billiona year in the UK. Even looking at the more conservative figure, this represents around one fifth of all consumer spending, rising significantly when the spending of families and carers are then also included. It reflects both the scale of disabled consumers and their wider economic influence.

What was once described as “£1 in every £10” is now widely understood to be £1 in every £5 using the conservative estimate.

Businesses know this, which is why more companies are investing in accessible shops, step-free entrances, captioned content, inclusive customer service and accessible websites.

They’re not doing it out of charity. They’re doing it because disabled customers spend money like everyone else, and if one business isn’t accessible, another one will be.

Accessibility isn’t just good ethics; it’s good business.

A stronger economy is an inclusive one

Economic growth depends on making the best use of people’s skills and talents. Disabled people work across every sector of the economy, while many others volunteer, care for relatives and contribute to their communities in ways that don’t always appear in GDP statistics.

Reducing disability support risks fewer people staying in work, lower consumer spending, reduced tax revenues and greater pressure on already stretched public services.

In other words, cutting disability social security doesn’t simply affect disabled people, it affects employers, local businesses, public services and the wider economy.

Change the debate

The debate shouldn’t be about whether disabled people “cost” the economy. The evidence concludes the opposite.

For example, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) suggests that exclusion reduces growth, while inclusion increases participation, productivity and demand. You can read more about the Productivity-Inclusiveness Nexus here.

Support disabled people

Supporting disabled people enables them to participate, spend, work and contribute. The Purple Pound exists because disabled people are an important part of Britain’s economy, not a burden on it.

If the government is serious about economic growth, cutting the spending power of one of the country’s largest consumer groups seems a curious place to start.

Burnham’s blueprint

As of today, Andy Burnham is the new leader of the Labour Party and the UK Prime Minister. It’s worth bearing in mind that he has increasingly argued for an “inclusive growth” model in which disability, health and employment are treated as central economic issues rather than peripheral costs.

As he arrives in Downing Street, his previous political messaging stands out. He has been clearer on this issue than much of the national debate: you do not grow an economy by sidelining the people who need support to participate in it.

If Britain is serious about growth, productivity and public finances, it will eventually have to settle whether policy treats disabled people as a cost to be contained or as contributors to be enabled. Right now, too much of Westminster still behaves as if it cannot decide.

More from James Waterson

Read James’ recent story about the Tees Valley Combined Authority’s finance chief, Jo Moore, who moved from reassuring councillors she was staying to quitting her role amid secret talks to write off airport and other debts, as revealed in the minutes of its latest Audit and Governance Committee.

Share

On 19 June, a white man attacked five Muslim men outside a mosque in Edinburgh. When arrested, he claimed that he “was protecting the country”. No one was killed, but the incident involved serious injury. Neither the police nor much of the media have mentioned terrorism.

Yet, similar incidents involving non-white knife attackers have been labelled terrorism almost immediately – for example, the recent attack in Golders Green, where two Jewish people and a Muslim man were killed by the same attacker within hours.

I’m an engineer and I value facts and analysis, but comparative data are notoriously difficult to find in the UK. You can’t simply type your question into a reliable AI-enabled search engine and get a trustworthy result, as you can in so many other areas of modern life. This is a subject people don’t like to talk about, and that institutions are reluctant to delve into, at least not in straightforward terms.

The data gap

While the current government has required police forces to reveal the ethnicity of those involved in serious violent crime on request, the recording of ethnicity has been inconsistent, and it is still not mandatory to collect religious details from offenders, who, conceivably, could lie anyway. Regarding terrorist incidents, of the 47% of those charged who disclosed their religious convictions, 67% of convicted terrorists in the UK have claimed to be Muslim.

Of course, Islamic terrorism has dominated the news since the ‘war on terror’, initiated by George W Bush in response to the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre in the US. The British Government under Tony Blair followed the US into its wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, in 2005, London suffered a series of terror incidents in the name of Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terror groups.

I still remember Prime Minister Tony Blair claiming that the UK government’s enthusiastic support for Bush’s ‘war on terror’ had nothing to do with the 7 July attack on London’s public transport system. However, recently, the volume of home-grown white nationalist terrorism has increased significantly, and attacks on Muslim targets in particular have risen sharply. In the year ending March 2025, there were 4,478 hate crimes directed at Muslim targets, compared with 3,700 against Jewish targets.

Who decides what is terrorism?

It is the role of the judiciary to make the legal distinction between terrorist attack and hate crime, however, the police play a major part by indicating their suspicions, often early in the evidence collection process. The legal definition of terrorism leans heavily on connecting the offender to a known terrorist organisation. Given a reluctance of successive governments to label far right groups as terrorist organisations, and the prevalence in the media of a lone-wolf framing of attacks on Muslims, perhaps a systemic bias begins to reveal itself?

In 2011, David Anderson QC investigated the question and he “found no evidence indicating discrimination along those lines”. In my opinion, this is both an interesting finding and an interesting choice of words. Firstly, the evidence is scarcely available, as it’s almost never collected. Regarding the wording: is this not simply another way of saying that we haven’t gathered or recorded the evidence needed to assess this question? I believe it is.

Journalism by the people, for the people

Unbiased. Independent. Honest. This is what Bylines Network is, in the words of the 1000s of supporters who took part in our 2025 survey. We don’t have oligarch owners, corporate controllers or political paymasters – we have a community of 2,500 volunteer writers and editors, and over 350,000 readers. Help power Britain’s biggest citizen journalism movement. Become a member of our Friends of Bylines Network scheme today.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

Institutional bias revisited

Rewind to 1999 and the results of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry in which the Metropolitan Police were found to be institutionally racist. Forward to 2023, when the Met Police were found to be institutionally racist, sexist and homophobic, according to Baroness Casey. What does the phrase “institutionally racist” mean? Don’t ask the current Commissioner of the Met Police, as he won’t use it, suggesting that most of his officers don’t understand what it means. So how can we be sure that the criminal justice system is unbiased? If bias is present, then won’t that bias also show itself in the labelling of terrorist attacks against Muslims?

I am white, male, straight, and solvent. I have it all. But I learnt about my own racial biases back in 1998, when I was filming Black and White for the BBC, undercover in Leeds capturing instances of racial discrimination. So, I no longer question what I once would have tried to equivocate over. I can see the prejudice that runs through UK culture like the word ‘Blackpool’ through a stick of rock.

A licence to look away

At the same time, I also understand, and sympathise with, those of us who, as white British people, don’t easily accept the notion that our institutions are not honest with us, that our press is biased, our police are susceptible to ethnic profiling, and our politicians understand that there are very few national votes available for those who challenge our self-image of ‘playing by the rules’. But for me, when I see almost daily, the evidence of bias, I can no longer ignore it. It’s like a sixth sense, and I can’t look away.

When David Anderson QC made his statement finding no evidence of bias in the application of UK Terrorism Acts, he provided sufficient reassurance to the majority white readership to trigger their confirmation bias and thus dismiss the very idea that our criminal justice system might be biased or, indeed, weighted against the entire non-white community – specifically Muslims.

Whilst not proving anything, and barely saying anything, David Anderson gave us licence to turn away – to park the idea of bias, and move on without making any changes. No need for introspection and no need to muster the energy required for serious reform. And that, sadly, is what most of us are content with – the continuation of a biased system, so long as it doesn’t affect us.

The wider consequences

But there is a cost to racism. McKinsey & Co have forecast a loss of between $1tn and $1.5tn for the US economy over the period 2019 – 2028 due to the wealth gap between white and black US citizens. That’s a 4% – 6% penalty on US GDP – about the same impact that Brexit is currently having in the UK. And that’s without accounting for other costs, such as those relating to criminal justice, mental health, antisocial behaviour, and riots. Isn’t it time for a change?

Share

The first study explored experiences of professionals working with migrants in health, social care, and education. The second explored the experiences of migrants living in the UK, including people building new lives in Wales. Focusing on themes of migration, belonging, and wellbeing, Laura spoke to migrants, sanctuary seekers, and frontline professionals about what support, dignity, and welcome really look like in practice.

First published in Bylines Cymru, Laura’s article presents her research findings and the personal testimonies of those she interviewed, revealing both the challenges of starting again and the difference compassion can make.

For many people seeking safety in Wales, arriving is only the beginning of the journey. Leaving behind home, family, language, work, and familiarity takes enormous courage. But often, that courage does not end when someone reaches safety. It continues every day as people try to rebuild their lives, adjust to a new country, and find a sense of belonging again.

Although both research groups shared different experiences, one message came through strongly across both studies:

“Kindness, dignity, understanding, and human connection can make a life-changing difference”.

Share

Acts of everyday courage

Many migrants spoke about arriving in the UK with fear, uncertainty, stress, and loneliness. Some had left behind loved ones, careers, homes, and communities. Others were trying to recover emotionally after difficult or traumatic experiences before arriving in the UK. Participants described the courage it took to start over in a completely unfamiliar environment. Everyday things many people take for granted, such as understanding services, speaking English confidently, accessing healthcare, finding housing, or navigating unfamiliar systems, often felt overwhelming.

Research shows that migration and adjusting to a new culture can affect emotional wellbeing, particularly when people feel isolated or unsupported (Berry, 1997). This was reflected in many of the experiences shared during the research.

At the same time, many migrants also spoke positively about Wales and the people they encountered here. Participants described moments where they felt welcomed, respected, and supported. Some spoke about teachers, neighbours, charities, healthcare staff, volunteers, and support workers who helped them feel less alone.

Often, the courage to rebuild was strengthened by experiencing somebody else’s compassion. One participant described how finally being listened to properly made them feel human again. Another spoke about how community support helped them slowly rebuild confidence, hope, and trust in the future.

The importance of being understood

Language barriers were discussed frequently in both studies. Migrants described feeling anxious about making mistakes or struggling to explain themselves clearly. Professionals also explained how communication difficulties could sometimes affect trust, confidence, and access to support.

Both groups agreed that patience and understanding made a significant difference. Many remembered the people who slowed down, listened carefully, or made extra effort to help them understand information. These moments may seem small, but they often stayed with people.

Journalism by the people, for the people

Unbiased. Independent. Honest. This is what Bylines Network is, in the words of the 1000s of supporters who took part in our 2025 survey. We don’t have oligarch owners, corporate controllers or political paymasters – we have a community of 2,500 volunteer writers and editors, and over 350,000 readers. Help power Britain’s biggest citizen journalism movement. Become a member of our Friends of Bylines Network scheme today.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

Finding acceptance and belonging

Many migrants described wanting more than practical support. They wanted to feel accepted, included, and part of the communities around them.

Research shows that feeling connected and accepted is important for emotional wellbeing and self-esteem (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Feeling unwelcome or excluded can increase loneliness, anxiety, and stress. Feeling accepted can help people rebuild confidence and begin to feel hopeful again.

Professionals also spoke about the importance of creating services that are culturally sensitive, person-centred, and grounded in dignity. Many recognised that migrants and sanctuary seekers may carry very different life experiences, including trauma, loss, separation from family, and uncertainty about the future.

The findings from both studies show that rebuilding life after migration is not only about housing, paperwork, or employment. It is also about emotional recovery, human connection, dignity, and feeling valued as a person.

A helping hand

This is why organisations such as the Welsh Refugee Council are so important. Their work supports people during some of the most difficult moments in their lives by providing guidance, advocacy, practical help, and opportunities to rebuild safely in Wales. Their vision of creating a Wales where sanctuary seekers and refugees are welcomed, respected, and empowered reflects many of the needs identified within this research.

At a time when conversations around migration can sometimes become negative or divided, it is important to remember the people behind these stories. Many migrants and sanctuary seekers are simply trying to find safety, rebuild their lives, support their families, and create a future where they can belong. That journey requires courage.

The findings from this research show that kindness matters. Feeling heard matters. Feeling respected matters. Sometimes, helping somebody feel welcome is the very first step in helping them begin again.

More from Bylines Cymru

Sian Holleran leads a programme of overseas study, work and training opportunities for staff, learners and apprentices across the Further Education (FE) sector in Wales. In this article she discusses how Wales’s FE colleges are confronting misogyny, harassment and online abuse, revealing the importance international collaboration and practical training supported by a Taith-funded project.

Read the full story here.

Following the popularity of last Friday’s article on solar carports, we bring you another story inspired by the UK’s recent heat wave. One that digs deep into the climate change factors underlying recent temperatures.

Sussex Bylines regular Mick Channon asks why some regarded the 34 degrees experienced in May as a freak one-off, a nice start to the summer. Arguing that, instead, they should raise a vital question for us all – is this what climate change means?

Britain was not built, emotionally or physically, for 34 degrees in any month, let alone May, and beneath the usual jokes about sunscreen and garden hoses sits a quieter unease.

This is air that arrived too early, settled too long and leaves people faintly disoriented, as though our country itself has slipped a few hundred miles south overnight.

Last week parts of the UK exceeded 34 degrees. Even a decade ago that would have sounded improbable. Now it barely survives a news cycle before being replaced by the next record, the next warning, the next satellite image of orange and red spreading across Europe.

Yet Britain is not where the real danger lies. Our discomfort is only the mild outer edge of something much larger already unfolding across the world.

In India this spring temperatures reportedly climbed towards 50 degrees in several regions, while parts of Pakistan and the Gulf experienced heat levels so extreme that scientists increasingly discuss them not simply as uncomfortable, but potentially incompatible with ordinary human life outdoors. The phrase often used is “wet-bulb temperature”, which sounds technical and obscure until you understand what it means.

Wet-bulb temperature

Wet-bulb temperature is essentially a measure of heat-stress conditions. Human beings survive heat largely by sweating. Sweat evaporates, cooling the body. But when heat combines with very high humidity, sweat no longer evaporates effectively. The body loses its ability to cool itself. Internal temperature rises. Organs begin to fail. Death can follow within hours, particularly among the elderly, young children, outdoor labourers and those without access to air-conditioning.

For years scientists believed the upper limit of human survivability sat around a wet-bulb temperature of 35 degrees. More recent studies suggest dangerous stress may occur considerably earlier for many people. In other words, parts of the world may become hazardous before they become technically uninhabitable. That distinction matters.

Climate change is often imagined in cinematic terms: drowned cities, scorched deserts and dramatic collapse. Reality is likely to be slower, quieter and perhaps more unsettling than that. Places do not suddenly become impossible to live in.

They become progressively harder to live in.

Crops fail more often. Electricity grids strain under air-conditioning demand. Water shortages worsen. Outdoor work becomes dangerous for longer periods of the year. Schools close during heatwaves. Insurance costs rise. Hospitals struggle. Wealthier residents quietly move first, leaving poorer populations trapped in worsening conditions. This is already happening in parts of the world now.

The uncomfortable truth is that climate migration may become one of the defining political realities of the next twenty years. Not because hundreds of millions of people will suddenly flood across borders overnight, but because the map of human comfort and economic viability is beginning, slowly, to shift.

Initially most migration will probably be internal. People moving from rural areas into cooler cities, from overheated regions towards coastlines or higher ground. But over time, international pressures will inevitably increase, particularly from regions around the equator and subtropics where heat exposure is projected to intensify most severely.

Journalism by the people, for the people

Unbiased. Independent. Honest. This is what Bylines Network is, in the words of the 1000s of supporters who took part in our 2025 survey. We don’t have oligarch owners, corporate controllers or political paymasters – we have a community of 2,500 volunteer writers and editors, and over 350,000 readers. Help power Britain’s biggest citizen journalism movement. Become a member of our Friends of Bylines Network scheme today.

Become a Friend of Bylines Network

Subscribe now

The migration debate is going to heat up too

And here Britain enters the story in a curious way. Historically we have thought of ourselves as meteorologically dull: grey skies, damp summers and mild winters. Yet in a warming world, northern Europe may become comparatively more liveable than large parts of the tropics. Not untouched. Not comfortable. But safer.

That possibility sits awkwardly beside Britain’s already volatile immigration debate. We currently argue about migration as though it exists entirely within politics and policy: something governments can simply tighten or loosen according to ideology. Climate change complicates that assumption profoundly.

Because migration driven by environmental pressure is different from migration driven primarily by economics or conflict. It is harder to deter people from leaving places where daily life is becoming physically dangerous.

None of this means Britain will suddenly face apocalyptic waves of refugees within a decade. Serious discussion requires calmness as much as urgency. Climate models are projections, not certainties, and human beings are remarkably adaptive. Technology, infrastructure, urban redesign and agricultural innovation may soften some of the worst outcomes. Wealthy nations will cope far better than poorer ones. Air conditioning alone changes survivability dramatically.

Nonetheless, adaptation depends upon money, energy and political stability and many of the regions most vulnerable to extreme heat possess the fewest resources to respond.

Did we think human systems had outgrown nature?

The timeline matters too. Over the next five years Britain will probably experience what we already see beginning now: hotter summers, earlier heatwaves and increasing pressure on infrastructure never designed for sustained heat. By the 2030s, dangerous heat events across South Asia, the Middle East and parts of Africa are likely to become more frequent and politically destabilising. By the 2040s climate migration may move from being a specialist concern discussed in policy papers to an ordinary feature of global politics.

Perhaps the strangest aspect of all this is psychological. For most of modern history we behaved as though geography no longer mattered. Technology insulated us from climate. We built glass towers in deserts and sprawling cities in flood plains. We assumed human systems had outgrown nature.

Climate change is reminding us that civilisation still rests upon very old foundations: water, temperature, food and the limits of the human body.

The future may not arrive as a single catastrophe. It may come instead as a long series of summers that grow gradually harder to endure, until millions of people begin quietly searching for somewhere cooler, safer and more stable to raise their children.

And countries like Britain may discover that the climate crisis is not only about weather, but about movement – the slow rearranging of where human beings can comfortably live on Earth.

More from Sussex Bylines

Ginny Smith reports on Warm Norm and the Green Sock Group – a six-year story of clearing rubbish from the beaches between Eastbourne and Seaford, that is quintessentially English, with a cast of wonderfully eccentric and colourful characters, including a naked litter-picker, a retired Merchant Navy officer, a generous harbourmaster, and six hundred volunteers.

Read the full story here.

Share