UK Politics

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/41958593

Add yours here: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/forms/name-our-storms-call-for-names

thanks Mike Taylor for the inspiration

A recent column published by The Times newspaper, co-authored by right-wing British historian Niall Ferguson and Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, titled, Israel Has Done Most of the Job, Now Trump Can Finish It, has ignited widespread outrage across social media platforms.

The article, originally published in one of Britain's oldest newspapers, calls for US President Donald Trump to escalate military action against Iran in the wake of Israel’s recent operations.

The decision to platform Gallant, who is currently wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, has drawn sharp criticism.

Britain's public broadcaster said it would broadcast Gaza: Medics Under Fire after the review into the earlier documentary was concluded. But on Friday, the BBC announced it would not air the film.

"We have come to the conclusion that broadcasting this material risked creating a perception of partiality that would not meet the high standards that the public rightly expect of the BBC," the broadcaster said in a statement.

The CfMM report, published this week, examined more than 35,000 pieces of BBC content related to Israel’s war on Gaza between 7 October 2023 and 6 October 2024.

The BBC used the word “massacre” 18 times more often to describe Israeli deaths than Palestinian ones. It offered almost equal numbers of victim profiles for both populations - even though a vastly higher number of Palestinians have been killed. This is not a neutral editorial choice; it is a devaluation of Palestinian lives.

And it doesn’t stop there. Palestinian guests on BBC programmes were routinely interrogated, interrupted, and pushed to condemn Hamas - as if that were the price of being allowed to speak. Israeli spokespeople, many of whom defended war crimes on air, were treated with deference. Not one Israeli guest was asked to condemn the deliberate bombing of hospitals, refugee camps or schools - despite mountains of evidence and international outrage.

The asymmetry extends to reporting on hostages and prisoners. Israeli hostages were the subject of intense coverage, complete with emotional interviews, wall-to-wall updates, and sombre, humanising details. Palestinian prisoners - thousands of whom have been held without charge or trial - barely registered.

Even in cases of prisoner exchanges, BBC coverage focused almost exclusively on Israeli returnees. Who were the Palestinian prisoners? How long had they been imprisoned? Were they tortured, abused, or denied due process? These questions were largely left unasked and unanswered.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/31954865

By MEE staff Published date: 18 June 2025 16:58 BST

"The poll also found that nearly two thirds of Britons (65 percent) want the UK to implement the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he were to visit the UK."

According to the NGOs, the findings show “growing public pressure for legal accountability and a decisive government response”.

I really hate capitalism

Conservative shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel has called on the UK government to back the US if it attacks Iran

Fuck off Priti Patel!

It's pulling the headline above but when I tap through it shows

MP once on benefits calls cuts 'brutal' - but colleague says 'moral' case for reform

Britain’s Nuclear Programme: Big Money, Little Clarity When it comes to nuclear weapons, images of secretive facilities, cutting-edge technology, and colossal budgets spring to mind. And Britain? It’s a major player in Europe. But behind the grand talk of "national security," there’s often a murky web—especially when big names like Rolls-Royce get involved.

Rolls-Royce isn’t just about luxury cars—it’s a key contractor in Britain’s nuclear programme, designing and maintaining the Dreadnought-class submarines that carry nuclear missiles. It sounds straightforward: complex tech, long-term projects, massive costs. But transparency? That’s where things get dodgy.

In 2022, the Ministry of Defence signed a contract with Rolls-Royce worth over £2 billion to develop new reactors for these submarines. Here’s the catch: independent auditors were denied full access to cost breakdowns. The projects are funnelled through a maze of subsidiaries and subcontractors, lost in an accounting fog.

The result? It’s nearly impossible to track where taxpayers’ money is actually going. Experts and journalists have sounded the alarm: these "opaque" setups are a playground for those looking to milk the budget with little accountability.

While the government bangs on about protecting the nation, the public is left wondering: Are we safeguarding citizens—or someone’s business interests?

In recent years, a clear trend has emerged: nuclear-armed states are increasingly relying on private companies and quasi-governmental entities to obscure the true scale of funding for their strategic deterrence programs. This practice allows them to avoid public scrutiny of military spending and, in some cases, channel state funds through complex financial schemes. Such mechanisms are actively employed in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, where the nuclear-industrial complex is deeply embedded in the corporate economy.

In the UK, for instance, Rolls-Royce secured a multi-billion-pound contract to support nuclear submarines and develop next-generation reactors. Despite its civilian profile, a significant portion of the company’s revenue comes from classified military contracts. Similar tactics are used in the US, where corporations like Lockheed Martin and Bechtel regularly win contracts from the Department of Energy to maintain nuclear infrastructure—often through the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). This creates fertile ground for financial manipulation, with sums far exceeding market rates being written off under the guise of technical maintenance, raising legitimate concerns among independent auditors and civil society groups.