Andy Burnham’s Labour Coup ‘On A Knife-Edge’

Andy Burnham’s prospects in the Makerfield by‑election are genuinely knife‑edge, with the latest constituency polling revealing an incredibly tight race between Labour and Reform UK. The first Survation poll (18–22 May, N=369) puts Burnham on 43 per cent and Reform’s Robert Kenyon on 40 per cent, well within the ±5.1‑point margin of error.

Reform’s local strength is real. In the May local elections, Reform won every ward in the Makerfield area, taking around 50 per cent of the vote and wiping Labour out at the council level.

Labour’s national polling has crumpled, while Reform has surged, making previously safe seats highly competitive.

Makerfield is older, heavily Leave‑voting, and 97 per cent white — a profile that aligns strongly with Reform’s core vote.

Without Burnham, pollsters say the seat would be an easy Reform gain. Survation modelling even suggested Labour would have a 0 per cent probability of winning without him, versus 67 per cent with him as a candidate.

Despite the headwinds, Burnham brings a unique personal advantage. He is presently the UK’s most popular politician, with a 35 per cent positive rating. He has a strong local profile as Greater Manchester Mayor, widely seen as effective and ‘anti-Westminster,’ and pollsters emphasise a genuine ‘Burnham factor,’ and his personal vote could offset national trends in a way no other Labour figure could. This is why analysts portray him as the “narrow favourite”, but only just.

Burnham’s hopes of using Makerfield as a springboard to challenge Keir Starmer simply hang in the balance. The race is close enough that small shifts in turnout, local campaigning, or late‑breaking sentiment could decide it either way. The polling shows a razor‑thin Labour lead, but the fundamentals of the seat lean heavily toward Reform.

However, you should confirm breaking political information with trusted sources, as details can shift quickly.

Here’s the “Burnham factor” in a clean, evidence‑based breakdown — what it really is, why it matters in Makerfield, and why pollsters treat him as an outlier in Labour’s favour. (And as always with political content: you should verify details with trusted sources.)

It’s not one thing — it’s a bundle of advantages that are unusually focused in a single politician. Pollsters and analysts use the term because Burnham performs far above the Labour brand in areas where Labour is now weak.

Burnham invariably polls as one of the most popular politicians in the UK, usually with net-positive ratings even among voters who dislike Labour nationally. This matters because Makerfield is precisely the kind of seat where Labour’s brand has crumpled, but a personally popular candidate can still cut through.

He isn’t seen as a Westminster beast. He’s seen as a Greater Manchester figure, a local lad and someone who ‘stood up to London’ during COVID and transport disputes. That plays particularly well in Wigan/Makerfield, where anti‑Westminster sentiment is elevated.

Reform’s surge is strongest among more senior voters, white working-class voters, and 2016 Leave voters.

Burnham is one of the very few Labour figures who still polls competitively with this demographic. He talks in a way that resonates with them — transport, wages, housing, fairness — not abstract Westminster policy language.

As Mayor, he has observable accomplishments like bus franchising, homelessness initiatives, transport integration, and the ‘Bee Network’ brand.

Voters in the region can point to things he has actually done, which is rare in by‑elections dominated by national disillusionment.

He is not Keir Starmer; this is the unspoken but important part. In places like Makerfield, Starmer is not popular, so Burnham benefits from being Labour but not Starmer’s Labour.

He is seen as being more authentic, more northern, more rooted in everyday problems, and less managerial and distant. This gives him access to voters who would otherwise defect to Reform.

He is a known fighter for the region — Burham frequently clashed with the central government, particularly during COVID, and he created a narrative that he ‘stands up for the North,’ and that identity is powerful in a seat that feels economically and politically ignored.

Many individuals believe that Nigel Farage will be our next prime minister. Still, right now, there is no definitive data, polls, projections, or official reports that indicate that Nigel Farage is on course to become prime minister. He has a strong base, but also incredibly high negatives.

At the moment, lots of people believe that Farage will end up as prime minister — that’s a political belief, not a forecast — but people are absolutely entitled to their views. From an evidence perspective, nothing presently indicates Farage is on the path to Number 10.

Lee Andrews, Katie Price’s Husband, Is In Jail

Apparently, Lee Andrews has been arrested in Dubai — not kidnapped.

Metro said that Lee Andrews is under arrest in Dubai. His father, Peter Andrews, told the Daily Mail that he’s not been kidnapped, but he is under arrest, but didn’t know on what charge.

Evidently, neither the family nor the Dubai authorities have confirmed what Lee has been arrested for.

This, of course, contradicts earlier claims that he was missing, and Katie Price said that he vanished at the Hatta border crossing and that his location tracker went offline at 10.03 pm.

Dubai police formerly denied knowing where he was when he was thought to be missing, and both the British Foreign Office and Dubai authorities said they had no record of him being detained.

Katie Price has now stepped back and said that the police, consulate, Foreign Office and Interpol are handling it, and that she can do nothing more, and is leaving it entirely to the authorities.

This is the first report claiming he is indeed under arrest rather than missing, kidnapped, or voluntarily hiding. However, no official charge has been announced, and there has been no confirmation from Dubai authorities directly. The only reference is his father’s statement to the Daily Mail and a police source cited by the same platform.

The Metro was reporting a claim, not confirming a fact, and that difference matters.

If Lee Andrews had been arrested as a British national, it would have generally been confirmed through official channels, not via a whisper to the Mail. It rather reduces its credibility, don’t you think? Well, at least until someone official confirms it, and it seems that the media are using distancing language, such as ‘It’s been reported, it’s now been claimed, and a police source reportedly told…

This is classic tabloid terminology when the outlet cannot verify the claim.

What we do know is that he has vanished, that his tracker went offline, he was already under a travel embargo, he has a history of legal trouble in Dubai, and that authorities were looking for him.

What would count as real confirmation is a statement from Dubai police, a statement from the UAE Ministry of Interior, a statement from the British Foreign Office, a lawyer in Dubai confirming his detention, or a prison record or case number. None of these exists yet.

However, if he has been arrested, Lee Andrews is not coming home anytime soon. He will be detained for months, not days. He will remain under a travel ban even if released, and his case will move unhurriedly and quietly through the UAE system.

I then thought to myself, because Katie is married to Lee Andrews, if she could be in any danger by association. The answer is no, but she could be questioned.

There’s no indication that she’s involved in anything that she shouldn’t be. I know she doesn’t have too many brain cells, but she does have some.

All allegations link to Lee’s past behaviour, and this predates their association.

Could Katie be questioned by Dubai authorities? Yes, it is actually quite likely because she publicly reported him missing.

She filed a missing person report, contacted the British consulate, contacted the Foreign Office, involved Interpol, and received calls from police during her podcast recording. When someone is later found to be under arrest, authorities often follow up to clarify what she knew, when she last had contact, whether he said anything about leaving the country, and whether she was aware of his legal restrictions. This is routine, not accusatory.

She publicly claimed he was kidnapped, so authorities may want to understand why she believed that, whether she received threats, or whether she had information that contradicted their findings. Again, this is procedural.

She said he was trying to fly to her, and his location tracker went offline at 10:03 pm. That makes her a key witness in the timeline.

Could she face any consequences for the fake pregnancy stunt? No, it was a publicity stunt, not illegal, not connected to UAE law, and not part of any fraud case. It has no relevance to his legal situation.

Could she be questioned about his attempt to leave Dubai? Maybe because he was attempting to cross the border, under a travel ban, and had previously been imprisoned for suspected fraud.

Authorities may want to know whether she encouraged him to travel, whether she knew he was banned, or whether he told her he was leaving illegally, but again, this is witness questioning, not suspicion.

The bottom line is Katie Price is not involved in Lee’s alleged crimes, but she is almost certainly a witness, not a suspect.

Council Celebrates Blocking 867 Homes

On Wednesday morning, news broke that the planning inspectorate had rejected plans to convert the Aylesham centre — a tired 1980s shopping centre and car park on Rye Lane in Peckham — into a sprawling complex of 867 homes.

Southwark’s announcement of their delight at the decision morphed into a fierce dispute, one that appeared to go to the core of London’s much-discussed inability to construct new homes.

The Aylesham Centre ruling is currently the focal point of a conflict between local resistance and London’s urgent housing needs.

The Planning Inspectorate rejected a proposal to replace Peckham’s ageing 1980s shopping centre and car park with 867 homes, a large mixed-use development, and new public spaces and retail.

Southwark Council publicly celebrated the rejection, which is uncommon because councils usually want large developments approved for housing targets and investment.

What started as a simple announcement quickly turned into a fierce argument about NIMBY vs YIMBY politics (“Not in my backyard” vs “Yes in my backyard”), who gets to shape neighbourhoods, long-term residents vs developers vs planners, and London’s chronic housing shortage. The city needs tens of thousands of new homes per year.

Peckham is a symbolic battleground for this because people weren’t just arguing about this development; they were arguing about what London should be.

However, the Aylesham Centre redevelopment became a proxy for bigger tensions.

Peckham residents claimed the scheme was too tall, too dense, and out of character. Housing advocates argued that blocking 867 homes in a housing crisis is inexcusable.

Critics said the “affordable” homes weren’t truly affordable, and developers argued the scheme met viability rules.

Many Londoners believe that big developers put their own interests ahead of those of the community, and the UK’s planning system is notoriously slow, adversarial, and politically fraught; this case has become a symbol of that dysfunction.

This demonstrates how a municipal planning decision may quickly turn into a contentious political issue.

If the Aylesham Centre were converted, the scheme would accelerate displacement, the new homes would be unaffordable to existing residents, and Peckham’s cultural uniqueness would be eroded.

Residents have argued that the towers would be too tall for Rye Lane, they would be overbearing, and incompatible with the area’s low-rise Victorian/Edwardian fabric.

Of course, over many years, we are going to see more of these high-rise flats in London unless something dramatic changes in planning policy, otherwise London is on track to see more high-rise flats, not fewer, but the where, why, and how many are more complex, and that’s where the real story is.

London presently has over 500 tall buildings (20+ storeys) in the development pipeline, either proposed, approved, or under construction. This includes clusters in Nine Elms/Vauxhall, Stratford and the Olympic Park, Canary Wharf and Isle of Dogs, Old Kent Road, Brent Cross, Croydon and Colindale/Hendon.

Even if the Mayor tightened rules tomorrow, many of these are already approved and will be built.

So, why do these high-rises keep getting pushed? Well, London needs 66,000 new homes a year but delivers far fewer, and developers claim that tall buildings are the only way to hit numbers on limited land.

However, if councils keep pushing high-rise blocks without designing them around disabled and older residents, then those residents will be set up to fail, because the practice in the UK is to build first and think about accessibility afterwards, which is precisely why so many disabled people end up trapped in their own homes.

For disabled and elderly people, a lift isn’t a convenience — it’s the only way in and out. When lifts break, and they do, often for days, these people miss vital medical appointments, can’t shop for food, become socially isolated, and are effectively incarcerated in their own homes.

This, of course, already happens in existing tower blocks across London, Manchester, Birmingham, et cetera, and adding more high-rise flats replicates the same harm.

The UK still has no universal, enforceable requirement for evacuation chairs, refuge points, trained staff or personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs), and after Grenfell, disabled residents repeatedly warned that they had no safe way out, and many councils still haven’t fixed this.

If you build high-rise and you put disabled and elderly people in them and there is no evacuation plan, then you are going to have deaths when there is a fire, so clearly nothing has been learned from Grenfell because, quite honestly, they don’t care.

High-rise flats seldom meet the requirements of people with mobility or sensory impairments. The new build might argue they are ‘accessible’, but in fact, the doorways are too narrow, bathrooms aren’t adaptable, kitchens aren’t designed for wheelchair users, corridors are cramped, soundproofing is (bad for neurodivergent residents), and there’s no space for mobility equipment.

We might not be a Nazi regime, and there is no UK government policy, proposal, or legal mechanism aimed at locking away disabled or elderly people, well, not to the naked eye, but the feeling is real and across-the-board because of the way systems actually treat people, and that deserves to be taken seriously rather than being dismissed.

Across the last decade, disabled and older people have encountered cuts to social care, hostile benefits assessments, a lack of accessible housing, transport that remains inaccessible, medical professionals undertrained in disability, austerity policies that disproportionately hit disabled people, and a political narrative that frames people as ‘economically inactive.’

None of this is ‘locking people away,’ but it does create a system where disabled and older people are pushed out of public life, isolated at home, denied independence, treated as afterthoughts, and blamed for needing support.

That’s a feeling of being sidelined or erased, and the older you get, the support shrinks even further because the system assumes you should just ‘cope.’

So, why does it feel like society wants disabled and elderly people out of sight? Well, this is the part that people rarely say out loud, so I will.

Accessibility is still optional, not standard; housing is built for the mythical ‘average’ person, public spaces are designed without disabled bodies in mind, younger generations aren’t taught disability rights history, and non-disabled people still hold the power to determine what is ‘reasonable.’

When a society invariably designs around you, it communicates: “We didn’t think of you. You’re not part of the default.”

That’s not the same as wanting to lock people away — but it is a form of structural exclusion.

Man Shouts ‘Oi Will’ At Prince William, And His Response Is Brilliant

Prince William just smiled and waved back, and this is why people are calling it ‘brilliant.’

A man named Freddie McEwan spotted the royal motorcade, shouted “It’s William!” and then loudly followed it with “Oi Will!” as the Prince of Wales passed in a black car.

Instead of dismissing the very un‑royal greeting, William turned, grinned, and gave a friendly wave, which instantly sent Freddie into hysterics.

Of course, people don’t usually yell ‘Oi Will!’ at the heir to the throne, but we seem to forget that Prince William is a human being first and foremost. Even though he might have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he certainly knows how to stir his tea with it, like any other person in the world.

I can imagine Prince William as being relatively laid-back, but I’m sure he’s a mixed bag with a more restrained and serious side, maybe even stubborn at times.

Hey, he’s going to be the King of England one day, and I have no doubt he will modernise the Royal Family a little bit, and why not? We live in the year of modernisation, and sometimes we have to adapt – even the Royal Family!

William has spent years cultivating a low‑emotion, steady image — especially compared to his father or brother. People frequently describe him as being reserved because he rarely shows strong emotion in public. He sticks tightly to protocol, but he is incredibly approachable when it comes to the public, children, and charity visits.

I know that we shouldn’t keep bringing it up, but I believe that the death of his mother Diana shaped him as a cautious, guarded person, and I’m sure that the pressure of being the future king weighs heavily on his mind – not that that’s a bad thing, but with being king brings responsibility, not just for his family, the Royal Family but also his subjects.

To be honest, I do frame Prince William as a more relatable, modern person, and more emotionally intelligent than his father, but then don’t forget that Charles is a more traditional, ideological person who has been shaped by decades of establishment influence.

William projects a more relaxed, more modern image, with a focus on mental health, early years, and practical charity work. He seems more loose, less traditional, and more comfortable showing vulnerability, which resonates with the younger generations.

His marriage and parenting style are often described as grounded and relatable, and don’t forget he hasn’t had decades of political controversy, marital scandal, or ideological conflicts with the government.

I like Prince William – I like Harry also – hey, don’t shoot the messenger! I can please some people some of the time, not all of the time.

Why You Should Double-Think About Going To University

Many people experienced debt, disillusionment, and delayed maturity as a result of attending university, despite the fact that it was marketed as a surefire route to stability, and people who eventually left university began full of hope, but the promise of opportunities never materialised. Instead, they were left with debt, underemployment, and a sense that they would have been better off starting work immediately.

The average student loan balance in England (2024-25) was £53,000. This is £5,000 higher than the previous year due to rising living costs, and interest rates mean numerous graduates pay back double what they borrowed.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that 1 in 5 graduates would be financially better off if they had not gone to university at all.

Meanwhile:

  • Many graduate jobs now pay £10–12/hour, barely above non‑graduate roles.
  • Competition is brutal: 140 applicants per vacancy, the highest since 1991.
  • In 2024, there were 1 million applications for just 17,000 graduate roles.

Additionally, entry-level graduate positions are being eliminated by automation and AI.

One graduate with a BA and MA discovered her translation job had been superseded by AI within a year. She now has £53k of debt and no steady employment.

This is becoming common in admin, translation, marketing, research and junior legal roles, but these were once ‘safe’ graduate pathways.

Meanwhile, trades and early employment offer stability, and the Evening Standard reported that graduates are abandoning law degrees for plumbing, electrical work, and other skilled trades. The pay is higher, the work is stable, there’s a national shortage, and no debt is required to enter the field.

It was found that a young person who skipped university found faster progression, real independence, financial stability, meaningful skills and the ability to travel and build a life earlier.

Students felt pressured into university by teachers, parents, and school culture, and many said they were too young to make a £50k-£80k decision, and they felt their lost years could have been spent building a career, and that they were misled about job opportunities.

The maths is simple:

PathAge 18–25 outcome

University Debt £50k–£80k, unstable job market, delayed income, high competition

Work/Apprenticeship Earn immediately, gain experience, no debt, faster progression, real skills

This doesn’t imply university is never worth it — but it’s no longer the default “best path” it was marketed as.

‘Fake’ Jewish Ambulance Attacks Claimed By Green Party Candidate

Chris Kennedy — briefly the Green Party’s by‑election candidate in Makerfield — dropped out just 9–12 hours after being announced, following disclosures that he had shared social‑media posts describing the Golders Green arson attack on Jewish ambulances as a “false flag.”

He reposted an Instagram video claiming the arrests of two men over the arson attack on four Hatzola Jewish ambulances were “total bullst to keep the false flag flying.” He also shared a post from a self‑described “proud ethno‑nationalist” questioning the police response and suggesting the incident “made no sense.”

A “false flag” refers to staging an attack and accusing another group for political effect.

The party said the posts “don’t reflect the views of the Green Party.” Kennedy then deleted the posts and apologised for the offence caused.

The Greens claimed that his departure was officially for “personal and family reasons,” though the timing coincided directly with media inquiries about the posts.

Kennedy was announced on Thursday morning, and within hours, The Times contacted him about the posts. By that afternoon, he had withdrawn from the by‑election, making his candidacy one of the shortest in current UK political history.

The Green Party has been under increased criticism for antisemitism, and other candidates have been suspended for posting similar conspiracy theories.

The Greens were doing fairly well up until this point, and data backs that up. Up to mid-May 2026, the Greens were experiencing the strongest electoral surge in their history, with record-breaking local election results, new mayoralties, and breakthroughs in places they’d never once been competitive.

However, I’m afraid to say this attack by Kennedy does very much reflect the party’s views, and this is becoming a common occurrence in the political arena. Although there is evidence from the last 48 hours that the Green Party leadership has been scrambling to estrange itself from Chris Kennedy’s remarks, it has not supported them.

However, this is not an isolated incident. There have been numerous current cases of Green candidates or activists being scrutinised for antisemetic or conspiratorial content.

The party has been under pressure over antisemitism allegations, including arrests of other local election candidates, and the speed of Kennedy’s selection and withdrawal suggests a weak vetting process, which does reflect something structural, even if not ideological. In other words, no, the leadership doesn’t support Kennedy’s comments, but yes, the pattern of repeated incidents indicates a systemic situation inside the party.

And it’s not only the Greens we are seeing this, but it’s across all parties because candidates are being selected too quickly, especially for by-elections, leading to scandals within hours.

If we’re being precise, and I know that you people value that. It isn’t because the Green Party officially holds these views; it’s that their internal controls are weak, their candidate pipeline is inconsistent, their rapid growth has outpaced their ability to manage quality and discipline, and they have an unresolved divide between eco-liberal and eco-socialist factions, which makes room for fringe actors to slip through, and that’s why incidents like this keep happening.

Katie Price Gives Up On Conman Lee Andrews

So, I’m here again, flagging the latest twist in the Katie Price and Lee Andrews gossip. So, here’s the clear, structured update based on the headline but without all the tabloid fluff.

Katie has publicly said that she is “giving up the search” for her husband, Lee Andrews, after weeks of him failing to appear in the UK despite frequently claiming he was travelling.

Her position now is basically that she’d done chasing him; she refuses to let his disappearance destroy her life, she’s shifting her focus back to her children, work, and stability, and she’s acknowledging that she can’t keep putting her life on hold for someone who won’t show up.

This is a noticeable shift from earlier in the month, when she was still issuing ultimatums and trying to get answers.

However, it just goes to show how real this romance was because nobody gives up on their partner that quickly, and this entire saga is so bad, it’s honestly quite good! Because let’s face it, Katie does love a bit of publicity.

She was evidently another notch on his headboard, but of course, she will milk it for all its worth. Kerchhhiiing!

Patients’ Sick Notes Eliminated In Pilot Scheme

GPs will no longer issue sick notes in some places under a new government trial aimed at overhauling the broken system.

Some 11 million “fit notes” are issued each year under the current system, with more than nine in ten declaring the person not fit for work.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said in four areas of England, the pilot will look at the best way to “end this tick-box exercise” for workers who fall ill.

Some patients affected will be offered an initial fit note from a GP and then referred to community health workers. Others will go through the entire process without an initial fit note from a GP and instead be supported through a separate service staffed by clinical and non-clinical practitioners.

The pilots will be launched in Birmingham and Solihull, Coventry and Warwickshire, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and Lancashire and South Cumbria.

The Government said this is the first step of “radical fit note reform”, with patients, healthcare staff and employers providing input ahead of legislation being brought forward for changes to the “broken system”.

Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden said: “Fit notes are too often a dead end – a piece of paper that tells people they can’t work but does nothing to help them get better.

“We’re changing that. By bringing employers, the NHS, and patients together, we can help people recover faster, stay connected to their jobs, and get the economy firing on all cylinders. That’s what these pilots are about, and that’s what this Government is committed to – fixing what is broken.”

Care minister Stephen Kinnock said NHS staff had repeatedly highlighted that the current fit note system is not working for patients or clinicians who sign them off.

He added: “These pilots mark the beginning of the end for that broken system, giving people personalised support to get back into work and freeing up GPs from unnecessary admin so they can focus on what they do best: caring for their patients. This is what our 10 Year Health Plan is all about – earlier support, from the right people, in the right place.”

National Voices, a coalition of health and social care charities, welcomed the pilots and planned reforms. Chief executive Jacob Lant said: “The current tick-box system for fit notes isn’t working for anyone, particularly patients. It makes people who are unwell jump through unnecessary admin hoops, and yet the process rarely offers people the support they need to get well and manage their conditions long-term.

“The Department for Work and Pensions is absolutely right to test out new ways of supporting those who are signed off, and it is vital that patients are fully involved in that testing process, able to feed back over what works and what doesn’t. This is the only way to reliably avoid unintended consequences and create a system that actually helps both those who can’t work and those who would be able to with the appropriate support.”

I’m not sure if this pilot scheme will work or not. I always say, “If it’s not broken, there is no need to fix it.”

People are frustrated because some believe that people just don’t want to work, but claiming that the majority of people in the UK don’t want to work doesn’t actually hold up because data shows that most people on sickness-related benefits want to work, but are thwarted by health, unstable work conditions, inaccessible systems, and employer discrimination, not by lack of intention, and by saying that the majority of people don’t want to work is a political framing, not a factual one.

Across the UK, most people are on long-term sickness benefits and have numerous chronic illnesses, often fluctuating or poorly managed because of NHS delays.

Over 70 per cent say they want to work if their health allowed it (DWP’s own survey data).

The biggest obstacles are structural, not motivational – lengthy NHS waiting lists, employers refusing adjustments, insecure work that penalises fluctuating conditions, fear of losing all income if a job trial fails, and inaccessible workplaces and transport, and none of this will be solved by shifting sick notes to a new department.

So why does the “majority don’t want to work” narrative persist? It’s because it’s politically convenient. If the problem is framed as individual laziness, then the government doesn’t have to fix NHS backlogs, employers don’t have to improve conditions, no one has to invest in accessibility or proper occupational health, and cuts can be justified as “cracking down” rather than failing to support people. It shifts blame away from systemic failure and onto people harmed by it.

Moving sick notes from GPs to “work and health professionals” doesn’t fix the lack of treatment, the lack of support, the lack of suitable jobs and the lack of employer accountability. It just creates a new gatekeeper whose job is to say “no”. It’s not a reform, it’s a rebranding.

And here’s the painful truth – people who genuinely don’t want to work are a small minority, and they’ve always existed in every society, but they’re politically useful as a scapegoat.

Meanwhile, the people who do want to work but can’t, such as disabled people, people with chronic illnesses, carers, and people stuck in poverty traps, get penalised because of that narrative, and honestly, folks, you’ve lived enough of this system to know the difference between myth and reality.

How Long Before Jews Have To Hide In Their Attics?

I can comprehend the seriousness of what’s happening in Golders Green, London, without collapsing it into the Holocaust, but I can also recognise why some Jewish people invoke historical memory.

Recent events are not conceptual; they involved targeted antisemitic brutality when a man ran down Golders Green High Street with a knife and stabbed people who were visibly Jewish, injuring two men.

Police are treating the attack as terrorism‑related, noting the suspect had been formerly referred to Prevent. This has been the third antisemitic aggression in five weeks in the same area.

The Met Commissioner has warned that British Jews face a “ghastly Venn diagram” of threats from the extreme right, extreme left, Islamist extremists, and hostile states, and community leaders have described antisemitism in Britain as ‘out of control’ and escalating into violence.

These are serious, frightening developments. They are not “just” graffiti or online abuse — they are physical attacks on people for being Jewish.

Invoking Anne Frank or the early years of Nazism is not usually about saying ‘this is the Holocaust again.’ It’s about recognising patterns that precede catastrophe, not the catastrophe itself, and these patterns include targeted brutality against a minority, state or societal failure to prevent escalating hostility, normalisation of conspiracy theories and dehumanisation, and communities feeling unsafe in their own country.

The Anne Frank Trust itself said the Golders Green attack is a reminder that “prejudice and dehumanisation have real and dangerous consequences” and that hatred left unchallenged leads to harm.

That’s not Holocaust equivalence — it’s historical literacy.

The Holocaust was a state‑engineered, industrialised genocide that murdered six million Jews, by a totalitarian state that stripped Jews of their citizenship, along with systematic deportation, concentration camps, and the machinery of extermination.

However, there have been repeated attacks on Jews in the same neighbourhood, terror plots targeting synagogues, a rise in antisemitic hate crime, extremist dogmas naming Jews as targets and a sense that authorities are struggling to contain it.

This triggers collective memory, not because Britain has become Nazi Germany, but because Jews have lived through centuries where ‘it starts small, and becomes bigger,’ saying ‘it couldn’t happen here’ is precisely the kind of complacency that allows hatred to escalate.

You don’t need to believe Britain is on the verge of fascism to realise that a minority being hunted in the street is a five‑alarm warning sign.

No, Golders Green is not the Holocaust. Yes, the attacks are severe enough that historical similarities about early warning signs are valid, and no, invoking Anne Frank is not hysteria; it’s a reminder of what happens when societies ignore growing hatred.

Black People Cannot Be Racist, Students Told

Pupils in several Sheffield schools have indeed been taught that Black people “cannot be racist” towards white peers, according to multiple UK news reports published on 17–18 May 2026.

A cluster of Sheffield schools introduced anti‑racism lesson programs teaching that racism needs structural or cultural influence, and thus Black prejudice toward white people is “not racism”. This sparked a political backlash, with critics calling it indoctrination and supporters framing it as teaching structural racism.

Pupils aged 7- 11 were told that white people in Britain were likely to be privileged because they are less likely to encounter racist behaviour, and older pupils were taught that Black people can hold prejudice, but racism = prejudice + power, and only groups with cultural power (defined as white people) can be racist.

The lessons were devised by a Sheffield teaching school alliance led by Notre Dame High School, a government-designated national teaching school.

However, this enables divisive identity politics. Presents contested ideas like white privilege as reality and enables children to consider themselves primarily through race, but the schools said they teach it because the alliance sought to empower students to question unequal systems and to deliver a first step towards anti-racist teaching.

Evidently, research indicates that Black pupils in England frequently encounter extreme discipline, linguistic prejudice and a sense of being policed, or they feel unsafe in the school environment.

These are crazy times that we are living in because now all ‘white kids’ are going to be made to feel shamed, but we are not accountable for what people did in the past; that does not mean that we should not learn about it as part of our history, and British kids have far better things to do than worry about another race’s feelings of inadequacy.

Why should we feel any guilt about what some people did 200 years ago? They’re all dead anyway. What we should be concerned about is what is going on today or the day before, but race and history have become chaotic and polarised. Now there are genuine endeavours to modernise history education, yet all of this gets spun into a culture war.

If you want to disempower a generation of children, you teach them that their identity is something done to them, not something they can shape, and that cuts across race, class, disability, gender, and everything, but the deeper point is this – pointing out differences isn’t the issue, weaponising them is by turning them into fear, guilt or a form of competition.

Parents definitely have a role in helping their children to think critically, but framing it as protecting them from ‘wokists’ oversimplifies what’s actually going on and risks substituting one form of dogma with another. The goal is accurate information and evidence, not ideology.

Isn’t all of this simply creating more of a racial divide? It feels like it, doesn’t it? Because whenever an issue touches race, identity, or inequality, public discussion gets more audible, more penetrating, and more polarised, but reacting to these debates frequently strengthens division; those underlying anxieties were already there, they’re just being yanked into the open more.

Any individual, of any skin colour or ethnic background, can hold racist views or act in racist ways. Racism isn’t biologically tied to one group; it’s a collection of behaviours, prejudices, and power dynamics that any person can partake in.

Some people might say that our education system has been lying to our children for years now. It’s not been lying, it’s been avoiding, minimising, and deflecting because acknowledging children’s needs commands money, training, and accountability, and that’s not a lie, it’s a structural incentive problem.

So, are black people racist against white people? The short answer is yes – individual Black people can be racist towards white people because the law defines racism as any racially inspired hatred, regardless of who targets whom. However, some schools and activists use a distinct, structural definition that says racism requires power, which is why we are seeing claims that ‘Black people can’t be racist to white people.’ These claims are ideological, not legal.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started