Bring back the death penalty says 30p Lee Anderson

Bring back the death penalty says 30p Lee Anderson

Feb 13, 2023 | Bylines, News

With our human rights already under threat, it’s difficult to trust a leader who believes Lee Anderson is the answer to any question, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

Newly elevated deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, Lee Anderson, is no stranger to controversy. Whether he’s picking a fight with Steve (Mr Stop Brexit) Bray, suggesting food bank users have a “budgeting problem”, or using a friend to pose as a swing-voter on camera, Anderson is a dab hand at stirring up trouble. And he seems to rather enjoy it.

Anderson was promoted in Rishi Sunak’s recent reshuffle, leaving many surprised, if not astounded, by the prime minister’s decision. With Sunak’s credibility already being questioned, Anderson’s advancement only raised more doubt about the prime minister’s judgement. Perhaps, considering Anderson’s latest comments regarding the death penalty, Sunak himself is now having second thoughts about the wisdom of his decision. If he isn’t, he certainly should be.

 

“100% success rate”

In an interview with The Spectator, Anderson expressed his support for the reintroduction of the death penalty by saying that “nobody has ever committed a crime after being executed”, describing it as a “100% success rate”. His comments forced the prime minister to note that neither he, nor the government, shared Anderson’s view and a return of the death penalty was not government policy.

Anderson went on to say that “certain groups” (presumably left-wing wokerati types) would complain that “you can never prove it”. He suggested that video evidence was strong enough proof to warrant an execution. It was an argument that fell apart on the appearance of a doctored video of Anderson himself confessing to a crime on social media, proving how easily video ‘evidence’ can be manipulated.

 

It’s the ‘will of the people’

Fellow Conservative MP and death penalty supporter, Scott Benton, was quick to defend Anderson’s stance, by suggesting that it was a policy “supported by a majority of the public”, as well as many of his Blackpool South constituents. Not only were the “liberal elites”, the media and Twitter “detached from the public” but any outcry was an example of the “usual leftie hysteria”.

 

Whilst I can’t speak for Benton’s constituents, it is certainly not true that the majority of the British public are in favour of the death penalty. In a recent YouGov poll, only 14% of Britons showed strong support for the death penalty, with a further 26% tending to support, making a total of 40%. Amongst Conservative voters, that total rose to 58% support in total. By comparison, amongst Labour voters, support fell to just 23%.

There was also a vast difference in levels of support dependent on age, with only 22% of 18–24-year-olds supporting capital punishment. For the over 65s age group, support rose to 54%. If Benton is to be believed, then presumably his constituents are elderly Tory voters yearning for an England that no longer exists, and that should be consigned to history. Along with his views on capital punishment.

 

No defence for the indefensible

Arguments commonly used in favour of the death penalty – usually in the case of murder – are that it serves as a deterrent, it provides closure for the families of victims and that it dispenses justice, of the biblical eye-for-an-eye variety. However, these arguments do not hold up.

According to Amnesty International (and others), there is no evidence to support the argument that the death penalty deters crime any more than long prison sentences. In addition, states that have a death penalty – often those with authoritarian regimes – do not have lower crime or murder rates than those that do not.

Even within the most vigorous of legal systems, miscarriages of justice do happen, and innocent people have, and still are being, executed. The other compelling argument against capital punishment is that it is simply morally wrong. Taking a human life is completely unethical and sets a bad example to society.

 

The global view

According to the Death Penalty Information Centre, 70% of nations have now abolished capital punishment. However, 60% of the world’s population live in countries where the death penalty is retained, including the highly populated China, India and the United States – the only G7 country to still have the death penalty. In 2021, 579 executions were recorded – a increase of 20% over the previous year. The highest numbers of executions took place in China, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria (in that order).

Our own Human Rights Act (HRA) came into force in October 2000, incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic British law. Article 2 of the HRA protects the right to life and states:

“Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which the penalty is provided by law.”

 

But the Human Rights Act, which protects many other basic human rights as well as the right to life, is currently under threat from justice minister and deputy PM Dominic Raab. His ‘bill of rights’ has been described by Liberty as a “wrecking ball” which would “smash your rights and freedoms”. Maybe Sunak should have a word, if he can work up the nerve.

We have come to expect a certain dangerous rhetoric from our government of late – in particular from the Home Office. So, it’s hardly a stretch to believe there might be more death penalty supporters lurking in government behind Anderson and Benton.

With a government that seems drawn to authoritarianism, and with many rights and legal protections under threat, we need to be vigilant.

Our right to life may not be under threat, but it’s increasingly difficult to trust a prime minister, or government, that believes Lee Anderson is the answer to any question.

Looking for a well-paid job? Be an MP!

Looking for a well-paid job? Be an MP!

Jan 23, 2023 | Bylines, News

Send in your application now. Never will you get a better chance to grab what’s rightfully yours. Sue Wilson MBE, Bremain Chair, writes for Yorkshire Bylines.

As the UK faces a severe shortage of labour and skills, 80% of small firms are struggling to recruit suitably skilled staff. With 1.19 million vacancies across the country, perhaps there has never been a better time to be a job-seeker. Assuming, of course, that you have the right skills for the job, and the remuneration and benefits are sufficient for your needs.

Whilst a career in healthcare, social care, hospitality, construction, farming or logistics might appeal, there are other opportunities becoming available that you might want to consider. With more vacancies likely to appear in the coming months, have you ever considered a career in politics? It pays well, comes with generous expenses, and rules that apply to ordinary folk can – it would seem – be broken with impunity.

 

Remuneration

First, let’s talk pay. As from April 2022, the basic pay for a Member of Parliament in the House of Commons is £84,144 per annum. Compared to average UK earnings of £33,000, that’s none too shabby. But the good news doesn’t stop there. Not only can you expect an above-average pay rise each year, but you get to vote on it yourself. No nasty bosses trying to supress your wages, and your real bosses – the British public – have no say at all!

The size of the remuneration package alone is impressive, but there’s another big difference between MPs annual income and the UK average. The Office for National Statistics figures are for a full-time job. MPs, on the other hand, don’t all work full time, with many able to hold down other lucrative employment, and not discouraged from doing so.

 

Generous expenses

In many jobs where employees are required to travel, claims for petrol, transport, even taxis are the norm. Overnight stays require reimbursement for accommodation and meals and are par for the course for your average sales rep or business person. As an MP, however, you can expect so much more.

While subsidised lunches are not uncommon in certain industries, few can rival the offering, or the prices, available in the House of Commons dining room. And we’re not talking about a simple soup and sandwich. We’re talking ribeye steak, smoked salmon or lamb loin. Yes, please! Though you might have to watch your calorie intake, you won’t have to worry about the prohibitive cost of fine dining affecting your pocket.

But that’s not all. You can also claim rent for accommodation in London, even if you don’t live very far away, and claim for heating costs. At a time when the country is suffering an energy crisis, rest assured that as an MP, you won’t need to worry about spiralling electricity or gas bills.

 

There appears to be no limit to how much, or for what, MPs can make an expenses claim. In the year ending 30 September 2022, the amount claimed by MPs was £135,810,637.87 for a total of 123,858 claims, and it’s not untypical for a single MP to claim hundreds of thousands of pounds on expenses. In fact, if it’s allowed, why wouldn’t you?

Historically, it has also been possible to claim for the most bizarre of non-political expenses, such as the heating of one’s stable. Ah, but I don’t have any horses or a stable, you say. Well never mind. Once you’re an MP you’ll probably be able to afford both!

 

Fringe benefits

Of course, not all the benefits of being an MP are financial ones. A benefit to many a rough diamond is the ability to be able to hold down a well-remunerated job whilst also being rude, offensive, and in some extreme cases, even downright creepy with your staff. Although there are, of course, appropriate policies and procedures in place to protect employees – likely due to some over-zealous HR type – these seem to be largely ignored, or at least, worked around.

But, there’s more. If you fancy a bit of rule-breaking, you can be secure in the knowledge that rules that apply to ordinary people may not apply to MPs. Or even to Cabinet Ministers or PMs! Fancy not wearing a seat belt? No problem – just pay the fine. Forgetting to pay your taxes? Cough up and stay out of jail. Telling mistruths to parliament? De rigueur. And if you’re short on ideas, there are plenty of colleagues with previous experience that’ll be only too happy to share their rule-bending tips while promising honesty, integrity and accountability.

There’s one final positive about seeking work in Westminster as opposed to a similarly demanding role in the non-political world, and that’s your previous experience. Or lack of it. Whilst any existing skills and experience would, of course, be useful, they are not a pre-requisite. Even cabinet ministers can acquire their even better paid roles without having the relevant qualifications. A doctor as health minister or an economist as chancellor? What a daft idea.

Of course, there are MPs that work extremely hard, that represent the needs and wishes of their constituents, and that challenge the strategy, rhetoric and policy of those in charge. They do so with considerable energy, grace and commitment, and in the face of considerable abuse and at great personal cost. The country would benefit enormously if there were far more like them.

However, as long as MPs are able to earn, and to claim, such vast sums of money, and are seemingly able to break rules that apply to others, then Westminster will continue to attract those only in it for themselves.

So, send in your application now! Never will you get a better chance to grab what’s rightfully yours!

Are we framing Brexit from the wrong perspective?

Are we framing Brexit from the wrong perspective?

Jan 13, 2023 | Bylines, News

As UK public feeling shifts back to a pro-European stance, is it time to positively charge the nature of the conversation? Bremain Chair Sue Wilson writes for Yorkshire Bylines. 

Although it has taken far too long to materialise, Brexit is finally up for discussion. Endless tales of Brexit damage now fill the media, even of the right-wing variety. Polls now regularly show that the public have not only turned against Brexit, but are increasingly in favour of a return to the single market, the customs union, and even the EU itself.

That change in public opinion has come about without any benefits of EU membership even being mentioned. Not only that, but public support for Brexit has fallen away despite blatant governmental mistruths about our abilities to act as an independent nation over, for example, the vaccine roll-out or support for Ukraine.

The fact that the public and the media can now clearly see the elephant in the room is progress, and welcome, even if it hasn’t yet trickled down to our parliamentary representatives. But any talk of Brexit now follows an ill-advised path, that of fear, doom and gloom. It has become a negative story of damage and failure, and it’s eerily reminiscent of the underlying negativity (albeit prophetic) of the cross-party Remain campaign.

 

Project Fear

The pre-referendum approach taken by David Cameron’s government and their pro-European allies in the opposition – labelled as ‘Project Fear’ by the Leave campaign – was a failure waiting to happen. Not only did the government fail to grasp the nation’s desperate desire for change, but their pessimistic campaign provided little factual information about the EU itself and, crucially, very little hope.

What was missing then, as now, was any celebration or explanation of the benefits of our 40-year long relationship with our friends and closest neighbours. Instead, the Leave campaign mendaciously persuaded the majority of the voting public that any benefits were nothing to do with the EU, or at the very least, would not be lost when we left.

 

EU achievements and tangible benefits

Before Brexit, most people’s knowledge of the benefits of EU citizenship was sketchy at best and misinformed at worst. Having since experienced the loss of many valuable rights, their absence has made our hearts fonder. We better understand now how little we knew of the EU and how much we took for granted.

Less familiar still, were the key achievements of the European Union, as they see and promote them. The list of the EU’s four key achievements on the European Union website is no doubt the envy of democracies across the globe:

  • A continent in peace
  • Freedom for its citizens to live, study or work anywhere in the EU
  • The world’s biggest single market
  • Aid and development assistance for millions of people worldwide

Peace and stability

The foremost achievement of the EU has been decades of peace across the continent. Following World War II, Western European countries sought closer political ties, with the aim of achieving economic growth and military security. Decades later, Europe has now seen “70 years of lasting peace” – the longest period in its history.

In accordance with this unbroken “peace, stability and prosperity”, the EU continues to foster “democracy, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law – across the globe”. As a result, it was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012.

The war in Ukraine has proved the value of collaboration and cooperation with our neighbours for the benefit and security of all. Ukraine is now en route to becoming an EU member itself, having been granted “the status of a candidate to accession” in June 2022. No doubt the people of Ukraine understand only too well the benefits that EU membership will bring.

 

The single market

Where other benefits of EU membership may not be as well understood, the benefits of single market membership are more widely appreciated, even by Brexit supporters. In fact, many prominent Brexiters regularly assured the public that the benefits of single market membership would still be ours outside of the EU.

The single market allows for four freedoms of movement – of goods, services, money and people. Even some staunch Brexiters appreciate the value of the first three. However, the free movement of people was painted as the cause of unacceptable (to them) levels of immigration. Thanks to the likes of Nigel Farage and his toxic ‘breaking point’ poster, EU citizens, along with the EU itself, were effectively ‘othered’ in the eyes of some of the public.

 

Nobody is making a positive case for immigration

If there is one benefit of EU membership that’s crying out for a positive political campaign, it’s immigration. ‘Taking back control’ of our borders and reducing immigration was a rallying cry of the Leave campaign. The fact that before the referendum the British public did not appear to have a problem with EU citizens coming to the UK to live, work or study, didn’t factor into their thinking.

Apart from ignoring the positive aspects of EU immigration – on our economy, trade and culture – taking back control of our borders has not worked. Although EU immigration is down since Brexit, net migration numbers are now reaching record levels at over 500,000 in 2022. This at a time when businesses are begging the government to make it easier for them to employ staff from the EU.

Not only does the UK need migration from the EU, but we desperately need to change the dialogue. EU citizens have had a positive impact on our economy, trade and culture and have been our family, friends, colleagues and neighbours, for decades. Our country needs a return to the days of friendship, cooperation and tolerance – qualities we used to be proud of and which were the envy of the world.

 

The loss of freedom of movement affects us the most

Whilst it’s incredibly sad and damaging that EU citizens are leaving the UK, or have stopped coming, they at least are left with other options. EU citizens still have their freedom of movement across Europe, can move around with ease, and are welcomed with open arms.

UK nationals, on the other hand, have lost the automatic opportunity to live, love, study, work and retire in 27 EU countries. It’s not impossible to move to the EU post-Brexit, but it is considerably more complicated and expensive and no longer an option for everyone. For example, those relying on a UK state pension as their sole source of earnings would no longer meet the income threshold for retirement in Spain.

Not only is it more difficult to plan a life in the EU, but over 2500 Brits that had already made that commitment are now being expelled and sent back to Blighty. It would rather seem as though the EU are better at taking back control of their borders than the UK appears to be.

Recent polls tell us that Brexit is no longer the “will of the people”. That pervasive idiom was used by politicians as justification for the hardest Brexit possible, and should it go horribly wrong, either the public at large, remain supporters, or the EU were to be made the obvious scapegoats.

Whether Brexit ever really was the will of the people is highly debatable. What isn’t debatable is that Brexit no longer has public support, even if our politicians refuse to accept the facts.

It’s high time we all took a fresh look at Europe. Whether it’s gradually increasing our engagement with our neighbours or a full-on campaign to become EU members again, it’s time to be honest about the benefits, rights and opportunities that we threw away.

The public and some voices in the media are beginning to shine some light on the reality of post-Brexit Britain. Sadly, in Westminster, burying heads in the sand is still in vogue.

Brexit denial and fear is as strong in political (and some media) circles as it ever was. It’s time to inject some truth, hope and optimism into the discourse and build progressively toward a more positive future for all.

What can Britain expect from Brexit in 2023?

What can Britain expect from Brexit in 2023?

Jan 5, 2023 | Bylines, News

When it comes to Brexit, political opinion doesn’t yet match what’s happening on the ground, but it’s edging closer by the day, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

As we start a new year, it’s only natural to look forward with a degree of trepidation, hopefully tempered with a dollop of optimism. Whether you are taking stock from a personal standpoint or thinking more widely about our country’s future, like it or not, Brexit will be a factor. Perhaps a very significant one.

A shift in public opinion on Brexit in 2022

A noticeable difference during 2022 has been a change in public opinion towards Brexit. With the impact of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine no longer disguising the true damage of the UK having left the EU, polls are regularly demonstrating a shift in public attitude. In addition, the media have become more vocal on the subject, regularly calling out the losses to trade, the damage to the economy and the threat to our rights.

Not only are the public turning against Brexit in record numbers, but according to the latest poll, two-thirds now support a future referendum on EU membership. You will, however, still struggle to find political parties supporting this dramatic change in opinion. Our politicians – unlike the majority of the British public – are still in denial; still trying to ‘make Brexit work’.

 

The bad news

Whether it’s Labour’s version of Brexit, or the Conservative’s, the major threats over the next 12 months will come directly from our own government. With no realistic plans to improve trading with the EU, and any new trade deals unlikely to come close to compensating for Brexit losses, the road to economic recovery is a long way off.

The British Chambers of Commerce is predicting that the UK economy will not start to grow again until the last quarter of this year and that investment will continue to fall by 1.8%. Their annual expectation for GDP growth – broadly in line with forecasts from the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) – is at -1.3%. The OBR are also predicting a rise in unemployment thanks to the economic slump. Ironically, this comes at a time when employers are struggling to find desperately needed staff, some closing their doors for good as a result

But despite the very real concerns relating to the British economy, some of the biggest Brexit threats will come from government legislative proposals. Whether it’s the drive to remove our right to protest (public order bill) or the threat to our Human Rights (bill of rights bill), we need to be paying close attention to government legislation. Let’s also not forget the Northern Ireland protocol bill, which threatens to break international law and further damage our global reputation.

Perhaps one of the most worrying legislative threats – to our health, safety, working, environmental standards – comes from the so-called ‘Brexit freedoms bill’ (retained EU law (revocation and reform) bill). At the end of the year, if the bill is not stopped or seriously amended, all EU protections of our rights and standards will fall away unchallenged. Surely by then only true followers of the Brexit cult will still believe that any government promises to protect, or even improve, our rights, are safe in their dirty hands.

 

If you really want to give yourself a fright this year, you only need listen to the home secretary expressing her views on immigration and Rwanda. And if that’s not enough to keep you awake at night, then take a close look at our deliberately underfunded public sector – especially the NHS – and be very, very afraid.

 

The good news

While we may still be some distance from rejoining the EU, it is becoming increasingly common to hear talk of rejoining the single market and/or customs union. Not that we can expect either to come about in 2023, but we can expect to hear more businesses, more industries, more media, and even perhaps more politicians daring to debate the previously undebatable. While a change in public perception of Brexit may not yet have shifted political opinion, surely it must soon.

One thing we can be relatively certain of is that this is the last full year of a Conservative government, hopefully for a decade at least. Though don’t expect those in power to give up without an ugly fight and a further considerable waste of taxpayers’ money.

This year sees Ireland and Denmark celebrating the 50th Anniversary of joining the EU. Had it not been for Brexit, we would be joining those golden anniversary celebrations. In fact, had it not been for Brexit, there’s a long list of things we would, could, should be doing.

Brexit has stolen so much from us, both individually and nationally. It will continue to do so for some time yet, and for as long as this government holds on to power. But whatever the future holds, we must be vigilant and active, and we must hang on to the hopes that a new year promises.

I’m going to enjoy 2023. But I can’t help thinking about the joy to come in 2024 when it comes to a general election. In the meantime, if you dislike this government and you’ve had enough of Brexit, get your boots on! There’s work to be done.

Harry and Meghan haters: time to face facts, you are being played

Harry and Meghan haters: time to face facts, you are being played

Dec 16, 2022 | Bylines, News

For years right-wing tabloids have poured false poison and vitriol over anyone that dares challenge them, now the Sussexes are fighting back, writes Bremain Vice Chair Lisa Burton.

No one likes to think our convictions are manipulated by what we read and see in our news and social media. Yet they are, and for Harry and Meghan, that manipulation has led to an unprecedented scale of bullying and abuse.

 

Bullying and abuse

Liar, selfish, greedy, manipulative, controlling, vulgar, demanding, fake, attention seeker, evil.

I’m relatively sure you read those words and didn’t think they related to Harry because these are tropes people regularly used to speak about women who put their heads above the parapet and use their voices to speak out or don’t fit a particular ideal. These are some of the milder words used to describe Meghan Markle.

The press intrusion on Harry’s life and that of his mother, Princess Diana, has undoubtedly scarred him, but his abuse is not on the same scale. Meghan is played as the villain in the story even though every decision they made, they have made together.

 

Tabloid intimidation

The tabloids rule by intimidation. They can bring down anyone who doesn’t play their game, including the Royal family.

We can all have an opinion of a celebrity’s character even though we don’t know them, and we must all admit it comes from what we read and see. Companies and governments would not spend millions on advertising and messaging if it didn’t. However, the depth of anger, rage, and negative emotion people genuinely feel and project about Meghan is visceral and deeply personal. What terrible crime has she committed?

Diana shared her similar experience with the Royal family in print and interviews, yet remained the People’s Princess. Prince Andrew embarked on a car crash interview about his relationship with a proven paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. His Pizza Express alibi and reasoning that his accuser Virginia Guthrie must be lying about their relationship because, at the time, he “couldn’t sweat” didn’t bring a wave of tabloid furore or 20 pages of coverage. Many just laughed. And let’s not forget Prince Charles and Camilla’s ‘tampon gate’ scandal`. The Royals are not new to humiliation and shame.

The tabloids and anti-Meghan commentators feed the narrative of the couple craving attention while expressing the view that it is felt by many, ‘Why don’t they shut up and go away’ or ‘they are profiteering off their royalty’. The day after the first Netflix release of Harry and Meghan, where the couple called out the wilful bias and lies of the tabloids, the Daily Mail responded with over 20 pages of negative coverage of the couple. They were very proud, stating, “Our unrivaled coverage of the Sussexes ‘Megflix’ bombshells accumulated more than 60,000 comments in hours”.

It’s a vicious cycle. People complain about them constantly being in the limelight while consuming mass articles and commentary, thus propelling the media to publish more and more.

After Harry and Meghan’s interview with Oprah Winfrey last year, Meghan did not show herself for 250 days. The media during those days wrote thousands of articles about her. On the first day, The Express alone reported over 50. The tabloids have been cashing in on their lives for years with lies, conjecture and bias. They would keep the couple in the limelight, documentary or not, because there is money in doing so. Now that Harry and Meghan are making money from producing and telling their own story, it is an entirely different matter. How dare they.

 

Besides the fact that hate sells, why would the tabloids want to destroy Meghan and Harry?

The UK’s tabloids presume that no one, not even the royals, would dare to stand up to them because they have the power to take anyone down. The Sussexes have broken the unspoken contract between the Royals and the tabloids. Harry and Meghan have successfully sued several, and Harry is now part of a new, major legal challenge.

As reported here in Euronews Weekly, a legal challenge, announced in October this year, will see the publisher, Associated Newspapers, sued over articles in the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Mail Online. Among the group suing are Sir Elton John, Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence (mother of racially murdered Stephen Lawrence), David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost.

Law firm Hamlins say that the group have “compelling and highly distressing evidence” they have been “victims of abhorrent criminal activity”. Including phone hacking.

In the past, Associated Newspapers have been sued for similar activity by Prince Harry, in whose favour a judge ruled in July. He also accepted an apology and substantial damages from the publisher over false claims in 2021 that he snubbed the Royal Marines after stepping down as a senior royal. The tabloids are angry and want to ensure we are angry on their behalf.

Delivering a speech at the annual Levenson Lecture on press reform, organised by group ‘Hacked Off’, to whom Hugh Grant is associated, Labour MP Chris Bryant said, “This is not normal spontaneous or altruistic hatred … It’s not journalism. It’s a perversion of journalism, and it means, once again, that the press sees people’s lives as a commodity to be traded”.

 

Manipulation and manufactured hate to make money

In October of 2021, a media report from Bot Sentinel, a Twitter analytics service, began analysing the online hate towards Markle, focusing on Twitter.

Of the hateful posts on Meghan Markle that were examined, 70% came from just 83 accounts. The tweets’ estimated reach was 17 million Twitter users. A “bot network then bolstered these tweets” – hundreds of inauthentic Twitter accounts that amplified the hate and conspiracy. Nine out of ten prominent Twitter accounts of Royal commentators and those who primarily cover the royal family had interacted with at least one of the 84 hate accounts, some containing death threats.

Bot Sentinel followed up with two further reports revealing the activity also spread to monetised YouTube accounts. One channel focusing on anti-Meghan Markle content has reported ties to Markle’s estranged half sister, Samantha Markle. It created a network with two other anti-Meghan channels. These three YouTube channels alone have over 70 million views combined and $495,730 in total YouTube earnings.

 

Kate vs Meghan – One can do no wrong, the other no right

For years Meghan has been shamed and attacked for the same things for which her sister-in-law, Kate, has been praised. Even if you don’t read or see these tabloid and online headlines, you can be assured others you know do, feeding the cycle of deliberate media gaslighting.

This article compares 20 incidents where hypocrisy shown towards Meghan cannot be ignored. Here are a few examples.

A review of thousands of articles from the 16 years since Prince William and Kate’s relationship became public, shows that constant abuse and harassment from the press gave way to praise once Meghan Markle became a royal.

The royal press office, which can try to kill false or misleading reports, has defended Kate far more than Meghan. One couple is protected because they play the game. The other was thrown to a nation full of wolves with an insatiable taste for red meat and feeding frenzies. The palace press core is also known to ‘swap out’ stories, meaning they will contact the palace with an account; if the palace doesn’t want that story run, they are expected to provide another. Seemingly, Harry and Meghan were prime fodder.

Enforced reverence and respect

This article only focuses on media manipulation and has not touched on the profoundly complex issues of race, racism and Empire that play into this story. However, there lies in the UK an almost enforced reverence and respect towards the monarchy. To criticise or speak out about them is deemed by many as treasonous. We saw examples of this around the Queen’s funeral, where people were denied the right to free speech. Republicans were arrested for silently holding signs saying ‘not my King.’

 

The documentary

Both Harry and Meghan committed to humanitarian causes long before they met. Meghan in 2017 was a global ambassador for World Vision, an advocate for UN Women, and an incredible advocate for gender equality. Together they have committed to mental health charities and fighting racial injustice. It is their career, so why should they not have a chance to tell their side of the story, their truth, considering all these elements exist within it?

Let’s all be honest. The couple could give up every title and move to the ends of the earth, but we all know deep down that nothing they do would stop the media from stalking them and manufacturing stories to sell their bile-filled pages. They are far too profitable.

Every word and action in the documentary will be picked over and analysed to find an element of rage, anywhere, to prove everything you have read is true. So, maybe try putting aside what you have been told to believe and watch the documentary. You may find the main villain is not the Royals themselves but the repulsive system that exists between them and the tabloids. One that must be maintained to ensure the Royals stay in public favour.

Open your mind and heart, and you may hear the love story of a young couple battling against all odds. Against threats to their mental health, against tradition, against expectations, and against a system that is doing everything to destroy them.

If you don’t, at least you have more information than the unchecked bias that has saturated the public domain for years but ask yourself, what is your desired outcome? Some won’t be happy until the couple is hounded to the point of separation or divorce, or one of them is dead, proving once and for all that Meghan was a terrible person, unfit to be a Royal. Would you be one of them?

Brexit freedoms bill – bad for your health and the country’s

Brexit freedoms bill – bad for your health and the country’s

Dec 12, 2022 | Bylines, News

EU law is not bad for our health and safety – unfortunately, the same cannot be said of our government, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

Of all the dangerous, anti-democratic pieces of legislation brought forward by our government since Brexit, one of the most controversial is the retained EU law (revocation and reform bill (REUL). Better known as the Brexit freedoms bill, the supposed freedoms the bill claims to proffer seem as elusive as any so-called Brexit benefit.

 

“A Bill to revoke certain retained EU law; to make provision relating to the interpretation of retained EU law and to its relationship with other law; to make provision relating to powers to modify retained EU law; to enable the restatement, replacement or updating of certain retained EU law; to enable the updating of restatements and replacement provision; to abolish the business impact target; and for connected purposes.”

Brexit freedoms bill

The bill was introduced by former prime minister Liz Truss, during her brief stint in Number 10. It is sponsored by staunch Brexiter Jacob Rees-Mogg and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), and is currently making its way through the House of Commons.

So much at stake

The aim of the REUL bill is to replace almost 4,000 EU laws currently on the British statute books. These laws provide protection for a wide range of hard-won protections including workers’ rights, food safety standards, animal welfare, environmental protections and many more.

Although the government has pledged not to lower standards in the process of revoking and reforming EU law, it’s increasingly hard to find anyone who takes that promise at face value. Especially when so many Brexit promises have already proven worthless.

According to the REUL public dashboard, 570 of the EU laws relate to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; 424 to Transport; 374 to the Treasury; 318 to BEIS; 228 to Revenue and Customs and 208 to Work and Pensions. That’s assuming, of course, that these government figures are reliable.

Up until the beginning of November, only 2,400 EU laws had been identified. A further 1,400 laws were recently discovered by government researchers. Although according to Rees-Mogg the additional laws were “ones departments do not use and were dredged up” and, he added, “removing them is simple”.

In his own BEIS department, 77 full-time staff are said to be working on the 318 laws relating to that department alone. Whether the wider government has enough civil servants to handle so many EU laws is another unanswered question.

Businesses already struggling

In a recent survey of company directors by the British Chamber of Commerce (BCC) there was little understanding of the government’s proposals. Half of those surveyed said deregulation was either a low or non-existent priority, and just 4% claimed to comprehensively understand the bill and its impact on their business.

According to William Bain, head of trade policy at BCC, businesses “are not clamouring for a bonfire of regulations for the sake of it”. He warned that divergence from EU regulations “would add to company costs” at a time when businesses were “already struggling with soaring inflation and other barriers to trade with the EU”.

The fact that businesses are largely critical of the bill is being ignored by government. The party that used to claim to be the defenders of business and the economy, no longer seem to be claiming to protect either. The Tory party are no longer listening. Except to themselves.

So much for health and safety

The latest strong criticism came from the British Safety Council. Chief executive Mike Robinson recently wrote that the government seemed “hell-bent” on destroying the UK’s record on health and safety.

While acknowledging there are areas where legislation could be improved, Robinson said there were “big risks involved” with the government’s approach. He drew particular attention to high-risk industries, like construction and chemicals. He expressed concern over the potential replacement of existing protections and with responsibilities being imposed on “duty-holders”. He asked, “are we really going to leave it up to individual businesses to decide for themselves?” I guess that’s one way to interpret “taking back control”.

Robinson stated that the bill must be “changed or scrapped on the basis that it would be too damaging and risky to go ahead”

 

Not fit for purpose

The bill also gives the government the power to simply ‘switch off’ EU laws at the end of 2023 without consultation with parliament or the public. The so-called ‘sunset clause’ means that any EU legislation still on the books at the end of next year will simply expire. Along with all the protections, rights and standards that any such laws sought to safeguard.

The government’s own independent assessor described government proposals as “not fit for purpose”. With regard to the sunset clause in particular, the watchdog said the government had not provided sufficient grounds for the decision.

 

The battle isn’t over

Although the REUL bill may have already passed the second reading in the House of Commons, its further passage is not expected to go smoothly. Many amendments are in the pipeline and there is likely to be fierce debate in the House of Lords.

But the battle won’t just take place in the halls of parliament. Opposition is widespread with so many industries and sectors affected. From legal experts to unions, from environmentalists to farmers, from business leaders to economists, from human rights activists to health professionals – the opposition is as far-reaching as the rights that the EU laws protect.

Whether your personal passion is for one affected area – nature, animal welfare, food safety, human rights – or for all of them, this bill is damaging and dangerous. And completely unnecessary. The rights we have to work fewer hours, to eat safe food, to treat animals and the environment with respect and care etc., took many years to agree and to protect by law. We cannot allow this irresponsible government, driven solely by ideology, to undo all that work in one fell swoop.

If the government is successful, we will all pay a terrible price. And it’s one that neither the public, nor the country can afford. EU law is not bad for our health and safety. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of our government.