nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

New fears over spread of Palantir’s influence after ‘Big Brother’ Met police project extended

The programme, designed to expose officer misconduct, was due to expire last month. The Nerve has established that it was extended to today, May 15, with no indication what happens next. Officers fear they will be under long-term surveillance, while it’s also emerged the project could be rolled out to more staff. Report by Max Colbert and Lucia Osborne-Crowley

Max Colbert & Lucia Osborne-Crowley, May 16, 2026, https://www.thenerve.news/p/met-police-palantir-officer-ai-surveillance-misconduct-extension-contract-federation?utm_source=www.thenerve.news&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=weekend-edition-stewart-lee-virginia-giuffre-s-ghostwriter-douglas-stuart&_bhlid=19dc488e91dc0a1b5822f18042d7619fad469a5f

The Nerve has discovered that a controversial AI programme developed by Palantir Technologies to monitor for misconduct in British police forces, which was originally intended to close at the end of April, has been extended to today, 15 May – and that, when asked to confirm whether the project would continue after today’s expiration, the Metropolitan police refused to comment.

Multiple officers have expressed fears to the Nerve about the tool’s infringement of their privacy, and concerns about the lack of consultation or negotiation around its implementation. The Police Federation has previously said that the “use of AI to spy on our officers is not proportionate, just or proper”. 

The original contract for a pilot project, published on the Government’s Contracts Finder website under the title “Unified Data Platform Phase 1”, originally ran from 1 February to 30 April this year.

Palantir’s tool had been used as part of a plan to surveil police and combine “internal data we already hold from multiple standalone systems into a form which can be used without delay as part of our professional standards work”. 

The Met said that the tool had found evidence of serious misconduct and criminality from a small amount of officers, and that three had been arrested for offences including abuse of authority for sexual purposes, fraud, sexual assault, misconduct in public office and misuse of police systems. 

The force has refused to state whether, as the extension concludes, the contract will be renewed further, and some Met officers are increasingly worried that their devices might be placed under permanent surveillance using Palantir software.

Other concerns raised among members of the force who have spoken to the Nerve include the accuracy of the programme’s ability to catch rogue officers, the lack of proper consultation with staff, and a glaring absence of clarity on the cost of the extension. 

The £489,999 payment awarded for the original work avoided hitting the £500,000 threshold for scrutiny from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, but London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, has stated that he may oppose future deals using Palantir’s software because of “concerns about using public money to support firms who act contrary to London’s values”. 

Talks about the force signing another, multimillion-pound, contract for automating intelligence analysis for criminal investigations are ongoing.

This continuous 24/7 geolocation tracking is highly intrusive and risks monitoring officers when they are off duty, on rest days, or at home

Matt Cane, general secretary of the Metropolitan Police Federation

The Met press office refused to clarify whether more money had changed hands as part of the contract extension, saying the matter was “commercially sensitive”. They said the pilot “was time-limited with this short extension as outlined”. 

A key issue for the serving police officers who have spoken to the Nerve on the condition of anonymity, has been the lack of proper communication regarding how Palantir’s tech will be used to monitor them. In a public statement, the Metropolitan Police Federation – the staff association representing officers – said it “was not informed that the force would be using Palantir’s artificial intelligence to analyse the movements of cops in the capital”.

One officer said that what was sent out to them was an internal intranet message, which they said was “very harshly written”. They read it in the expectation that “we’d be reassured about not being spied on, but it wasn’t like that – it was quite aggressive, and people weren’t happy about it”. 

They also said the force was apparently in talks with an unspecified union about installing Palantir software on non-officer staff devices. The Public and Commercial Services union (PCS), confirmed that it had been informally advised by the Met that they intend to start monitoring its staff, but that they had not been given specifics on the software system that would be used. They also said that they had received no formal consultation from the Met about the process.

Another long-serving officer criticised the intrusiveness of Palantir’s work, describing it as “very Big Brother”. They said the Met “signed up to a contract, essentially without telling us or warning us they’ve signed a contract, and they’ve got this tool that scans all electronic information that the Met have on its staff”.

They added that because of a lack of clarity given to police on how Palantir’s tech will be implemented, “we don’t know what information they’re using, but it includes our work mobile phones and laptops, which we’re obligated to use – you can get disciplined for not logging in enough. So we’ve all been wandering around with our work phones and laptops and they can track where we are, where we’ve been … everyone’s very angry about it.”

The second source told the Nerve that “they want us to change [ie replace] our laptops”, and that they were “sceptical” as to why the police would need to use such intrusive measures on their own officers, especially when staff were taking their devices home with them. They said: “If I was to get one of these new laptops, I’d probably put it in one of those Faraday bags and keep it in the garage. I do not want their devices in my house because of fear of invasion of privacy”. 

The Metropolitan Police Federation’s general secretary, Matt Cane, said that the “use of AI to spy on our officers is not proportionate, just or proper. It’s an outrageous and unforgivable invasion of privacy … This continuous 24/7 geolocation tracking is highly intrusive and risks monitoring officers when they are off duty, on rest days, or at home.” As a result, the federation has urged officers to be cautious about using work devices when off duty.

‘Palantir’s business model is fundamentally parasitic”

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group

The Met claimed last month that 98 officers were being assessed for misconduct relating to “abuse of the IT system that rosters shifts by police officers for personal or financial gain”, and that 500 more had received prevention notices relating to the same offence.

One source described being one of the 500 officers that received a warning for changing one of their days at work on the system. In their case, one of the days they received a warning for was for cancelling an annual leave day on their birthday in order to sit a work-related exam. Had a basic investigation been carried out, they said, this would have been established quickly. They suggested that there was a real possibility of “good cops” being caught up in an unfair process without proper oversight.

While the police have not confirmed whether or not Palantir’s software will be used on officers on a longer-term basis, or if talks are currently going on with regard to further internal monitoring, this seems likely, according to the Nerve’s sources. 

This would also follow a frequent pattern in which Palantir takes on work on a trial basis, for a low nominal fee or even free of charge, that transforms into an official, longer-term contract later, often at a greatly inflated cost.

In 2023, the UK’s chief commercial officer wrote to Palantir expressing concern about its “practice of offering services to public sector customers for a zero or nominal cost to gain a commercial foothold, contrary to the principles of public procurement which usually require open competition”, after the company signed a six-month agreement – free of charge – to create a system running the Homes for Ukraine scheme for the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC). The company then went on to receive multiple contract extensions worth tens of millions of pounds. 

Similarly, Palantir’s first contract with the NHS, a Covid “datastore” deal awarded without competition during the pandemic for just £1, and originally sold to the public as a short-term emergency response, later resulted in the company being deployed across the health service, eventually securing the lead role in the £330m pound deal to run the Federated Data Platform (FDP), among a host of other awards from both the NHS and DHSC. 

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, said that “offering cheap services as loss leaders is a well known tactic of tech vendors and consultants – their aim is dependency, and once dependency is created, prices go up.

“That’s what Palantir mean when they say they want to be the ‘operating system for government’. They mean ‘we want to become so embedded that it will be really painful to remove us’. Palantir’s business model is fundamentally parasitic.” 

Other UK police forces, apart from the Met, have already begun deploying Palantir software. Forces in Leicestershire and Bedfordshire have both confirmed working with the company on projects that involve processing data from more than a dozen UK police forces, which – as reported by Liberty Investigates – could serve as a pilot for a national rollout of Palantir technology, giving the company access to swathes of data. 

Martin Wrigley, a Liberal Democrat MP who is a member of the Commons science and technology select committee, echoed the concerns of others that the pilot deal could be a way for Palantir to embed itself within policing infrastructure on a permanent basis.

“Once again, we’ve got the early-days experimentation, just like the £1 NHS system, bringing them into spaces where they don’t have prior expertise, and putting them in as the only potential candidate, so once again we predict that they will have a contract without competition, and that’s just not on,” Wrigley said. 

Palantir was approached for comment.

May 16, 2026 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

The Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce: The wrong questions, the wrong team, the wrong answers

Policy Brief May 2026

The UK government’s 2025 Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce, established to cut “red tape” blocking nuclear expansion, is fundamentally misconceived. Historical evidence shows that failed nuclear projects collapsed due to financial risk, not regulatory failure. The Taskforce lacked expertise in radiation science, environment, and economics, its recommendations threaten regulator independence, and its reforms will consume government resources without delivering new capacity before the mid-2040s.

1.      Introduction

In February 2025 Prime Minister Starmer announced the setting up of a Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce with a press release1 headed “Government rips up rules to fire-up nuclear power” and sub-headed “More nuclear power plants will be approved across England and Wales as the Prime Minister slashes red tape to get Britain building.” This set the tone for future announcements with emotive language and little substance but designed to generate headlines.

The narrative was clear. The planning and regulatory system had failed: “The industry pioneered in Britain has been suffocated by regulations and this saw investment collapse, leaving only one nuclear power plant – Hinkley Point C – under construction.” Any opposition to nuclear projects was trivial and should be ignored – “saying no to the NIMBYs” and “saying no to the blockers who have strangled our chances of cheaper energy, growth and jobs for far too long.”

In April 2025 the leader of the taskforce, John Fingleton, was announced2. In May, the other four members were revealed and the terms of reference3 announced (see Annex 1). An interim report was published in August 20254 with the Final Report published on 24th November, 2025.5 Within two days of its publication, the government had accepted all its recommendations, promising a detailed response in February 2026 and full implementation within two years.6 It is not clear whether government had advance notice of the findings or whether it accepted them without detailed consideration.

The barrage of headline grabbing rhetoric continued throughout, for example, at the publication of the Interim Report, Fingleton described the regulatory system as “not fit for purpose”7. The Final Report said: “We are looking to recommend fundamental once-in-a-generation change in the regulatory system to enable the UK’s nuclear sector to thrive and take full advantage of the global resurgence of nuclear technology.”8

2.      Terms of reference

The Review’s terms of reference reflected the clear signals that this was not an open investigation to determine whether delivery of the UK’s nuclear ambitions could be accomplished. The conclusions the government required were signposted and reflected in the terms of reference, which are reproduced in full in Annex 1. In brief, they directed the Taskforce to: gain quick wins by accelerating existing work on international harmonisation, regulatory justification and ALARP; assess whether current practices remain fit for purpose; identify beneficial legislative amendments; reduce regulatory complexity and address resource constraints; refresh expected regulatory outcomes; evaluate regulatory culture and proportionality across the sector; determine how well current arrangements support new and novel nuclear technologies; and explore options for simpler exchange of technologies and companies with advanced nuclear states with aligned priorities.

Most of these are too non-specific to have any analytical value. The one that deserves comment is the first. Its title ‘quick wins’ is strange as what follows does not appear to lead to quick wins.

The specific mention of the application of the concept of keeping risk As Low as Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) is significant. It came in the same month as President Trump instructed the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to effectively ignore the assumption every credible national and international regulatory and expert body makes, that there is no safe dose of radiation and that the risk increases in a ‘linear’ way with increased exposure: the Linear No Threshold (LNT) assumption. Trump said9:

“Adopt science-based radiation limits. In particular, the NRC shall reconsider reliance on the linear no-threshold (LNT) model for radiation exposure and the “as low as reasonably achievable” [ALARA] standard, which is predicated on LNT. Those models are flawed, as discussed in section 1 of this order.”

This is an extraordinary claim by a US President asserting that the assumption made by every credible regulatory body, LNT, was not science-based. There are detailed differences in emphasis between ALARA and ALARP (ALARP is used more in the UK) but for these purposes they are very similar. Starmer was not as explicit as Trump in questioning LNT but mention of ALARP made it clear that was precisely what he was doing. Making such an instruction calls into question a fundamental principle that should be behind every nuclear safety regulator, that it should be independent of the government.

At first glance, the final reference point, international harmonisation, seems common sense. However, given the record of regulatory bodies not anticipating any of the major accidents or safety challenges – Three Mile Island (1978), Chornobyl (1986), the 9/11 Terror Attack on New York (2001), Fukushima (2011) and now the risk to Zaporizhia from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – the plurality of separate regulatory bodies coming to their own conclusions, albeit with reference to the work of other regulators, would seem to be a strength worth retaining.

In practical terms, the new reactor designs under review by the UK – the Holtec, GE Vernova, and Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) – were first reviewed in detail by the UK and are not yet under detailed review by France or the USA. The GE Vernova design only started review in Canada less than a year ago, well behind the UK. So, the demand for international harmonisation is a strawman.

3.      Did the Taskforce have the required skills?

The Taskforce comprised five members:

  • John Fingleton, Taskforce Lead. He is an economist with much of his career spent in government competition authorities and with a strong record of advocating for the increase in reliance on competitive mechanisms.
  • Andrew Sherry. Professor of Materials and Structure at Manchester University with a history of working with UK government-owned bodies such as the National Nuclear Laboratory.
  • Mark Bassett. A career in national and international regulatory bodies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Office of Nuclear Regulation.
  • Sue Ion. Nuclear engineer with a career primarily in government owned nuclear bodies such as British Nuclear Fuels and a vocal advocate for nuclear power.
  • Mustafa Latif-Aramaesh. Planning lawyer with a history of drafting UK laws.

The skills offered by the Taskforce only make some sense if the Terms of Reference are an accurate representation of the issues that have impeded various UK government’s nuclear ambitions. There is no mention of economics or competition in the terms of reference, so it appears the Taskforce Lead did not bring any specific skills to the team. There are references to changes to laws so if it is the legal structure that is holding back nuclear deployment, Latif-Aramesh’s appointment has some logic. Otherwise, the strong impression is of a team comprising members with no record of bringing a critical perspective to the nuclear industry.

Only one member of the Taskforce appears to have specific experience of regulation, and none has any experience of building or operating nuclear plants. The first of the Terms of Reference, so-called ‘quick wins’, relies on a judgement on the Linear No Threshold assumption, yet there is nobody in the Taskforce with the fundamental scientific credentials to make such judgements. There is also considerable discussion of modifying environmental requirements, yet the Taskforce has no expertise in environmental issues. Only Latifah-Aramesh has experience in planning and as a lawyer.

4.      What is the evidence and where is the Taskforce’s analysis of it?

The government has been pushing a narrative that the UK is uniquely bad at building nuclear power plants, and that inefficiencies in the planning and regulatory system are to blame. We are told that the UK was a world leader in nuclear technology in the 1960s and reforms to planning and regulation would allow us to reclaim that position in a ‘globally resurgent nuclear industry’ and launch a ‘Golden Age’ for nuclear. What is the evidence for this diagnosis?

In Annex 4 we look at the first two decades of nuclear power in the UK, up to the mid-70s, portrayed as the period when the UK was a world-leader with nuclear power. The analysis shows after the two first Magnox stations, it was a period of decline from, at best, mediocrity. In 1977, Henderson an economist with experience at the UK Treasury stated10 that the AGR and Concorde programmes were “two of the three worst civil investment decisions in the history of mankind.”

4.1.     The Thatcher Programme: Sizewell B………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://policybrief.org/briefs/the-nuclear-regulatory-taskforce-the-wrong-questions-the-wrong-team-the-wrong-answers/

May 14, 2026 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

No case for nuclear in Scotland

When the lobby group Britain Remade, proclaimed support for nuclear power in Scotland last year, they declined to disclose that 89% of their own poll supported home-grown energy within our own borders – that desire for self-sufficiency kills nuclear stone dead. Scotland has no uranium mines.

When the lobby group Britain Remade, proclaimed support for nuclear power in Scotland last year, they declined to disclose that 89% of their own poll supported home-grown energy within our own borders – that desire for self-sufficiency kills nuclear stone dead. Scotland has no uranium mines.

   by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/05/10/no-case-for-nuclear-in-scotland/

What the country needs is the flexible, affordable power delivered by renewables, writes George Baxter

Editor’s note: With the sweeping victory in last week’s Scottish elections by the pro-independence Scottish National Party, the country’s moratorium against new nuclear power plants, that the SNP leads and supports, remains secure. The London-headquartered UK Labour Government has been pushing Scotland to lift the ban, an approach rightly viewed in Scotland as yet another example of Westminster treating Scotland as a vassal state.

I’ve been through every argument that the nuclear industry makes promoting new nuclear power stations – but scratch the surface and they just melt through the floor.

New nuclear is fundamentally not needed – numerous studies, including by Stanford University and renowned energy modellers at LUT show that the UK, and indeed most, if not all, other countries can meet their energy needs with 100% renewables. Politicians’ fears about the wind and sun and the rain and the waves and tides being unable to meet all our needs are misplaced. Renewables, energy storage, energy efficiency and flexible power with a modern upgraded grid can do it all – cheaper, quicker, safer and a hell of a lot cleaner, and create many more thousands of jobs.

The cost of nuclear power is eye-watering. Look at Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C – nearly £100bn to build them both with massive delays and cost -over-runs. That is enough to install a 5kWh battery in every one of the 28 million homes in Britain, and leave £44bn for other things. Combine that with solar and every home becomes a power station with its own ‘baseload’. Alternatively, £100bn could fund planned upgrades to the grid needed to facilitate large and small renewables, twice over. The Coire Glas pumped hydro storage project in the Highlands could be built 50 times over. £100bn spent on a nuclear-free transition could be revolutionary.

What a renewable based system needs is flexible power, energy storage and a smart, modern grid. Surplus renewable electricity could also be used to generate ”green hydrogen” to generate electricity on calm, dull days. It could also be used to power heavy transport and industry.

Battery systems, including compressed air and pumped storage hydro, alongside vehicle to grid technology, can all be parts of the bedrock of energy security and an energy system that would be cooking with green power 24/7.

Nuclear does nothing to help any of this. Indeed, it is worse, it directly causes wind and solar plants to be switched off when green power is plentiful, because nuclear is so inflexible. Not only does nuclear cost an arm and a leg, it adds cost to the consumer for renewables.

We only have to look at the recent history of nuclear power to see how dangerous and polluting it is. Fukushima remains a slow motion disaster for the region as they scramble to deal with millions of gallons of radioactive water and melted reactor cores. Chornobyl’s 40 year anniversary is another timely reminder, that when things go wrong, they can go very wrong. At least when a wind turbine breaks down – you don’t need an exclusion zone for decades and mass public health measures – you just get some engineers with a crane and some spanners to go fix it. And despite what the ‘nuke, baby, nuke’ lobby says, there is no solution for the waste yet, other than to store and guard the most highly radioactive cores for hundreds of years to cool down out of the way somewhere. That’s the solution!

The hype about Small Modular Reactors is just that, hype. In fact, the only two operational SMRs are in China and Russia, and both have been beset by delays and cost increases. The economies of scale are lost, and studies have shown that they produce more highly radioactive waste for the same generating capacity than their slightly larger cousins.

These projects are pure spin, a clever wheeze by industry lobbyists intended to promote nuclear acceptability- small, click and collect, a kind of middle-aisle at LIDL feel to it.  In the words of energy expert Amory Lovins on SMRs: “This illusion neatly fits the industry’s business-model shift from selling products to harvesting subsidies.”

The Rolls Royce SMR – chosen by Great British Energy–Nuclear to be built at Wylfa in North Wales – is a 470MW reactor, not much smaller than the two Torness reactors, which are about 600MW each.

And then there is the fuel – uranium ore is needed and we don’t have any, (and the mining of it is handily missed out in nuclear promotional graphics comparing its land use to renewables, which also fail to point out that the land around solar arrays and turbines can still be used for traditional purposes).

Mind you, there is some recoverable uranium ore on the Orkney mainland – and when it was proposed to dig it up to use it at Dounreay last century, all hell broke loose and Orcadians stopped it by popular protest. So we would have to rely on imports of this global commodity – a market that is dominated by Russia and associates. Pete Roche of SCRAM put this well when commenting on a recent poll indicating only 14% of Scots thought we should focus on uranium fuelled nuclear reactors for our long term energy security needs: “Relying on a uranium-fuelled nuclear future is like jumping out of the oil and gas frying pan and into a nuclear fire – it makes no sense and Scots seem to get that.”

That Survation poll, surveyed 2000 Scots in the middle of the current election campaign, and found an overwhelming public preference to focus on a renewable energy future that would lower energy bills and tackle climate change more effectively. Only 12% of those polled thought the nuclear industry was the most trustworthy about its products, costs, pollutants and safety record.

When the lobby group Britain Remade, proclaimed support for nuclear power in Scotland last year, they declined to disclose that 89% of their own poll supported home-grown energy within our own borders – that desire for self-sufficiency kills nuclear stone dead. Scotland has no uranium mines.

We should just get on with building a country that is a renewable energy powerhouse so that future generations can look back and thank us for choosing a green, clean and sustainable energy route.  Nuclear is NOT a natural partner with renewables, indeed, it is a delaying tactic, holding back rapid decarbonisation, and adds extra and unnecessary cost to a renewables-based energy system.

George Baxter is the director of Green Power. He leads Green Power’s team delivering greenfield wind and solar developments both in the UK and Ireland.

May 13, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Fears Royal Navy nuclear submarine docks will be built overseas

A multibillion-pound nuclear submarine maintenance contract is at risk of
being awarded to a foreign shipyard, despite safeguards that normally
dictate that high-security work must be performed at secure sites in the
UK. The Ministry of Defence is preparing to kick off a tender for the Royal
Navy’s Additional Fleet Time Docking Capability (AFTDC) programme to build
floating dry docks that are pivotal to national security. The scheme would
double the availability of nuclear submarine docks at HM Naval Base Clyde.
The new docks would allow concurrent dry-dock maintenance of two submarines
at the base, also known as Faslane.

Times 9th May 2026,
https://www.thetimes.com/business/companies-markets/article/royal-navy-nuclear-submarine-docks-programme-euston-v22btzbm3

May 13, 2026 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Genocide Is Still The Political Test That Matters

May 9, 2026 , Nate Bear, https://www.donotpanic.news/p/genocide-is-still-the-political-test

Yesterday elections were held in parts of England to elect local councillors, and in Scotland and Wales to elect their devolved parliaments.

Fearing a challenge from the left, Starmer’s ruling Labour party spent the campaigning period, in coordination with Britain’s legacy media, confecting antisemitism slurs about Green party candidates.

The final effort, on the morning of the elections, was to turn a comment by the Green leader, Zack Polanski, that Israel nor any other country has an inherent right to exist, into one final psychodrama about antisemitism.

It hasn’t worked.

According to early results, the Greens are on course to beat pre-election forecasts for how many seats they’d win. Labour has suffered a heavy defeat.

The (very) dark, although not unsurprising lining to the cloud, is that the far-right Reform party is on course to win a large number of seats. Unsurprising because neither Labour nor the UK’s state-corporate media went after Reform with the rabid, ferocious intensity they went after the Greens.

Why?

Because Reform’s imperialist, hyper-capitalist, bigoted policies aren’t a threat to the establishment.

Reform’s promises to mass deport brown people, build private prison camps, privatise what’s left to privatise of public services, plough money into the war machine, support Israel, and cut taxes for oligarchs, are supported by a right-wing establishment.

What the establishment fears are threats to their power and wealth. What they fear are those who will redistribute wealth, expand the social welfare state and tax millionaires to do it. And with Zionism so deeply ingrained within western institutions of power, they fear anti-Zionists.

As absurd and morally depraved as it is, the establishment fear those who oppose genocide.

Which is why the media and political establishment made ‘antisemitism’ (actually anti-Zionism of course) into a central election issue. But when it was becoming clear it wasn’t working, when it was obvious that genocide, not fake claims of antisemitism, was a more salient issue for people of conscience, Labour MPs took desperately to social media to tell people not to think about Gaza when voting.

Despite this, despite the full weight of the British establishment being arrayed against the Greens, they have fought back, and fought back successfully.

The full results won’t be known until tomorrow, but a significant win saw a Green mayor elected in the London borough of Hackney, the first time the Greens have won a mayoralty election, and the first time the area has had anything other than a Labour mayor since it was formed.

More significant was that two days before her victory, Zoe Garbett had refused to praise the police for the violent arrest of the mentally ill man whose attacks on three people were mischaracterised as antisemitism (and weaponised against the Greens).

The bottom line is that genocide for many people is still, rightly, one of the primary, if not the primary political test. A test of character, ethics, morality and judgement.

The argument that local elections have nothing to do with Gaza appears logical on one level, but is an evasion.

Politics is (or at least should be) about all these things. About values.

And if you can’t oppose genocide, if you can’t stand up to genociders, why should anyone trust you to stand up for justice, or for anything decently progressive?

But for so many in Britain’s Labour party, as for those in the Democratic party in the US, and most liberal parties across the west, it’s worse than that. It’s not just that they don’t oppose genocide, it’s that they provide active support for genocide and a genocidal state.

The Labour party has effectively criminalised support for Palestine. An anti-genocide and community activist in the UK is facing fourteen years in prison having been charged under terrorism laws for social media posts. For tweets! And an NHS GP, Dr Rahmeh Aladwan, has been arrested numerous times for tweets opposing Israel and genocide and is facing years in prison. Meanwhile, another NHS GP, a Jewish Zionist who served in the IDF and claimed he didn’t kill enough babies, has faced no consequences and is still a practicing doctor.

And of course the Labour government provided funding, support and arms to Israel during the genocide, which included daily spy flights feeding back info to the Israeli army, helping fuel their genocidal assault. An assault that continues to this day, with the majority of Gaza now living in tents among rats and disease atop the wasteland of their former homes.

It’s a disgrace. More than a disgrace. Gaza is a moral collapse, and should be at the centre of all of our politics.

Gaza and genocide should very obviously be the test.

If you provide material and rhetorical support for genocide and genociders, if you have revealed genocide and apartheid as one of your core values, you should have no place in decent society, let alone be anywhere close to political power.

Which is why earlier this week I revealed that a Labour councillor in the London borough of Waltham Forest is a genocide supporter who at the height of Israel’s campaign of mass slaughter visited the country on an atrocity propaganda tour.

The final count isn’t in, so whether Lewis has lost the seat, and whether Labour lost the council to the Greens, we don’t yet know.

But what we do know is that the pro-Israel, pro-genocide, Zionist ideology Lewis wears proudly is rife within Labour.

And while Labour’s moral collapse has spurred the rise of the Greens, the overall environment being created in the UK is aiding the rise of the far-right Reform party.

Because in a country where being anti-genocide is lampooned and criminalised, and where being pro-genocide is considered the sensible and protected position, the emergence of fascism is hardly surprising. The rise of fascism is downstream, as they say, of pro-genocide sentiment. Which makes perfect sense, given genocide is the peak expression of fascism.

The UK is the perfect incubator for the emergence of hyper reactionary politics.

But these elections at least show us that Zionism may, slowly but surely, be losing its grip on western politics.

They also demonstrate that the power of legacy media to kill popular leftist politics with lies and slurs is waning, if not yet dead.

May 11, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Accountability is optional

Hamza Yusuf | Declassified UK , May 8, 2026

The Metropolitan Police has declined to investigate Britons accused of committing war crimes while serving with the Israeli military in Gaza.Last April, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) and the Public Interest Law Centre (PILC) filed an extensive, 240-page dossier to the Met’s War Crimes Team.

The report detailed the alleged involvement of the 10 British nationals, including dual citizens, in the “targeted killings of civilians and aid workers, indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas, attacks on hospitals and protected sites, and the forced transfer and displacement of civilians”.

Over 70 legal and human rights experts urged the Met’s War Crimes Team to investigate all suspected war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed by Britons when the dossier was handed in.

In its recent decision letter, the Met Police accepted that international bodies have found that Israel’s actions in Gaza “could amount to war crimes” and identified at least four individuals of “particular interest.”

However, the War Crimes Team has refused to move beyond a scoping exercise, saying there was “no realistic prospect of conviction” and that an “effective investigation could not be conducted.”

Paul Heron, a solicitor at PILC, said: “We reject The Met’s conclusions”.


“By demanding evidence capable of securing a realistic prospect of conviction before even opening an investigation, the Police have applied the wrong legal test and set the bar far too high. British nationals and residents cannot be allowed to participate in atrocities abroad with impunity.”The PILC maintains that the referral provided credible material warranting a full investigation.

We recently revealed that at least 2000 Britons served in Israel’s military during the Gaza genocide.
Meanwhile, Britain’s recognition of a Palestinian state may also place British nationals serving in the Israeli army in breach of the 1870 Foreign Enlistment Act. The act prohibits citizens from fighting for a foreign state at war with another state at peace with the UK, but there is no sign of enforcement.


And what is absent is equally telling: The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) travel advice for Ukraine explicitly warns British nationals that fighting there “may amount to offences under UK legislation”and that they “could be prosecuted on your return”.

No equivalent warning appears in FCDO advice for Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories.


This exposes a glaring and systemic accountability gap – one the Foreign Office recently deepened by quietly shutting down its unit tracking Israeli breaches of international law.

The Met’s refusal is the latest in a pattern of dereliction: British institutions, one by one, declining to act on Israel’s crimes.

May 10, 2026 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

Labour and SNP row over submarines at Rosyth Dockyard

 THE SNP have been accused of “scaremongering” after warning that Rosyth
has become a bigger target for terrorists and “rogue nations”. Labour
councillor Patrick Browne took aim and said the request for a public
consultation, on the prospect of Trident submarines carrying nuclear
missiles being maintained at the dockyard, was pointless and never going to
be accepted. He said: “The SNP have been scaremongering for months about
the contingent dock proposal for Rosyth. “With their latest comments they
have reached new levels of doom-mongering.”

But SNP councillor Brian
Goodall, who stated that having subs with warheads on the Forth increased
the threat of attack on Rosyth, said that response and the criticism of his
actions showed “just how right wing many in the Labour Party have become”.
The dispute has arisen due the plan for a contingent dock at Rosyth by 2029
to temporarily house the UK’s next generation of nuclear subs until a
permanent home at Faslane on the Clyde is ready in the 2030s.

 Dunfermline Press 6th May 2026, https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/26084331.labour-snp-row-submarines-rosyth-dockyard/

May 10, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

When will the new nuclear operators be required to put money aside for decommissioning?

4 May 26
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/ai-search/?q=When%20will%20the%20new%20nuclear%20operato

New nuclear operators are required by law to set aside funds for decommissioning and waste disposal from the very first day of a plant’s operation . Under the legal framework established by the government, energy firms must have a robust, funded decommissioning plan (FDP) in place and approved by the Secretary of State before they are even granted permission to begin construction on a new power station 

Key Funding Requirements

The regulations are designed to ensure that the financial risk of cleaning up nuclear sites remains with the developers rather than the taxpayer. According to the government’s Funded Decommissioning Programme Guidance:

  • Insolvency-Proof Funds: Operators must establish funds for clean-up that are administered independently of both the operator and the government to ensure they remain protected even if the company faces financial difficulties .
  • Full Cost Responsibility: Operators are responsible for the full costs of decommissioning and their share of waste disposal. Energy Secretary Charles Hendry stated that requiring a credible funding plan “is the best way to protect taxpayers from having to pick up the bill” .
  • Waste Transfer Pricing: To provide cost certainty for investors, the government proposed a cap on the waste transfer price for disposing of higher-activity waste in a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF). This cap was suggested to be set at a high level—roughly three times current cost estimates—with an additional risk fee charged to operators to compensate the government for accepting any residual risk .

Evolving Models: The Sizewell C Precedent

While the standard requirement involves operators building up independent funds, the government has introduced a new financial model for the Sizewell C project. As detailed in the written ministerial statement Sizewell C | Public on the hook for decommissioning costs of up to £12bn, this project utilises a Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model:

  • Consumer Funding: Decommissioning for Sizewell C will be funded via the RAB, which can include additional costs on consumer electricity bills .
  • Contingent Liabilities: While the RAB includes protections to minimise public risk, the government has acknowledged a potential exposure of up to £12bn in “remote circumstances” where a fund shortfall materialises .
  • Timeline: For modern plants like Sizewell C, decommissioning is expected to be a long-term process, potentially beginning toward the end of the 21st century and continuing until 2160 

The government continues to update these roadmaps to ensure they remain suitable for new technologies, such as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), while protecting future generations from bearing legacy costs .

You may be interested in learning more about the estimated total cost of the UK’s nuclear cleanup mission, the progress of the Geological Disposal Facility, or how the Regulated Asset Base model impacts consumer energy bills.

May 8, 2026 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

Scots are right to back renewables over nuclear energy.

 By Dr Paul Dorfman, Bennett Institute, University of Sussex; Dr Keith
Baker FRSA, Glasgow Caledonian University; Professor Peter Strachan, Robert
Gordon University; Professor Steve Thomas, University of Greenwich; Dr
David Toke, University of Aberdeen.

POLLING released a couple of weeks ago
found that nuclear power has a “miserable” level of support in
Scotland, with more than half of those surveyed saying that the main focus
should be on renewables. According to the facts, this makes sense. Solar
and wind now dominate global electricity generation. Worldwide, solar and
wind power will both surpass nuclear in 2026.

This surge has halted the
fossil fuel power generation rise, with renewables overtaking coal,
supported by battery storage providing system flexibility at scale. All
this points to a shift in the dynamics of the power system. When renewable
energy generation exceeded the rise in global electricity demand last year,
an important threshold was crossed. In 2025, solar became the EU’s top
power source, with wind and solar now the bedrock of European energy
self-reliance. Power generation from renewables in Europe has reached a new
record of 384.9 Terrawatt-hours (TWh).

Meanwhile, Scottish wind power has
also set new records. More renewable energy is produced in the Scottish
Highlands per household than any other area of the UK. Annual renewable
generation across the Highlands is staggering. Renewable energy development
will be further supported by SSEN’s investment of £7 billion in Scotland
in 2026-31, creating 17,500 jobs. More than 100% of Scotland’s
electricity demand has been produced by renewables for the first time,
supporting more than 42,000 jobs and an economic output of more than
£10.1bn.

New UK nuclear plans would be yet another blow to electricity
bill-payers, when Scottish families are already paying what amounts to a
“nuclear tax” to fund the two most expensive nuclear power plants in
the world, England’s Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C.

Meanwhile, the
Norwegian Nuclear Committee has just said no to nuclear power in Norway.
Due to new nuclear construction timescales – up to 17 years according the
UK Government – and the vast cost over-runs, fissile fuel is a policy
dead end, diverting scarce resources away from realistic climate and energy
solutions.

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are another a costly distraction.
They are still in development and decades away from deployment at scale.
All this means that new nuclear is too late for the climate and energy
crises. What’s worse, every pound invested in nuclear is a pound not
invested in renewables, energy efficiency, storage and grid resilience –
investments that would provide a much bigger pay-off.

 The National 6th May 2026,
https://www.thenational.scot/business/26081051.scots-right-back-renewables-nuclear-energy/

May 8, 2026 Posted by | renewable, UK | Leave a comment

The UK Descends Into Confected Antisemitism Hysteria

Nate Bear, Do Not Panic May 05, 2026

The UK has descended into confected hysteria over antisemitism to protect Keir Starmer and Labour from being wiped out by the Greens in local elections this week.

The British establishment is well-practiced in manufacturing antisemitism hysteria, of course, having used it to destroy Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party when it got too close to power.

Now the UK’s political and media establishment is trying to pull the same trick, but this time on the Green Party and its Jewish leader, Zack Polanski.

This fresh round of hysteria really ramped up after a man with a history of mental illness (and of stabbings) stabbed two Jews in north London last week. Neither died and both will live. Omitted from almost all state-corporate media coverage was the fact that he also stabbed a third man, a Muslim. Also omitted was his history of stabbings (he previously stabbed his own dog, a Somali man, and two police officers), and his history of psychotic breaks.

Despite the circumstances clearly pointing to random attacks by a person suffering an acute mental episode, the police treated it not just as a planned antisemitic attack, but as terrorism.

The terrorism threat level in the UK was raised to severe.

I remember when terrorism used to mean car bombs, political goals, manifestos and scores of dead people, not a mentally disabled man with a butter knife scratching a few people.

But the attack was perfect fodder for the British media and political establishment, who blamed support for Palestine and opposition to genocide for enabling antisemitism, and instantly began demanding pro-Palestine protests were fully outlawed.

The environment of hysteria that ensued is hard to describe if you don’t follow British media or politics closely, but it has been extraordinary.

Keir Starmer gave a primetime televised address to the nation.

His speech was a complete misrepresentation of the facts of the case, completely omitting the Muslim victim, completely omitting the man’s history of illness and random stabbing attacks. But they were deliberate lies of omission critical to constructing an antisemitism narrative.

And it worked.

Every headline, every news broadcast for a week led with the story about ‘the antisemitism crisis in Britain.’

I remember when terrorism used to mean something. I also remember when antisemitism used to mean something. And implying all Jews support the actions of Israel used to be considered antisemitic.

But now that’s all anyone with political or media power does.

Starmer said that anti-genocide, pro-Palestine protests have created the environment for antisemitic attacks. The Green Party’s opposition to Israel’s genocide, the media said, has fuelled antisemitism. The Guardian had a story on the Green Party’s ‘struggle against antisemitism,’ a story which presumably included how just eight months ago the entire Green Party membership antisemitically elected a Jewish leader.

And when you deconstruct the logical conclusions behind the implication that Jews are being attacked because of what Israel has done, it will break your brain.

Firstly the implication that Jews are attacked because of Israel, not because of their religion, means Israel represents all Jewish sentiment……………………………….

We’ve reached the point where everything is antisemitism apart from the thing that is actually antisemitism.

And this is because the Zionists have lost the propaganda war. Genocide is not going back in the bottle. Everyone sees what Israel has done. Everyone can now see what Israel is: a genocidal settler-colony apartheid state run by ethno-supremacists.

The deliberate conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism then is intended to silence criticism of Israel, and erase the truth about what Israel is and has done.

It’s also intended to stop the Green Party inflicting a humiliating defeat on Keir Starmer and his Labour Party in local elections this week.

The establishment calculation is that if you can establish in the mind of progressives the idea that a vote for the Greens is actually a vote for hate, not a vote against genocide or apartheid, you can stop Labour bleeding leftist votes to the Greens.

If the Zionist establishment can reestablish that black is white, they think they have a chance.

But it goes even deeper than that.

The UK establishment aren’t just using the attack for rhetorical purposes, they are using it to actually get Green Party election candidates arrested.

Andrew Gilligan, a former adviser to Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, and now a right-wing journalist, wrote a story about two Green Party candidates Saiqa Ali and Sabine Mairey who he said had made ‘antisemitic’ posts. Last week, he gloated that following his stories, they’d both been arrested…………………………………………………

Three people are stabbed every day in London. Over one thousand people a year, of all religions and none.

None of these ever warrant a national prime ministerial TV address.

Twenty-seven mosques in the UK were attacked between July and October last year.

No extra security funding (Starmer has promised an extra £25 million for Jewish areas). No discourse about Islamophobia. Just tumbleweed.

But a random attack on two Jews gets the full national psychodrama treatment because it can be so usefully weaponised to serve the interests of Zionism.

Are people going to fall for this?

I don’t think so.

Is Zack Polanski going to fall for this after seeing what happened to Corbyn?

Hopefully not.

We have more than enough evidence by now to know that you can never appease Zionists.

There is no middle-ground, no strategy of accommodation.

Any concession is interpreted as a sign of weakness. As Corbyn showed us, once they’ve drawn blood, they’ll bleed you dry.

The only anti-Zionist strategy that makes any sense is one of full confrontation.

The only route to victory is their full defeat. https://www.donotpanic.news/p/the-uk-descends-into-confected-antisemitism

May 8, 2026 Posted by | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear Sector Must Step Up Cybersecurity

The nuclear industry is weak on cyber security, says a policy institute analysis. To respond, the sector has to take a more transparent and collaborative approach – and speed up action on improvement

Staff Writer NS ENERGY,  4th May 2026

THE ROYAL INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL Affairs (a UK policy institute colloquially known as ‘Chatham House’) has described the nuclear industry’s status on cybersecurity as “playing catch-up”. It has warned that “the nature of licensing systems for nuclear operators means that long periods of risky working practices are often tolerated”. As an example, it highlighted the UK’s Sellafield fuel cycle site, which pleaded guilty in June 2024 to criminal charges that related to gaps in its cybersecurity between 2019 and 2023. The site had been repeatedly flagged in inspections by the UK Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), which warned it would apply ‘enhanced regulatory attention’ to cybersecurity practices.

The Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) warning came in a report, ‘Cybersecurity of the civil nuclear sector’ that considered the threat landscape and the international legal framework for cybersecurity as it applies to the nuclear industry. The group examined the issue because it saw the civil nuclear industry expanding worldwide at the same time as cyber threats are evolving, and because cyber operations targeting civil nuclear systems have been reported worldwide…………………………………………………………………………

Playing catch-up

RIIA says that the nuclear sector lacks a comprehensive understanding of the threat landscape around cybersecurity and effective resilience strategies.

Vulnerabilities arise from technical and non-technical factors, including the use of older software, personnel being targeted and the lack of sufficient sector-wide awareness and collaboration. Cyber incidents can also occur accidentally as a result of existing vulnerabilities in commercial software. These vulnerabilities include: entry points such as inadequate IT infrastructure maintenance; missing patches and updates; unsafe working practices such as connection to unprotected networks; the use of portable storage devices; legacy systems; and inadequate data protection. The report says, “this range of potential threats makes it doubly essential to ensure fundamentally secure working practices, as it is very difficult to identify and protect against every individual vulnerability”.

The authors say “the nuclear industry was a comparatively late starter” on cybersecurity, compared with other industries associated with critical national infrastructure or sectors such as finance. They add that “the nuclear industry’s strong pre-existing physical security, and its use of bespoke or uncommon industrial control software, meant that there was a sense within the sector that all aspects of security were sufficiently covered.” That sense has gone: more systems in nuclear power plants have acquired digital elements, including commercial off-theshelf software solutions and more cyber vulnerabilities have been introduced as a result. This has increasingly left systems and facilities open to attack and, “in some respects, the civil nuclear industry is thus still playing catch-up”.

The group also says that another challenge to realising cyber security is that the nuclear industry is isolated from other sectors. It is therefore difficult to exchange experiences of best practice with other industries; instead the exchange is “ad hoc, often informal, and largely based on the personal drive and networks of individuals in cybersecurity roles”. The industry is not transparent about incidents, because it is concerned about revealing information about vulnerabilities and equally concerned about public perception if vulnerabilities are revealed. Regulators typically discuss cybersecurity gaps only with specific operators rather than sharing concerns more widely. The report says, “the nuclear industry’s preoccupation with perceptions can get in the way of transparency, even though stronger disclosures would help to bolster confidence in the safety of working practices”…………………………………………………………

…………  SMRs may have more cyber vulnerabilities because they are less bespoke than traditional reactors, are connected to the internet and cannot have sterile ‘air gaps’ where there is no connection, because operators require remote access. They may be “more of a target for opportunistic cybercriminals”. In addition, SMRs will also be vulnerable through the construction supply chain, while using artificial intelligence (AI) could lower the entry barrier for cyberattack by making tools for cyber intrusions more accessible and affordable. Finally, if they are successful there will simply be more SMRs, in more places where cyber criminals can attack…………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/analysis/playing-catch-upon-cyber-safety/

May 8, 2026 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Starmer plan to relax nuclear regulation opposed by Holyrood

“The weakening of environmental protection is a slippery slope opening the way for increased radiation doses to members of the public and the workforce.” – Pete Roche, Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace

UK Government plans which could “weaken” oversight of nuclear safety in Scotland have been rejected by the Scottish Government.

Rob Edwards, May 03 2026, https://www.theferret.scot/starmer-nuclear-regulation-holyrood/

The prime minister Sir Keir Starmer’s plans to reform the regulation of nuclear power and weapons to make new developments easier have provoked “serious concerns” within the Scottish Government, according to emails obtained by The Ferret.

The Scottish energy minister, Gillian Martin, wrote to the UK nuclear minister, Lord Vallance, in March, rejecting the suggestion that Scotland could “reap the benefits” of the reforms in helping to build new nuclear reactors.

She also expressed worries that proposals for a “lead regulator” system designed to simplify and speed up the handling of nuclear projects would threaten the independence of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. 

Campaigners warned that the “weakening” of nuclear safety regulation could lead to workers and the public being exposed to more radiation, which can cause cancer. They stressed that Scotland did not need nuclear power and its “toxic legacy”.

The UK Government said that Starmer would “like to see benefits delivered across the UK”. But it promised to work with the Scottish Government “in good faith without presuming an outcome”.

Nuclear power has become one of the most contentious issues in the run-up to the Scottish Parliament elections on 7 May. 

Scottish Labour has repeatedly attacked the Scottish National Party (SNP) for “blocking” the building of new nuclear power stations, which it argued would bring jobs, investment and energy security.

The SNP has maintained the move would drive up electricity prices, create long-lived radioactive waste and undermine renewables, which offer Scotland a better energy future.

In February 2025, Starmer announced plans to “rip up rules to fire up nuclear power”, and set up a nuclear regulatory taskforce to “deliver new projects more quickly”. The Ferret reported in May 2025 that in doing so, he had ignored warnings from his nuclear safety watchdog that regulation was not to blame for delays.

The taskforce, headed by business expert John Fingleton, published its final report in November 2025. It recommended a “radical reset” introducing a “lead regulator” followed by a new regulatory commission to reduce “risk aversion” and “accelerate delivery”.

The report covered both nuclear power and nuclear weapons, and suggested that the civil safety watchdog, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and the Ministry of Defence’s internal watchdog, the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator, should be merged “to reduce duplication”.

Starmer published his full response to the taskforce in March 2026, accepting all its recommendations. The aim, he said, was to “build a Britain that reclaims its place as a leading nuclear nation”.

His response acknowledged that the taskforce had not made recommendations for the Scottish Government and other devolved administrations. But it promised to “work closely with them to ensure that they too can reap the benefits of these reforms”.

The UK Government was “committed to nuclear across the UK”, the response said. It highlighted government involvement in plans for a new fleet of so-called small modular reactors at Wylfa in Wales.

These statements were highlighted by Scottish minister Martin in an email on 13 March 2026 to UK minister Vallance, released in response to a freedom of information request from The Ferret.

Martin expressed “concerns” that the UK Government was making commitments to take forward the taskforce’s recommendations in Scotland, despite having promised not to. The Scottish Government was yet to be convinced that there was “any merit” in adopting Westminster’s proposals, she said. 

“We need to ensure we are reaching our full renewables potential rather than ploughing billions of pounds into a nuclear industry that will leave a long and toxic legacy for future generations.” – Patrick Harvie, Scottish Greens.

Martin pointed out that Scottish ministers had “a longstanding position on new nuclear energy in Scotland and matters of environmental regulation remain devolved to Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament.”

She also said that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) had been invited to a meeting in London on 26 March 2026 to discuss the UK Government’s plans for a “lead regulator” for nuclear projects.

“We have serious concerns about a lead regulator model and the impact that would have on Sepa’s independence,” Martin warned. She sought clarification “on how the implementation of this will be done in a way which does not impact on areas of devolved competence.”

Another email released to The Ferret is from an unnamed Scottish Government official to the UK Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on 12 March. It complained that Starmer’s response to the taskforce “impinges on devolved issues without the agreement of Scottish ministers” and was “problematic”.

“Ministers will have to be robust on this with language and next steps,” the email said.

Other files disclosed that Martin had an online meeting with Vallance to discuss the nuclear regulatory taskforce on 25 February. According to Martin’s pre-meeting briefing from officials, there were “significant issues” with what the taskforce recommendations would mean for Sepa.

Another Scottish Government email to Westminster back in February 2025, when the nuclear regulatory taskforce was announced, said there had been “no engagement with, or agreement from, Scottish ministers”. It suggested that ministers “should not be part” of the taskforce’s work.

“The weakening of environmental protection is a slippery slope opening the way for increased radiation doses to members of the public and the workforce.” – Pete Roche, Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace

Vallance responded to Martin’s email raising concerns on 18 March. Starmer would “like to see benefits delivered across the UK”, he said, but the “recommendations apply only to England”. 

The UK Government’s intention was to work with the Scottish Government to “discuss what reforms they may wish to echo or engage with”, he added. “We want to do so in good faith and without presuming an outcome.”

Vallance pointed out that regulatory reform was not just about building new nuclear reactors, but also covered the dismantling of defunct reactors. Major nuclear decommissioning projects, expected to take decades, are under way at Hunterston in North Ayrshire and Dounreay in Caithness.

“We do not consider that it implies an intention for the development of new nuclear power in Scotland,” he stated. Vallance also insisted that he “respected” Sepa’s independence. 

“None of the measures in the government’s response are intended to, or would, cut across Sepa’s statutory remit or independence of judgment,” he said.

The plan for a “lead regulator” did not give legal powers to that regulator, he maintained. “It simply seeks to facilitate collective, consensus-based decisions.”

The Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace backed the Scottish Government’s concerns. The UK Government seemed to be following president Trump’s lead in relaxing nuclear safety regulation, warned the campaign’s spokesperson, Pete Roche.

May 6, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Dissecting An “Antisemitism” Psyop

Caitlin Johnstone, May 03, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/dissecting-an-antisemitism-psyop?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=196309636&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

I recently watched a Sky News segment on the need to ban pro-Palestine marches which nicely illustrates the way the mass media have been working to manipulate the public into believing these demonstrations are causing antisemitic attacks.

Reporting on British prime minister Keir Starmer’s recent assertion that the “repeat nature” and “cumulative effect” of pro-Palestine marches may necessitate a ban on some protests following the Golders Green stabbing, reporter Mollie Malone repeatedly told the audience of Sky News that the marches are happening in the “context” of antisemitic incidents and “against the backdrop” of attacks on Jewish people.

There is no evidence whatsoever for the claim that pro-Palestine marches have anything at all to do with antisemitic attacks. But watch how this Sky News propagandist marries the two in the minds of her viewers by repeatedly mentioning them in the same breath and connecting them with words like “context” and “backdrop”.

“The prime minister has gone somewhat further than he has previously in discussing and commenting on how to approach and manage these protests which we’ve seen for a long time now, but clearly they now come against the backdrop of increased attacks on our Jewish communities, most recently of course on Wednesday where two Jewish men were stabbed in Golders Green,” Malone said.

Malone made the obligatory appeal to emotion by talking about the feelings of British Jews by saying that antisemitic attacks are “adding to fears among Jewish people,” and then said “it’s in that context that these pro-Palestine marches are being discussed.”

I could make the exact same type of argument to suggest that the faint humming sound from my refrigerator is causing the pain in my ankle. I could say I’m experiencing ankle soreness and the soreness is making my feelings feel very upset, and it is in this context and against this backdrop that the buzzing from the refrigerator is happening. At no point am I actually presenting evidence that the soreness in my ankle has anything to do with the faint buzzing sound; I’m just using fallacious associations and appeals to emotion to get you to think of them as having a causal relationship.

Malone uncritically quoted the UK’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation Jonathan Hall asserting on no basis whatsoever that pro-Palestine marches “incubate antisemitism,” then repeated the bogus hasbara talking point that the phrase “globalise the intifada” is “seen to incite violence towards Jewish people.”

“The context here is everything,” Malone concluded after a few moments of pro-Palestine activist rebuttals to provide the illusion of impartiality.

As the British political/media class have been doing for days when discussing the Golders Green stabbings, Malone neglects to mention that a third man who was not Jewish was also attacked in the same incident, and that the assailant had recently emerged from the care of a psychiatric hospital. You might think the perpetrator’s extensive history of mental health struggles combined with the fact that he did not solely target Jewish people would dissuade serious news reporters from framing this as an act motivated by hateful ideology, but British news media employees are not serious news reporters. They are propagandists.

This frenzied propaganda push to stomp out pro-Palestine protests across the western world has nothing to do with protecting Jewish people from antisemitic attacks. It’s about protecting the interests of Israel and the murderous western governments with whom it is aligned, and nothing else.

May 6, 2026 Posted by | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

“We are waiting for Nuclear Waste Services to Come Up with Recommendations on Siting….”

Marianne Birkby, May 02, 2026, https://radiationfreelakeland.substack.com/p/we-are-waiting-for-nuclear-waste

“We are waiting for Nuclear Waste Services to Come Up with Recommendations on Siting….”

But meanwhile ‘we are already building new nuclear reactors which would produce even hotter nuclear wastes. Hot nuclear wastes are in the pipeline for which there is no “away” in blatant disregard of the Flowers Report: “There should be no commitment to a large programme of nuclear fission power until it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that a method exists to ensure the safe containment of long-lived highly radioactive waste for the indefinite future.”

Well it is safe to say that not only is there reasonable doubt that a method exists as no country has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that they can contain high level wastes indefinitely without repackaging – but there is also no where NO WHERE willing to be the ultimate nuclear guinea pig in the UK. Unless that is you count the four members of Copeland now Cumberland Council that said on behalf of the region, ‘hey yes let’s sacrifice the safety of Cumbria and her neighbours for nuclear £bungs’.

Good on Wera Hobhouse LibDem MP for Bath for asking the questions.. Click for video on facebook

May 5, 2026 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

‘Fish disco’ not enough to protect nature at nuclear plant, says green quango.

Natural England demands new salt marshes be created before Hinkley Point C can open

Matt Oliver, Industry Editor

The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station is facing fresh
delays as a green quango demands extra nature protections on top of a
controversial “fish disco”. Natural England has told developer EDF that
existing plans to stop aquatic life in the Severn Estuary from being sucked
into the Somerset plant’s cooling pipes will not be enough to satisfy
environmental rules.

The company had proposed using £700m of special
equipment to ward off fish, including a bespoke underwater loudspeaker
system which campaigners have called the “fish disco”. EDF provided new
research data to regulators in February following promising trials of the
technology, formally known as the acoustic fish deterrent, by university
scientists.

But in recent weeks, Natural England is understood to have
claimed that further protections are necessary, such as the creation of new
salt marshes to boost fish populations in the area. The quango is refusing
to sign off the plant until new plans are set out and approved.

It has prompted concern that Hinkley’s targeted 2030 opening date is now
effectively impossible to deliver, owing to the time it will take to win
approval for and build the new salt marshes. Sam Richards, the chief
executive of Britain Remade, a Right-leaning think tank, said: “Hinkley
Point C is already the most expensive nuclear power station ever built.
“It also has more fish protection measures than any reactor built
anywhere in the world. “For Natural England to now demand even more
mitigation – regardless of the wider impact on the project and for
minimal added benefit to nature – shows just how out of touch with
reality they really are. “This out of control quango has become a direct
threat to Britain’s energy security.”

 Telegraph 2nd May 2026, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/05/02/fish-disco-not-enough-to-protect-nature-at-nuclear-plant/

May 4, 2026 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »