Facing an ever more extreme Democratic Party, I understand the temptation among American conservatives to focus on domestic issues. But socialism’s lack of respect for borders extends beyond keeping them open. For years now, the Left on both sides of the Atlantic has fed off one another, swapping ideas and experimenting in better ways to exert control over the rest of us.
In particular, it seems that the American Left has treated Britain as an offshore laboratory, where ideas too toxic to clear Congress are piloted before being sold back to you as “proven.” And lately it has become a battlefield: the place to win the fights the Left keeps losing at home.
For example, windfall profits taxes were a Carter-era failure, repealed and mostly forgotten, until Britain revived one on our own North Sea oil and gas producers that made “excessive profits” during COVID and the Ukraine war. Investment duly collapsed, and the UK the most expensive energy in the world. But this didn’t stop <a href="https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2026/3/as-trump-s-war-surges-gas-prices-whitehouse-and-khanna-reintroduce-big-oil-profits-clawback-to-provide-relief-at-the-pump">Congressman Ro Khanna</a> and others from calling for the same to be implemented in America.
Other taxes in Britain are having the same effect. Road congestion charging, pioneered in London and creeping across British cities (with no discernible improvement in congestion), arrived in New York last year, copied more or less line for line. Soda taxes have been in place in Britain for years, too, known as a “soft drinks levy.” It is cited as the gold standard wherever campaigners gather to make groceries dearer.
Then there is speech. Our Online Safety Act requires Britons to show their papers before reading what the state deems “harmful,&#8221; and the American censors, who the First Amendment keeps muzzled, watch it with open envy. Police now routinely knock on family homes where they know that no crime has been committed in order to “remind” (read: warn) people tweeting things about the negative impact of their speech. Don’t be surprised if Dems try to institute something similar.
And now, progressive American companies have started funding class action lawsuits in Britain, just as American states are starting to wise up to the harm these third-party litigation funders are causing.
In &#8220;Bleak House,” Charles Dickens gave the English language its great monument to legal futility: Jarndyce and Jarndyce, the inheritance case that ground on for generations until the entire estate had been devoured in costs. &#8220;The little plaintiff or defendant, who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should be settled, has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world.&#8221; Dickens meant it as satire, but progressive, ESG-obsessed American trial lawyers must have taken it as inspiration.
We Brits long watched your courtroom culture with horrified smugness, confident it could never happen here.
But now it is happening here, and it is bankrolled with American capital. In 2015, Britain quietly created an American-style &#8220;opt-out&#8221; class action regime. Combined claims now exceed <a href="https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2025/10/class-actions-by-the-backdoor">£160 billion</a>; nearly half of all class actions filed in Europe between <a href="https://instituteforlegalreform.com/blog/litigation-risks-in-europe-are-growing/">2018 and 2022</a> were filed here, fed by a third-party litigation funding industry.
The largest such deal in British history is a <a href="https://pogustgoodhead.com/en-us/largest-litigation-funding-deal-in-history/">£450 million</a> partnership between Gramercy, a Connecticut hedge fund, and the activist law firm Pogust Goodhead (which, the Financial Times reports, has faced complaints from its own lawyers that the funder effectively controls it). That money is financing the largest group action Britain has ever seen, bizarrely on an issue that happened in Brazil. <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/victims-demand-justice-over-deadly-brazilian-dam-collapse-uk-lawsuit-closes-2025-03-13/">A claim</a> for up to £36 billion on behalf of 600,000 Brazilians against the mining company BHP over a dam collapse is being argued under Brazilian law in an English court. Whatever that is, it is not English justice.
Concerningly, these lawsuits are being exported to Britain, draped in ESG and “climate justice,” precisely as that agenda is being routed across the United States. So I hate to have to say that rumors of ESG&#8217;s death have been greatly exaggerated, at least on this side of the Atlantic. <a href="https://www.consumerfinancemonitor.com/2026/06/26/north-carolina-enacts-first-in-the-nation-ban-on-third-party-litigation-financing/">Last month</a>, North Carolina became the first state to ban third-party litigation funding outright, by a vote of 112 to 0 in its House. But just as America begins shutting the door, another is opened in Britain. How long before American companies are sued in London for ESG reasons, outside U.S. jurisdiction?
As Cicero would ask, who benefits? Not the victims. When Britain&#8217;s postmasters, wrongly prosecuted by the state-owned <a href="https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2024/03/mr-bates-vs-the-post-office-spurs-possible-law-change/">Post Office</a> in our worst modern miscarriage of justice, finally won damages in their original group action, roughly 80% went to the funders and lawyers. Sir Alan Bates, the hero of that campaign, put it plainly: &#8220;The lawyers are making all the money in this and not the victims.” Dickens would recognize the unfairness.
And I’m afraid to say that, as Britain is about to swap a Left-wing leader for an even more Left-wing leader, more of this trend will follow. Andy Burnham is talking up nationalization of key industries, building more state-owned housing and less private, and so there will be no shortage of fresh ideas for your activists to borrow.
So while it may be tempting to write off Britain and Western Europe more broadly as a lost cause, as diminishing economic and military powers, that would be a mistake. As before, the new world cannot let bad ideas fester in the old world, lest they eventually be transmitted. Western civilization on both sides of the Atlantic will ultimately hang together, or it will surely hang separately.
***
James Price is a former Chief of Staff to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and a senior fellow at the Adam Smith Institute.

Fossil Free London oil protest takes place outside the US Embassy

The Fight Against Socialism Is And Always Will Be Transatlantic

Britain

DW Opinion

Leftist Ideology

Socialism

Free speech in Europe, and Britain in particular, has been a concern for the second Trump administration. At the 2025 Munich Security Conference, Vice President J.D. Vance gave European leaders both barrels over the issue. Since then, U.S. government figures such as Sarah Rogers have ceaselessly drawn attention to the ever-increasing infringements on free speech in the U.K.
In recent years, Britain has seen high-profile stories such as the jailing of mother-of-two Lucy Connolly for a swiftly deleted tweet about asylum seekers in the midst of the Southport riots in 2024, the arrest of comedian Graham Linehan over tweets about transgenderism, and police officers dismissed from their jobs over gallows humor in private WhatsApp groups. Much more could be said about “non-crime hate incidents” resulting in police visits, a proposed special ban on “anti-Muslim hostility,” and the Labour government’s clear desire to reduce digital freedoms through different forms of regulation, and even the outright banning of Elon Musk’s X.
To American readers who take pride in the First Amendment, this might sound unthinkable. It can seem as if Britain is a victim of its un-American political system. Unlike the United States, Britain has no single written constitution. Rather, it combines unwritten conventions and statutes passed by its elected Parliament. Free speech warriors in both the U.S. and the U.K. increasingly suggest that, to protect their liberties, they should adopt a written constitution or Bill of Rights to safeguard things such as freedom of speech.
However, Britain’s Parliament has never worked this way, nor should it start. The driving force of British politics has always been parliamentary sovereignty; that is, an elected Parliament can create and remove whatever laws it likes if it has a majority and the political will.
Crucially, this means that no Parliament can bind its successor. If a new government is elected with a mandate to overturn the laws of the last one, it can always do so. This is not the case in written constitutional systems, such as the United States, which are subject to a constitution that is incredibly difficult or even impossible to change. It is this reality that has left President Trump, even with a conservative majority in the Supreme Court, unable to make good on his central campaign pledge to end birthright citizenship. In a true British system, he could have passed that law on day one.
Britain’s free speech crisis is downstream of bad laws created by Parliament. This began with the Race Relations Act 1965, which, in the wake of tensions arising from post-World War II immigration, outlawed the expression of certain political beliefs. This was worsened by the Public Order Act 1986, which criminalized speech that was “likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.” Later, already confused communications offenses designed for the era of snail mail and telephone operators collided disastrously with public-facing social media, just as “hate speech” offenses began to appear on the books under Tony Blair. It is these laws and others that helped to shape Britain’s own strain of cancel culture.
But the British answer to bad speech laws is not a new written constitution that takes the question out of our Parliament’s (and therefore voters’) hands. Instead, it is to repeal the bad laws and, if necessary, replace them with good ones.
This is the approach outlined in <a href="https://x.com/Prosperity_Inst/status/2075135466974618075">Reversing Britain’s Free Speech Recession</a>, the latest report from the Prosperity Institute. Barrister Jon Holbrook, himself a vindicated survivor of cancel culture, has identified the laws that most need to be repealed or amended to restore a boom in the British free speech economy, with new legislation drafted and ready for implementation for a free speech government.
In the revived Britain imagined in this paper, laws criminalizing speech that merely causes “harassment, alarm or distress” will be repealed; communications speech will be criminal only if it is intentionally menacing and targeted; all so-called “hate speech” laws will be repealed. Interference with free speech in the civil sphere will no longer be a matter for contested anti-discrimination law, but a simple matter of tort law. Spurious allegations will be deterred by a new costs regime that protects those wrongly accused. A cultural shift will be needed, certainly. But we must start with the law.
English liberty gave the Western world its tradition of free speech. Yet lately, as Shakespeare wrote in Richard II, “That England, that was wont to conquer others, Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.” But it possesses all that it needs to liberate itself once again.
***
Rhys Laverty is Editorial and Research Director of the Prosperity Institute.

Celtic v Rangers – William Hill Premiership – Celtic Park

What Britain Can Do To Save Free Speech

Free Speech

Hate Speech

Yesterday, Nigel Farage resigned as the Member of Parliament (MP) for Clacton, triggering a by-election that he intends to contest himself. The resignation follows weeks of scrutiny over undeclared financial support Farage received in the run-up to the 2024 general election.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is currently in the process of investigating whether a £5m gift from Christopher Harborne, a Thailand-based cryptocurrency investor and Reform UK’s largest donor, should have been declared under parliamentary rules. Reports have also raised questions about support allegedly provided by George Cottrell, a longtime Farage associate with a prior conviction for fraud, for elements of his political operation, including staffing, travel, and security.
Farage insists he has done nothing wrong and says he is seeking a fresh mandate from the voters of Clacton. “The people of Clacton should be the judges of my actions,&#8221; he said, describing the contest as “a people versus the establishment by-election.” He also argued that recent media scrutiny has extended to his family members.
Under the House of Commons Code of Conduct, MPs are required to register financial interests and benefits that “might reasonably be thought by others to influence” their actions or words. Benefits relating to a member’s political activities that are received before entering Parliament may also require declaration.
Rather than waiting for the standards process to conclude, Farage has chosen to return to his constituents. The investigation will continue irrespective of the by-election, but the contest also gives Reform an opportunity to regain political initiative after weeks dominated by questions over Farage’s finances. Farage’s line is fairly straightforward: Parliament may determine whether its rules have been followed, but only the electorate and the people of Clacton can determine whether Farage deserves to remain their representative.
There is little constitutional controversy over the mechanism itself. MPs cannot technically resign from the House of Commons. Instead, in a quirk of Britain’s venerable unwritten constitution, they vacate their seats by accepting appointment to one of two nominal Crown offices which are formally incompatible with being an MP, automatically triggering a by-election. The procedure has existed for centuries and has been used by MPs from every major political party.
Whether Farage hopes to regain political momentum following weeks of damaging headlines or genuinely believes his constituents should deliver the first political verdict are not mutually exclusive explanations. By-elections have long been used by politicians seeking to either reinforce or renew their democratic mandate.
The more unusual aspect of the episode has been the reaction from Farage’s opponents. Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, has urged the Chancellor to prevent Farage’s resignation from taking effect until the parliamentary standards investigation has concluded. Davey’s proposal is particularly striking because there is no convention that prevents members under investigation from vacating their seats. The last known refusal was in 1842, to Viscount Chelsea, who had arranged to resign his Reading seat and campaign for Thomas Mills, in return for Mills dropping an election petition alleging bribery at the 1841 election.
Farage’s circumstances are plainly different. If Parliament believes the rules should change, then it is free to legislate. But asking ministers to intervene in individual resignations would itself represent a significant constitutional departure.
Meanwhile, both Labour and the Conservatives, as well as most other parties, have announced they will not field candidates in Clacton, leaving the perennially satirical independent Count Binface – the alias of Jonathan Harvey, a BBC comedy writer – as Farage’s most prominent confirmed opponent.
The response stands in contrast to the criticism leveled only weeks ago at Labour’s apparent plans to return former Greater Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham, to Westminster via the Makerfield by-election. Critics argued Burnham should not be effectively ushered into Parliament ahead of a leadership contest he would be expected to win. There was ample opportunity for the parties of all stripes to attempt to “delegitimize” the Makerfield by-election.
Commentators of all stripes have already written Farage’s move off as a fumble, but the decision could play into Reform’s hands. For years, Farage has argued that Britain’s established parties operate as a de facto “Uniparty.” Whether or not this characterization is fair, the refusal of both Labour and the Conservatives to challenge him at the ballot box is likely to reinforce that perception amongst Reform supporters and perhaps convince some floating voters. By attempting to deny Farage the contest he says he wants, his opponents risk strengthening the very narrative they have spent years trying to rebut.
It also leaves Britain facing yet another parliamentary by-election at a time when Westminster has become increasingly accustomed to political instability. The previous Parliament saw 23 by-elections — the highest number for more than three decades — and Clacton will become the sixth since the 2024 general election.
None of this determines whether Farage complied with Parliament’s rules on declaring financial interests. That remains a matter for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, whose investigation can continue irrespective of the political outcome. Nor would victory in Clacton answer questions about whether benefits should have been registered.
But those are separate questions from whether Farage should be permitted to seek a renewed mandate. Parliament’s procedures expressly allow MPs to vacate their seats. Having chosen to do so, Farage is asking the same voters who elected him less than two years ago whether they still wish him to represent them. In a representative democracy, that is a question which ultimately belongs to the electorate, and more specifically the people of Clacton.
***
Matthew Bowles is senior policy researcher at the Prosperity Institute.

UK General Election Count For Clacton Constituency

Will Nigel Farage’s Anti-Establishment Gamble Pay Off?

British MP

Clacton

Labour Party

Nigel Farage

Parliament

Reform UK

Yesterday morning, whilst making their customary cups of tea, Brits checking their phones were confronted by a scene in Belfast, Northern Ireland, that could only be described as medieval. Footage emerged of a Sudanese man shouting incoherently whilst straddling the chest of a second man, whom he was in the process of decapitating. The victim, Stephen Ogilvy, is now blind in the one eye he did not lose in this attack and remains in critical condition in the hospital.
I’m almost relieved that such a sight is still shocking to both me and the public; there have been an increasing number of random acts of extreme violence across the United Kingdom in recent years, many linked to migrants or, more scarily, their children.
The reason that this video, beyond its shocking barbarity, has elicited such a strong reaction is that it comes on the heels of another brutal murder. Days ago, footage was released of 18-year-old Henry Nowak being stabbed in cold blood by Vickrum Digwa. We are sadly getting used to suffering Islamist violence in Britain, but this was an attack by a Sikh born in Britain, using ceremonial knives that have legal exemptions in legislation to ban the possession of many offensive weapons. Sikhs have generally been regarded as some of the best-integrated groups, but Digwa’s mother hid the knives and lied to the police.
After murdering Nowak, Digwa complained to police arriving on the scene that he was the victim — of racism. When Nowak told police he had been stabbed, the cold, dead voice of the modern bureaucratic state drawled from the copper’s mouth: “I don’t think you have mate.” Henry Nowak was then handcuffed. He then bled to death at the scene. The bodycam image of his ghostly white hand, drained of blood, as it was handcuffed by plastic-gloved police, haunts me still.
This attack has led to interventions by U.S. Vice President JD Vance, and Elon Musk. Contrasts have been drawn, in both England and America, between this murder and the behavior of the police with the death of George Floyd. The latter was a truly global event; in Britain, hordes of progressives protested outside No. 10 Downing Street. Like their U.S. counterparts, they screamed “Hands up, don’t shoot!” at largely unarmed police. At least one policeman was induced by the braying mob to “take the knee” right outside the gates to the prime minister’s home.
Nowak’s chilling murder saw no such public outcry, until, perhaps, last night, when the broader, broiling social tensions across the U.K. erupted in the streets of Belfast following the latest violent attack.
HMOs (Houses of Multiple Occupation – residential properties where growing numbers of asylum seekers are housed among residents) were set alight by balaclava-wearing gangs, as were cars and buses.
Unforgivable as any kind of street violence is, it is the biggest outbreak yet of a sense of frustration amongst the native population of Britain at what has come to be called “two-tier justice” or “two-tier policing.” This is the growing sense that asylum seekers, immigrants (including/especially illegal ones), and even sometimes ethnic minority Brits are treated more favorably by the modern state than anyone else.
This is demonstrably true in at least some areas of modern life. The Sentencing Council, a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization that meddles in the length of criminal sentences, pushes judges to literally give more lenient sentences to non-white people.
Coupled with this is the ongoing scandal known as the “small boats” crisis, which highlights a total failure of state capacity. Criminal gangs are brazenly smuggling illegal immigrants across the English Channel from French beaches in dinghies in broad daylight. Achieving what Napoleon, Hitler, and the Spanish Armada failed to do: over 200,000 mostly African and Middle Eastern young men have landed in Britain since 2018, according to the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx249y1jew2o">BBC</a>. For context, this number is two and a half times larger than the entire regular British army.
These men are rarely deported because of the European Convention on Human Rights, an international legal agreement (separate from the EU) that is overly protective of their rights. Rapists, murderers, and pedophiles have likewise avoided deportation under this foreign law. Last year, a small boat arrival prompted riots after a man sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl. The previous summer, the son of Rwandan refugees murdered three girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class and was found with ISIS material at home.<iframe style="aspect-ratio: 9/16; max-width: 220px; display: flex; justify-content: center; width: 100%; margin: 20px auto 5px; border: 0;" src="https://player.mux.com/WCmY64Y8MZBPbZWjhRk02Z7fhBDMwlfV3?metadata-video-content-type=embed_video&amp;metadata-video-id=89c37b99-0482-4c58-b2ab-9fe8d918d735&amp;metadata-video-stream-type=on-demand&amp;metadata-video-title=Breaking%20down%20the%20Belfast%20UK%20attack%20%E2%80%94%20is%20America%20next%3F&amp;poster=https%3A%2F%2Fdailywireplus-v2.imgix.net%2Fimages%2Fembedded-videos%2F8f8a06a2-1201-403b-be74-61c36be151bc.png&amp;autoplay=false&amp;accent-color=%23DB3D3B&amp;primary-color=%23ffffff&amp;secondary-color=%23000000" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Mass riots were only prevented by the authorities in 2024 by imprisoning even those who tweeted about the incident the wrong way. Counter-protests by a Muslim militia in Birmingham were not just excused by this same condemnation; they were justified by a Labour Party minister as “Just being scared of the far-right backlash.”
Four million new people entered Britain since 2020 in the so-called “Boriswave” despite Brexit being largely about limiting migration and its hero, Boris Johnson, promising to cut it. Along with economic decline and general woe, this old country feels like it’s coming apart at the seams. It’s no wonder that Nigel Farage, leader of the outsider party Reform UK, now tops the polls. But even a revolutionary new force may not be enough to prevent Britain from sliding into civic, religious, or even ethnic strife. I pray that I am wrong.
***
James Price is a former Chief of Staff to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and a senior fellow at the Adam Smith Institute.

A sign of Manchester City Council seen statement against

Bedlam And Beheadings In The Streets Of The UK

Immigrants

Migrant Violence

British commentators have a habit of looking at both Britain and the United States through the same distorted lens, which needs a good clean: that they are “poor societies with a few very rich people.” It is a comforting story for those who want to emphasize inequality over prosperity. But it does not survive contact with the data, and it certainly does not describe the United States. If anything, it more closely describes Britain itself.
The uncomfortable truth is that many British observers struggle to grasp just how wealthy even working-class Americans are in material terms. This is not about billionaire comparisons or Silicon Valley extremes. It is about the baseline standard of living: income, consumption, housing space, and access to goods and services that define everyday life. When asked where they rank in terms of wealth with their American counterparts, Brits said they would be the 7th wealthiest state. In reality, we rank 51st and yes, even below Mississippi.
On almost every measure of disposable income and consumption, American households, including those in the middle and working classes, are significantly better off than their British counterparts. Homes are larger. Car ownership is higher. Access to goods is broader. Energy use, appliance use, and overall consumption levels reflect a society with far greater purchasing power. Anecdotally, I was stunned when I landed at JFK Airport by how huge Uber cars were. You would never have a Cadillac as an Uber in Britain.
And yet, much of the British commentary ecosystem continues to assume the opposite. Part of the confusion comes from how wealth is perceived rather than measured. Britain, especially in its post-industrial form, has developed a narrative of relative restraint: smaller homes, denser cities, and a strong emphasis on public provision. That creates an impression of fairness and stability, but it can also obscure stagnation.
The United States, by contrast, is often misread as a society defined only by extremes, billionaires at the top and insecurity everywhere else. But this misses the scale of American middle-class affluence, which remains unusually high by global standards despite real challenges like healthcare costs and housing pressures.
The reality is that neither country fits the simplistic “rich and poor extremes” model. But the balance of misperception is asymmetric. Britain increasingly underestimates American prosperity while quietly struggling with its own long-term growth constraints.
This debate is not happening in isolation. It comes at a moment when His Majesty’s state visit and broader efforts to reaffirm the U.K.–U.S. “special relationship” are drawing attention to what still binds the two countries together: a shared commitment to liberal democracy, open markets, and the idea that free societies generate prosperity through competition and innovation.
That shared tradition matters more in the post-Brexit era than it may have in decades. Outside the European Union, Britain must increasingly define its economic identity on its own terms. That means competing for investment, talent, and growth in a global system where the United States remains the dominant engine of innovation and wealth creation.
The comparison is therefore unavoidable, not as a cultural insult, but as an economic reality check. The United States continues to demonstrate the extraordinary capacity of a large, open economy to generate wealth at scale. It does so unevenly and often imperfectly, but the outcome is still clear: high levels of consumption, strong productivity in key sectors, and a middle class that, despite pressure, remains materially affluent by international standards.
Britain, meanwhile, faces a different trajectory. Wage growth has been sluggish, productivity growth has been weak, housing has become increasingly constrained, and infrastructure investment has been uneven. The result is a society where perceptions of middle-class comfort often mask underlying economic stagnation.
This divergence is not just about policy. It is about philosophy. Both Britain and the United States are heirs to a liberal tradition built on the idea that economic and political freedom is the foundation of prosperity. Markets, property rights, entrepreneurship, and institutional stability are not abstract ideals; they are mechanisms for generating sustained growth.
But that philosophy only works if it is actively maintained. In the post-Brexit era, Britain has an opportunity to reassert that tradition, not by imitating America, but by recognizing what actually drives prosperity in free societies. That requires moving beyond narratives of managed decline or moralized inequality and focusing instead on growth, productivity, and competitiveness.
The UK–US relationship, symbolized in part by royal diplomacy and state visits, is often described in sentimental terms. But its real significance lies in something more practical: two of the world’s most influential liberal democracies demonstrating that open societies can still outperform closed or centrally managed ones.
That example is increasingly important in a world where authoritarian models present themselves as efficient alternatives to democratic capitalism. If Britain and America are to continue offering a meaningful model, they must first be honest about what prosperity looks like. It is not defined solely by equality, nor by headline inequality figures, nor by isolated measures like healthcare access or housing costs. It is defined by the overall capacity of a society to generate wealth and improve living standards over time.
On that measure, the United States remains far wealthier than it is often given credit for, including among working-class households, while Britain faces the more difficult challenge of reversing long-term stagnation.
The point is not that one country “wins” and the other “loses.” It is that both countries are shaped by tradeoffs that they often misunderstand in each other. But if Britain continues to view itself and the United States through the same flattened narrative of inequality without prosperity, it risks misreading both its ally and itself. And in an era defined by global competition, economic uncertainty, and shifting geopolitical alliances, misreading is not just an intellectual mistake; it is a strategic one.
***
Mike Salem is the UK Country Associate at the Consumer Choice Center, an independent, non-partisan consumer advocacy group promoting innovation, consumer choice, and competitive markets. His analysis has appeared across British media, including GB News, LBC, the Telegraph, the Mirror, City AM, and BBC Arabic.

USA and Britain flag together. USA UK relations

Why A Prosperous America Is Hard For The British To Grasp

America

Economics

Free Market

Prosperity

wealth

The internet pulled up its bootstraps, took to the streets of X, and started dragging the United Kingdom for being abysmal on pretty much every front: immigration, food, housing, the deletion of their culture in exchange for burqa shops, and now… their economy.
A new report from the <a href="https://x.com/iealondon/status/2044309863468093756?s=20">U.K.-based Institute of Economic Affairs</a> revealed that Brits thought the UK ranked 7th against U.S. states in income per person, when in reality it ranks 51st. Worse yet, Mississippi, the poorest state in the United States, is richer than the United Kingdom. If they joined our great nation, they&#8217;d be the poorest state in the entire union.
Absolutely bloody news there, mate.
The beatdown didn&#8217;t stop there. <a href="https://x.com/tatereeves/status/2044809466885939212">Mississippi</a> Governor Tate Reeves posted to X: &#8220;As we say in Mississippi, &#8216;Bless Your Heart.&#8217; Or as you say in the U.K., &#8216;As-Salamu Alaykum.'&#8221; Phenomenal clapback.
I must say, this feels good. This was the rush of patriotism we all needed this week, amid war with terrorists, high-profile doxxing threats, Pope scuffles, and rape scandals. Despite our flaws as a nation, by golly, at least our weakest link (fiscally speaking) is more economically sound than the entirety of the United Kingdom.
The mockery is the easy part. The harder question is how the country that gave us the Magna Carta, Winston Churchill, and the Industrial Revolution ended up here. The answer is a masterclass in what happens when a government prioritizes the feelings of newcomers over the well-being of its own citizens for decades without correction.
Put the kettle on, because there is more tea to be spilled.
The U.K.’s GDP technically has grown since 2008. That’s because the population grew, mostly from immigration. <a href="https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=GB">Real GDP per capita</a> — the number that tells you whether individual Brits are actually better off — crawled just 7.8% over 16 years. Productivity has flatlined at its slowest rate in 200 years. <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingjune2025">Net migratio</a>n hit a record 944,000 in 2023, with large portions being low-skilled migrants who consumed public housing, the National Health Service, and welfare faster than the infrastructure could absorb them. NHS waiting lists are catastrophic. Housing costs are suffocating. And on top of all of it, <a href="https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications/henley-private-wealth-migration-report-2025/what-driving-uks-millionaire-exodus">Britain&#8217;s punishing tax burden</a> on its most productive citizens sent wealth, investment, and talent straight out the door. You cannot bleed your earners dry and wonder why the engine stalled. The country hasn&#8217;t collapsed, but it&#8217;s buckled badly, and everyone can see it and feel it.
Their pocketbooks aren&#8217;t the only things threatened. Take the <a href="https://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/279/independent-inquiry-into-child-sexual-exploitation-in-rotherham">grooming gang</a> scandal that rocked the U.K. over the past several years. Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford. It is one of the most documented and most deliberately suppressed institutional failures in modern Western history. Multiple official inquiries confirmed that networks of predominantly Pakistani-heritage men systematically targeted and sexually exploited vulnerable young British girls. Authorities knew. Police knew. Social workers knew. For years, they did nothing for fear of being called racist. Children were abused. Officials had the evidence. They chose institutional cowardice over the safety of British girls.
This is the rot. Open borders without assimilation requirements created the conditions that allowed it to fester. Europe wasn&#8217;t only deluding itself over crime policy. It was deluding itself about everything.
The problem was a government that imported millions of people over two decades, refused to enforce meaningful assimilation standards, and then labeled anyone who raised concerns a bigot. When you grow your population faster than your housing, your hospitals, and your schools, without requiring newcomers to adopt the legal and civic norms of the country they&#8217;re entering, you don&#8217;t get a multicultural utopia. You get broken public services, Muhammad as the number one baby name, and a GDP per capita that loses to Mississippi.
We don’t get to enjoy this schadenfreude for long. The same ideological forces that hollowed out Britain — open borders dressed as compassion, multicultural paralysis dressed as tolerance, debilitating taxes on the most productive members of society — have not left our politics. They’re knocking on the door.
Net migration in America is now negative for the first time in 50 years. That&#8217;s an absolute win. But <a href="https://x.com/i/status/2044780352586055994">Elmo</a> is already out here celebrating National Arab American Heritage Month, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is one green light away from unleashing rent control and a tax regime that would gut the financial capital of the world, and a sizable chunk of the progressive coalition openly sympathizes with terror. The U.K. didn&#8217;t fall in a day. It made a thousand small policy decisions, each defended as the humane choice, each quietly making things worse for the people who were already there.
Don’t be Britain, but Bless Their Hearts.

Political Crisis Concept: Mud Cracks With UK Flag

The Poor State Of The United Kingdom And What It Says About The Culture

Culture

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer shared a statement declaring his intention to protect women and girls from &#8220;misogyny&#8221; — and was immediately met with a virtual thrashing from women and girls who say he&#8217;s already failed them with policies that protect grooming and rape gangs and give trans-identifying men access to their spaces.
Starmer addressed the issue in an X post, in which he suggested that the greatest threat facing women and girls was the misogyny being cultivated in young men by social media influencers.
&#8220;I want my daughter to grow up in a Britain where she feels safe in school, online, and in relationships. Every young girl deserves that, and every young boy should be protected from harmful misogynistic influences,&#8221; he posted. &#8220;My government is making that happen, by backing teachers, calling out misogyny, and intervening early. We can stop harm before it starts and save a generation of young men from the influence of online misogynists.&#8221;
A number quickly pointed out that Starmer&#8217;s failure to tighten immigration laws was putting more girls in immediate danger than any toxic internet culture.
&#8220;How about deporting Pakistani grooming gang members?&#8221; Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) <a href="https://x.com/RepFine/status/2001778910770458695">suggested</a>.
&#8220;Your government bends the knee to terrorists in the name of equity. You don&#8217;t care about girls or women; if you did, you&#8217;d do something about the terrorists in your country,&#8221; Twitchy&#8217;s Sam Janney <a href="https://x.com/PolitiBunny/status/2001656302703964316">added</a>.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible c-link--underline" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
&#8220;Stop lecturing schoolboys while refusing to secure the border or enforce the law,&#8221; <a href="https://x.com/TheBritishIntel/status/2001613317144527171">another said</a>. &#8220;British lads aren’t the problem — importing violence and then blaming our sons is cowardice, not leadership.&#8221;
One victim of an alleged grooming gang called Starmer out directly, saying, &#8220;I wanted to grow up in a Britain where CSE detectives didn’t ask me if I &#8216;consented to sexual activity&#8217; after I was abused from the age of 5. I wanted to grow up in a Britain where the police didn’t show up at my door to threaten me after I exposed their failings on TV.&#8221;
&#8220;I wanted to grow up in a Britain that didn’t prioritise &#8216;community cohesion&#8217; and &#8216;race relations&#8217; over protecting little girls from being raped and killed. I wanted to grow up in a Britain where Labour politicians like you didn’t turn a blind eye to the systemic abuse of little girls,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;I wanted to grow up in a Britain that didn’t refuse to prosecute 98.6% of rape cases. I wanted to grow up in a Britain that didn’t trade little girls for votes.&#8221;
&#8220;How dare you try and lecture us on the importance of protecting women and girls after you and your party spent decades betraying us? You are a hypocrite and a liar, Keir Starmer,&#8221; she declared.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I wanted to grow up in a Britain where CSE detectives didn’t ask me if I “consented to sexual activity” after I was abused from the age of 5.
I wanted to grow up in a Britain where the police didn’t show up at my door to threaten me after I exposed their failings on TV.
I… <a href="https://t.co/jUwvMJEo4U">https://t.co/jUwvMJEo4U</a> <a href="https://t.co/LkXp1I1qBW">pic.twitter.com/LkXp1I1qBW</a>
— Samantha Smith (@SamanthaTaghoy) <a href="https://twitter.com/SamanthaTaghoy/status/2002096846613746146?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 19, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Britain will turn itself into a dystopian police state before it admits that its problems stem from mass Muslim immigration,&#8221; The Federalist&#8217;s John Daniel Davidson <a href="https://x.com/johnddavidson/status/2001689563388125326">concluded</a>.
Author J.K. Rowling took the argument in another direction, <a href="https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/2002090766223462862">registering her disgust</a> with Starmer&#8217;s position on trans issues: &#8220;I want my daughters to live in a country where their right to single-sex spaces isn’t under attack from their own government.&#8221;
&#8220;Despite being married to a woman and the father to a daughter, you still required the Supreme Court to tell you what a woman is. That makes you one of two things; stupid, or a coward. In either circumstance, to think you can be trusted with the safety of women and girls in this country is laughable,&#8221; <a href="https://x.com/FFS_WhatNow/status/2001718390919254290">another said</a>.
Carla Lockhart, MP, <a href="https://x.com/carlalockhart/status/2001996714069139801">added</a>, &#8220;Perhaps you can begin by ensuring that your daughter can have female only toilets, changing rooms and spaces. The Supreme Court was clear. Because of Labour a court had to rule on something so plain and obvious to us all. Now act on the Supreme Court ruling and stop your Ministers stalling.&#8221;
Even Santa Claus weighed in with just one week to go before Christmas, declaring Starmer to be &#8220;on the naughty list.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Keir Starmer is on the naughty list. <a href="https://t.co/rinxugGAGN">pic.twitter.com/rinxugGAGN</a>
— Santa Decides (@SantaDecides) <a href="https://twitter.com/SantaDecides/status/2001738922288910344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 18, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

NATO Leaders Attend 2025 Summit In The Hague

Keir Starmer Claims He Protects Women, Gets Absolutely Thrashed By Women Who Say He’s Failed Them

Keir Starmer Claims He Protects Women, Gets Absolutely Thrashed By Women Who Say He's Failed Them

Keir Starmer

Politics

United Kingdom

Women

Britain, France, and Germany — the E3 — plan to hit Iran with reimposed United Nations sanctions as early as Thursday.
Following high-level talks with Iranian officials on Tuesday, multiple European and Western diplomats <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/europeans-likely-initiate-un-sanctions-process-iran-thursday-sources-say-2025-08-27/">told Reuters</a> the E3 will trigger a “snapback” of sanctions this week, signaling a significant setback for Tehran amid ongoing nuclear and security concerns.
“The U.N. process takes 30 days before sanctions that would cover Iran&#8217;s financial, banking, hydrocarbons and defence sectors were restored,” Reuters noted, adding, “The E3 have offered to delay the snapback for as much as six months to enable serious negotiations if Iran resumes full U.N. inspections.”
“In a letter dated August 8, the E3 warned Iran it would proceed with ‘snapback’ if Tehran didn&#8217;t reach a ‘satisfactory solution’ to the nuclear issues. A deadline was set for August 31,” <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20250822-iran-european-powers-to-resume-nuclear-talks-as-snapback-sanctions-loom">France 24</a> noted, adding, “Under ‘snapback,’ any party to the deal can find Iran in noncompliance, reimposing the sanctions. After it expires, any sanctions effort could face a veto from UN Security Council members China and Russia, two nations that have provided some support to Iran in the past but stayed out of the June war.”
In July, a <a href="https://isc.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Intelligence-and-Security-Committee-of-Parliament-Iran.pdf">report</a> from Great Britain’s Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament stated clearly that they saw Iran as a “significant threat to the UK.”
“The Iran threat should not be underestimated: it is persistent and  — crucially  — unpredictable,” the report — which was completed before the October 7 Hamas massacre of Israelis and subsequent events occurred — declared. “Iran has a high appetite for risk when conducting offensive activity, which means it poses a dynamic and erratic threat. &#8230; it can escalate action sharply with little warning. This was seen following the 2022 protests in Iran, when there was a significant increase in the threat of a physical attack to individuals in the UK and the Middle East whom Iran perceives to be a threat to the regime.”
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=summer&amp;utm_content=editorialsummersale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener">End of Summer Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
In June, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations nuclear watchdog, found that Iran had breached its non-proliferation obligations. It was the first time in almost two decades that the IAEA had taken that stance. The <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/china/west-plans-push-iaea-board-find-iran-breach-duties-diplomats-say-2025-05-30/">last time</a> the IAEA adopted that position was in September 2005, when clandestine nuclear activities in Iran were discovered.
“The Board of Governors&#8230; finds that Iran&#8217;s many failures to uphold its obligations since 2019 to provide the Agency with full and timely cooperation regarding undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple undeclared locations in Iran &#8230; constitutes non-compliance with its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with the Agency,” the resolution stated.

Israel Launches Strikes Against Iran

European Powers Poised To Reimpose U.N. Sanctions On Iran This Week

France

Germany

Global Politics

Iran

snapback sanctions

World

The U.K. Labour government unveiled a controversial plan this week to lower the voting age to 16 ahead of the next general election, in what many conservatives are calling a blatant attempt to sway the next election in their favor.
Nigel Farage, leader of Reform U.K., called the move “an attempt to rig the political system,” but warned they “intend to give them a nasty surprise.” While Labour currently <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2083204/nigel-farage-votes-16-Labour">leads</a> among 16-17-year-olds with approximately 33% support, Reform U.K.’s strong 20% showing suggests the plan could backfire on Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner defended the controversial proposal, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c628ep4j5kno">saying</a>, “I was a mum at 16, you can go to work, you can pay your taxes and I think that people should have a vote at 16,” according to the BBC.
The voting age change would affect approximately 3% of the U.K. population aged 16 and over. Labour insists the reform isn’t designed to benefit their party, with Rayner claiming, “This isn’t about trying to rig votes for a particular party. This is about democracy and giving young people an opportunity to have a say.”
Speaking in a video posted to X, Farage expanded on his criticism of the proposal.
“The problem with this is, not only do half of youngsters not want the vote, but they have to stay at school now until they’re 18,” Farage said in a video shared to X. “The educational establishment is full of left-wing prejudice, is full of anti-reform bias, and frankly, if 16- to 18-year-olds at school are going to be able to vote, we’re going to have to make sure that our education system is teaching kids to make their own minds up and not indoctrinating them.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote is an attempt to rig the political system. 
If this goes ahead, Labour could be in for a shock. <a href="https://t.co/CF9GYfRfFP">pic.twitter.com/CF9GYfRfFP</a>
&mdash; Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) <a href="https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1945837816727908842?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 17, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Conservative shadow minister Paul Holmes slammed the policy in the House of Commons, questioning why the “hopelessly confused” government believes “a 16-year-old can vote, but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they’re voting in?”
Reform U.K. already maintains significant influence among younger demographics on social media, with Farage commanding 1.3 million TikTok followers compared to Labour’s official account, which has just 231,300 followers.
According to Ofcom, 44% of British TikTok users who get news from the platform rely more on “other people they follow” than traditional news outlets.
YouGov polling from June showed that Labour support among 18 to 24-year-olds has dropped by 11% since last year’s general election, while Reform U.K. has seen corresponding gains in the same demographic, <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2083263/keir-starmer-voting-age-nigel-farage">per</a> Lotti O’Brien of Express U.K.
The voting age change is part of a broader elections reform package introduced by Starmer’s government.
Other measures include expanding acceptable voter ID to include U.K.-issued bank cards and implementing an automated voter registration system that would share data between government agencies — policies the Conservative Party warns could “undermine the security of the ballot box.”
The government, if the legislation passes through parliament, as anticipated, expects to implement these changes before the next general election, which must take place by 2029, but could be called earlier.

Guests Arrive For The Andrew Marr Show

Nigel Farage Slams U.K. Labour Push For 16-Year-Old Voters, Plans A ‘Nasty Surprise’ For Starmer

Elections

U.K.

Voting

NORTHWOOD (Reuters) — France and Britain on Thursday agreed to reinforce cooperation over their respective nuclear arsenals as the two European powerhouses seek to respond to growing threats to the continent and uncertainty over their U.S. ally.
The announcement came after French President Emmanuel Macron concluded a three-day state visit to Britain, where the two allies sought to turn the page on years of turbulence following Britain&#8217;s decision to withdraw from the European Union.
&#8220;This morning, we signed the Northward declaration, confirming for the first time that we are coordinating our independent nuclear deterrence,&#8221; British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told a news conference alongside Macron.
&#8220;From today, our adversaries will know that any extreme threat to this continent would prompt a response from our two nations. There is no greater demonstration of the importance of this relationship.&#8221;
U.S. President Donald Trump&#8217;s questioning of burden-sharing in NATO and his overtures to Russia have led to existential questions in Europe about the trans-Atlantic relationship and Washington&#8217;s commitment to helping defend its European allies.
Europe&#8217;s primary nuclear deterrence comes from the United States and is a decades-old symbol of trans-Atlantic solidarity.
Macron said the two countries had created an oversight committee to coordinate their cooperation, a task he said was vital.
&#8220;The decision is that we don&#8217;t exclude the coordination of our respective deterrents. It&#8217;s a message that our partners and adversaries must hear,&#8221; Macron said.
The closer cooperation had nothing to do with their efforts to create a coalition of the willing to support Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire with Russia, he added.
While both sides will keep their own decision-making processes and strategic ambiguity, the move does suggest further protection for the continent at a time when the United States&#8217; commitment to Europe is under scrutiny.
Macron has previously said he will launch a strategic dialogue on extending the protection offered by France&#8217;s nuclear arsenal to its European partners.
The U.S. has nuclear arms in Europe and tens of thousands of troops deployed in bases across the continent with military capabilities that Europe cannot match.
France spends about 5.6 billion euros ($6.04 billion) annually on maintaining its stockpile of 290 submarine- and air-launched nuclear weapons, the world&#8217;s fourth largest.
Britain describes its nuclear programme as &#8220;operationally independent,&#8221; but sources missile technology from the U.S. and depends on the U.S. for acquisition and maintenance support.
&#8220;On the nuclear agreement that we&#8217;ve reached today &#8230; it is truly historic,&#8221; Starmer said.
(Additional reporting by Sam Tabahriti; Writing by John Irish; Editing by Aidan Lewis)

France’s President Macron State visit to the UK

France, Britain Unveil Nuclear Weapons Cooperation To Counter Threat To Europe

Emmanuel Macron

Europe

Nuclear Weapons

U.S.

The United Kingdom&#8217;s highest court ruled Wednesday that the legal definition of &#8220;woman&#8221; is based on biology and does not include trans-identifying men who say they are women.
In the landmark <a href="https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">judgment</a>, the British Supreme Court ruled that the meaning of &#8220;woman&#8221; in equality legislation is a &#8220;biological woman and biological sex,&#8221; and the &#8220;concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man.&#8221;
The ruling is a watershed moment in Britain&#8217;s shift on gender ideology, which has faced a referendum in Europe in recent years, especially as the harms of transgender drugs and procedures on children have come to light and sparked legal challenges.
The court case was about whether trans-identifying men with a &#8220;gender recognition certificate&#8221; that legally recognizes them as female are protected from discrimination as a woman under the 2010 Equality Act.
The court ultimately ruled that interpreting sex as simply as what someone&#8217;s gender certificate says would be &#8220;incoherent,&#8221; according to a summary of the ruling.
“The terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex,” Lord Patrick Hodge, one of the court&#8217;s senior judges, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/16/uk/uk-supreme-court-ruling-definition-woman-intl/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> the court. “The provisions relating to sex discrimination can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex.”
The five judges cautioned that they were not ruling broadly on whether trans-identifying men were women, saying that was beyond the role of the court.
Lord Hodge said the ruling should not be seen as “a triumph for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another – it is not.”
Critics of gender ideology were ecstatic nonetheless.
A group called For Women Scotland filed a challenge in 2018, butting heads with the Scottish government, which argued that trans-identifying men were legally women.
For Women Scotland celebrated with tears and hugs in the courtroom before a victorious exit, where they cracked open a bottle of champagne outside with other campaigners against gender ideology.
Other groups celebrated as well.
<p class="paragraph inline-placeholder vossi-paragraph" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cm9js9dgx000c3b6oni5n6mv7@published" data-editable="text" data-component-name="paragraph" data-article-gutter="true" data-analytics-observe="off">“The court has given the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex – male and female – refers to reality, not paperwork,” the group Sex Matters said.
The LGB Alliance, which presented arguments in court, called the ruling a “watershed for women.”
In response to the ruling, the British government said it supports &#8220;single-sex spaces.&#8221;
“This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs,” a British government spokesperson <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/16/uk/uk-supreme-court-ruling-definition-woman-intl/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. “Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this Government.”

Womens’ Rights Supreme Court Judgement In London

UK Supreme Court Rules Trans-Identifying Men Are Not Women

UK Supreme Court Rules Legal Definition Of 'Woman' Is Biological

Gender

Gender Identity

gender ideology

Social Issues

Transgender

Transgenders

A lawyer representing two brothers alleging police brutality has “stepped aside” from representing them right after additional footage of the incident was released showing the brothers attacking police.
Akhmed Yakoob, an attorney with a large TikTok following, was representing brothers Mohammed Fahir Khan, 19, and Amaad Khan, 25, after <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/police-officer-kicks-and-stamps-on-mans-head-at-manchester-airport-13184378" target="_blank" rel="noopener">footage</a> from the Manchester Airport showed a police officer stomping on Fahir’s head while he was lying face down on the floor. The police officer seen in the footage has since been “removed from operational duties,” Sky News reported.
Assistant Chief Constable Wasim Chaudhry of the Greater Manchester Police (GMP) made the announcement following the incident.
&#8220;We know that a film of an incident at Manchester Airport that is circulating widely shows an event that is truly shocking, and that people are rightly extremely concerned about,” he said. &#8220;The use of such force in an arrest is an unusual occurrence and one that we understand creates alarm.&#8221;
The incident occurred on July 23, when officers received a report of an assault in Terminal 2.
&#8220;The alleged suspect was seen on CCTV at a ticket machine in the car park and officers attended the location to arrest him,&#8221; Chaudhry said of the incident.
Police said at the time that three officers were assaulted, with a female officer suffering a broken nose and other officers receiving injuries that required hospital treatment.
In a statement at the time, the GMP said, “As the attending officers were firearms officers, there was a clear risk during this assault of their firearms being taken from them.” The department also acknowledged “the concerns of the conduct within the video.&#8221;
Days after the initial footage was released, footage from another camera and from earlier during the event showed the two brothers attacking police officers, the Independent <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/manchester-airport-police-officer-footage-andy-burnham-b2587155.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>. The footage shows multiple people standing around a ticket machine as police approach. The officers attempt to arrest a man wearing a light blue shirt and shorts. A second man, wearing a black T-shirt, starts to attack a police officer before the other man starts to punch another officer. The men repeatedly punch the officers until the man in the black T-shirt is tased by a male police officer. The man in the blue shirt knocks down the other two officers and punches the male officer in the back of the head. This officer then wrestles the man to the ground, and he is tased by one of the female officers.
This is when the male officer gets back up and kicks one of the men in the head.
The original footage, which only showed the police officer kicking Fahir in the head, led to massive protests calling the GMP racist.
Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has since urged people “not to rush to judgment” after the second video was released.
“Following incidents in the run-up to the footage people have seen, four individuals were arrested and are now on police bail. It is frustrating that we have not been able to put more video into the public domain but that is because this is a live investigation,” he said, according to the Independent.
After the second video was released, Yakoob, the attorney for the brothers, released a video saying he was “stepping aside” from representing the brothers but has recommended a new lawyer for them.
&#8220;The media have tried to sabotage me, it&#8217;s not the first time they&#8217;ve done this,&#8221; he said without presenting evidence. &#8220;They&#8217;ve made this whole situation about me and not police misconduct,” The Guardian <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/29/teenagers-lawyer-steps-aside-after-manchester-airport-assassination-remarks">reported</a>.
“So, after consulting with the family, I have decided for now to step aside and I have recommended the family to a lawyer. But, I will be keeping a close eye on this,” he added. “I&#8217;d like to say that I am not for violence, whether it&#8217;s from police officers or whether it&#8217;s from civilians. Always remember that.&#8221;

Two British Policemen

Brothers Claimed To Be Victims Of Police Brutality. Footage Shows Them Attacking Police First.

Crime

Manchester

Police

Police Brutality

Menu