The Canary is excited to share the latest edition of our letters page. This is where we publish people’s responses to the news and politics, or anything else they want to get off their chest. We’ve now opened the letters page up so anyone can submit a contribution. As always, if you’d like to subscribe to the Canary – starting from £2 a month – to support truly radical and independent media, then you can do that here:
This week’s letters
This week we have a government response to UK citizens joining the IDF, a letter to Keir Starmer, a song for Gaza, and another example of BBC bias.
Government response to UK citizens joining the IDF
Apparently 20,000 UK Nationals have joined the Israeli Military in their Genocidal Attack on Gaza. I wrote to my excellent MP Tim Farron to inquire if they would be arrested on their return as I assumed it was illegal to join the Armed Forces of a Foreign Power. This is the reply from the government:
“I understand that your constituent would like to see British citizens prevented from joining the IDF. Section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 makes it an offence for a British subject to enlist in the military of a foreign state at war with another foreign state with which the UK is at peace.
“That prohibition does not extend, however, to enlistment in a foreign government’s forces who are combating terrorism or internal uprisings. The Occupied Palestinian Territories are not currently recognised as a state by the UK. However, it is the UK government’s longstanding position that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and that Israel is an occupying power under that convention. The 1870 Act therefore does not apply in this instance.
“If the military personnel of any country violate the laws of armed conflict, the UK Government would expect that State to investigate their conduct and hold them to account. British nationals who have committed crimes abroad may also be prosecuted before our UK courts. An investigation would be required and any prosecution in England and Wales would be a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service, who will determine whether there is sufficient evidence available to mount a prosecution and whether such a prosecution is in the public interest and will require the consent of the Attorney General.
“Yours sincerely,
“LORD (TARIQ) AHMAD OF WIMBLEDON, Minister of State”
Ironic that Israel can only get out of culpability by admitting they are an occupying power.
Although their disproportionate slaughter of civilians would appear to remove immunity under the Geneva Conventions.
Alan Marsden, via email
More BBC bias? We’re shocked!
A BBC article about Thames Water highlights bias in BBC output, and a failure to investigate. The article was titled Why is Thames Water in so much trouble? published 28 March.
What Thames Water is and how it operates, and for who (who benefits and who pays) are the result of political decisions, as these things always are because that’s what politics is.
The same is true of media articles. We can always ask on whose behalf something has been written, including the article about the Thames Water. The answer can be found in what, and how, it is written.
One way to identify the intended beneficiary of an article is to see how facts are treated. Facts are neutral. For instance, if ten people are injured by a bomb, that’s a fact. However, whether you care about that or not is politics. So, when a media outlet reports facts, we can glean its politics from the way it does so (e.g. Palestinians “die”, Israelis are “killed”).
In the BBC article, facts are not treated as facts, but instead as opinion, and remain (mostly) vague, or unstated. For instance, of Australian bank, Macquire, the authors write “But critics argue that it took billions of pounds out of the company in loans and dividends”. Here the fact remains deliberately vague. Also, the preface “But critics argue” suggests that the fact is not a fact, but merely an opinion, to Macquire’s benefit. The authors could instead have stated the sum with a reference.
Similarly, the authors resort to “he-said-she-said” non-journalism instead of reporting facts, benefiting Thames Water’s owners. For instance, they write “Thames Water said that it has not paid dividends to external shareholders since 2017”. Well, the weasel word here is “external”. The authors simply write it down their words, a free PR gift for Thames Water. Not so the customers, who are far greater in number than the owners of Thames Water. No free PR for them.
The authors do go on to write “However, dividends can also be used to move money around companies that are ultimately owned by one parent company”. The burning question not investigated (who benefits, again) is whether that general point about what “can” happen, actually happened in this case.
About this issue, the authors also write “Critics argue that the dividends were paid with money that could have been spent on improving Thames Water’s infrastructure and services”. “Critics argue” seems to be the authors’ preferred device for sounding like they’ve done some work, as well as suggesting that what the critics are saying is not necessarily true, but a matter of opinion. However, money can be put to different uses, for instance, to pay dividends, or buy improvements in infrastructure and services (that’s a fact). In defence of Thames Water, the authors add, against the critics, “However, Thames Water is legally obliged to make those debt interest payments”. So there. No critical voices were quoted here in retort to this statement, so it’s clearly intended to be the final word on the matter, in support of those receiving the interest payments.
Similarly, later in the article the authors write “Like Thames Water, critics claim that overseas owners have loaded water companies up with debt and paid themselves handsome dividends at the expense of investment”. They could have just given us the numbers.
Then there’s the sympathising and apologising on behalf of the water companies. For instance, they write about “Thames Water’s travails”, poor dears, as though what is happening is happening to them, and is not the result of their own decisions. They also write that “the sector has… been hit by higher costs”. Similarly, of debt interest, they write of them “adding to the firm’s woes”. However, the authors also note that all of Thames Water’s money comes from customers or for free from the govt, so the travails belong to customers, as do the woes, and it’s the customers who are being hit.
The authors do go into specific facts and figures (about debt interest payments), when it supports sympathetic excuse-making on behalf of water companies, so it’s not beyond them, however it underlines further that they’re writing on behalf of owners and not customers. Again, though, they fail to make links, because they deliberately fail to say who those debt interest payments go to, and neither do they acknowledge that interest payments benefit those who receive them.
There are other serious omissions from this article, not least the profit margins of water companies, typically around 38 percent, even as they loaded themselves (their customers and the state, really) with debt. Similarly, the authors quote the total debt of the industry (£60.6 billion), but omit the total paid in dividends over the same period, for easy comparison. Their choice of facts and figures is pretty blatant.
On a related point, the authors never mention that water is absolutely essential, its provision is not optional. They simply mention at the start of the article that “Thames Water may have to be taken over by the government if it runs out of money”, without saying why. The shop round the corner from where I Iive won’t be taken over by the govt if it runs out of money. The same largesse won’t be afforded to the millions of others who are currently sinking in a mire of debt because they can no longer afford to live, a problem caused by the very greed that is at the heart of the water industry and what this article is trying so very desperately to avoid looking at.
The customer remains silent throughout the article, again a glaring omission. The authors know that the customers exist, but somehow just couldn’t seem to find one to speak to.
We have to wait until the end of the article before we’re treated to the words of a “former Labour MP”, who succinctly states what the rest of the article is intended to render equivocal and dare not say, that private companies seek to “maximise the cost to the consumer to ensure maximum return to the investor”. The choice of voice here (a political rather than factual one, and a “former” one), and its placement, are all intentional. The last voice here is not the final word, rather it is the bottom of the pile.
David Willetts, via email
A letter to Keir Starmer
Dear Keir,
You probably think you have it pretty sweet. The Tories have dug themselves such a hole there’s no way you could lose the election. Your dreams of becoming the next Tony Blair are fast approaching- albeit a version more aligned with washed up girls on spice and David Beckham being egged for wearing an off-colour flag on his collar. There is only so long they can kick the can down the road for, surely?
But so far it’s all playing out as well as it could for the Conservatives. As with Blair, your downfall (as you seem to have gotten away with dropping policy after policy from the manifesto)- is proving to be the Middle East. Blind support for murderous allies in a war that, whether or not the guilt keeps you up at night and whether or not you are facing visits from the ghost of Christmas past, you know is wrong. You know it must stop. And yet this is the one issue you seem to readily take a stance on. If only that stance weren’t so cackhanded as to put you at risk of losing the election.
At least 52% of the country think you have handled the conflict badly – compared to only 14% that do. Even Rishi Sunak, the most unpopular man in British Politics since you hung Corbyn out to dry- has better ratings. Oh dear.
What is telling of the next step, is the Daily Mail headline two days ago; “Sunak says war must end”. The Tories are positioning themselves to be an inspiration of peace and order in the world. We both know it’s tosh, but we both know they will evade scrutiny in a way Labour won’t. But if you allow Sunak to take the lead in calling for peace, you will have absolutely failed. It will be a Great British cock-up of epic proportions.
Last time, this led to 14 years without a Labour prime minister. The ultimate seat is up for grabs and you will lose it by being outwitted. Remember how the Tories had Blair painted as a war criminal, despite also voting for the Iraq invasion? History repeats itself. The public is not on your side. Your failure to lead the charge for peace means you are losing their support, as well as demonstrating weakness that will see support melt away behind the scenes.
Right now you even have the chance to justify peace to the racist yet patriotic mob you are so intent on appeasing rather than leading- in the wake of the British Citizens murdered distributing aid. Now is the moment to come forward with hope and peace, and reject the bullies that say you shouldn’t.
There are many more forces at play than simply Zionists and leftists, and these forces are very cynical. You are being outplayed. So take a bold and unexpected step, Keir. Call for peace. Cast off the shackles you’ve walked yourself into, and use your position to actually enact some justice. Supposedly it’s something you used to be keen on.
Stop being played. Stop Arming Israel. Save your own election chances. Save your reputation. Save lives. And save the claptrap denial. You know the truth.
I very much doubt I’ll get a reply to this. But I dare you to prove me wrong. I dare you to prove all your critics wrong. Let’s see what you’re made of.
All the best,
Dave Durant, via email
A song for Gaza
I have just written a new words to an old song to go with this heinous genocide. If you know the tune to the old English song that begins: “Early one morning, just as the sun was rising,
I heard a maiden singing in the valley below… How can you leave me? How can you deceive me? How can you treat a poor maiden so?” you will be able to sing my updated lyrics to this old lament of love betrayed.Everyday in Gaza, genocide is happening,
Women and children are being bombed and starved to death,
Buildings are pulverised, hospitals targetted,
How can WE stand by and watch this genocide?Our British government is exporting arms to Israel,
We, as a nation, are made to watch this crime.
HOW can this be happening? How can this be civilised?
How can this genocide be sanctioned at THIS time?Israel’s government is set on stealing Gaza,
Using Hamas as an excuse to take this land.
Killing all the families, and ruining the buildings,
Eventually Gaza will be pulverised to sand.Remaining Palestinians will be evacuated,
Israel will have access to the beaches and the sea.
It will have stolen Gaza , and wiped out its people,
This will be seen as a mighty victory.How can we stop this? How can we thwart this?
How can we prevent this murderous, evil theft?
As a nation , who thinks that we are civilised,
How have we come to be of ethics SO bereft?
Sheelah Goldsmith, via email
Want to get involved? Email membership(at)thecanary.co and we’ll publish your letters, too! Terms and conditions of publication apply.
