“We Will Fight for Reparations — But We Will Not Wait”: Dr Umar Johnson Calls for Global Black Organisation in Brixton

By: Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

The Pan-African speaker used his keynote address at Brixton’s Afrikan Reparations Day rally to urge African-descended communities to organise across borders, finance their own institutions and pursue liberation without waiting for governments to deliver justice.

“We will fight for reparations — but we will not wait.”

It was the declaration that defined Dr Umar Johnson’s keynote address in Brixton: reparations must continue to be pursued, but the global African diaspora cannot postpone the work of building its own power while waiting for former colonial and slaveholding nations to respond.

Advertisement

Speaking at the Afrikan Reparations Day March and Rally in Windrush Square, referred to by organisers as Afrikan Pioneer Square, on Saturday, 1 August, Johnson delivered a forceful call for Black communities across Europe, the Caribbean, Africa and the Americas to move beyond speeches, social-media posts and symbolic solidarity.

His central argument was that the campaign for reparatory justice must be accompanied by organisation, cooperation and collective investment.

“Brothers and sisters of England, brothers and sisters of Europe, we have to finance our liberation,” he told the gathering.

“We will fight for reparations — but we will not wait.”

Dr Umar Johnson delivers a powerful message in Brixton, calling for Black unity, global organisation and investment in our own liberation.

Watch the keynote address. #UmarJohnson #Reparations #Brixton

video: by J.… pic.twitter.com/WkswVJ2Yxt

— Jam Radio UK News (@Jam_RadioUK) August 3, 2026

Video by Jacqueline Mckenzie

“Yes, we’re fighting for reparations, but we cannot wait to get them. We will continue to fight for reparations — hard — but we will not wait.”

Advertisement

Collect Akimyax Anime Keyrings

Johnson called for a more organised relationship between African-descended communities around the world, including Black communities in Europe, Canada, the United States, Mexico, Brazil and the Caribbean.

He urged activists to begin holding conferences that would connect those communities and allow them to develop a common strategy.

“Most of you here, just like me, we are the children of the transatlantic slave trade,” he said.

“We are the descendants of the Maafa. We are the ones who have inherited the pain, the legacy, the prophecy and the destiny of our ancestors.”

Advertisement

His message was that a shared history must become the foundation for coordinated action.

“Let us do the work of organisation,” Johnson said. “Let us do the work of reparations. Let us do the work of liberation.”

The address came at a significant moment for the international reparations movement. Johnson referred to the African Union’s declaration of a decade devoted to justice and reparations for Africans and people of African descent.

He also highlighted Ghana’s role in securing a landmark United Nations General Assembly resolution in March 2026.

Advertisement

The resolution described the trafficking and racialised chattel enslavement of Africans as the “gravest crime against humanity”. It was adopted with 123 countries voting in favour, three voting against and 52 abstaining.

“We have to finance our liberation”

While Johnson supported demands for reparations from governments and institutions that benefited from slavery and colonialism, he challenged Black communities not to make their progress entirely dependent on those demands being met.

“Let’s use our money now,” he said. “Let’s use our resources now. Let’s use our time now. Let’s use our intelligence now.”

His argument effectively shifted part of the responsibility back onto the diaspora: what institutions could be built, what organisations could be strengthened and what political power could be developed using the resources already available?

Johnson warned that while campaigners waited, external powers were continuing to consolidate their influence across Africa and the Caribbean.

Advertisement

“We will fight for reparations, but we will not wait,” he repeated.

The speech also contained a direct criticism of activism that never moves beyond public commentary.

“We just can’t tweet about it,” Johnson said. “We just can’t Facebook about it. We just can’t Instagram about it. We just can’t TikTok about it.”

“We’ve got to organise about it. We have to plan about it. We have to meet about it. We have to finance it.”

A challenge directed inwards

Some of the most striking passages were not directed at governments, former colonial powers or white institutions. They were directed at divisions within Black political movements themselves.

Johnson appealed for greater compassion, humility and forgiveness between people working towards the same broad objectives.

“Some of us are so filled with hate for the white man that we don’t have any love for the Black man,” he said.

“What good is a Negro who hates his enemy and also hates his brethren?”

He continued:

“If you cannot forgive, you are not a revolutionary. You’ve got to be able to overlook the faults of your brother and of your sister.”

Johnson called on those present to see the African diaspora as a single body, arguing that homelessness, hunger and suffering experienced by one section of the community should be understood as a collective concern.

Advertisement

“If I hurt, you hurt,” he said. “If you hurt, I hurt. If you’re hungry, I’m hungry. If you’re homeless, I’m homeless.”

That appeal to compassion sat alongside some of the speech’s more confrontational language, illustrating the mixture of solidarity, nationalism and provocation for which Johnson has become known.

“Racism is not the biggest problem”

Johnson also made one of the most challenging statements of the address when he told the audience:

“Racism is not the biggest problem. It only looks like it’s the biggest problem because we are not united.”

In context, he appeared not to be denying the existence or effects of racism, but arguing that division leaves Black communities less able to confront it.

“This world cannot stop a united African people,” he said. “This world cannot stop a serious African people. This world cannot stop a dedicated African people.”

It was an attempt to move the focus from what oppressive systems were doing to Black people towards what Black communities were prepared to build and defend collectively.

Controversial remarks about ADHD

The speech was not without controversy.

During an earlier passage, Johnson urged Black parents to keep their children away from medications including Ritalin and Adderall. He then claimed:

“Your son don’t have ADHD. He just ain’t got no daddy at home.”

The sweeping claim is not supported by established medical understanding of ADHD, which recognises it as a condition affecting how the brain functions.

Advertisement

Medication is neither necessary nor appropriate for every child, but treatment decisions should be made according to the child’s individual circumstances and in consultation with qualified medical professionals.

Johnson’s remarks are therefore likely to concern parents, clinicians and advocates who have campaigned for better recognition of ADHD within Black communities.

From compassion to militant rhetoric

Towards the end of the address, Johnson invoked the legacy of Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad, presenting her as an example of determination in the face of fear and oppression.

His closing language then became markedly more militant.

“I believe the next war will be a war to free Africa,” he said.

He told the gathering that he believed Black people would one day be called upon to reclaim Africa and concluded with the Pan-African declaration:

“One God, one aim, one destiny.”

Johnson also paid tribute to the people responsible for organising the Brixton gathering, reminding the audience that events lasting several hours could require months of planning, sacrifice and largely unseen work.

A demand — and a challenge

Johnson’s Brixton speech moved between a number of different messages: reparations and self-reliance, international solidarity and internal forgiveness, compassion between Black people and militant warnings about Africa’s future.

Not every statement will attract agreement. Some, particularly his comments about ADHD and medication, require firm scrutiny. Others will provoke debate about where Pan-African solidarity ends and polarising rhetoric begins.

But the central political challenge he placed before the gathering was unmistakable.

Reparations, in Johnson’s argument, must remain an international demand — but liberation cannot be placed on hold until reparations arrive.

“Let us do the work of organisation. Let us do the work of reparations. Let us do the work of liberation.” 

Black communities, he said, must organise, cooperate and invest in themselves now.

By: Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

Britain’s first Black woman MP has had the Labour whip restored following a second suspension. Her return closes another turbulent chapter in her relationship with the party, while restoring one of Parliament’s most persistent voices for victims of the Home Office Windrush scandal.

Diane Abbott has been formally readmitted to the Labour Party and has had the Labour whip restored in the House of Commons, ending more than a year in which the veteran Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP sat as an independent.

Labour said the decision followed a disciplinary process conducted under party rules and approved by its independent review board.

Advertisement

Collect Akimyax Anime Keyrings

Abbott said she had received a formal warning over a previous social-media post in which she inadvertently referred to the Israel Defence Forces as the “Jewish Defence Force”. She acknowledged that the wording conflated the actions of the state of Israel with the Jewish community, apologised for the hurt caused and reaffirmed that she remained a lifelong opponent of racism in all its forms.

Abbott’s return is significant not simply because of her longevity, but because of her unique place in British political history.

First elected in 1987, she became the first Black woman to sit in the House of Commons. Following her re-election at the 2024 general election, she became Mother of the House as its longest continuously serving woman MP.

Advertisement

Her recent relationship with Labour, however, has been marked by suspension, internal investigations, public disagreements and uncertainty over whether her parliamentary career would be allowed to continue under the party’s banner.

The first suspension came in April 2023 after Abbott wrote a letter to The Observer which distinguished between the racism experienced by Black people and the prejudice experienced by Jewish, Irish and Traveller communities. The comments were widely condemned. Abbott withdrew the letter and apologised, saying that racism took many forms and that Jewish people, Irish people and Travellers had suffered its effects.

After a lengthy disciplinary process, a formal warning and antisemitism-awareness training, the whip was restored in May 2024. That did not immediately end the controversy. A public dispute followed over whether Abbott would be permitted to stand as Labour’s candidate at the approaching general election. She was eventually confirmed as the party’s candidate and was re-elected to Parliament for a tenth term. That period also coincided with one of the most disturbing episodes of Abbott’s public life.

Advertisement

When Parliament debated alleged racist and violent remarks made about her by Conservative donor Frank Hester, Abbott repeatedly stood in the Commons seeking to speak but was not called by the Speaker.

The spectacle of Britain’s first Black woman MP being discussed across the chamber while being unable to speak for herself deepened public concern about the way she was being treated.

In July 2025, Abbott was suspended for a second time after a BBC interview in which she maintained that there was a distinction between racism based upon visible skin colour and other forms of racism. Labour again removed the whip, leaving Abbott to sit as an independent until this week’s decision.

A steadfast voice for Windrush victims

For members and descendants of the Windrush generation, Abbott’s record is particularly important. When the Windrush scandal erupted nationally in 2018, Abbott was serving as Shadow Home Secretary.

She used that position to challenge the Home Office over wrongful detention, deportation, removal targets, the denial of employment, benefits and healthcare, the destruction of people’s livelihoods and the wider consequences of the government’s hostile-environment policies.

Advertisement

Abbott argued that the scandal could not be separated from policies introduced while Theresa May was Home Secretary and called on the government to establish how many people had been detained, deported or prevented from returning to Britain.

She demanded that compensation address the real and often catastrophic losses suffered by victims. That included lost employment, benefits, pensions, access to healthcare and public services, as well as the trauma, pain and suffering caused by the Home Office.

Abbott also called for victims to be given proper access to legal assistance, recognising that people who had already been failed by the immigration system could not reasonably be expected to challenge that same system without support. She repeatedly made clear that Windrush compensation was not charity.

It was redress owed to people who were legally entitled to live in Britain, but whose rights, identity and status had been denied or questioned by the state.

Abbott also warned that the scandal extended beyond the Caribbean. People from other Commonwealth countries had been affected by the same legislation, policies and Home Office practices.

As the years passed and the immediate political attention surrounding the scandal began to fade, Abbott continued raising concerns about delays, inadequate awards, restrictive evidential requirements and the low number of victims receiving compensation.

Advertisement

She challenged the failure to reach people who had become understandably fearful of the Home Office and repeatedly drew attention to the emotional devastation suffered by a generation who had always understood themselves to be British.

Abbott’s connection to the Windrush generation is also personal. Her parents travelled to Britain from Jamaica during the post-war period, with her mother working as a nurse and her father as a welder.

Her interventions have therefore been informed not only by her political responsibilities, but by a direct understanding of the contribution made by Caribbean families to Britain’s public services, economy and communities.

This is not the record of a politician who discovered Windrush only after it became politically fashionable. 

It is a sustained record of challenging the Home Office, questioning ministers, confronting the hostile environment and insisting that victims must be treated as people whose rights were violated, rather than as immigration cases seeking special treatment.

In 2014 Abbot forewarned that policies being enshrined in the 2014 immigration act were hostile to Caribbean and Commonwealth migrants who had long-settled in the UK over decades and the descendants, but those warning were ignored.

The whole record must be remembered

Abbott broke one of Parliament’s most imposing racial barriers. She survived years of hostility, repeated personal attacks and an often deeply strained relationship with her own party.

Throughout that turmoil, her position on Windrush remained remarkably consistent: the victims were legally entitled to be here, the British state had wronged them, compensation was not charity and justice could not be delivered through apologies alone.

Her journey with Labour has taken her from the front bench to suspension, from reinstatement to uncertainty over her candidacy, from re-election and elevation as Mother of the House to another suspension — and now, once again, to readmission.

Advertisement

Share

Andy Burnham has officially become the United Kingdom's new Prime Minister after meeting King Charles III at Buckingham Palace, where the King invited him to form a new government following the resignation of Sir Keir Starmer.

Burnham now becomes the seventh UK Prime Minister in just 10 years, highlighting a decade of political instability that has left many voters questioning whether Westminster can provide the long-term leadership the country needs.

The former Mayor of Greater Manchester enters Downing Street with a reputation for championing regional investment, social justice and greater devolution. However, he inherits a nation facing significant economic and social challenges that have tested successive governments.

Advertisement

Collect Akimyax Anime Keyrings

A Nation Searching for Stability

Since the Brexit referendum in 2016, Britain has seen an unprecedented turnover of political leaders. Frequent changes at the top have fuelled public frustration and uncertainty, with many people feeling that political infighting has distracted from addressing the country's most pressing issues.

For many voters, the question is no longer simply who occupies Number 10, but whether any government can restore confidence in Britain's economy, public services and political institutions.

The Economy Comes First

Burnham's immediate priority will be strengthening the UK economy while managing increasing pressure on the nation's finances.

Among the major challenges facing his government are:

• Sluggish economic growth.

• High levels of public borrowing.

• Pressure on the NHS and other public services.

• A shortage of affordable housing.

• Encouraging business investment.

• Reducing regional inequality.

Burnham has long argued that more investment should be directed outside London and the South East, giving cities and regions greater control over their own economic futures.

Advertisement

The Cost of Living Remains a Major Concern

While inflation has eased from its recent peaks, many households continue to struggle with the rising cost of everyday life.

Families across the country continue to face:

• Higher grocery bills.

• Rising rents and mortgage costs.

• Increasing council tax and other local charges.

• Expensive energy bills.

• Wages that many believe have not kept pace with living costs.

Many Britons will judge the new Prime Minister not by political rhetoric, but by whether their financial situation improves over the coming months and years.

Windrush Community Looking for Action

Burnham also inherits unfinished business concerning the Windrush generation and their descendants.

Although governments have acknowledged the Windrush scandal and introduced compensation and documentation schemes, many campaigners argue that justice remains incomplete. Compensation has been criticised as being too slow, while unresolved nationality and citizenship issues continue to affect some descendants who believe they have been disadvantaged by historic legislative unfairness.

The Caribbean community will be watching closely to see whether Burnham's government takes meaningful action to resolve these long-standing concerns and rebuild trust with those affected. Last week, an open letter signed by lawyers and campaigners was addressed to Andy Burnham setting out concerns over long-standing issues around the redress schemes setup up by government following the Windrush scandal.

Advertisement

Will Burnham Govern for the People?

Perhaps the most important question surrounding Britain's newest Prime Minister is whether he can remain true to the image that made him popular with many voters.

As Mayor of Greater Manchester, Burnham built a reputation for speaking out on behalf of local communities, challenging central government when necessary and advocating for working people.

Now, as Prime Minister, he faces a very different challenge.

Will he continue to champion ordinary families struggling with rising taxes, housing costs and declining living standards, or will the realities of Westminster politics, Whitehall bureaucracy and powerful economic interests limit how much change he can deliver?

History has shown that many leaders enter Downing Street promising reform, only to discover that governing often requires balancing competing interests and difficult compromises.

Advertisement

A Defining Test

Andy Burnham begins his premiership at a critical moment for the United Kingdom.

The economy remains fragile, the cost of living continues to place pressure on millions of households, public services face growing demand, and many communities, including the Windrush generation and their families—are still waiting for lasting solutions.

After ten years and seven prime ministers, the British public is looking for more than another change of leadership. They are looking for stability, accountability and genuine progress.

Whether Andy Burnham becomes the Prime Minister who delivers that change, or simply another chapter in Britain's recent political turbulence, will be determined not by his first speech outside Number 10, but by the decisions his government makes in the months and years ahead.

Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

The Government has quietly changed the rules of the Windrush Compensation Scheme, replacing its former oversight figure,  "The Independent Person" with Windrush Commissioner Reverend Clive Foster.

The amendment, published on 10 July, states that Foster will now “assure delivery” of the Scheme and may report to the Home Secretary and ministers across the devolved nations of UK.

However, the change gives him no power to decide on claims, overturn Home Office refusals or increase compensation awards. The Home Office, the department responsible for the Windrush scandal, continues to control the assessment and payment of claims.

Advertisement

Previously, the rules required the Home Secretary to appoint an “Independent Person” to oversee the Scheme. That governance role has now been transferred to the Windrush Commissioner under a memorandum of understanding with the Home Office. The memorandum was produced following a JamRadio investigation into the Commissioner’s independence and the absence of any publicly available document setting out his powers, responsibilities and relationship with the department.

Advertisement

The memorandum describes Foster as an independent advocate for victims and allows him to scrutinise the Scheme, request information and make recommendations. But it expressly states that it is not legally binding and creates no legal obligations.

The change comes amid continuing criticism of the Home Office’s administration of compensation claims and renewed demands for the Scheme to be transferred to an independent body.

Although Foster replaces the Independent Person responsible for general oversight, separate independent reviewers will continue to consider Tier 2 challenges against individual compensation decisions.

Those reviewers can recommend that a decision be changed, but the Home Office retains the final say. If the department rejects a recommendation, it is only required to provide written reasons.

Advertisement

The Commissioner similarly cannot order the Home Office to compensate a claimant or correct a decision he considers unfair.

His appointment may provide victims with a stronger public voice and increase scrutiny of how the Scheme operates. But it does not remove any decision-making authority from the Home Office.

The Government has changed who watches the Windrush Compensation Scheme. It has not changed who controls it.

  Follow JamRadio for updates: 

Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

A newly updated House of Commons Library briefing has put fresh attention on the Windrush Compensation Scheme, revealing that the Home Office has now paid out around £127 million to almost 4,000 claims, while hundreds of people are still waiting for an initial decision.

Advertisement

The briefing, published just days before annual Windrush Day celebrations, focuses on the financial compensation scheme set up for people affected by the Windrush scandal, including those who were wrongly denied lawful status, employment, housing, healthcare, benefits, travel, or the right to live in the UK.

According to the latest figures cited in the briefing, 11,759 claims had been lodged by March 2026. Of those, 9,495 had been fully closed, 3,256 were found eligible for payment, and 566 people were still waiting for an initial decision.

Advertisement

The new release updates the public record on the scheme and reflects recent evidence given to Parliament. While there are signs that administration has improved, including shorter average decision times, campaigners and oversight bodies continue to raise serious concerns about how accessible, fair and humane the process is for survivors.

The Windrush Commissioner has warned that many people still find the compensation process confusing, overwhelming and re-traumatising. For some families, the process of proving harm caused by the state has become another burden placed on people who had already suffered loss of work, housing, immigration status, dignity and family stability.

Advertisement

“injustice has been compounded rather than compensated.”  Says Hetticia McIntosh whose husband Vanderbilt McIntosh has received 5 nil awards and was recently offered just £1,100 for loss of employment by the very Home Office which has apologied for the decades of harm it has caused them. There 3 children who were born British citizens were left unable to grow up in the UK because the government did not provide their parents with documentation. The McIntosh family has yet to be properly compensated for their loss and suffering years after applying to the scheme.

The briefing also notes changes introduced under the Labour government, including additional compensation categories for lost pension contributions and withdrawals, wider employment-loss compensation, advance payments during reviews, and priority handling for older claimants aged 75 and above.

A £1.5 million support fund has also been announced to help claimants gather evidence and complete applications. But questions remain over whether the scheme should continue to be administered by the Home Office, the same department responsible for the hostile environment policies that helped create the scandal.

Advertisement

Campaigners have long argued that the scheme should be made fully independent and that claimants should have access to funded legal representation. Many affected people are elderly, traumatised, or have complex cases involving decades-old records, missing paperwork and intergenerational harm.

The updated briefing shows that although compensation payments have increased since the scheme was launched, the Windrush scandal is far from resolved.

For many survivors and their descendants, the central issue remains whether the state has truly recognised the depth of harm caused, and whether a Home Office-run compensation process can ever provide full justice for a scandal created by Home Office failures.

JamRadio News Desk

Dedicated to clear, reliable reporting 

Share

A leading race equality organisation has warned that a growing "hostile climate" is having a damaging impact on young people from ethnic minority communities across the UK, increasing feelings of exclusion, limiting opportunities, and undermining trust in public institutions.

Action for Race Equality (ARE), through its ARE Voices programme, says many young people from Black, Asian and Mixed Heritage backgrounds continue to face barriers in education, employment and wider society, despite years of promises to tackle inequality. The organisation argues that negative public narratives around migration, race and diversity are contributing to a climate in which many young people feel unwelcome and unheard.

Advertisement

Campaigners say the consequences extend beyond employment prospects and educational attainment. They warn that persistent discrimination and unequal treatment can affect mental health, wellbeing and social mobility, particularly among young people already facing economic disadvantage.

The warning comes amid wider concerns about the growing number of young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET). ARE recently highlighted evidence that Black, Asian and Mixed Heritage young people remain disproportionately represented among those struggling to access opportunities, pointing to structural barriers, unequal access to networks and discrimination within the labour market.

Advertisement

Race equality advocates are calling for policymakers to place the lived experiences of ethnic minority communities at the centre of decision-making. They argue that solutions must go beyond broad economic interventions and directly address racial inequalities that continue to shape outcomes for many young people.

The concerns also echo findings from recent government-backed research which found that race, racism and racial bias continue to influence life experiences and opportunities for many Black, Asian and Mixed Heritage communities. Researchers warned that failing to acknowledge and address these issues risks allowing inequalities to become further entrenched.

Advertisement

Community organisations are increasingly calling for greater investment in youth services, mentoring programmes, employment support and initiatives that amplify young people's voices in public policy. They argue that meaningful change will require both targeted action and a willingness to confront the structural causes of racial inequality.

As debates continue around social cohesion, economic opportunity and the future of Britain's young people, campaigners say the message is clear: tackling disadvantage requires more than rhetoric—it requires action that addresses the realities experienced by ethnic minority communities every day.

What do you think?

Have you experienced barriers to education, employment or opportunities because of your background? Share your story with Jam Radio News by emailing our newsroom.

Advertisement

Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

Part two of Melissa Sigodo’s powerful four-part Windrush series airs tonight, focusing on the devastating experiences of Hetticia (“Tricia”) and Vanderbilt (“Vaun”) McIntosh — and the lasting impact the Windrush scandal has had on their entire family.

The documentary highlights how the couple lost their home, mortgage, careers and livelihoods after being wrongly caught up in the Home Office Windrush scandal. Like many victims, they spent years fighting not only for recognition, but for justice and compensation after the scandal was publicly exposed in 2018.

However, the programme also reveals an often-overlooked consequence of the scandal: the impact on children born in Britain and who have an unqualified right to live here, but were forced out of their own country.

Tricia and Vaun were forced to relocate to St Lucia in the 1980s, after being left unable to prove their right to live and work in the UK, long before the Windrush scandal became national news, and a failure for which the government has continually apologised. But the fallout from the Home Office’s hostile environment policies stretched more than four decades and would later shape the lives of their three children, who are all British citizens by birth.

Tonight’s episode explores how those children of Windrush were effectively forced away from the UK “by proxy”, raising difficult questions about citizenship, belonging and what happens when British families are pushed out by systemic injustice.

Sigodo’s series also shines a light on the emotional and financial toll many Windrush families continue to endure years after the scandal first emerged. Campaigners and victims have repeatedly criticised the compensation scheme for delays, low payouts and retraumatising processes that have left many still waiting for justice.

For families like the McIntosh’s, the damage extends far beyond paperwork and policy. It is about identity, displacement and generations of opportunity lost. With just several weeks before Windrush Day, the Labour government's manifesto promise is now seen as a failure to deliver.

The second instalment of Melissa Sigodo’s docuseries airs tonight at 8pm and continues to give voice to those whose lives were permanently altered by one of the UK’s most shameful modern injustices.

  Follow JamRadio for updates: 

JamRadio News Desk

Dedicated to clear, reliable reporting 

Share

Downing Street’s planned antisemitism rally is already facing criticism over a guest list many see as politically revealing.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage — a figure repeatedly accused by critics of racism, Islamophobia and amplifying divisive rhetoric — has been invited to stand alongside party leaders at an event supposedly aimed at confronting hate and intolerance.

But Green Party leader Zack Polanski, who is Jewish and has spoken publicly about antisemitism, was not invited.

The contrast has sparked accusations that the event is less about genuinely confronting antisemitism and more about deciding which political voices are considered acceptable within Britain’s mainstream.

Advertisement

Critics argue Farage’s inclusion helps further normalise Reform UK within establishment politics, despite years of controversy surrounding the party’s rhetoric on migrants, Muslims and multiculturalism.

At the same time, Polanski’s exclusion raises uncomfortable questions about whose Jewish identity is recognised in political spaces, particularly when those voices challenge the status quo on issues such as Gaza, protest rights and civil liberties.

The language surrounding the rally has also drawn scrutiny. Organisers called on the “silent majority” to stand up against antisemitism, a phrase long associated with culture-war politics and often used to portray protesters, minorities and dissenting voices as outside the mainstream.

For many observers, the issue is no longer whether antisemitism should be confronted — it absolutely should, but who gets to define it, who gets excluded from the conversation, and whether anti-racism is being applied consistently across political lines.

  Follow JamRadio for updates: 

JamRadio News Desk

Dedicated to clear, reliable reporting 

Share

A complex and fast‑moving public‑health investigation is underway after dozens of passengers disembarked a cruise liner during its Atlantic route — including one woman who left the ship with her husband’s body before later dying in South Africa.

Authorities now confirm 30 passengers in total left the vessel at Saint Helena, triggering an international tracing effort spanning Europe, North America, Africa and the Caribbean.

⚠️Hantavirus⚠️
A deadly virus outbreak on board a cruise liner has sparked a global race to trace infected passengers across three continents and the Caribbean Island of Saint Kitts and Nevis.#Hantavirüs #StKitts #StkittsandNevis #CanaryIslands pic.twitter.com/DUnGtMFBe4

— Jam Radio UK News (@Jam_RadioUK) May 8, 2026

Officials on the island released the nationality breakdown of those who disembarked:

• 7 British
• 6 American
• 3 Dutch
• 2 each from Canada, Switzerland and Turkey
• 1 each from Germany, Denmark, New Zealand, Singapore, Sweden, and Saint Kitts & Nevis

Two additional British passengers — who had already flown home — are now self‑isolating after contacting UK authorities when news of the ship’s cases emerged. Neither reported symptoms at the time of travel.

St. Kitts and Nevis is one of 12 countries that the World Health Organisation (WHO) has placed on alert after a hantavirus outbreak linked to the cruise ship MV Hondius

The ship continued its scheduled route after the Saint Helena stop, dropping anchor off Cape Verde on 3 May. Maritime tracking shows the liner still at sea, heading northeast toward the Canary Islands.

Local officials in Tenerife say the vessel is expected Saturday or possibly Sunday, depending on weather conditions during the final leg of the journey.

ADVERTISEMENT

JamRadio’s regional contacts report that Spanish authorities have confirmed passengers will be quarantined near an airport once the ship arrives. and will be monitored before being declared fit to fly to the respective home countries.

A correspondent in Tenerife says the situation remains fluid: “We’re told the journey will take three to four days, but arrival could slip into Sunday. The quarantine arrangements are still being negotiated.”

The remaining passengers and crew will only be allowed to disembark if they show no symptoms upon arrival. Health teams in the Canaries are preparing for screening, testing and potential isolation orders.

With passengers now scattered across multiple countries and two deaths already linked to the voyage, public‑health agencies are coordinating to trace contacts and assess the wider risk.

JamRadio will continue to monitor developments as the ship approaches the Canary Islands and authorities decide how to manage the next phase of the response.

  Follow JamRadio for updates: 

Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

Former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has waded into the raging storm of the AI revolution with a provocation that sounds suspiciously like a classic bait-and-switch. Speaking recently on the state of the job market, the former leader—now comfortably positioned as an adviser to multi-billion-dollar tech giants Anthropic and Microsoft, has called for the elimination of National Insurance contributions for businesses.

His argument? That our current tax system makes hiring humans "expensive" compared to deploying AI agents. By taxing human labour through National Insurance while leaving AI software largely untaxed, Sunak argues that the government is essentially penalising companies for choosing people over algorithms.

Former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is calling for the elimination of National Insurance, arguing that current taxes make AI "cheaper" to hire than humans. Is our tax system disincentivising entry-level jobs? #AI #Economy #Jobs #RishiSunak pic.twitter.com/fiVSngqgIW

— Jam Radio UK News (@Jam_RadioUK) April 23, 2026

The Billionaire’s "Slick" Logic

On the surface, Sunak’s pitch for tax breaks might seem like a common-sense economic lever. But look closer, and the optics are jarring. Here we have a billionaire, deeply embedded in the very tech firms currently pushing AI into every corner of the British economy, advocating for policies that would effectively subsidise corporate bottom lines.

Advertisement

Sunak is framing this as a "pro-jobs" move, but for the average worker, it feels like a ransom note. The message is clear: If you want companies to hire humans, you have to make humans cheaper—or, at the very least, make the machines more expensive.

 The AI-Industrial Complex

The irony of Sunak’s position is particularly sharp when you consider the extent to which firms like Microsoft and Palantir have already colonised the British state. From the NHS to various government departments, these US giants have secured massive, multi-million-pound contracts to manage the backbone of our public services.

Advertisement

Palantir, for example, is currently at the centre of a heated national debate over its £330 million contract to deliver the NHS Federated Data Platform, with staff, unions, and MPs questioning the wisdom of embedding an American "surveillance-tech" firm into our health service. Meanwhile, the government continues to lock public sector bodies into long-term, high-cost deals with Microsoft, effectively creating a cycle of dependency where the taxpayer funds the very giants now replacing human labour with AI.

The Real Solution: Tax the AI, Not the People

If Sunak is correct that the current tax system is pushing businesses to automate rather than hire, then the answer isn't to slash taxes for corporations—it’s to finally address the "AI dividend."

If AI is indeed killing off entry-level roles, the very rungs of the ladder that young people need to start their careers, then those AI systems should be paying their fair share into the economy. Taxing the deployment of large-scale AI agents is no longer a fringe academic idea; it is a necessary economic defence. The revenue generated from such a tax could serve as a vital buffer for the welfare bill, which is set to balloon as structural unemployment rises, and provide the funding needed to upskill a generation displaced by the rise of the machines.

A Country Under Pressure

The urgency of this debate cannot be overstated. Since the pandemic, the wealth gap in the UK has widened into a chasm. While the top 10% of households continue to accumulate massive wealth, the working class is being crushed.

We are living through a "perfect storm." Two major wars abroad are keeping energy costs volatile and high, feeding directly into a cost-of-living crisis that has left household budgets at a breaking point. When the cost of electricity is high, the cost of heating is high, and food prices remain stubborn, the last thing the British public needs is a race to the bottom where human labour is treated as a "premium" cost to be avoided by corporations.

Sunak may think he’s being "slick" by positioning himself as an advocate for the job market, but he is fundamentally dodging the larger issue: we are witnessing the biggest transfer of wealth from workers to machines in modern history. If the government fails to capture the value generated by AI, they are not just failing to balance the economy, they are abandoning the next generation to a future where they are, quite literally, unaffordable to hire.

JamRadio may earn a commission if you purchase products advertised on our website at no extra cost to you.

  Follow JamRadio for updates: 

Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

A

cross the UK, a growing body of evidence is exposing a stark reality: the Universal Credit sanctions regime is not simply a system of enforcement, but one that is pushing people into hunger, debt and deepening poverty. What is presented as a mechanism to encourage compliance increasingly appears to function as a form of punishment that removes the very means people need to survive.

According to the government's sanctions policy, the system allows the state to withdraw up to 100% of a claimant’s standard allowance. In practice, this can mean that a person suddenly has little or no money for food, heating or transport. The loss is not often gradual; it's immediate, and for many, devastating. Research and case evidence reveal that sanctions are often applied for missed Jobcentre appointments, yet this is where the system reveals one of its most troubling contradictions. People are frequently sanctioned because they cannot afford to attend. When income is removed, the cost of transport, phone credit or internet access becomes prohibitive for receiving critical appointments at the Jobcentre. Missing an appointment then leads to further sanctions, creating a cycle that is difficult, and often impossible, to escape.

Advertisement

Shop: Ecoflow Whole Home Power Supply Units from Amazon.com

This dynamic has been described by advice organisations as a “sanctions spiral”, in which the penalty itself prevents compliance with the conditions required to end it. Individuals find themselves trapped in a system that demands engagement while simultaneously removing the resources necessary to participate. The result is not behavioural correction, but escalating hardship.

Evidence from charities and policy groups consistently shows a disproportionate system where sanctioned claimants are often left with no money at all. Many are forced to rely on food banks, informal borrowing or going without basic necessities altogether. Reports indicate that a significant proportion of people receiving Universal Credit have experienced running out of food within a matter of weeks. Far from acting as a safety net, the system is increasingly associated with acute financial crisis.

Advertisement

In theory, hardship payments exist to provide support during sanctions. In reality, they often deepen the problem. These payments are not grants but loans, recoverable from future benefits. Claimants must first demonstrate that they are unable to meet their most basic needs, effectively requiring proof of extreme deprivation before help is granted. Even when approved, the repayments reduce future income, extending financial strain well beyond the sanction period itself. What is presented as emergency assistance can therefore lock individuals into a longer-term cycle of reduced income and debt.

The scale of the issue remains substantial, with tens of thousands of sanctions issued in recent periods. A 2025 report by Policy in practice, supported by Lloyds Bank Foundation highlights “increase poverty and impact the ability to afford basic living costs” At the same time, criticism from charities, researchers and advocacy groups continues to intensify. Concerns have been raised about fairness, proportionality and the unequal impact on certain groups. The overarching pattern that emerges is one in which hardship is not an unintended side effect, but a predictable outcome of how the system operates.

Advertisement

Shop: Ecoflow Whole Home Power Supply Units from Amazon.com

Evidence also suggests that sanctions are not always applied in an proportionate or consistent manner. Individuals have been penalised in circumstances involving illness, caring responsibilities or administrative misunderstandings. There are repeated accounts of decisions being made in ways that presume non-compliance rather than investigating context. Studies indicate that most sanctions arise not from a refusal to work, but from missed procedural requirements, raising serious questions about whether the system is targeting the right behaviours at all.

Advertisement

The human impact extends beyond immediate financial hardship. The loss of income and the uncertainty surrounding sanctions are linked to worsening mental health, increased stress and social isolation, increasing the difficulty of getting back into work. Financial instability can quickly cascade into housing insecurity and long-term debt, eroding not only material wellbeing but also personal dignity. Reports show that a large proportion of claimants in debt have gone without food, while many run out of money before their next payment is due. These are not isolated cases but indicators of systemic strain.

Advertisement

Perhaps most concerning is the growing evidence that sanctions may not achieve their stated objective. Rather than supporting people into employment, the removal of income can make job searching significantly more difficult. Without money for transport, appropriate clothing or digital access, the ability to seek and secure work is undermined. Some research suggests that sanctions may push individuals into unstable or low-paid work, or disengage them from the system entirely. In this sense, the policy risks being not only harmful, but counterproductive.

Advertisement

Evidence from multiple independent reports presents a deeply troubling picture. Universal Credit sanctions have the power to remove all income, restrict access to basic necessities and prevent compliance with the very conditions they are meant to enforce. They can drive reliance on emergency food aid, deepen cycles of debt and contribute to deteriorating health and wellbeing. What is framed as a system of accountability increasingly resembles one of deprivation.

This raises a fundamental and uncomfortable question. When a policy requires people to prove their hardship while simultaneously stripping away the means to avoid it, can it still be described as a safety net, or has it become something else entirely?

JamRadio may earn a commission if you purchase products advertised on our website at no extra cost to you.

  Follow JamRadio for updates: 

By TracyAnn Dunkley

Celebrity & Entertainment Reporter

Share

O

nline commentator Bouncer has ignited a firestorm across social media, accusing the BBC of barefaced racism following reports that punk-grime duo Bob Vylan has been added to an internal "block list."

The controversy erupted after it surfaced that the award-winning independent act, known for their searing social commentary, was allegedly placed on a restricted airplay list alongside figures like Michael Jackson and Wiley.

Online comentator Bouncer - image: Youtube

For years, critics have accused the BBC of operating with a quiet, institutional bias, the sort that hides behind polished PR statements and the illusion of impartiality. But the events of the past few months have pushed those concerns into the spotlight with a force that can no longer be brushed aside. The BAFTAs fiasco was the first major crack: a racial slur was broadcast uncensored, yet the phrase “Free Palestine” was surgically removed from the same ceremony. Viewers were left asking how a broadcaster so obsessed with compliance could miss one and censor the other. Add to that the baffling absence of major Black actors like Delroy Lindo and Michael B. Jordan from key BBC coverage, and the pattern begins to look less like oversight and more like selective sensorship.

The situation escalated further when BBC Radio 1 quietly blacklisted Bob Vylan after the duo voiced support for Palestine. Fans noticed the sudden disappearance from playlists. Industry insiders noticed the silence. And then came the twist that made the whole thing impossible to defend: Kneecap — a white Irish rap group — publicly said the exact same words, “Free Palestine”, yet their music remained untouched. No blacklisting. No quiet removal. No sudden drop in rotation. The contrast was so stark that many observers described it as a “case study in double standards”.

Advertisement

This is where the public conversation has shifted from confusion to outright suspicion. Why is political expression tolerated from some artists but treated as a punishable offence when voiced by Black musicians?

Why does the BBC appear to enforce its rules with a heavier hand when the speaker is Black? These are not fringe questions, they are being asked loudly across social media, in music circles, and by audiences who have watched these inconsistencies pile up. The BBC insists it is impartial, but impartiality does not survive selective enforcement. It certainly doesn’t survive a scenario where two artists say the same thing and only the Black artist faces consequences.

Advertisement

The BAFTAs censorship only deepened the distrust. Viewers saw a racial slur left intact, a moment that should have triggered immediate editorial intervention, while “Free Palestine” was removed with surgical precision. To many, the message was unmistakable: certain harms are tolerated, certain voices are muted, and certain communities bear the brunt of the broadcaster’s decisions. Whether intentional or not, the outcome is the same: a growing public perception that the BBC’s editorial judgement disproportionately disadvantages Black artists and Black voices. The BBC may deny racism, but the public is increasingly convinced that the pattern speaks for itself, and they are no longer willing to stay quiet about it.

JamRadio may earn a commission if you purchase products advertised on our website at no extra cost to you.

  Follow JamRadio for updates: 

European Enslavement of African Peoples: Britain Chooses Silence Over Justice

Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

At the United Nations, a historic resolution was tabled to finally call the European Enslavement of African Peoples what it truly was: The gravest crime against humanity. This wasn't just a history lesson; it was a demand for reparations, a formal apology, and the "prompt and unhindered" return of stolen cultural treasures.

Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

The UN General Assembly has formally recognised the transatlantic slave trade as “the gravest crime against humanity”, adopting a Ghana‑sponsored resolution that advocates say marks a historic step toward justice and repair.

The measure passed by 123 votes to three, with 52 abstentions, signalling a decisive—if not unanimous—shift in the global conversation on reparatory justice. The resolution urges member states to consider issuing formal apologies and contributing to a reparations fund, though it does not set financial parameters.

Ghana’s foreign minister, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, told the BBC ahead of the vote that the push for compensation is not about enriching governments but supporting victims’ descendants through education, skills programmes and endowment funds. He stressed that Ghana was not elevating its suffering above others, but documenting a historical truth.

Between 1500 and 1800, an estimated 12–15 million Africans were captured and transported to the Americas, with more than two million dying during the Middle Passage. The resolution, backed by the African Union and CARICOM, states that the legacy of slavery persists today in racial inequality and underdevelopment across the African diaspora.

Ghana—one of the major departure points during the trade—has long been a leading voice on reparations. Its coastal forts, where tens of thousands were held in brutal conditions, remain standing as physical evidence of the system’s violence. The resolution also calls for the return of cultural artefacts looted during the colonial era.

President John Dramani Mahama hailed the vote as “historic” and “a safeguard against forgetting”, while criticising the Trump administration for policies he said were “normalising the erasure of Black history”, including efforts to restore Confederate monuments and dismantle a slavery exhibit in Philadelphia.

The vote caps years of growing momentum: reparatory justice was the African Union’s theme for 2025, and Commonwealth leaders have already called for formal dialogue on reparations. With today’s decision, the UN has now placed the moral weight of the international system behind that movement.

Follow JamRadio:

By TracyAnn Dunkley

Celebrity & Entertainment Reporter

Share

The world pauses to remember Chuck Norris, a man whose name became synonymous with strength, discipline and an almost mythic resilience. Long before internet folklore turned him into a cultural phenomenon, he had already carved out a legacy grounded in real achievement. A decorated martial artist, multiple-time world champion and later a defining face of action cinema, he embodied a rare blend of authenticity and star power. His on-screen presence in films and television, most notably in Walker, Texas Ranger, did more than entertain — it shaped an entire generation’s idea of heroism.

Beyond the spotlight, his life was equally defined by devotion and grounding. His marriage to Dianne Holechek marked an important chapter of stability during his rise to fame, and though life later took them on separate paths, it reflected the deeply personal side of a man often seen only through the lens of toughness. In later years, Norris embraced a quieter existence, spending time in places like Anguilla in the Caribbean, where the rhythm of life offered reflection over recognition. Those close to him often spoke of a man far removed from his on-screen persona, thoughtful, spiritual and deeply committed to family.

Even as he stepped back from the relentless pace of Hollywood, Norris never truly stopped working. His focus shifted toward faith, philanthropy and mentoring, particularly through initiatives that supported young people in building discipline and confidence through martial arts. He remained active in sharing messages of perseverance and belief, often using his voice to encourage others to find strength not just in the body, but in character. His final public words, shared online not long before his passing, reflected gratitude, humility and an enduring sense of purpose — a quiet but powerful reminder of the man behind the legend.

In remembering Chuck Norris, it is not just the feats, the films or even the folklore that endure, but the values he carried throughout his life. He represented a kind of steadfastness that feels increasingly rare — a belief in hard work, honour and inner strength. His legacy is not confined to screens or stories, but lives on in those he inspired to stand taller, push further and live with conviction. Though he may be gone, the weight of his influence remains, steady and unshakeable, much like the man himself.

Follow JamRadio: