By: Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

A vulnerable, neurodivergent Black academic was subjected to an extraordinary public hounding, and the human cost of that campaign cannot simply be brushed aside.

Professor Jason Arday is dead at just 41. Only days before his death, he said that relentless accusations, speculation and public commentary had taken a “profound toll” on him.

JamRadio extends its deepest condolences to Jason Arday’s family, friends, colleagues, students and all who loved him. Arday was found unresponsive at an address in Battersea, south London, on Friday and was pronounced dead at the scene. Police say his death is being treated as unexpected and is not believed to be suspicious, with a file being prepared for the coroner.

But the events immediately before his death matter. On August 5, just nine days earlier, Arday resigned from the University of Cambridge and Jesus College after weeks of intense scrutiny over allegations concerning plagiarism, his academic record and claims about parts of his personal history. In his resignation statement he said the “relentless accusations, speculation and public commentary” had taken a “profound toll” on him and those he loved. He said there comes a point when the personal cost becomes too great.

A vulnerable man whose vulnerabilities were public knowledge

Arday’s vulnerabilities were not hidden. Cambridge itself celebrated his extraordinary journey when he became its youngest Black professor in 2023, describing how he had been diagnosed with autism as a child and had faced major barriers with communication and literacy. His work went on to focus heavily on race, inequality, neurodiversity, mental health and access to higher education.

Yet when questions emerged about his academic work, the scrutiny rapidly expanded far beyond a narrow examination of scholarship. His childhood, disability, fundraising, sporting achievements, personal history and accounts of racism were all pulled into an increasingly ferocious public debate. A man who had once been held up as a symbol of overcoming adversity became, almost overnight, a target onto whom much wider arguments about race, diversity and merit were projected.

The circus of vultures feasting off Jason Arday are either going to kill him or get him killed. For what? Not Plagiarism he’s cleared for. Accusations of lies/errors/inconsistencies? This isn’t accountability - it’s a public execution. A relentless onslaught for over 2 wks. Back… pic.twitter.com/Dgqefuqhgu

— Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu (@SholaMos1) August 10, 2026

Scrutiny became a spectacle

There were legitimate questions to investigate. Allegations concerning plagiarism and inconsistencies in Arday’s record deserved proper examination by the universities responsible, and no academic should be immune from scrutiny. But institutional investigation and public accountability are not the same thing as turning a human being into a national spectacle.

The story became increasingly personal and ideological. Coverage did not simply ask whether passages had been properly attributed; it interrogated the narrative of Arday’s entire life. Black academics warned that his case was being weaponised as evidence against diversity initiatives generally, while Arday himself said what he was experiencing had gone “far beyond scholarly disagreement”.

The origins of the campaign cannot be ignored

One of the figures who drove renewed scrutiny of Arday was Nathan Cofnas, an academic who describes himself as a “race realist” and who had previously attracted outrage after arguing that a genuinely meritocratic system would produce “close to zero” Black professors at Harvard. That history does not decide whether evidence raised about Arday was accurate; evidence must be assessed on its merits. But it does make the racial and ideological context surrounding the campaign impossible to dismiss.

Arday had already warned publicly about what he believed was a “playbook” used against prominent Black academics: identify errors or inconsistencies, amplify them through media and political channels, and allow the resulting pressure to overwhelm the individual. Whether every part of that analysis was correct or not, the description now feels chillingly relevant to the final weeks of his life.

He told us what the pressure was doing to him

This is the part that should trouble everyone. Arday did not disappear quietly while outsiders guessed about his state of mind. He explicitly told the public that the barrage was taking a profound toll on him and the people he loved. He resigned because, in his own words, "the personal cost had become too great."

Nine days later, he was dead. The moral chain between those events cannot simply be severed. Directly or indirectly, a vulnerable man was subjected to sustained public pressure, told us that pressure was breaking him, withdrew from the career that had defined his public life, and was gone days later.

Accountability without humanity is not justice

There is also a wider responsibility here for universities, journalists, commentators and the online audiences that turn controversy into blood sport. The ability to publish another allegation, another thread or another headline does not remove the obligation to consider the cumulative effect on the person at the centre of it. Public-interest journalism must expose wrongdoing, but it should never lose sight of the fact that its subjects are human beings.

Britain should ask what it has become

Only days before his death, Jason Arday told Britain that he was struggling under the weight of relentless accusations and public commentary. We heard him. The machine kept moving anyway.

Now he is dead at 41.

JamRadio ahd taken the concious decision from the outset, not to weigh in on the debate of an already vulnerable Jason Arday and decided not to publish any stories on this matter.

This cannot simply become another news cycle followed by silence. There has to be a reckoning with how public scrutiny became public hounding, how a known vulnerable man was allowed to become the object of an ideological feeding frenzy, and why compassion seemed to disappear precisely when it was most needed.

Jason Arday also deserved dignity, humanity and mercy, now his family and loved ones are left to pickup the pieces. May he rest in peace.

Share

Prime Minister Gaston Browne has triggered an extraordinary constitutional confrontation after threatening an unnamed sitting judge with deportation over sentences he considers too lenient — prompting condemnation from lawyers and senior judges across the Caribbean.

Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne is facing a growing regional backlash after publicly warning a serving judge of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court that he could be forced out of the country if he continued handing down sentences Browne considered inadequate.

The extraordinary warning came as the Prime Minister expressed frustration over sentencing in serious criminal cases, particularly offences involving firearms.

Browne accused an unnamed judge of having what he described as a tendency to give criminals a break and warned that if the judge could not follow Parliament's push for longer sentences, he should “leave our country voluntarily” or face being “deported” and made “persona non grata.”

The controversy has now moved far beyond a disagreement over sentencing.

At its centre is a much more fundamental question: can the political executive threaten to use immigration powers against a serving judge because it disagrees with decisions made from the bench?

Bar Association condemns deportation threat

The Antigua and Barbuda Bar Association responded sharply to Browne's comments, describing them as a grave threat to judicial independence and warning that judges must be able to decide cases without fear of punishment by the executive.

The association called on Browne to withdraw the threat and publicly confirm that immigration or other executive powers would not be used to influence, intimidate, punish or remove a judicial officer because of decisions made in the lawful exercise of judicial office.

The Prime Minister did not apologise.

Instead, Browne escalated the confrontation on social media, dismissing the Bar Association as “defunct” before responding to its request for an apology with two words:

“Piss off.”

Whatever the merits of Browne's concerns about crime and sentencing, that exchange transformed what might otherwise have remained a political dispute over criminal justice policy into a direct confrontation between the executive and the legal profession.

Caribbean judges intervene

The row then became a regional constitutional issue.

In an unusually strong joint statement, Caribbean Heads of Judiciary condemned Browne's remarks and warned that they threatened the independence of the judiciary and risked weakening the separation of powers on which democratic government rests.

The judges stressed that the Judiciary, Executive and Legislature are separate arms of the state and that maintaining respect for the constitutional boundaries between them is essential to preserving the rule of law.

They also made an important point about the Prime Minister's underlying complaint.

If the government believes a sentence imposed by a court is unduly lenient, there are established legal mechanisms for challenging it, including appeal through the court system.

The answer is not political pressure against the judge who imposed the sentence.

This is not an ordinary Antiguan government employee

There is another important dimension to the controversy.

The judge Browne was addressing is not simply an employee of the Antigua and Barbuda Government.

The High Court forms part of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, a regional judicial system serving several Eastern Caribbean states and territories.

That regional structure is designed to give judges institutional independence from the government of the individual territory in which they happen to be sitting.

That makes the Prime Minister's reference to deportation particularly significant.

A government may possess immigration powers in relation to foreign nationals, but attempting to use those powers against a lawfully sitting judicial officer because of decisions made in court would immediately raise profound questions about judicial independence, security of tenure and the separation of powers.

Otherwise, an executive could potentially achieve indirectly through immigration powers what constitutional protections are intended to prevent it from doing directly: removing or intimidating a judge because politicians dislike his or her decisions.

That is precisely why this controversy matters well beyond Antigua and Barbuda.

Browne says he is not trying to control the courts

Browne has since pushed back against the criticism.

In a response issued after the intervention by Caribbean judicial leaders, the Prime Minister reaffirmed his support for an independent judiciary and insisted that his government has made no formal request or taken any action to remove, reassign or deport a member of the judiciary.

He nevertheless continues to defend his right to criticise sentencing decisions.

Browne argues that judicial independence does not place judges or the administration of justice beyond legitimate public scrutiny, particularly when violent crime and firearm offences are involved.

He has described his controversial comments as a “last resort warning” arising from frustration about what he considers a disconnect between legislation passed by Parliament and sentences actually being handed down by the courts.

The Prime Minister says Antigua and Barbuda is dealing with serious concerns involving gun violence, repeat offenders and other violent crimes, and that elected leaders cannot simply remain silent if they believe the criminal justice system is failing to protect the public.

Independent sentencing review proposed

Browne has now written to Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Chief Justice Margaret Price Findlay proposing an independent committee to examine sentencing for firearm offences, other serious violent crimes, repeat offending and the wider criminal justice system in Antigua and Barbuda.

He has proposed former Caribbean Court of Justice President Justice Adrian Saunders as chairman, subject to his agreement.

Browne has also said that former Chief Justice Sir Dennis Byron and Justice Godfrey Smith, CARICOM's high-level representative on law and criminal justice, are prepared to assist.

The proposed review would examine sentencing data, compare sentencing outcomes with legislation and judicial guidelines, identify any significant disparities and make recommendations for reform.

That is a very different approach from threatening a judge with deportation.

And it may ultimately provide the legitimate forum Browne needs to test his claim that sentencing practices are failing to reflect Parliament's intentions.

Criticising judges is not the same as threatening them

There is an important distinction at the heart of this dispute.

Browne is entitled to criticise sentencing policy.

His government is entitled to argue that criminals convicted of serious firearm offences should receive longer prison sentences.

Parliament is entitled to legislate tougher penalties where constitutionally permitted.

Prosecutors can challenge sentences through the courts where the law provides a mechanism for doing so.

And there is nothing inherently improper about commissioning an independent review to determine whether sentencing policy is working.

But threatening a sitting judge with deportation because of the way that judge exercises judicial discretion crosses into fundamentally different territory.

The distinction matters because judicial independence does not exist simply for the benefit of judges.

It exists to protect everybody who comes before a court.

A defendant must know that the judge deciding his case is not frightened of the government.

A citizen challenging the state must know that the judge hearing that challenge does not have to consider whether ruling against ministers could place his own position in jeopardy.

And a government must accept that courts will sometimes make decisions with which politicians strongly disagree.

A test for Antigua — and the wider Caribbean

Browne's concerns about violent crime deserve to be taken seriously.

So do questions about whether sentencing guidelines and statutory penalties are producing outcomes that adequately protect the public.

But the strength of a constitutional democracy is tested precisely when frustration with one institution tempts another institution to cross the boundaries between them.

The independent review Browne has now proposed may provide a constructive route forward.

The deportation threat remains another matter entirely.

For Antigua and Barbuda — and for the Eastern Caribbean's regional judicial system — the controversy is no longer simply about how long convicted criminals should spend behind bars.

It is about whether judges can make those decisions independently, impartially and without fear or favour — including fear that the government might send them out of the country.

By TracyAnn Dunkley

Celebrity & Entertainment Editor

Share

A white British woman walks into a drill session and starts spitting dancehall lyrics like she has something to prove. Within seconds, the room changes. Now reactions from Vybz Kartel, Kwame McKenzie and 1MelloVibes are turning Tasha into one of the most unexpected viral newcomers in dancehall.

Natasha Richardson, better known as Lovefromtashaxo, or simply Tasha — begins dropping bars in this viral video, and that's when the joke stops. She doesn't cautiously feel her way around the riddim or throw in a few Jamaican phrases for effect. She goes straight at it with rapid delivery, patois, attitude and confidence, sounding so comfortable that the reaction becomes part of the entertainment.

Kwame McKenzie’s reaction to White Girl Gaza says it all ????????

Tasha had him shook — and judging by the reaction online, he’s not the only one. ????????????

“Gimme a dozen ah dem dey!”#WhiteGirlGaza #LoveFromTashaXO #KwameMcKenzie #VybzKartel #Dancehall #JamRadioUK #drill #London pic.twitter.com/iABMDB1dM9

— Jam Radio UK News (@Jam_RadioUK) August 14, 2026

Advertisement

Collect AKIMYAX Anime Keyrings

Meet Nori & Miko — the first original duo from the AKIMYAX Pocket Duo Series.

SHOP AKIMYAX

The question now bouncing around Caribbean social media is simple: who the hell is this woman? Clips of the self-styled “White Girl Gaza” are spreading far beyond her original following, and what makes the moment more interesting is that people who know the culture are beginning to co-sign her. Kwame McKenzie, the hugely popular online personality known as Yawwdie, shared her performance with the verdict: “She did real good ????????????????.” Then 1MelloVibes put Tasha's White Girl Gaza in front of his own audience, adding even more fuel to a viral moment already gathering pace.

@lovefromtashaxo @MELLO VIBES MUSIC???????? #foryou #fyp #foryoupage #lovefromtashaxo #manifest ♬ original sound - Tasha

But the biggest co-sign comes from Vybz Kartel himself. Tasha has never been subtle about where her allegiance lies. Her social media is heavily Gaza-branded, and her catalogue includes tracks such as White Girl Gaza and Gaza Gyal. Now footage circulating online shows Kartel alongside Tasha, openly acknowledging her and playing into the sheer unexpectedness of seeing a white British woman carrying the Gaza name.

Advertisement

AKIMYAX Pocket Duo — Nori & Miko

Two pocket-sized personalities, one original anime-inspired duo. Discover Nori & Miko and more artist-created designs from AKIMYAX.

VIEW NORI & MIKO

That changes the conversation. Anybody can call themselves Gaza online; it is something else entirely when Kartel appears to accept you into that orbit himself.

Perhaps that is why Tasha is blowing up so quickly. The image catches people off guard first, because she simply isn't what many viewers expect to see when that voice comes through the speakers. Then she starts performing, and suddenly people are rewinding the video. There will inevitably be arguments about the patois, whether she is doing too much, or whether a British woman has any business sounding that Jamaican, but those debates are almost helping her. Every sceptical repost puts the clip in front of another audience.

Collect AKIMYAX Anime Keyrings

Meet Nori & Miko — the first original duo from the AKIMYAX Pocket Duo Series.

SHOP AKIMYAX

And crucially, she is not simply being shared as a joke. People are impressed. Influential Caribbean commentators are praising her, the Gaza connection is becoming harder to dismiss, and the response is shifting from “what is this?” to “hold on, play that again.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Tasha has not quietly slipped into dancehall through the side door. She has turned up calling herself White Girl Gaza, grabbed the mic and dared the internet to tell her she cannot do it.

And so far, the internet seems far more interested in pressing replay.

And with Vybz Kartel now firmly in the picture, Lovefromtashaxo may just have gone from viral curiosity to one of the most unexpected new names the dancehall scene is watching.

Donald Trump was secretly moved to another aircraft after a reported Iranian missile threat, while journalists and White House staff continued aboard the presidential jet used as a decoy—raising questions about their safety, presidential courage and who carries the human cost of war.

JamRadio News Desk

Dedicated to clear, reliable reporting 

Share

Donald Trump climbed the steps of the familiar blue-and-white presidential aircraft in full view of television cameras as he prepared to leave Turkey following the NATO summit. But the president did not remain aboard.

According to an investigation by The Washington Post, Trump and several aides were secretly removed through a door on the opposite side of the aircraft, lowered into an airport catering vehicle and driven across the tarmac to a smaller Air Force C-32A.

Trump then flew discreetly to Britain aboard that aircraft while journalists and some White House employees continued their journey aboard the presidential Boeing 747 believing he was still travelling with them.

Advertisement

Collect Akimyax Anime Keyrings

The extraordinary operation was reportedly ordered after US intelligence detected what officials considered a credible Iranian or Iran-backed plot to fire a missile at the aircraft carrying Trump as it departed Ankara.

No missile was launched, and important details remain secret. The identities of the suspected attackers, the proposed launch location, the type of weapon involved and how close the alleged plot came to being carried out have not been publicly disclosed.

Advertisement

An occupied decoy—not an empty aircraft

The most troubling aspect of the operation is not that the Secret Service protected the president. Protecting the head of state and ensuring the continuity of government are legitimate national-security responsibilities.

Leaving Trump aboard an aircraft believed to be the target of a possible missile attack would not have demonstrated responsible courage. It would also have endangered the pilots, cabin crew, Secret Service officers, military personnel and advisers travelling with him.

The issue is that the aircraft used to maintain the appearance that Trump remained aboard was not empty.

Journalists and White House staff were allowed to fly on the large and highly recognisable presidential jet while apparently unaware that Trump had changed aircraft or that they had become part of an elaborate deception operation.

Advertisement

Reporters were reportedly instructed to keep their window shades closed. The aircraft continued to present itself visually as the plane carrying the president, while Trump’s real location was concealed aboard the smaller C-32A.

That meant the occupied Boeing 747 continued to look like the obvious presidential target.

It cannot presently be proved that the journalists and staff were placed at greater overall risk. The older presidential aircraft possesses sophisticated missile-warning systems and defensive countermeasures, and creating uncertainty about Trump’s location may have reduced the chances of any attacker successfully targeting him.

There is also no evidence that security officials intended to sacrifice the passengers or deliberately use them as human shields.

Nevertheless, the people aboard were unknowingly made part of a deception designed to draw attention away from Trump’s true location. Had an attacker relied on the visible aircraft and fired upon it, everyone aboard—including journalists, employees, pilots and military crew—could have been killed or seriously injured.

The difficult question is therefore not simply whether the decoy operation protected the president. It is whether it was necessary or acceptable to operate that decoy with uninformed passengers still aboard.

Advertisement

Trump’s disturbing joke to the reporters

Before the flight, Trump publicly claimed that he was using the older presidential aircraft “for old time’s sake” and so that American service personnel stationed in Britain could see it.

That explanation now appears to have formed part of the cover story surrounding the operation.

After arriving at RAF Mildenhall, Trump was reportedly placed back aboard the larger presidential aircraft so that he could publicly descend its steps in front of the cameras, maintaining the appearance that he had travelled aboard it from Turkey.

Later, reporters questioned why they had been instructed to keep their window shades closed during the journey.

Trump reportedly told them that they had probably been on a “dangerous flight” before joking:

“But if I go, you go. Right?”

Except Trump had not gone with them.

While the reporters believed they had shared the danger with the president, Trump had travelled separately aboard an aircraft whose movements and passenger list were concealed.

His comment therefore appears very different in light of what is now known.

What may initially have sounded like gallows humour shared among people facing the same threat now appears to have been a joke directed at people who unknowingly formed part of the plan protecting him.

They had flown aboard the aircraft presented as carrying the intended target. Trump had not.

Advertisement

Protection is not cowardice—but leadership requires accountability

A president following professional security advice should not automatically be accused of cowardice.

Remaining aboard an aircraft believed to be the subject of a missile plot would not have been an act of responsible bravery. It could have endangered the president, the crew, the Secret Service and the stability of the United States government.

Presidential deception and decoy operations are also not entirely unprecedented. Other presidents have travelled aboard alternative aircraft during high-risk journeys while more recognisable planes were used to create uncertainty about their location.

But the moral question in Trump’s case is more complicated.

The potential cowardice does not lie in accepting protection. It lies in creating the public appearance that the president was sharing a danger that was, in reality, being carried by people who did not know they were aboard the decoy.

Advertisement

Trump has built much of his political identity around personal strength, toughness, aggression and fearlessness. He regularly presents himself as a leader who refuses to retreat or be intimidated.

That image deserves to be examined against what happened when the consequences of his own foreign policy appeared to reach him personally.

Courage in political leadership is not demonstrated by unnecessarily remaining in the path of a missile. It is demonstrated through honesty, accountability and a willingness to confront the consequences of decisions imposed upon others.

The war Trump ordered has already killed Americans

The reported assassination threat did not emerge in a political vacuum.

Trump gave final approval for a major American military operation against Iran, joining Israel in a war that has already killed American service personnel, wounded hundreds more, cost US taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and killed thousands of Iranians.

At least 18 American service members have reportedly been killed in the conflict. Some were returned to the United States in flag-draped transfer cases as their families confronted the consequences of decisions made in Washington.

The contrast is impossible to ignore.

The commander-in-chief who approved the military operation was extracted through a carefully planned deception when the personal consequences of the conflict appeared to reach him.

The servicemen and women carrying out his orders do not have catering vehicles, secret aircraft, alternative call signs and occupied decoys available when missiles and drones reach their bases.

Their families cannot transfer the danger to somebody else.

That does not mean Trump should have refused protection. It means that his displays of aggression and personal toughness must be judged against the unequal way in which the dangers of war are distributed.

Political leaders order wars. Soldiers, military families, civilians, journalists and ordinary workers frequently carry the consequences.

The most heavily protected person in the conflict is also the person exercising the greatest power over whether it continues.

Questions surrounding the Qatari aircraft

The incident has also reopened questions about Trump’s controversial Qatari-donated Boeing 747-8, which had recently entered presidential service.

Reports had previously raised concerns about whether the newer aircraft possessed the same extensive defensive countermeasures and communications systems installed aboard the older presidential jets.

The administration has maintained that the aircraft met the required security standards. However, the reported Iranian threat led to an unusually complicated return operation involving the Qatari aircraft, the older presidential Boeing 747 and the smaller C-32A that secretly carried Trump.

That raises an additional question: did the rush to place the Qatari aircraft into presidential service create further security complications?

Advertisement

The controversy extends beyond the aircraft itself.

The administration reportedly sought subpoenas against journalists in an effort to identify confidential sources behind reporting about the plane’s security limitations. Those demands were later withdrawn after officials acknowledged problems with how the matter had been handled.

The combination of a controversial presidential aircraft, a reported missile threat, an occupied decoy and efforts to investigate journalists’ sources raises broader concerns about secrecy and accountability inside the administration.

Advertisement

The White House still owes answers

The White House has not directly addressed the central allegation that journalists and staff were unknowingly carried aboard the decoy.

Officials have instead referred generally to the many threats facing Trump and the government’s responsibility to use every available tool to protect the president.

The Secret Service and Pentagon have also declined to provide a detailed public explanation of the operation.

There is no public evidence that Trump personally designed the decoy plan or decided that journalists and staff should remain aboard the other aircraft. Those operational decisions were probably made by military and security officials responding rapidly to intelligence about a possible assassination attempt.

But the administration remains accountable for what happened.

Congress and the public are entitled to ask who authorised an occupied aircraft to operate as the apparent presidential target, what assessment was made of the danger to its passengers and whether an empty aircraft could have served the same purpose.

They are also entitled to ask why the misleading public account was maintained after Trump had returned safely, and whether Congress was properly informed.

Some operational details will understandably remain classified. Basic accountability should not. Protecting the president is a constitutional and national-security obligation.

Protecting him by making unsuspecting journalists and White House employees appear to be travelling with him is a different matter entirely.

Until those questions are answered, the operation will stand as a disturbing symbol of how risk has been distributed throughout Trump’s Iran war:

The person exercising the greatest power received the greatest protection, while soldiers, staff, journalists and civilians were left to carry the danger.

The chairman of the CARICOM Reparations Commission says the Caribbean and Africa Union have forged an enduring alliance, as Ghana’s President John Dramani Mahama calls for historical truth, justice and economic emancipation.

By: Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

KINGSTON, Jamaica — Professor Sir Hilary Beckles has declared that CARICOM and Africa will “forever speak with one voice on reparations”, presenting the growing alliance between the Caribbean and the African continent as a permanent political commitment rather than a temporary diplomatic arrangement.

Sir Hilary made the powerful declaration on Monday, August 3, during a Special High-Level Reparation Dialogue with Ghana’s President John Dramani Mahama at The University of the West Indies Regional Headquarters in Jamaica.

Advertisement

Collect Akimyax Anime Keyrings

The event was hosted by The UWI in collaboration with the Office of the Prime Minister of Jamaica during President Mahama’s official visit to the island.

The dialogue brought together two of the most influential figures in the international reparations movement. Sir Hilary serves as Vice-Chancellor of The UWI and chairman of the CARICOM Reparations Commission, while President Mahama has emerged as a leading voice in Africa’s campaign for reparatory justice.

Advertisement

Their appearance together carried deep historical symbolism. The Atlantic Ocean, once used to forcibly separate millions of Africans from their families, cultures and homelands, is increasingly becoming a bridge for coordinated political action between Africa and its Caribbean diaspora.

“CARICOM and Africa will forever speak with one voice on reparations,” declares Sir Hilary Beckles.#CARICOM #Jamaica #Ghana #Reparations pic.twitter.com/Ih62LH9A5e

— Jam Radio UK News (@Jam_RadioUK) August 4, 2026

Sir Hilary’s message was that the days of Africa and the Caribbean approaching reparatory justice as separate constituencies are over. CARICOM and the African Union are now aligning their diplomacy, legal research, public education and international advocacy around a shared demand for acknowledgment, justice and repair.

A growing international force

That unified approach has already produced significant diplomatic progress.

The United Nations General Assembly recently adopted a landmark resolution recognising the trafficking and enslavement of Africans as one of the gravest crimes against humanity because of its scale, duration, systematic nature, brutality and continuing consequences.

The resolution, championed by President Mahama, received the support of 123 countries. Every CARICOM member state voted in favour.

Advertisement

It also called for greater international support for reparatory justice, the return of stolen African cultural objects, historical research, education and memorialisation.

The significance of Sir Hilary’s latest declaration is therefore clear: Caribbean nations will no longer be left to pursue former colonial powers alone. They now stand alongside the African continent, speaking through a coordinated international coalition with increasing influence at the United Nations and other global institutions.

Mahama challenges attempts to minimise slavery

During the UWI dialogue, President Mahama also confronted arguments that the involvement of some Africans in the transatlantic slave trade somehow weakens the case for reparations.

He maintained that the participation of African intermediaries could not erase the systematic nature of the wider enterprise.

Advertisement

The transatlantic trade was supported by laws, insurance arrangements, auctions, banks, shipping companies and commercial networks that reduced African men, women and children to cargo.

The involvement of individuals within Africa does not change the scale of the crime or remove responsibility from the governments, monarchies, companies and institutions that organised, expanded and profited from it over several centuries.

President Mahama also called for the history of slavery and colonialism to be taught more honestly.

He said generations of African and Caribbean children had been taught versions of history that celebrated European abolitionists while failing to explain fully the violence, suffering and economic machinery behind the transatlantic trafficking of enslaved Africans.

A truthful understanding of that history, he argued, is necessary to overcome the continuing psychological effects of slavery and colonialism and to enable African people to determine their own future.

From political independence to economic emancipation

President Mahama further connected reparatory justice with the present-day economic circumstances of Africa and the Caribbean.

He said that while earlier generations successfully fought for political liberation and national independence, the struggle facing the present generation is one of economic emancipation.

Advertisement

That requires deeper cooperation between African and Caribbean states in trade, education, investment, culture, transportation and development, turning shared history and political solidarity into practical improvements in the lives of their people.

This reflects the wider Africa–CARICOM position that reparations cannot be reduced to a single payment or symbolic apology.

The developing agenda includes formal acknowledgment, financial compensation, debt relief, the return of cultural property and long-term programmes addressing the structural damage caused by slavery and colonial extraction.

The Kingston dialogue therefore represented more than another discussion about the past. It signalled that reparations are becoming a coordinated programme of international diplomacy, historical truth-telling, legal action and economic reconstruction.

Advertisement

Sir Hilary’s message was unequivocal: Africa and the Caribbean will not allow the demand for justice to be fragmented, postponed indefinitely or dismissed as an issue belonging only to history.

Separated by force centuries ago, Africa and its Caribbean descendants are now reuniting around a common political purpose and, on reparations, they intend to speak with one voice.

“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.

Two Jamaican nationals deported from the United States to St Kitts and Nevis under controversial third-country national agreement have reportedly decided to remain in the country.

JamRadio News Desk

Dedicated to clear, reliable reporting 

Share

Jamaica’s Ministry of National Security confirmed that checks were conducted after it learned that two of its citizens had been sent to St Kitts and Nevis by the United States.

Advertisement

According to a report by Television Jamaica, the ministry was subsequently advised that both individuals had chosen to remain in the twin-island Federation.

The development is likely to intensify scrutiny of the agreement between the Government of St Kitts and Nevis and the United States, particularly over assurances that the Federation would serve only as a temporary destination for people whom Washington is seeking to remove.

The two Jamaicans were reportedly among the first group of third-country nationals transferred to St Kitts and Nevis under the arrangement. A Belizean national was also reported to have been included in that group.

Advertisement

The decision by the Jamaicans to remain in St. Kitts and Nevis now raises several unanswered questions, including the immigration status under which they are being allowed to stay, whether they have applied for asylum or another form of residence as Caricom nationals, and who will bear responsibility for their accommodation and longer-term support.

It also raises a wider question about whether people brought into the Federation under the agreement can simply choose not to return to their country of nationality.

The St Kitts and Nevis Government has previously sought to reassure the public that persons accepted under the programme would be carefully screened and would not include individuals with criminal records. However, the full memorandum governing the arrangement has not been made public.

Advertisement

Prime Minister Dr Terrance Drew’s administration has faced growing calls to disclose the agreement and explain what financial, diplomatic or immigration commitments the Federation has assumed.

The latest revelation suggests that the programme may involve more than temporarily receiving deportees while arrangements are made for their onward travel.

If individuals transferred to St Kitts and Nevis can seek permission to remain, the agreement could result in the Federation becoming a permanent destination for some people whom the United States cannot—or will not—return directly to their home countries.

That possibility places renewed pressure on the Government to tell the public precisely what it has agreed to, what rights are available to the deportees after arrival, and what limits, if any, have been placed on the number of people who could ultimately remain in the Federation.

Advertisement

Neither the identities of the two Jamaicans nor the precise basis on which they intend to stay has been publicly disclosed.

The United States has pursued similar third-country arrangements across the Caribbean, Latin America and elsewhere as part of the Trump administration’s intensified deportation programme.

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

CASTRIES, Saint Lucia: Barbados Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley has sharply rejected remarks by former British Home Secretary Suella Braverman suggesting that former colonies should pay Britain for the “investment, effort and contribution” made during the colonial period.

Mottley was responding to a question during the closing press conference of the 51st Regular Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of CARICOM in Saint Lucia.

Although Mottley did not call Braverman by name during her answer, the question followed the British politician’s intervention in the increasingly heated debate over Caribbean demands for reparatory justice.

In 2026, I cannot believe we are being asked to respond to the suggestion that the descendants of the enslaved should pay for the machinery that oppressed them.

The Caribbean does not owe Britain for slavery, for colonial extraction, or for laws that treated African people as… pic.twitter.com/xgLKwXrZzo

— Mia Amor Mottley (@miaamormottley) July 9, 2026

“I’m not sure that you want me to reply to things that really are asinine,” Mottley began.

She then addressed the substance of Braverman’s argument directly.

“And certainly the notion that we should pay the United Kingdom for oppressing us, for enslaving us and for treating us as chattel.”

Advertisement

What Braverman said

Braverman, who served as Home Secretary under former prime ministers Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak before later joining Reform UK, made the remarks after Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy highlighted Jamaica’s plan to take its reparations case directly to King Charles III.

The Jamaican government intends to petition the King on 6 September and ask him to refer important legal questions concerning slavery and reparations to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Responding on social media, Braverman acknowledged that slavery was “abhorrent” but argued that present-day British citizens should not be required to pay for actions committed centuries ago.

She went further, suggesting that the financial argument should be turned against Britain’s former colonies.

“If the government is seriously thinking about this, then former colonies should pay the British back for the considerable investment, effort and contribution that this country made, which laid the foundations for many flourishing democracies today,” Braverman wrote in her original statement.

Advertisement

The remarks presented British colonialism as an investment for which former colonies should now be grateful, largely setting aside the wealth extracted through slavery, forced labour, land dispossession and centuries of unequal colonial trade.

“We are not asking for charity”

Mottley rejected that reading of history.

She pointed to the 1661 Barbados Slave Code, one of the earliest comprehensive legal frameworks governing racial slavery in the English Caribbean. The code became a model for other slave laws across Britain’s colonies and established the treatment of enslaved Africans as property.

Mottley also referenced France’s Code Noir, which similarly regulated slavery in French colonies and legally classified enslaved people as property. France’s National Assembly only voted to formally repeal the centuries-old code in May 2026.

“We’re not asking for charity,” Mottley said. “We’re asking to be able to ensure that justice can be done.”

She reminded those listening that when slavery was abolished across much of the British Empire, the British Parliament accepted that compensation was necessary. However, the money did not go to those who had been enslaved.

Britain borrowed £20 million to compensate slave owners for the loss of what the law had regarded as their “property”. The enslaved received nothing and were instead subjected to a further period of forced labour under the apprenticeship system.

Advertisement

“In 1834, the British Parliament did not need to be persuaded of that fact with respect to the loss of property, because we were chattel, and the compensation of the enslavers of £20 million,” Mottley said.

She advised British politicians commenting on the matter to first acquaint themselves with the historical record.

“I would like to advise that those who have not yet read sufficiently to understand the history do so before making comments that really do not reflect well on them.”

Caribbean will not be used as a political prop

Mottley placed the exchange within a broader international movement for reparatory justice.

She pointed to the growing cooperation between CARICOM and the African Union, the recent reparations conference in Accra, Ghana, the United Nations resolution on the transatlantic trafficking of enslaved Africans, comments from Pope Leo XIV and French President Emmanuel Macron, and previous remarks by King Charles that reparations had become a conversation whose time had come.

Advertisement

Her response also appeared aimed at Reform UK’s wider attempt to turn reparations into an immigration issue.

In April, Reform UK proposed blocking visa applications from countries formally seeking slavery reparations from Britain. The proposal was condemned by the CARICOM Reparations Commission as an attempt to punish countries and people seeking justice. Reuters reported that the proposed restrictions could affect countries including Jamaica and Ghana.

Mottley suggested that attacks on the Caribbean’s reparations campaign were being used to serve political interests inside Britain.

“I have no doubt that there are British parliamentarians who want to distract people from the domestic politics of the United Kingdom at this point in time,” she said.

“But the Caribbean should not be used as a prop in those circumstances.”

Braverman attempted to turn the reparations argument on its head by presenting colonial rule as a debt owed to Britain. Mottley’s answer was equally direct: a region built through enslavement, extraction and the legal treatment of human beings as property will not be asked to compensate the power responsible for imposing that system.

The Caribbean, she made clear, is not demanding charity from Britain. It is demanding that Britain confront the historical record.

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

The Government of Ireland has announced that nationals of Saint Lucia and Saint Kitts and Nevis will now require visas to travel to Ireland, ending a long-standing visa-free arrangement between the countries. The new requirements take effect on 15 June 2026 and will also apply to travellers transiting through Ireland on their way to another destination.

Advertisement

Ireland's Minister of State for Migration, Colm Brophy, confirmed that citizens of Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Nicaragua will be required to obtain a visa before travelling to the Republic of Ireland. The measure also applies to holders of diplomatic and service passports.

The Irish Government said limited transitional arrangements will be available for certain travellers who already have existing travel plans between 15 June and 14 July 2026. Travellers are being advised to check official immigration guidance before making their journeys, the press release stated.

Advertisement

The move follows a broader tightening of visa policies affecting several Caribbean countries in recent years. In 2024, Ireland introduced visa requirements for nationals of Dominica, while in 2025 visa-free access was removed for nationals of Trinidad and Tobago.

The announcement also comes just months after the United Kingdom removed visa-free access for Saint Lucian nationals, requiring visitors from Saint Lucia to obtain a visa before travelling to the UK.

While the Irish Government has not singled out any specific reason for the latest decision, officials have repeatedly stated that Ireland's visa policies are kept under review to ensure effective immigration controls while balancing legitimate travel, business, study and family visits.

Advertisement

The decision is expected to be closely watched across the Caribbean, particularly in the member states of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), where concerns have grown over increasing travel restrictions being imposed by European countries on Caribbean passport holders.

For Saint Lucian and St Kitts and Nevis citizens planning travel to Ireland after 15 June, a visa application will now be required in advance through Ireland's immigration system.

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: