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: 

Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

The cancellation of Wireless Festival after Kanye West was denied a visa has erupted into far more than a music‑industry controversy. It's morhped into piercing spotlight on Britain’s hierarchy of urgency,  a system where some communities see immediate action the moment they raise a concern, while others, particularly Black Britons, must fight, campaign, protest, and plead just to be acknowledged. In a country that prides itself on fairness, the contrast has become impossible to ignore.

Rev. Clive Foster speaking at Windrush National Org. conference 2025  As WIndrish victims continue to fight of compensation. - According to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, failed asylum skeeker families will be offered £10,000 per member, capped at four per family, to leave the UK voluntarily. They will have seven days to reply, and if they do not take up the offer, the Home Office will attempt to forcibly remove them from the country.

This latest moment lands in a Britain already wrestling with uncomfortable truths. When the Jewish ambulance fleet was vandalised, the government acted to replace them almost instantly, the speed of the government’s response was striking. Of course, the community deserved that support — no one disputes that. But the swiftness of the intervention exposed a deeper national question: why do some groups receive immediate solutions while Black communities are forced to battle for decades for justice that should have been delivered without hesitation? The disparity is not about blame; it is about the state’s selective willingness to act.

For Black Britons, this imbalance is not theoretical, it is generational. Windrush victims are still fighting for compensation and recognition years after the scandal was exposed. Many have died waiting. And when Kemi Badenoch recently dismissed calls for reparatory justice by arguing that Britain “ended slavery”, it reopened a wound that has never healed. Black people in this country have endured centuries of exploitation, discrimination, and institutional neglect without so much as a formal apology. According to some politicians, they should not be compensated for the atrocities their ancestors endured, a stance that reveals how lightly Black suffering is treated in the corridors of power.

Just a few weeks ago, the UK abstained from a historic vote at the UN on recognising the European enslavement of African people as the gravest crime against humanity. The UK government’s justification was that it did not want to acknowledge a hierarchy of human suffering or place some injustices above others. However, it remains obvious which injustices the British state chooses to acknowledge — and which ones it chooses to ignore.

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.

Meanwhile, other communities can raise a concern and see action within days, sometimes hours. That is not their fault, every community has the right to advocate for its safety and wellbeing. The issue is the unequal responsiveness of the British state. When certain groups speak, the system moves. When Black communities speak, the system asks for evidence, patience, paperwork, and silence. It is a pattern that stretches from policing to healthcare to cultural representation: Black voices are softened, sidelined, or scrutinised, while others are met with immediate solutions.

Advertisement

The Wireless fallout is simply the latest reminder of this national imbalance. It shows how influence, access, and historical privilege shape which voices echo through Whitehall and which are left fighting to be heard. Britain cannot continue to celebrate itself as a champion of equality while maintaining a structure where some communities merely raising a concern and receive action, while Black Britons, despite centuries of contribution, resilience, and cultural impact, are still battling for the basic respect of being taken seriously. This is no longer just a cultural debate; it is a political indictment. And it demands a reckoning long overdue.

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:

Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

Motorists across the UK are once again feeling the squeeze as fuel prices remain stubbornly high. For many households already struggling with rent, food and energy bills, the cost of filling the car has become yet another pressure point in the ongoing cost-of-living crisis.

During a BBC interview this morning, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband stopped short of committing to a simple measure that could bring immediate relief: reducing fuel duty.

???? BREAKING:
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband tells Laura Kuenssberg the government will “stand by the British people” through the UK–Iran conflict, pledging support as energy prices and the wider cost of living surge. #BBCLauraK #BBCPolitics #CostOfLiving pic.twitter.com/ypXgRc38Gt

— Jam Radio UK News (@Jam_RadioUK) March 15, 2026

Speaking to Laura Kuenssberg, Miliband repeatedly stressed uncertainty about global events and the ongoing conflict affecting energy markets. The government, he said, is “preparing for all eventualities” and will “stand by the British people”.

But for many drivers listening, that reassurance may ring hollow. Because the reality is that the government controls a large portion of the price motorists pay at the pump.

Advertisement

Shop: Whole Home Solar Power Station

According to figures highlighted during the interview, around 38% of the price of a litre of petrol is fuel duty, with another 17% added in VAT. Together, that means more than half of what drivers pay goes directly to the Treasury.

By contrast, the wholesale cost of the fuel itself accounts for roughly a third of the price, while retailers take a relatively small margin.In other words, while global oil markets and conflicts may drive the base cost of fuel, taxation remains one of the largest components of what drivers ultimately pay.

Global tensions driving fuel costs

The government has pointed to global instability as a key factor behind rising fuel prices. The U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran and wider tensions in the Middle East have already pushed global oil prices higher, raising concerns about potential disruptions to supply routes and shipping lanes that are vital to the world’s energy markets.

Advertisement

Shop: Ecoflow Whole Home Power Supply Units

When oil prices rise internationally, the impact is felt almost immediately by drivers in the UK. Petrol and diesel costs at the pump track global energy markets closely, meaning geopolitical instability thousands of miles away can quickly translate into higher costs for households here at home.

But the consequences of rising fuel prices extend far beyond motorists.

The hidden impact on food prices

Fuel is a core cost throughout the supply chain that brings goods to British households.

Road haulage companies transporting products across the UK rely heavily on diesel. At the same time, international shipping and sea freight — responsible for bringing many imported ingredients and goods into the country — depend on oil-based fuels.

Advertisement

When fuel prices rise, the cost of transporting those goods increases. Those higher costs are then passed through the supply chain: from manufacturers to distributors, from wholesalers to retailers, and ultimately to consumers.

That means the impact can be felt not just at petrol stations, but also in supermarkets.

Food production in particular is vulnerable to rising fuel costs. Many products travel long distances from farms to processing plants, then onto distribution centres before finally reaching supermarket shelves. Refrigeration, packaging and manufacturing processes also rely heavily on energy.

As fuel and energy costs increase, businesses often have little choice but to pass those additional expenses on to customers — contributing to higher grocery bills for households already under financial pressure.

For families struggling with rising living costs, the knock-on effect of higher oil prices can therefore be felt twice: once at the pump and again at the checkout.

Calls for relief

This raises a straightforward question: if the government is serious about helping households through the cost-of-living crisis, why not temporarily reduce the tax burden on fuel?

Motoring groups have also highlighted how government policy on fuel duty directly affects drivers. The RAC has previously said motorists were “relieved” when the government chose to maintain the temporary fuel duty cut introduced in 2022, noting that keeping duty lower saves drivers money every time they fill up.

For those commuting to work, running small businesses, or simply trying to manage the weekly shop, fuel is not a luxury. In many parts of the country — particularly outside major cities — it is a necessity. When prices rise sharply, households do not have the option to simply stop driving.

What they do instead is cut back elsewhere. That means less spending in local shops, less money circulating in the economy and greater financial stress for families who are already stretched thin.

A temporary reduction in fuel duty, even a modest one, would provide immediate and visible support for households feeling the strain. It would show that the government is prepared to share the burden of rising costs rather than simply collect more tax as prices climb.

The cost-of-living crisis is not an abstract economic debate. It is being felt every day in kitchens, on driveways and at petrol stations across the country.

And if the government genuinely wants to ease that pressure, the lever is already in its hands.

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

  Follow JamRadio for updates: 

JamRadio News Desk

Dedicated to clear, reliable reporting — from national and world headlines to local stories that matter.

Share

A new study has revealed stark racial disparities in the use of police stop and search powers in parts of London, with Black people found to be up to 48 times more likely than white people to be stopped and searched in some of the capital’s wealthiest neighbourhoods.

The research, carried out by King’s College London and commissioned by the office of London’s mayor, analysed more than 152000 stop and search incidents recorded by the Metropolitan Police in 2023.

Advertisement

Researchers found particularly extreme disparities in areas such as East Sheen, Dulwich Village and Hampstead, where Black residents were stopped at dramatically higher rates than white residents.

Across England and Wales, Black people are already around four times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people, while in London the figure is about 3.7 times higher overall. The study also raised concerns about the reasons officers sometimes give for carrying out searches. In some cases, explanations included vague descriptions such as a person giving a furtive glance or appearing suspicious.

Advertisement

According to the report, around two thirds of stop and search encounters result in no further action, meaning nothing illegal is found. Researchers say that when people feel stop and search powers are used unfairly, it can damage trust in policing. In the study, 65 percent of white people said their stop felt fair compared with only 37 percent of Black people.

London’s mayor described the level of disproportionality as unacceptable and has announced plans for mandatory annual reporting on how stop and search is used across the capital.

Advertisement

The Metropolitan Police say the tactic remains an important tool for preventing violence and that improvements in oversight and community scrutiny are being introduced.

The findings add to an ongoing national debate about policing, race and accountability in Britain.

For emerging journalists and community media platforms, the issue also highlights the importance of independent reporting and diverse voices in the media, ensuring communities most affected by these policies are able to tell their own stories.

JamRadio will continue to follow developments around policing, community trust and justice across the UK.

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

"We have worked and paid taxes, yet we can't even get legal aid to challenege the Home Office and while 'failed asylum seekers' can access everything, including housing, legal aid and now money to leave the UK."

W

indrush victims have expressed anger and frustration at government proposals to offer asylum seekers payments of up to £40,000 to voluntarily leave the United Kingdom.

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

  Follow JamRadio for updates: 

JamRadio News Desk

Dedicated to clear, reliable reporting — from national and world headlines to local stories that matter.

Share

An Employment Tribunal has begun hearing a high-profile legal case against the West London-based Metanoia Institute, with five former members of staff alleging victimisation and constructive dismissal over whistleblowing at the institution.

The case, which opened at the London Central Employment Tribunal last week, is expected to last 19 days. The claimants — Dr Eiman Hussein, Dr Maya Mukamel, Dr Malgorzata Milewicz, Dr Jane Hunt and Cathy Lasher — argue that they raised serious concerns internally about what they describe as racial trauma, discriminatory treatment and oppressive practices affecting staff and students, particularly those of colour.

They contend that after speaking up, they experienced detrimental treatment that ultimately led to their departures from the Institute. The tribunal will now examine the circumstances surrounding those claims.

Metanoia Institute is a leading psychotherapy and counselling training provider based in West London, with around 1,500 students enrolled across undergraduate, postgraduate and research programmes. Many of its graduates go on to work within NHS services and other public sector mental health settings.

The case is being supported by the Psychotherapy and Counselling Union (PCU), the trade union representing counsellors, psychotherapists and trainees across the UK. In a statement, the union said the proceedings send a “clear message” that training institutions must provide safe, inclusive and accountable environments for staff and students.

The union has also indicated that it continues to receive communications from current and former members of the Institute raising similar concerns — something it says highlights the wider importance of the case for the profession.

Support organisations including the Black, African and Asian Therapy Network (BAATN) and Black Activists Rising Against Cuts (BARAC) UK have expressed solidarity with the claimants. A crowdfunding campaign to assist with legal costs has raised more than £32,000 to date.

The outcome of the tribunal could have implications beyond one institution. Questions around workplace culture, whistleblowing protections and racial equity in professional training are increasingly under scrutiny across higher education and the mental health sector.

The hearing is scheduled to continue until 19 March 2026.

Metanoia Institute has not yet publicly responded to the claims in detail. The tribunal will determine the facts of the case.

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

Published: February 27, 2026

Share

T

wo of the UK’s largest Black civic organisations have issued a stark warning that the Government’s plan to retroactively impose judge‑only trials represents a “grave threat” to fairness and public trust in the justice system.

Operation Black Vote (OBV) and Black Activists Rising Against Cuts (BARAC UK) say the proposal would allow cases already in the system — cases that began under the long‑standing guarantee of a jury, to be diverted mid‑process into judge‑only hearings, overturning the expectations on which defendants and victims entered proceedings.

Advertisement

In a joint statement, the groups said the move risks destabilising the basic constitutional protections that underpin criminal justice, particularly for Black and racialised communities who already face disproportionate charging, remand and sentencing outcomes. They warn that changing the ground rules after proceedings have begun “pulls the rug from under” those who rely on the system to act predictably and fairly.

OBV Chair David Weaver said the retrospective removal of juries “strikes at one of the last democratic safeguards against state power”, arguing that the shift signals that core protections are now conditional. BARAC UK co‑founder Zita Holbourne said judge‑only trials risk deepening discrimination because they remove the community balance that juries provide. “Judges operate within institutional cultures shaped by police and prosecution narratives,” she said. “Juries bring lived experience and independence.”

Advertisement

The warning lands against the backdrop of a constitutional principle stretching back eight centuries: the right to trial by one’s peers, enshrined in the Magna Carta, a protection long understood as a barrier against arbitrary state power. OBV and BARAC argue that any attempt to disapply that safeguard retrospectively is not merely a procedural shift but a direct challenge to the foundations of English justice.

The Criminal Bar Association’s Chair, Riel Karmy‑Jones KC, echoed the concerns, warning that many defendants and victims will feel “betrayed” and that confidence in the justice system will be further eroded at a moment when trust is already fragile.

The right to jury trial, a pillar of commonal law principles which streaches right across the Commonwealth has come under increasing threat in recent years. In 2024 The Parliament of Saint Kitts and Nevis introduced The Judge Alone Act 2024 to remove jury trials in favour of judge alone tirals. The Attorney General framed the move as, necessary in a nation of under 60,00 people — jury selection has become challenging and biased.

OBV and BARAC say the retrospective element is not a technical adjustment but a direct threat to procedural fairness, disproportionately affecting communities already over‑represented at every stage of the criminal justice pipeline. They are calling on the Government to abandon any retrospective application of judge‑only trials and to engage directly with those most affected by criminal justice reform.

An online petition seeking to curb the government's ambtions to abolish jury trials has ammased nearly 70,000 signatures.

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

  Follow JamRadio for updates: 

JamRadio News Desk

Dedicated to clear, reliable reporting — from national and world headlines to local stories that matter.

Share

A bombshell allegation buried deep inside the New Mexico Attorney General’s Epstein files has ignited a storm of speculation, after a letter claimed that two foreign women were “strangled during sex” and secretly buried near Jeffrey Epstein’s infamous Zorro Ranch. The claim, tucked among thousands of pages of interviews, tips and correspondence, was never substantiated, but it was also never publicly ruled out.

Advertisement

The document, part of a years‑long investigation that ended without a single homicide charge, describes the alleged killings in chilling detail. Yet despite the gravity of the accusation, investigators have not yet conducted any extensive searches, or released any forensic findings. The ranch, long rumoured to be one of Epstein’s most tightly controlled properties, remains untouched by any confirmed criminal inquiry into possible deaths on the grounds.

What makes the allegation even more incendiary is the vacuum around it. The Attorney General’s office gathered the letter, logged it, and moved on. No excavation. No follow‑up disclosures. No public explanation of why such a serious claim was left hanging in the air. The result is a perfect storm: a sensational allegation, an opaque investigation, and a property already steeped in accusations of abuse.

Advertisement

Online, the claim has exploded into a frenzy, with some outlets presenting the letter as a “new revelation” and others implying that investigators uncovered graves. 

Zorro Ranch remains one of the most secretive chapters of the Epstein saga, a sprawling desert compound where powerful people came and went, and where the public still has no clear picture of what did or didn’t happen. The newly surfaced letter doesn’t prove a crime occurred. But it does raise a question that investigators have never fully answered: why was such a serious allegation allowed to fade into the background without a definitive conclusion?

Until law enforcement provides clarity, the mystery surrounding Zorro Ranch and the disturbing claims hidden in the state’s own files, will only deepen.

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

  Follow JamRadio for updates: 

JamRadio News Desk

Dedicated to clear, reliable reporting — from national and world headlines to local stories that matter.

Share

The Freemasons have failed in their attempt to overturn the Metropolitan Police’s new “declarable associations” policy, after the High Court ruled the challenge had no reasonable prospect of success.

Advertisement

The policy requires officers and staff to declare whether they are Freemasons, alongside other memberships that could raise concerns about impartiality. Two serving Met officers and several Masonic bodies argued the rule was discriminatory and based on outdated stereotypes.

But the judge rejected the claim, saying the Met had a legitimate aim in boosting transparency and maintaining public confidence. A request to suspend the policy while the case continued was also refused, meaning the disclosure rules remain fully in force.

The ruling could pave the way for other police forces to adopt similar transparency measures.

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

  Follow JamRadio for updates: 

Share

Matt Goodwin, Reform UK’s candidate in the Gorton and Denton by‑election, is facing questions over his links to a Hungarian organisation partly financed through profits from Russian oil, following an investigation by the Good Law Project.

Goodwin, a political scientist and GB News presenter, has been associated with Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC) since at least 2024. The Budapest‑based institution, which has close ties to Viktor Orbán’s government, confirmed he has “participated” as a visiting fellow, teaching and delivering public lectures. It declined to say whether he remains on the payroll or how much he has been paid.

Advertisement

According to documents obtained by Hungarian investigative outlet Direkt36, visiting fellows at MCC can receive between €5,000 and €10,000 per month, alongside benefits including housing, office space and health insurance. The Good Law Project reports that MCC’s substantial endowment, more than €1bn, is partly derived from a 10% stake in MOL Group, an energy company that refines oil sourced largely from Russia.

Advertisement

The investigation also highlights MCC’s growing presence in the UK. The organisation has spent more than £500,000 amplifying right‑wing voices, and has developed links with figures connected to the Roger Scruton Legacy Foundation. Goodwin spoke at a Scruton‑themed symposium at the Hungarian Embassy in London in October 2025, alongside British political and cultural commentators and Hungarian government officials.

Zack Polanski, the Green Party leader, said the findings underscored the need for scrutiny of foreign influence in UK politics. He argued that the investigation showed Reform UK and Goodwin were “enriching themselves on foreign far‑right money” and participating in what he described as an “extremist anti‑British project”.

Advertisement

Reform UK strongly rejected the allegations when approached by JamRadio. A spokesperson said the claims were “false” and amounted to “a desperate attempt to derail a democratic by-election”.

The party said:

“Matt was for a brief period a Visiting Fellow at Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC) alongside countless other academics and researchers from around the globe, however, at no point was he paid €10,000 a month nor is the MCC funded by money from Russia.

It is standard for academics to hold fellowship positions at other institutions around the world. As a respected academic known for his award winning research, Matt has given hundreds, if not thousands, of paid talks to organisations around the world including in the USA, Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, Japan and more.

It should be noted Matt was also a Senior Fellow at the Royal Institute for International Affairs at Chatham House for a decade, where he undertook paid work, and he is currently a Senior Fellow at the University of Buckingham."

Reform did not answer questions about whether Goodwin is currently receiving payments from MCC.

The revelations come as Reform seeks to expand its electoral footprint, with Goodwin presenting himself as a candidate focused on “putting Britain first”. The Good Law Project argues the financial and political networks surrounding MCC raise concerns about transparency and foreign influence. Reform UK maintains the allegations are unfounded and politically motivated.

The row also comes as Labour leader Keir Starmer faces renewed scrutiny following a recent U‑turn over the upcoming local elections.

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

  Follow JamRadio for updates: