Sir James Cleverly, the Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) for Braintree and frontrunner for his party’s 2028 London mayoral nomination, stepped down from Kemi Badenoch’s Shadow Cabinet in late August 2026 to focus on the City Hall contest. A former Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary during the Conservatives’ most recent stretch in government (2010–2024), he now positions himself as an alternative to Lord Sadiq Khan, the Labour Party incumbent. However, a closer look at his views and record reveals a center-left politician more at ease with open borders and a multicultural redefinition of Britishness than with traditional conservative priorities such as immigration enforcement and maintaining national cohesion.

The National Pulse is 100% reader-funded. To help support Raheem J. Kassam and his team continue this work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. 

Open Borders in the Guise of ‘Free Market Labor Movements.’

Despite the party’s center-right branding, Cleverly has long advocated positions that treat mass migration primarily as an economic boon. He has written approvingly of a future defined by “free market labor movements”—that is, open borders for foreign workers, prioritizing employer demand over domestic wage pressures or community capacity.

He did advocate for the shift towards open borders to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary, due to the social upheaval it would cause, but still predicted that “At some point in the future we will look back at our current (fairly) protectionist policies on free market labour movements with the same disbelief that we look back on the corn laws.”

As Home Secretary, Cleverly presided over the tail-end of the Boriswave influx. While he claimed that the unprecedented post-COVID migration spike his party engineered had been a “fatal mistake,” his earlier enthusiasm for liberal international labor markets puts him firmly in the camp of Conservatives whose public, restrictive position on immigration did not match his record.

Woke on Identity: Redefining Britishness as Defined by Foreign Foods and Imports.

Cleverly has a distinctly woke-left view of national identity. In one article, he described Britishness exclusively in terms of consuming foreign goods: “Being British is about driving in a German car to an Irish pub for a Belgian beer, then travelling home, grabbing an Indian curry or a Turkish kebab on the way, to sit on Swedish furniture and watch American shows on a Japanese TV.”

Cleverly’s view elevates the enjoyment of foreign goods, cuisine, and media as the essence of Britishness. It echoes the broader progressive insistence that diversity is the defining feature of modern Britain, rather than national traditions or the national language, institutions, and history. Critics see it as the opposite of a coherent civic or cultural identity, replacing nationhood with a cosmopolitan marketplace.

I’m proud to be Chairman of the @Conservatives, I’m proud to be part of the most diverse cabinet in history, and I’m proud of how my party is championing diversity. https://t.co/baKpndOWYo

— James Cleverly🇬🇧 (@JamesCleverly) July 28, 2019

Labeling Immigration Skeptics ‘Extremist and Racist.’

The son of an immigrant from Sierra Leone, Cleverly has repeatedly insisted that Britain’s social cohesion and sense of identity “is not being watered down by immigration.” Those who argue otherwise, he has maintained, are “extremist and racist.”

He has extended this claim across centuries of arrivals: “We have managed to stay British through immigration from the Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Huguenots, Jews, Irish, West Indians, West Africans, East Africans, Indians, Pakistanis, etc., etc., etc. Britishness evolved, but it did not diminish.”

Notably, the “immigration” of the Romans, Saxons, Vikings, and Normans generally involved the violent overthrow of the existing political, social, and sometimes cultural order, suggesting that their arrival did indeed fundamentally alter the national character.

Party Context Under Badenoch.

Cleverly’s outlook sits comfortably within the current Conservative leadership. Party leader Kemi Badenoch has described herself as a “first-generation immigrant,” being born in London but raised in Nigeria. Like Cleverly, Badenoch publicly strikes a restrictionist posture on immigration, but her record in government includes lobbying to have limits on foreign students and migrant workers removed, which helped create the Boriswave.

Longstanding Hostility to Trump and America First.

Cleverly’s liberal instincts on migration and identity pair with strong disdain for President Donald J. Trump and the America First movement. In 2015, he publicly urged Republicans not to nominate Trump, writing on Twitter (now X): “Dear Republican colleagues, please, please, please don’t choose Donald Trump as the front man for American Right-of-Centre politics. Please.”

After Trump’s 2016 election and 2017 inauguration, Cleverly denounced the administration’s policies on immigration and Syrian refugees as “indefensible, unworkable and almost certainly unconstitutional.” By contrast, he later spoke warmly of meeting then-President Joe Biden in 2024, calling the Democrat “a great friend to the UK” despite his open hostility to Britain in general and the English in particular.

To help The National Pulse expose the gap between politicians’ public and private positions, please support our work: JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. 

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

A Biden-era grant to a Serbian political organization is raising fresh questions about the legacy of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the foreign aid organization targeted for dismantling by President Donald J. Trump.

The National Pulse gives you deep dives into the issues that matter. To help support Raheem J. Kassam and his team continue this work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

For decades, USAID presented itself as being engaged in altruistic operations like humanitarian assistance and economic development. However, its real, deeper history involved financing political opposition movements and so-called “color revolutions,” partisan media operations, voter-mobilization campaigns, and progressive ideological initiatives worldwide.

From the campaigns to topple former Serbian President Slobodan Milošević in 2000 to covert social media operations in Cuba, USAID’s political activities have frequently flown under the radar compared to more prominent humanitarian spending on things like food and medical aid.

The agency’s involvement in foreign politics is not simply a matter of speculation. Congressional documents, official USAID records, and various investigations have proven its role in promoting political transitions, cultivating activists, and advancing the preferred policies of agencies like the CIA and the Deep State overseas.

Serbia: American Money and a New Political Crisis.

The Center for Research, Transparency, and Accountability (CRTA), a Serbian NGO involved in election monitoring and public advocacy, has received $832,432.47 under a Biden-era USAID grant, with approximately $2.8 million yet to be given, meaning that despite massive cuts to USAID under the second Trump administration, money is still flowing to its political programs.

The award, established in 2023, supposedly for election integrity activities, was expanded on January 17, 2025, just three days before President Trump’s second inauguration.

The revelations come as Serbia prepares for parliamentary elections on October 25, with student-led protests presenting a serious challenge to the political establishment associated with former President Aleksandar Vučić. CRTA has publicized the protesters’ demands, while Vučić has accused foreign-backed NGOs of attempting to destabilize his government.

USAID’s Cold War Origins and CIA Connections.

USAID was established by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, consolidating America’s foreign development programs into an agency intended to promote economic growth and stability overseas. The agency was created amid the Cold War and was largely used as a tool of “soft power” to influence regimes away from the USSR.

Its activities sometimes overlapped with American intelligence objectives. Accounts of Cold War operations in Southeast Asia describe the CIA’s use of USAID-related arrangements, including testimony concerning USAID cover in Laos. Some have even described USAID as a “cover” for CIA activity.

USAID’s political functions were also openly acknowledged. A Congressional Research Service examination of the agency’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) detailed its involvement in politically sensitive transitions, including support for opposition organizations in Serbia in the 1990s.

How Washington Helped Overthrow Serbia’s Milošević.

The most striking historical parallel to the current Serbian controversy is the American-financed campaign against Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević in 2000. A Washington Post investigation published in December 2000 documented approximately $41 million in American appropriations during 1999 and 2000, much of which supported the political infrastructure opposing Milošević.

The campaign included political consultants, opinion polling, opposition training, election monitoring, and mass-produced propaganda. American taxpayers financed 2.5 million stickers bearing the Serbian slogan “Gotov je,” meaning “He’s finished,” as well as 5,000 cans of spray paint used by activists to spread anti-Milošević messages.

The International Republican Institute also trained leaders of Otpor, the student resistance movement that became central to Milošević’s downfall. American-funded consultants helped opposition groups develop messaging and mobilization strategies.

Popular culture was another weapon. A separate Washington Post report revealed that American assistance reached Serbian heavy-metal bands participating in voter-registration concerts under the banner of “Rock the Vote.”

A subsequent USAID evaluation documented the political importance of the agency’s Serbian activities. According to a Congressional Research Service summary, OTI spent approximately $8.68 million on 631 grants in Serbia and Montenegro between 1997 and October 2000.

Cuba: USAID’s Secret Social Media Network.

During the Obama administration, USAID secretly financed a Twitter-like communications network in Cuba called ZunZuneo. The platform used intermediaries and offshore arrangements to conceal its American government financing.

The service initially distributed material about sports, music, and entertainment, attracting Cuban users who were unaware of USAID’s involvement. Internal documents described ambitions to introduce political messaging and encourage mobilization against the Castro government. The operation even exploited interest surrounding a major concert by Colombian singer Juanes to test its messaging capabilities.

A subsequent USAID Inspector General investigation confirmed that implementers had deliberately concealed the American government’s role, including through offshore corporate arrangements. USAID disputed allegations that the project constituted a covert regime-change operation, arguing that discretion was necessary to protect participants and circumvent Cuban censorship.

Despite USAID’s statements, the operation revealed yet another time the agency had meddled in the political affairs of another country under the guise of being simply dedicated to humanitarian ventures.

Millions for LGBT Activism and Progressive Causes.

Beyond attempts to influence foreign governments, USAID also became an important international financier of progressive social ideologies across the globe, much of which was revealed when President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) looked into USAID’s activities in 2025.

Under former President Barack Obama, the agency expanded its involvement in LGBT advocacy through partnerships with organizations including the Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice, the Gay & Lesbian Victory Institute, and the Swedish Federation for LGBT Rights. According to USAID’s own partnership report, the LGBT Global Development Partnership represented an $18 million, four-year public-private initiative spanning 15 countries.

Its objectives included strengthening LGBT civil society organizations, training activists to participate in democratic processes, and conducting research intended to influence policy.

A Williams Institute analysis reported that USAID’s dedicated LGBT programming increased from approximately $6 million in 2021 to $25 million in 2024 under President Joe Biden. The agency also supported initiatives in Asia and Latin America addressing LGBT legal rights, discrimination, and political participation.

A 2015 Obama White House fact sheet disclosed approximately $3.3 million in USAID spending on stand-alone LGBT programs during fiscal year 2014, alongside $113 million in broader health and human-rights programs relevant to LGBT populations. Critics have questioned why American taxpayers were financing overseas social advocacy and political organizing, particularly in countries with different cultural and religious traditions.

Trump’s Crackdown—and the Political Networks Left Behind.

President Trump’s effort to dismantle USAID’s massive institutional structure represented a major challenge to Washington’s traditional foreign-aid establishment. For supporters of the America First agenda, the agency’s record raised a fundamental question: Why should American taxpayers finance political activism, foreign NGOs, and ideological initiatives overseas?

The historical record provides considerable evidence that USAID supported more than humanitarian assistance. In Serbia, its funding helped opposition activists defeat an incumbent government. In Cuba, it financed a communications network whose American sponsorship was deliberately concealed. Elsewhere, it supported organizations seeking changes to social policies and political participation.

The renewed controversy in Serbia suggests that dismantling an agency’s bureaucracy has not necessarily eliminated the infrastructure it created, nor stopped all of its funding.

To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team keep putting out the best quality analysis and news, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Image by Gary Bembridge.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

A left-wing Liberal Democrat politician in England has been suspended after recording minors outside a primary (elementary) school and flatly refusing official requests to delete the footage from social media.

The National Pulse covers the stories the corporate media leaves buried. To help support our work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Adrian Chapmanlaw, an elected official serving on the Bournemouth, Christchurch, and Poole (BCP) Council in Dorset, England, was stripped of his party affiliation as an internal inquiry gets underway.

The disciplinary action follows administrators at Manorside Academy lodging a formal objection regarding a clip shared to Chapmanlaw’s “Dorset Safer Roads” social media page. While the politician insisted the recording was intended to document driving infractions on the restricted lines near the school, the published media displayed parents and children uncensored.

Leadership at Manorside Academy repeatedly urged the councillor to delete the broadcast because the faces of vulnerable youngsters and guardians were clearly visible. Chapmanlaw refused. According to school officials, leaving unedited recordings of parents and children visible to the public severely jeopardized student security and inflicted unnecessary panic on local families.

The Liberal Democrats’ local leader, Millie Earl, stated: “As a council group, we take safeguarding concerns raised by our partners very seriously. I have therefore suspended Councillor Chapmanlaw from the Liberal Democrat Group until the council’s standards procedure has been concluded. In line with our Standing Orders, we will then consider what further action should be taken.”

The National Pulse brings you local, national, and international news without corporate or government influence. If you value the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Chapmanlaw responded on the same Facebook page where he displayed his recordings by portraying himself as a victim. “This is what happens when you take a stand and try to make a difference. Kids die outside of schools, I am merely trying to protect them using the legal systems available to me,” he insisted.

He accused his political allies of abandoning him, writing: “People try to tear you down. Even people who are supposed to be your friends will throw you under the bus rather than support.”

Dismissing the school’s concerns, he added: “The complaint is complete cow excrement. There was no ‘safeguarding issue’ anybody with eyes can see that. I find this action completely disgusting, I am currently considering my options.”

The National Pulse keeps is 100% reader-funded. To keep the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team RADICALLY INDEPENDENT, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

A methodological error in the latest FindOutNow/Electoral Calculus Multilevel Regression and Post-stratification (MRP) projections left Restore Britain’s constituency vote shares untouched under tactical voting scenarios, even as other parties’ shares were reallocated. The result temporarily showed the Elon Musk-backed, Conservative-allied Reform splinter party leading the “parties on the right” in 21 Scottish seats. After the error was identified by Raheem Kassam, Editor-in-Chief of The National Pulse, that figure fell to zero.

The National Pulse examines the data beyond the headlines. If you value the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Restore Britain founder Rupert Lowe boasted on Thursday morning that the poll had the party ahead of both Reform and the Conservatives in more Scottish constituencies. He cited figures of Restore Britain 21, Conservatives 13, Reform 12, and 11 ties, writing, “This is remarkable. Restore Britain is now the second largest party in Scotland, and the largest party on the right – bigger than both Reform and the Tories.”

Those numbers did not survive scrutiny.

On Thursday morning, @RestoreBritain founder @RupertLowe10 tweeted: “This is important – the latest huge MRP poll has Restore Britain ahead in more Scottish constituencies than both Reform or the Tories.”

The data he cited envisaged a hypothetical tactical voting scenario in a… pic.twitter.com/xvralbURug

— Raheem J. Kassam (@RaheemKassam) October 22, 2026

The Flaw Kassam Identified.

Raheem Kassam examined the tactical-voting tables and found that Restore’s share remained fixed at its pre-tactical level in every constituency, while other parties’ shares changed according to the modeled reallocation of voters who said they would switch. As Kassam put it: “I found that although the tactical-voting calculations appeared to affect support for other parties, they actually incorrectly left Restore’s share in every constituency exactly as it was prior to tactical voting.”

In a Labour–Scottish National Party (SNP) contest, for instance, the model reduced Reform’s share by shifting some of its supporters to the two main parties. Restore voters who had also indicated a willingness to vote tactically were not treated the same way. Their share stayed constant, producing an artificial relative gain for Lowe’s party.

Kassam tested this on Midlothian. Baseline figures showed SNP 31.96 percent, Labour 29.73 percent, Reform 15.62 percent, and Restore 8.92 percent. Under the flawed tactical adjustment, Reform fell to 8.15 percent while Restore remained at 8.92 percent. Once the reallocation was applied correctly, Restore dropped to 5.28 percent—below Reform.

Kassam contacted Electoral Calculus chief executive Martin Baxter the same morning. Baxter replied that there was “a problem with the re-allocation of Restore votes.” Corrected figures were published within hours.

Corrected Scottish and National Results.

Across all 57 Scottish constituencies, the three-party comparison among Restore Britain, Reform, and the Conservatives reversed. The original tally of 21 (Restore), 13 (Conservatives), 12 (Reform), and 11 ties became zero (Restore), 13 (Conservatives), 44 (Reform), and zero ties. Reform, not Restore, now leads the right-of-center pack in the large majority of Scottish seats under the tactical scenario.

Nationally, the correction also shifted seat projections under the tactical-voting model. Reform’s projected total rose from 83 to 108 seats. Labour’s fell from 287 to 263. Restore’s national tactical-voting vote share was revised from eight percent to six percent, placing it below the far-left Greens. Electoral Calculus’s updated page, reposted with corrections on October 22, 2026, confirms the six percent figure and the 108-seat Reform projection under first-past-the-post with tactical voting.

The same error had underpinned Lowe’s separate claim that the poll showed Restore matching the Greens on a “record 8%.” That national figure no longer holds under the corrected tactical scenario.

Why the Numbers Mattered—and Why They Did Not Hold.

MRP models produce constituency-level estimates precisely so that small absolute shifts can change relative rankings. Leaving one party’s share static while others declined created the appearance that Restore was gaining ground against Reform and the Conservatives in Scotland. Once the reallocation was applied consistently, those relative gains disappeared.

The corrected pattern is consistent with broader findings in the same poll: anti-Reform tactical voting is measurable, and right-of-center support remains fragmented. Restore continues to register a non-trivial national share, but the specific claim that it had overtaken both Reform and the Conservatives as the leading right-wing option across more Scottish seats than either did not survive the methodological fix.

“The incident obviously raises questions. If this can happen in a needle-in-a-haystack example in an MRP like this, and be seized upon by a party leader, what other polling errors have occurred in the past that have never been spotted?” Kassam asked, adding: “The other question that springs to my mind is didn’t Rupert Lowe, or anyone who runs his accounts check this before they posted 5 times about it on X, and multiple times on Facebook?”

It was good, he continued, that “Electoral Calculus were so swift and honest in correcting the error,” but noted that “hundreds of thousands of voters” had already been exposed to Lowe’s false claims, potentially lending weight to Restore’s largely narrative that it is achieving genuine momentum as a right-wing force. The evidence suggests that this is largely unsupported, and that voters concerned about mass migration and related issues would be advised to consolidate behind Reform, with Restore being a vehicle mainly to help Labour and the Conservatives retain their grip on British politics, rather than a future party of government, or even opposition.

Deep dive analysis like this takes time and research. To support our work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

Telegraph sketch writer and podcast host Tim Stanley has spent nearly two years referring to Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch as “mummy,” repeatedly casting himself and other male journalists as little boys who enjoy testing how far they can push her before she “gives us a smack.” The pattern began the day she won the leadership and has continued into late 2026.

To help The National Pulse hold the corporate media to account, please JOIN PULSE+ or MAKE A DONATION today.

Origins.

On November 2, 2024, the day Badenoch was elected Conservative Party leader, Stanley published a column titled “‘Mummy won and I’m very happy’ – she’ll give this country the kick up the backside it needs.” It opened with the line “Mummy won!” and portrayed the result as the arrival of a firm, disciplinary hand.⁠

Three days later, he followed with a piece headlined “Mummy is in charge of the Tories now,” describing how she assembled her Shadow Cabinet.⁠

‘Little Boys Seeing How Far We Can Wind Up Mummy.’

In the November 2024 piece, he addressed claims that Badenoch was too confrontational and aggressive with the media by writing: “Kemi is too confrontational, said a few, too aggressive with the media. They don’t realise that most male journalists rather like that, that we’re still little boys seeing how far we can wind up mummy before she gives us a smack.”

He added: “Never mind ‘do the Tories need her?’, the country needs her. We are wet, self-indulgent and, in my case, wearing week-old underwear. This woman can give us all a good kick up the backside.”

Stanley—who is only around two years younger than Badenoch—has continued to lean into the same imagery throughout Badenoch’s tenure as leader, describing the Conservative Party as a collection of noisy children who need a firm maternal figure to keep them in line, and likening Badenoch’s recent party conference speech delivery to a stern warning delivered to misbehaving kids in the back of a car.

Deep dives like this take time to assemble. If you want to support our work, please JOIN PULSE+ or MAKE A DONATION today.

The ‘Joke’ That Never Ended.

On October 8, 2025, Stanley wrote that “Mummy is moving to where the voters really are.” Further examples from later columns include a December 2025 sketch in which he described Badenoch confronting the Labour frontbench over budget briefings in the House of Commons, writing: “Which frontbencher told the press the Budget was a ‘disaster’? asked Mummy. ‘Was it you? Or you? I think it was you!'”

Covering the October 2026 Conservative conference, he wrote, “Mummy will protect us. Mummy knows what’s what. But while she’s writing her conference speech, dictated to a CCHQ eunuch as she swims in a marble bath filled with milk, Kemi has to delegate to weaker men.”

Reviewing her speech the next day, he added, “Mummy was then present, and one felt an immediate duty to behave better. Blue dress, flashing eyes, she has mastered the art of appearing emotional while holding it tightly beneath the surface.”

Stanley, as one of Badenoch’s leading boosters in Britain’s establishment press, may well be doing more harm to the tainted Conservative Party brand than good, as a grown man repeatedly describing a senior female politician as his “mummy” and positioning himself among the “little boys” who enjoy her leadership style as maternal discipline.

The National Pulse is 100% reader-funded. If you value exclusive reporting and analysis from Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN PULSE+ or MAKE A DONATION today.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

The BBC has placed an Algerian-born former illegal immigrant, who served time in prison for immigration deception and publicly defended Hamas rocket attacks as legitimate resistance, in a senior position overseeing its use of artificial intelligence (AI). The revelation comes amid growing scrutiny of the backgrounds and political sympathies of those employed by Britain’s publicly funded institutions, as pro-Palestinian activism has become increasingly influential.

The National Pulse brings the details of the latest stories from around the world. To support Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

Hicham Yezza, the BBC’s Principal Data Scientist for Responsible AI, was sentenced to nine months in prison in 2009 after falsely claiming he had permission to remain in Britain. His visa had expired in 2003, but he continued living in the country as an illegal immigrant for more than five years, subsequently deceiving immigration authorities about his status.

The sentencing judge described Yezza’s actions as a deliberate and prolonged manipulation of Britain’s immigration controls.

Despite his criminal history, Yezza avoided deportation, successfully appealed against removal in 2010, and subsequently obtained British citizenship. He joined BBC Monitoring in 2021 before assuming his current AI position in July 2025. The broadcaster now employs him to help determine how AI systems should handle news and information, including the development of benchmarks for assessing AI performance in public-service media.

Immigration Offender to BBC AI Adviser.

Yezza’s immigration conviction was not his first encounter with British authorities. In 2008, police arrested him after discovering an al-Qaeda training manual on his computer at the University of Nottingham. The document had been sent to him by a postgraduate researcher studying Islamist terrorism. Both men were later released without terrorism charges. However, Yezza’s subsequent political statements have raised additional questions about his suitability for a role at a broadcaster legally obliged to maintain impartiality.

Yezza described Israel in 2018 as an apartheid state established through ethnic cleansing. In 2021, he characterized Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel as acts of Palestinian resistance. Yezza also founded the pro-Palestinian publication Ceasefire, which he edited before joining the BBC.

The broadcaster has defended his employment, claiming that his prior activities were unrelated to his work at the corporation and that he had not violated its social media policies while employed there. While this may be true, Yezza’s background is causing concern amid widespread instances of pro-Palestine bias at the BBC.

The BBC Has Fired Others For Challenging Its Ideology.

The broadcaster has previously disciplined employees over views that seem to counter its woke left ideology, including criticism of its coverage of Hamas and opposition to gender-neutral language.

In 2024, veteran BBC Radio Lancashire journalist Sean McGinty was dismissed following disputes involving his criticism of the broadcaster’s Israel-Hamas coverage and comments on transgender issues. McGinty, who had worked for the corporation for more than two decades, subsequently lost an employment tribunal case. The BBC cited misconduct and breaches of editorial policies.

Meanwhile, BBC News presenter Martine Croxall was found to have breached impartiality guidelines after visibly pulling a face while reading the phrase “pregnant people” during a 2025 broadcast. The BBC upheld complaints, ruling that her reaction suggested a personal opinion on a controversial issue, heedless of the fact that “pregnant people” is itself an ideologically loaded term.

Britain’s Public Institutions Have Faced Similar Scandals.

The BBC controversy is not the first time a British public institution has faced criticism over employing individuals with serious criminal backgrounds. In 2017, London’s Southwark Council admitted that it had employed a woman previously convicted under the Terrorism Act.

The woman, identified as Ms. Girma, worked as a customer service officer despite her prior conviction. According to the council’s official statement, she had initially disclosed a conviction without specifying its nature, and the authority did not bother to investigate it any further.

Her employment was terminated when the full details emerged. The council acknowledged failures in its recruitment procedures and commissioned further scrutiny of its vetting arrangements.

British Charities Are Also Being Infiltrated.

Britain’s charitable sector has also faced serious questions about its ability to prevent extremist activity. A Charity Commission investigation into Brighton Mosque and Muslim Community Centre uncovered major failures after a former trustee delivered a speech encouraging violent jihad at the mosque in November 2020.

The former trustee, who had previously served as the mosque’s imam, was convicted of encouraging terrorism in April 2022 and received a custodial sentence. The regulator found that trustees had failed to protect the charity from extremist abuse despite being aware of the risks associated with the individual.

The Charity Commission subsequently intervened, appointing new trustees and disqualifying former trustee Dr. Karim Aboutayab for four years and six months over separate governance failures.

The case revealed how inadequate oversight can enable extremist activity within organizations operating under Britain’s regulated charitable framework. Unlike Yezza, whose terrorism-related arrest resulted in no charges, the Brighton case involved a criminal conviction for encouraging terrorism.

Hamas-Support Is Infecting Britain’s Establishment Parties.

Controversies involving rhetoric sympathetic to Hamas and Islamist extremism have also reached Britain’s mainstream political parties.

In October 2024, Liberal Democrat councilor Leena Sarah Farhat was suspended after sharing a social media post that appeared to celebrate Hamas’s October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks against Israel. Farhat, who had also stood as a parliamentary candidate, reposted a message praising the attacks as an anti-colonial uprising. She subsequently apologized, describing her decision to share the message as a mistake.

The Labour Party faced a separate scandal during the February 2024 Rochdale by-election when its candidate, Azhar Ali, claimed Israel had deliberately allowed the October 7 attacks to provide justification for invading Gaza. Labour initially defended Ali before withdrawing its support following additional revelations about his comments concerning Jewish media figures.

This is incredible.

An Algerian Hamas supporter who became an illegal overstayer in Britain, lied to immigration officers about it, and went to prison for it, is now in a senior role at the BBC.

Because the Tories and Labour failed to deport him.

Hicham Yezza has a long record…

— Zia Yusuf (@ZiaYusufUK) October 20, 2026

Britain’s Institutions Are Not Unbiased.

The BBC’s decision to employ Yezza reveals that the broadcaster will not only tolerate but will also defend employees with immigration fraud convictions and historic support for the actions of terrorist groups, if they are on board with the BBC’s leftist ideology.

Those who have spoken out about leftist ideologies have been disciplined or even fired in recent years, showing that the broadcaster is hardly impartial, despite its own claims to the contrary.

To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team inform you of the latest global developments, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Image by Sebastiandoe5.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

Violent youth gangs associated with Italy’s second-generation immigrant communities have turned the streets of Milan into scenes of chaos, looting, and destruction, prompting Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to announce sweeping new law-and-order measures. The disturbances, which erupted over the weekend of October 17–18, saw thousands of young people descend on the northern Italian city’s historic city center, attacking police officers, smashing storefronts, and ransacking businesses.

The National Pulse is here to keep you as informed as possible. To support Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

According to Italian news agency ANSA, the violence caused damage initially estimated at more than half a billion euros, approximately $580 million, although the figure is just an estimate so far.

Police deployed tear gas and water cannons as masked rioters hurled stones, bottles, and concrete blocks at officers. Disturbances were also reported in other major Italian cities, such as Bologna, Brescia, Bergamo, and Turin, fueling fears that the unrest may spread across northern Italy.

Children As Young As  11 Involved in the Violence.

According to police-sourced figures, authorities brought 271 individuals to police headquarters, including 220 minors and 60 foreign nationals. Of those, 32 were formally arrested, including 23 minors and 13 foreign nationals. Fourteen police officers were reported injured in Sunday’s violence.

Italian media reporting described children as young as 10 and 11 wearing masks, carrying clubs, and riding scooters through the streets while participating in the disorder. A report identified the growing influence of the so-called Maranza phenomenon, a youth subculture associated with aggressive street behavior, intimidation, and criminal activity.

The term has become particularly prominent in Milan, where groups of teenagers, including many from North African and Eastern European immigrant backgrounds, have attracted growing attention from police.

The New Migrant Generation Hates the West.

Parents gathered outside Milan police stations after discovering their children had been detained following the violence. One Tunisian father, who described working tirelessly to support his family, said he was ashamed and disappointed over his son’s alleged involvement. Others reportedly discovered their children had traveled into central Milan only after being told by police.

The riots initially developed around demonstrations against rising living costs, largely inspired by the French riots going on at the same time. However, footage circulating on social media apps like TikTok and Instagram reportedly encouraged teenagers from surrounding suburbs to join the disorder.

Some participants appeared more interested in filming themselves looting shops and confronting police than advancing any sort of political movement. Italian authorities also identified far-left activists among the demonstrators, something also seen during the mass riots in France.

BREAKING:

Inspired by France, young second and third-generation migrants started looting stores in Milan, Italy around 2 hours ago.

International mainstream media isn’t showing just how bad things are in Europe. pic.twitter.com/ngDVLvDpj2

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) October 18, 2026

Meloni Sends the Army In.

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni responded to the rioting on October 20, approving an emergency security decree intended to restore order and strengthen penalties against violent offenders. The government authorized the deployment of an additional 500 soldiers to Milan through the end of 2026.

The measures also introduce a new criminal offense for violent participation in demonstrations, carrying penalties of up to five years in prison and fines reaching approximately $22,500. Parents could be made financially responsible for damage caused by their minor children, while prosecutors would receive expanded powers to pursue criminal cases involving offenders aged 14 and older.

Meloni described the involvement of so many children in the violence as disturbing, warning against allowing images of young rioters stealing and destroying property to inspire further copycat attacks. The crackdown builds on previous security legislation introduced by Meloni’s government, including 2023 measures targeting juvenile crime.

🇮🇹 The violent riots have SPREAD to Italy, and the fashion capital of Milan is taking the full brunt of it.

More "aggrieved European students" are smashing cars and kicking through store windows.

The police have deployed tear gas but honestly, this already looks completely out…

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) October 19, 2026

Migrant Riots Are Spreading Across Europe.

The violence in Milan has similarities to the mass riots in France, which saw leftist agitators and migrant background youth loot and burn cities across the country, including burning down the historic city hall in the city of Limoges.

The violence may be a key test for Meloni, who has often touted her tough-on-crime policies and claimed to be opposed to mass migration. The allegations that many of those involved are second or third-generation migrants reveal the utter failure of integration policies in the country, a fact Meloni will have to address.

With social media playing a large part in the riots, it remains to be seen if Meloni, like many other European leaders, will make moves to restrict access to platforms like Instagram and TikTok for young people.

To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team deliver you the latest news and analysis, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

Net zero is making electricity prohibitively expensive, according to a new report from Britain’s energy industry, raising new questions about the severe economic consequences of the green agenda and the role of the Conservative and Labour governments who have implemented it.

The National Pulse gives you original analysis of trends across the globe. To help support Raheem J. Kassam and his team continue this work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

A report published this week by Energy UK reveals that electricity has been approximately four times more expensive than natural gas per unit, with government-imposed policy costs contributing to the enormous disparity.

The findings come as British manufacturers struggle with some of the highest electricity prices in the Western world, while Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and his deputy, Richard Tice, are promising to dismantle the country’s net zero agenda and deliver substantial reductions in household energy bills.

British governments have spent years encouraging households and businesses to abandon gas in favor of electricity, while imposing costs that make electricity considerably more expensive, amid a cost-of-living crisis.

Labour and the Tories have gutted Britain's industry, leaving areas like Redcar behind.

Reform will scrap net zero, reindustrialise Britain and bring thousands of good jobs back into local areas. pic.twitter.com/38RbFDXWol

— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) October 5, 2026

The Hidden Costs of Britain’s Net Zero Agenda.

Energy UK’s October 20 report, Sparking Change: How to Make Clean Heat Cheaper and Accelerate Electrification, acknowledges that Britain’s approach to financing decarbonization and social programs through electricity bills has made electricity artificially expensive compared with gas.

These costs include the Renewables Obligation, a subsidy scheme supporting renewable electricity generators, as well as other government programs financed through household and commercial energy bills.

Carbon pricing policies, including the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, impose an additional cost on electricity generated from fossil fuels. Meanwhile, substantial investment in the electricity network and the costs of balancing intermittent renewable generation contribute to the overall price of power.

Energy UK’s findings reveal that government policy has helped create a system in which electricity is considerably more expensive than the fuel consumers are being encouraged to switch to for the sake of the environment.

The report estimates that transferring remaining domestic electricity policy costs to general taxation would require approximately $3.34 billion annually in additional government spending. Combined with changes to gas standing charges, the reforms could reduce the electricity-to-gas price ratio from approximately four-to-one to three-to-one.

British Industry Is Being Crushed.

Energy UK reports that non-domestic electricity prices in Great Britain are around 50 percent higher than the median among G7 economies, crippling British business competitiveness on the global stage.

Energy-intensive manufacturers, including steelmakers, chemical producers, and heavy industrial businesses, are in the worst position, as they depend on low energy prices to keep their own costs down. Other countries are in much better positions, like France, which benefits from an extensive nuclear power industry, while American manufacturers enjoy access to comparatively cheap natural gas and electricity.

Britain, meanwhile, has pursued increasingly inane and self-harming decarbonization targets while maintaining a system in which wholesale electricity prices frequently reflect the cost of gas-fired generation.

An October report examining British steelmakers highlighted an electricity cost disadvantage of nearly $40 per megawatt-hour compared with French competitors. For companies consuming enormous quantities of electricity, such differences can translate into millions of dollars in additional annual operating expenses.

Major British Industrialist’s Warning of Impending Doom.

The growing industrial crisis was highlighted in September when billionaire industrialist Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s chemical giant INEOS announced it was suspending operations at three chemical plants in Hull. The company blamed high European natural gas prices, which have made chemical production increasingly uncompetitive against manufacturers in the United States and China.

The three plants collectively employ almost 4,000 people and produce chemicals used in pharmaceuticals, clothing, cosmetics, detergents, and construction materials. Ratcliffe warned that European manufacturers were being undermined by a combination of high energy prices and carbon taxation.

He claimed that European natural gas prices had reached approximately 12 times those in the United States and eight times those in China. The industrialist’s warning illustrates a wider danger facing Britain: businesses may relocate production overseas rather than continue operating under an increasingly expensive domestic energy system.

Closures can destroy skilled manufacturing jobs and weaken Britain’s industrial supply chains without even having much of an impact on global emissions, particularly when production shifts to countries with more carbon-intensive industries. The INEOS decision provides a clear example of what happens when environmental targets take precedence over industrial competitiveness.

Reform UK Promises to Scrap Net Zero and Cut Energy Bills.

Nigel Farage’s Reform UK is proposing a radically different approach to Britain’s energy crisis, promising to reverse the net zero policies pursued by successive Conservative and Labour governments. Under its official energy platform, Reform pledges to cut average household energy bills by approximately $334 annually within its first 100 days in government.

The party intends to achieve this by removing government-imposed policy costs from energy bills, transferring renewable subsidy obligations to the Treasury, and pursuing the renegotiation or termination of contracts it considers unfair to consumers.

Unlike Labour, which remains committed to the Green agenda, no matter the cost to Britons, Reform argues that the immediate priority should be reducing costs for households and businesses. The party has also pledged to scrap net zero policies it believes are undermining Britain’s economic competitiveness, while supporting nuclear generation and expanding domestic energy production.

Its proposals would mark a massive departure from the climate policies maintained by the Conservatives during their 14 years in government and subsequently embraced by Labour.

Reform deputy leader Richard Tice has made the party’s energy commitments a personal political test. In an October 1 speech in Doncaster, Tice pledged to resign if a Reform government failed to reduce average annual household energy bills by approximately $334 within its first 100 days.

Tice also accused Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband of failing to deliver promised energy savings when he served as Energy Secretary from 2024 to 2026, arguing that Britain’s green agenda had become an obstacle to economic prosperity.

Reform UK advocates increasing domestic oil and gas production, reducing dependence on foreign energy suppliers, and supporting nuclear power as a reliable source of electricity. It also favors reversing policies that discourage investment in Britain’s remaining fossil fuel resources.

For energy-intensive manufacturers, these measures could potentially reduce regulatory costs and improve confidence in long-term domestic energy supplies. Reform’s platform represents one of the only direct challenges to the assumption that Britain’s energy future must be organized primarily around achieving net zero, which is shared by nearly all of the establishment political parties in the country.

Britain’s Energy Future Requires Major Changes.

Energy UK’s latest findings are a late admission that net-zero policies are harming regular people. Even an organization committed to expanding clean electricity acknowledges that government policy costs have contributed to making electricity artificially expensive.

Its proposed solution is to restructure those costs and accelerate electrification. Reform UK, by contrast, wants to dismantle substantial parts of the net zero framework itself.

The Conservative governments that established and expanded Britain’s net zero commitments, and the Labour government now pursuing them, are finally starting to realize that their Green Agenda dreams are hurting their voters, but they still show no sign of changing course

For Farage and Reform UK, the situation is simple: cheaper energy, domestic production, and industrial competitiveness should take precedence over dubiously effective climate goals that are damaging people’s lives in the name of ideology.

I’ve said for many years that British manufacturing is being destroyed by net zero.

Now people are finally waking up and smelling the coffee.

We need a Reform government before it’s too late. pic.twitter.com/ccQ9mNFdNh

— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) June 11, 2026

To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team provide you with more of the original reporting and analysis you deserve, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Image by Gary Bembridge.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.