Byline Times Audio Articles

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features SUBSCRIBE TODAY As the far right movement gathers pace in the UK, and violence and hostility towards women deepens, a new study has found that gender inequality is worsening financial hardship in economically deprived regions. The findings, from Kings College London, come weeks after polling by IPSOS for JOE Media Group of Gen Z voters revealed over half of men believe they're expected to do too much to support gender equality and that it has gone "too far" and 54% of Reform voters - many of whom are young men - believe that males are being discriminated against, as do 44% of Brexit voters. Some of the most gender unequal regions in Britain are "left behind" communities in the north and midlands, where Reform UK saw significant gains in the May local elections. The UK Is Failing to Tackle Violence Against Women Amid Rise of Misogynistic Influencers Reduced budgets, rising online hate and the lack of an effective national strategy, are deepening the threat faced by women and girls, warn MPs David Hencke Report author Dr Caitlin Schmid told Byline Times: "We're seeing a lot of narratives that try to take us back to more traditional gender norms, even though our research shows that is the exact opposite of what we need, and will not address the legitimate grievances that women and men have, across the country, which have come out of decades of austerity." Yorkshire and the Humber, Wales and Northern Ireland have the lowest levels of gender equality, researchers found, while London and the north-west of England are the most gender equal. No local authority in the UK has achieved gender equality. Women shouldering a larger burden of childcare and domestic work, and being under-represented in politics and leadership roles are key factors blocking regional progress towards gender equality. 'For Too Long, Men Have Been Invisible in a Media Conversation Focusing on "Violence Against Women", Not "Male Violence" The latest episode of the hit Media Storm podcast focuses on how journalism is still failing to challenge the structural forces of patriarchy and misogyny Mathilda Mallinson and Helena Wadia The report also found that gender inequality leads to poor outcomes for both women and men, such as lower wages for women, and poorer health outcomes for men. Dr Schmid stresses that investment in childcare infrastructure is critical if we want to "unlock greater productivity" in these deprived regions, particularly in rural areas. In regions where men are more actively involved in childcare and domestic work, they tend to experience positive health outcomes such as higher fertility and a lower risk of suicide. The point I always want to come back to is that it's not a zero sum game: women's progress does not mean men's regress, our society and our economy depends on both doing well Dr Caitlin Schmid, report author Young men captured by the 'manosphere' often rely on this narrative to counter claims of misogyny, which was a central theme in Netflix's Adolescence series which ignited public debate after its release in March, made UK TV history, and led to its creators meeting with the Prime Minister about how best to "protect our children". According to The Centre for Countering Digital Hate, the world's largest incel online forum received 2.7 million visits between January and March 2025 which illustrates the scope of the problem impacting young men, and the role of the internet in spreading the message. Laura Bates, author of 'The New Age of Sexism', also found that it takes just 30 minutes for TikTok to show extreme misogynistic content to teenage boys when they set up a new account. But while the media focuses on young men and their far-right leanings, and painstakingly tracks the rise of Reform and its leader, Nigel Farage, little attention is paid to young women and their move to the political...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features… SUBSCRIBE TODAY This article will not be about how closed borders don't work. The verdict for that was in long ago, and (while suicidal policymakers keep pinning their political fates on 'taking back control') the annual displacement report confirms it. I will go into the data (briefly), but I will not waste time arguing a historical truth so incontestable it should be step 0 in our response to the 'refugee crisis'. Closed borders don't work, cool. This piece will be about what does. To jump forward a few steps: the answer lies with us, the people, exacting the power that we are entitled to beyond marking x in a box every four years. How Our Politicians Created an 'Island of Strangers' So They Don't Have to Make Our Lives Any Better By presenting tougher immigration as a solution to people's discontent, Keir Starmer and others sidestep the real reasons why people feel estranged in their lives - it's a cynical and simplistic political ruse that keeps everyone alienated, writes Hardeep Matharu Hardeep Matharu It lies in the small day-to-day community-building that all of us do far more than we engage in party politics. And you could easily miss it, judging by stories in our media, which do more to divide society than reflect it. First up, I want to flag some key points from the latest data on the global displacement crisis. I prefer 'displacement crisis' to 'refugee crisis' because displacement happens to refugees not because of them. Displacement is a sad but constant reality of a planet, and species, that erupt and shake and get too hot and too cold. It affects over 120 million people and that number is growing. Governments have two choices: develop an infrastructure to deal with it, or stick their heads in the sand - and get their asses kicked. The annual report, by UNHCR, makes one thing clear: governments are burying their heads in the sand. The first number I looked for when I opened the report was the number of people 'resettled'. This is the number of refugees who, rather than taking "illegal" and dangerous journeys to safe countries, are given lawful passage. How Negative Media Headlines About Small Boat Crossings Are Turning Brits Against All Migrants New research finds that disproportionate coverage of the relatively low numbers crossing the English channel is turning British people against all incomers Josiah Mortimer In 2024, 188,800 people were resettled, meaning if you're in need of asylum, your odds of getting it legally are 0.1%. Not every displaced person can be resettled, of course, and war-torn countries need repopulating. These are common rebuttals, but they go without saying because the vast majority of displaced people already stay in their home countries. In 2024, 26 million people were forcibly displaced and 10 million others returned home, meaning some 16 million people became in need of international community protection (about half the population of Tokyo); 80% of them stayed in their home countries, while 3 million sought asylum abroad (about a third of the population of London). This is not an overwhelming number. It is also unavoidable: some people must go abroad because they will die if they do not, and because if they don't go, others cannot stay and live. While foreign governments stick their heads in the sand, most refugees work their asses off to send money home, so that relatives squandering in displacement camps can survive. Evidently, we cannot leave this global problem up to our idiotic policymakers. Nor do we have to. 'Keir Starmer's Painful Immigration Speech Is a Direct Affront to the Diagnosis He Was Voted in On' The PM's white paper was not the 'evidence-led' policymaking he promised, rather it was 'cheap, short-termist, headline politics', writes Mathilda Mallinson Mathilda Mallinson This year's Refugee Week theme is 'Community as a Super...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features… SUBSCRIBE TODAY Even during the 2003 Iraq war, the people of the Middle East did not appear to feel as terrified and alarmed as they have been since Israel's aggression against Iran kicked off on 12 June. What is extraordinary is that this is barely reflected in the western media obsessed with the threat to Israel or western interests. Many American and European actors appear to have forgotten the horrors of war, and even the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. But the people of the Middle East who have endured so many forever wars, often promoted by western powers, have a very sharp understanding of the ugliness of conflict and how their consequences last decades. It is the people of the region who are on the frontline with the most to lose. Iranian and Israeli civilians are scared, with no idea how this ends? Civilian infrastructure is being smashed. The death count mounts daily. Americans Oppose Trump Joining Israel-Iran War and Do Not See the Iranian Nuclear Program as an Immediate Threat New polling suggests that voters do not want the President to further involve the US in the Middle East conflict Martin Burns But above all, Israel has not halted its atrocities against Palestinians in Gaza, where more die every day than in Israel and Iran. They are still being bombed and starved as Israel's genocide continues. Palestinians, not their Israeli settler neighbours, are under lockdown in the West Bank, with its economy on the brink of collapse. How long will that lockdown last? Israel, and in particular Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, appears out of control, unwilling even to listen to its allies. Israel has been bombing Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen with no consequence, and now Iran. US President Donald Trump has given him the green light. The Iranian regime has its own awful record, backing the Assad regime for decades, and undermining the security of Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, Palestine and elsewhere. Neither Israeli nor Iranian governments have demonstrated respect for civilian life or human rights of others. International law is simply not at the races. The fact that Netanyahu is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity is glossed over in the US and Europe, but in the Middle East everyone is aware of the double standard and the threat he poses. Residents in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are scared that this war could spread. If the US does get involved, then Iran might target its neighbours across the Gulf in retaliation, or try to block the straights of Hormuz where 20% of the world's oil passes. Iran has an extensive network of sleeper agents across the region who could be activated. The Nuclear Fear Another major fear is nuclear fallout from attacks on Iranian nuclear infrastructure on air and water. Iran has a nuclear reactor on the Gulf at Bushehr. What happens if Israel decides to destroy it? The Israeli leadership has not categorically ruled out striking Bushehr. Fallout could hit GCC states, including contaminating sea water vital for their desalination plants. The leadership in GCC states are acutely aware of this. Many of them are not historically friendly with Iran but have a working relationship. Some might like the Iranian regime to be weakened but not at the risk of wider conflagration, hence they condemned the Israeli strikes. Oman, which hosted the US-Iran talks, was the first to do so referring to Israel's "barbaric military attack" on Iran. Nearly every government outside of Israel wanted the US-Iran talks to reach successful conclusion, so blame Netanyahu for having bombed the negotiations out of existence. Inside the Collapse: How Putin's Russia Turned Its Opponents into Exiles There is a deliberate policy by the Kremlin to exile, neutralise, and effectively erase alternative political life within th...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features… SUBSCRIBE TODAY The triumph of Paris-Saint Germain in the recent final of the UEFA Champions League marked the end of a long wait for continental supremacy for the dominant French club of the last fifteen years. It was also a triumph for one of their sponsors, online sports betting operator and casino 1XBet, which also saw their other main football partner, FC Barcelona, crowned Spanish champion a few weeks earlier. But to others, starting with the regulatory bodies which seek to exert control over an online gambling industry whose growth has gone virtually unchecked in the last decade and a half, this triumph was hard to swallow. Corentin Segalen, the president of the Copenhagen Group set up by the Macolin Convention to combat sports manipulation and illegal sports betting, describes 1XBet as "the Wagner Group of sports betting" and told Byline Times how the company is "unafraid to operate illegally, fuel corruption and aggressively target the African market". The parallel with Vladimir Putin's mercenary army was not a throwaway line. What Segalen referred to as well, was the ambiguous relationship between the operator and the Russian regime which Byline Times can reveal in the first in-depth investigation into the 1XBet betting empire published in the United Kingdom, and explains why it was sanctioned and banned in Ukraine on President Zelenskyy's personal orders after his country's invasion in February 2022. The size of 1XBet's operation defies belief, but is in keeping with the size of the illegal gambling industry as a whole. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimated, in a December 2021 report, that it was worth 1.7 trillion USD - the combined GDP of all Scandinavian countries, or about three times the value of the world's narcotics trade. But is 1XBet 'illegal'? Yes, according to the definition of the Council of Europe's Macolin Convention (*), which defines an illegal operator as one who offers odds, and takes bets, in jurisdictions where it is not licensed. 1XBet does this in countries such as Morocco, where the Budget Minister and president of the Moroccan football federation Faouzi Lekjaa castigated their "illegal activities" and in France, until the authorities forced their unlicensed French site to shut down. It also did it in Somalia, where it is now outlawed. The list goes on, and on. Yet this has not stopped 1XBet from garnering more gambling industry awards and distinctions than any other operator over the past few years, from Africa to Europe and Latin America. As one African regulating officer, who prefers to remain anonymous, told Byline Times, "this is the biggest problem for us. They're everywhere, they're advertising everywhere, they win all these awards - so people think they're legal when they are not." Gambling industry experts Byline Times spoke to believe 1XBet may be the world's biggest visible illegal - under the Macolin Convention definition - sports betting operator in the world. What is known is that they are now among the three most visited gambling websites on the planet - and that is just through their main incarnation, 1XBet.com, not taking into account the tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands (**) of affiliated companies and mirror websites which they have set up to broaden their offer and avoid detection by regulators over the past decade. Inside the Collapse: How Putin's Russia Turned Its Opponents into Exiles There is a deliberate policy by the Kremlin to exile, neutralise, and effectively erase alternative political life within the country, reports Denis Mikhailov Denis Mikhailov As they do not file corporate accounts in jurisdictions where those accounts are publicly accessible, their exact turnover is unknown, but, according to industry sources approached by Byline Times, it is likely to be in excess of 10 billion USD. ...

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features… SUBSCRIBE TODAY Polling from the Economist/YouGov and the Washington Post shows that contrary to President Donald Trump's demand for Iranian unconditional surrender, most Americans oppose involvement in the conflict between Iran and Israel and do not see the Iranian nuclear program as an immediate threat to the United States. Even Republicans who normally fall in lockstep behind Trump break from him on the issue of war with Iran. The Economist/YouGov polling finds that 60% of respondents believe that the "US military should not get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran". Democrats (65%) and Independent voters (61%) are especially disapproving of US involvement in the Israel/Iran conflict. Most significantly for the Trump team, 53% of Republican voters don't not want to see the US get involved in the developing conflict. Given the current polarised state of American politics, the fact that Democrats, Republicans, and Independent voters all oppose American involvement in the conflict is incredibly significant. Americans aged 65-plus, who are most likely to turn out in next year's midterm election, are especially opposed to US involvement at 69%. In Washington Post polling, a 45% plurality say they "oppose the US military launching airstrikes against Iran over its nuclear program," while one in four (25%) say they support military strikes. Almost a third (30%) are unsure how the US should respond. Two-thirds (66%) of Democrats oppose military strikes on Iran as do 44% of Independents. A 47% plurality of GOP voters support military strikes. Raining on his Parade: Trump's Military Blunder A clear majority of Americans are opposed to the US President's army parade, and his handling of immigration and the economy Martin Burns The bottom line in the Washington Post data is that military action against Iran is not even supported by a majority of GOP voters. While Americans are opposed to US involvement in the Israel/Iran conflict, how do they feel about the Iranian nuclear program and is there a reservoir of fear and distrust that Trump could tap into to support American involvement in the conflict? The short answer is, no. Just under one in four (24%) of respondents in the Economist/YouGov polling see the Iranian nuclear program as an immediate and serious threat to the US. Republican voters are more likely (32% immediate and serious threat) to feel threatened by the Iranian nuclear program, though the number is far short of a majority. The data from the Washington Post poll confirms what the Economist/YouGov polling finds: a majority of Americans do not see Iran's nuclear program as "an immediate and serious threat". Just over one in five (22%) do; 48% view it as a "somewhat serious threat". JD Vance's 'British Sherpa' Chairs Organisation Funded by Billionaires Urging a Second US Civil War The man described as the Vice President's "philosopher king" is linked to a series of right-wing billionaires who have condemned democracy and called for a "limited dictatorship" in the US Olly Haynes Complementing reluctance to get involved militarily in the Israel/Iran conflict, in the Economist/YouGov polling, 56% support the US engaging in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Significantly, 63% of those who said they voted for Trump in 2024 support negotiation with Iran. When asked in the Economist/YouGov polling what options the US should pursue in dealing with the Iranian nuclear program, 28% say that the United States should threaten Iran with harsher economic sanctions, 26% say incentivise Iran with resumption of diplomatic relations, and 24% support incentivising Iran by the easing of economic sanctions. Less than one in five (18%) say that the US should threaten Iran with the use of military force. Incentivising Iran with a guarantee of no use of military force is the pr...