Byline Times Audio Articles

Shabana Mahmood Accused of Treating Asylum Seekers Like 'Lab Rats' as Home Office Moves Migrants Into Army Camps

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY The Home Office has been accused of treating asylum seekers like "lab rats" after moving to "warehouse" the first batch of migrants into a military barracks, despite opposition from campaigners and local politicians. Twenty-seven men have been moved into the Crowborough military barracks, as part of the Government's plans to move migrants from hotels to military sites. The site in East Sussex has a capacity of 500 bed spaces, allocated for single adult males, who will be housed there for up to three months while their claims are processed. If their asylum application is rejected, the department say they will be removed from the country. The plans have already triggered anti-migrant protests in the local area, prompting fears about an increase in far-right activity. Conservative MP for Sussex Weald Nusrat Ghani has warned of the "grave impact" of moving the men onto the site. In a letter to Immigration Minister Alex Norris on Wednesday, seen by Byline Times, Ghani stated that there was "clear evidence that the site is not an empty army barracks, but a functioning and much used and loved training camp". Crowborough is currently used as a training facility for the local Royal Air Force Cadets and for fire, police and other public service agencies. She added that the site was "unable to be signed off as safe, legal and compliant, and one of the reasons was the cost and displacement of services and the Cadets". Despite asking yesterday for a detailed assessment of how the Home Office intended to "square that circle", the first migrants were moved to Crowborough this morning. Wealden District Council leader James Partridge has also voiced opposition to the plans, saying it was the "wrong decision". Protests have taken place around the site on a weekly basis since last October when the plans were first announced. "Despite our strong objections, the minister [Alex Norris] has not listened to us," Partridge said. The latest move marks the start of the Government's plans to 'warehouse' asylum seekers in former military camps in an attempt to close hotels by the end of this parliament. More than 200 hotels remain in use, at a cost of more than £5.7 million per day. The Home Office has consistently said that hotels are a "pull factor" for small boat crossings. Campaigners have described the use of former military sites to accommodate asylum seekers as a "sleeper issue", with the potential for protests starting at a local level to become more widespread. "It's like they're using asylum seekers as lab rats," said Lou Calvey, Director of Asylum Matters. "The Government should be building policy in the interests of people in local communities – a fiscally-responsible policy – but they're not even doing that. When are they going to wake up? We know these sites are incredibly damaging and this will only mean more community tensions and problems." EXCLUSIVE 'They've Ruined Christmas': Nigerian Student Blocked By Home Office From Visiting UK Family for Holidays British academic and his Nigerian wife repeatedly stopped from hosting family members, including at their own wedding, due to visa restrictions brought in by Keir Starmer's Government Nicola Kelly A report from the National Audit Office last year found that military barracks were projected to cost £46 million more than hotels over the next decade. A leaked forecast from the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) warned that the expected cost to house asylum seekers has tripled from £4.5 billion to £15.3 billion for contracts from 2019-2029. In a statement released this morning, the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said that opening Crowborough camp was "just the start". "I will bring forward site after site until every asylum hotel is closed and returned to local communities," Mahmood said. In October, the Government announced it would also open Cameron barracks ...

'Trump Has Already Rigged the 2028 Presidential Election': US Defence Insider

Brynn Tannehill has worked for years for one of the largest US Government defence contractors in the country. Writing pseudonymously for Byline Times, in November 2024 she predicted the astonishingly rapid militarisation of the homeland that Donald Trump would pursue; and in February 2025 she accurately forecast some of the most shocking turns of the Trump administration – including how serious it is about annexing places like Venezuela and Greenland. Now she casts her eye on what pivotal presidential elections will hold in 2028 – and warns that Democrats are dangerously unprepared for what's coming. The outcome of the election has already been determined: Democrats just don't realise it yet. Donald Trump's first year in office has largely been an exercise in consolidating all power in the executive branch, and then wielding this power to punish his enemies, whether they are recalcitrant blue state governors, people who have angered him (like James Comey and Letitia James), and unpopular minorities (immigrants and transgender people), or the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The Legal Coup So far, the Project 2025 Heritage Foundation and Claremont Institute plan to codify the 'Unitary Executive theory' into law has been successful. Until recently, the Unitary Executive Theory was a fringe constitutional doctrine asserting the President holds sole authority over the entire executive branch, derived from Article II's vesting of "the executive Power" in one person, meaning Congress can't limit presidential control over executive officials or agencies. The US Supreme Court has now mostly embraced this idea, and has consistently removed Congressional oversight powers, or even the power to dictate where and how funds are spent. The other two branches have yielded power willingly; the Republican controlled Congress has handed over the power of the purse to the executive branch, and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has nearly universally accepted Department of Justice (DOJ) arguments that the executive branch cannot be countermanded via injunctions. SCOTUS also granted near-blanket immunity to the President to commit crimes while in office, so long as they are a part of "official acts." The Republican Party is increasingly behaving like a party that believes it will never face a competitive election again, which I believe is exactly what is happening. The administration increasingly doubles down on unpopular policies and positions, including defending young Republican leaders who got caught admiring Hitler and looking forward to gassing and burning the bodies of their political opponents. Trump is deep underwater in opinion polls across most of his signature issues, including tariffs, the economy, and immigration. Yet Republican leadership seems to assume they have the capability to decide Presidential elections in perpetuity, regardless of how people vote. Trump's Greenland Delusion Runs Aground in Davos For all his attempted bullying, taunts and threats, Trump's delusional Davos speech revealed a man who is far weaker than he appears, argues Alexandra Hall Hall Alexandra Hall Hall This doesn't apply to the 2026 mid-terms, but they do not matter anyway: SCOTUS has largely allowed the executive branch to bypass Congress, nor will the executive branch cooperate with a democratic Congress, and all the mechanisms to enforce actions by Congress are controlled by the executive branch anyway, such as the Department of Justice. At this point, the only election that matters is for President, and the results are already being determined by the incumbent party. When you run a step-by-step analysis of what it takes to decide who is President, it rapidly becomes obvious that a great many things must happen for the process to evade subversion. Republicans have set things up such that it is nearly impossible for everything to go the way it was intended, and instead the process of selecting a President is almost guaranteed to be suc...

Trump's Greenland Delusion Runs Aground in Davos

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY Trump is a narcissistic, psychopathic bully. But a weak one. I started listening to Trump's speech at Davos with anger and outrage. But as he went on and on, I slowly felt a growing sense of relief. I realised that all his bullying, taunts and threats reflected weakness. He sounded like a needy, spoilt child frustrated that he could not get his own way. His deranged tendencies were on full display with repeated hints at all the damage he could cause to those who did not bend to his will – like a mafia boss threatening to cut off a former partner's fingers if he did not cooperate. "I really like you, actually. I don't want to hurt you. It's a shame. I tried my best to be nice. But, I gotta do what I gotta do." His neediness was on full display with his repeated mentions of how much everyone loves him, and appreciates his achievements. Only someone unsure of his popularity needs to keep claiming he has lots of friends. His childishness was on full display with his petty taunts and jibes at other global figures – such as French President Emmanuel Macron, Canadian Premier Mark Carney, California Gavin Newsom, and Fed Chair Jerome Powell, even as he simultaneously claimed that they were "great guys, actually" and that he liked them. Mark Carney's Speech Showed America and Britain the Sort of Global Leadership They Have Now Abandoned The Canadian Prime Minister's powerful response to the growing threat from Donald Trump has put other world leaders to shame, argues Simon Nixon Simon Nixon His vanity was on full display with his repeated boasts about how brilliant he was, and how great America had become under his leadership. His insecurity was on full display with his continued need to lash out at defeated foes, such as Joe Biden. A truly self-confident person would not need to repeatedly big up his own alleged achievements in office, rather than letting them speak for themselves. His self-delusion was on full display with his claims that he really cares about Europe and NATO, respects the people of Greenland and Denmark, and is only trying to do what's best for them. A genuine friend does not bully and threaten allies. His dishonesty was on full display with his claim that he is only motivated to end the war in Ukraine because he is concerned about how many young men and women are dying there, when what he has actually been doing since returning to office is trying to extort Ukraine's natural wealth and force it into an unjust peace deal. His bullying tendency was on full display with his repeated reminders of the strength of the US military and economy. Trump is not a man to "speak softly and carry a big stick" – but a schoolyard bully who inadvertently reveals weakness by over-emphasising his physical attributes. "Yah, boo, I'm bigger than you. I could beat you up if I wanted to." His greed, and cavalier disregard for the fate of the planet, was on full display with his attacks on Europe for pursuing its "scam" green agenda, exhortations on the UK to do more more to extract oil from the North Sea, and boasts about how much oil the US was going to pick up from Venezuela. His whiny tendency was on full display with his complaints about how NATO has treated the US "unfairly" and that he personally never gets enough credit for his achievements – such as allegedly ending eight wars – an obvious reflection of his continued frustration at not being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. His ignorance, or is it deteriorating mental health, was on full display with his repeated reference to Iceland, when he meant Greenland, and his false claims that the US "gave back" Greenland to Denmark. A Year of Living Dangerously in Trump's America I no longer feel safe to speak or act freely in a country where people are being arbitrarily detained and killed and where the truth is becoming whatever Donald Trump says it is, repor...

Mark Carney's Speech Showed America and Britain the Sort of Global Leadership They Have Now Abandoned

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY Mark Carney's speech in Davos on the end of the world order is rightly being hailed as one of the most powerful interventions by any political leader in the year since Donald Trump returned to the White House. My social media feed and WhatsApp groups have been filled with veterans of past Davos gatherings telling me it was the most important speech they had ever heard delivered in the Swiss mountain town – or indeed expect to hear this year. The Canadian Prime Minister's argument tempered brutal realism— "we are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition" —with optimism. He set out a way that middle powers such as Canada, Britain and other advanced economies can maintain some sovereignty and control over their own destinies in a new era of superpower rivalries. His speech was an eloquent call for middling powers to work together to face down the great powers whose trashing of global rules and weaponisation of dependencies had turned integration into a source of subordination. Carney was better placed than anyone in the world to have delivered such a speech. As one of the high priests of the global financial system over the last two decades – having previously served as Governor of the Bank of Canada and then the Bank of England – he will have no illusions about the costs of the collapse of the old rules-based order. What's more, as Prime Minister of a country whose own territory it is the stated policy of the US president to annex- and which would be encircled by America if Trump succeeds in his ambition of seizing Greenland – he surely feels both the gravity and urgency of the moment keenly. It's Time for an Apology From the Trump Apologists The politicians and commentators who mocked those warning about the threat posed by the US President as being "hysterical" need to face up to their own role in the calamity now unfolding, argues Adam Bienkov Adam Bienkov But above all, Carney understands what is at stake with greater clarity than other world leaders because he has been thinking about these issues for longer. As Governor of the Bank of England, he watched as Britain committed what he privately considered to be a monumental act of stupidity with Brexit. He appeared to allude to the lessons he took from that experience in his speech, noting that "the cost of strategic autonomy and sovereignty can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortress. Shared standards reduce fragmentation. Complementarities are positive sums." What is depressing is that it is almost impossible to imagine Keir Starmer or any other British political leader delivering such a speech, even assuming they understood the arguments. Starmer himself, no doubt, is keenly aware of the dangers of this moment and the risk to Britain's national interest posed by a rogue United States. But he is incapable of articulating them, paralysed by his own timidity and buoyed by overconfidence in his capabilities as a "Trump whisperer" who can convince the capricious US President to change course. Besides, in his decade at the front rank of UK politics, Starmer has never delivered a single notable speech. Indeed, the only memorable phrase ever to pass his lips—a claim that Britain was becoming an "island of strangers"—had such obvious racist connotations that he was later obliged to disown it. As for the rest of the British political class, one detects little sign that either of the two parties currently leading in the polls – Reform and the Conservatives – have any understanding of the consequences of this moment of rupture for Britain, of the costs that Carney rightly warns countries will have to incur to boost their resilience, and of the trade-offs that will be required as the price of preserving some autonomy. This is partly a reflection of what has happened to British politics i...

Home Office Accused of Failing to Protect Vulnerable LGBT+ People in Immigration Detention

Read our Monthly Magazine And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system SUBSCRIBE TODAY The Home Office has been accused of failing to protect vulnerable LGBT+ people in immigration detention, in contravention of their own guidelines. Rainbow Migration, a charity which supports lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the asylum and immigration system, found that not one of the seven immigration removal centres across the UK had strategies in place for staff to monitor or challenge homophobic behaviour. The charity also found that the Government had not conducted any analyses of the prevalence of incidents across the detention estate. Four IRCs had failed to make any explicit reference to sexual orientation or gender identity in its anti-bullying information. Home Office guidelines state that information about bullying and harassment must be displayed in a variety of languages where staff, detainees and visitors can see it. Each IRC must also include specified content on homophobia. EXCLUSIVE How Neo-Nazis Posing as 'Ordinary Parents' Embedded Themselves in Anti-Immigrant Protests A year long investigation by Katherine Denkinson exposes the Neo-Nazi and far-right extremists operating openly inside anti-immigration protests Katherine Denkinson Around 70 countries worldwide criminalise same-sex relations, some with the death penalty, meaning that significant numbers odf asylum applications come from persecuted LGBT+ people. "We know that immigration detention is unsafe and harmful for LGBT+ people," said Ayesha Aziz, Rainbow Migration's Legal Service Manager. "These are people who have fled family members or governments because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. They may have already been detained in their home country because of who they are. Now they are in Britain to seek protection and the Home Office knows about their backgrounds because they have claimed asylum on that basis, but they are not doing anything to protect them." Aziz points to the example of a South American man she visited at Harmondsworth detention centre near Heathrow, who was too fearful of being 'outed' to leave his cell. Another man was isolated from the group by staff and told he needed to be checked for sexually-transmitted diseases. A third person reported being harassed for the way they dressed, experiencing suicidal thoughts and poor physical health due to stress and anxiety. "We are seeing a significant uptick in the number of queries from LGBT+ people at IRCs due to the failures of the Home Office," said Aziz. "In an ideal world, we would say no to all LGBT people in detention. There are alternatives which are cost-effective, safe and secure." ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account. PAY ANNUALLY – £44.75 A YEAR PAY MONTHLY – £4.50 A MONTH MORE OPTIONS We're not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe. Rainbow Migration is calling for protections offered to trans and intersex people, who have been classed as 'at risk of harm' under the 'Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention' policy since 2016 and therefore should not usually be detained, extended to lesbian, gay and bisexual people. And for guidelines to be put in place for staff to ensure that vulnerable minority individuals are protected from homophobic abuse and attacks. In June 2024, the charity, alongside Micro Rainbow, urged the Government to introduce a pilot scheme, which would allow vulnerable people in detention to be released and offered a place in Micro Rainbow's safe house, with support from legal aid lawyers. The UNHCR warns in its guidelines that special measures may be required to avoid exposing LGBTQI+ people to 'risk of violence, ill-treatmen...