As the government published its Industrial Strategy on Monday, June 21, Prime Minister Keir Starmer, in outlining the plans, reiterated that the British state has, in his words, been "overbearing and feeble" and "too exposed to global volatility". The Industrial Strategy is allegedly Labour's Ten-Year Plan to "increase business investment and grow the industries of the future in the UK".

It seems that by "overbearing", Starmer means that there has been too much regulation and red-tape, which need to be eliminated in the name of "growth" and promoting efficiency and expertise. The Industrial Strategy speaks of tackling "high industrial electricity costs" and reducing "regulatory burdens". It also says ministers will "remove planning barriers" and "ensure our tax system supports growth". As part of the plans, energy costs for businesses would be cut by scrapping green levies to help them compete with foreign rivals. All this is hardly something new judging from previous experience of governments demanding a "bonfire of red tape". In short, the reforms represented by the Strategy are directed to enabling both the state and private interests to operate unfettered by regulatory constraint.

What working people will also notice is that while winter fuel payments for the vulnerable have been cut back, while disabled people are still under attack from the government, while caps on energy payments by working people go up and down depending on the market, the reducing of "regulatory burdens", "planning barriers" and energy costs for "growth" industries is the government's priority. Protection of the environment and involvement of citizens in decision-making are not to get in the way of "build, build, build" [1]. Government ministers writing in the foreword of the publication are nevertheless saying that the Strategy represents a "new approach" in a decade-long plan to make Britain an attractive place for foreign investment, whatever the "global volatility".

What does Starmer mean by saying the British state has been "feeble"? This means that the working class and people should expect increased rule on the basis of the police powers of the executive, of police rule, with even the possibility of this being extended to military powers. It is already being seen in the suppression of the right to protest, of citizens' right to speak out and the right of assembly, as is happening with the ongoing threats against and criminalisation of those who take action or even speak out against US-Israeli genocide and the complicity of the British government. An example of direct control by the executive is also seen in the abolition of NHS England, and putting control of the health service in England in the hands of Westminster [2]. Another example of legitimising and enforcing executive rule can be seen in the "race to save British Steel" [3].

The reference to the state in Starmer's remarks carries forward what he said in March, when delivering a keynote speech in which he outlined the government's programme for "fundamental reform of the British state". The central theme of Labour's "Plan for Change" is that it will enable "active government" so as to achieve its goals of "national security" and "national renewal". The foreword to the Industrial Strategy states: "Through our Plan for Change, the Government is determined to seize the opportunities this new world offers to deliver security, renewal, and higher living standards across the country. Business-as-usual will not work. We need a new relationship between business and government, where government provides the strategic certainty that allows businesses to do what they do best: create wealth. This requires a more muscular approach to government..." The "Plan for Change" must also be seen in the context of the Strategic Defence Review and Starmer's attempt to put Britain on "war-fighting readiness" [4].

It is evident that Starmer has trouble in keeping the organised workers' movement in step and on-side. The resistance of the workers, with the spirit of Enough Is Enough, develops the consciousness of the working class, and increasing their discontent also strengthens their outlook that the workers have the solutions to the crisis; and not only that, but that the society itself should be transformed, with the direction that it should reflect the objective character of the working class, that the state itself should have the character of social production for the well-being of all, not the control of the state for the narrow private interests of the oligarchs.

For the 25 years of this century, since the heyday of Tony Blair, with his "Third Way", supposedly neither "left" nor "right", but geared to building Britain as "Britain plc" which supposedly unites everyone behind neo-liberalism, adopting "deliverology" as a method of accountability, and also strengthens the alliance with the US and NATO, and goes to war, commits aggression far and wide - since then the crisis of monopoly capitalism has intensified, and all the cartel parties can see is paying obeisance to the demands and power of the oligarchs and war chariots of the rich.

So the talk of the Strategy of "creating an enduring partnership with business", to which a whole section of the document is devoted, is the government's decision-making on behalf of the oligopolies. This is the "muscular approach to government" which enshrines the cartel parties as an integral part of the state, in which people are sidelined, excluded, denied a role. What counts is pay-the-rich schemes, which is what this "enduring partnership with business" means.

Working people count for so little in Starmer's world view that they have no role in creating wealth. "Wealth" is all down to businesses which is allegedly what they do best. Workers are simple objects, disposable, the adjunct of businesses, if that, in this 10-year Plan. Trade unions are simply "stakeholders", with the document declaring that the government will "Work closely with trade unions and organisations representing the unique perspectives of civil society." It would be ludicrous if it were not so shameful.

The document identifies what it calls "eight high growth sectors", which it dubs the IS-8 [5]. The foreword says: "These sectors have been identified as those best placed to create the wealth, jobs, and higher wages our country needs in every community. Their success is absolutely essential for delivering our Plan for Change. This document sets out the support we will provide." As the laws of history unfold, we shall see what kind of success is achieved through Starmer's grand 10-year plan, and how long it lasts. It promises to be deliverology par excellence. The Executive Summary opens with a statement that demonstrates the fantasy world that Starmer and his ministers live in: "The United Kingdom is a thriving global economy founded on stability, fairness, and the rule of law, and propelled by world-leading sectors and companies." In reality, this is certainly not a vision for the well-being of the body politic, as workers whose watchword has been "Enough Is Enough" can testify.

Despite the government's framing of its planned changes as democratic reforms intended to return power to the people, the "Plan for Change" actually serves to increase executive power and reduce regulatory oversight. Public authority at every level is increasingly the exercise of arbitrary power. The ruling elite are constantly seeking new arrangements, while the state devours itself as political factions and various parts of the existing arrangements contend for control.

The alternative is one in which the working people themselves constitute the authority and decide matters directly. This means that those who currently deprive the people of power will themselves be deprived of power. The desperation to prevent this alternative from taking root is creating political chaos, for which the answer is being sought in the police powers and the rearrangement of the state around the wielding of those powers.

What everyone is striving for is that their claims on society must be met, and this requires a change in the direction of the economy and of society. It is a unifying force, because it harmonises everyone's interests within the general interests of society.

Notes
1. A slogan which was also used by Boris Johnson in 2020.
2. See "Putting the NHS under the Control of the Executive",
https://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wwie-25/ww25-06/ww25-06-01.htm
3. See "The Government's Last Minute Desperate "Race to Save British Steel",
https://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wwie-25/ww25-09/ww25-09-01.htm
4. See Strategic Defence Review: Starmer's Attempt to Put Britain on "War-Fighting Readiness"
https://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wwie-25/ww25-13/ww25-13-01.htm
5. The IS-8 are spelt out as: "Advanced Manufacturing, Clean Energy Industries, Creative Industries, Defence, Digital and Technologies, Financial Services, Life Sciences, and Professional and Business Services." These sectors are further subdivided. "Defence", for example, is said to include: "Drones and Autonomous Systems, Combat Air, Directed energy weapons, Complex weapons, Maritime capabilities". Referring to this sector, the document states: "The Strategic Defence Review vision is for, by 2035, the UK to be a 'leading tech-enabled defence power, with an Integrated Force that deters, fights, and wins through constant innovation at wartime pace'."
For the full document, see The UK's modern Industrial Strategy:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68595e56db8e139f95652dc6/industrial_strategy_policy_paper.pdf

"Not a Cent for NATO! Not a Cent for War!"

Mass demonstrations took place in The Hague to protest against the NATO Summit that was held there on June 24 and 25 [1]. A group of organisations and activists, united under the banner of the Counter-Summit Coalition for Peace and Justice, organised a demonstration and counter-summit on June 21 and 22 at The Hague comprising people from across Holland and Europe. These demonstrations continued throughout the NATO leaders' summit in spite of the largest police presence in recent times. In a statement spokesperson Olaf Kemerink explained: "While many people are afraid of further military escalation, NATO is coming to The Hague to prepare for more war. Rutte and Trump won't bring peace - they're organising a war summit to decide that even more money should go to the arms industry." [2]

Demonstration in The Hague, June 22, 2025 against the NATO Summit

The Counter-Summit Coalition believes it is time for a different voice. Spokesperson Guido van Leemput added: "If you read the newspapers, you'd think NATO is keeping us safe. But with the arms race they are fuelling and the war rhetoric they promote, the world is only becoming more dangerous. Those who stockpile weapons will eventually want to use them." He added that now NATO member states are increasingly divided and the alliance appears to be in its biggest crisis since its founding, the need for an alternative grows. "In The Hague, they want to 'save' NATO with more defence spending, but we want solutions rooted in sustainable peace and justice," he said.

The peoples of the NATO countries are protesting against increased military spending, the war preparations and cutbacks to social programmes, very well aware that government decisions taken on the basis of the use of executive powers greatly endanger the cause of world peace and permit the US and its NATO partners to commit genocide and carry on wars for regime change to force all countries to submit to the demands of the narrow private interests they serve.

With this opposition and the internal divisions, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had previously announced that the focus of the Summit would only be on "a major new defence investment plan, raising the benchmark for defence investment to five per cent of GDP".

In the end, the NATO leaders' summit was a flop before it even got underway. It was reduced to a dinner hosted by the Dutch king on the evening of June 24 and a meeting for 2.5 hours on the morning of June 25. The final summit communiqué [3] released on Wednesday was short - five paragraphs long, compared to the 5,000-word Washington Summit Declaration from 2024.

Trump had set a target for all NATO members to increase their military spending to five per cent of GDP during his 2024 presidential campaign, saying that the US was not going to be the main funder of NATO. Rutte has been pushing hard for this target. "NATO has no opt-out, and NATO does no side deals," he told reporters in The Hague on June 24. "It is critical that each ally carries their fair share of the burden."

In previous comments, Rutte had promised a "more lethal alliance". However, reports indicate that there was no consensus on any of the matters of major concern facing the world at this time. With Donald Trump calling the shots and indicating a perfunctory attendance at the Summit, its proceedings were limited to the demand for increased spending on NATO to five per cent of GDP, on which there is no consensus either. This can at best be treated as "aspirational", accompanied by a lot of warmongering rhetoric about the "benefits" for the peoples of the NATO countries of spending on war production and war preparations.

According to Rutte, each country raising its defence spending to five per cent of GDP is a "concerted effort to ramp up defence industry across the Alliance, bringing not only greater security but also more jobs. And a continued focus on support for Ukraine, alongside the pursuit of a just and lasting end to Russia's war of aggression."

The fact remains that NATO members are not like-minded on any of the major issues facing the aggressive alliance at this time, including the issue of raising military spending.

According to the Reuters news agency, the draft deadline for achieving the five per cent of GDP mark was in fact pushed back from 2032 to 2035, and the wording of the draft and final communiqué was changed from "we commit" to "allies commit". This was prompted after Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez publicly declined to endorse the proposal to raise funding to five per cent.

Spain is among the NATO members not currently meeting the two per cent threshold. On June 22, Sanchez announced that Spain would not adhere to NATO's new objectives and instead would raise military spending to 2.1 per cent of GDP - "nothing more, nothing less". Trump criticised Spain as "notorious" for failing to meet NATO's spending targets. At the same time he argued that the US, unlike other NATO members, is exempt from the five per cent mark due to its historically high defence expenditures, Politico.eu reported.

Attempts to present a united front at the NATO Summit failed in the face of disunity around the US role in the aggressive alliance and displeasure at the unpredictable actions of US President Donald Trump. So long as all of them recognise the US as the "indispensable nation" which calls the shots, unity will escape them. Under NATO rules, it is a US aggressive military alliance which rules over their foreign policy and defence procurement and deployments. They are caught in this arrangement which they themselves perpetuate despite the fact that NATO no longer commands the attention of even those it calls partners and allies in the Pacific region.

On June 22, the President of the Republic of Korea Lee Jae Myung announced that he would not attend the NATO summit as originally planned, "[...] considering various pending national issues and uncertainty in the Middle East, the president has decided not to attend the summit," his office announced.

Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba followed suit and also withdrew his participation on June 23. Japan's Fuji Television said Ishiba pulled out because a planned meeting between NATO and the group of four Indo-Pacific nations (IP4: Japan, south Korea, New Zealand and Australia) was not likely to take place, and because a meeting with Trump was also unlikely.

On June 22, Ukrainian President Zelensky once again called on the NATO countries to pledge 0.25 per cent of their GDP to supporting Ukraine's arms industry, but his participation in the Summit had been limited to the inaugural dinner hosted by the King of the Netherlands and a forum with arms producers.

All of this confirms the crisis-ridden nature of NATO. It has no solutions for the problems the peoples face. It is the instigator of the use of force to sort out conflicts, all in the name of high ideals, democracy, peace, human rights and open markets. The peoples of the NATO countries and the world will continue to resist US/NATO confrontation, aggression and war to force other countries to submit to hegemonic imperialist aims which will increase under their aegis. The aspirations of the peoples of the world for peace, justice, independence and sovereignty require a world without NATO.

Notes
1. The 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague, Netherlands brought together leaders from the 32 member countries, the European Union, as well as NATO partner countries Australia and New Zealand.
The 32 NATO member countries are: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.
NATO has expanded eastward towards Russia since the end of the bipolar division of the world in 1990, adding 16 members in that time, including 14 countries that were previously part of the Warsaw Pact.
2. Counter-Summit Coalition Organises Demonstration and Counter-Summit Against NATO: "No NATO War Summit!"
https://thehaguepeace.org/tegentopcoalitie/en/2025/05/01/counter-summit-coalition-organizes-demonstration-and-counter-summit-against-nato-no-nato-war-summit/
3. The Hague Summit Declaration 25/06/2025
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_236705.htm

Demonstration in The Hague, June 22, 2025 against the NATO Summit

Whilst some media commentators were claiming that Britain's Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, "was sidelined at the NATO summit", they ignored that Starmer spent the days leading up to the summit and at the summit itself, speaking with almost hysterical propaganda about a "wartime scenario" on "British soil", when no threat to invade Britain exists now, or is likely in the future. This was partly to try and divert attention from his unpopularity at home with the huge opposition to his government's welfare cuts to the disabled. However, it was also to try justify the unjustifiable huge military spending and war preparations, whilst trying to block any attempts of other countries and peoples of the world to use diplomacy and develop peaceful solutions to resolve conflicts in the world.

Instead Starmer and his government have become the main champions of war preparations demanded by the oligarchy and ruling elite in Britain. They are the war criminals also linked to the Zionist Israeli state and British war industries soaked in the blood of genocide in Gaza and the war in Ukraine and US/Israel's attack on Iran. These warmongers are vying for leadership of the aggressive NATO alliance and the huge profits it promises and power they hope it will project. Starmer and the war criminals he represents will never bring about peace and security for the British people and people of the world.

Starmer spoke before and at the summit. He and his defence cabinet issued another National Security Strategy 2025 labelled "Security for the British People in a Dangerous World (NSS 2025)" [1] on Tuesday following on from the release of the Strategic Defence Review [2] only weeks ago on June 7. Starmer issued the warning that Britain must actively prepare for a "wartime scenario" on British soil "for the first time in many years". He declared that "I have made the commitment to spend 5 per cent of GDP on national security" and he tried to deny that it is "a misdescription to suggest that the defence spending commitment we've made is at the expense of money on welfare". He made the hollow claim that this "is coming from cuts to foreign aid" rather than from his proposed cuts to the welfare bill which cuts - before his U-turn in Personal Independence Payments - were expected to total around £5 billion a year.

However, hypocritically at the summit, Starmer reasserted Britain's commitment to "foreign military aid" with announcements to continue support for Ukraine and NATO's involvement and military support in Ukraine for NATO's never-ending proxy war against Russia. In reality, this is a commitment to make huge profits from weapons, and support the testing of those weapons against Russia using Ukraine as their proxy cannon fodder. Over the course of the war, Britain has given Ukraine at least £12.8bn packages of support, including £7.8bn of military assistance, with Starmer's commitment in signing a "hundred year agreement" with Ukraine that commits Britain to pay Ukraine "£3bn in military aid a year until as long as it takes".

The latest scheme Starmer announced this week was to "support Ukraine", and that Britain will boost Ukraine's "air defence" with 350 missiles using funds from "seized Russian assets". Of course, for Starmer, seizing Russian-owned assets is not seen as a step-up and a dangerous escalation compared with British imperialist's regular robber-state logic that goes back centuries, namely, to seize the assets of many "weaker" countries. In recent times Britain seized $2 billion of the gold of Venezuela and has refused and continues to refuse to return it from the Bank of England [3].

At the summit Starmer tried to present himself and Britain in a "leading" posturing light for the "unity" role in NATO, declaring that "the moment to unite, for Europe to make a fundamental shift in its posture" and the commitment by NATO members each to spend 5% of gross domestic product on defence and security measures by 2045 will make the alliance "stronger, fairer and more lethal than ever".

Starmer said that under the "Nato new definitions we estimate that we will reach at least 4.1% of GDP in 2027 keeping the British people safe and strengthening our leadership in Nato even further". Starmer had previously declared in the Strategic Defence Review only two weeks ago the intention of "increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, with an ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament". Of course, all this goes on without any reference to Parliament, let alone the British people, but instead using the police powers of the state to declare anything about questions of war and peace that the government wants.

Starmer in trying to paper over the increasing divisions in the NATO alliance is also increasing the divisions. Starmer "insisted" that US President Donald Trump "was a reliable ally". But Starmer is caught in this "special arrangement" with the US which he perpetuates himself, despite the fact that the US and NATO no longer command the attention of even those it calls partners and allies in Europe and the world. Britain's warmongering elite and its allies are increasingly isolated among nations as the perpetuator of wars and genocide. Their grip on the world and perpetuation of NATO must end for the peoples of the world to enjoy real peace and security.

Notes
1. National Security Strategy 2025: Security for the British People in a Dangerous World (NSS 2025)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-security-strategy-2025-security-for-the-british-people-in-a-dangerous-world/national-security-strategy-2025-security-for-the-british-people-in-a-dangerous-world-html
2. Strategic Defence Review: Starmer's Attempt to Put Britain on "War-Fighting Readiness" Cannot Be Accepted, Workers' Weekly, June 7 2025
https://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wwie-25/ww25-13/ww25-13-01.htm
3. Roughly 31 tons of Venezuela's gold, worth around $2 billion, remain frozen in the Bank's vaults. The dispute began when the British government recognised opposition leader Juan Guaidó as Venezuela's legitimate president in 2019, rather than Nicolás Maduro. This recognition led the Bank of England to deny the Maduro administration's access to the gold, despite repeated requests. Even though Guaidó has since been ousted by Venezuela's opposition parties, the gold remains illegally held by Britain.

The May 2024 Oxford students sit-in at Wellington Square

Oxford University has officially dropped disciplinary proceedings against the thirteen students involved in the May 2024 sit-in at Wellington Square, following widespread criticism. The University's decision, announced on June 12, followed over a year of pressure from students, staff, alumni, and political figures, effectively ending all disciplinary action related to the protest.

The events began in May last year, when seventeen student activists affiliated with Oxford Action for Palestine (OA4P) occupied the University Offices at Wellington Square. Police were called to the scene and arrested most of the students involved on suspicion of aggravated trespass, affray, and common assault. While Thames Valley Police later chose not to pursue criminal charges in August 2024, the University nevertheless moved forward with internal disciplinary measures through the Proctors' Office. These measures threatened significant penalties, including indefinite suspension, formal warnings, and financial fines. The protestors were summoned to a Student Disciplinary Panel to decide whether to uphold the Proctors' recommendations for disciplinary measures.

The Wellington Square occupation was itself part of months of sustained protest activity at Oxford. Between May and July 2024, OA4P had staged an encampment at the Museum of Natural History and Radcliffe Camera, attracting attention from students, staff, and national media. The May sit-in coincided with end-of-year exams, some of which were cancelled due to disruption at the Exam Schools. Further occupations have been held this year [1].

The University initially justified its actions by citing alleged "violent action" during the Wellington occupation, suggesting the protest involved forced entry, harassment, and potential safety risks. However, protestors consistently rejected these accusations, and no evidence emerged to corroborate the claims. CCTV footage did not confirm any force used on staff. Meanwhile, OA4P and supporting witnesses maintained that the protest was peaceful and non-violent.

The sit-in became a flashpoint for wider debates around campus protest, disciplinary transparency, and institutional accountability. It also prompted condemnation from public figures such as Diane Abbott MP, who on June 3 called the University's actions "neither fair nor reasonable" [2].

Over a thousand students, staff, alumni and local concerned people signed an open letter delivered to the University on June 10, demanding it drop disciplinary proceedings against the 13 students arrested during the sit-in. The letter, also signed by 41 anti-war, environmental, and Palestine solidarity groups, branded the disciplinary process "opaque" and pointed the use of "racist language", citing an employee linking the keffiyeh, a Palestinian clothing item, to terrorism.

As well as demanding "that the University drop the proceedings of its unjust imitation court," the open letter also called on the University to "commit to fulfilling OA4P's urgent demands for disclosure, divestment, and reinvestment. In making these demands, we stand unequivocally for the right to protest, freedom of conscience, and above all-for a free Palestine." [3]

Another letter, signed by 11 concerned Jewish faculty members, demolished the oft-repeated charge of "antisemitism". The University's allegation "that the Oxford Action for Palestine (OA4P) encampment had created a 'deeply intimidating environment' for 'our Jewish students and staff' continues to surface".

"...there is no credible evidence that the encampment, in which Jewish students were also actively involved, led to a rise in antisemitism or that it was experienced in a uniform way by Oxford's highly diverse Jewish community," said the Jewish faculty. "We therefore call on the University to put the record straight, lest supposed threats to Jewish safety be used, as they have been elsewhere, to demonize the movement for Palestinian rights and to criminalize lawful protest and expression."

The letter instead countered that "the University seems to have pre-judged the case and adopted a needlessly hostile, punitive, and adversarial stance toward its own students."

The concerned faculty members instead supported the call "to sever the University's financial and institutional entanglements with Israel". [4]

The decision to end proceedings marked a rare reversal in response to well-mobilised opposition. In response, in October 2024, the University revised its protest rules by introducing a new Code of Practice, which OA4P claimed was designed to suppress activism under the guise of regulation. The policy reaffirmed that while legal protest is permitted, occupations and failure to comply with Proctors are prohibited.

Elsewhere in 2024, courts in Nottingham and Birmingham issued injunctions allowing universities to evict Gaza solidarity encampments, ruling that such protests were not protected under free speech law. Across Britain, over forty institutions reportedly coordinated with police or private security, and 28 universities launched disciplinary actions against students.

In a social media post, OA4P said: "The University dropped its disciplinary case against 13 students - not out of goodwill, but because it broke its own rules. After over a year of repression, false accusations, and blatant anti-Palestinian racism, the hearing collapsed in two days. While this marks a win, it exposes the University's bad faith and incompetence. We are proud of the students who endured this process, and our coalition which continues to demand an end to Oxford's complicity in genocide. The fight doesn't end here. We demand full disclosure, divestment, and reinvestment. We demand justice. We demand a free Palestine." [5]

The context is for political renewal against the police powers of the state and its institutions and for modern democratic arrangements that empower the people, including the youth and students who, as the future of society, are in the forefront of demanding an anti-war government. The Westminster cartel parties should take note. Workers' Weekly congratulates the Oxford students on their success.

(Sources: OA4P, student press, news agencies)

Notes
1. "Oxford University Authorities Agree to Meet Encampment Students", Workers' Weekly, June 8, 2024
https://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wwie-24/ww24-13/ww24-13-04.htm
“Oxford University Students Occupy Radcliffe Camera”, Workers’ Weekly, February 1, 2025
https://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wwie-25/ww25-02/ww25-02-02.htm
2. Ethan Gudge, "Abbott voices support for student Gaza protestors", BBC News, June 4, 2025
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7065pl18r5o
3. Archie Johnston, "Over 1,000 sign open letter calling for University to drop disciplinary proceedings against student protestors", Cherwell, June 11, 2025
https://cherwell.org/2025/06/11/oxford-open-letter-student-protestors
4. Galya Dimitrova "Jewish staff oppose University of Oxford Gaza protest proceedings", BBC News, June 10, 2025
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly3jld7gnyo
5. Oxford Action for Palestine (@oxact4pal) Instagram post, June 13, 2025

On June 15, 2025, a webinar was organised on the topic of NATO, Militarisation and Student Resistance, as part of the Educational Discussion of the Resist NATO campaign.

The organisers explained:

"NATO, a key driver of global conflict and colonisation, funnels resources into academic institutions to develop military technology and normalise endless war. Research grants, defence partnerships, and recruitment pipelines tie higher education directly to the machinery of destruction.

"Fascist regimes also know the power of students - that's why they work so hard to silence, divide, and control them. Those who dare speak out face repression, expulsions, even deportations.

"But silence is not an option. The youth are rising - not only for Palestine, but for justice and all peoples' struggle, against wars around the globe and academic complicity in them!

"This webinar featured speakers talking about the militarisation of education by NATO governments and the growing student and youth movement fighting for just peace against escalating wars of aggression."

News reports have announced that Channel 4 will air a documentary about the plight of medics in Gaza after the BBC last week announced that it would not show the film after concerns it may create "a perception of partiality that would not meet the high standards that the public rightly expect".

This really exposes the fraudulent character of the BBC. The online Cambridge dictionary defines "Impartiality" as: the fact of not supporting any of the sides involved in an argument: E.g. The state must ensure the independence and impartiality of the justice system.

But the film and footage of the work of and interviews in this and previous documentaries is about presenting people's views and experience whilst letting viewers draw their own conclusions from what they see. By not showing such film and footage, the BBC is exposing that it is not impartial nor independent from the outlook and will of the British government because it does support one "side" over the other; it supports Israel and the British government's support of and for Israel. And the "other side" are the Palestinian people and the people of Gaza. But they also don't want it known that the people around the world are watching what is being done with horror and the truth is that the world stands with Palestine and the Palestinian people. And the BBC cannot say that! Because of its embedded partiality it has to shut down, deny and suppress what is happening in Gaza.

London reader