In the depths of adversity

 Myself and William Herbert

The last time I attended a national demonstration for Palestine, I ran into this legend on Upper Street in Islington.

In the depths of adversity, William Herbert emerged as one of the pioneering vendors of The Big Issue (National) in Britain. Reflecting on his journey during an interview, William gestures to a scar that loops like a watch-chain from his left ear to the corner of his mouth.

I first began selling alongside William in Covent Garden during the early 1990s. His story is both poignant and transformative. The last time I encountered William, he appeared to be in a difficult state, grappling with personal struggles related to relationships and addiction. However, I was overjoyed to reconnect with him 30+ years later, witnessing his remarkable turnaround and feeling immense pride in his accomplishments. I also hold admiration for all the early vendors who, both men and women, have proven to be exceptionally talented salespeople. Their contributions to The Big Issue as a social movement have been invaluable, playing a significant role in reshaping public perception of homelessness and fostering a deeper understanding of the man-made housing crisis.

William Herbert shared, “I got that from racist Millwall supporters.” He recounted it as a harrowing experience. After stepping into a pub for a quick drink, a football fan approached him, and without warning, slashed his face with a Stanley blade while pretending to whisper in his ear.

The injury required 24 stitches—almost as many as his birthdays. For this young man, it was a devastating event that led to paranoia, isolation, and a loss of confidence. The visible scars made him feel unemployable, and he believed that meaningful relationships with women were no longer attainable. In search of relief, he turned to Tennent’s Super, which provided a temporary numbness. “I had to have a beer just to step outside, and eventually, I couldn’t even stay in my own home; I was in such a dire state.” Life on the streets became his reality, marked by rough sleeping, begging, shoplifting, and heavy drinking. The warmth from the vents outside the Empire in Leicester Square became his only source of comfort. Reflecting on that time, he acknowledges, “I was slowly committing suicide.”

It was during this tumultuous period that Herbert discovered The Big Issue, introduced to him by a young woman among his group of rough sleepers. The concept was simple: homeless individuals could purchase the magazine for 10 pence, sell it for 50 pence, and keep the profit. “That was my drink money, and I felt safe knowing I wouldn’t get arrested for it.” He soon realized that earning money through this method felt more rewarding. His pitch in Covent Garden required him to engage with the public and make eye contact, which gradually restored his confidence. Selling the magazine became a source of pride, leading him to describe it as “a life-changer.”

Since 1991, Herbert's journey has not been linear. He has faced setbacks and explored various jobs, some of which did not pan out. His experiences included time in prison. One might view a man who has intermittently sold The Big Issue for a quarter of a century as a failure, indicating a broader failure of the initiative aimed at empowering the homeless.

However, he clarifies, “That would be a misunderstanding.” The magazine has provided him with stability, routine, and dignity. Today, he has a flat, pays his bills, and drinks very rarely. He has reestablished connections with his family.

A swift flash of a knife in a pub altered the course of his life, and such wounds can take years to heal. In this context, The Big Issue has served as a metaphorical 25th stitch, helping to mend his life.  “I don’t make a lot of money selling papers,” he admits.   “I’m not going to be a millionaire, but it has enabled me to move forward.”

Currently, William's pitch is located on Upper Street in Islington, just outside a Budgens supermarket.

The Influence of Pro-Israel Lobby Funding on the British Cabinet

Recent investigations indicate that the pro-Israel lobby has made substantial contributions to the current British government, with 13 of the 25 ministers receiving direct donations from pro-Israel sources or influential lobbyists such as Sir Trevor Chinn. This funding network, which includes organizations like Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) and Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), reflects a deliberate strategy to align the UK's foreign policy with Israeli interests. During his leadership campaign in 2020, Prime Minister Keir Starmer received a £50,000 donation from Sir Trevor Chinn, which was disclosed only after he secured victory in the election.Prominent figures such as Foreign Secretary David Lammy, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, and Health Secretary Wes Streeting have also benefited, with Cooper accepting significant sums from Chinn-associated entities while publicly endorsing Israel's military actions in Gaza.

Structural Mechanisms of Influence

The pro-Israel lobby employs a "carrot-and-stick" approach to shape political behaviour, rewarding alignment with benefits like funded trips to Israel and punishing dissent through funding withdrawal or smear campaigns.It is reported that 80% of Conservative MPs are members of CFI, which has financed more than 160 parliamentary trips to Israel from 2012 to 2022. Similarly, LFI funded prospective Labour MPs' visits to Israel before their elections, embedding pro-Israel perspectives early in political careers. This creates a disciplining effect on policymakers, particularly those deemed "equivocal or easily shunned into silence".

Policy Consequences and Ethical Concerns

The financial ties correlate with substantive policy shifts:

1. Military Support: The UK continues arms transfers to Israel and provides RAF Akrotiri for logistical support, despite evidence of war crimes in Gaza.

2. Suppression of Dissent: Home Secretary Cooper, funded by pro-Israel sources, spearheaded the controversial proscription of Palestine Action as a "terrorist" group-a move lobbied for by We Believe in Israel.

3. Diplomatic Alignment: The government dropped commitments to recognize Palestinian statehood and blocked UN resolutions critical of Israel, while Starmer declared unqualified support for Zionism post-Chinn donation.

Systemic Vulnerabilities

The lobby exploits, weak UK transparency laws:

• LFI and CFI operate with opaque funding, refusing to disclose donors despite evidence of Israeli embassy coordination.

• Cabinet members like Cooper accepted £5,000 from Red Capital Private (linked to former LFI chair Jonathan Mendelsohn) while publicly opposing BDS movements.

• Chinn's cross-partisan funding-spanning Labour and Conservative cabinets since the 1980s—demonstrates enduring institutional access.

Conclusion: Democratic Accountability at Risk

The scale of cabinet-level financial dependence on pro-Israel interest-documented by Declassified UK and others-raises critical questions about foreign influence on UK sovereignty[. With 52% of Starmer's cabinet funded by the lobby, and mechanisms suppressing Palestinian solidarity, the government appears structurally compromised in maintaining impartiality on Israel-Palestine policy. This dependency undermines democratic accountability and highlights the urgent need for transparency reforms in political funding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Friends_of_Israel

https://www.declassifieduk.org/two-fifths-of-keir-starmers-cabinet-have-been-funded-by-pro-israel-lobbyists/

https://scheerpost.com/2025/06/20/sir-trevor-chinn-the-tycoon-who-hijacked-british-democracy-for-israel/

Keir Starmer, the establishment's chosen representative

Keir Starmer received his knighthood prior to embarking on his political career. As a latecomer to the political arena, he was swiftly elevated by the Establishment and positioned as the leader of the Labour Party with a specific purpose: to uphold the existing order and perpetuate the façade of democracy in this manipulated game of musical chairs.

He is regarded as a reliable and experienced figure, having served as the head of the Crown Prosecution Service and as a member of the Trilateral Commission. He played a key role in the prosecution of Julian Assange and led efforts to remove leftist elements from the Labour Party, initiating a controversial campaign against Jeremy Corbyn and others, whom he expelled based on questionable allegations of antisemitism. 

Isn't the title "Sir" indicative of his status?

As long as we, the chickens, continue to vote for the wolf or the fox, we should not be surprised that we remain vulnerable to being devoured!

Pennies from heaven!

Senior executives at Thames Water, which is in trouble,will be awarded generous'retention incentives' as part of a £3 billion emergency loan arrangement. This financial support it is claimed at helping the utility avoid the threat of renationalisation believe it or not.

The decision to provide these incentives has sparked significant backlash from both customers and environmental groups, who argue that it prioritizes executive compensation over essential infrastructure improvements and customer service. Critics emphasize that such financial rewards for executives come at a time when many households are struggling with rising water bills and service disruptions.

Thames Water, which has been under scrutiny for its management practices and environmental impact, insists that these retention packages are necessary to keep experienced leaders during a critical period. The utility aims to stabilize its operations and implement a comprehensive plan to address its financial challenges, including significant investments in water quality and sustainability initiatives.

As the company tries to navigate this tumultuous period, it faces mounting pressure from regulators and the public to demonstrate accountability and transparency. Stakeholders are calling for a clear commitment to improving service delivery and reducing environmental harm, rather than focusing on executive bonuses that could alienate the very customers they serve.

In response to the outcry, Thames Water has promised to engage more closely with its customers and stakeholders, outlining a roadmap for long-term improvements while addressing immediate financial concerns. Nonetheless, the controversy over executive pay raises important questions about corporate governance and the priorities of public utilities in times of crisis.

The privatization of water services in England is a remarkable exception globally, as 90% of countries manage these operations through state ownership. Notably, it is the sole country in Europe that has transferred its water resources—including pipelines, reservoirs, borehole's, and treatment facilities—to private ownership, primarily held by a mix of sovereign wealth funds, infrastructure investors, and pension funds. This move to place water—a natural monopoly—into private hands contradicted the Thatcherite principles of competition and efficiency. The reality is that there was never a viable option to create competition among companies to enhance service standards, as no alternative water supplier exists to vie for a household's patronage.

A BBC investigation has uncovered that three prominent water companies unlawfully discharged sewage numerous times last year, even on dry days.

The notion that discharging sewage into our waterways can be viewed as permissible under any circumstances is alarming. It highlights the failure of privatized water companies to adhere to the already lenient regulations designed to safeguard our rivers and seas from pollution. These companies have received backing from their Conservative allies, who, in decline to support an amendment to the Environmental Bill that would have imposed a legal obligation on water companies to refrain from discharging hazardous sewage into rivers.

The ongoing crisis of water privatization shows no signs of abating. Recent data obtained by Surfers Against Sewage reveals a significant rise in severe sewage pollution events, reaching a decade-high. In 2024, there were 2,487 such incidents, which is more than double the threshold established by the Environment Agency (EA).     (Sauce: The Canary)

This figure is distinct from the total sewage spill count, which amounted to 3.614 million hours of discharges into our lakes, rivers, and seas in 2024.

The EA had set an objective for water companies to achieve a collective 40% reduction in pollution incidents compared to 2016 levels. However, the reality has been a troubling 31% increase instead.

Over the past thirty years, the private water monopolies in the country, which initially started and operated without any debt, have accumulated £64 billion in borrowings while disbursing over £78 billion in dividends to their shareholders.