‘The Logical Contradictions in Evangelical Views on Sex’ by a former Christian evangelical who wishes to remain anonymous

In the early 1990s, I served as a church leader at a small evangelical congregation in Springfield, Missouri. I left after a few years due to my growing recognition of the logical inconsistencies in evangelical Christianity’s view of sex. This article is a summation of my thoughts on the subject.

Evangelical Christianity has long placed sex at the center of its moral teachings. Sermons, books, youth programs, and purity pledges all stress sexual discipline, usually framed around two big principles: sex is a God-given gift for pleasure and bonding, but it is only permitted within marriage between a man and a woman.

On the surface, this seems straightforward. But when pressed, the evangelical sexual ethic reveals deep contradictions. The rules do not always align with biology, psychology, or even their own theology. Here are the most glaring logical tensions.

Sex is for pleasure, but pleasure outside procreation is suspect 

Most evangelicals today readily admit that God designed sex not only for making babies, but also for pleasure and intimacy. This is why marital sex is celebrated in books, conferences, and even church sermons.

Yet historically, the Christian tradition (especially Catholic and early Protestant teaching) considered non-procreative sex sinful. Evangelicals reject that history, but they still condemn acts like masturbation—even though it provides the same God-given pleasure they affirm in marriage.

The contradiction is: If sexual pleasure is divinely designed, why is it holy in marriage but sinful when experienced alone?

2. Masturbation is “lustful”, but marital desire isn’t 

Evangelical teaching typically condemns masturbation on the grounds that it involves “lust”—usually understood as fantasizing about someone you’re not married to. Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:28 (“whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart”) are invoked as proof.

But this standard raises problems: what about desiring one’s spouse? If arousal itself equals lust, then even married sex would be tainted unless it’s purely mechanical for procreation. Evangelicals solve this by redefining desire for one’s spouse as holy passion, while desire for anyone else (or in private) becomes sinful lust.

The contradiction is: The same biological feeling—sexual desire—is called sin in one setting and holiness in another.

3. “Wasting seed” is sinful, except when it isn’t

The story of Onan in Genesis 38 is often misread as a condemnation of masturbation, because Onan “spilled his seed on the ground.” But the passage is about Onan refusing to fulfill his family duty, not masturbation. Still, the idea of “wasting seed” persists in evangelical logic.

If ejaculation outside procreation is wasteful, then:

Sex with contraception is wasteful.

Oral sex is wasteful.

Even most marital sex (which isn’t intended to result in pregnancy) would be wasteful. Yet evangelicals celebrate all of these within marriage.

The contradiction is: They condemn “wasted seed” when it applies to masturbation, but quietly ignore it when applied to marital pleasure.

4. Sex is natural, but must be suppressed until marriage

Evangelicals acknowledge that sexual desire is built into human nature. But instead of accepting this as a normal part of development, they frame pre-marital desire as temptation to be resisted at all costs. This creates cycles of shame, secrecy, and guilt, especially for young people.

The irony is that biology itself provides an outlet: nocturnal emissions (“wet dreams”). The body clearly does not consider ejaculation outside of marriage sinful—it does it automatically.

The contradiction is: If God designed the body to release semen involuntarily, why is deliberate release considered immoral?

5. Purity culture condemns sex, but prizes beauty

In practice, evangelical communities don’t avoid attraction. Many celebrate physical beauty in courtship and marriage. Christian culture produces books and advice about “keeping your wife attractive” or “enjoying your husband’s body,” even while warning constantly about lust and temptation.

The contradiction is: Physical attraction is condemned as lustful in movies or fantasies, but encouraged as holy within marriage.

6. Violence is tolerated, but sex is feared

A final cultural contradiction is visible in evangelical media habits. Many will watch action films full of shooting and killing without objection, but cover their eyes at a single sex scene. Violence, which destroys life, is treated as entertainment. Sex, which creates life, is treated as dangerous.

The contradiction is: Life-taking is normalized as “just a story,” while life-giving intimacy is portrayed as corrupting.

The evangelical view of sex is caught between biology and theology, between inherited Christian suspicion of the body and modern affirmation of marital intimacy. By declaring sex both holy and dangerous, pleasurable and shameful, natural and forbidden, evangelicals live with a constant tension that rarely resolves logically.

These contradictions explain why many raised in purity culture experience deep confusion, guilt, and difficulty integrating sexuality into a healthy sense of self. Biology does not obey theological boundaries, and theology struggles to explain away what the body naturally does. Until evangelicals reconcile these tensions, their teachings on sex will continue to produce more confusion than clarity.

The Far-Right and the Fixed Ethnicity Fallacy

Note

What follows is patently obvious, and a few years ago would not need to be reiterated. But we are living in a period of rising racism and bigotry, propagated by some politicians and some political movements.

In contemporary discourse, far-right and racist groups often claim that ethnicity is a fixed, immutable trait. They argue that people belong to discrete, “pure” racial or ethnic groups, and that these groups are inherently superior or inferior. This belief underpins much of their rhetoric about immigration, national identity and social hierarchy. Yet both science and history contradict this premise.

Ethnicity is not simply a matter of genetics. It encompasses cultural practices, language, social upbringing and personal identification. While ancestry contributes to one’s background, it is rarely straightforward. Most individuals, particularly in historically mobile societies, have ancestors from multiple regions. For example, a person may have a Scottish father, a Welsh grandfather, an Indian great-grandfather and a Swedish great-great-grandmother. Reducing such a person to a single ethnic category ignores the complex reality of human ancestry.

Modern genetics confirms that human populations are not discrete, isolated units. Over thousands of years, migrations, trade and intermarriage have created highly mixed genomes. No contemporary population can claim “purity” in any meaningful sense. Attempts to classify people into rigid ethnic categories are therefore scientifically baseless.

The far right belief that ethnicity is stable is not just scientifically incorrect, it has dangerous consequences. It fosters division, discrimination and policies that ignore the lived reality of human heterogeneity. Challenging this fallacy requires emphasising both the scientific understanding of ancestry and the social construction of identity.

Ethnicity is a dynamic, overlapping and socially mediated concept. Recognising this undermines the false foundation of far-right ideology.

'Debunking the Great Replacement Theory' by Ryan Soames—guest blogger

The “Great Replacement” theory alleges that governments or shadowy elites are deliberately engineering the decline of white, European-descended populations through immigration and differential birth rates. Though it has found a foothold in political rhetoric, the claim is baseless—and its consequences are deeply corrosive. In recent years, some GB News commentators and Reform UK supporters have also entertained the theory obliquely, speaking of “demographic change” or “cultural erosion” in ways that echo the language of the so-called “Great Replacement”.

The concept itself can be traced to the French writer Renaud Camus, who popularised the phrase in 2011. Since then, it has circulated widely among far-right networks in Europe and North America, where it has been adopted as a rallying cry for nativist and exclusionary politics. More worryingly, it has inspired acts of terrorism, including the Christchurch mosque shootings in 2019 and the Buffalo supermarket attack in 2022. In each case, perpetrators cited the theory explicitly, presenting ordinary demographic trends as proof of an existential plot.

Supporters of the theory often argue that demographic change has been made to appear “organic” but is, in fact, carefully orchestrated. This claim, however, does not stand up to scrutiny. Migration patterns follow clear economic, political and social drivers. People move to seek employment, safety, or opportunity; conflicts, natural disasters and climate change displace populations; and policy decisions on asylum or labour migration respond to labour shortages and humanitarian obligations. These dynamics are well-documented, transparent and observable—not evidence of a secretive, coordinated plan. Interpreting ordinary social processes as a deliberate plot is a misreading of cause and effect, driven by fear rather than fact.

Concrete data further dismantles the theory. The UK's population is projected to grow by 4.9 million (7.3%) over the decade from mid-2022 to mid-2032, with net migration accounting for the entire increase. In 2024, net migration was estimated at 431,000, a sharp decline from the unusually high levels in 2022 and 2023. However, it remained higher than levels seen during the 2010s, when the figure typically fluctuated between 200,000 and 300,000. Post-Brexit, net migration has been driven by non-EU immigration. In 2024, 69% of non-EU immigration was for work and study purposes. These figures reflect the UK's evolving immigration patterns, influenced by policy changes and global events, rather than a coordinated effort to alter the demographic makeup of the population.

Britain itself has long been shaped by migration, from medieval arrivals to the Huguenot refugees of the seventeenth century, the Caribbean and South Asian communities who helped rebuild after the Second World War and more recent flows from Eastern Europe. These are recurring historical patterns, not unprecedented interventions. Migrant communities also make substantial contributions to the UK’s economy, public services and social life, enriching culture rather than erasing it. National identity is not a static artefact but an evolving tapestry.

The danger of “replacement” rhetoric lies in its capacity to distort perception and redirect anger. By framing migration as an intentional plot, the theory fosters scapegoating, fuels xenophobia and distracts from real policy challenges such as housing, wages, or public service provision. In doing so, it provides a simplistic narrative for complex societal issues, offering fear but no solutions.

At its heart, the Great Replacement is a myth: a conspiracy theory that confuses demographic reality with paranoia. Migration and demographic change are not evidence of orchestrated decline but part of ongoing historical processes. Acknowledging this truth is essential to resisting divisive politics and maintaining a society grounded in fact rather than fear.

The Lack of Detail and Function in Modern Toys

When I was a child, I had lots of Corgi and Dinky toy cars, along with TV series merchandise like the Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet toys, also made by Dinky. What fascinated me about these toys, apart their excellent build quality, was their functionality: doors, bonnets (hoods) and boots (trunks) opened, seats folded, windows wound-down, and some even had working rear indicator lights. And no doubt Toys aimed at girls, also had intricate details and functional parts, making play immersive for everyone.

The Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet toys were just as intricate. The Thunderbird 2 toy had a detachable pod with a door that opened to reveal the Mole, a smaller vehicle used for drilling underground in the TV series. And the Captain Scarlet SPV vehicle toy similarly had functioning parts, mirroring those in the TV series

I also had an Action Man (known in the USA as GI Joe), an action figure with movable limbs: arms, elbows, wrists, knees and ankles could all be moved. It came with detailed clothing covering military, naval and adventure themes, all with functional buttons and zips. Also available as adjuncts were accessories like weapons, tools, walkie-talkies and various other items of adventure equipment.

No longer are such well-crafted and detailed toys available, apart from the occasional collectors’ re-issues, which can be expensive. Modern toy cars, found in Tesco or other supermarkets, are mostly cast in a single mould. They have no functioning parts, and all a child can do is roll them across the floor. Action Man, discontinued around 2006, and had already changed dramatically by then: a muscle-bound physique had replaced the former realistic human form, limb mobility was limited and clothing options were few.

Much of this change comes down to safety regulations, production costs and the speed of modern manufacturing, which make intricate design prohibitive. But I can’t help but feel regret that the tactile joy of interacting with a well-crafted, functional toy has largely vanished.

Modern toys might be safer and cheaper, but the magic of a toy that works like the real thing has long gone.

How Bad Arguments Hide Risky Ideas

Sometimes the most telling examples of flawed reasoning don’t come from articles but from real conversations. Below is a recent exchange I had online that illustrates common patterns of deflection, tokenism and rhetorical flaws that let risky ideas appear harmless. I’ve changed the names to protect identities, but the dialogue remains unchanged

Me: I’m always amazed by how some people from ethnic minorities who support the far right seem to assume that the movement will never turn on them—once their role as propaganda tools has reassured others that the far right isn’t racist, they could easily be discarded or deported at that point.

Onion: Oh behave!!! The point is they are supporters because they know the far right isn't racist. Stop stirring up trouble that doesn't exist. I have 3 black children and we have many friends of colour/race. Time will tell.

Me: I pray that you and your family won't be affected by any of this. I really do. I mean that sincerely. But I think if the far right did get elected in the UK, more extreme elements in the movement will feel empowered to call for total repatriation.

Onion: If the right tried to turn on the people I love and know of colour we will rise against that too. That just won't happen. But the Islamic takeover is a real threat to the west I'm afraid and we need to resist this now before it's too late and the country is lost.

Me: You say "if the right tried then to turn on the people I love and know of colour we will rise against that too" but it will be too late then, as by then the far right will be the government. They will make the atmosphere so hostile that anyone who is not white will be made to feel unwelcome. 

Onion: Stop scaremongering!

Me: I’m not trying to scare anyone, just thinking about the potential consequences. I hope we can both agree that protecting people from harm, regardless of background, is something worth caring about. My concern is about the broader movement and the patterns history has shown. Sometimes individuals or groups think they’ll be exempt, and it doesn’t turn out that way.

Carrot: Shut up you fool!!! I have black, Sikh, Chinese, Japanese, Polish and Russian friends and many of us are the same. It's about the illegals and Islamists that want to take our country, it's nothing about race and never has been.

This exchange shows how easily talking points, personal anecdotes and appeals to loyalty can be used to deflect scrutiny, shut down debate and make risky ideas seem harmless. Sometimes, simply letting the conversation speak for itself is enough to expose the gaps between what people say, what they mean and the real-world consequences of their beliefs.

‘Nigel Farage’s Wealth Accumulation History’ by Andrew Price—guest blogger

He began his professional journey in the 1980s as a commodities trader in London’s financial sector. Over the years, he worked at firms including Drexel Burnham Lambert, Crédit Lyonnais Rouse, Refco and Natixis Metals. This period laid the foundation for his financial independence, providing both salary and performance-based bonuses. While not publicly documented, this early career in finance was crucial in establishing his initial wealth.

He entered politics in the 1990s, becoming a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for South East England from 1999 until 2020. He led the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and later the Brexit Party, gaining prominence for his outspoken views on the European Union. While the MEP salary alone was modest compared to private-sector earnings, additional allowances, pensions and political exposure contributed to his financial growth.

His political profile significantly increased during the 2010s, coinciding with the rise of Brexit and UKIP’s influence. This period amplified Farage’s media presence, opening doors to lucrative opportunities outside politics.

Farage’s wealth grew substantially through media engagements. Between 2014 and 2018, he earned roughly $1 million from appearances on Fox News. Later, he hosted ‘The Nigel Farage Show’ on LBC radio, establishing a high-profile platform that further increased his earning potential. But it's important to note that his most significant recent media income has been from GB News, where he has been reported to have earned nearly £400,000 from GB News alone for work since August 2024, paid at a rate of over £2,000 an hour.

In 2023, appeared in ‘I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here!’, reportedly earning £1.5 million. He also monetised his personal brand through Cameo, generating around £135,000 by recording personalised video messages for fans.

In addition to media work, Farage owns a media company, Thorn in The Side Ltd, whose assets increased by £1.25 million bringing its total value to £2.61 million in 2024. He has also engaged in promotional activities, such as endorsing gold bullion and other ventures, contributing further to his income.

His wealth is also reflected in his property portfolio, which has been a subject of significant public debate, and its exact value and ownership details are complex. While his Register of Members' Financial Interests lists him as having multiple properties, including some in Surrey and Kent, the specifics of a recent high-profile purchase have been widely reported.

He has stated he owns properties in Kent and Surrey, including a £1 million family home in the Kent village of Downe and two houses in Lydd-on-Sea, one of which he reportedly owns through his company, Thorn in The Side Ltd.

The property he uses in his Clacton constituency, a near £900,000 house, is not owned by him. He initially said he had ‘bought a house’ in Clacton but later clarified that it was purchased and is solely owned by his partner, Laure Ferrari.

Nigel Farage Expose Video

Here is an interesting video presenting a detailed look at Nigel Farage’s past, including allegations of racism, financial controversies and far-right connections:

'Who is Nigel Farage?'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfyiSk8Rjc8

For those of you in the USA, Farage wants to be the UK's next PM, and is adored by the US far right, who think (because of him) that the UK stifles free speech because it doesn't approve of racist and homophobic comments on social media platforms. 

‘Think Reform UK Only Targets “Illegal” Immigrants? Think Again’ by Adam McCulloch—guest blogger

Reform UK often frames its immigration stance as targeting only “illegal” immigrants. For voters concerned about law and order or border control, this can seem straightforward. But for ethnic minorities who might be considering support for the party, the reality is far more complicated, and potentially alarming.

While the party might present itself as focused only on undocumented migrants, history and political logic suggest that measures aimed at controlling immigration rarely stop at the border. Once in power, parties with nationalist or anti-immigrant platforms often move to introduce policies that affect settled migrants, naturalised citizens, and even their UK-born children, albeit indirectly.

Naturalised citizens in the UK enjoy the same legal protections as those born in the country. Deporting them or their children would face nearly insurmountable legal barriers, including human rights protections and anti-discrimination laws. So, a Reform UK government would likely avoid outright repatriation. But legal impossibility doesn’t mean political neutrality.

Even without formal deportations, governments can create systemic pressures that disproportionately affect migrant communities, such as:

Tighter Citizenship Rules: By raising language requirements, residency periods or fees, the party could make it harder for future generations of migrants to gain full rights.

Family Reunification Restrictions: Limiting visas for spouses or relatives forces existing families to choose between separation or emigration.

Economic and Social Measures: Adjusting benefits, housing eligibility or public services in ways that disproportionately impact migrant communities can create indirect pressure to leave.

Social and Political Rhetoric: Constant messaging questioning loyalty or “fit” can foster hostility, encouraging self-deportation.

Supporting Reform UK solely because of its stance on undocumented immigrants carries hidden risks. Policies that seem limited in scope can evolve into broader, systemic pressures on naturalised citizens and their families. For ethnic minorities, the “deport illegal immigrants only” message may be far from the end of the story.

In politics, it’s not just the laws on the books that matter—it’s the climate they create. And the climate a nationalist government can foster may affect you, even if you are legally settled in the UK.

'The Irony of MAGA’s War on the New World Order' by Ryan Soames—guest blogger

The “New World Order” (NWO) conspiracy theory has long been a narrative framework for groups sceptical of globalisation, supranational governance and perceived elite manipulation of democratic societies. While the theory has spread across ideological lines, it has been most closely associated with the American far right, particularly militia movements and populist conservative networks.

What is noticeable, however, is the way in which this rhetoric has been absorbed into the political identity of Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement. Trump and his supporters frequently invoke the language of “globalists”, “deep state actors” and “elitist cabals”, portraying the political struggle as one of national sovereignty and popular democracy against unaccountable transnational power. Yet the practical effect of Trump’s politics has often been to erode democratic institutions while simultaneously strengthening the position of corporate and technological elites.

The NWO narrative warns against centralised, authoritarian control that overrides democratic governance. Trump’s actions in office, however, consistently undermine institutional checks on executive power. From attempts to delegitimise electoral outcomes in 2020 to attacks on judicial independence and the normalisation of political violence, Trump’s political project has weakened precisely those safeguards designed to prevent authoritarian capture.

This reveals a fundamental irony: a movement ostensibly dedicated to resisting authoritarianism has embraced a leader whose methods exemplify it.

A second irony lies in the movement’s relationship to economic elites. Trump’s administration has given significant tax cuts to the wealthy, pursued deregulation favourable to large corporations and cultivated links with powerful technology figures such as Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Far from dismantling elite dominance, these policies entrenched it.

In this respect, MAGA’s anti-globalist populism functions less as a challenge to oligarchic power than as its legitimisation, reframed in nationalist rather than cosmopolitan terms.

MAGA’s nationalist framing (emphasising borders, cultural homogeneity and sovereignty) functions as a diversionary strategy. It directs popular discontent toward marginalised groups (immigrants, minorities and “woke” institutions) rather than toward structural concentrations of wealth and power. This redirection of grievance politics enables elite consolidation under the guise of defending “the people”.

The cult of personality surrounding Trump underscores another paradox. Conspiracy narratives often warn of demagogues who mobilise mass loyalty to centralise power. Yet within the MAGA movement, Trump himself occupies precisely this role, presented as the singular figure capable of defending America from “globalist” control.

The appropriation of New World Order rhetoric by the Trump’s supporters illustrates a paradox of modern populism. A narrative originally constructed to resist authoritarian centralisation and elite domination has been reconfigured into an instrument that enables both. The outcome is an inversion of its original intent: the supposed resistance to a global elite now serves to legitimate authoritarian governance and the consolidation of oligarchic power at home.

‘Why GB News Should Be Taken Off Air’ by Andrew Davies—guest blogger

In a media landscape that prides itself on pluralism and free speech, the line between open debate and dangerous provocation is a delicate one. Yet GB News, a self-styled “anti-woke” broadcaster launched in 2021, has repeatedly crossed that line, and now risks becoming a platform not for free expression, but for the amplification of racial resentment and division. It is time for Ofcom, the UK’s broadcast regulator, to act decisively and revoke its licence.

Since its inception, GB News has cultivated a roster of presenters and guests who often traffic in reactionary rhetoric. While robust discussion is healthy in a democracy, it becomes toxic when it normalises harmful stereotypes or scapegoats minority communities.

Recent segments have included thinly veiled “debates” on whether multiculturalism has “failed”, or whether immigration is inherently linked to crime. These aren’t new talking points, they echo decades of far-right propaganda, but what is new is their broadcast on a national television channel with the veneer of legitimacy.

It’s not about isolated incidents or rogue commentators. It’s about a consistent editorial direction that platforms racially divisive content under the guise of “saying what everyone’s thinking”. This isn't journalism but dog-whistle politics with a studio set.

Under the UK Broadcasting Code, licensees must ensure that "material likely to incite hatred" is not broadcast and that content avoids unjustified offence, particularly on grounds of race or ethnicity Ofcom has already investigated GB News multiple times, including for breaching due impartiality rules. The regulatory body must now consider whether the channel is “fit and proper” to hold a licence.

If the bar for disqualification includes persistent bias and incitement, GB News may well have crossed it. For comparison, Ofcom revoked the channel RT’s licence in 2022 for repeated failures to uphold impartiality, particularly during sensitive geopolitical moments. If state-sponsored disinformation was a red line, why not domestically-produced incitement that threatens racial cohesion?

The broader implications of racially inflammatory content are not abstract. Hate crimes in the UK have risen significantly over the past decade, particularly after periods of heightened anti-immigration rhetoric in media and politics. The 2016 Brexit referendum, for example, was followed by a spike in hate crime reports

When a television network lends credibility to narratives that “the country is being overrun”, or that minority communities are somehow incompatible with British values, it feeds a cycle of suspicion and hostility that has real-world consequences. In this environment, GB News is not just a broadcaster but a catalyst.

Critics will no doubt cry censorship. But freedom of expression is not absolute. With a broadcasting licence comes a responsibility to uphold public standards and contribute constructively to civil discourse. GB News is not a pub conversation, it is a regulated entity with access to potentially millions of households, despite its current modest viewing figures.

When a platform persistently pushes content that stigmatises, marginalises or vilifies based on race or ethnicity, it stops being a news channel and becomes a megaphone for division. That cannot be protected under the banner of free speech; not without undermining the very social fabric that speech is meant to serve.

Ofcom’s duty is not to protect broadcasters but to protect the public interest. In the face of growing evidence that GB News is fanning the flames of racial division, a failure to act sends a dangerous message: that hate, dressed in the language of opinion, is tolerable in the mainstream.

GB News has had ample time to course-correct. Instead, it has doubled down. The question now is not whether the channel can change, but whether it wants to. The answer, it seems, is no. And that leaves Ofcom with a choice: continue to issue mild rebukes, or take serious action.

For the sake of social cohesion, broadcasting integrity and minority safety, GB News should be taken off air.

‘Bev Turner’s Political Journey into Right Wing Populism’ by Rob Miller—guest blogger

Bev Turner once seemed an unlikely figure to become a darling of Britain’s populist right. A respected sports broadcaster in the late 1990s and early 2000s, she built her reputation in mainstream journalism: ITV’s Formula One coverage, lifestyle shows and a book exposing sexism in motorsport. She was, by most measures, part of the liberal-minded media establishment.

And yet, two decades later, she sits at the centre of GB News, hosting programmes that echo talking points from the populist right and railing against the very institutions she once worked for. How did this shift happen?

Turner’s early career showed flashes of independence, but not ideological extremism. Writing about Formula One in The Pits, she cast herself as a feminist critic of a macho culture. Later, on BBC Radio 5 Live, she fronted shows about pregnancy and family life, offering support and solidarity to women navigating new parenthood. It was work that placed her firmly within the mainstream of British broadcasting.

The turning point came not in the 2000s, but during the Covid-19 pandemic. As the government imposed lockdowns, promoted vaccines and tried to steer the public through crisis, Turner positioned herself as a sceptic. On This Morning and Jeremy Vine, she clashed with colleagues and public health experts, voicing doubts that resonated with a minority audience but also spread confusion. This was the opening right-wing voices had been waiting for.

Turner’s scepticism did not exist in a vacuum. During the pandemic, a well-organised ecosystem of right-wing commentators, YouTubers and media outlets amplified dissenting voices and encouraged them to push further. Anti-lockdown platforms welcomed Turner with open arms. Social media algorithms rewarded contrarian soundbites. In this climate, Turner was not merely offering “balance” but was being drawn into a feedback loop: validated with attention, booked as a guest, and soon indispensable to outlets keen to exploit Covid as a wedge issue. Her move to GB News was the logical endpoint of this process: a network that thrives on converting dissent into a culture-war brand.

Turner herself insists she has not changed—that she simply stands for free speech in a censorious age. But this framing misses the point. The right-wing media machine thrives on recruiting formerly mainstream figures, presenting them as brave dissidents, and using them to launder fringe positions into everyday debate. Turner is a textbook case. What began as scepticism about pandemic policy has morphed into a steady stream of culture-war commentary, closely aligned with populist talking points.

Turner’s journey from respected broadcaster to GB News provocateur is more than a personal evolution—it reflects a pattern of political repositioning. The pandemic created fertile ground for distrust, and right-wing media actors seized the chance to encourage sceptical broadcasters and integrate them into their ecosystem. 

Bev Turner’s shift to the right is not just her own story—it is a cautionary tale. It shows how quickly respected voices can be absorbed into the machinery of outrage, and how a public health crisis became the staging ground for Britain’s ongoing culture wars. Turner may believe she simply stood still while the world moved. The truth is more troubling: she was drawn in, validated and encouraged by right-wing media actors eager for credibility and controversy. 

‘Why Western Countries Are Often Seen as Shielding Israel from Accountability’ by Ryan Soames—guest blogger

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been one of the most enduring and controversial geopolitical crises of the modern era. Among the most contentious aspects of this conflict are the allegations of war crimes committed during Israeli military operations in Gaza and the West Bank. International bodies, such as the United Nations and human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have accused Israel of violating international law—particularly regarding its treatment of civilians, settlement expansions and use of force.

Yet, despite mounting reports and calls for accountability, Israel has rarely faced significant consequences from Western powers. This raises the question: Why do Western governments, especially the United States and key European allies, appear reluctant to hold Israel accountable for these alleged violations?

Reason 1: Historical and Strategic Alliances

One of the most important reasons lies in the strategic alliance between Israel and the West, especially the United States. Since its founding in 1948, Israel has been seen by the U.S. as a key democratic ally in a volatile Middle East. During the Cold War, Israel was viewed as a bulwark against Soviet influence. Today, it remains a partner in intelligence, military technology and counterterrorism.

This alliance has translated into extensive U.S. military aid—more than $3 billion annually—as well as consistent diplomatic support. The U.S. has used its veto power at the UN Security Council dozens of times to block resolutions critical of Israel.

Reason 2. Domestic Political Influence

Pro-Israel lobbying groups such as AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) play a powerful role in shaping U.S. foreign policy. They maintain strong bipartisan support in Congress, and politicians who express strong support for Israel often face fewer political risks than those who criticise Israeli policy.

In many European countries, particularly Germany, support for Israel is also influenced by the legacy of the Holocaust and a deep sense of historical responsibility.

Reason 3. Framing of the Conflict in the West

Western media and political discourse often frame Israel’s actions through the lens of self-defense against terrorism, particularly in response to attacks from Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organisation by the U.S. and EU. This framing shapes public perception, making it harder to discuss Israeli military actions in Gaza as potential war crimes, even when they result in large numbers of civilian casualties.

On the other hand, Palestinian resistance is frequently portrayed as terrorism, without equal emphasis on the occupation, blockade and human rights abuses endured by Palestinians.

Reason 4. Selective Application of International Law

Critics argue that international law is applied inconsistently, depending on geopolitical interests. For example, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was swiftly met with widespread sanctions and international condemnation, including charges of war crimes. In contrast, similar calls for accountability in the Israeli-Palestinian context often stall due to political pressures from Western governments.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has launched investigations into possible war crimes by both Israeli forces and Palestinian groups. However, the U.S. and Israel reject the ICC’s jurisdiction over the occupied Palestinian territories, undermining efforts for impartial legal accountability.

Reason 5. Fear of Antisemitism Accusations

Criticism of Israeli government policy is often conflated with antisemitism, especially in the West. This makes some politicians and institutions hesitant to speak out, even when human rights organisations raise legitimate concerns. While antisemitism is a serious and ongoing problem that must be addressed, conflating it with criticism of state policy can stifle legitimate debate and accountability.

Reason 6. Economic and Military Interests

Israel is a hub for defense technology, cybersecurity and innovation. Western companies and governments have extensive trade and defense relationships with Israel. These economic interests can influence foreign policy decisions, making governments less likely to take strong stances against Israeli actions.

The perception that Western powers allow Israel to act with impunity stems from a complex mix of strategic alliances, political influence, historical guilt, media framing and inconsistent application of international law. While legitimate security concerns and geopolitical realities shape policy, the lack of accountability for alleged war crimes has serious implications—not only for Palestinians but also for the integrity of the international legal system.

Calls for consistent enforcement of international law—regardless of political alliances—are growing louder, particularly from younger generations, human rights advocates and global South countries. Whether or not Western nations respond will significantly shape the future of global norms on justice, accountability and human rights.

'The Reform Party's Austerity Plan for the UK' by Rob Miller—guest blogger

If The Reform Party were to form the next government, the UK would enter a period of austerity reminiscent of the one that defined the David Cameron and George Osborne era. While the party's rhetoric often focuses on a "common sense" approach and cutting "waste", their economic policies reveal a commitment to major spending reductions that mirrors the fiscal tightening of the 2010s.

The Cameron-Osborne government, elected in 2010, made a conscious decision to tackle the UK's deficit, which had ballooned in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Their mantra was that the country could not continue to live beyond its means. The chosen method was a program of austerity, with the vast majority of deficit reduction coming from spending cuts rather than tax increases.

Reform's platform, while presented with different branding, operates on a similar principle. They have proposed a range of significant tax cuts, including lifting the income tax threshold and reducing corporation tax. To pay for these measures, they plan to slash government spending. Their manifesto outlines a goal of saving tens of billions of pounds a year by cutting "wasteful spending", reducing the size of the civil service and reforming public services.

The Cameron-era austerity had a profound impact on public services and welfare. Budgets for local government were severely reduced, leading to cuts in services like libraries and youth centers. The Welfare Reform Act of 2012 introduced the "bedroom tax" and a benefit cap, and froze most benefits for a number of years.

Reform UK's proposals will follow a similar playbook. While they talk about protecting "frontline services", independent analysis, such as that by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), suggests that their proposed cuts would be so substantial that they would inevitably require a significant reduction in the quantity and quality of public services.

For example, the party has proposed a major overhaul of the welfare system, with a strong emphasis on getting people back to work and withdrawing benefits for those who do not comply. While they have promised to scrap the two-child benefit cap, this is dwarfed by their broader plans to reduce welfare spending by getting people off benefits and tightening eligibility.

The economic legacy of Cameron's austerity is a matter of fierce debate. Proponents argue that it stabilized the UK's finances and laid the groundwork for a return to growth. Critics, however, contend that it stifled economic recovery, led to a "lost decade" of stagnant wages and low productivity, and disproportionately hit the poorest in society.

Reform's economic plans face similar questions. The party believes that their combination of tax cuts and spending cuts will "re-energise the economy" and spur growth. However, economists warn that the scale of the cuts needed to fund their tax plans would be unprecedented and could lead to a severe contraction in public spending, with uncertain consequences for the economy and for society.

While Reform is a new force in British politics, their proposed economic policy echoes a familiar chapter. Their commitment to deep spending cuts to pay for tax reductions bears a striking resemblance to the austerity program implemented by David Cameron's government. 

Poetry and Song Are the Same Artform

The debate over whether poems and songs are separate art forms or simply variations of the same aesthetic expression has a long history. At first sight, the difference seems obvious: poems are primarily meant to be read, while songs are experienced as sound, with music and vocals creating a listening experience. This distinction is often taken as self-evident, determining how audiences approach and categorise these forms. Yet this superficial difference overlooks deeper questions about how each affects us emotionally and cognitively, and about the complex ways in which language, sound and rhythm interact to determine artistic experience.

One significant difference is in how we experience rhythm. Poems rely on rhythm, rhyme and line breaks built into the written text, engaging the reader’s “inner ear” as they mentally hear the flow while reading. This internal auditory experience is an imaginative process, determined by linguistic background, prior knowledge and personal interpretation. Songs, on the other hand, deliver rhythm externally through melody, instrumentation and vocal performance, creating a direct auditory impact. The physical presence of sound waves and the nuances of timbre, pitch and volume give songs a sensorial immediacy that written poetry lacks. The performative element (the singer’s voice, the arrangement, even the listening setting) adds layers of meaning and emotion beyond the text itself.

Critics sometimes suggest that poems and songs invoke fundamentally different responses, yet much of this originates from cultural expectation and setting. In many traditions, songs belong to communal gatherings, rituals and celebrations, engaging listeners through shared sound and movement, while poetry is more often associated with solitary reflection or intellectual engagement. Reading a poem draws on the “inner ear”, determining rhythm and tone through imagination, whereas hearing a song delivers these qualities directly through melody, repetition and performance. In both cases, response is determined not only by the work itself but by the way it is encountered: in private or in company, in silence or in sound, in memory or in the moment. The boundary between them is fluid: many songs contain poetic language, and many poems have been set to music, underscoring the interplay between the two forms.

Despite this, the difference between a poem read on the page and a song heard aloud is less absolute than it seems. Poetry, when read, activates the imagination and inner hearing, drawing us in through patterns of sound and rhythm in the mind’s ear. These sonic qualities can evoke emotion and meaning much like music does, even in silence. The pauses between lines, the visual layout of stanzas and the typography of the text all shape its rhythm and pacing, producing effects that songs sometimes echo but cannot fully replicate. This internalisation of sound allows poetry to transcend the limitations of the printed page, creating a deeply personal and intimate experience that varies widely between individuals and contexts.

Whilst formal distinctions remain (poems are lines on a page, songs combine lyrics with melody and instrumentation), both share a common aesthetic foundation of sound, rhythm, voice and emotional resonance. The difference between them lies more in context and expectation than in essence.

Neuroscience corroborates this connection, demonstrating that reading poetry and listening to music engage overlapping brain networks, particularly in processing rhythm, sound patterns and emotion. Brain imaging shows that both activities stimulate regions linked to auditory perception, emotional regulation and pattern recognition; whether the rhythm is imagined through the reader’s “inner ear” or carried to us on waves of melody and instrumentation. At the same time, each form also draws on specialised circuitry: poetry on the page largely utilises language-processing areas, while song largely utilises pitch and melody-related regions. This blend of shared and distinct activation suggests that the mind responds to both with a common aesthetic framework, yet determines that response to match the sensory pathway (silent reading or audible performance) through which the art is experienced.

Ultimately, the difference between poems as read experiences and songs as heard experiences shows how context, perception and mental engagement determine our experience of artistic expression. Recognising their shared aesthetic roots and the fluidity between reading and listening gives us a broader appreciation of how rhythm, voice and sound create meaning: whether imagined in the mind or heard through the ears. The borders between literary and musical arts, therefore, are permeable, shifting with culture, history and individual perception.

Being Stuck Inside Your Old Self

Time travel has fascinated human imagination, often depicted as the ability to physically travel to the past and change history. But what if time travel isn’t about moving your body through time, but rather about your consciousness slipping backward to inhabit an earlier version of yourself? This concept departs radically from traditional ideas and opens new philosophical and emotional territory.

Imagine a person in 2025 able to transfer their awareness into their 1990 self. Unlike classic time travel, the 2025 consciousness cannot control or influence their past body; the 1990 self acts exactly as it did then. The traveller experiences everything the earlier self senses (sights, sounds, touch, taste and smell) but not their thoughts or feelings. They become a passive passenger inside their own history, witnessing life replay without control or emotional involvement.

This form of time travel carries profound implications. The present consciousness is cut off from the inner world of the past self. It can see the younger self in love, enjoying moments once cherished, yet remain disconnected from the emotions that made those moments meaningful. What the past self feels remains a mystery; the traveller can only observe from the sidelines: unable to experience the visceral passion and spontaneity of lived experience.

This dynamic transforms what might seem a nostalgic escape into a psychological ordeal. The traveller hopes to relive joy or love but instead confronts a hollow shell. The vividness of sensory input contrasts sharply with the absence of feeling, making the experience alienating and sometimes torturous. The very qualities that imbue life with meaning (control, emotional engagement and choice) are missing. To observe oneself without being able to participate is a kind of imprisonment.

Adding to this burden is the unyielding passage of time. The traveller must endure the entire span of their past self’s existence as it unfolded, unable to pause, skip or alter events. The mundane routines and frustrating moments become an unrelenting background to a detached awareness, amplifying feelings of boredom and helplessness.

Beyond individual experience, this model of consciousness time travel prompts broader questions about identity and self-hood. If a future self can observe a past self in this way, it suggests that at any given moment, we might be being silently watched by versions of ourselves still to come. This infinite regress of selves watching selves forms a temporal network of silent witnessing, raising questions about privacy, free will and the nature of consciousness itself.

Intriguingly, this framework could offer an explanation for phenomena like déjà vu. These fleeting sensations of “having been here before” might be subtle leaks of future awareness into the past self’s consciousness. In this way. déjà vu becomes not a mere brain glitch but a faint echo of temporal selves overlapping, a "whisper" from the future observer to the present experiencer.

Basically, this vision of time travel is less about adventure and more about the limits of human experience. It reveals that the past, no matter how vividly recalled, cannot be truly re-inhabited without its essential emotions and choice. Thus, nostalgia risks becoming a trap, like a prison where the present self longs for a feeling that can never be recaptured.

This idea turns the usual fantasy on its head, showing that the desire to revisit the past might be fraught with alienation and pain. It forces us to confront the profound truth that life’s significance lies not just in moments themselves but in our active, emotional engagement with them as they unfold. The past remains a place to remember, but not to return, I recall hearing once.

'An Insider’s Damning Testimony of the Restart Scheme' by Andrew Davies—guest blogger

When the UK government launched the Restart Programme, it was sold as a bold initiative to help the long-term unemployed back into work. Providers would deliver tailored, compassionate support; the kind that understands barriers, builds confidence and matches people to sustainable jobs.

But according to one former employee of Seetec, a major Restart provider, the reality is far from the marketing brochure. In a candid Reddit post, they describe an environment that’s toxic for both staff and participants, and driven almost entirely by money. See:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DWPhelp/comments/16ct4ta/inside_of_the_restart_programme_during_my_time_5/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

The ex-employee paints a picture of a workplace ruled by intimidation. Advisors are overworked, underpaid and micromanaged to a degree that borders on absurd. From assigned seating to being told not to talk to colleagues outside your “team zone”, it’s a rigid, joyless environment.

Team leaders, they claim, don’t lead; they use their hardest-working staff to prop up the rest, with no extra pay or recognition. Those who raise concerns about workloads or stress are met with hostility, not support. HR, in practice, doesn’t exist. Complain, and you’re out.

Perhaps the most disturbing detail is how participants are treated. Far from tailoring support to people’s circumstances, management allegedly views each person as nothing more than a “job outcome” target, worth up to £3,000 in payment once they’ve earned £4,000 in wages.

According to the whistleblower, this leads to:

1. Pushing people into unsuitable, full-time work, regardless of health conditions or caring responsibilities.

2. Threatening sanctions to force compliance, even on claimants approaching state pension age and those clearly unfit for work.

3. Pressuring participants to travel long distances for irrelevant job starts, simply to get them “off the books”.

They claim management even encouraged threats against participants’ families to intimidate them into taking jobs. And that the Jobcentre forces people into the scheme, and the Restart process often leaves participants more stressed and demoralised than when they began.

Some, they note, start the programme full of hope and confidence, only to emerge months later with their mental health in tatters. Others turn to their GP for sick notes or apply for disability benefits just to escape the pressure.

One of the most alarming allegations is the open sharing of participants’ sensitive information in office meetings. Health conditions, criminal records and personal histories are apparently treated as casual gossip fodder, an outright breach of confidentiality rules.

The post describes a constant churn of staff, with one resignation notice per week being the norm. New hires are often people with no relevant experience, sometimes from completely unrelated careers, given minimal training before being unleashed on vulnerable participants.

At the heart of this testimony is the claim that the Restart Programme is driven by financial incentives, not genuine support. Once a participant hits that magic £4,000 earnings milestone, the provider gets paid and loses all interest in their wellbeing. Whether the participant stays in work or ends up back on benefits is irrelevant.

The post claims that DWP is already facing growing complaints and may remove Seetec’s contract in the future. Whether that happens or not, it’s clear from this insider’s account that the Restart Programme (at least in some places) is failing to deliver the respectful, tailored support it was supposed to provide.

If the allegations are accurate, then Restart isn’t just broken, it’s actively harming the people it claims to help. And that raises a bigger question: when welfare-to-work schemes are built on targets and payments, can they ever truly put people before profit?

'GB News Overrates its Ratings' by Andrew Davies—guest blogger

GB News is claiming a "seismic moment" in British broadcasting. Why? Because in July 2025, it barely managed to edge past the BBC News Channel in average daily viewership. But behind the chest-thumping, the reality is far less impressive, and far more revealing.

According to BARB, GB News averaged around 80,600 daily viewers last month, edging just ahead of the BBC News Channel’s 78,700. That’s a lead of fewer than 2,000 people. GB News has also announced strong performance in key time slots like breakfast and weekday evenings, framing it as a transformative moment in UK broadcasting. But dominating a few hours in the day on a low-reach channel like GB News doesn’t make it a media powerhouse—it simply confirms its status as a niche outlet with a loyal, if limited, audience.

GB News has always styled itself as the underdog ("the channel for people who feel unheard") but what it really offers is a steady diet of manufactured grievance and culture war talking points. If it’s drawing in viewers, it’s not because of journalistic rigour. It’s because it knows how to serve outrage with breakfast and paranoia with the evening headlines.

And yet even within its own narrow definition of success, the victory is hollow. When we look at the broader picture, the BBC remains overwhelmingly dominant.

GB News might have edged a daily average, but the BBC News Channel’s weekly reach still far exceeds it—often more than double. That means more people across the UK are watching the BBC, even if only briefly, while GB News relies on a smaller base of habitual viewers. That is not really growth, but more like saturation.

Then there’s the rest of the BBC's output, which dwarfs anything GB News could hope to match. BBC One’s Breakfast, Six O’Clock News and Ten O’Clock News still reach massive audiences. None of those numbers are included in the News Channel’s BARB figures. And that’s before we even include iPlayer and the BBC’s website and app, which together draw more than 40 million users. GB News online just draws over 10 million.

And radio? The BBC’s network of national and regional stations delivers news to millions more every day. GB News, by contrast, doesn’t even try.

So GB News, despite its claims of speaking for "the people", still trails badly in that department. You can game viewing figures for a time, especially when your programming verges on the sensational, but you can't manufacture credibility.

If anything, this supposed breakthrough shows the limits of GB News. It’s carved out a niche. That’s all. A vocal, partisan slice of the public is watching more intently, but that doesn't mean the channel is reshaping British media. It means it's doubling down on its core audience while alienating the rest.

So despite all the noise GB News makes, it’s still playing catch-up.

Scents Before Modernity

I was a young child in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and the world I grew up in was saturated with everyday scents that were distinctive and ever-present. These smells, like the pop music of the time, formed the background texture of my life. Most have vanished. Some for good reason: safety, health and progress. Others were lost due to modern manufacturing processes and production methods.

The most noticeable absence is tobacco smoke, especially from pipes and cigars. Those two had a richness I associated with sophistication and gentility. I don’t advocate smoking, and I’m glad it’s gone. But I miss the smell, at least from pipes and cigars. Cigarettes didn’t smell as nice.

Other scents I miss are: petrol fumes, coal fires, the smell of woollen school blazers and caps, the real leather of school satchels, chalk dust, wax crayons, freshly sharpened pencils and rubbers (erasers). Wellington boots also had a smell. So did the diesel from buses, trains and ferries. As did sweets (candy) with their variety of aromas. And bookshops smelled of paper and cardboard.

Everywhere had a smell! Now, virtually nothing has!

Clean air. Sanitised surfaces. Air-conditioned buildings that emit nothing at all. Supermarkets are scentless. Public transport provides no odour, unless something has gone wrong. Homes are heated by scentless electricity, not by gas or paraffin heaters, that had “cosy” aromas.

This isn’t just nostalgia. Something has been lost; faded away without mourning. Smell is the oldest sense we have, wired directly into memory and emotion. The scents of childhood shaped us, or they did so for me. They fashioned a world rich in texture and associations, that you carried with you. Today, we have replaced scent for sterility. 

I miss the world when it smelled of life.

‘The Poetics of Ambiguity: Romanticism, Empiricism and the Modern Mind’ - free ebook

The new ebook from Argotist Ebooks is ‘The Poetics of Ambiguity: Romanticism, Empiricism and the Modern Mind’ by Jeffrey Side.

Description: 

“This book began life as a doctoral thesis written between 2000 and 2007, a period during which I became increasingly disillusioned with the dominant aesthetic assumptions underpinning both Romantic and contemporary mainstream poetry. At the heart of my research was a single question: why did so much poetry—even that which purported to challenge cultural norms—remain epistemologically conservative? Why did it continue to treat language as a transparent medium, perception as unmediated access to reality and the self as a stable, expressive core? The answer, I gradually came to realise, lay in the unexamined legacy of empiricism. What I found in Romantic poetry—especially that of Wordsworth, Coleridge and their successors—was not the radical inwardness or imaginative freedom often celebrated in literary histories, but rather a poetics that remained fundamentally tethered to an Enlightenment faith in perception and observation. Far from breaking with empiricism, Romanticism often perpetuated its core assumptions, reconfiguring them within a poetic vocabulary that lent affective weight to what were essentially epistemological structures of the empirical gaze.” 

Available as a free ebook here: 

https://argotistebooks.blogspot.com/2025/07/the-poetics-of-ambiguity-romanticism.html

'Reassessing "The Boys from the Blackstuff" in the Context of Today’s Welfare System by Andrew Davies—guest blogger

The Boys from the Blackstuff is regarded as a landmark of 1980s British TV drama, praised for its uncompromising portrayal of unemployment and working-class hardship during the Thatcher years. The series gave a human face to the economic devastation caused by deindustrialisation and mass unemployment. Yet, in its aim to expose social suffering, it used a level of dramatic licence that sometimes overstated the harshness of the welfare system, which—compared to today's—was far less punitive, even under Thatcher.

The drama focused on unemployed Liverpool dockworkers, dealing not only with joblessness but with the loss of dignity and community. This portrayal powerfully captured the emotional and social impact of economic decline. However, it often implied that the benefits system was punitive and inadequate—an impression that doesn’t fully align with the welfare environment of the time. In reality, the system was comparatively generous and less conditional, with no strict requirement to prove active job searching in order to claim support.

While the series depicted a system that appeared harsh, the reality of the early 1980s welfare state was more complex, and, in some respects, more supportive than today’s. Contrary to the suggestion of near-total institutional indifference, claimants could access additional help beyond regular weekly payments, including for essentials like furniture and heating.

Support was available through Supplementary Benefit, the main means-tested system in place throughout the 1970s and early 1980s. Under this scheme, claimants could apply for Exceptional Needs Payments to cover urgent or irregular expenses, such as beds, cookers and other basic furnishings. Those with special circumstances (such as illness, disability or caring responsibilities) could also receive Additional Requirements Allowances to help with higher living costs, including heating during colder months. Though discretionary, these payments reflected a genuine commitment to poverty relief that is largely absent from today’s system.

Claimants were required to sign on only every two weeks, with no obligation to demonstrate active job hunting. There were rules about working while claiming, but no digital surveillance, mandatory job applications or routine sanctions of the kind now embedded in the benefits system.

What the series captured with emotional force may have overstated the cruelty of the system itself. Even under the tightening social policies of the early Thatcher years, the welfare state still provided a relatively humane safety net—one that recognised need and made provision for basic dignity.

The depiction of a relentlessly harsh system overlooked this reality. Instead, the drama focused on the psychological and social fallout of unemployment, which was indeed severe and deserving of attention. Yet by conflating the trauma of joblessness with a draconian benefits regime, it contributed to the impression that state support itself was a source of suffering—something that is truer today than it was then.

The series also highlighted the risks faced by those caught “moonlighting” while on benefits: characters who took informal work to supplement their income, only to face sanctions or loss of support. While this reflected a real anxiety, the need to moonlight was arguably less about systemic cruelty and more about claimants striving to maintain self-respect and meet needs that went beyond the scope of benefits.

Compared to today's benefits climate, the contrast is striking. Modern support is far more conditional, closely monitored and punitive, with frequent assessments and sanctions that make claiming both stressful and uncertain. By contrast, the 1980s system prioritised financial support over enforcement.

In this light, The Boys from the Blackstuff was both a product and an amplifier of its time: a dramatic work that rightly spotlighted the human cost of economic upheaval, but which arguably overstated the cruelty of the benefits system. Its powerful emotional truths remain compelling, but its depiction of 1980s welfare needs historical perspective. The system it portrayed as oppressive was, in fact, a comparatively generous support network—one without which the hardship of the era would have been far worse.

Ultimately, The Boys from the Blackstuff is best appreciated not as a literal account of welfare policy, but as a dramatic exploration of the social and psychological toll of unemployment, set against the backdrop of a welfare state that, while imperfect, was more accessible than its reputation, or its screen depiction, might suggest.

'The DWP Restart Scheme Exposed: The Secret Job Searches and Sanction Threats Unveiled by an Insider' by Andrew Davies—guest blogger

Recent insider disclosures from an Employment Advisor (EA) working within the UK government’s Restart Scheme, shared openly on Reddit (see link at the end of this article) in 2023, reveal unsettling realities about how the scheme operates. These revelations highlight the significant power EAs hold over claimants and raise important questions about fairness, transparency and the true purpose of Restart.

The EA explained on Reddit that their role goes beyond simply advising jobseekers. They are actively responsible for securing job starts and outcomes, with their performance closely monitored against strict targets set by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The EA stated, “Part of an EA’s job is to get you into work, we are targeted on job starts and outcomes”.

This performance pressure leads to intensive management strategies designed to move participants quickly into employment, often regardless of job suitability or quality. The EA also revealed they have access to the “hidden job market”—vacancies not publicly advertised—and personally conduct job searches and “reverse market” by contacting local employers directly. “I do job searches myself for all my participants and send through jobs, I will also reverse market and ring local employers to find out jobs on the hidden job market i.e jobs that are available but not advertised in the usual places”, the EA wrote.

While this insider access may seem beneficial, it means claimants may be offered jobs without prior knowledge or choice, potentially being pressured into poor matches, sometimes at considerable distance. The EA admitted they hold sanction powers for non-engagement or refusal of suitable jobs, cautioning that sanctions can be cumulative: “602 [sanctions] is not the main focus, but for someone who is deliberately not engaging it can be a good shot across the bow to show how bad things can get, you can be under multiple sanctions in theory”.

The advisor made clear that their own job depends on meeting targets: “If my job is going to be put at risk by not being able to hit targets then I am going to use every tool I have to enable me to hit those targets”. Although supportive of participants with genuine barriers, the EA expressed a clear intent to push “work ready” individuals into employment quickly.

This insider perspective shines a stark light on why many claimants are wary of Restart, especially older people or those with alternative plans like education. The scheme’s design—focused on rapid placements rather than individual suitability—can coerce participants into accepting unsuitable roles, under threat of sanction.

While Restart offers access to exclusive job leads and active advisor support, the power imbalance and sanction pressures mean claimants should carefully consider whether engagement suits their circumstances. Awareness of this inside information, now available publicly thanks to the EA’s Reddit post, may help individuals navigate their options more strategically or decide that avoiding Restart altogether is the safer path.

Link to EA's Reddit post

https://www.reddit.com/r/DWPhelp/comments/12fo3bc/comment/jfxhk0p/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

'How the DWP's Restart Scheme Funnels Welfare Money to Private Firms' by Andrew Davies—guest blogger

The UK government claims to be cutting back on welfare spending: tightening eligibility, toughening work requirements and cracking down on so-called “benefit cheats”. But behind the scenes, billions are being quietly diverted into the coffers of private employment firms via schemes like Restart. These firms are paid not for helping people, but for simply tracking them.

What’s happening is not illegal. But it’s a system designed in such a way that providers can profit handsomely with minimal effort or accountability. In effect, the Restart Scheme turns Universal Credit claimants into data assets. If you’re referred while on UC, and you later go on to earn a modest income (even if entirely through your own efforts) the Restart provider gets paid by the government.

Restart providers are paid in stages, according to a commercial model buried in the DWP's contracts. Once a Universal Credit claimant is referred into Restart (via the PRaP system), a clock starts ticking. For the next 547 days (about 18 months), the provider is eligible to claim job outcome payments if that claimant hits certain earnings milestones:

£1000 earned: First outcome payment

£2000 earned: Second outcome payment

£4250 earned: Final “sustained employment” bonus worth up to £3,000

These earnings can be cumulative, across multiple short-term jobs. And here’s the thing: the job doesn’t have to be found with their help. If the claimant gets work on their own (or even returns to a job they already had lined up) the provider still profits, as long as that PRaP referral is in place.

This is not about employment support. It’s about monetising unemployment. Once you're tagged in the Restart system, your financial movements are monitored for 18 months via real-time data sharing between HMRC and the DWP. This continues even after you close your Universal Credit claim, with earnings still reported for six months.

Restart doesn’t exist to help people into work. It exists to ensure providers get paid when people return to work anyway. That’s why Work Coaches are under pressure to refer as many people as possible.

These outcomes are funded through the Department for Work and Pensions. Restart is part of a vast ecosystem of outsourced welfare services, built on a logic of per-capita capture, automated tracking and staged monetisation.

The public is told that tough love and strict rules are saving money. But the truth is that a significant portion of the welfare budget is quietly redirected into opaque private contracts that are rarely scrutinised and often rewarded for doing little more than watching you earn.

There’s no fraud here, just an exploitative business model that feeds off claimant data. It's technically legal, politically useful and financially lucrative. But it’s also profoundly cynical.

At the same time claimants are harassed, sanctioned and made to jump through hoops for support, Restart providers are cashing in on their efforts, even when they contribute nothing at all to those outcomes. This is the hidden cost of welfare outsourcing. And it’s time more people knew about it.