Starmer premiership becoming untenable

Upon his appointment as US ambassador in 2024 the UK PM Keir Starmer hailed Lord Mandelson for bringing "unrivalled experience" to the role.

His then Foreign Secretary David Lammy said Mandelson had "a wealth of experience in trade, economic and foreign policy from his years in government and the private sector".

Meanwhile the peer said he was deeply honoured, promising to "advance our historic alliance with the United States".

An unnamed Labour MP meanwhile said, "Mandelson is very good at making relationships, [he] has unmatched negotiation skills as shown in his EU trade commissioner role and has a trade union background which is overlooked. Trump is transactional, and Mandelson will be able to cope with this."

Another suggested he would look like an angel! "In a room with Trump, Mandelson will look like an angel. But this is politics, hard politics." [Guardian]

Dubbed the "Prince of Darkness" during his years as New Labour's spin doctor, following the release of the Epstein files he was more like the kiss of death to the party, the government and the PM himself who had appointed him to the post. Not so much an angel as a devil in disguise.

Even before the Epstein files were released, raising issues concerning Mandelson's integrity, he had been a divisive figure in British politics over many years.

He resigned twice as a minister - once for failing to declare a home loan from a cabinet colleague, and a second time over accusations of using his position to influence a passport application. This should have perhaps raised alarm bells long before his appointment as US ambassador [BBC].

His appointment was specifically arranged by No.10 rather than following usual diplomatic procedures. This in itself was unusual. In fact Lord Mandelson's appointment was the first political rather than diplomatic appointment to Washington since Peter Jay, the former prime minister James Callaghan's son-in-law, in 1977.

Jay's appointment was far from controversial however, and he had a notable career both within politics and journalism.

At various times, Jay was also economics editor of the Times newspaper, presenter of ITV's Weekend World, British Ambassador to Washington, launch chairman of TV-am.

He was, by coincidence, the chief of staff to Robert Maxwell, father of Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend, socialite and, who alongside Epstein, was found guilty of child sex trafficking and other offences.

Robert Maxwell, a press mogul, fell to his death from his £15m yacht, the Lady Ghislaine, off the Canary Islands, aged 68. Even now there is talk of suicide, or murder – perhaps by Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, according to some theories.

Whether or not his death was an accident, controversy followed Maxwell's death. As his body was recovered revelations emerged of the squandering of pension funds.

For Oxford-educated Ghislaine, the youngest of his nine children, Maxwell's money had provided status and a ticket to the elite. She was dispatched to New York initially as a meeter-and-greeter, to pave her father's way when he bought the Daily News. After his death, she made it her home. She soon became part of Epstein's inner circle and remained there for more than a decade. The two were reportedly briefly an item and they remained close.

She is said to have facilitated Epstein's social contacts, flying with him on his private jet and organising dinners for influential people at his homes. One acquaintance described her as "half ex-girlfriend, half employee, half best friend and fixer". Epstein described her, in a 2003 Vanity Fair profile, as his "best friend" [Guardian].

Whilst Robert Maxwell was alive and hosting events, many attendees spoke of their being uncomfortable in his presence.

Among them was the Labour party's then director of communications, Peter Mandelson. "It was very strange because you'd simultaneously want to be at Maxwell's parties and at the same time shrink away from him," he remembers. "Because he was such a bully and so unpredictable. To be honest, I was frightened of his company. He had that ability to make you feel completely small and inadequate, and that just scrambled my head."

It is clear that he was far more comfortable in the company of Robert Maxwell's daughter's new associate, Jeffrey Epstein, as well as Ghislaine herself [Guardian].

But what did Keir Starmer know of Mandelson's relationship with Epstein at the time he was appointed ambassador?

In early 2024 the FT journalist Jim Pickard posed a question to Keir Starmer referencing a J.P.Morgan probe which suggested that in June 2009, when he was the UK business secretary, Mandelson stayed at Epstein's lavish townhouse in Manhattan, while the financier was in prison for soliciting prostitution from a minor [Daily Telegraph paywalled / Archived]

Keir's response to Pickard was, "I don't know any more than you and there's not really much I can add to what is already out there I'm afraid" [Twitter X].

This was, of course before Starmer became PM, since he had yet to win the, as yet unannounced, 2024 election. But as leader of the Labour party the conversation should have surely registered in his mind before appointing Mandelson to his new post less than 12 months later.

Starmer's claim that he knew little about Mandelson's close relationship with Epstein is somewhat incredulous given historical articles that detailed not only the peer's friendship with the convicted paedophile but also that Starmer had likely been made aware of the reports.

Surely he can't have failed to have noticed photos published in The Sun in 2022 depicting Peter Mandelson in 2007 grinning as Jeffrey Epstein blew out the candles on a birthday cake soon after Epstein had been charged in an underage sex probe.

Blame might also be attributed to Starmer's advisers. Surely the likes of his Cabinet Secretary Chris Wormald or his predecessor Simon Case should have alerted the Prime Minister to the likely pitfalls of placing Mandelson in the role of US Ambassador.

Or what of Morgan McSweeney who replaced Sue Gray as his Chief of Staff soon after Starmer took office. Indeed there are already accusations coming from the opposition benches as to what advice McSweeney might have offered concerning Mandelson.

Mandelson's historical reputation as a spin doctor might have been enough for some. But times have moved on from the days of Bush and Blair.

There will be many who will have forgotten the days when Blair was accused of being Bush's poodle. But such times have passed, and with Trump in the White House Mandelson was clearly not the right man for the job. One needed a rottweiler, much less a poodle, as Britain's representative in the White House, and certainly not the weasel that Mandelson turned out to be.

It can be argued that Starmer is as much to blame as his advisers and Mandelson himself.

He and many within the high ranks of government have proved themselves to be untrustworthy, sly, and possibly cowardly, manipulative and of evading all or any responsibility, whilst attempting to shift the conversation concerning their inept decisions to that of thoughts for Epstein's victims, as if one had forgotten.

Starmer failed to remain in the House of Commons as the opposition and many amongst Labour's own ranks berated the government concerning Mandelson's appointment.

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Darren Jones was left to answer on Starmer's behalf as one MP after another demanded answers.

Alex Burghart, the Conservative MP for Brentwood and Ongar, called for answers as to who knew what and when concerning Mandelson and said "something has gone very wrong" concerning his appointment

Labour MP Emily Thornberry asked whether police might not be involved concerning Mandelson's actions, behaviour and accepting of monies from a convicted paedophile.

The Conservative MP for Christchurch Christopher Chope raised the question - given Mandelson's involvement, a well known homosexual - concerning Epstein's possible involvement in trafficking boys and young men, as well as girls and young women. Jones refuses to speculate but expressed the hope that it wasn't the case. Further, that was for Mandelson to answer.

Many also called for the peer to not only be stripped of his peerage but also face criminal proceeding after it emerged that Mandelson had "leaked a sensitive UK government document to Jeffrey Epstein while he was business secretary that proposed £20bn of asset sales and revealed Labour's tax policy plans" according to the Financial Times.

Starmer's calls for an inquiry, and moves to strip Mandelson of his peerage, might be too little too late.

The knives were already out before this latest fiasco, even within Labour ranks. This could be the final chapter in this latest political saga.


Beware the Ides of March.


tvnewswatch, London, UK

Zelenskyy under pressure over corruption scandal

The Ukraine President is facing a crisis on three fronts as he battles against a corruption scandal at home, a proposed iniquitous 'peace deal' drawn up between Russia and the US and continuing bombardment from Russian strikes.

On Wednesday 19th November reports emerged that US and Russian officials had drawn up what was described as a 'peace proposal'. However it has been criticised for being one of capitulation for Kyiv who would be forced to cede territory and reduce its armed forces should it accept the 'deal' [Axios / Guardian]. 

The plan contained terms that closely mirrored Moscow's longstanding demands, a senior Ukrainian official briefed on the proposal told AFP on Wednesday [Moscow Times]. 

Zelenskyy, who has been visiting Turkey on a new peace drive in recent days, is expected to meet US Army officials on Thursday ahead of the G20 in Johannesburg, South Africa on Saturday [Reuters]. 

The Trump administration will be hoping that Kyiv will accept the iniquitous deal seen by critics as one of appeasement rather than a peace deal. They may also be hedging their bets given growing problems  within Zelenskyy's own administration.

In recent months the Ukrainian president has faced a backlash over reports of corruption. The country has had a long history of corruption. But the recent reports could tear apart the cohesiveness of his administration which has otherwise been a core of strength in a four year long war.

The headlines make salacious reading with talk of 'golden toilets' and 'bags of cash' being smuggled out of the country. It is a scandal that could see the Ukrainian government being brought down as major figures stand accused of corruption and embezzlement.

According to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine [NABU] some £76m has been skimmed from Ukraine's energy sector by business leaders and officials. This has led to calls for Zelenskyy to fire his long-standing chief of staff Andrii Yermak [pictured above, left].

A former film producer, Yermak has served as the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine since the 11th February 2020. But while he has not been accused of profiting from embezzlement, he has been accused of stifling anti-corruption investigations.

NABU says it has uncovered a high-level criminal scheme at the heart of the government involving Ukraine's nuclear energy body, Energoatom, which runs three nuclear power plants supplying Ukraine with more than half of its electricity. The investigation alleges that insiders received kickbacks of 10-15% from Energoatom's commercial partners.

The issue is particularly sensitive as ordinary Ukrainians have to endure daily power cuts as a result of Russian attacks on the country's infrastructure.

The accused mastermind behind the scheme, Timur Mindich, a close personal associate and business partner of  Zelenskyy, has reportedly fled the country, just hours before NABU investigators arrived at his home where they found a bathroom fitted with a gold toilet.

Images of such excess will be difficult for Zelenskyy to explain. His enemies, both at home and abroad, will make political capital from the revelations. Political opponents at home will no doubt pressure Zelenskyy to sack key individuals from his administration, while seeking to secure stronger positions in the way Ukraine is run [Telegraph - paywalled]. 

Beyond its borders, Ukraine's enemies will seek to capitalise on the revelations. Russia will no doubt pressure the American administration to take advantage of a politically weakened Ukraine. The Trump administration may too see the advantage of exploiting the situation. A signed 'peace deal' - even one of attrition - would be welcomed by Trump as an achievement; another in a long line of conflicts and wars he has claimed to have ended.

The scandal will be an embarrassment to Ukraine's closest allies. While there has been no official or public comment from European leaders, many may well feel cheated by the revelations.

Conspiracy theories have long portrayed Zelenskyy as being corrupt and there have been accusations he has personally benefited from money given to the country to buy weapons.

One debunked theory is that the Ukrainian president bought luxury yachts with American aid money. The Russian disinformation plot was successful however. The false reports took off online and were echoed by members of the US Congress who were making crucial decisions about military spending [BBC].

But while those specific reports have been put to bed, the latest scandal - with headlines about gold toilets and bags of cash - do nothing to silence the critics and further bolster those who perpetuate conspiracy theories.

This latest scandal could be a turning point. It could all go south and see the country collapse and Russia ceding vast swathes of territory as the political turmoil ensues.

But it could see Zelenskyy grasping the nettle and turning the situation around.

The former president, Petro Poroshenko has called for the current cabinet to be sacked and for a government of national unity to be formed. This is unlikely to happen since Poroshenko was himself embroiled in a defence procurement scandal, which played a role in his 2019 defeat and which saw Zelenskyy winning on the back of a promise to clean up corruption.

Corruption is nothing new in Ukraine, and Zelenskyy has made inroads to clean up politics. This latest episode could be one that makes or breaks the wartime president.

Some observers believe the very fact the scandal even came to light is an indication that Zelenskyy has helped turn things around and that the country is slowly moving in the right direction. Oleksandr Abakumov, the head of NABU's investigating team, acknowledged his colleagues had "faced a lot of obstacles" pursuing an earlier case of corruption known as the Mindich case. "This isn't a story about corruption in Ukraine. It's about how the country is struggling with corruption, fighting with corruption." [Guardian]

Zelenkyy's biggest decision is whether he can step up to the plate and sack his right-hand man. Zelenskyy's chief of staff has amassed a level of power rarely seen in modern Ukraine. He is unelected and lacks popular support. This latest episode in Ukrainian politics could now be the final straw.

"We have to deal with him, he's Zelenskyy's man," a senior European official told the Kyiv Independent. "We don't have a choice."


tvnewswatch, London, UK

Starmer’s future in question as political storm rages

It all looks like a script from a political soap opera as the country heads to a nightmare budget before Christmas. On Thursday 13th November figures were published indicating growth had fallen to 0.1%, down from 0.3% in the previous quarter.

That all comes on the back of a nightmare two weeks in which the new Deputy PM and Justice Secretary had to deflect awkward criticism after it was revealed a convicted asylum seeker was mistakenly released from prison, only for an Algerian sex offender who was due for deportation, to also be accidentally released, just one of more than 90 prisoners accidentally released over seven months [Sky News]. Of course much of the problem was an inherited one, it wasn't a good look.

And this all on the back of a series of resignations, sacking and political manoeuvrings in the corridors of power.

Only last month a tabloid furore was building against Rachel Reeves after accusations of hypocrisy concerning her having failed to apply for a licence from her local council before letting out her south London home. On the eve of Halloween the prime minister declared the matter closed having accepted an apology from the chancellor who had said she had not known a licence was required [Guardian].

Emails then emerged showing that the letting agent for the property had told her husband that a licence would be necessary [BBC]. 

One email also purported to indicate that the agent would apply for a licence on behalf of the client. Within a day the letting agent which rented out Chancellor Rachel Reeves' family home apologised for an "oversight" which led to a failure to obtain the correct licence.

Gareth Martin, owner of Harvey & Wheeler, said the company's previous property manager had offered to apply for a "selective" rental licence on behalf of their client - but this never happened as the manager resigned before the tenancy began.

The story would no doubt have led to louder calls for her resignation but for the breaking news that Prince Andrew was to be stripped of his Royal titles and be known henceforth as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor [Guardian]. He would also, rolling media coverage informed the public, be required to move out of Windsor and slum it on King Charles III's Sandringham Estate where he would reside with the monarch bearing the cost personally. The decision came after long running criticism of Andrew's close connections with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Given how long the episode had been burning, the timing of the decision to strip him of his title seemed somewhat suspicious.

Even if just coincidence, Rachel Reeves would surely have been relieved that the media spotlight had shifted from her dubious financial affairs to the former prince.

While the details of the Reeves' financial affairs concerning her flat may be explained away by an oversight or failure of communication, it is not the first time the chancellor's expenses and financial affairs have been under the spotlight.

In February 2025 the BBC News reported that Rachel Reeves had exaggerated her online CV and had been investigated over her use of expenses while working at Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) [BBC]. The reactions from Reeves and her colleagues were that the BBC reports were exaggerated and inaccurate. Of her expenses Reeves said they had been "signed off in the proper way" and "no issues were ever raised" during her time at the bank. Meanwhile the then Science Secretary Peter Kyle told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the reporting was "inaccurate".

While Reeves has so far survived media scrutiny, others have been less fortunate.

In the summer the Deputy PM Angela Rayner was photographed holidaying in Brighton, vaping on an inflatable kayak on the southern coast near Hove. It then emerged she had bought a flat in the seaside town, her third property which resulted in her being dubbed "three pads Rayner" by the tabloid media [The Sun]. The tabloid media had their claws out and the vitriol and criticism was loud and vociferous. "The hypocrisy of buying a second home when you also have use of a third home — at a time when your own department is waving a stick at second-home owners — does somewhat leave the mouth hanging open," the Sun proclaimed.

Within weeks Angela Rayner was giving a resignation speech, having admitted she underpaid stamp duty. The resignation on the 22nd October came despite repeated messages of support from her colleagues and the prime minister. On the 1st of September Keir Starmer said he was "proud" of his deputy, just days after The Daily Telegraph reported that Rayner saved £40,000 in stamp duty by not paying the higher rate reserved for additional home purchases. By the 3rd of September Rayner contacted the HMRC and referred herself for investigation by Sir Laurie Magnus, the prime minister's ethics adviser. That same day, shortly before Starmer was due to appear at Prime Minister's Questions, Rayner released a statement admitting she should have paid the higher rate of stamp duty when purchasing the Hove flat. Nonetheless the prime minister continued to stand by his deputy. The following day he repeatedly refused to say if he would sack Rayner if the standards adviser concluded she broke the ministerial code [BBC].

The prevarications were moot, and the following day Rayner resigned.

Rayner's stepping down resulted in Starmer being forced to shuffle chairs and pick a new deputy. David Lammy was drawn closer to the PM and placed in position of deputy prime minister and Justice Secretary. Meanwhile he sacked a number of ministers from his cabinet and elevated others to more senior roles. Ian Murray, the Scottish Secretary, was thrown out of the Cabinet and replaced with Douglas Alexander. The decision was treated with indignation by Murray who said he was "hugely disappointed" to be cut from the Cabinet. However it was apparently more than 'dissappointment'. A close friend told the Daily Record that Murray was "very angry and is still in the dark as to why he was sacked."

Gone too was Lucy Powell, Leader of the House of Commons, who was also unimpressed about being dismissed from her post.

However in a humiliating move for Keir Starmer she managed to place herself close to the inner circle after placing herself in the deputy leadership contest against Bridget Phillipson and winning [BBC].

Despite having secured a senior position Powell was not brought back into the Cabinet.

Political pundits have suggested that the PM might 'feel some unease about the outcome for a few different reasons' in that, according to Sky's Beth Rigby 'she has power and profile, but will remain an independent voice, free from collective cabinet responsibility [Sky News].

And so a little under three weeks after assuming her position as a political fly in the ointment, Keir Starmer was facing a wrath of stories plastered across many frontpages claiming that he might be facing a challenge to his own leadership.

Once again the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was forced to answer awkward questions in PMQs and address reports that rivals in his Labour Party were plotting to replace him as leader. It all came just two weeks before a government budget announcement that could worsen his already dire poll ratings, three weeks after Lucy Powell secured her position as deputy leader, and 10 weeks since his previous deputy leader and deputy PM Angela Rayner had resigned.

Late on Tuesday 11th November, several media outlets quoted Starmer allies as saying his job might be under immediate threat and singled out Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, as a challenger whose "ambition" was being viewed with "particular suspicion."

Ahead of an awkward PMQs, Streeting was on the media rounds busily defending Starmer and denying any suggestion he was behind any plot to oust the prime minister. According to one Downing Street source quoted in the Daily Express, "there is a pattern of Keir's team briefing against his own people – they did it to Angela [Rayner], Lisa [Nandy], Lucy [Powell], now it's Wes's [Streeting] turn. A circular firing squad won't help the Government out of the hole we're in."

During a tense grilling on the BBC, Streeting defended the PM and denied he was behind a coup, and said people should 'calm down'

BBC Breakfast host Jon Kay launched his interrogation with a graphic description of the likely scenes inside Number 10. "It sounds like people inside Downing Street think you are a potential problem yourself because we've had this extraordinary briefing overnight to the BBC from people close to the Prime Minister who seem to think they're worried about some kind of leadership challenge in the next few weeks, and they name you as a potential threat. Wes Streeting, are you a faithful or are you a traitor?"

Streeting responded, likening the whole episode as being like a soap opera. "Someone has definitely been watching too much Celebrity Traitors in Downing Street. I think they should be watching Countryfile instead and calm down a bit. I am a Faithful, what you're seeing from a silly number 10 source overnight is probably the worst attack on the faithful since Joe Marler was banished in the final." 

Another person in the spotlight is Morgan McSweeney, whose official title is Downing Street Chief of Staff. Starmer has come under intense pressure from a wide range of ministers and MPs to sack his chief of staff after No 10 was accused of an extraordinary briefing operation against the health secretary, Wes Streeting [Guardian].

But there is also a name that has failed to be mentioned in all this, that of Starmer's Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, appointed by the PM on the 16th December 2024, succeeding Simon Case.

Case had been in the role for the six months after Labour won the general election last year and was involved in the transition between governments but left with some questions over his stepping down, though health reasons were cited [BBC] .

Just as depicted by Humphrey in the 'fictional' political sitcom Yes, Prime Minister, the role of the Cabinet Secretary involves advising the Prime Minister, supporting the government's decision-making processes, and heading the Home Civil Service.

However, it seems clear that Starmer is either not receiving very good advice, or simply ignoring it.

From issues concerning the integrity of his cabinet members, choices concerning roles and public statements on his team, as well as policy, Starmer's leadership has been a litany of confusion, procrastination and prevarication.

This is in addition to increasing rumours concerning Starmer's personal life, details of which have been mostly hidden from the public to date.

Labour won an election on the back of a failed and failing Tory administration seen as corrupt and inept. It came in on a promise of 'Change', a single word that was emblazoned on its manifesto. In that manifesto it also gave unrealistic promises it would not raise taxes, something it is widely believed Reeves will break in her late November Budget. The manifesto also fenced itself in with promises that it would 'make Brexit work' and that Labour would not seek to rejoin the EU, the Customs Union or the Single Market, even if this were the only way out of economic oblivion.

The UK has continued to face low growth throughout 2025. The latest figures, ahead of a budget which is likely to dampen public spending yet further paints a gloomy picture for 2026 [BBC]. The EU economy in comparison was projected to experience moderate growth in 2025, with real GDP expected to increase by 1.1% in the EU and 0.9% in the euro area as a whole. Moreover EU growth is expected to rise to 1.5% in 2026. Hardly a celebration, especially given the likes of China which has seen its growth level at around 4.8% in 2025. Meanwhile, the US economy expanded an annualised 3.8% in Q2 2025, much higher than 3.3% in the second estimate, and marking the strongest performance since Q3 2023.

Whichever way one cuts it, the UK's economic picture is bleak. And yet the government has boxed itself into one corner, with promises not to forge closer ties with the EU which would undoubtedly boost the economy [Numerous economic analyses by institutions like the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the Centre for European Reform (CER), and others suggest that rejoining the EU, or even just the single market, would boost the UK economy compared to its current post-Brexit trajectory. ] Yet, at the same time the treasury department is willing to break other promises not to raise taxes in order to keep the ailing ship of HMS Britannia afloat.

And amidst all this, one is witness to a political soap opera with denials, rumours and infighting abound. The comedy and farce of it all would be hysterically funny if it weren't so serious.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Happy Halloween

Happy Halloween

Windows 10 support ends but it need not be doomsday

Today is the 14th October 2025, a date which marks the 'end of support' for computers running Windows 10. For the average consumer there has been a lot of disinformation and contradictory information swirling around making it difficult to decide what to do.

Updates are free for many, but even news websites are failing to publicise this.

The date has been marked as a kind of 'doomsday' for anyone running the Windows 10 operating system. Figures indicate that 40% of PCs running Windows are still using Windows 10, despite the introduction of its successor, Windows 11, in 2021.

One reason that many have not upgraded to Windows 11 is due to hardware compatibility. Many older PCs that are quite capable of running Windows 10, simply do not have enough memory of RAM to run Windows 11. Even laptops that Microsoft claims are capable of running Windows 11, are rendered almost unworkable after installing the newer operating system.

There are thus millions of computers potentially left vulnerable after Microsoft halts security updates for Windows 10 machines.

There are some caveats however. Security updates are patches applied to prevent hackers exploiting holes in the operating system. But even with such patches users still need to employ good security practices.

Good security involves not clicking on suspicious links, not downloading files from unverifiable sources and keeping anti-virus software up-to-date.

With regards to anti-virus software many people rely on Windows Defender. Some fear that the end of Windows 10 support will reduce protection from the built-in firewall. However, Windows Defender will continue to work and still offer substantial protection.

As long as users continue to employ good safety practices, as outlined above, and stay within safe spaces on the internet and not visit 'dodgy websites', then Windows 10 - even without continued support - is likely to be safe for at least the short term.

But fear will consume many users, some of whom will have already thrown their old PC into an ever growing pile of eWaste and purchased a new machine.

There is however a cheaper option, which will at least put to rest any major concerns for another year. Microsoft is offering another year of support for those who sign-up to receive them. This will ensure protection until the 13th October 2026.

There is a cost to most users however. Microsoft is charging $30 plus tax, or the redemption of 1,000 so-called reward points. [Microsoft Rewards points are a loyalty program that rewards users for engaging in activities such as searching with Bing, shopping at the Microsoft Store, and playing games on Xbox. These points can be redeemed for various rewards such as gift cards, sweepstakes entries, and donations to nonprofits.]

Many PC  users will quite understandably not have heard of Microsoft Rewards and be forced to change laptops or pay up.

There is however a little publicised alternative for those in the EEA, or European Economic Area. Microsoft backed down concerning its policy to charge those in the zone after pressure from consumer groups citing EU legislation [PCMag] . Thus anyone in the EEA is able to get free updates for another year simply by going to the Windows Update page in settings and registering with a Microsoft account.

Many Windows 10 users might not have a Microsoft account, instead signing in using a 'local account', however there is a facility to create an account in order to register for the free updates.

While technically outside the EEA post-Brexit, users in the UK are still able to sign-up for free updates. This may or may not be an oversight on Microsoft's part, the reason is not entirely clear.

What is apparent is that the swirl of information surrounding the 'end of support' doomsday is muddy and confusing at best.

Indeed at the time of writing this dozens of news websites are still offering erroneous or incorrect information. The Guardian points to the free updates but incorrectly states one has to 'sync settings'. This is only true outside the EEA. GBNews also alludes to this with scaremongering headlines that users who don't take action will almost immediately suffer from cyberattacks. The BBC is less sensationalist and warns that "computers may be at risk" should users not enrol for security updates.

Moreover it correctly states that people living in the European Economic Area will get them for free by registering. For other users, to update for free, "they need to have updated to the latest version of Windows 10, have a Microsoft account and backed up their PC settings" to Microsoft's OneDrive online cloud storage service. However, even the BBC failed to notice that users in the UK, despite it not being in the EEA, can still get free updates with no strings attached.

There are an estimated 600 million PCs in the world using Windows 10. And a large proportion of these otherwise working machines will end up as landfill in the coming days.

In the EEA it is estimated that around 22% of consumers still use Windows 10 devices. In the UK the number of computers that could conceivably be consigned to the bin is in excess of 21 million.

Microsoft is acting irresponsibly by consigning otherwise working machines to landfill. But media organisations are also failing consumers. With nearly half of all PCs in the world at risk of being dumped simply because people have been scared into doing so by scaremongering by Microsoft and the media, this could be one of the single biggest environmental eWaste dumping events in recent history.


tvnewswatch, London, UK

Cyberattacks & online crime grows

Cyber attacks, hacking and online crime are becoming rife in recent months. Targets have been both small and large, with individuals falling to online scams at an ever increasing number while large corporates and major infrastructures also falling victim to online attacks.

Growing cyberattacks

In the past few months the retailers M&S and Co-op became victims of online attacks which cost them millions of pounds in losses. The Co-op revealed in late September that it had seen a £200m hit to its business as a result of the cyberattack that left shelves empty and severely disrupted its supply chain [BBC].

The retailer M&S was also severely hit just weeks before and while the company said the nature of the incident meant that some personal customer data had been taken, there was no evidence that it had been shared. The financial cost to the brand has yet to be revealed but there has certainly been reputational damage. The attack saw the retailer stop taking orders on its website and app for clothing and home deliveries and also paused its in-store collection service on the 25th April. Online orders eventually resumed on the 10th of June and the click and collect service resumed in early August [BBC].

No-one was safe from these online attacks. Even the prestigious upmarket store Harrods was targeted though the firm said it managed to thwart the attempted breach to its systems [BBC / Periculo].

As the holiday season ended many people at airports across Britain and parts of Europe found themselves facing delays after hackers targeted check-in and boarding systems belonging to provider Collins Aerospace. The systems were eventually brought back online but not before thousands had their travel plans disrupted. Airlines flying out of Heathrow, Brussels, and Berlin were forced to check passengers in manually on Friday 19th September with systems not back to normal until Monday [Independent / BBC].

The same cannot be said for Jaguar Land Rover which is still facing ongoing problems after a month-long shutdown of its operations following a cyberattack [BBC].

While less disruptive, there were further reports of a ransomware attack on a nursery chain on Thursday 25th September [BBC].

Hackers said they had stolen pictures, names and addresses of around 8,000 children from the Kido nursery chain and were using the highly sensitive information to demand a ransom from the company, which has 18 sites in and around London, with more in the US and India.

Arrests

There have been arrests concerning some of these attacks. On the 10th of July the UK's National Crime Agency (NCA) announced the arrest of four individuals in connection with the cyberattacks that disrupted operations at Marks & Spencer (M&S), Co-op, and Harrods earlier this year. The suspects, a 20-year-old woman from Staffordshire, two 19-year-old men (one British, one Latvian) from London and the West Midlands, and a 17-year-old British male were detained at their residences. Authorities also seized electronic devices for forensic analysis.

The arrests were said to be linked to the hacker group known as Scattered Spider, notorious for employing sophisticated social engineering tactics, SIM swapping, and phishing techniques to infiltrate organisations. In the case of M&S, the attackers deployed ransomware, leading to a six-week shutdown of online clothing sales and an estimated £300 million loss in operating profit.

There has also been an arrest concerning the cyberattack on the airlines. On Wednesday 24th September the National Crime Agency said it had arrested a man in his 40s in West Sussex as part of an investigation into the incident affecting Collins Aerospace [Guardian].

And just days before it was reported that Thalha Jubair, 19, from east London, and Owen Flowers, 18, from Walsall in the West Midlands, were arrested at their home addresses on Tuesday by the NCA and City of London Police and charged in connection with a cyberattack that resulted in months of disruption for Transport of London [TfL].

The National Crime Agency (NCA) says it believes the hack, which began on the 31st August 2024, was carried out by members of the cyber-criminal group, Scattered Spider, and caused more than £39m in damage and disruption [BBC].

Arrests have not been confined to Britain however. An African cybercrime operation in late September saw 260 arrests after Operation Contender 3.0, involving 14 countries across the continent, reigned in a large number of scammers involved in Sextortion and Romance Scams [BBC / Interpol]

That operation should prompt concerns that even individuals are as vulnerable as large corporations.

In the coming month there is a concern that Microsoft's end of support for Windows 10 will leave millions of people around the world at risk.

The end of support means that vulnerabilities and security issues identified in Windows 10 will not be patched. While users can pay Microsoft for a year of continued support, many may simply ditch otherwise perfectly good computers and upgrade to a Windows 11 machine.

The move by Microsoft has been criticised for creating a problem with so-called eWaste as well as leaving millions of Windows 10 users potentially vulnerable to malware and cyberattacks.

There is however a reprieve for those residing in EEA countries with users able to get free Windows 10 extended security updates if they log in to Windows and enroll using a Microsoft account [Windows Central / Bleeping Computer]. The European Economic Area [EEA] consists of the 27 EU member states plus three non-EU countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway. Britain is excluded due to its having left the EU. Another Brexit benefit!

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Was life better before the Internet

There have been a number of reports in the media in the past few months concerning generation Z, amongst others, looking back nostalgically at a pre-Internet world [ProfectusMag / GWI].

Of course Gen-Z can't really look back to a world without the Internet. Neither can most millennials. In fact only those that are Generation X or older will likely have grown up without the Internet or at least remember a world without it.

But was it any better to not have access to a world of information at the touch of a button or to share one's life or thoughts with others on a plethora of social media networks.

In many ways it was and in many ways, that of course we weren't aware of, it wasn't.

Part of the recent debate concerned the posting of a video of a performance of the group MGMT on a number of social media platforms.

In an article posted on the Guardian website, and no doubt printed in the physical paper, which even fewer people will read, Isabel Brooks notes that, "Almost half of young people would prefer a world without the internet" and that, "We are haunted by the feeling that it has robbed us of something vital." [Guardian]

Brooks references a video of the song Kids being performed to a group of students at a college campus in April 2003. Students at Wesleyan University, Connecticut, dance and enjoy the song which won't be heard by a wider audience until around 2007.

The video in itself is nothing special. It's probably a VHS recording of a college event not too dissimilar from countless others that took place in the early noughties and the decades before.

However, there is a carefree innocence captured in the video. Brooks herself suggests that in a pre-social media world "people behaved in more authentic and idiosyncratic ways."

Brooks informs us that she was only four at the time the video was shot and perhaps cannot relate to the way people might well have behaved in the days before social media burst onto the scene.

In those days people were less guarded, less hung up about looks or following specific trends. The scene in that video, shot in 2003 could just as easily have been from a video I shot at art college a little over a decade before in Britain.

Kids did have fewer inhibitions. Camcorders were in their infancy and college students weren't particularly shy of being filmed. And much of what was filmed, on old VHS, Video-8 or Umatic tape, has probably been lost, though not all, here being two videos shot in the 1990s at Maidstone College of Art here and here.

In 2003 the Internet was in its infancy. Whilst some universities and colleges had a computer and Internet access, only those needing computers for work would likely own a personal laptop.

A decade or so before not even universities had Internet access. Study was through lectures, books and possibly an audio/visual presentation.

There were no emails or printers. An application to university was carried out by filling in physical forms and sending them off through the post and hoping one might receive a reply and a date for an interview.

Travel involved arriving at a station and buying a ticket for cash or maybe the writing of a cheque. There was no touch and pay, and even chip & pin did not exist beyond the cashpoint which could eat your card at a whim and leave you stranded.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s mobile telephones were only for high flying businessmen or celebrities. The actor Steve McFadden, who played Phil Mitchell in Eastenders, occasionally popped into a Maidstone pub with his massive Motorola 4800X carphone and deposit it on the bar. But for the general public a mobile phone was a pipe dream.

For generation X communication was confined to a landline or a phone box. For many students however there was not even a landline at their rented accommodation meaning the phonebox was the only means of phoning friends in order to make plans.

Without phones plans were often ad hoc, unplanned, spontaneous or simply chance events. One would head to the pub after eating in the hope that someone might be there. Or one might simply take the chance that a fellow student was in and make a journey to their house.

The disappointment of finding no-one at home, or an empty pub was commonplace, but it sometimes led to new adventures, new discoveries and the meeting of new friends.

In some respects this was akin to the Situationist practice of psychogeography which encouraged individuals to engage in a mindful exploration of their city, to aimlessly wander around and observe their environment, a practice of "dérive" or "drift," and thus discover new things.

With the advent of mobile phones, the Internet and an ever connected life, spontaneity and chance discovery was consigned to the past.

Upon leaving education most graduates will today apply for positions online or send countless emails to prospective employers. In an era where email was still in the realms of science fiction, post-grad students had to compose letters on a typewriter and with a photocopy of a CV send it off with the hope of putting one's foot through the door of a company.

Everything was snail mail. Research was fraught especially if you were focused on specialist fields. And the time between sending an application and receiving a reply might extend to weeks.

But technology was slowly improving and becoming more accessible to the general population. In 1994 Mercury One2One launched its digital mobile phone service with Orange following soon after. Early adopters were still seen as outliers. Members of the public would mutter and comment if one took a call on a bus. I clearly remember overhearing two women saying how unnecessary such devices were, as I received a call in central London on a Number 8 bus. "What's so important that people can't wait 'til they get home?" one asked rhetorically. "No, they'll never catch on," replied her friend.

Even as the millennium arrived, mobile phones were mostly in the hands of businessmen, journalists, photographers and those who tended to work away from an office.

Laptops and computers were also out of the reach of most people, seen as an unnecessary luxury. A laptop in the year 2000 cost over £1,000 and was exceedingly slow compared to the machines of today.

Access to the Internet was possible but only through dial-up at 56 kbps. There was no Google. Amazon had only been around a couple of years and as for email there were few providers. Early adopters grabbed a Hotmail address and stuck with it until forced to change to an Outlook account some 13 years later, whilst others grabbed a Gmail account when it launched in 2004. Gmail offered 1 Gb of storage when it launched which doubled to 1 Gb the following year with claims that users would never have to delete an email again. While free storage increased to 15 Gb across Gmail, Google Drive, and Google Photos by 2013, this was barely enough for many users as file sizes grew and more and more of us became reliant on cloud storage.

Facebook launched around 2004 and drew many people into their first foray of social media. In early 2000 Friends Reunited had launched to help connect old school buddies but was shuttered in 2016. Despite its best efforts it couldn't compete with giant services like Facebook.

In between time other social media platforms had made their way into the public arena, services such as Twitter. Online platforms such as YouTube were becoming popular as were blogging platforms such as Wordpress and Blogger.

As these platforms began they were mostly occupied by those who had grown up without Internet access. It would have been unlikely for someone younger than 20-years-old to join  Facebook when it launched in 2004. Indeed the first inhabitants of the web were mostly younger members of Generation X and a few Millennials that were old enough, or lucky enough, to have access to a PC.

Rolling forward a little over two decades and only Generation X and a large proportion of Millennials would remember a time without the Internet. For Generation Z and beyond a world without the Internet would be as unthinkable as a Gen X individual imagining life without electricity or TV.

For Gen Z and most Millennials life has become entwined with the Internet. But while a vast cornucopia of information and knowledge may be only a click away, most young people are more engaged with social network platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram and others. The instant hit of a jokey or viral video, spawned a generation demanding instant gratification and one that has little if any attention span.

Research conducted by Microsoft in 2015 found that the average attention span of Gen Z individuals was only about eight seconds, four seconds less than that of millennials. The study attributes this decrease to the generation's constant exposure to digital content and multiple screens [Time].

The hippies were notoriously stoned and laid back and would think nothing of listening to a concept album lasting six sides or watch a feature length avant-garde movie with little or no dialogue. Seventies kids might have buried themselves in comics and books for hours on end, while eighties youth may have spent many hours skateboarding or trying to understand BBC basic [computer programming].

But today's kids, after the instant dopamine hit of a TikTok video can't sit still for one minute. Many will spend hours doom scrolling through content that provides short-term entertainment and causes the dopamine receptors to get fried. In the long term, fried dopamine receptors lead to the shrinking of their attention spans and perhaps explains why Gen Z, specifically the younger of the group, struggle to finish movies and books.

The advent of streaming has brought about a decline in movie going. But another factor is that the age group that used to fill out the cinemas is now one that can't sit still long enough to watch a feature length movie.

Less than two weeks into the release of Mission Impossible 8 - Final Reckoning, a showing at a London cinema barely attracted a handful of patrons.

Youngsters now can often be observed watching movies on their phones at 2x the speed or flipping forward in 10 minute intervals and watching a segment before flipping forward again.

It is perhaps no wonder that ADHD (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder) is seemingly becoming more prevalent in the young. ADHD is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by persistent symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity that are excessive and pervasive, impairing in multiple contexts, and developmentally inappropriate.

These symptoms can significantly impact daily life, including school, work, and social relationships.

But while there is no evidence suggesting short form videos directly cause the condition, the cause of ADHD has yet to be established and likely involves a combination of genetic and environmental factors.

The diagnosis of ADHD has increased significantly in the last two decades with data showing a steady increase in adult ADHD prescriptions since 2013/14, doubling since 2019/20. Meanwhile in the UK, it's estimated that about 3-4% of adults have ADHD while in children, the global prevalence is around 5%

Symptoms of ADHD include impulsiveness, disorganisation, poor time management skills, difficulty focusing and restlessness. Of course these 'symptoms' could just as easily describe any teenager.

The Internet and all its associations may not have a bearing on children developing ADHD, even if it is affecting their general attention span. But herein lies another consequence of the World Wide Web, that of diagnoses and other threats.

Before the Internet people enjoyed life without the constant threats of something being bad for you or that one in two of us might die from a fatal disease.

Yes, it was well known, even in the '70s and '80s, that cigarettes weren't a health food and that it probably wasn't a good idea to drink to excess every night or consume large quantities of Coca Cola. Bicycle helmets weren't a thing and the concerns over knife crime and violence was rarely mentioned.

People of course still died from smoking related diseases. Others became involved in accidents because of alcohol. And others grew fat because they drank too much fizzy pop or gorged on 'junk' food. Cyclists were surely injured too. It certainly wasn't a blissful utopia on Britain's streets in the 1970s, '80s and '90s. But somehow the Boomers and Generation X managed to survive and enjoy themselves without being bombarded with government messages, health warnings and nannying, besides perhaps the Green Cross Man - aka David Prowse who later played Darth Vader - and who taught kids of the '70s to cross the streets safely https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR7_Bz9fIPA

With the advent of the Internet, and particularly with the smartphone landing in people's hands, negative messages are never far away.

The depressing news headlines could almost be ignored in the days before the Internet. While Sky News began in 1989, it did not have the saturation that it does now. If you missed the 6 O'Clock News on BBC or ITV you'd have to wait 'til 10. Few people bought newspapers, and younger people in particular would be very unlikely to purchase one except for adolescent schoolboys who might buy a copy of the Sun of the Star when the page 3 busty model was still a thing. The Sun newspaper's Page 3, featuring topless models, was discontinued in January 2015 after 44 years, again in part due to the advent of the Internet which provided anyone with as much sassy content as they wanted.

By 2025 the Internet had become a swirling cesspool of pornography, depressing news content, violence, disinformation, health messages encouraging people to avoid cigarettes, alcohol, sugar, salt, fat and meat and engage in more exercise while informing them that one in two people will get cancer.

This messaging along with the other negativity that is prevalent on the Internet is itself far from healthy.

The "one in two people get cancer" statistic can be emotionally distressing, and some may view it as psychologically harmful.

While the statistic may have a basis in fact, its constant broadcast on streamed broadcasts, YouTube pre-roll ads and the like, can create a sense of impending doom or inevitability, leading to anxiety and worry about the future. In short the ad could invoke stress, which itself is known to significantly impact overall health and potentially increase cancer risk.

There's no definitive link between the advent of the internet and a rise in cancer rates. However the global incidence of early-onset cancer increased by 79% between 1990 and 2019. An obvious focus for rising cancer rates is perhaps the vicious circle of obesity, highly processed foods, and sedentary lifestyles.


While Boomers and Gen X smoked and drank, they were less sedentary. They had a morning cigarette before walking to work. Kids were more active, cycling, running and skateboarding rather than sitting in front of a screen.

Both generations were also more positive about the future. Maybe that bubble was burst in the late 1980s when Protect & Survive public information films warned of possible nuclear war, a concern not helped by the BBC drama Threads which depicted the aftermath of such an attack.

But for the most part life was simpler without the internet.

You wouldn't have seen this post of course. This has been typed in Google Docs using a laptop and posted to the Blogger platform. In the past, independent writing was only possible using a typewriter and putting together a fanzine which might be photocopied and distributed by mail or at venues.

'Fanzines' are almost legendary, but many were small print runs and often published just a few issues. Kill Your Pet Puppy, for example, is infamous, but only published six issues  between 1979 and 1984 [Wikipedia]. 

Fanzines aren't new. In the 1970s the likes of Sniffing Glue sold as little as 50 and as many as 15,000 issues in its short 12 issue history [Wikipedia / Guardian].  

Fanzines, or Zines, were originally born out of the counterculture; Dada, Fluxus, Situationist International et al. But as much as they were often political, they offered youngsters a way of promoting other ideas of culture and music. Some focused on science fiction, while others promoted civil rights. But what they represented more than anything was a DIY culture. The Internet can, and does offer some opportunity for these things, but it can all be lost in the ephemeral nature of what the internet is and has become.

A zine, a homemade cassette, a record or CD, is and was something solid, something real. A website, blog, MP3 or online video is real in one sense, but is as much phantom as it is a phenomena.

Old fanzines, books, tapes, records and films still sit on shelves and can be browsed, listened to or watched. And while their existence is fragile, online postings are even more subject to being thrown down a memory hole and eradicated from history.

A book depository or library can of course go up in flames, but one would have to destroy them all to destroy all copies of certain publications. When Geocities was shut down, all traces of millions of posts, articles and information disappeared.

The internet may be a cornucopia of knowledge and information, but it could easily disappear.

Nostalgia is probably something many have experienced before. A trip down memory lane to times that seemed simpler or better. A feeling evoked in us, while listening to a certain song, seeing a particular photograph, or watching a film we saw when we were a child.

But for a generation to be nostalgic for a past they never experienced is bizarre indeed. Maybe it is simply because life has become so complex, overwhelming and saturated that we may all be looking for a time that was simpler and stress free.

tvnewswatch, London, UK