The Leeds housing pioneer says community ownership can provide Black families with secure homes, employment and something lasting to pass to future generations.

Black communities in Britain need greater control over land, not merely access to houses built and owned by others, according to community-led housing pioneer Claude Hendrickson MBE.

Speaking to Jude Davis in a new Power To Prosper interview, Hendrickson said many African, Caribbean and Asian families come from cultures in which land represents security, inheritance and belonging.

“Where we originate from, we talk about land first. In the UK, we talk about the house on the land.”

Hendrickson, who is based in Chapeltown, Leeds, works to increase awareness of self-build housing and community land trusts among Black and minority-ethnic communities.

These models allow residents to play a direct role in securing land, developing homes and controlling community assets—rather than remaining dependent upon private developers, landlords or housing waiting lists.

Hendrickson has already demonstrated what can be achieved. He helped leading the Frontline Community Self Build scheme, through which unemployed African-Caribbean men and their families gained construction skills while building homes for themselves in Chapeltown.

The project eventually produced a street of 12 houses. Hendrickson described it as his greatest achievement after becoming a father. Accounts of the scheme show that many participants subsequently found employment in construction.

His intervention comes amid continuing concern that Black communities remain underrepresented within Britain’s community-led housing sector.

Research co-authored by Hendrickson found that the housing needs of Black and minority-ethnic communities were frequently unmet or under-prioritised. Participants also identified access to land, inconsistent funding and exclusion from decision-making as significant barriers. The University of Liverpool published the findings.

For Hendrickson, community ownership is about more than bricks and mortar. It offers people a sense of belonging, creates safer neighbourhoods and gives families the power to shape the places in which their children will grow up.

His message is clear: solving housing inequality must involve giving communities control over the land beneath their homes.

JamRadio News Desk

Dedicated to clear, reliable reporting 

Share

The Metropolitan Police has named 17-year-old David Wynter as the teenager who died following a fatal stabbing at Brent Civic Centre in Wembley.

Police were called to Engineers Way at around 2:30pm on Tuesday, 25 August, following reports of a stabbing. Officers attended alongside the London Ambulance Service and found David suffering from stab wounds. Despite the efforts of paramedics, he was pronounced dead at the scene.

The Metropolitan Police initially said the victim was believed to be a teenager and launched a murder investigation. His identity has since been released, with his next of kin informed and being supported by specially trained officers.

Advertisement

A 15-year-old boy was arrested on suspicion of murder on the day of the incident. Police have now confirmed that he was charged with murder on Thursday, 27 August. He appeared at Willesden Magistrates' Court and is due to appear at the Old Bailey on Friday, 28 August.

The investigation remains ongoing.

Police are appealing for anyone who has information about the incident to contact 101, quoting reference 4032/25AUG. Information can also be provided anonymously to Crimestoppers.

The Met has said there is no indication of a wider risk to the community arising from the incident.

JAM RADIO NEWS will continue to follow developments as the investigation progresses.

Professor Sir Hilary Beckles has issued a powerful tribute to Professor Jason Arday — and a grave warning about what can happen when public scrutiny turns into public destruction.

In a statement titled End of Arday’s Days, the Vice-Chancellor of The University of the West Indies describes Arday’s loss as a “gruesome, networked catastrophe”. His message moves beyond the final weeks of one academic’s life to confront the wider systems that decide whose excellence is celebrated, whose credibility is relentlessly questioned, and whose vulnerability is ignored.

Advertisement

Arday, a scholar of race, education and inequality, was widely recognised as Cambridge’s youngest Black professor. His death has prompted mourning and difficult questions about the sustained pressure he faced after allegations concerning his academic work and personal history became the subject of intense public attention.

Beckles’ intervention is not a substitute for due process or careful reporting. It is a call to remember that institutions and media organisations have responsibilities that cannot end at procedure, headline counts or online debate. He argues that anti-Black racism is not only expressed in overt abuse; it can also operate through patterns of public humiliation, isolation and institutional indifference.

JamRadio has previously reported on the call for a public inquiry into Professor Arday’s death.

Advertisement

In his statement, Beckles places Arday’s experience within a longer history of Black scholars navigating institutions shaped by colonial power. His point is clear: when a person is treated as a spectacle rather than a human being, the consequences can extend far beyond the immediate controversy.

The question now facing universities, editors and the public is not simply whether every allegation was reported. It is whether the total weight of coverage, commentary and institutional response treated a vulnerable person with the care and humanity the moment demanded.

Arday’s legacy should include his scholarship, his work to widen access to education, and the people who saw possibility in his journey. It should also compel a serious reckoning with how Black achievement is received, tested and protected in Britain’s most powerful institutions.

Source: Statement from Professor Sir Hilary Beckles, Vice-Chancellor of The University of the West Indies, 24 August 2026.

Read JamRadio’s latest reporting

JamRadio News Desk

Dedicated to clear, reliable reporting 

Share

A 23-Year-Old Clara Bale Named After Death in Islington Flat

A murder investigation was launched after police were called at around 9:33am on Thursday, August 6, following concerns for the welfare of a woman inside an address on Bollinder Place, Islington.

Officers attended alongside the London Ambulance Service and found Clara unresponsive. Despite the efforts of medical professionals, she was pronounced dead at the scene.

The Metropolitan Police have now confirmed her identity and said her family are being supported by specially trained officers.

Six People Arrested

Four women, aged 20, 21, 23 and 26, and two men, aged 21 and 24, were arrested at the scene on suspicion of murder.

All six have since been released on bail while detectives continue their enquiries.

Detectives have been carrying out forensic examinations, reviewing available evidence and speaking with witnesses as they work to establish exactly what happened in the period leading up to Clara's death.

Advertisement

Family Pay Tribute

Clara's family have paid tribute to her, describing her as a brilliant young woman whose death has left an immeasurable void in their lives.

In a statement, the family said Clara was “filled with dreams” and described her as a bright light whose presence was felt by those around her.

They said she embodied hope, resilience and love, adding that her inspiring presence was felt in every room she entered.

Police Investigation Continues

Detective Chief Inspector Paul Waller, who is leading the investigation, said the enquiry is progressing and detectives are working to establish the circumstances surrounding Clara's death.

Police are appealing to anyone who may have information that could assist the investigation to come forward, no matter how insignificant they believe the information may be.

Anyone with information can contact the Metropolitan Police on 101, quoting reference 3700/06AUG.

Information can also be provided anonymously to the independent charity Crimestoppers.

Developing Story

The investigation remains ongoing and the six people arrested remain on bail while enquiries continue.

Jam Radio News will continue to follow this developing story and bring you further confirmed updates as they become available.

Share

A devastating open letter accuses Professor Deborah Prentice and Cambridge’s senior leadership of ignoring repeated safeguarding warnings and says their actions and inaction contributed to Professor Jason Arday’s death.

Cambridge University is facing an extraordinary revolt from within after more than 65 students, staff and alumni demanded the immediate resignation of Vice-Chancellor Professor Deborah Prentice over the institution’s treatment of Professor Jason Arday.

The open letter, hosted by the Good Law Project and addressed to Cambridge Chancellor Lord Chris Smith, accuses the university’s leadership of abandoning Professor Arday while he was subjected to an overwhelming and racially charged media campaign.

Advertisement

Its conclusion is damning: the signatories say Prentice’s actions and inaction “directly contributed to the tragic and preventable death” of the 41-year-old academic.

They declare that they have “lost confidence in her stewardship” of one of the world’s most powerful universities.

Professor Arday, who made history as Cambridge’s youngest Black professor, died on 14 August—nine days after resigning from the university and Jesus College amid relentless scrutiny of his academic work, qualifications and personal history.

According to an analysis by media-monitoring organisation NewsCord, 249 articles were published about Professor Arday across 15 national news outlets in just 22 days. Much of that coverage continued after his resignation and his explicit request for peace and privacy.

Advertisement

Safeguarding warnings allegedly ignored

The new letter moves the focus squarely onto Cambridge and what its most senior leaders knew about Professor Arday’s deteriorating welfare.

It alleges that people close to him repeatedly warned the university that he needed protection and safeguarding, but that their concerns were ignored.

The signatories are now demanding answers to two critical questions: what support did Cambridge provide after Professor Arday resigned, and did anyone at the university encourage or pressure him to leave?

Cambridge initially defended Professor Arday against what it described as a “vile smear campaign”. But as media pressure intensified, the institution changed course and announced an investigation into his appointment and tenure.

In a statement issued on 12 August—Just two days before Professor Arday’s death, Prentice described the controversy as a “troubling case” and an “aberration”.

Her statement concentrated heavily on academic standards, appointments and institutional processes. The student-led letter argues that it failed to show concern for the welfare of the human being at the centre of the storm.

That failure is now at the heart of the demands for her resignation.

TEST THE JAMRADIO APP

Cambridge’s handling of earlier complaints questioned

The letter also points to Cambridge’s earlier handling of complaints involving Nathan Cofnas, whose online allegations helped drive the latest wave of scrutiny against Professor Arday.

It states that 58 formal complaints were made to Cambridge in 2024 after Cofnas published claims about Black intellectual ability. According to the signatories, those complaints were dismissed, deepening mistrust among Black members of the university who believed their safety and dignity were being subordinated to fear of the right-wing press.

Good Law Project says it is withholding the names of the Cambridge students, academics and allies behind the letter because they fear retaliation from the media.

That fact alone is a devastating indictment of the climate now surrounding Black people at the university: members of Cambridge reportedly believe they cannot publicly demand accountability from their own institution without placing themselves in danger of becoming the next targets.

Prominent figures back the demand

The letter has attracted prominent public support, including from MPs Diane Abbott and Bell Ribeiro-Addy; former MP Claudia Webbe; Professor Sir Patrick Vernon; author Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu; journalist Samantha Asumadu; former police chief Leroy Logan; campaigner Zita Holbourne; Black Equity Organisation chief executive Timi Okuwa; and Alliance for Police Accountability chair Lee Jasper.

It also backs demands issued by the Cambridge Black Alumni and Student Collective for accountability, justice and institutional change.

Cambridge said on 21 August that it was undergoing “profound grief and deep reflection”. It condemned the racist abuse being directed at Black staff and students, promised culturally sensitive support and announced an independent process through which the university would learn lessons from the tragedy.

But that statement has not silenced the central question: why did meaningful reflection and visible concern for safeguarding appear to come only after Professor Arday was dead?

Cambridge has not publicly responded to the new demand for Prentice’s resignation at the time of publication.

Advertisement

A collapse of confidence in Cambridge’s leadership

This is no longer merely a dispute about appointments, academic procedures or public relations. It is a collapse of confidence in Cambridge’s leadership and its ability to protect Black and vulnerable members of its own community when they come under attack.

Institutions cannot celebrate Black excellence when it enhances their reputation, then retreat behind process and silence when that same person becomes inconvenient.

Cambridge promoted Professor Jason Arday as evidence of progress. Its own students, staff and alumni now accuse it of abandoning him when he needed protection most.

Professor Deborah Prentice must now answer them.

Read the complete Good Law Project open letter and petition.

Share

We Cannot Keep Begging Their Media to Value Us While Refusing to Support Our Own

Black Britain already has independent journalists and community-owned platforms doing the work. The question is whether we will sustain them before the next crisis arrives.

After the vigil for Professor Jason Arday in Trafalgar Square, I saw people questioning why the BBC had devoted so little attention to an event that brought tens of thousands into central London.

MPs Diane Abbott, Dawn Butler and Bell Ribeiro-Addy were among those who addressed the crowd, alongside Lord Simon Woolley, the Good Law Project’s Jo Maugham and anti-racism campaigners. Abbott called for justice, while Woolley described what Arday had endured as a “public execution”. Singer Beverley Knight also joined the tributes.

Many chose to respond: write to the BBC, complain, demand better coverage. I thought breifly and concluded.

What exactly do we believe another letter or another 20,000 letters will change?

Black communities have spent decades appealing to the same institutions for fairness and recognition. We complain when our stories are ignored, when they are distorted, when Black achievement is treated with suspicion and Black suffering is granted less empathy.

Advertisement

Then, once the anger passes, we return to the same organisations. We watch them, share their clips, circulate their headlines and reinforce their authority.

Meanwhile, Black-owned and Black-led platforms attempting to build something different are too often left struggling for attention, subscriptions and financial support.

That is why JamRadio exists. The vision was to build a Black British talk-radio and current-affairs platform: somewhere we can discuss our own events, investigate injustice, challenge power and help determine the narrative rather than merely react to somebody else’s.

Mainstream outlets do not simply report the news. They decide which stories matter, who is considered credible and how the public should understand an event. Editorial power is political and cultural power. Black communities need institutions capable of exercising some of that power for themselves.

TEST THE JAMRADIO APP

JamRadio is not alone. The Community Reporter, founded by journalist Melissa Sigodo, produces independent journalism centred on Britain’s Black communities, highlights underreported stories and holds power to account. BlackCurrent News, founded by award winning journalist Nadine White as a self-funded publication, covers Black life, politics, culture and power across Britain and beyond.

Advertisement

Black Ballad has built a membership-supported platform focused on Black British women. The Voice has documented Black British life for more than four decades. Other independent journalists, broadcasters and community publications like All Angles UK continue doing essential work, often without the budgets, staffing or protection available to mainstream newsrooms.

These platforms already provide much of what we say we want: media that understands our communities before a crisis, recognises the history behind the headline and remains interested after the cameras disappear.

The problem is that we often support the idea of Black media more enthusiastically than the institutions themselves.

Journalism costs money. Reporters, editors, cameras, travel, hosting, studios, insurance and legal advice must be paid for. Yet Black media are frequently expected to survive on personal sacrifice and goodwill.

Advertisement

Many people will pay subscriptions to multinational news corporations and spend hours driving traffic towards mainstream reporting, but hesitate to contribute a few pounds to an independent platform serving their own community. They praise Black ownership in principle while treating Black-owned journalism as optional or less authoritative.

Then, during the next crisis, we ask: Where is our voice?

The uncomfortable answer is that voices require infrastructure, and infrastructure requires sustained support.

This does not mean the BBC and other major outlets should escape scrutiny. The BBC must be held to its public obligations. Complaints, corrections and regulatory action have their place. But challenging their power is not the same as building our own.

You can unfollow any organisation; but I think the better strategy for change is also to point people in the right direction.
The biggest misinformation coming out the black community is we do not have our own media. When we have @TheVoiceNews & @UKBlackcurrent and others

— Antoine Allen (@AntoineSpeaker) August 18, 2026

We cannot keep begging another institution for ten seconds of airtime while ignoring platforms prepared to devote an entire programme, investigation or front page to our concerns.

The response to Professor Dr. Jason Arday’s death should provoke more than anger about one broadcaster’s running order. It should make us ask why we remain so dependent on institutions whose treatment of Black people we repeatedly describe as dismissive, unequal or hostile.

A strong independent Black press can challenge harmful framing in real time. It can investigate the investigation, supply context, preserve dignity and provide a meaningful right of reply. But it cannot do that while underfunded, understaffed and noticed only after tragedy.

Support must come while institutions are still being built. It means subscribing, sharing original reporting, advertising with them, sending them stories, citing their journalism and treating their reporters as legitimate voices in national conversations.

TEST THE JAMRADIO APP

JamRadio recently received a follow from a Black MP. That should be ordinary. Instead, it felt significant because recognition and community backing remain so scarce.

We are not short of Black journalists, researchers, commentators or storytellers. We are short of sustained collective investment in the platforms we are trying to build.

The question is no longer whether Black Britain can create its own media. It already has.

The question is whether we will support those platforms strongly enough to survive, grow and exercise real power, or continue returning to the same doors asking to be heard, and wondering why nothing changes.

More than 50,000 people have backed a call for a public inquiry into the death of Professor Jason Arday in little more than 24 hours, as pressure continues to grow over the media treatment he faced in the weeks before his death.

The letter, organised by the Good Law Project, is addressed to the Prime Minister and Culture Secretary and calls for an immediate public inquiry into press conduct following the death of the 41-year-old former Cambridge professor. 

Professor Arday was found dead at an address in Battersea, south London, on Friday, August 14, just over a week after resigning from his positions at the University of Cambridge and Jesus College amid allegations of plagiarism.

Advertisement

The Good Law Project letter argues that Arday was subjected to what it describes as sustained and disproportionate media harassment. It says warnings had been raised about his vulnerability and the possible consequences of the intense scrutiny before his death. 

The campaign has attracted support from a prominent group of politicians, academics, campaigners and public figures, including Diane Abbott MP, Lord Simon Woolley, Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP, Clive Lewis MP, Sir Patrick Vernon OBE, Carol Vorderman, Eniola Aluko and Misan Harriman. 

The speed at which the petition has grown is likely to intensify calls for the Government to respond. Earlier on Sunday, the campaign had attracted around 31,000 signatures; it has now surged past the 50,000 mark in just over a day.

The letter calls for an inquiry examining how a responsible press can be ensured following Arday's death, while also raising broader questions about racism, press regulation and the treatment of vulnerable people subjected to intense public scrutiny. 

Professor Arday's death has already prompted growing calls from political and academic figures for scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding the media campaign against him.

Share

Share

Jason Arday Said He Felt ‘Hounded to Death’ Days Before He Died as Cambridge College Head Demands Media Inquiry

Lord Simon Woolley has called for an investigation into what he described as a “vicious media onslaught” against Professor Jason Arday, revealing that the Cambridge academic told friends just days before his death that he felt “hounded to death” and could see no way out.

Pressure is growing for an investigation into the media treatment of Professor Jason Arday after the head of a Cambridge college accused sections of the press of subjecting him to a “horrendous, toxic, vicious witch hunt” before his death.

Lord Simon Woolley, principal of Homerton College, Cambridge, made the extraordinary intervention on BBC Radio 4’s Broadcasting House on Sunday, saying the scrutiny directed at Arday had ceased to be legitimate academic examination and had instead become a “blood sport”.

Arday, 41, was pronounced dead at an address in Battersea, south London, on Friday. He had resigned from his position as professor of sociology of education at Cambridge the previous week following intense media coverage of allegations concerning his academic work and qualifications.

Woolley revealed that he had met Arday on Monday, just days before his death, alongside several close friends, including Labour MP Diane Abbott and photographer and activist Misan Harriman.

“He said he felt hounded to death, his words. And he couldn’t see a way out,” Woolley said.

He described Arday as being in a deeply distressing condition, telling listeners: “On that day we saw a man half his body weight and desperate beyond belief.”

According to Woolley, Abbott held Arday’s hand and told him that those around him would help him through the crisis.

But Woolley said the level of pressure being directed at the academic had already become extreme.

“It was a blood sport,” he said. “This wonderful big-hearted young man never stole a bag of crisps.”

“He was only accused of plagiarism; actually he was found not culpable of plagiarism by John Moores University and yet he was subject to the most horrendous, toxic, vicious witch hunt I would argue very few of us would withstand.”

Liverpool John Moores University, where Arday completed his PhD, investigated the allegations and cleared him of wrongdoing. Arday had always denied plagiarism.

The Telegraph had reported that an analysis of his doctoral thesis identified more than 180 passages said to be identical or near-identical to another student’s work.

Cambridge University subsequently began investigating questions surrounding Arday’s academic qualifications and was separately considering complaints alleging academic misconduct.

He resigned from Cambridge’s Faculty of Education shortly before his death.

Woolley stressed that universities must investigate plagiarism and research misconduct where legitimate concerns arise, but said the treatment of Arday had moved far beyond normal scrutiny.

“Academia always has to be rigorous in rooting out plagiarism and falsehoods,” he said. “This was not rigour, this has been a blood sport, literally a blood sport.”

He added that other academics had faced accusations and even findings of plagiarism without being subjected to anything approaching the same intensity of public scrutiny.

“There are a number of individuals who have all been subject to accusations and findings of plagiarism, not one of them has been subject to the degree Jason Arday has,” Woolley said.

The controversy has also raised wider questions about race and the treatment of Black academics in Britain, particularly against the backdrop of increasingly hostile debate around diversity, equity and inclusion.

Woolley said Black academics had effectively been dragged into the controversy collectively, with suggestions that their positions were the product of diversity initiatives rather than merit.

“You also have to understand the whole of the Black community and Black academics are being brought into this debate as though we don’t belong in these positions because we are, collectively, the diversity, equity and inclusion hires,” he said.

He pointed out that Black professors remain extremely rare at Cambridge, saying fewer than 0.5 per cent of its 975 professors were Black.

“Black people are not given any special favours in entering these hallowed institutions,” he said.

Arday’s appointment had been widely celebrated when he became Cambridge’s youngest Black professor. His journey into academia, after facing significant educational challenges earlier in life, had made him one of Britain’s most prominent Black academics.

In the final weeks of his life, however, that story was overshadowed by an escalating public controversy over his academic record.

Woolley had previously joined politicians, academics and public figures in signing an open letter organised by the Good Law Project in support of Arday.

The letter alleged that he had been subjected to “two weeks of harassment” and called for an “immediate public inquiry into how to ensure a responsible press”.

Among the signatories are Green Party leader Zack Polanski, Labour MPs Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Clive Lewis and Nadia Whittome, National Education Union general secretary Daniel Kebede and broadcaster Carol Vorderman.

Campaigners are also understood to be coordinating mass complaints to news organisations over aspects of the coverage.

Woolley’s account is likely to become central to the growing debate because it provides a direct description of Arday’s state of mind only days before his death.

His statement that Arday believed he was being “hounded to death” will inevitably intensify questions over whether the cumulative scale, tone and persistence of the coverage crossed the line between legitimate scrutiny and the sustained targeting of an individual.

Cambridge vice-chancellor Professor Deborah Prentice has expressed her “thoughts and deepest condolences” to Arday’s family and loved ones.

Andy Burnham also called for a “moment of reflection” following his death.

The Prime Minister described what had happened as “a tragedy on so many levels” and cautioned against rushing to judgment.

“It’s not a moment for any rushing to judgment,” he said. “It’s a moment for reflection, I would say, reflecting on how things came to this.”

For Woolley, however, reflection should now be followed by scrutiny of the media itself.

“We need an investigation into the media onslaught, the vicious media onslaught,” he said.

Arday is survived by his wife and two children.

His family have remembered him as a “gentle man” and an “amazing father, partner, brother, uncle and son”.

By: Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

A vulnerable, neurodivergent Black academic was subjected to an extraordinary public hounding, and the human cost of that campaign cannot simply be brushed aside.

Professor Jason Arday is dead at just 41. Only days before his death, he said that relentless accusations, speculation and public commentary had taken a “profound toll” on him.

JamRadio extends its deepest condolences to Jason Arday’s family, friends, colleagues, students and all who loved him. Arday was found unresponsive at an address in Battersea, south London, on Friday and was pronounced dead at the scene. Police say his death is being treated as unexpected and is not believed to be suspicious, with a file being prepared for the coroner.

But the events immediately before his death matter. On August 5, just nine days earlier, Arday resigned from the University of Cambridge and Jesus College after weeks of intense scrutiny over allegations concerning plagiarism, his academic record and claims about parts of his personal history. In his resignation statement he said the “relentless accusations, speculation and public commentary” had taken a “profound toll” on him and those he loved. He said there comes a point when the personal cost becomes too great.

A vulnerable man whose vulnerabilities were public knowledge

Arday’s vulnerabilities were not hidden. Cambridge itself celebrated his extraordinary journey when he became its youngest Black professor in 2023, describing how he had been diagnosed with autism as a child and had faced major barriers with communication and literacy. His work went on to focus heavily on race, inequality, neurodiversity, mental health and access to higher education.

Yet when questions emerged about his academic work, the scrutiny rapidly expanded far beyond a narrow examination of scholarship. His childhood, disability, fundraising, sporting achievements, personal history and accounts of racism were all pulled into an increasingly ferocious public debate. A man who had once been held up as a symbol of overcoming adversity became, almost overnight, a target onto whom much wider arguments about race, diversity and merit were projected.

The circus of vultures feasting off Jason Arday are either going to kill him or get him killed. For what? Not Plagiarism he’s cleared for. Accusations of lies/errors/inconsistencies? This isn’t accountability - it’s a public execution. A relentless onslaught for over 2 wks. Back… pic.twitter.com/Dgqefuqhgu

— Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu (@SholaMos1) August 10, 2026

Scrutiny became a spectacle

There were legitimate questions to investigate. Allegations concerning plagiarism and inconsistencies in Arday’s record deserved proper examination by the universities responsible, and no academic should be immune from scrutiny. But institutional investigation and public accountability are not the same thing as turning a human being into a national spectacle.

The story became increasingly personal and ideological. Coverage did not simply ask whether passages had been properly attributed; it interrogated the narrative of Arday’s entire life. Black academics warned that his case was being weaponised as evidence against diversity initiatives generally, while Arday himself said what he was experiencing had gone “far beyond scholarly disagreement”.

The origins of the campaign cannot be ignored

One of the figures who drove renewed scrutiny of Arday was Nathan Cofnas, an academic who describes himself as a “race realist” and who had previously attracted outrage after arguing that a genuinely meritocratic system would produce “close to zero” Black professors at Harvard. That history does not decide whether evidence raised about Arday was accurate; evidence must be assessed on its merits. But it does make the racial and ideological context surrounding the campaign impossible to dismiss.

Arday had already warned publicly about what he believed was a “playbook” used against prominent Black academics: identify errors or inconsistencies, amplify them through media and political channels, and allow the resulting pressure to overwhelm the individual. Whether every part of that analysis was correct or not, the description now feels chillingly relevant to the final weeks of his life.

He told us what the pressure was doing to him

This is the part that should trouble everyone. Arday did not disappear quietly while outsiders guessed about his state of mind. He explicitly told the public that the barrage was taking a profound toll on him and the people he loved. He resigned because, in his own words, "the personal cost had become too great."

Nine days later, he was dead. The moral chain between those events cannot simply be severed. Directly or indirectly, a vulnerable man was subjected to sustained public pressure, told us that pressure was breaking him, withdrew from the career that had defined his public life, and was gone days later.

Accountability without humanity is not justice

There is also a wider responsibility here for universities, journalists, commentators and the online audiences that turn controversy into blood sport. The ability to publish another allegation, another thread or another headline does not remove the obligation to consider the cumulative effect on the person at the centre of it. Public-interest journalism must expose wrongdoing, but it should never lose sight of the fact that its subjects are human beings.

Britain should ask what it has become

Only days before his death, Jason Arday told Britain that he was struggling under the weight of relentless accusations and public commentary. We heard him. The machine kept moving anyway.

Now he is dead at 41.

JamRadio ahd taken the concious decision from the outset, not to weigh in on the debate of an already vulnerable Jason Arday and decided not to publish any stories on this matter.

This cannot simply become another news cycle followed by silence. There has to be a reckoning with how public scrutiny became public hounding, how a known vulnerable man was allowed to become the object of an ideological feeding frenzy, and why compassion seemed to disappear precisely when it was most needed.

Jason Arday also deserved dignity, humanity and mercy, now his family and loved ones are left to pickup the pieces. May he rest in peace.

By TracyAnn Dunkley

Celebrity & Entertainment Editor

Share

A white British woman walks into a drill session and starts spitting dancehall lyrics like she has something to prove. Within seconds, the room changes. Now reactions from Vybz Kartel, Kwame McKenzie and 1MelloVibes are turning Tasha into one of the most unexpected viral newcomers in dancehall.

Natasha Richardson, better known as Lovefromtashaxo, or simply Tasha — begins dropping bars in this viral video, and that's when the joke stops. She doesn't cautiously feel her way around the riddim or throw in a few Jamaican phrases for effect. She goes straight at it with rapid delivery, patois, attitude and confidence, sounding so comfortable that the reaction becomes part of the entertainment.

Kwame McKenzie’s reaction to White Girl Gaza says it all ????????

Tasha had him shook — and judging by the reaction online, he’s not the only one. ????????????

“Gimme a dozen ah dem dey!”#WhiteGirlGaza #LoveFromTashaXO #KwameMcKenzie #VybzKartel #Dancehall #JamRadioUK #drill #London pic.twitter.com/iABMDB1dM9

— Jam Radio UK News (@Jam_RadioUK) August 14, 2026

Advertisement

Collect AKIMYAX Anime Keyrings

Meet Nori & Miko — the first original duo from the AKIMYAX Pocket Duo Series.

SHOP AKIMYAX

The question now bouncing around Caribbean social media is simple: who the hell is this woman? Clips of the self-styled “White Girl Gaza” are spreading far beyond her original following, and what makes the moment more interesting is that people who know the culture are beginning to co-sign her. Kwame McKenzie, the hugely popular online personality known as Yawwdie, shared her performance with the verdict: “She did real good ????????????????.” Then 1MelloVibes put Tasha's White Girl Gaza in front of his own audience, adding even more fuel to a viral moment already gathering pace.

@lovefromtashaxo @MELLO VIBES MUSIC???????? #foryou #fyp #foryoupage #lovefromtashaxo #manifest ♬ original sound - Tasha

But the biggest co-sign comes from Vybz Kartel himself. Tasha has never been subtle about where her allegiance lies. Her social media is heavily Gaza-branded, and her catalogue includes tracks such as White Girl Gaza and Gaza Gyal. Now footage circulating online shows Kartel alongside Tasha, openly acknowledging her and playing into the sheer unexpectedness of seeing a white British woman carrying the Gaza name.

Advertisement

AKIMYAX Pocket Duo — Nori & Miko

Two pocket-sized personalities, one original anime-inspired duo. Discover Nori & Miko and more artist-created designs from AKIMYAX.

VIEW NORI & MIKO

That changes the conversation. Anybody can call themselves Gaza online; it is something else entirely when Kartel appears to accept you into that orbit himself.

Perhaps that is why Tasha is blowing up so quickly. The image catches people off guard first, because she simply isn't what many viewers expect to see when that voice comes through the speakers. Then she starts performing, and suddenly people are rewinding the video. There will inevitably be arguments about the patois, whether she is doing too much, or whether a British woman has any business sounding that Jamaican, but those debates are almost helping her. Every sceptical repost puts the clip in front of another audience.

Collect AKIMYAX Anime Keyrings

Meet Nori & Miko — the first original duo from the AKIMYAX Pocket Duo Series.

SHOP AKIMYAX

And crucially, she is not simply being shared as a joke. People are impressed. Influential Caribbean commentators are praising her, the Gaza connection is becoming harder to dismiss, and the response is shifting from “what is this?” to “hold on, play that again.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Tasha has not quietly slipped into dancehall through the side door. She has turned up calling herself White Girl Gaza, grabbed the mic and dared the internet to tell her she cannot do it.

And so far, the internet seems far more interested in pressing replay.

And with Vybz Kartel now firmly in the picture, Lovefromtashaxo may just have gone from viral curiosity to one of the most unexpected new names the dancehall scene is watching.

“We Will Fight for Reparations — But We Will Not Wait”: Dr Umar Johnson Calls for Global Black Organisation in Brixton

By: Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

The Pan-African speaker used his keynote address at Brixton’s Afrikan Reparations Day rally to urge African-descended communities to organise across borders, finance their own institutions and pursue liberation without waiting for governments to deliver justice.

“We will fight for reparations — but we will not wait.”

It was the declaration that defined Dr Umar Johnson’s keynote address in Brixton: reparations must continue to be pursued, but the global African diaspora cannot postpone the work of building its own power while waiting for former colonial and slaveholding nations to respond.

Advertisement

Speaking at the Afrikan Reparations Day March and Rally in Windrush Square, referred to by organisers as Afrikan Pioneer Square, on Saturday, 1 August, Johnson delivered a forceful call for Black communities across Europe, the Caribbean, Africa and the Americas to move beyond speeches, social-media posts and symbolic solidarity.

His central argument was that the campaign for reparatory justice must be accompanied by organisation, cooperation and collective investment.

“Brothers and sisters of England, brothers and sisters of Europe, we have to finance our liberation,” he told the gathering.

“We will fight for reparations — but we will not wait.”

Dr Umar Johnson delivers a powerful message in Brixton, calling for Black unity, global organisation and investment in our own liberation.

Watch the keynote address. #UmarJohnson #Reparations #Brixton

video: by J.… pic.twitter.com/WkswVJ2Yxt

— Jam Radio UK News (@Jam_RadioUK) August 3, 2026

Video by Jacqueline Mckenzie

“Yes, we’re fighting for reparations, but we cannot wait to get them. We will continue to fight for reparations — hard — but we will not wait.”

Advertisement

Collect Akimyax Anime Keyrings

Johnson called for a more organised relationship between African-descended communities around the world, including Black communities in Europe, Canada, the United States, Mexico, Brazil and the Caribbean.

He urged activists to begin holding conferences that would connect those communities and allow them to develop a common strategy.

“Most of you here, just like me, we are the children of the transatlantic slave trade,” he said.

“We are the descendants of the Maafa. We are the ones who have inherited the pain, the legacy, the prophecy and the destiny of our ancestors.”

Advertisement

His message was that a shared history must become the foundation for coordinated action.

“Let us do the work of organisation,” Johnson said. “Let us do the work of reparations. Let us do the work of liberation.”

The address came at a significant moment for the international reparations movement. Johnson referred to the African Union’s declaration of a decade devoted to justice and reparations for Africans and people of African descent.

He also highlighted Ghana’s role in securing a landmark United Nations General Assembly resolution in March 2026.

Advertisement

The resolution described the trafficking and racialised chattel enslavement of Africans as the “gravest crime against humanity”. It was adopted with 123 countries voting in favour, three voting against and 52 abstaining.

“We have to finance our liberation”

While Johnson supported demands for reparations from governments and institutions that benefited from slavery and colonialism, he challenged Black communities not to make their progress entirely dependent on those demands being met.

“Let’s use our money now,” he said. “Let’s use our resources now. Let’s use our time now. Let’s use our intelligence now.”

His argument effectively shifted part of the responsibility back onto the diaspora: what institutions could be built, what organisations could be strengthened and what political power could be developed using the resources already available?

Johnson warned that while campaigners waited, external powers were continuing to consolidate their influence across Africa and the Caribbean.

Advertisement

“We will fight for reparations, but we will not wait,” he repeated.

The speech also contained a direct criticism of activism that never moves beyond public commentary.

“We just can’t tweet about it,” Johnson said. “We just can’t Facebook about it. We just can’t Instagram about it. We just can’t TikTok about it.”

“We’ve got to organise about it. We have to plan about it. We have to meet about it. We have to finance it.”

A challenge directed inwards

Some of the most striking passages were not directed at governments, former colonial powers or white institutions. They were directed at divisions within Black political movements themselves.

Johnson appealed for greater compassion, humility and forgiveness between people working towards the same broad objectives.

“Some of us are so filled with hate for the white man that we don’t have any love for the Black man,” he said.

“What good is a Negro who hates his enemy and also hates his brethren?”

He continued:

“If you cannot forgive, you are not a revolutionary. You’ve got to be able to overlook the faults of your brother and of your sister.”

Johnson called on those present to see the African diaspora as a single body, arguing that homelessness, hunger and suffering experienced by one section of the community should be understood as a collective concern.

Advertisement

“If I hurt, you hurt,” he said. “If you hurt, I hurt. If you’re hungry, I’m hungry. If you’re homeless, I’m homeless.”

That appeal to compassion sat alongside some of the speech’s more confrontational language, illustrating the mixture of solidarity, nationalism and provocation for which Johnson has become known.

“Racism is not the biggest problem”

Johnson also made one of the most challenging statements of the address when he told the audience:

“Racism is not the biggest problem. It only looks like it’s the biggest problem because we are not united.”

In context, he appeared not to be denying the existence or effects of racism, but arguing that division leaves Black communities less able to confront it.

“This world cannot stop a united African people,” he said. “This world cannot stop a serious African people. This world cannot stop a dedicated African people.”

It was an attempt to move the focus from what oppressive systems were doing to Black people towards what Black communities were prepared to build and defend collectively.

Controversial remarks about ADHD

The speech was not without controversy.

During an earlier passage, Johnson urged Black parents to keep their children away from medications including Ritalin and Adderall. He then claimed:

“Your son don’t have ADHD. He just ain’t got no daddy at home.”

The sweeping claim is not supported by established medical understanding of ADHD, which recognises it as a condition affecting how the brain functions.

Advertisement

Medication is neither necessary nor appropriate for every child, but treatment decisions should be made according to the child’s individual circumstances and in consultation with qualified medical professionals.

Johnson’s remarks are therefore likely to concern parents, clinicians and advocates who have campaigned for better recognition of ADHD within Black communities.

From compassion to militant rhetoric

Towards the end of the address, Johnson invoked the legacy of Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad, presenting her as an example of determination in the face of fear and oppression.

His closing language then became markedly more militant.

“I believe the next war will be a war to free Africa,” he said.

He told the gathering that he believed Black people would one day be called upon to reclaim Africa and concluded with the Pan-African declaration:

“One God, one aim, one destiny.”

Johnson also paid tribute to the people responsible for organising the Brixton gathering, reminding the audience that events lasting several hours could require months of planning, sacrifice and largely unseen work.

A demand — and a challenge

Johnson’s Brixton speech moved between a number of different messages: reparations and self-reliance, international solidarity and internal forgiveness, compassion between Black people and militant warnings about Africa’s future.

Not every statement will attract agreement. Some, particularly his comments about ADHD and medication, require firm scrutiny. Others will provoke debate about where Pan-African solidarity ends and polarising rhetoric begins.

But the central political challenge he placed before the gathering was unmistakable.

Reparations, in Johnson’s argument, must remain an international demand — but liberation cannot be placed on hold until reparations arrive.

“Let us do the work of organisation. Let us do the work of reparations. Let us do the work of liberation.” 

Black communities, he said, must organise, cooperate and invest in themselves now.

By: Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

Britain’s first Black woman MP has had the Labour whip restored following a second suspension. Her return closes another turbulent chapter in her relationship with the party, while restoring one of Parliament’s most persistent voices for victims of the Home Office Windrush scandal.

Diane Abbott has been formally readmitted to the Labour Party and has had the Labour whip restored in the House of Commons, ending more than a year in which the veteran Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP sat as an independent.

Labour said the decision followed a disciplinary process conducted under party rules and approved by its independent review board.

Advertisement

Collect Akimyax Anime Keyrings

Abbott said she had received a formal warning over a previous social-media post in which she inadvertently referred to the Israel Defence Forces as the “Jewish Defence Force”. She acknowledged that the wording conflated the actions of the state of Israel with the Jewish community, apologised for the hurt caused and reaffirmed that she remained a lifelong opponent of racism in all its forms.

Abbott’s return is significant not simply because of her longevity, but because of her unique place in British political history.

First elected in 1987, she became the first Black woman to sit in the House of Commons. Following her re-election at the 2024 general election, she became Mother of the House as its longest continuously serving woman MP.

Advertisement

Her recent relationship with Labour, however, has been marked by suspension, internal investigations, public disagreements and uncertainty over whether her parliamentary career would be allowed to continue under the party’s banner.

The first suspension came in April 2023 after Abbott wrote a letter to The Observer which distinguished between the racism experienced by Black people and the prejudice experienced by Jewish, Irish and Traveller communities. The comments were widely condemned. Abbott withdrew the letter and apologised, saying that racism took many forms and that Jewish people, Irish people and Travellers had suffered its effects.

After a lengthy disciplinary process, a formal warning and antisemitism-awareness training, the whip was restored in May 2024. That did not immediately end the controversy. A public dispute followed over whether Abbott would be permitted to stand as Labour’s candidate at the approaching general election. She was eventually confirmed as the party’s candidate and was re-elected to Parliament for a tenth term. That period also coincided with one of the most disturbing episodes of Abbott’s public life.

Advertisement

When Parliament debated alleged racist and violent remarks made about her by Conservative donor Frank Hester, Abbott repeatedly stood in the Commons seeking to speak but was not called by the Speaker.

The spectacle of Britain’s first Black woman MP being discussed across the chamber while being unable to speak for herself deepened public concern about the way she was being treated.

In July 2025, Abbott was suspended for a second time after a BBC interview in which she maintained that there was a distinction between racism based upon visible skin colour and other forms of racism. Labour again removed the whip, leaving Abbott to sit as an independent until this week’s decision.

A steadfast voice for Windrush victims

For members and descendants of the Windrush generation, Abbott’s record is particularly important. When the Windrush scandal erupted nationally in 2018, Abbott was serving as Shadow Home Secretary.

She used that position to challenge the Home Office over wrongful detention, deportation, removal targets, the denial of employment, benefits and healthcare, the destruction of people’s livelihoods and the wider consequences of the government’s hostile-environment policies.

Advertisement

Abbott argued that the scandal could not be separated from policies introduced while Theresa May was Home Secretary and called on the government to establish how many people had been detained, deported or prevented from returning to Britain.

She demanded that compensation address the real and often catastrophic losses suffered by victims. That included lost employment, benefits, pensions, access to healthcare and public services, as well as the trauma, pain and suffering caused by the Home Office.

Abbott also called for victims to be given proper access to legal assistance, recognising that people who had already been failed by the immigration system could not reasonably be expected to challenge that same system without support. She repeatedly made clear that Windrush compensation was not charity.

It was redress owed to people who were legally entitled to live in Britain, but whose rights, identity and status had been denied or questioned by the state.

Abbott also warned that the scandal extended beyond the Caribbean. People from other Commonwealth countries had been affected by the same legislation, policies and Home Office practices.

As the years passed and the immediate political attention surrounding the scandal began to fade, Abbott continued raising concerns about delays, inadequate awards, restrictive evidential requirements and the low number of victims receiving compensation.

Advertisement

She challenged the failure to reach people who had become understandably fearful of the Home Office and repeatedly drew attention to the emotional devastation suffered by a generation who had always understood themselves to be British.

Abbott’s connection to the Windrush generation is also personal. Her parents travelled to Britain from Jamaica during the post-war period, with her mother working as a nurse and her father as a welder.

Her interventions have therefore been informed not only by her political responsibilities, but by a direct understanding of the contribution made by Caribbean families to Britain’s public services, economy and communities.

This is not the record of a politician who discovered Windrush only after it became politically fashionable. 

It is a sustained record of challenging the Home Office, questioning ministers, confronting the hostile environment and insisting that victims must be treated as people whose rights were violated, rather than as immigration cases seeking special treatment.

In 2014 Abbot forewarned that policies being enshrined in the 2014 immigration act were hostile to Caribbean and Commonwealth migrants who had long-settled in the UK over decades and the descendants, but those warning were ignored.

The whole record must be remembered

Abbott broke one of Parliament’s most imposing racial barriers. She survived years of hostility, repeated personal attacks and an often deeply strained relationship with her own party.

Throughout that turmoil, her position on Windrush remained remarkably consistent: the victims were legally entitled to be here, the British state had wronged them, compensation was not charity and justice could not be delivered through apologies alone.

Her journey with Labour has taken her from the front bench to suspension, from reinstatement to uncertainty over her candidacy, from re-election and elevation as Mother of the House to another suspension — and now, once again, to readmission.

Advertisement

Share

Andy Burnham has officially become the United Kingdom's new Prime Minister after meeting King Charles III at Buckingham Palace, where the King invited him to form a new government following the resignation of Sir Keir Starmer.

Burnham now becomes the seventh UK Prime Minister in just 10 years, highlighting a decade of political instability that has left many voters questioning whether Westminster can provide the long-term leadership the country needs.

The former Mayor of Greater Manchester enters Downing Street with a reputation for championing regional investment, social justice and greater devolution. However, he inherits a nation facing significant economic and social challenges that have tested successive governments.

Advertisement

Collect Akimyax Anime Keyrings

A Nation Searching for Stability

Since the Brexit referendum in 2016, Britain has seen an unprecedented turnover of political leaders. Frequent changes at the top have fuelled public frustration and uncertainty, with many people feeling that political infighting has distracted from addressing the country's most pressing issues.

For many voters, the question is no longer simply who occupies Number 10, but whether any government can restore confidence in Britain's economy, public services and political institutions.

The Economy Comes First

Burnham's immediate priority will be strengthening the UK economy while managing increasing pressure on the nation's finances.

Among the major challenges facing his government are:

• Sluggish economic growth.

• High levels of public borrowing.

• Pressure on the NHS and other public services.

• A shortage of affordable housing.

• Encouraging business investment.

• Reducing regional inequality.

Burnham has long argued that more investment should be directed outside London and the South East, giving cities and regions greater control over their own economic futures.

Advertisement

The Cost of Living Remains a Major Concern

While inflation has eased from its recent peaks, many households continue to struggle with the rising cost of everyday life.

Families across the country continue to face:

• Higher grocery bills.

• Rising rents and mortgage costs.

• Increasing council tax and other local charges.

• Expensive energy bills.

• Wages that many believe have not kept pace with living costs.

Many Britons will judge the new Prime Minister not by political rhetoric, but by whether their financial situation improves over the coming months and years.

Windrush Community Looking for Action

Burnham also inherits unfinished business concerning the Windrush generation and their descendants.

Although governments have acknowledged the Windrush scandal and introduced compensation and documentation schemes, many campaigners argue that justice remains incomplete. Compensation has been criticised as being too slow, while unresolved nationality and citizenship issues continue to affect some descendants who believe they have been disadvantaged by historic legislative unfairness.

The Caribbean community will be watching closely to see whether Burnham's government takes meaningful action to resolve these long-standing concerns and rebuild trust with those affected. Last week, an open letter signed by lawyers and campaigners was addressed to Andy Burnham setting out concerns over long-standing issues around the redress schemes setup up by government following the Windrush scandal.

Advertisement

Will Burnham Govern for the People?

Perhaps the most important question surrounding Britain's newest Prime Minister is whether he can remain true to the image that made him popular with many voters.

As Mayor of Greater Manchester, Burnham built a reputation for speaking out on behalf of local communities, challenging central government when necessary and advocating for working people.

Now, as Prime Minister, he faces a very different challenge.

Will he continue to champion ordinary families struggling with rising taxes, housing costs and declining living standards, or will the realities of Westminster politics, Whitehall bureaucracy and powerful economic interests limit how much change he can deliver?

History has shown that many leaders enter Downing Street promising reform, only to discover that governing often requires balancing competing interests and difficult compromises.

Advertisement

A Defining Test

Andy Burnham begins his premiership at a critical moment for the United Kingdom.

The economy remains fragile, the cost of living continues to place pressure on millions of households, public services face growing demand, and many communities, including the Windrush generation and their families—are still waiting for lasting solutions.

After ten years and seven prime ministers, the British public is looking for more than another change of leadership. They are looking for stability, accountability and genuine progress.

Whether Andy Burnham becomes the Prime Minister who delivers that change, or simply another chapter in Britain's recent political turbulence, will be determined not by his first speech outside Number 10, but by the decisions his government makes in the months and years ahead.

Euen Herbert-Small

Assistant Editor

Share

The Government has quietly changed the rules of the Windrush Compensation Scheme, replacing its former oversight figure,  "The Independent Person" with Windrush Commissioner Reverend Clive Foster.

The amendment, published on 10 July, states that Foster will now “assure delivery” of the Scheme and may report to the Home Secretary and ministers across the devolved nations of UK.

However, the change gives him no power to decide on claims, overturn Home Office refusals or increase compensation awards. The Home Office, the department responsible for the Windrush scandal, continues to control the assessment and payment of claims.

Advertisement

Previously, the rules required the Home Secretary to appoint an “Independent Person” to oversee the Scheme. That governance role has now been transferred to the Windrush Commissioner under a memorandum of understanding with the Home Office. The memorandum was produced following a JamRadio investigation into the Commissioner’s independence and the absence of any publicly available document setting out his powers, responsibilities and relationship with the department.

Advertisement

The memorandum describes Foster as an independent advocate for victims and allows him to scrutinise the Scheme, request information and make recommendations. But it expressly states that it is not legally binding and creates no legal obligations.

The change comes amid continuing criticism of the Home Office’s administration of compensation claims and renewed demands for the Scheme to be transferred to an independent body.

Although Foster replaces the Independent Person responsible for general oversight, separate independent reviewers will continue to consider Tier 2 challenges against individual compensation decisions.

Those reviewers can recommend that a decision be changed, but the Home Office retains the final say. If the department rejects a recommendation, it is only required to provide written reasons.

Advertisement

The Commissioner similarly cannot order the Home Office to compensate a claimant or correct a decision he considers unfair.

His appointment may provide victims with a stronger public voice and increase scrutiny of how the Scheme operates. But it does not remove any decision-making authority from the Home Office.

The Government has changed who watches the Windrush Compensation Scheme. It has not changed who controls it.

  Follow JamRadio for updates: