British Jews who passively tolerate antisemitic caricatures when directed at opponents are helping to erode the boundaries of what is considered acceptable Jew-hatred.

The British press has a long history of poking fun at politicians of all stripes, and political cartoons are an essential tool in that armoury.

Cartoons are unique however, because it allows the illustrator to draw upon things that don’t exist, it allows features to be exaggerated through creative licence, and of course, it means scribblers can play into stereotypes to elicit sympathy or anger of the viewer.

Subscribe now

Antisemitic depictions specifically have a long and well-documented history. This stretched from anti-immigration caricatures in the early 20th century during debate around the 1905 Aliens Act, to the 1930s, where parts of the British media circulated imagery depicting Jews as financial manipulators and conspirators.

The Daily Mail’s infamous “Hurrah for the Blackshirts” support for Oswald Mosley remains one of the most notorious examples of UK media flirtation with brazenly antisemitic politics.

And in more modern times, the political cartoon has more often than not been used to subtly draw upon antisemitic stereotypes.

This includes several attacks on Israeli politicians, such as the 2003 cartoon by The Independent’s Dave Brown depicting Ariel Sharon eating a Palestinian baby, and a 2013 illustration by The Sunday Times’ Gerald Scarfe, of Benjamin Netanyahu building a wall with Palestinian blood and bodies on Holocaust Memorial Day.

More recently, The Guardian was forced to say sorry and remove a Martin Rowson cartoon of former BBC chairman Richard Sharp, which reportedly used antisemitic tropes involving exaggerated Jewish features and financial-control imagery.

Steve Bell’s cartoon in the Guardian, with Netanyahu cutting out a ‘pound of flesh’ in the shape of Gaza, led to the paper severing ties with the cartoonist after accusations it echoed antisemitic “Shylock” imagery.

In the past month, Zack Polanski has been front and centre of British politics.

He is someone I profoundly disagree with on most things, including Israel.

I thought his reaction to Golders Green stabbings, attacking the Police on social media, was an absolute disgrace.

He criticised the Police for heavy handedness, after they apprehended a knife-wielding terrorist who’d stabbed two Jewish men. He also falsely claimed he’d been handcuffed. And then eventually he apologised, not for criticising the police, but for doing so on social media.

Weasel words.

Subscribe now

His comments about antisemitism being more about ‘perception’ than reality for British Jews, was also diabolical, and in my view, contributes to antisemitism.

The self-proclaimed ‘only Jewish leader of a political party’ gave a green (pardon the pun) light to those who want to indulge in the very antisemitism he is playing down.

Yet, as a Jewish politician, he will still be subject to the antisemitism of the British press occasionally. And Jews, ALL Jews, need to call that out.

The press doesn’t distinguish ideology when it comes to antisemitism.

The Times, the Mail, the Telegraph and the Sun published four illustrations/caricatures depicting Zack Polanski in the run up to the election, and they were grotesque in my view. I shared this on social media.

The Times cartoon was after the Golders Green attack, and showed him with a hooked nose, puffy face, and all the hallmarks of an age-old antisemitic caricature.

The Sun depicted him as a Ghostbusters character, which was not flattering. and it included a forked tongue. Make of that what you will.

The Telegraph showed him playing snooker, with what I would argue was the most brazenly antisemitic features. The nose, the teeth, would not have been out of place in Der Stürmer.

And lastly the Mail used a caricature which looked like it had been made by the BNP, with massive hands and a big nose, and exaggerated features.

I’ll leave my post here, so you can see them.

What makes these caricatures uniquely dangerous, not only that they fed in age-old narratives around Jews looking grotesque, manipulating people with deceit and greed.

But that people were actually defending them too. Including some Jews, who did so, downplaying their antisemitic character, because they don’t like Polanski.

These are simply antisemitic tropes.

One image might feel trivial, an error of judgment.

Several in a short space of time is a pattern. The media was simply reverting to type.

And it needs calling out.

What’s more, they don’t appeal to argument or logic.

And there’s plenty of legitimate political arguments to level at Zack Polanski.

It’s about emotion and repetition.

The press is attacking him because they don’t like his politics.

But perversely, they aren’t attacking his politics.

They’re attacking him.

Subscribe now

Yet, this doesn't mean that caricaturing Jewish public figures is inherently antisemitic. Nor that every exaggerated feature in a political cartoon should be treated as evidence of prejudice.

(Indeed, one of my favourite pieces was by Jewish News’ (and general communal cartoonist legend!) Paul Solomons, who explained why he often draws Jews with big noses. There is nuance to be had.)

Political satire relies on distortion, ridicule, exaggeration, and this often means depiction as ridiculous, ugly, pompous, or grotesque.

But when multiple features are presented in a certain way, by multiple people, one has to ask why.

It doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

Illustrators have editors.

These ideas are baked in, they’ve been around for a long time, and they are simply bubbling to the surface.

This kind of consistent gross representation bypasses debate and activates a base prejudice instead.

It was interesting to see the reaction to these cartoons, communally.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews did criticise these cartoons. But its comments were perhaps not as strong as they might have been.

“Caricaturists and their editors must take care that their depictions of Jews in public life do not wade into centuries old anti-Jewish tropes. We have seen a number of examples of political cartoons published depicting Zack Polanski that are a cause for concern. We call on publications to show the utmost vigilance and stringency on these issues.”

‘Cause for concern’ is weak.

And they used ‘anti-Jewish tropes’ instead of simply saying, they were antisemitic.

It’s caution, it’s commenting without a full commitment.

And that is because, I imagine, they don’t want to come across as offering Polanski any kind of legitimacy.

The Board is not shy at calling for cartoonists to be sacked, when they draw antisemitic illustrations.

This isn’t about whether one agrees with Zack Polanski’s politics.

It’s about consistency. It’s about challenging the media when it draws upon longstanding and structural antisemitism.

It’s also about more than one thing being true at the same time.

1. Antisemitic caricaturing of Jewish politicians should not be acceptable.

2. Antisemitic caricaturing doesn’t become acceptable because you disagree with the person being portrayed.

Subscribe now

3. Calling out antisemitic caricaturing doesn’t mean you endorse the subject’s politics or lend them credibility.

This is not a test of free speech.

It’s a test of the limits of acceptable antisemitism.

It’s a bad thing for this to become acceptable.

Political leaders should be held to account for what they say and do, not what they look like.

And it’s a bad thing for an exception to be made, because Zack Polanski’s views are largely disagreeable, for British Jewry.

Jewish folks out there who declined to call out these cartoons because they don’t mind Polanski getting a kicking in the press - miss the point.

These types of cartoons have been around for a long time. They don’t discriminate against ideology. They do against the fact the subject is Jewish.

I sit at my desk after working an eight hour day, and I have a mixture of feelings.

On the one hand, I’m delighted my working day is over.

On the other hand, I am absolutely shattered and I can’t really enjoy my free time.

This is because I had about two hours sleep last night, and not much more the previous one, or the previous one.

I feel like a zombie, not only because of the lack of sleep, but because I am experiencing other symptoms associated with having eaten gluten.

Subscribe now

In case you didn’t know, I am Coeliac, which means I can’t have gluten. It’s a pain in the arse, and it’s incurable, I just have to get on with it.

I obviously try my best to keep away from it, but sometimes I make a mistake.

I went to a barbeque on Monday and took a risk having a gluten free beer, which my Coeliac app said was not suitable (don’t ask). And I had some food which didn’t come up on the app as approved (or not allowed).

Either way, I consumed both and had a nice time, and in the days after I felt quite shit.

I don’t know if it’s due to these things specifically, or something else I ate thereafter.

But that’s not really important. I just have to be more careful in the future.

What happened

On Monday night, I felt a bit odd.

I made food at home, and that’s not an issue, I am pretty careful. But my stomach hurt a little bit. And generally I felt a bit dizzy and light headed.

I tried to get an early night for work the next morning, and ended up lying there for hours, unable to sleep.

It got to midnight. 1am. 2am. 3am.

I became more and more conscious that I was not getting enough sleep.

I was too hot, and too cold.

And most frustratingly, despite the literal physical tiredness I felt, my whole body was just on edge.

My heart was racing. I could hear it pounding. I was sweating a bit. I couldn’t get comfortable. Everything ached.

I couldn’t relax, and every time I shut my eyes and tried to sleep, my mind wandered to some stress in my life, or a piece of work I had to do.

I woke on Tuesday, groggy, achy, tired.

I slumped into work and ploughed through the lack of sleep, in the knowledge that it’s a short week, getting to the end will be easier.

When I got home I ate early and tried to wind down and relax.

Physically drained, I hoped it would be easy. I even took a tablet which is supposed to slow my heart rate a little.

Subscribe now

But it was no use. Tuesday night was worse, I don’t think I got to sleep until about 3am.

Wednesday, I felt much the same as Tuesday.

Tired, lethargic, and lacking sufficient charge.

Mentally, one night of poor sleep is hard. A second one compounds not just the physical effects, but it messes up my head also. I can almost feel my brain whirring, trying to work overtime without the juice it needs.

I had to slog through the day again, and bought myself something to eat for the evening so I didn’t have to cook. Just to make my life easier and hopefully put me less on edge, less stimulated.

Well it didn’t work, needless to say.

Wednesday night was the worst of the lot.

I decided to try to keep a regular routine, watching the news and then going to sleep around 11. But I kept having to get up to go to the loo, I was freezing with the cover off, boiling with it on.

Lights on my TV and outside were distracting me, every noise was preventing me from getting down.

Despite three solid nights of sleeplessness, my brain was just not listening to my body.

Every tiny noise or sound was a sensory overload to me, when I was at my most irritable.

It wasn’t until it got light out that I really drifted off, and before not too long, I had to get up again.

Thursday was difficult. I had a lot to do at work, and decided to stay at home, to avoid a commute.

And now I am trying to work out how to prevent a fourth night of tossing and turning.

Just the thought of it is making my heart race a bit, and is making me nervous and stressed.

This is of course part of the self-fulfilling prophecy behind the problem.

Is this a gluten thing?

Now, I am no doctor, obviously, but I do try and read up on the condition I have.

In particular I read about what Coeliac does to my body, if I accidentally eat gluten.

Sometimes it doesn’t need an explanation. I can feel it.

Like if I eat bread, I need the toilet, let’s just say.

Other times, like this, I do need an explanation.

Subscribe now

Because not being able to sleep at night isn’t intrinsically linked to gluten. Lots of people have sleep issues, and insomnia.

I don’t, usually.

I often sleep 6-8 hours and I’m fine. I think it’s linked to gluten precisely because it’s a little anomalous.

When I was first diagnosed though, I asked (and I researched into) why I felt dizzy and light headed when I consumed gluten.

It doesn’t seem to be a symptom others get as much, but I seem to have it really badly.

The only real comparison is when one is a bit more than tipsy, and it’s unpleasant. My head almost feels like it’s underwater at times after I know I have accidentally consumed gluten.

What I found, was accidentally eating gluten means my stomach becomes enflamed, and it prevents nutrients getting through to my body - hence why I felt weak and lethargic and fatigued for no reason.

Another thing that happens, is my gut and brain interact. There’s plenty of material out there which suggests a link, and for coeliacs like me, it leads to “sleepless nights and that dreaded brain fog”.

And it also means my body creates anti-bodies to fight gluten (as coeliac is an auto-immune disease), which further interferes with my mind.

And I think that’s probably where the racing heart and lack of ability to calm down comes from also.

Lastly, because it’s an auto-immune disease, my body is, what doctors call ‘immunocompromised’. It means I am more likely to pick up an illness, and that illness is more likely to be deeper and last longer.

I feel like tiredness compounds this too. When I’m exhausted from a lack of sleep my body just generally finds it harder to cope.

Why wired?

I think the primary cause of something like sleeplessness for me, is physical. My body is attacking itself when I’ve accidentally eating something contaminated with gluten.

But unfortunately if it was just that simple then the physical tiredness would give way and I would be able to sleep, and recover. After all, when one is ill with flu or a cold or Covid, usually people do sleep to try and shake it off.

The reason I was wired was because I was very conscious that it was in spite of physical tiredness that I would not be unable to sleep.

I was lying there at 10pm, thinking of having an early night, fully in the knowledge I was not going to be able to get to sleep.

The longer I lay there trying to take my mind off not being able to sleep, the more I could hear my heart beating, the more I felt uncomfortable and irritable, hot, cold, restless. And of course, the more this went on the more my mind wandered to playing that a ridiculous cricket shot the other day, or an embarrassing moment from my childhood or whatever it was that occupied my mind.

Subscribe now

It’s the bleak inevitability of not being able to sleep that leads to my mind searching and my body feeling anxious and stressed and on edge.

As I mentioned above, I am not a doctor. I have also only had Coeliac disease since January 2025, so I am still learning how to handle it.

If you have got this far (thank you!) then by all means get in touch and let me know any advice you might have.

I am open to any help really, health-wise, physical help and anything to ease anxiety and stress too.

Every year during the intermediary days of Passover (Chol Hamoed), many Jews will make a sacred pilgrimage to NW8.

That’s the postcode for Lord’s Cricket Ground, home of Middlesex County Cricket Club, of course.

A ground situated in the heart of St John’s Wood, it’s just a stone’s throw from Panzer’s deli, the Liberal Jewish Synagogue, and St John’s Wood United Synagogue.

After several days of Yom Tovs, including two seder nights, a day at the cricket is a perfect antidote to wind down, and it’s become just as traditional as the seder itself for some.

It’s especially noticeable on Pesach, but in truth, if you go to Lord’s on a midweek game for a T20 or The Hundred, you will see lots of young Orthodox Jewish kids also.

It’s a trend that’s always interested me, and one which gives me a lot of joy also, as a Jewish cricket fan, who also plays for a Jewish cricket club. This is because it’s not just about liking a sport, but it’s about values aligning, too.

It’s not just religious Jews though of course. I went to Lord’s on Monday as it was a holiday for Easter, and there’s all kinds of people. I bumped into several people I knew who are fairly irreligious, but partake in the tradition, nonetheless.

You can hear people discussing their seder nights, and talking about shul. And they sit side by side with the everyone, in harmony. I have never seen any conflict or.. well I won’t mention the A-word.

Last week my brother also took my nephew, and they sent a picture of them playing in the grounds with a small bat and ball.

On Monday, it didn’t take long until I saw my first kippah, a black felt one, atop a gentleman’s head. He had four or five young kids with him, bags of food in a Kosher Kingdom bag, and tzitzit flowing.

While I didn’t speak to every Jewish person at the Home of Cricket, I have discussed this with people previously. So here are a few thoughts as to why Lord’s has been baked into the Pesach holiday calendar.

Accessible and affordable

Jews, like any other community, look for things to do on a national holiday like Easter, which doesn’t break the bank.

Lord’s is extremely reasonable for a whole day out of good quality cricket.

Tickets for county cricket matches at Lord’s typically range from £20 for adults for the first three days of the match, £10 for over-65s, and just £5 for under-16s, with Day 4 tickets usually priced around £5 for adults, and under-16s enter for free.

So an Orthodox Jewish family with four or five kids, you can bring your entire family in for about £40. It’s really not bad at all.

Lord’s is also situated in a brilliant location.

Subscribe now

It’s in the heart of St John’s Wood, which has a sizeable Jewish community itself. But as with many parts of North London, it’s not far from other Jewish hubs. It’s just a short bus or train ride from Golders Green, Finchley, West Hampstead and Stanmore.

On Easter Monday, Lord’s is in an area where there is a lot of residential roads, and you can park for free.

All in all it’s very cheap, and very accessible, and it’s a perfect place for a large family to have a day out.

Jewish stuff

Now Lord’s may be relatively affordable and easy to get to, but I know what you’re thinking. Why not just go to Regent’s Park or any other outdoor space, for free, and have a matzah picnic?

Well many do.

But if a family wants an ‘activity’ to do, then it is a good option to watch the cricket.

Lord’s is especially amenable to Jewish fans because of its ground entry rules. Unlike lots of sporting grounds where you can’t bring in food or drinks from the outside, Lord’s allows you to bring in whatever you want really.

Some people even drove and parked there, I saw a few folks going to their car to get a blanket. Imagine doing that at even at a Test match.

The stands are full of Jewish supporters eating matzah, opening kosher for Pesach crisps, and chocolate.

There is a minyan WhatsApp group at Lord’s, as well as a prayer room which is shared with all other faith groups. I was actually invited to its opening, and know the chap who initiated it.

Lord’s also hosted a Chanukah reception and featured a beautiful Chanukiah (below).

A few years ago, Lord’s also opened a section in its museum behind the Pavilion, dedicated to the contribution of Jewish cricketers to the sport.

I was lucky enough to attend the opening, where Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis spoke, alongside Stephen Fry and former Test player Mandy Yachad, who’s now become more religious.

The museum actually featured some memorabilia from my own club, Belmont and Edgware, and London Maccabi Vale.

Jewish supporters go to Lord’s because they are accommodated, and celebrated.

Lord’s makes sure that they are looked after and welcomed.

It’s a relationship that doesn’t exist in many other sports

It’s not football

Whenever I’ve discussed why so many Jews love going to the cricket with Orthodox people at my own club, one thing always comes up: It’s not football.

Jews generally love their sport, including watching football, but attending games is not something a lot of Orthodox people will do.

Subscribe now

The central reason behind that, is of course, that football generally takes place on a Saturday afternoon, which is Shabbat.

Many Jews will go to the football still, but Orthodox Jews generally won’t.

The beauty of this tradition with Lord’s is that cricket is a four day game in this context.

So Jews can make sure, that if the game is still going, they can pop along, if it’s a Sunday or Monday.

One other thing to add, is what it signifies. Pesach is the end of the winter, spring-like weather, and the summer on the horizon. And the county season in many ways represents the same thing.

When the sun peeps through at Lord’s during the Pesach fixture, you get a bit of warmth, you realize what’s coming. It just puts you in an optimistic and good mood, I feel.

Sporting culture and closeness to the action

The other element that’s important here, is sporting culture.

I don’t want to sound snobbish, but I think it is significant.

Orthodox Jewish parents do not want to expose their young families to an ‘uncivilized’ sporting atmosphere. It’s a major reason why they don’t go to football, even when it’s not on a religious day.

They don’t want to be surrounded by rowdy fans, which often includes obscenities, swearing, and drinking.

Of course at Lord’s people sit there with a few pints of cider or beer, but it’s not out of control. Most people are on good behavior.

Perhaps the last reason why so many Orthodox Jews love going to Lord’s, and why they follow cricket more generally, is an obsession with detail and statistics.

As I sat there on Sunday, three Orthodox teenagers in front of me were discussing the game, talking about strike rates and averages.

They weren’t sitting on their phones with an ear pod in their ear, like so many others their age.

Religious Jews love to debate and analyze and discuss whatever they’re doing, and there’s nothing quite like sitting in the sun at Lord’s doing exactly that.

This is of course not something you typically do in football. You don’t sit in the stands discussing percentages and averages, that’s left to pundits. But with county cricket, the fans are often knowledgeable.

At one point, a Middlesex player on the boundary actually starting talking to members of the crowd.

One person shouted out, “are you going to enforce the follow on?”

The player replied, “have to ask the bowlers, see if they’re up to it!”, before replying to the man in the crowd: “would you enforce the follow on?”

That kind of interaction is something you just don’t get anywhere else in any sport. Could you imagine Harry Kane shouting into the crowd asking for tips on a set piece routine?

The A-word

I’m not going to actually use that word, because it poisons everything.

All I will say, is Jewish spectators at Lord’s don’t tend to experience it that much, from my experience.

I have no doubt that in the past, plenty of comments have been made in the pavilion, and stereotypes have been dredged up also.

Subscribe now

But from my 25 years of going to Lord’s I’ve not heard anything negative. Not towards me, or towards those who sit there with copious amounts of bisli.

As you walk around the ground during a day of county cricket, you see kippot. I’ve even seen people wearing MCC kippot.

It’s one of the few sporting scenes where being Jewish isn’t something apologetic, nor where Jewish people feel they can’t be themselves.

Thank you Lord’s, and the wider cricketing public.

Growing up, Passover was my favourite festival.

It was different to the rest of the year, with interesting foods and unusual traditions.

Indeed it was different to other festivals, as it’s one that doesn’t really centre on the Jews facing an existential threat.

Unlike Purim or Chanukah where despots tried to extinguish Jews, and Judaism, Pesach is about freedom from that tyranny, and the creation of a people.

Subscribe now

It’s about Jews escaping, being liberated, and becoming a nation.

This year Passover will be polluted with the spectre of antisemitism around the world - and a particular penchant for murdering Jews on Jewish festivals.

In addition to physical attacks on Jews, the rise in hatred online is becoming not just more apparent, but more dangerous.

Antisemitism is mutating into a conspiratorial form of hatred which is slowly becoming normalized and acceptable.

I am not a fatalistic person, but the atmosphere Jews face at the moment, makes me realize how, in part, the Holocaust was allowed to happen.

When a supposedly liberal, tolerant society that has a vibrant Jewish community can legitimately allow the targeting of that minority, it creates a huge amount of concern.

Israel

Compounding these problems, is of course the war in Iran.

Israel as at war in Iran alongside the United States, and in Lebanon against Hezbollah, on its own.

I see and hear the impact of this from my Israeli colleagues, and I feel the wider political and geopolitical impact of this war, too.

In London, this conflict has been imported.

Open and naked support for Iran and its terror proxies are on the streets, at universities, even in the heart of Westminster in many ways.

It’s terrifying.

And it poses a dilemna for many British Jews.

I am British.

I love being British.

I think I’d find it hard to go and live in Israel, from numerous perspectives. Though I have an attachment to the country, and love to visit.

But that option is always there.

Yet historically, Israel has not just been an escape route, a safe haven.

Subscribe now

It’s also been a place of opportunity, a high-tech country, a place where start-ups are born and ideas flourish, and a liberal and tolerant place, where the streets are flowing with bars and coffee shops, where at least in theory, everyone is equal under the law.

But that vision of Israel is changing. Some might say it’s fading, but from my experience, Israel is fractioning.

When I visited in September, no more could you see this separation in the difference in posters in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. ‘Bring Them Home’ versus ‘finish the job’, in reference to Gaza war and hostages.

It was like two different worlds.

The news this week that Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right minister who is banned from the UK due to his extremism, pushed through the death penalty for Palestinian prisoners who have committed terror offences, is deeply worrying. The same law doesn’t apply to Israelis.

So too is the surge in extremist settler violence across the West Bank, often with the protection and support of the army, and ministers such as Ben-Gvir, and Bezalel Smotrich. Diplomats are now referring to it as terrorism, and it’s hard to argue against it.

The result, the culmination of all of this for Jews like me, is being left with a horrible vision.

This vision is of needing to escape, and having nowhere to go. It’s of facing a physical threat and a growing body of conspiratorial hatred, with no sympathy from antisemites, who proclaim themselves to be anti-racists. And its of an Israel diving deeper into authoritarianism and extremism domestically, and a prolonged conflict regionally, which puts everyone at risk.

Jews on edge this Pesach

In recent months, and indeed years, Jews around the world have sadly become accustomed to being attacked on Jewish festivals.

We now almost expect it.

This, recently, began on October 7, which was the Jewish festival of Simchat Torah. But in truth, Israel’s enemies have long exploited Jewish festivals to attack. The Yom Kippur War perhaps being the most obvious historical example.

Subscribe now

Antisemitic attacks have been on the rise in recent months, and they included mass murder deliberately on Jewish festivals.

And a wider trend of attacks on Jews, and a rise in antisemitic abuse.

Recently, four Hatzola ambulances were torched in the heart of Golders Green. This led to an outpouring of antisemitic conspiracies, including accusations it was a ‘false flag’ operation by Mossad. This is just par for the course these days.

The Community Security Trust recorded a sharp rise in antisemitic incidents in 2025, with over 3,700 total incidents.

This was an increase of 4% compared to the previous year, making it the second-highest annual total. And this included 1,521 antisemitic incidents in just the first half of 2025 alone, the second‑highest six‑month total ever recorded.

This followed major attacks, on Jews, on Jewish festivals.

In the UK on Yom Kippur 2025, the Heaton Park Synagogue in Manchester was attacked in a vehicle ramming and stabbing incident, which left two dead and three injured.

During Chanukah, there as a massacre on Bondi Beach of Jews celebrating the festival. 15 were killed in the antisemitic terror attack.

The gunmen placed ISIS flags on their cars.

When Israel’s president visited Australia recently, protests included grotesque antisemitic imagery and placards.

Even when Jews are gunned down in cold blood, these cranks won’t let up for a minute. There were violent clashes and arrests too.

The United States has seen similar spikes. The Temple Israel synagogue attack in Michigan, saw a truck driven into the building.

The FBI classified this as a Hezbollah-inspired antisemitic attack, making clear the the links between Islamist extremism and rising antisemitism, linked to the Middle East.

Data from the Anti-Defamation League showed a 227% increase in antisemitic incidents across the U.S. over the past decade, while FBI hate crime statistics indicate Jews were targeted in around 69 % of all religion‑based hate crimes in 2024, despite comprising ~2 % of the population.

In the US Jews are being attacked by the far-right, by Islamists, and targeted by the far-left too.

In the UK, there is also a clear and present danger from Islamist extremism.

After the Heaton Park attack, it was announced Police foiled an ISIS-inspired terror attack on Manchester’s Jewish community, which Greater Manchester Police said “could potentially have been the deadliest terrorist attack in UK history”.

And more recently than that, two Iranian men were accused of conducting hostile surveillance of Jewish targets in London on behalf of the Iranian Intelligence Service (IIS).

And then there’s Europe.

Subscribe now

Antisemitic violence has surged in Europe, with a synagogue explosion in Belgium and arson attacks in the Netherlands marking a disturbing pattern of targeting Jewish institutions.

You can see why Jews might feel worried this Pesach.

Diaspora Jews have become a target, in part due to this war, and in part due to the permissive attitude towards extremism.

We’re almost expecting an attack.

It’s not normal.

Why this year will be different from all other years

Unlike previous years, Pesach 2026 will be celebrated under not just one cloud, but a storm.

Rising antisemitism, hatred, extremism and conspiratorialism is palpable.

We are all feeling it.

The war involving Israel, means Jews will find it difficult to be at ease.

Many have friends and family there, while Israel’s domestic challenges are also causing disagreement within the UK Jewish community.

I have no doubt there’s going to be a heated argument at the seder table this year about the death penalty.

And I’m not massively looking forward to it.

If you want to get a sense of feeling for UK Jews, there has been a lot of people signing up to become security volunteers at schools and synagogues.

Just this week, I attended a course for trauma training, which included a segment about what to do if there was an acid attack, and how to treat people who have been stabbed, and have serious injuries, while on security at shul.

This is a reality. It’s not theoretical.

Jews are scared.

Jews are expecting to be attacked this Pesach, and it shouldn’t be this way.

Obviously I hope this doesn’t happen anywhere, to anyone.

But perhaps even as much of a challenge as an attack would be, is the aftermath, the backlash.

Communities have become used to gaslighting.

We’ve become used to the post-attack conspiracies.

We’ve become used to the whataboutery.

We’ve become used to people soft-justifying attacks, invoking Israel’s actions.

We’ve become used to the doubling down and protesting after an attack too.

This year Jews will feel particularly vulnerable on the festival of freedom.

Exposed to hatred.

Exposed to extremism.

Exposed physically, and in terms of our security.

The British government has long-failed to address the annual hate march of Al-Quds Day, with insufficient action, which comes too late.

This year it’s been banned, but in typical fashion it’s a failure that won’t stop the extremism which spews from it.

Having covered the march almost a decade ago, I have never felt more intimidated while working as a journalist.

The things I saw and heard will stay with me.

I am under no doubt this march should have been banned a long time ago, and the extremism at the heart of it, should have been addressed to.

This year the ban feels temporary, and it won’t stop a static demonstration from taking place either. It’s insufficient.

Subscribe now

What Is Al-Quds Day

Al Quds Day is an annual event held in cities worldwide to express solidarity with Palestinians and protest against Israel.

Al-Quds Day was created by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini after Iran’s 1979 revolution. Al-Quds is the Arabic name for Jerusalem. It is often celebrated on the last Friday of Ramadan.

In the UK, it is organized by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), an advocacy group that has faced criticism for its ties to the Iranian regime.

Its bookshop and legal office is situated really near to where I live in Brent.

This is the picture I took some months ago, of an Iranian flag in the window.

There was also a picture of Leila Khaled, with a gun. But I guess they’d be OK with that, given the Hezbollah flag, eh?

The saddest thing about this, is that the parade used to be Jewish shops, kosher butchers and delis.

Even a Jewish-owned optician.

The last one standing is Parkway bakery, which is to the left of this image, holding out.

The Islamic Human Rights Commission Trust (IHRC Trust), which organizes the Al Quds Day march, is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission for England and Wales over concerns about its funding of a non‑charitable company and whether it is meeting its charitable purposes.

This is another failure of the UK, to properly regulate so-called charities. This organization masquerades as a book shop and legal support hub, defending free speech and the right to protest.

It is not that. It openly supports the Iranian regime and its proxies.

The march was historically marked by the display of Hezbollah and Hamas flags.

It became a controversial platform for extremist views, with little action taken by the UK government to curb the group’s activities despite its links to proscribed organizations.

In the last 20 years, support for first Hamas and then Hezbollah’s military wing, and then its entirety, were banned.

But the march still takes place every year, an orgy of anti-Israel hatred.

The problem is, as the government has gradually banned elements, and on each occasion, protestors have latched on to new things.

The gradual and partial proscription has allowed this to morph and adapt over time, so it can stay on the right side of the law.

Hamas was first partially proscribed in 2001. This was its military wing, Hamas IDQ. In 2021, its political wing which runs Gaza, was also proscribed, with the UK government describing the distinction between the two wings as “artificial” and labelling Hamas “a complex but single terrorist organisation”.

When I covered the Al-Quds Day march in 2017 as a journalist, there was the most absurd situation imaginable.

Hezbollah’s miliary wing was banned in 2008 and its full political and military wing, was outlawed in 2019.

Therefore showing support for the political wing of Hezbollah was legal. The military wing illegal.

So every protestor’s flag had a carefully worded sticker on it that read:

“This flag is to show my support for the political wing of Hezbollah”.

This was advice handed down by the IHRC at the time.

This insufficient move to ban some of Hezbollah eventually ended when the entirety of the terror group was outlawed in 2019.

It should have been outlawed when the political wing was.

Jeremy Hunt who was foreign secretary in 2019, said: “"It is clear the distinction between Hezbollah's military and political wings does not exist, and by proscribing Hezbollah in all its forms, the government is sending a clear signal that its destabilising activities in the region are totally unacceptable and detrimental to the UK's national security”.

Not even Hezbollah distinguishes between the two.

This has been a long-running failure to address extremism, to take decisive action, and to stop supporters of these terror groups from manipulating British laws with cynical non-existent distinctions.

The UK has repeatedly allowed supporters of Iran and its proxies to march through the streets of liberal and tolerant London.

And the latest installment is no different in its tepid response.

What’s Happened Now

This week, UK Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, approved the Metropolitan Police’s request to ban the Al Quds Day march in London.

This was not however due to the march being a cesspit of antisemitic hatred.

She banned it citing the risk of "serious public disorder" due to the scale of the protest and counter-protests related to the ongoing Middle East conflict.

This is despite weekly protests since October 7, which has led to the government seeking to restrict demonstrations on a ‘cumulative’ basis.

Subscribe now

The real risk here, is not the scale, but the content. They are worried about violence, disorder, extremism, and clashes between demonstrators and police.

That tells you all you need to know, and why it should be banned in its entirety.

Mahmood emphasized that while "lawful protest remains a protected right", this decision was necessary to maintain public safety under the “unique moment” of heightened tensions.

This of comes after Israel and the United States launched an attack on Iran a fortnight ago.

But the reference to it being a “unique moment”, suggests this ban is not permanent.

Assistant Commissioner Ade Adelekan of the Metropolitan Police described the march as “uniquely contentious”, adding that banning it was based on a high-risk assessment from clashes expected between protestors and counter-protesters.

Adelekan stated that the police’s role was to "reduce violence and disorder", not to "police taste or decency".

I get that. The police’s job isn’t to be the decider of what is moral. In this case it’s the Home Secretary.

And that’s why it’s the government which is in the wrong ever since this monstrosity has been taking place.

What Happens At The March

Al-Quds day marches in London have long been platforms for antisemitic, extremism, the display of proscribed organizations, and chanting of hateful slogans.

Among things chanted are “Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud” (‘Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return), referencing a 7th century battle, marching against Jews.

There is also glorification of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, including after their proscription.

These demonstrations also often have imagery which draws upon antisemitic tropes, depicting Jews and Israelis as devils, comparing them to Nazis, and much more.

There is also incitement to violence, calls to attack Israel, to end Israel’s existence, and to defend Iran and its proxies.

Before their proscription, both Hezbollah and Hamas flags were flown at the marches, and there are still many Iranian flags flown.

When it first started, other banners included more overt chants against Jews.

My own experience at the march was eye‑opening.

In 2017 I covered Al-Quds Day. It was a boiling hot day, and I wore flipflops.

I watched as private security attempted to block my view of the protest, at every twist and turn.

Witnessing the march firsthand with its chants and terrorist rhetoric; I couldn’t help but feel the weight of helplessness.

Not least because many of the demonstrators wore Hezbollah flags, with this pathetic note of clarification on it, that is designated support for their political wing.

As I walked with the demonstration from its start to its close, I heard all sorts of things being shouted. This included “they are amongst us, the Zionists are amongst us. Don’t talk to anyone, if anyone approaches you, speak to a steward.” The irony was not lost on me. But nevertheless I felt pretty vulnerable.

When I asked the Police about what action they could take, instead of enforcing the law, preventing incitement to violence and support for terrorism - they told me I should be careful because I was wearing flip-flops and there was passing traffic. And that it was a hot day, so I should drink water.

It’s hard to describe how frustrating and helpless I felt, as these maniacs marauded through my City, supporting Iranian-backed terror.

The Biggest Failure? IRGC.

If the UK’s failure to ban Hamas and Hezbollah over a 15-year period looks bad, then its inaction on the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) is unforgivable.

The IRGC is what protects Iran’s revolution, and its ideological integrity. It doesn’t only exist in Iran though. It has spawned movements across the Middle East to sow the regime’s malign influence in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Palestine and elsewhere.

Subscribe now

It’s a terror group according to the US and several other countries, but not the UK. In 2023, it was reportedly going to be proscribed, but never happened.

In January 2026, the EU designated it a terror organization. There was then a debate in Parliament about its proscription, before the US and Israel launched the Iran war. It’s still not happened.

Peter Kyle, the business secretary, said in January, the UK “did a review and asked the independent reviewer into terrorism laws last summer to look into this. He came back and said the idea of proscribing – like we do for domestic terror organizations – isn’t appropriate for a foreign state organization.”

Yeah, because the UK doesn’t proscribe any foreign terror groups, Peter?

He insisted the UK was tackling the IRGC effectively, saying “We’ve already used sanctions against Iran to the full extent we can.”

He added the UK is “trying to be as strident as we possibly can in support of Iranian people who want change in Iran.”

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was also accused of “indecision” in committing to proscription.

She said she was “determined” to eventually proscribe it, but he IRGC cannot be proscribed under existing terrorism laws because it forms part of the Iranian state.

Where have we heard that before? Ah yes, Hezbollah. Ah yes. Hamas.

This is the Iran playbook.

Embed terror into state infrastructure to insulate it from backlash.

Even Lebanon banned the IRGC from operating in the country, just last week.

The tide is turning.

But as ever, the UK is late and dithering, and ineffective, when it comes to cracking down on Iran and its proxies.

It’s weak.

Iranians in the UK want it banned, and so has the Board of Deputies.

The time is surely coming soon.

Free Speech vs Hate Speech

Free speech and the right to protest is not something that should be curbed lightly.

When it clashes with hate speech and incitement to violence however, there needs to be an intervention.

What has happened in the last few decades, is the UK government has tried to incrementally protect free speech (by allowing Al-Quds Day to take place) while banning elements of it, like the waving of terror flags.

The balance lies in protecting that right to protest and the need to protect public safety.

Subscribe now

Expression of support for a terrorist organization or for antisemitic incitement should be illegal.

And support for terror shouldn’t be shielded by manipulations of the law either. If protestors are openly supporting the Iranian regime, holding picture of Ayatollah Khamenei, they are ideologically backing the Iranian state.

For too long, the UK government has tried to apply existing laws more rigorously to prevent the spread of hatred and violence under the guise of protest.

Banning the Al-Quds Day march, but allowing a static protest is absolute case in point for the failure to address the underlying problem with this event.

It’s not a free speech issue. It’s a hate speech issue. It’s an incitement issue. It’s a public order issue.

The fact they banned the match because they literally said they were worried about disorder and tensions spilling over, shows this is nothing to do with banning a protest for the sake of banning a protest. It’s to stop Iranian-backed terror from masquerading on the streets of London, as something palatable.

Sense of Fear

Recent events underscore that the threat from Iran isn’t abstract.

This isn’t just about Al-Quds Day.

Iran is projecting beyond the Middle East and into the UK, particularly toward Jewish communities.

In early March 2026, British counter‑terrorism police and MI5 arrested four men — one Iranian and three dual British‑Iranian nationals — on suspicion of conducting surveillance on Jewish community locations and individuals on behalf of Iranian intelligence, part of a long‑running national security investigation.

As Iran faces up to a bombardment by the US and Israel, it also said it would activate sleeper cells across the world.

Authorities acknowledged the concern this has caused within Jewish communities and urged vigilance. The Community Security Trust, the UK’s primary Jewish communal security charity, has consistently warned about the persistent threat posed by Iran and its proxies, noting rising antisemitic incidents and the need for robust security measures as part of its mission to protect British Jews.

CST has previously highlighted Iran’s history of antisemitism and global terrorism, including its support for extremist groups and influence operations aimed at undermining cohesion and targeting Jewish and dissident communities abroad.

These developments, from espionage arrests in London to broader concerns about Iran’s asymmetric activities, illustrate the very real dangers that extremist state actors pose on British soil and the inadequacy of current policy responses that still refuse to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

It also comes after the deadly Bondi Beach attack in Sydney on Chanukah, the Manchester attack on Yom Kippur, and the general rise in antisemitism since the October 7 attack.

The Home Secretary might want to ban Al-Quds Day for ‘unique’ reasons.

The Jewish community does not see it as ‘unique’ at all. The threat level has been rising and present for a long time, looming overhead.

What Needs To Happen

Iran is at war, and has said it will hit back against those attacking it. Including outside Iran.

Its growing influence in reconnaissance and attacks globally, should be a wake up call. Its incitement of violence against Jews and backing for extremism poses a very real threat.

The UK has got to act against this threat.

It has to ban the IRGC.

It has to stop tiptoeing around events like the Al-Quds Day March, which is an open and public display of support for Iran and its state-backed terror.

It shouldn’t happen.

Subscribe now

It also needs to close loopholes, and stop London from being a place where funds flow through to get around sanctions.

British Jews, the CST, many MPs and peers (including many non-Jewish allies) have been warning about Iran’s threat for a long time.

But not enough has changed. There has only been small and marginal changes around the edges, to curb the visible impact of Iranian influence in the UK, like with marches.

The UK has to take a stronger position to rout Iranian-backed extremism that lives under the surface. It must hold extremists accountable, on a holistic level.

My friend, Harry, recently shared his personal experience of being a Jew, in a place where there aren’t many Jews.

He spoke to a local news outlet in Derby, and explained that life there for a Jewish person isn’t easy, with the headline of the piece saying he was “living in fear”.

The piece is not political.

It isn’t about Israel.

It is not attacking anyone in particular.

Harry doesn’t even go into detail about who the antisemites are really.

Subscribe now

He doesn’t even specifically talk about Derby. Indeed, he explained how he had to leave his prior job, in part, due to allegations of antisemitism.

He said:

“It’s not easy being Jewish these days and social media is a vile cesspit right now.

“I see anti-semitism every day. I left my last job because of antisemitism – it is tough. It feels like it’s at a whole new level.

“I’m always cautious of my surroundings. I have a Jewish star as a necklace which is hidden when I go out. I experimented the other day with it on and I had some odd looks.”

Following the publication of the piece, Harry, who is a co-ordinator at the Derbyshire Jewish Community group, messaged me with a link, and flagged up the insane tidal wave of antisemitic bile on Facebook.

“The comments on this Facebook post...(I didn’t use the words ‘living in fear’ but maybe I should have!)”, he said.

At the time of writing this piece, there are more than 500 comments on the Facebook post, flagging up the article.

There are many comments in support, thanking him for speaking openly and offering genuine sympathy. I’ve shared one here, which is eminently sensible just to show it’s not all bad.

But the overwhelming majority of comments are absolutely sickening antisemitism.

There is a lot of overt racism. And there’s a lot of accounts I suspect are bots. Rage-baiting profiles whose sole aim is to throw issues like antisemitism, into chaos.

The Reaction

The comments section underneath the post is a cesspit of hatred.

It is filled with unambiguous Jew-hatred, dismissal of antisemitism as a serious problem, mockery, far-right conspiracies, whataboutery and people demanding Jews answer for Israel.

Worst of all is the caveating.

Subscribe now

So many of the comments appear to condemn antisemitism, at first, but it’s conditional. They are either couched in condemnation of Israel, or imply that antisemitism does not exist, it’s just ‘used’ to stifle criticism of Israel. It’s quite Corbynesque.

I have shared a few responses here, just so you get a flavour of the vile nature of the comments.

Person one respond to the article about antisemitism, by shooing in a debate Israel and Zionism. The premise is, nobody can talk about antisemitism, without it relating to ‘Zionism’. This of course gives a green light to antisemites to spew hatred, as long as it’s dressed up correctly.

“I have been an ardent critic of Israel for most of my adult life, but I think it’s sad if Jewish people feel this way. We should be able to express our views without being violent and I don’t confuse Judaism with Zionism.”

Person 2. This is non-specific, anecdotal claims to delegitimise antisemitism.

Person 3. Starts with the same as the other two, about criticising Israel. Then engages with their experience in activist circles where conversations “quickly become antisemitic dog whistles”.

While this comment appears to be reasonable, saying people should support Palestine while not being antisemitic, it still taps into that premise, that one cannot relate to antisemitism, without mentioning Israel. The fact the first line of the sentence is ‘I’m critical of Israel.. but’, tells you all you need to know.

Alt-Right’s Fingerprints

On many of the posts, it was in many ways plain old fashioned antisemitism.

There are plenty of accounts on there, who if you click on they do exist. They are real people.

Subscribe now

But, on closer inspection, there are a lot of fake profiles also. There is a lot of rhetoric and activity which has all the hallmarks of the Alt-Right.

One such reference is the phrase ‘Goyim’, a term adopted by the far-right, in addition to ‘oy vey’.

Responding to someone calling the antisemitism awful, and thanking Harry, someone replied with the goyim jibe here. It got 10 likes.

Goyim in Hebrew means ‘nations’.

As was expertly explained by John Aziz, the term has become a favourite for conspiracy theorists, which deliberately misrepresent the Jewish view on non-Jews.

They often seek to present Jews as claiming to be ‘better than everyone’ or ‘the chosen people’ or demanding non-Jews ‘serve’ them.

It’s not true.

And it’s very dangerous, and leads to Jews being attacked by Nazis.

Very often references to ‘goyim’ are followed by the phrases like ‘oy vey’, turning Jews in to antisemitic caricatures.

Some of the comments here also dabble in antisemitic conspiracies, claiming antisemitism is used to cover up for Israel’s actions.

There’s even a picture of a rat, a typically neo-Nazi reference.

There was also whataboutery:

And worst of all, a string of antisemitic, sarcastic memes and responses to Harry sharing his fears.

These have the aim of trivializing antisemitism, and reducing it to something expressed in internet memes and emojis.

It’s deliberately insulting and demeaning.

As someone who has worked as a Jewish journalist and who’s spent a copious amount of time on the internet, I can tell you a few things about all of this stuff.

It seems to me, that it’s mainly driven by the Alt-Right.

This is a far-right movement of internet trolls who indulge in antisemitic clickbait, misogyny and shitposting.

Most of these 400 comments on ‘Derbyshire Live’, a local outlet that doesn’t ordinarily get lots of traction, are from accounts that are not real.

They are fake accounts with features that play on stereotypes, including pro-Palestine profile pictures, which make observers think they are of an entirely different worldview.

This is deliberate misinfirmation and distorting of facts. And it’s done to completely railroad serious topics, like antisemitism.

This post, this article, has no doubt been shared on a site like 4Chan or Reddit, and all the trolls have been directed to post abuse.

It’s really dangerous. And it’s not just because some faceless trolls are posting abuse on the internet.

It’s because these trolls sometimes come off the internet, and act.

Subscribe now

We have all seen the spike in antisemitism in recent years, including violent hatred that’s resulted in mass murder, across the world.

There were attacks in Halle and the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, driven by far-right ideology.

There was also of course a mass murder in New Zealand, in Christchurch, where the attacker live-streamed the massacre and published a manifesto online.

His weapons were daubed with writing associated with the far-right and alt-right, and after the event, it was also claimed the manifesto was in-and-of-itself, meant to troll.

This is a decentralised movement which organises itself on forums and the dark web. It lives on the internet where it incubates hatred, but it’s also something that comes out of the shadows and attacks, very often through ‘lone wolves.’

While this is a small instance of far-right, alt-right trolling of Jews, it isn’t insignificant.

It’s an organised pile-on, and at the heart of it is a friend of mine.

A friend who lives in a part of the world where there’s not many Jews. A friend who is very capable and conscious of his online and physical security, but nonetheless, is increasingly putting himself in the public eye through his work supporting Jewish life.

He literally said to me before I read a comment, that the headline about him living in fear wasn’t what he said - but now it is what he feels like.

What Needs To Happen

A few things need to change to stop this from happening.

First and foremost, moderation.

Subscribe now

I was a digital editor for a decade, and you have to be on top of what happens on social media. You have a responsibility as an editor, to ensure there isn’t abuse. Lots of media outlets do not allow commenting on their website, and will turn off Facebook comments, or the ability to reply on Twitter, for example.

Derbyshire Live should have turned off the comments as soon as it became apparent that a far-right pile-on was taking place.

Free speech is not a justification for hate speech.

Secondly, social media companies must have better mechanisms for tackling trolls. Facebook in particular is very poor at stopping people from setting up fake accounts, and from using those to post abusive comments.

On an open page like this, there is virtually no safeguards at all.

Thirdly, there needs to be much stricter, clearly defined and enforceable rules.

It’s really clear to me that these comments were overwhelmingly abuse and hateful - but nothing is being done. It’s not good enough for the outlet, or any outlet, to just say there’s free speech and they are absolved of responsibility.

Lastly, outlets who do this kind of profile, are trying to get engagement. They want likes, comments and shares, as it drives traffic.

That’s why they used the headline they did, despite Harry more or less saying he didn’t actually say those words.

And that is also no doubt why they didn’t moderate comments or address the abuse that was happening in plain sight.

It is driving the very engagement they crave.

They have a responsibility though, to Harry.

Any outlet that is profiling someone who might be put in a vulnerable position, have to bear this in mind.

Jews are not far-right engagement bait.

It’s clear from Harry, he is already very conscious about being outwardly Jewish in public. Now he will be on edge even more.

If you are able to support the Derbyshire Jewish Community group, please do.

And if you are able to support Community Security Trust, which protects Jews in the real world - and online - please do so also.

Purim is a festival of dressing up, merriment, drinking and occasionally bad behavior.

But against the backdrop of the war against Iran and its proxies, it’s important British Jews understand how their celebrations might be perceived by those who don’t know what’s happening.

For any British Jew, Purim is a byword for fun.

When you grow up, it’s the muck up day at school, where people dress up, where lessons are relaxed, and at shul where you can make as much noise as you want.

It is a festival with several meanings.

Subscribe now

In many ways it’s a festival for children, it has a lot of innocence baked in. It’s about food and gifts, and making loud noises when the antagonist of the story is mentioned.

But behind this is something much deeper. The reason Jews dress up is because god’s name isn’t mentioned in the story, he is hidden. It is somewhat a story for Jews in the diaspora, with the ultimate message being that even when you can’t see god - he is still there.

Jews this year are acutely aware that the festival, which is set in Iran, is happening against the backdrop of a war on Iran.

I’ve no doubt this war was launched by the US and Israel deliberately for this time period, to coincide with the festival. Benjamin Netanyahu has long-cited ‘Amalek’, the biblical name for Israel’s perpetual enemy.

Given the symmetry of Purim happening during this war against Iran, and after the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, someone Israeli and diaspora Jews would view as a modern ‘Amalek’, this festival has a different meaning to normal.

And there are also implications for Jews in the diaspora, and indeed in Israel, in terms of how we behave, how it might be viewed, given this war.

In short, Jews should not want the world to think we are celebrating death and war. Lots of people are suffering.

But at the same time, we should be proudly Jewish, and celebrate our traditions.

First and Foremost, What Is It?

For those who don’t know what Purim is, it’s a Jewish festival that falls around March time.

Here is a Chabad explanation, as I’m not a rabbi.

My understanding, is it’s based around the Jewish protagonists Mordechai and Esther, and antagonist Haman. Set in the Persian Kingdom, Purim means lots, because Haman drew lots for a day when all the Jews would be killed.

The long and the short of the story is Mordechai and Esther stop all the Jews being killed, and it ends with Haman and his sons being hanged on the gallows he prepared for Mordechai.

Everything turns upside down, again to show the world is not as it seems. It’s hiding something. And that things happen for a reason, there is something behind it.

The festival is unique because it doesn’t mention god’s name in the liturgical text, the megillah of Esther (yes it’s a word not just a Yiddish phrase to mean a long-winded story).

For this reason, Jews dress up. We hide our real identities, and while this is fun for children, there is a deeper meaning.

Jews are also supposed to get so drunk on Purim, that you don’t know the difference between Mordechai and Haman.

This is fun, and makes it a fan favourite for lots of younger Jews, of course.

But it also leads to some trouble. There has been instances of anti-social behavior and arrests in the past.

And given the heightened security situation, especially in the UK, this is something that has to be kept in check.

Being On Edge This Year

Most Jews who are even remotely observant will go to the Synagogue tonight to hear the megillah.

It takes about 45 minutes to an hour to read it, and then there’s usually a big party and feast.

But this year it will be tinged with fear, because of the heightened security threat.

The CST (Community Security Trust) which is responsible for protecting Jewish institutions, raised the level of risk after the attack was launched on Iran.

They mentioned British and Israeli Jews, because Iran doesn’t care.

Iran has attacked Jews all over the world, and it’s attacked supposed sympathizers of Israel all over the world too.

In particular, the political reaction to this war has put a lot of British Jews on edge.

In the UK, not a day after the attack on Iran, pro-regime protestors gathered in the centre of London including Mothin Ali, the deputy-leader of the Green Party.

Mothin had previously praised the October 7 attacks, and also claimed antisemitism was used as a “weapon” to silence criticism of Israel.

This morning, it was reported that Anas Sarwar’s dad had put out a lovely tribute to the Ayatollah also. And there are many other politicians, including Jeremy Corbyn (a former PressTV employee), who has at best failed to speak about Iran’s brutality when criticising the US and Israeli response. And at worst, sided with Iran against Western imperialist aggression, or whatever he says.

Keir Starmer’s flip-flopping statements and lukewarm support for UK action, hasn’t helped the sense of insecurity either.

The bottom line is against the backdrop of this war, British Jews will be fearful this Purim.

One can disagree with this war, while very strongly also disagreeing with Iran’s actions and ideologies - and acknowledging the threat it has continued to pose to Israel, the region and the world.

That should be the default.

But simply put, most politicians are not offering strong enough verbal and substantive criticism of Iran.

Nor, enough help to counter any backlash.

Why does this matter?

Because as ever, when Israel is at war, people seem to think it’s appropriate to attack Jews.

I wrote about this here - showing that antisemitism almost always spikes when there is war in the Middle East.

This year, British Jews will celebrate Purim like we do every year.

We’ll be proud, but probably not quite as loud, and a lot more conscious of the world around us. Aware of the threats. Aware of the geopolitics. Aware of the irony of a war in Iran, during a festival about Iran.

What Non-Jews Need to Know

I have had many chats over the years with people who aren’t Jewish, about Purim.

Subscribe now

In particular, those who live in areas with a large Jewish community but haven’t got a clue what’s happening.

If the above didn’t explain it enough, then here is a brief elaboration that might help.

On Purim, British Jews dress up, and get drunk.

Sometimes this comes across as rowdiness and anti-social behavior.

I have also seen stories in the past where people dress up in soldier outfits, and people claim they’re being the IDF, intimidating people (they’re not) and other cultural appropriation (which is often innocent, even if ill-advised.)

The majority of dressing up on Purim is fun. It’s nothing sinister at all.

It’s for children.

But against the backdrop of this war in Iran, some might also jump to the conclusion that it is a celebration of war.

It isn’t.

At least, it shouldn’t be.

And it’s important that communities relay this message to their members, that they shouldn’t be seen to be celebrating war in Iran, during a festival set in Iran.

Jews are not against the Iranian people.

If there are any reports about Jews celebrating the war, just bear all of the above in mind.

It’s a Jewish festival and merriment is compulsory. There are always a few idiots though.

Taking Responsibility

This is the section that might get me into trouble.

On Purim, in the past, young British Jews have got themselves into hot water.

If you go down Golders Green high street tonight, there will be a lot of people out and about, mostly enjoying themselves in an innocent fashion.

But some people drink too much (including underage drinking which should obviously not be allowed.).

Last year in particular there was a very ugly incident. Five students from Hasmonean (an Orthodox Jewish school) were arrested after what someone described as a “baying mob of young men”, numbering up to 200, caused chaos in the street on Purim.

Shortly after these arrests, posters went up around Golders Green accusing the CST of “betraying” the community, crossing out the word protecting in its logo. The CST work closely with police.

This year, I’ve seen one or two events for young Orthodox teens, saying it will be more appropriate, safe. I hope young Jewish kids behave themselves especially against the backdrop of this war in Iran.

The last thing the UK Jewish community needs is a load of angry, drunk Jewish teenagers being arrested or spoken to by the police.

It’s a terrible look.

And it isn’t the first time. In 2010 there were also reports of “fighting, firework throwing and general havoc", by a mob of 300 young men, also in Golders Green.

While in 2011, the police had to intervene in Manchester to break up a ‘drink and sex’ Purim party. There were also reports of binge drinking in the Orthodox community.

It isn’t just a problem in the UK also. In the US, in Boro Park, Jewish groups penned a cross-communal letter urging young Jews to be respectful, and not cause anti-social behavior.

They urged people “not use costumes that involve blackface”. It should go without saying.

But it’s exactly this kind of behavior that gives people the wrong impression.

In Israel, there is also going to be a lot of public celebrations. I suspect they will feel more entitled to fuse the festival of Purim’s celebrations with the war in Iran, given they are in the middle of it.

But at the same time, Israelis also have to consider how it might look to celebrate war, and death. Even if it’s not the intention, it’s something to bear in mind.

Finding The Balance

Purim is fun. It can and should be celebrated publicly and privately, by dressing up, eating, drinking and being merry.

This year there are a few things to think about in the background though.

There is a looming security threat for Jews in the diaspora. The level has been raised since October 7, and now with the war in Iran and the expansion of this conflict to the whole region, it could also spread elsewhere.

Subscribe now

People express their views outside of the region, and no more so was this seen on Saturday.

On the one hand, pro-regime protestors took to the streets of London in the day.

And then thousands of people gathered in Finchley and Golders Green at night, to wave pre-regime flags and mark the news of the death of the Ayatollah, and the growing realization that this regime might fall.

Jews will no doubt be the same.

British Jews, like Israeli and American Jews, will have their own opinions on this war, on whether the UK should be involved, on how politicians have reacted. And Purim, a festival about historic Iran, might be the vehicle or outlet to express that view or emotion.

I can only give my view on British Jews, as I am one. I think this year Purim celebrations have to come with a sense of responsibility and balance.

We can’t ignore this war. It is happening, right now. In Iran. Where Purim is set.

But this is the year where Jews have to think twice about how it might look, if there are problems.

If there is inappropriate or offensive outfits , if there is anti-social behavior or any illegality, and if there is purported celebration of war. Civilians are being killed and terrorized across the Middle East, and nobody should be celebrating that, whatever your politics.

Enjoy Purim, subscribe.. and look after one another.

Metallica has one of the most iconic back-catalogues in rock history, but sometimes they get typecast.

My friends who are not Metallica fans think it’s just screaming and death, which it isn’t. (I mean, there are songs which are screaming and death, and but they are so much more than that.)

Subscribe now

Metallica’s first five albums are in many ways the definitive heavy metal armoury.

Kill ‘Em All (1983). Metallica burst onto the scene with speed metal, infused with punk overtones. This included a 4 minute bass solo ‘(Anesthesia) - Pulling Teeth’, which was clearly with commercial success in mind. (But seriously listen to it, it’s fucking amazing. Rest in peace Cliff Burton!)

Ride the Lightning (1984) and Master of Puppets (1986) are among the two best thrash and metal albums ever. They’re packed with wicked riffs, incredible winding solos, and some of the most iconic intros, including Battery, Master of Puppets, and Fade to Black.

…And Justice for All (1988) has long been criticised for poor production and the songs being too long. But I really like it. Some amazing riffs on there.

And their self-titled fifth album, Metallica (1991), or the Black Album, is probably the most mainstream. This is the first step off the thrash ladder, towards more metal and hard rock. It got them on the radio. It filled arenas. It also came out at a pivotal time for music, and the world.

Each have their own elements which made them special, progressively introducing new and different musical styles and themes.

In eight years, Metallica produced just under 50 tracks which not only redefined heavy music, but in many ways, created it.

It also took the band to the peak of their commercial and musical powers. The downside was, it almost destroyed the band itself.

Frontman James Hetfield blew his voice. There were reportedly long and combative recording sessions, where creative differences were bruising.

Three of the four band members went through divorces. Lars Ulrich, Kirk Hammett, and Jason Newsted, in part reportedly due to the personal turmoil of making the album.

You can even see some of this tension here, where Kirk is working on the legendary Unforgiven solo. Creative tension produced brilliance, but also friction.

The Black Album was the most successful record, but for many it also split much of Metallica’s fanbase.

It ripped many away from the thrash and speed metal they’d been brought up on, and plugged them into shorter, sharper tracks’ ballads and songs that can be played on the radio, and in arenas.

After the Black Album, Metallica almost becomes an entirely different band, with albums that are unrecognisable to their earlier work, as they battled internal demons, near breakups and creative challenges.

It was this period however that produced some of my favourite Metallica music, and some of the most under-appreciated songs.

Many fans don’t like this period because it wasn’t following the path they’d known.

But it’s a bit unfair, and this kind of puritanical approach in music means ignoring great art, because it doesn’t fit into a certain mould.

Subscribe now

Metallica in the doldrums?

After the commercial success of the Black Album, propelled my monster hits like Enter Sandman, Sad But True and Nothing Else Matters, Metallica departed further from their origins.

The way I’ve always viewed this period, is against the backdrop of the 1990s.

The Cold War ended, there was renewed hope.

And people didn’t want to hear about capital punishment, death, and depressing themes. At least not in such blunt and raw terms.

It was firmly in the era of MTV, of music videos, where eight minute bass solos didn’t wet people’s appetites anymore.

After the Black Album in 1991, Metallica didn’t release another record for five years.

And from 1991-1996, some of the best albums ever dropped.

Nirvana released Nevermind and Pearl Jam came out with Ten, in 1991.

The following year Alice in Chains released Dirt, and not long after Soundgarden’s Superunknown came out too.

The Red Hot Chili Peppers released Blood Sugar Sex Magik, Rage Against the Machine came out with their self-titled debut album.

It was the golden age of rap and hip-hop, not to mention pop, dance and so much more.

People wanted music they could identify with, not just that reflected their anger.

When Metallica dropped their sixth album Load in 1996, it got a very mixed reception.

Fans were not on board with Metallica’s new direction, of slower songs, hard rock instead of thrash metal.

Critics were mixed in their reviews, many commending Metallica for exposing vulnerability and emotional progression.

But for hardcore Metallica fans, Load and its subsequent album Reload are often seen as sub-par albums.

At best, fans often think this ‘double’ album should have been condensed into one. At worst, some tracks released as singles and the rest shouldn’t have made the cut.

Certainly against the backdrop of some of the epic records coming out around them, Load made Metallica look like it was in decline.

Shrinking.

Not rising to the task of making music to reflect the times.

My personal view, is I love Metallica.

I love the thrash of Kill Em All, the emotion in Orion and Master of Puppets, the ballads on the Black Album and even the long turgid tracks on Justice.

I love some stuff on Load and Reload, too. Do I like all of it? No.

There is some rubbish on there.

But it shows Metallica’s range and variety.

Two songs on Load are among my favourite Metallica songs.

Now I know if you’ve got this far and I still haven’t mentioned the tracks I promised in the headline, you might think this is some kind of wind up.

It’s not I promise. I’ll mention them in a second.

Subscribe now

The Two Most Underrated Metallica Songs

I was born in 1993, and when I first got into Metallica, I kind of went backwards. I slowly discovered them in reverse, thanks to the film Some Kind of Monster (watch it if you haven’t).

Buried beneath the Metallica discography, are two tracks which I’ve always loved.

Bleeding Me and Outlaw Torn.

Both tracks stand out not just because of their musical depth, but because they capture Metallica at their most vulnerable , reflective and emotionally raw state.

Yet despite their brilliance, they usually get overshadowed by more well-known anthems that dominate their legacy.

Both Bleeding Me and Outlaw Torn appear on Load, which was a departure from Metallica’s roots.

It was also an album inspired by other genres, instead of Metallica defining thrash sound.

The albums polarised fans, because they were more hard-rock and grunge inspired, as opposed to being out-and-out metal.

Yet the tracks proved that the changes didn’t necessarily compromise their sound.

They showcase the band’s willingness to still be heavy, but to experiment with both deeper lyrics and more nuance.

They both have complex musical arrangements too, which kept Metallica on an evolutionary path for the future.

Bleeding Me is here. In my view this is the best live version online. It’s amazing they can still perform it to this level.

Outlaw Torn is here. Again this is the best live version in my view. The introduction is so full of suspense. And then the riff comes in and the crowd realises what’s happening.

Lyrical themes and emotional depth

What sets Bleeding Me and Outlaw Torn apart, is the emotional weight.

They are not songs about rebellion or criticising society or the government.

They are also not overtly about death or hell or anything of the sort.

The lyrics are raw and personal, capturing the weight of addiction and in many ways self-inflicted pain, self-doubt and especially the individual trauma of vocalist James Hetfield who had spent years in between the two albums, Metallica and Load, going through personal turmoil, including substance and alcohol abuse, as well as rehab.

James Hetfield said in an interview with Playboy:

"Around the time of Load, I felt I wanted to stop drinking.

"Maybe I'm missing out on something. Everyone else seems so happy all the time. I want to get happy."

I'd plan my life around a hangover: "The Misfits are playing in town Friday night, so Saturday is hangover day."

I lost a lot of days in my life. Going to therapy for a year, I learned a lot about myself. There's a lot of things that scar you when you're growing up, you don't know why.

“The song Bleeding Me is about that: I was trying to bleed out all bad, get the evil out. While I was going through therapy, I discovered some ugly stuff in there. A dark spot.

In Bleeding Me, his vocal delivery is haunting. It conveys a sense of helplessness and vulnerability, and when they perform it live, you can see it dripping from every pore.

It’s his emotional and personal journey, and his ability to get that pain across resonates in a way that’s rarely captured in heavier music.

It’s certainly not felt in many of Metallica’s earlier works, at least not overtly.

Outlaw Torn delves into feelings of isolation and the search for self-identity.

It’s a track filled with longing, about personal loss, of an inability to replace someone. Many fans speculate that it might be about the late great bassist Cliff Burton.

It’s a restless quest for meaning, and a song that never feels truly resolved, because it’s a search without an answer. The confusion and turbulence are reflected in the lyrics, but also the riff and crying solos.

Both give an insight a personal struggle and transformation that makes the songs timeless, and representative of the album itself; a record for a band in transition, battling inner demons - but still in touch with their past.

Subscribe now

The Music

I am no musical expert. Just wanted to get that out the way.

But the composition of the two tracks sets them apart from Metallica’s back-catalogue in many ways.

They are less about grand statements, big entrances and immediate gratification with power riffs. And more about building.

They are songs that start slowly and bake in atmosphere and emotional depth over the curse of the song.

Bleeding Me in particular is one of my favourite intros for any Metallica song. It starts slow and builds, with a soft opening that progresses and escalates, creating a palpable sense of tension.

The riffs are powerful too. They have a sense of urgency but they never take over the song’s overall emotion. They carry his tortured vocals.

Outlaw Torn follows a similar structure, in the sense that it starts slowly, with the riff fading in. It’s heavy, but also in some ways a bit bluesy. It evolves over its six minute run time, becoming more intense and complex.

The solos in particular are what grabbed me when I first heard it. It’s like the guitar is crying, which could reflect the desperate loss in the lyrics.

The Solos

A standout feature of both of these tracks, are their solos.

Unlike many solos in previous albums which were complex but often over-indulgent, these are emotive. They are not there to just show off technical prowess or shred for the sake of it.

In Bleeding Me, the solo conveys a sense of pain and catharsis, but it’s contained. It doesn’t overpower the song. The restraint shown is something that would become a massive sticking point in St Anger, which was solo-less, and in my view, in later albums where solos were over the top and just there on a formulaic basis.

Both in Bleeding Me and Outlaw Torn, the solos serve the songs. They are not technical showpieces but emotional outbursts that enhance the track, taking it to a higher place - and then bringing it back down again.

In Outlaw Torn, the song is also punctuated by a rare solo from Hetfield as the track fades out, which live is pretty amazing.

Subscribe now

Where do they sit?

Both tracks are bold departures from thrash albums of the past, but carry some essence of what Metallica is known for: emotion, depth, complexity and conveying a serious message through lyrics.

They showed the band’s ability to evolve without losing their core identity, a charge which was levelled at them also during the Black Album beforehand, as they departed from thrash. And of course, this was also the accusation for the snare drum-laden St Anger record.

While neither of these songs had massive commercial success, they represent a bridge.

They connected the band’s iconic thrash albums, filled with heavy riffs and incredible solos, to the toned down Metallica, for the next decade.

They also demonstrated Metallica’s versatility.

They are not just songs about riffing.

Nor are they tracks that have just been released because a record company needed a record.

They are compositions, putting personal stories and emotions at the heart of something meaningful. And I’m glad that since their release, both tracks have developed a bit of a cult following.

Fans still regularly ask for them to be performed live, and you only need to go onto YouTube to watch a live performance, to see how much appreciation they have.

According to my friend Google, Bleeding Me has been played more than 160 times, while Outlaw Torn is a rare epic treat, at just 16 occasions. It is very much on my bucket list to see both.

Yet despite this, both songs are arguably underrated.

This is not because they lack quality.

But because they are both overshadowed, and because they get lost.

They are overshadowed by Metallica’s early years of being thrash pioneers, their near collapse, and then reemergence in the mid-2000s, as more family-friendly and commercially successful outfit.

And they get lost, because many Metallica fans don’t like to say they like Load or Reload. They have to be pure Metallica fans. These two gems are missed in an album is supposed hard rock mediocrity.

But they deserve a bit more recognition. They have emotional depth, amazing musicianship and they contribute to Metallica’s evolution and legacy.

You can’t understand Death Magnetic, Hardwired or 72 Seasons, without listening to these songs which bridge Metallica’s eras, and which explain the pain and healing which is the band’s journey.

The Hundred has long been sold as a competition built for the newcomer, but IPL ownership has raised the stakes and imported some problems.

It was billed as a family-friendly tournament in colorful clothing, sponsored by crisps, and which is deliberately a bit different to conventional cricket.

Instead of 6-ball overs, there were five ball sets.

Instead of counting scores in a normal way, innings count up to 100 balls.

Commentary is different. It’s devoid of analysis or cricket-talk. They’re more interested in who is performing at the mid-innings break.

When the Hundred first emerged, I was not a fan of it.

And the reason was simple: it’s not targeted at me.

I am an existing cricket fan.

Subscribe now

It was set up to engage new fans, or those who previously either didn’t care about the sport - or didn’t have access to it.

In the first five years, 2.5million people went to games, which is an enormous success.

In 2025 alone, approximately 580,000–600,000 tickets were sold across all games.

And, the tournament’s appeal is evidenced by the fact that 42% of viewers were new to cricket (although this was disputed) with TV viewership impressive too. 16 million viewers tuned in for the first season and 14.1 million in the second year.

And I haven’t even spoken about its impact on women’s cricket, and how it’s inspired young girls to take up the sport. It would require a whole new post.

It’s hard to argue the Hundred has not been a success in that sense.

People want to watch cricket now.

But it was not just about bringing in new fans.

Financial boost, or a transaction?

It’s clear that the Hundred has been a financial success.

Aside from just tickets and merchandise, which is important, the franchises had strong branding. They were valuable entities which developed a following.

And those franchises are now largely sold off for a significant profit, totaling £1billion.

Ownership of the franchises is now shared between ‘strategic investors’, including four which are owned by IPL (Indian Premier League) franchises, and host counties, following a major equity sale.

It’s broken down like this:

• The London Spirit saw a 49 % stake bought by a Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs consortium (Tech Titans) for about £145 million, valuing the franchise at around £295 million.

• Oval Invincibles (rebranded as MI London) sold 49 % to India’s Reliance Industries for around £60 million, valuing the team at roughly £123 million. They own IPL franchise Mumbai Indians.

• Manchester Originals sold a 70 % majority stake to the RPSG Group (owners of IPL side Lucknow Super Giants) for about £81 million, valuing it around £116 million.

• The Northern Superchargers were purchased outright by Sun TV Network (Sun Group) for £100 million.

• Birmingham Phoenix sold 49 % to Knighthead Capital Management for £40 million. Welsh Fire’s 50 % was bought by Sanjay Govil’s Washington Freedom for £40 million.

• Southern Brave sold 49 % to GMR Group (linked with IPL’s Delhi Capitals), and Trent Rockets sold 49 % to a joint investment by Cain International and Ares Management, each deal roughly around the £40 million range. This gives both clubs implied overall values similar to other mid‑tier franchises.

It’s made the ECB (England and Wales Cricket Board) loads of money and supposedly brought in new fans.

Lots of that money will also be pumped into grassroots cricket, and that is obviously fantastic.

Franchises created a new fan base. A new market. They now have new owners. New opportunities to make even more money and find new talent.

But it’s important not to lose sight of the fact they were bought.

It’s a transaction. And with that ownership, that purchase, there are new problems.

In many ways, the Hundred is victim of its own success. It got too big to be an outlier, and drew interest from serious players.

The Shadow Ban

This week it was widely reported that four franchises which have IPL ownership, would not be considering picking up any Pakistani players.

The four franchises involved in this, are Manchester Super Giants (RP-Sanjiv Goenka Group 70%-owned), MI London (Reliance Strategic Business Ventures Limited 49% owned), Southern Brave (GMR Group 49% owned) and Sunrisers Leeds (Sun Group owned).

In the BBC piece which broke this story, they cited an ECB source, and "an unwritten rule", that any franchises with IPL-owner investment, do not consider Pakistani players.

Subscribe now

This "unwritten rule" is a direct result of geopolitics, which I am not going to get deep into, in part because I don’t know enough about it.

But it’s a rule that is played out at large in the IPL itself, with no Pakistani players competing for a very long time.

And indeed this rule impacts global tournaments.

At World Cups held in India, Pakistan must compete in Sri Lanka or the U.A.E. And Pakistan have been prevented from hosting tournaments also.

IPL franchise owners have also expanded their global presence by owning or operating teams in various T20 leagues worldwide.

And the Hundred is just the latest installment.

Reliance Industries, owners of Mumbai Indians, runs MI Cape Town (SA20), MI Emirates (ILT20), and MI New York (MLC). GMR Group, owners of Delhi Capitals, runs Dubai Capitals (ILT20) and Pretoria Capitals (SA20).

Meanwhile the Sun TV Network, owners of Sunrisers Hyderabad, controls Gqeberha and Joburg Super Kings (SA20). And Kolkata Knight Riders’ owner is in charge of Abu Dhabi Knight Riders (ILT20) and Trinbago Knight Riders (CPL).

This reflects how IPL owners are building multi-league cricket portfolios internationally.

India, the Caribbean, US, UAE and South Africa are now partially no-go zones for Pakistani players, in any IPL-owned franchise.

And soon four Hundred teams also.

India’s Grip Comes At A Cost

India’s grip over the global game has many far-reaching consequences.

It will popularize the game.

It will in many ways reinvigorate the game in parts of the world it is diminishing.

It will make many cricketers fantastically rich, and allow them to travel the world - and I do not begrudge them of that.

It is also improving skill levels. Cricketers from the US to Nepal and much in-between are getting more opportunities than ever to play high-level cricket, and get better, often rubbing shoulders with some of the best players around.

But it is also disenfranchising for anyone who doesn’t want to buy into this global takeover -or for those who are pushed out, who are prevented from participation.

A good example of India’s control is Bangladesh having to pull out of the most recent T20 World Cup on safety grounds. This came after the ICC, which is dominated by the BCCI (The Board of Control for Cricket in India) refused to allow them to play in Sri Lanka, like Pakistan.

At one stage, Pakistan said they would actually boycott their game against India as a result, before agreeing to play them, which was in part no doubt due to finances. It was a very lucrative game.

But also because it would have been fighting against the tide and entirely self-defeating. Refusing to play would have ensured their exit from the competition, and created an international scandal most likely. Not shaking hands was a headline, so not turning up would have been nuclear.

Mike Atherton aptly described this match as a ‘toxic spectacle’. It’s clear it’s moved beyond just a cricket match. For India, and Indian administrators, it’s personal. Every element of Pakistani cricket has to be snuffed out.

If you want a measure of just how stacked the odds are against Pakistan and Bangladesh in this case; the ICC’s chairman is Jay Shah, son of Amit Shah, India’s Minister of Home Affairs.

Jay Shah was Secretary of the BCCI until 2024 and was responsible for sealing the deal on a record-breaking IPL media rights deal, where the five-year rights for the league were sold for a total of S$6.4 billion to Viacom18 and Star Sports, meaning each IPL match was valued at $13.4 million.

This made the IPL the second-most valued sporting league in the world, behind the NFL.

Subscribe now

India’s financial sway over the global game, over domestic leagues, over global tournaments, is hard to put into words.

It is the de facto governing body of world cricket.

This is the cost of control. Indian ownership of franchises, and its clear dominance on the global stage has far-reaching consequences. Many good. Some not so good.

The Hundred: Will the BCCI Get Its Way?

Following this week’s report about a shadow ban, the question everyone is asking, is what can the ECB do to stop it?

Last year, the ECB chief executive Richard Gould in no uncertain terms, said a ban on Pakistani players wouldn’t be allowed.

“We’re aware of that in other regions,” he said, in reference to the other IPL-owned teams not considering Pakistani players, “but that won’t be happening here.”

Well the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say.

In that BBC piece referencing the shadow ban, an ECB spokesperson was quoted saying: “The Hundred welcomes men’s and women’s players from all over the world and we would expect the eight teams to reflect that.

“Almost 1,000 cricketers from 18 nations have registered for The Hundred auction, with representation on the longlist of over 50 players respectively from Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Pakistan and West Indies.”

It’s clearly a statement pushing back - but it also avoids the IPL ownership element directly. It tries to generalise participation to the competition as a whole, perhaps in the hope that Pakistani players will get picked up by non IPL-owned franchises. The fact is, 67 players from Pakistan have registered for the Hundred auction this year. Some are global stars.

The UK public wants to see them. And they deserve to be there.

I am no lawyer, but one journalist responded to my post on X with the following:

The problem is, this is not a formal policy. This is an “unwritten rule”, a reported common understanding.

And therefore, as explained by several player agents in the Times, it would be very difficult to prove that an IPL-owned franchise avoided a Pakistani player because they’re Pakistani.

And you’d have to fight the BCCI’s legal and financial might too.

It certainly has the feeling of inevitability about it, that the BCCI will get its way, and Hundred franchises under IPL ownership will refuse to pick Pakistani players - and get away with it.

Importing Politics, Nastiness - and Cricket.

The Hundred is no longer a competition for the non cricket fan, or the potential cricket fan.

It’s now a competition for the converted cricket fan.

Five years in, it has a significant following, and it has made the ECB a huge amount of money. Its got millions of people through the gates of stadiums and watching on the TV. It also has a dedicated spot in the calendar now: August. Traditionalists like me, rue that decision, but it is what it is.

The selling off of Hundred teams to IPL owners has however brought this product in line with the rest of the world. It has gone from being something unconventional and different, to having franchise names and being dragged into geopolitics of India and Pakistan.

I said I wasn’t a fan of the Hundred earlier on, and I’m still not.

The latest development has made me worry what it could become though.

After the story was published this week, I posted a tweet. I thought it was fairly innocuous, it was just my rambling.

I woke up to my tweet having exploded on X, with more than 800 replies and over 500 retweets.

Let’s just say the overwhelming majority of the replies were not supportive of what I was saying.

Many, I suspect, were not real people either.

But the language was very real. It was politics imported from India, extreme Hindu nationalists sending abusive messages, personal attacks, and using all kinds of whataboutery, not to mention some disgusting racism and hatred towards Muslims.

The Hundred has lost its innocence with the injection of IPL cash.

It’s no longer a competition with a noble if naive aim of getting people into cricket.

The Hundred is now big money.

The Hundred is now a global tournament with international owners.

The Hundred is being dragged trough the mire of India-Pakistan geopolitics.

It is no longer about Pom Bears and mid-innings performances.

The cricket is no longer a sideshow to the entertainment going on around the ground.

It’s grown up and the stakes have been raised.

Which makes this a little awkward.

Almost exactly a year ago, I changed profession. I moved away from journalism and into PR.

My use of tools like ChatGPT changed with that.

While writing and editing is still a major part of my job, it’s very different. I have noticed a change in when and how I use AI tools like ChatGPT.

Sometimes I really don’t like the fact I use it at all, but it is useful, and there’s no intrinsic shame in it.

But I have got to the point where I feel like I am overly-relying on it, partially because I am writing less (and ironically, that is one of the reasons I started this, to write without assistance).

Picture caption: Photo by Aerps.com on Unsplash

Subscribe now

Why Didn’t I Use It In Journalism?

I didn’t use ChatGPT in journalism for various reasons.

First and foremost I was more of an editor than a writer, so it was my job to read other people’s work and improve it, or get rid of errors.

Using ChatGPT for that would have made my job defunct, and undermine the point of my role.

The second reason, was that when I did write, I was writing news. This meant turning round a press release, interview or report. And that came fairly naturally to me. I think ChatGPT might have actually slowed me down, as I’d need to then check everything for accuracy. And, it wouldn’t have been in my writing style either. Other editors would have realised quite quickly.

Thirdly, is for ethical purposes. I don’t want to come across all high and mighty, but I think it’s important for journalists to do journalism. I don’t want to be reduced to copying and pasting some chatbot text and passing it off as my own. In other words I think journalism as a profession is a noble one, and it requires actual work.

Lastly, I had read so many horror stories of journalists using ChatGPT and trusting it too much. I didn’t want to be that person who went for a lazy option, and published a piece with a statistic which was made up, or a quote which was never said.

So fear in many ways sums that up.

Where did I use it?

In journalism, I was writing mainly news stories based off first-hand information, press releases, interviews or other ways of news gathering. So, the main usage for a tool like ChatGPT, was for research, for finding a statistic, or for idea generation.

But as an editor and writer, I checked work through an AI scanner, to ensure there was no heavy use of it. And I always double checked every quote to ensure they can be substantiated.

It’s every journalist’s worst nightmare to cite an incorrect statistic or quote.

It’s really bad if an editor realises.

And mortifying if it makes it to publication, and readers realise.

Unfortunately many journalists, in the internet and social media age, will take quotes or statistics from other sources, and not check if they’re true. That’s how they get circulated. And ChatGPT doesn’t know if they’re correct or not, so it will give it to a journalist using that tool.

It becomes a feedback loop of misinformation. AI trained on errors, then confidently repeating them.

The reality of the matter, is this happens a lot. And of course, not just in journalism.

A recent McKinsey report for example, showed that 50% of U.S. employees cited AI inaccuracy, including hallucinations, as a top risk in generative AI.

Hallucinations in the newsroom are a big deal too. The largest study of its kind showed AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time, according to the BBC.

So this is not just an issue of ethics or being proud, and not using ChatGPT because humans have a purpose and nobody wants to lose their job.

It’s a problem of accuracy and integrity, and realising that the job of a journalist is to find the truth and inform people.

I am fairly sure there are AI-written news stories out there.

Some of them are probably quite good too, especially as ChatGPT and other chat bots become more sophisticated and reliable.

But these were my main concerns when I was a journalist and editor.

Subscribe now

Why Is It Used More in PR?

I might sound like a bit of a hypocrite now, but ChatGPT is used a lot more in PR circles than journalism circles, from my limited experience.

There is no inherent problem with that, provided it’s used properly and with caution.

From my perspective, there are a few key reasons why.

Journalism is about finding stories, verifying the truth and exposing wrongs.

PR is about shaping and communicating a message, not just managing clients and engaging with journalists. It’s more strategic.

And that matters.

First and foremost, I am often dealing with subject matters I don’t know about. I am working in PR for AI and deep tech companies a lot of the time, which is not something I have loads of experience in.

So yes, I’ll often ask a site like ChatGPT to summarise some heavy text or information I don’t quite understand.

It’s obviously important to do this while bearing in mind ChatGPT doesn’t always get it right. Sometimes it makes things up when it doesn’t know the answer. And you can often double check things. I regularly ask ChatGPT to tell me exactly where it got a piece of information to confirm it’s not made up.

I think a lot of PRs now use ChatGPT and other chatbots like a form of Google, which in-and-of-itself, is basically generative AI now anyway. When you type something into Google search now, it tries to complete the sentence you are writing, and it obviously remembers your search history also. This predictive and intelligent element can be extremely useful, as it lets you pick up where you left off.

ChatGPT kind of has that also. You can ask it a series of questions and bake in various elements to any query. If you know how to use it, it can be quite precise and useful.

When I say you can use it like Google, I am largely referring to information gathering. When I want some statistics to learn about topics, or suggested publications or journalists to contact, it gives neat lists.

Again, none of this is fool proof. Regularly it gives statistics which are old, publications which are not relevant, and journalists who have moved on.

When you ask for five relevant journalists and two left a publication three or more years ago, it makes you ask, how much can you trust it? The answer for me, is that you don’t trust it. It’s a guide, a spark for an idea.

But everything, and I mean everything it tells you has to be checked. Every number, needs a source. Every quote needs to be backed up by the original article it was mentioned in. And every journalist recommendation needs to be backed up by looking at their recent work, to ensure they are relevant, and still at that outlet.

Subscribe now

Another reason I lean on ChatGPT a bit more in PR, is due to writing style. I am writing short sharp pitches, press releases, feedback to clients and other bits of content. Unlike a news story which has a flavour of the journalist’s voice and the publication’s angle, this is a little more structured. A press release has a very specific format.

In PR you’re working in collaboration with both your colleagues, and the client, to refine messaging. So, running a press release or document through ChatGPT and feeding in some of its suggestions or comments about style, can be useful - and not final.

It’s a tool to refine the work, not to create the end product.

The primary risk, as with journalism, is hallucinations.

If you ask AI to find a statistic for your pitch, it will never say it doesn’t know. It will just produce a made up or outdated data point.

Perhaps there is an added risk in PR. the subject matter is often less familiar, so you rely on it more and importantly, you’re less likely to spot something is wrong.

Why I Am Trying To use It Less

In recent months I have been thinking about how I use it.

And while I have no guilt about occasionally turning to this tool for convenience, I do have new reservations.

Firstly, there’s trust.

I have grown increasingly frustrated with its inconsistency when asking it simple things.

If I give specific criteria, and it ignores them or produces outdated outcomes, it chips away at my confidence.

This also has a knock on effect for how I view its functionality. If I want something done quickly and effectively, I don’t want to have to do it twice, because ChatGPT gets it wrong.

I trust myself to do things, even if it takes longer.

I have also become conscious about what stages of my own processes I am willing to outsource.

It can be very useful for idea generation, creating fresh angles, or for identifying data points. This is simple convenience, and at a pace no human can do.

And it is effective when you have all the information you need, and can feed it in. After all, ChatGPT doesn’t have all the answers. It’s only as smart as the information you give it.

The main process I am actively trying to stop using it for, is writing.

This relates to trust in my own ability.

I used to write five to ten news stories a day. Now writing is limited to this Substack (go on subscribe), and PR-related material, such as releases, pitches, documents for clients, and thought leadership pieces.

Of these, the last element is probably where I’d use it most, perhaps for research, outlining, or reviewing drafts.

I’ve accepted that ChatGPT will often write cleaner copy than I can, and it will do it faster.

But it doesn’t know my instincts.

It doesn’t know my readers.

It doesn’t know when I’m deliberately bending a sentence to make a point.

It can replicate structure.

It can’t replicate voice.

It can’t scratch my creative itch either.

If I hand any of this over too easily, I’m not just outsourcing tasks, I’m outsourcing the things that made me a writer in the first place.

Subscribe now

Bonus round

(Just as a bit of fun.. I ran the piece through ChatGPT after publication, and this is what it said).

I love you really, ChatGPT, never change…. (though actually do change, please get better)

This week the Community Security Trust announced its regular antisemitism statistics, and it’s typically grim reading.

In more than seven years working at Jewish News, from 2014-2022, I can barely recall a time when antisemitism didn’t reach record levels.

News stories about CST reports weren’t necessarily about the numbers, as that stopped shocking or surprising people. It became about the type of antisemitism.

The far-right. The hard-left. Islamists inspired by ISIS. Physical attacks. Discrimination in the workplace.

I’ve seen it all.

Subscribe now

This year’s figures are perhaps the worst I have seen, because they are punctuated by a deadly terror attack on the holiest day of the year.

The Community Security Trust (CST) recorded 3,700 antisemitic incidents in the UK, which was the second‑highest annual total on record.

This represented a 4 % increase from 2024 and was significantly elevated compared with pre‑October 2023 levels.

The year saw an average of 308 incidents per month, more than double the monthly average before the Hamas attack on Israel, and for the first time ever, more than 200 incidents were recorded in every single month.

Among these were four incidents of extreme violence, including the fatal terror attack on Heaton Park Synagogue, and 217 cases of damage and desecration to Jewish property, the highest on record.

More than 50 % of incidents referenced Israel, Palestine or the conflict in the Middle East, and around 42 % of all incidents occurred online, the highest proportion ever recorded.

So it’s clear antisemitism has been persistent, and invariably linked to the war in Gaza, or hostility to Israel in general.

But this is targeting British Jewry. It’s targeting infrastructure, individuals.

And it could have been so much worse too, with the Police foiling an ISIS-inspired terror attack on Manchester’s Jewish community, which Greater Manchester Police said "could potentially have been the deadliest terrorist attack in UK history".

Collective Blame Isn’t OK

What you can see from the graph below, is when there have been major conflicts in Israel, there are major spikes in antisemitism.

In 2006, during Operation Summer Rains, antisemitic incidents in the UK were up by 31%.

During the Gaza War of 2008–2009, Operation Cast Lead, CST recorded 225 antisemitic incidents in the UK over the course of the conflict, which was about eight times higher than the number recorded over the same period the previous year.

In 2012 during Operation Pillar of Defense, CST said the overall number of reported antisemitic incidents was 467 higher than a typical year at that time.

In 2014, during Operation Protective Edge, CST’s first‑half data for 2014 recorded 304 antisemitic incidents in the UK between January and June, up 36 % from the first half of 2013.

Like with the 2012 report, there is no explicit and direct link between Israel being at war, and antisemitism rising.

Subscribe now

But there is certainly a feeling of tension and pressure, a nervousness of going out and being visibly Jewish during these times.

In 2021 during the Israel–Palestine crisis, CST’s Antisemitic Incidents Report for 2021 recorded 2,255 antisemitic incidents in the UK.

This was the highest annual total in their records at the time, with May in particular having 661 incidents, and June 210, making up 40 per cent of the total.

In 2022 during Operation Breaking Dawn, CST recorded 1,662 antisemitic incidents in 2022, which was elevated compared to previous years, but lower than 2021.

And then of course there was October 7, which unleashed a catastrophic wave of antisemitic attacks on our streets in the UK.

It went up by 581%.

CST data shows record levels of antisemitism in 2023 (4,103 incidents) and this continued historically high totals in 2024 and 2025, with many incidents explicitly referencing Israel, Gaza, or the Hamas attacks.

Immediately after October 7, before Israel had even formulated its response, there were antisemitic attacks.

People took to the streets, donning paraglider stickers and targeting Israel’s embassy in the immediacy of the attack.

There has been a consistently raised level of threat since then, and there is a very simply reason.

Israel’s actions are used by antisemites to justify targeting Jews.

It’s not a legitimate response to target British Jews for the actions of Israel’s government.

But this trend has been going on for a long time, as the graph indicates, and as the CST has made clear repeatedly in its reports.

One element which often gets lost, is the media’s responsibility to make this clear.

Share

Depicting Jews Correctly

After having worked for a Jewish newspaper for many years, one thing I learned is how to sensitively depict Jews (and indeed non-Jews).

No more so is this the case when talking about antisemitism.

Central to this is to ensure an editor is not victim blaming or presenting the victim in a fashion that is othering or demeaning - or which strips them of individualism.

In other words, for a story about antisemitism, it’s not ok to just include a random picture of an Orthodox Jewish man walking through a park.

That man has a name, he is an individual, and not actually representative of ‘British Jewry’, nor of Jewish suffering. He might be visibly Jewish, but that doesn’t mean it’s OK to use him to represent antisemitism.

Today following the antisemitism statistics, most newspapers and outlets were spot on with their depiction of British Jewry suffering antisemitism at record levels.

The majority used an image of the Heaton Park Synagogue terror attack, either with mourning Jewish community members, or the police or a mixture of the two.

One outlier decided it was appropriate to slap on a picture of a crowd waving Israeli flags: The Guardian.

Now ordinarily I wouldn’t single out one publication for criticism, but this time it’s important to do so.

This is not just because the Guardian is a major publication with millions of readers and a heavy influence.

But also because of what it represents; a supposedly centre-left and liberal outlook that would ordinarily stand up for minorities facing soaring racism.

Subscribe now

Why Israel Flags Weren’t Appropriate

The Guardian selected this image representing support for Israel, despite not knowing if the people in the image are even Jewish.

Lots of non-Jewish people, often Christian Zionists, attend these types of rallies in support of Israel.

And lots of British Jews do not support Israel.

There is a vast community of strictly-Orthodox Jews who are non-Zionist or anti-Zionist, for religious reasons.

There are also many secular and progressive Jews who don’t identify with Israel as strongly as they perhaps might have done in the past, and that’s a whole different kettle of fish.

But they all will likely experience antisemitism.

Visibly Orthodox Jewish people face some of the worst harassment and antisemitism, including physical violence, which I have had the misfortune to cover over the years.

Jewish schools and shuls regardless of denomination, are fitted with security guards and cameras, because of the heightened physical threat. People are nervous about wearing a kippah, or saying they’re Jewish at work.

It shouldn’t be like this.

I find it hard to believe this was an accident. It’s a newspaper with many editors, making editorial decisions.

They could have chosen any number of images, including a CST volunteer, crying victims outside Heaton Park, antisemitic graffiti or vandalism.

They could have just got on the phone to the CST and asked for an appropriate image, if they didn’t have one. It’s not hard.

Perhaps the reason they chose it, whether deliberate or unconscious, is an implicit desire to downplay the seriousness and legitimate grievance Jews have on antisemitism.

The intention is to present antisemitism as a temporary byproduct of British Jews supposed support for Israel.

It's backlash.

It's the representation of people’s anger against injustice.

Well that's not acceptable, or true. It’s not OK to be using this image to represent antisemitism British Jews suffer.

It represents something else, support for a foreign state.

As anyone who has studied history, and who observes antisemitism in the UK knows; Jew-hatred has a long history that predates Israel. Thousands of years indeed.

And in modern times, it comes from the far-right. It comes from the far-left. And increasingly, it comes through Islamism too.

All no doubt reference Israel as an easy common denominator, but when it comes to Jew-hatred, there is so much to untangle.

But this is not a an issue with one root cause. It cannot be simplified with Israel flags.

It’s not an issue that can be neatly packaged up and explained away, by presenting antisemitism through the lens of a foreign conflict.

This has an impact.

This might seem like nitpicking or a trivial point to be making, especially when just about every other publication did the right thing.

But it does matter, and it is important to call it out.

The use of this image to illustrate an article about antisemitism, has two effects.

Firstly it enables antisemites who hide behind the language of anti-Zionism, to act with impunity.

This kind of antisemitic anti-Zionism hides behind phrases such as “it’s not antisemitic to criticize Israel”, before indulging in antisemitic conspiracies about Jews running the media and being over-represented in politics, finance and any area of power.

And secondly, creating this association between antisemitism and support for Israel serves to downplay the seriousness of antisemitism itself. It undermines it as a form of racism, and presents it as merely a blunt tool to deflect criticism of Israel, by its supporters.

Critics of Israel often accuse the country of insisting antisemitism and anti-Zionism are one and the same, in order to defend the indefensible.

But the use of this image is the same tactic being used, in the opposite direction. Instead of accusing Jews of hiding behind Israel, it’s inverting it, projecting the Israeli flag onto the public’s view of British Jews.

It is nothing short of victim blaming, collectively holding British Jews responsible for the actions of Israel, presenting rising antisemitism as the result of a government which has been at war for more than two years now, and which most British Jews cannot vote for or against.

There needs to be media literacy, and an understanding that this subtle victim-blaming of British Jews has real consequences.

It enables harassment, as well as online and physical attacks.

Most of the media have learned not to present antisemitism as a simple kneejerk reaction to Israel’s actions. Now the supposed centre-left Guardian should do so to.

There, I’ll admit it.

I have also never been skiing, and have no interest in doing so. I can’t ice skate. I don’t think I have ever tried any of the sports on show at the Winter Olympics.

Yet it’s amazing to watch. This year I have really got into it, in a way I haven’t previously.

I’ve often found the main problem with the Winter Olympics is how hard it is to access.

Part of that is timing. It only comes around every four years, and most of the sports barely exist on television in between.

But a bigger part is familiarity.

Many of the events are niche, with rules most people never properly learn, and conditions that a lot of the world just doesn’t grow up around.

Even when something is exciting to watch, there’s a good chance you don’t know it’s on, don’t fully understand what you’re seeing, or feel confident enough to invest time in it.

That puts people like me in a strange position.

In case you didn’t know I am a cricket nut. I love it, and I also follow football. I have plenty of opinions on both (often whether anyone wants them or not. I have sent hundreds of thousands of tweets).

But most Winter Olympic sports leave me blank. Not because I dislike them or I don’t care.

But simply because I don’t know what’s going on.

Yet, not knowing the rules or the context of why something is important, doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy it.

You can still follow tension, drama, or get pulled into a contest without understanding every detail.

(Picture credit: Photo by Hert Niks on Unsplash)

Subscribe now

Scaled Back, But Highly Skilled

Now obviously, this isn’t a technical breakdown of the Winter Olympics given I’ve just said I know virtually nothing about them. But it’s an attempt to understand why it still works.

For me, the Winter Olympics is defined by being a scaled back operation in virtually every way.

There are only 15 sports involved, compared to the regular 30+ in a Summer Olympics.

Fewer than 3,000 athletes typically participate, which is less than a third of a regular summer event.

Around 30 countries have won a medal of any description, out of the 90 who compete, with only 12 ever getting a gold.

This is pretty incredible given it’s been going for a hundred years now.

But by the same token, the scarcity of the events included in the games, and the rarity unconventional teams having success, means it matters more to those who take part in many ways. And it also makes me notice, as a casual viewer.

But ultimately I find it less overwhelming than a summer games, where there’s several events on at once, and I don’t know what to watch.

If you want a measure of just how concentrated success is at the Winter Olympics; one country, Norway, has won more Winter Olympic medals than all African, South American, and Middle Eastern countries combined (zero).

But this geographic dominance isn’t just about athleticism. There is a reason Norway, Germany, Canada, Alpine countries, the United States and Russia have historically done well at the Winter Olympics:

Geography, wealth and infrastructure.

They quietly decide who gets to compete seriously, nearly always hosting the games. They have the mountain ranges, the ice rinks, sliding tracks, and altitude access.

The UK As An Outlier

The UK has had decent success at recent Winter Olympics at several events, which is somewhat case in point for the wealth argument too, given it’s not a country where athletes can properly practice.

Despite lacking terrain and snow, or infrastructure generally, Team GB has quietly become one of the more efficient Winter Olympic nations.

It’s not doing great in these current games but it has won medals at every games since 2014, especially in skeleton, bobsleigh, curling and alpine skiing.

Its success has been driven by marginal gains, elite coaching and sports psychology.

Many athletes have come from athletics or track and many even train on dry or improvised facilities.

Basically preparation trumps natural advantage sometimes, and I wonder if that is in part just down to Britain’s Olympic legacy, and general access to sport that doesn’t exist elsewhere.

Subscribe now

Getting Hurt

The level of skill required, and indeed the danger and risk posed by some of these sports also came into sharp focus, with the unfortunate injury to Lindsey Vonn.

With Winter Olympics coming round every four years, one can kind of understand why she took the risk and competed, despite a recent serious injury.

But she isn’t alone, obviously.

Alpine skiing has one of the highest injury rates of any Olympic sport, with knee injuries (especially ACL tears) among the most common and career-threatening.

For example, studies of injury data from multiple Winter Games show that about 9.6% of Winter Olympic athletes sustain injuries during competition.

Sports involving high speeds and complex aerial moves tend to have much higher rates. So events such as freestyle skiing and snowboard cross, injury rates can exceed 28–30%, meaning nearly one in three competitors gets hurt at some point in competition.

These athletes have such a short window for both competition and success, it is heartbreaking to see someone get injured in this fashion.

But the reality is most will only compete two or three times in a Winter Olympics.

These are not lucrative sports between games. They aren’t Premier League footballers sitting on £250k a week, meaning an injury allows them to pursue other interests until recovery.

Watching athletes throw themselves down an ice track head-first at motorway speeds, up to 130 km/h, makes it very clear that you don’t need to understand the rules to understand the risk. And I haven’t forgotten about you Curling. Though all I can think about, is how the Curlers aren’t just stacking it every time they move.

That said, the elation of success at the Winter Olympics, which are so dominated by a select handful of nations, is a dream worth chasing. That’s something any sports fan can identify with.

No Crowding Out

I may be in a minority here, but I have always been of the view that the Olympics should be for Olympic sports, not conventional ones.

The inclusion of globally popular sports like Football, Tennis, Golf and now even Cricket at the Olympics (to a lesser extent), doesn’t interest me.

These sports get airtime all year round.

I want to see something at an Olympics that I wouldn’t ordinarily choose to watch.

The Winter Olympics by its very definition, doesn’t include conventional or mainstream sports for the majority of the world.

It almost feels purer because it’s not fighting mainstream competition.

Perhaps the only real mainstream sport that is included in the winter Olympics, is Ice Hockey, though I’d argue it’s mainstream only really in north America, and some parts of Eastern Europe.

Likewise, skiing & snowboard-related sports are also popular in a sense, but not to the level of a genuinely globally popular game, like football.

In Europe people go skiing for a regular holiday. And those that do won’t be indulging in elite level alpine skiing or cross-country skiing.

The Winter Olympics is one of the very few events where every sport is niche. And as someone who doesn’t really watcha any of them, it’s very refreshing.

Subscribe now

A New Summit

The Winter Olympics has a truly global reach and its cultural impact continues to grow, even if it’s still dominated by a tiny group of nations.

The 2022 Winter Games in Beijing during Covid times, were watched by more than 2 billion people worldwide, across TV and digital platforms.

Take that Super Bowl.

The 2026 Milano-Cortina Winter Olympics are expected to attract an estimated 3 billion viewers, according to some estimates.

It’s also clear that the Winter Olympics is reaching new audiences, through streaming as well as traditional broadcasts. It’s going to the fans.

The Winter Olympics is a sporting anomaly in many ways, because it continues to grow in stature and popularity in spite of the fact most the sports involved in it are fringe or even extreme, and which are dominated by a tiny group of nations.

It’s a tremendous success story to have transformed this event into a globally popular spectacle, despite all of the odds against it.

One of the most frustrating things about being Coeliac is the social awkwardness.

Unlike other dietary restrictions, it’s not a lifestyle choice, nor is it an allergy. To get technical, it’s an auto-immune disease; meaning if a Coeliac person eats gluten, they will get ill, but for most it won’t be life-threatening.

Subscribe now

Yet it’s often treated with equal, if not greater severity, than some other allergies or intolerances that can kill someone.

Almost like it’s a low-hanging fruit for restaurants to get right.

Addressing Coeliac disease is visible, nameable and procedural. It can be labelled and escalated and gives restaurants a sense of control.

That often comes a cost though.

Safety Versus Dignity

Eating out as a Coeliac often means long waits, food with flags in it, special menus and repeated check-ins from staff asking if everything is OK.

This isn’t a whinge, but an attempt to describe a very specific tension I have come across.

Nobody who’s Coeliac or gluten intolerant wants to be ill. But neither do we want to be the centre of attention either. Especially not when you’re just trying to have a quiet dinner with friends.

And I feel like I know how to manage what I’ve got. I know what I can eat and what to avoid. I don’t need micro-managing.

I understand why restaurants behave this way. Failure to accommodate allergies, and on occasion failure to disclose them too, has led to some tragic deaths. I’ve no doubt, having been through this in the last year, that a key factor is people’s reluctance to ‘make a fuss’.

So restaurants err on the side of caution, and maximum seriousness.

‘Let me get the manager’.

Subscribe now

Five words that every Coeliac person is greeted when they enter a restaurant.

In some ways, I’m incredibly grateful.

It’s undoubtably a good thing that restaurants take my condition so seriously.

After all, I don’t want to get ill. I don’t want corners cut. I don’t want casual assumptions either.

But seriousness doesn’t have to mean spectacle.

When Responsibility Becomes Theatre

Very often, only a manager in a restaurant will be trained to deal with intolerances or allergens. That means they alone take the order, speak to the kitchen, and bring the food.

On paper this looks responsible, but in practice it’s a little over the top and at times even theatrical.

I generally enter a restaurant and immediately tell whoever is serving me, that I am Coeliac.

I say this, instead of gluten free, because it’s true (duh), but also because being Coeliac is more serious.

Whoever is serving you, then summons the manager.

This shows restaurants are taking responsibility in many ways, ensuring that they are covering all bases.

But it also means you are immediately marked as different. If you’re with others, that difference becomes visible and even a little awkward.

Just this week I was sat with no food while the person I was with had actually almost finished. The server didn’t apologise, because in their eyes, they’re doing the right thing. They were being super careful. And I obviously prefer that to them being reckless.

Yet, the food was ready. Another server told me so, and that she wasn’t allowed to bring it to me.

This is where safety tips into inefficiency without adding protection.

The risk wasn’t that the wrong plate would arrive. I knew what I’d ordered. The kitchen had prepared it correctly. The delay existed because the system relied on one person being physically present to complete the ritual.

Why Allergies Are Different - And Why That Matters

None of this is to downplay food allergies.

They can be deadly, and recent history makes that very clear.

In the past 10 years, there have been far too many tragic cases of people dying because of food intolerances or allergies not being taken seriously enough.

Nearly always, the person with the allergy has declared it, and the failure was either with process, or a lack of effective laws.

Hannah Jacobs died in 2023, due to a dairy allergy after taking a sip of a hot chocolate at Costa, despite her mother telling staff of her severe allergy and requesting soya milk. It was contaminated with dairy and a coroner ruled that a “failure of communication” and failure to follow processes caused her death.

In 2021 Benedict Blythe, who had a Cow’s milk allergy, died aged five years old, when he was exposed at his school. An inquest ruled the school did not follow his allergy management plan, resulting in accidental ingestion and a fatal anaphylactic reaction.

In 2017, Celia Marsh died of a dairy allergy. She was 42 and a mum of five. She tried to eat a “super-vegan” wrap from a Pret, but there was cross-contamination with milk protein during manufacture. The case highlighted risks in supply chains, with the coroner ruling that the supplier did not pass on information about the contamination risk.

Then, perhaps most well known, is Natasha Ednan-Laperouse, 15, who died in 2016, due to a Sesame allergy, after eating a Pret A Manger baguette, which had sesame seeds baked into the dough - but which was not listed on the packaging at the time.

Her death led to “Natasha’s Law” in October 2021, which requires full ingredient labelling for all “pre-packed for direct sale” (PPDS) foods.

There are many examples before this too, with Owen Carey in 2017 dying of a dairy allergy. On his 18th birthday in 2017, Owen had a grilled chicken burger at a Byron burger restaurant, and despite informing staff of his allergies, the chicken was marinated in buttermilk.

This case spurred campaigns for “Owen’s Law,” which calls for mandatory, written allergen information on menus.

James Atkinson died in 2020 due to a peanut allergy after eating a takeaway pizza that contained peanuts. The takeaway failed to declare the presence of nuts in the meal.

And yet still there are more examples, with Shante Turay-Thomas in 2018, who died due to a Hazelnut allergy, and Mia Shay St Hilaire, 12, who died of Tree nut allergy. The milkshake she consumed was contaminated due to a blender not being cleaned.

These deaths didn’t happen because a junior server carried a plate.

They happened because processes were broken.

Information wasn’t passed on correctly.

Laws or regulations weren’t in place, or followed.

And utensils and equipment weren’t cleaned.

This points to a lack of effective rules and enforcement.

Visibility Doesn’t Mean Safety

In response to these tragedies, standards have become more rigorous.

Following the tragic death of Celia Marsh, a coroner gave a stark warning about the risks of undeclared allergens in food products and called for an Anaphylaxis Register to be maintained at a national level and the need for better public understanding of the phrases such as free–from and vegan.

The coroner emphasised that future deaths will occur unless systematic changes are implemented at policy level to keep people with food allergens stay safe.

Since then, there has been Natasha’s Law and Owen’s Law. The laws and public awareness that has followed each of these dreadful avoidable deaths, has been the driving force for restaurants taking food intolerances more seriously.

Among the more rigorous standards, are also better communication and processes in restaurants - not least the manager taking charge of orders involving intolerances.

But it’s still not working as well as it should, given what’s at stake.

According to GS1, over half of people with food allergies (56 percent) have had an allergic reaction from mislabelled or unclear food packaging, with 23 percent having suffered multiple reactions.

This urgently needs fixing. And it’s not as serious for me, as someone with a nut allergy, but I have also eaten food out which made me pretty ill. It really makes you nervous about going out again.

According to the Food Standards Agency recently, a significant number of samples (13%) were found to have undeclared allergens at varying levels.

In particular, milk protein was detected in almost 50% of soya lattes tested. This is obviously very worrying given several dairy related deaths recently.

Undeclared allergens, including milk, soya and sesame protein, were also detected in 23% of bread products tested. Again worrying, if you’re going for a vegan item for example, and it has traces of dairy.

More people are going to die as a direct result.

Restaurants focus too heavily on visible signs of care, whether that is flags in food, managers being the point of contact or special handling. These things look safe, but don’t necessarily address the real risks.

Where Coeliacs Fit

Coeliac disease is different. It’s an autoimmune disease, not an allergy. It does not trigger an automatic anaphylaxis response from your body which is life-threatening.

It is also relatively common. Coeliac UK says 1 in 100 people in the UK have coeliac disease, and only 36% are actually diagnosed. That leaves 500,000 people suffering with unexplained symptoms. From what I have read, it is more common than most allergies, like nuts and dairy.

And as I wrote about recently on this blog, the period of being undiagnosed but suffering the impact of Coeliac disease, is grim.

But it does mean you become very literate in food risk. I know what I can eat, I know what questions to ask, and I know how to manage my conditions.

This is obviously different for someone with a life-threatening allergy. You cannot be severely allergic to dairy or nuts, and be undiagnosed, or take a chance.

Yet, in restaurants, Coeliacs are often treated as a proxy for maximum danger, rather than being risk-assessed individually.

Of course I don’t want my condition dismissed. But I also don’t want to feel like my life is in the hands of a single overworked manager.

Safety should not require the suspension of normality.

So Don’t Put It On The Menu Then

One of the unspoken tensions for Coeliacs, is trusting your gut, versus the restaurant.

It’s infuriating, when you go to a restaurant with lots of marked gluten free options, and as soon as you mention you’re Coeliac, panic sets in.

I have lost count of the number of occasions I have been to places, explained myself, gone through the whole rigmarole with the manager, and just as I start to order my food; I am told I shouldn’t have certain things.

Recently this happened in a pub serving pizza, with gluten free bases specifically advertised, but I was told there would be ‘traces’ so I couldn’t have it. I spoke to another server, who understood the issue much better, and spoke to the kitchen. I got my food, and I was fine.

Likewise I was in a Syrian restaurant some months ago, where almost everything was gluten free on the menu. But I had resistance from the server, who said they would be treating me as someone with an allergy, and warned me repeatedly about ordering most things.

Not what you want to hear when out with friends for dinner.

Simply put, don’t have things on your menu for Coeliacs if you’re not willing to serve it.

Either it’s available and meets the right standards of food safety, or it doesn’t. There is no middle ground here.

There are some fantastic restaurants out there which are accomodating, which don’t make a bigger fuss than is necessary, and which I have been to and not got ill. It can be done.

Subscribe now

A Better Balance

This isn’t an argument for less care. It’s an argument for better systems and smarter distinctions.

Life-threatening allergies, autoimmune diseases, intolerances and dietary preferences, aren’t the same.

They don’t need identical customer experiences, even if kitchen controls overlap.

What should happen is all staff should be trained properly. Menus should be clear and honest. Labelling should be taken seriously. And supply chains have to be fixed to minimise contamination, and ensure labels are accurate.

Ultimately the customer has to opt in to stricter handling when needed - rather than defaulting to maximum security every time.

Right now we’re combining two failures.

People with allergies are still dying.

And people with conditions like Coeliac are still being made to feel awkward, conspicuous and even infantilised at times.

There is no silver bullet to change these fortunes, it requires structural changes at home, and a more methodical decision making process on everything from selection to preparation of the squads.

We have lost every time since 2010/11. And before that, it was every time since the 1986–87 tour.

Subscribe now

This is a fundamental problem, unique to touring Australia which can only be countered with a blend of exceptional English talent peaking at the right time, correct preparation, and Australia being on a rare low ebb.

Rarely do these stars align. Once every 25 years or so. Lots of critics felt this time, at least two of these criteria were met. The so-called worst Australian team in over a decade, walked all over England.

Yet all of these factors are rooted in good domestic structures and the ability to replicate skills learned in that environment, elsewhere.

The post-mortem has largely focused on whether Ben Stokes and Brendon McCullum will continue, and if not, what does it mean for Bazball.

But the reality is, this problem predates Ben Stokes’ career, it predates Bazball, it predates a period when most of this England team was born.

And it will outlive them too.

Putting a Square in a Circle Hole

England have a history of picking players regardless of domestic success, or lack thereof.

In this era especially, management have been shooing batsmen into positions which perhaps aren’t their ideal roles, to the point where in the top seven, several batsmen have struggled, in part due to their lack of suited-ness, to the positions they’re in.

Ben Duckett, has been dire in this Ashes tour, owing in part to his inability to leave the ball. He has played and missed, nicked off and chased wide balls on countless occasions. You can’t do that as an opener.

Not for one minute am I suggesting Ben Duckett should not open. He’s one of the best all format openers in the world. But he has to learn to adapt to conditions, where playing in that fashion will not lead to results, more often than not.

Zak Crawley has shown flashes of brilliance, but as Michael Vaughan said after his first innings dismissal at Sydney, Crawley is a huge frustration.

“The ball that got him out should not have got him out. It was just a ball which nipped back slightly and he played it too square on the on side. There must be something in his concentration.”

The irony for Crawley, is he’s our top run scorer in this tour, and was top run scorer in the home Ashes. He likes playing Australia, and on this tour, he hasn’t been dreadful.

But he has been wasteful. His scores this series are 16, 5, 37, 9, 85, 76, 44, 0 and 0. These are not Test match-winning scores. Even his 85 and 76, should be viewed as a missed opportunity. Hundreds were there for the taking.

Ollie Pope has had an awful tour, in part because he isn’t a Test number three. For Surrey he doesn’t bat at 3. He bats lower down. He has proven he doesn’t have the technical ability or mindset to do it, especially because he’s such a bad starter.

The fact his replacement is a bloke who has played just 27 First Class games, with no centuries, and averages under 30 in red ball cricket, is case in point to this worldview: Throw logic out the window. Pick on potential and vibes.

The exact opposite to Australia’s attitude, of picking experienced form players who know how to win.

Jamie Smith is not Surrey’s wicketkeeper, and generally doesn’t bat at number seven for them. His role in this team is not sourced from domestic success. He has been reckless in this series, and criticised for his sloppy glovework too, with Aussie crowds getting at him.

All of these factors expose Joe Root to the new ball.

In this series, the latest he has come to the wicket has been in the 19th over in 2nd innings at Melbourne, and in 18th over in 2nd innings at Brisbane. The best batsman in the team should be coming in when there’s a platform, to build a huge score.

The same is true for Harry Brook in many ways. He has under-performed in this series, because he has come in far too early, against a moving ball.

Ben Stokes has really been the only middle order player to get his head down, and apply his skills. Shocking that someone batting in their correct position can do their job.

This approach has also been seen in selection of bowlers. Mark Wood and Jofra Archer barely played any domestic cricket before the series. And shock horror, they both got injured.

Meanwhile, Gus Atkinson was below par in this series. England didn’t listen to reports about the pitches being slower, and for more line and length bowlers being suited to it. The side was packed with pace, but Atkinson has bowled a lot this year. He looked knackered, and ineffective.

And last but not least of course Shoiab Bashir has been thrown under the bus by this regime which plucks players out of obscurity and backs them to the hilt - until it doesn’t.

He is a player who can’t even get into his county side, who went on loan with a terrible record last year, taking two wickets for 304 runs in three games.

He was picked for the last two years. All that energy, all those resources pumped into project Bashir, to turn a below average county spinner into a Test quality spinner, on the job.

And he was not picked in the Ashes. He was not only snubbed, but he wasn’t even sent to the warm up game to practice.

Meanwhile, Jack Leach was the third-top wicket taker in division one last year, averaging 22. It’s all a bit maddening.

Knowing the Value of County Cricket

This week, Steve Smith admitted his county stint with Sussex helped to prepare him for the Ashes in England.

And the suggestion is, it’s not just him. According to the Times, 13 of the 19 Australians who have played in the last two Ashes, had County Championship stints.

Smith said:

“A lot of our players have had the opportunity to play some county cricket, playing on some of their wickets, getting used to them, and then over the last couple of years we’ve had players that have played other series in England, so we’ve been exposed to those conditions — and it’s entirely different. So that may have something to do with it [Australia’s competitiveness].”

For a long time, fans such as myself have been baffled at welcoming Australian opposition players for a stint in county cricket - especially during an Ashes summer.

Yet, I know counties benefit from these stints.

It draws in crowds, it helps nurture English talent, and frankly, it helps teams compete.

The standard of County Cricket is questionable at times. Having Internationals stars littering the domestic circuit raises the game.

The response to Smith’s comments has been a suggestion that Australian stars could be banned from playing county cricket.

Ben Stokes said:

“It is odd when you see touring players given opportunities to play county cricket before a big series. I’ve never understood it. You never see it anywhere else in the world.”

He has a point. Australians have a strong presence in domestic cricket, but they also know how to maximise the system.

They are coming from a domestic structure in Australia which has six high quality teams, where 66 players involved all want to play for Australia.

And they enter a system with 18 counties. 18 counties means upwards of 200 players, potentially vying for international cricket - and lots of spots for overseas players, or those who can compete on a European passport somehow.

Players are going from a highly-concentrated, highly-competitive system, to a diluted set up, where 40-year-olds can dominate with bat and ball.

The other problem, is, as we’ve already established, England don’t pick domestic talent based on form, anyway.

They haven’t picked Ollie Robinson, Jack Leach, Tom Taylor, Haseeb Hameed, Sam Cook or Dom Sibley.

The only domestic record which has got any player even near this England side, is James Rew.

Before any Australian is banned from county cricket, it’s important to establish its importance for national selection in the first place.

If we don’t want to give them the experience of our conditions and practice on our pitches, then fine. But at least let’s recognise that our own players get that value, and can bring something important to the England side.

Practice What You Preach

In that Times piece, Stokes said he didn’t want to see Australians in county cricket before a big series, because it gave them practice on our wickets and conditions.

He also said something rather curious, as a reason.

“I don’t think Australia would sign a visa for one of our lads playing Sheffield Shield games before an Ashes”

He’s right, but there are two important points to unpack here.

First and foremost, Australia wouldn’t allow English players in the Sheffield Shield before the Ashes, for some very good reasons.

There are just six state sides, which means competition for spots are extremely intense, and Australia do not give out Test caps willy-nilly. They have to be earned.

Even if someone as good as Joe Root wanted to play Sheffield Shield cricket, it wouldn’t be surprising for a state to say no, because it wouldn’t serve a purpose. He can’t play for Australia, and his record down under isn’t remarkable anyway.

Secondly, Ben Stokes seems to be saying that English players would benefit from playing Sheffield Shield cricket before the Ashes.

This is at odds with England’s overall approach to the tour. They turned down repeated offers of First Class practice, opting instead for an intra-club game.

They also refused to send England players to the day/night game, which in part contributed to Shoaib Bashir not playing a single game. He had no practice at all.

So England can’t have it both ways (twice over).

You can’t complain that Australians come to the UK for practice, while ignoring our own players’ domestic success. Nor can you complain that England don’t get to practice in Australia, while turning down that opportunity when there.

I think a lot of England’s long-term problems, are rooted in domestic cricket.

There is a reason after all, that Australians want to come and play in the County Championship.

But it does need change. It has to be sustainable change that improves standards, and can be trusted by England as a way to judge who is good enough to play for England.

But that’s a whole other piece..

Subscribe now

There’s no drugs, no treatment. All you can do to counter the effects of it, is completely cut out gluten from your diet.

I had the Coeliac diagnosis confirmed after the appointment, but in truth, I had known for months.

Since that appointment there has been a very steep learning curve, and I have got ill many times.

But I have sought to take back control of my life from the debilitating impact of this condition, and tackle the detrimental effects the preceding months had on my physical and mental health.

I am not the first person to have this condition. Lots of people have it, both diagnosed and undiagnosed. So if anyone finds any of this piece useful, then I’ll be pleased.

Subscribe now

Before diagnosis

I have written previously about the traumatic summer of 2024, and the relief of finally being diagnosed.

For those who have not read any of that, here’s some brief context.

From about May 2024, I was suffering quite badly with extreme fatigue, blurred vision, tiredness, and I kept getting small injuries and illnesses.

I had no idea why.

A family member had been ill which piled on added stress and anxiety, as long 10 hour working days were extended with 3 hour hospital visits, and general worry.

Inevitably when I got home late at night, I’d be eating gluten, which made me more ill and all of this combined into sleep problems too.

By June, I had a number of episodes whereby I was on the point of collapse in my office. I could barely see the screen in front of me. I once took 4 hours to get home, as I kept feeling sick and faint.

I was a zombie and became completely dysfunctional. What I know now to be the symptoms of gluten consumption compounded by stress and sleeplessness, was a very dark time for me personally. I had so many sleepless nights worrying effectively about whether I’d lose my job or have to quit, because I couldn’t cope any longer.

Getting help

I kept going to the doctor asking for help. I was given B12 jabs and an Iron proscription, which helped with energy. But symptoms kept returning.

It wasn’t until September 2024, Coeliac was first mentioned.

I trialed a gluten free diet, and it really helped for a few months. By November I went away to Marrakech, where I had my first experience of real helplessness while ill from symptoms, in a hot foreign country where I didn’t speak the language.

I was booked in for the test in the hospital, and in the run up, you’re meant to do a so-called ‘gluten challenge’, where you consume it for six weeks or so. This is to ensure your insides show impact of the damage it causes, accurately.

By 3 January, I didn’t really need to have a tube stuck down my throat to tell me I was Coeliac. I knew, as this six week period had made me quite ill.

So while the diagnosis was a pain in the backside as it restricted my life massively, it’s against the backdrop of a year from hell. And it relieved symptoms.

It gave me control, it allowed me to plan my way through life to stay healthy.

Not all plans are perfect though.

Adjusting to a new reality

Everyone will react differently to such life-changing news.

Some people will mourn not being able to eat proper bread.

But for me, the diagnosis was good for my physical and mental wellbeing, in the immediate aftermath.

I knew what I needed to do.

I had to cut out gluten from my diet.

And it lifted a weight off my shoulders.

I now knew why I was getting ill.

I knew that if I followed the rules, I would get less ill, and some of the associated anxiety and stress, would also dissipate.

So to start, I learned what gluten was.

I joined Coeliac UK, which is an amazing and essential organisation.

And I slowly learned it wasn't as easy as just buying gluten free products, signing up to stuff, and trying to continue as normal.

I definitely got less ill than previously, but I also didn’t take some things as seriously as I should have to start.

For example: I was told about the danger of cross contamination, especially when eating out. But I have got ill a number of times when I didn’t check with the restaurant properly, or when I used a pan at home, that hadn’t been cleaned properly.

I’ve definitely forgotten I am Coeliac once or twice and bought a product without checking it first, only to feel rough the next day, and think ‘what have I eaten that caused that?’

Indeed, as I write this, I am recovering from a pretty horrendous few days, where flu-like symptoms combined with being glutened, and two days of intense physical exercise.

The longer you have this, the better you get at managing it - I think - but there will always be blips.

A Coeliac’s biggest problem?

Moving away from me personally, being Coeliac is hard for a number of reasons. But there are remedies too.

The biggest problem you’ll face as a Coeliac, in my view, is the cost for gluten free food.

The average cost of a regular loaf of bread is about £1.50. The average cost for a GF loaf (which is not as nice, and which crumbles and falls apart) is £2.50 to £4.00.

Last year Coeliac UK released a report highlighting in stark terms, the burden on those who have Coeliac disease. It showed that GF products can be 2 to 4.5 times more expensive than their gluten counterparts, with bread costing up to 4.5 times as much.

It flagged up that there are very high premiums with bread, pasta, crackers, cereals, and flour, while plain flour and pasta is often twice the price, and bread rolls 3.1 times the cost.

Perhaps most worryingly, it said that nearly 8 in 10 people with coeliac disease struggle to afford GF foods, and this has an impact on people’s health.

The high cost leads to reduced consumption of suitable food, and some poorer people even have to resort to eating non-gluten free food. The report showed seven in ten people find the cost and availability negatively affect their quality of life, causing anxiety and difficulty shopping.

And this doesn’t even touch upon the added costs at restaurants and takeaways for a gluten free option. A pizza for example can sometimes have an additional £2 or £3 charge for a GF base, and it’s usually in a smaller size too.

Without a doubt there needs to be a much more concerted campaign to lower prices, and to ease the burden on those who don’t have a choice.

Subscribe now

Learn to cook

I can’t really stress enough, if you are newly-diagnosed as Coeliac or gluten intolerant, or if you think you might be, try and cook more.

(Actually even if you’re reading this and you’re not gluten intolerant, cook more anyway; it’s cheaper and nicer, and it’s a good life skill.)

It’s essential for someone who’s coeliac or GI to cook for themselves, because it keeps you in control.

It ensures that you don’t have to go foraging out for lunch while at work, with the hope of finding something suitable - or taking a chance on something that might be OK.

I try to plan meals for a few days in advance, it just makes life easier. I do a regular shop and buy enough food to make plenty of meals over the next month.

As a vegetarian, it also means I am more conscious of what I need to be putting into my body. But perhaps the most important reason, is cost.

Gluten free food is extortionately expensive.

It shouldn’t be but it is, and anyone who needs to consider buying it, just has to accept it at the moment.

If you are cooking in a kitchen with other people, it is absolutely essential to have separate utensils and equipment.

If you need to do some basic explanations and education then do it.

Contamination is a huge problem, and it can make you very ill.

Don’t apologise, or be timid

When you’re going out to a restaurant especially, be assertive.

You are relying on that restaurant to stop you from getting ill.

Ask the people you’re going with, where you’re going first. Try and plan in advance. I generally try to contact restaurants in advance asking about their Coeliac awareness, and gluten free options. In the past, some places have advised to eat beforehand, which I appreciated. If you can’t accommodate someone with a dietary need, then be honest. I don’t want to get ill.

When I’m at the restaurant, I’ll always go and speak to the server before I even sit down, and make sure they know who I am.

You might look like you’re making a fuss, but you basically have to stop caring.

Getting ill is not worth it. It’s miserable, and it lasts a long time.

Restaurants are one thing.

Family and friends are another. Honesty is the best policy. There is obviously the capacity for causing offence if you don’t eat a relative or friend’s food. Don’t leave it to chance. Say what you cannot have, and stress the importance of contamination. .

What’s been easy, and what’s been hard

The easiest bit about being Coeliac, is not eating bread.

That’s not hard, you just don’t eat bread.

Same with not drinking beer, or eating wheat-based pasta.

Coeliac UK members have access to their app, which includes a product scanner. This makes life very easy, you can just do your shopping, and see which products are OK.

Obviously lots of products have gluten free markings on anyway.

Their membership is very cheap, and they have lots of resources on their app, and in print too. It’s the first port of call for anyone who’s newly-diagnosed.

There are a few other apps which will help you. Atly is useful, especially when you’re abroad. It maps out gluten free restaurants, with filters for 100% gluten free, separate fryers and coeliac awareness.

The only downside, is it’s all user reviews, so you’re just relying on people being honest and accurate in their reflections.

I also found it quite easy to get more help from the NHS.

I have regular B12 injections, was told to buy certain supplements and when I requested more support, they arranged more tests and a dietitian appointment too.

What I have found particularly difficult, is going out.

Even when I’ve been to restaurants with a plethora of gluten free options, staff are worried about you getting ill.

It can be frustrating when you think you’ve found a really good option for going out and being safe in terms of gluten - and the servers make you doubt your own judgment.

But you can’t stop your life. Be sensible, ask questions, you shouldn’t just never go out anywhere.

My go-to cuisines in the last year, are south Asian, Mexican, as so many options are made from corn, not wheat, and Mediterranean, especially any food where it’s mezze-like.

Perhaps the best option which is also the most surprising for lots of non-coeliacs, is Italian.

Italian food culture has a very high awareness of gluten free and Coeliac.

Getting ill, and not always blaming Coeliac

All that said, there is a tendency to just blame everything on Coeliac, which I don’t want to do.

Coeliac is an auto-immune disease. It makes you more vulnerable to getting ill, or as the doctor described it, I am ‘immunocompromised’.

I’ve found in the past year, I get ill more regularly. In the winter, I get really deep colds that combine with other things. In the summer, I get affected by the heat in ways I never used to. I feel drained and get headaches.

But, it’s important to remember that not everything is caused by, or can be explained through the lens of Coeliac.

After diagnosis, I joined various groups on Facebook just to get any general advice, and you wouldn’t believe the stuff people come out with. All I can say is, don’t self-diagnose. If you have a genuine concern then go to your GP. Facebook groups are useful, but they aren’t a Coeliac how-to guide.

Traveling is harder and less enjoyable

It goes without saying, that travelling is harder when you have Coeliac disease.

Not only does the language barrier create inherent problems when it comes to establishing what you can eat, and communicating it successfully.

But the uncertainty adds a level of stress into an experience which should be by its very nature, relaxing.

Since November last year, I’ve visited Morocco, Malaysia, Israel, and went away in Wales also.

Morocco was extremely tricky for me, not least because I went before diagnosis.

I did get really ill. It was very hot, and I felt incredibly isolated and helpless. I was dizzy and lightheaded for days, due to gluten.

But the worst element, was the uncertainty. I was wrapped with stress and worry, as I tried to work out what I should do. If I went again, I’d obviously plan ahead, and find some options to fall back on.

After diagnosis, I visited Malaysia in August for a wedding.

The first problem I had was plane food.

Airlines don’t do gluten free vegetarian food.

They do either gluten free, or vegetarian. I am both, so it’s a bit of pot luck.

I tried to arrange a meal which would include both options, but to no avail.

I was lucky to get something suitable on the way to Malaysia. I had the same issue with Israel, but got lucky again, as the food was vegetarian.

But it is a general issue when travelling as a Coeliac, and it’s hard to contact the airlines successfully.

Malaysia was incredibly hot and humid, and they don’t really understand the concept of gluten free.

Most dishes either contain gluten, like soy sauce, or are cooked in environments that mean contamination is guaranteed.

Even if you can communicate the dietary need there is not high awareness of Coeliac.

I managed fairly well with a few aids. I printed off translation cards from Legal Nomads for about £10, explaining what I can and can’t eat and why.

I used them on multiple occasions, successfully. In one cafe underneath our hotel, I used it a few times, and they got my order down to a tee, which was very pleasing, and a major relief.

This can be used for a lot of countries, so it’s worth keeping as bookmark.

Atly is also very useful as I mentioned above. But nothing can really substitute for some good old fashioned research. Go on to Google maps, and mark some places which you want to go to.

I got ill once or twice in Malaysia, including on the 13-hour plane ride home.

I would thoroughly recommend avoiding eating before getting on a plane, unless you are 100% sure what you’re having is safe.

Do not risk it.

Being unwell, trapped thousands of metres in the air, with nowhere to go, isn’t pleasant.

The last place I went to was Israel, which had a lot of gluten free options, lots of English-speakers, and lots of awareness too. Lots of products are marked and restaurants are clued in.

But basically wherever you travel in the world, you’re going to be more exposed. You’ll be eating out more, and in most countries (outside the US, UK and some European countries), there will be limited Coeliac awareness, and a language barrier too.

Five small bits of advice

1. Don’t blame yourself if you get glutened. It’s shit, but you aren’t going to benefit from beating yourself up over it. Recover as best you can, and be more careful.

2. Plan ahead: Especially for work lunch, when going out and when on holiday. Knowing what you can eat and where you can grab something, will alleviate a lot of stress.

3. Don’t just buy gluten free branded food. Brands like Schar, Warburtons and others are great. But they can be expensive. Buy normal food which is approved, and cook if you humanly can.

4. Be confident and assertive: When explaining what you can and cannot have, don’t beat around the bush. It’s essential to spell out what you can eat and what the risks are.

5. Not eating gluten is easy. Not getting ill due to contamination is not easy. Be extra careful about food preparation, at home, and when eating out. Always mention it to servers.

To those who are not Coeliac or gluten intolerant, please just bear in mind it is not some lifestyle choice or fad.

It is a condition that has a serious impact on one’s health if undiagnosed, and can do real damage if gluten is not cut out, afterwards.

The internet is awash with fake news and misinformation, and it’s important to check and double check everything before sharing.

It’s also important to remember, that anyone who has a decent following, has a responsibility not to share misleading or fake information.

This has consequences.

Subscribe now

Sitting on Twitter, I saw an Orthodox social media influencer posting about Mark Zuckerberg, the head of Meta, which owns Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram.

Yossi Farro, who has 20k followers on Twitter, more than 80k on YouTube and 20k on LinkedIn, shared a post on X and LinkedIn. Now, I had not heard of this chap beforehand, and I don’t follow him. But the fact it came up on social media, is an indication it was doing the rounds.

It’s a nice enough message, but there is a catch.

Here’s the problem..

He shared the post on 17 December, accompanied by the text “Zuck lighting the menorah and celebrating Hanukkah with his children.”

He is sharing an old photo of Zuck lighting all eight candles at once, and posted it on night four.

He must have known this was an old photo, or he saw it somewhere and just re-shared it.

In other words, he posted a picture of Zuck apparently doing Chanukah wrong, lighting all the candles at once, when he should only have been doing four.

The problem, is this image was from 2023.

The picture Yossi included in his social media post, was from 15 December 2023. In 2023, it started on 7 December, so this was indeed, the eighth day, that year. Indeed, his post is still online.

Zuck was doing it right.

Why does this matter?

This Jewish influencer has a miniscule following compared to Mark Zuckerberg, and on the face of it, it doesn’t matter. And he also didn’t say anything negative about Zuck in his original post.

But he is clearly an Orthodox man, and would have known, that posting a picture of Zuckerberg lighting all the candles on night four, would illicit a reaction from any of his 20,000 followers, who know about Jewish practices.

It is however the reaction to his post that shows why he, and everyone, has to be a bit more careful on the internet.

After Yossi posted his tweet, there were a string of responses, some of which mocked Zuckerberg, and others were a little more sinister. Plenty jokingly said he had a time machine.

In particular, Michael Elgort, who has 25k followers on Twitter, started a bit of a pile on, quoting Yossi, and saying: “Zuck deciding to arbitrarily do all eight candles instead of four candles on day 4 of Hannukah, feels so Facebooky somehow”.

Just the 84k reach for his post, and 184Kviews for Yossi so far.

Yeah it wasn’t arbitrary, as we’ve already established.

Unfortunately, Yossi’s post opened the floodgates to several bad faith actors too, who jumped on the opportunity to effectively brand Zuckerberg a ‘bad Jew’, for not knowing how Chanukah candles work.

Imbued in much of this criticism, are claims it’s a publicity stunt, and it’s staged, of course.

For example, one tweeter said “Zuck is always AWOL in defending the Jewish People. He’s a Holiday Jew”, while indulging in some other pretty nasty comments.

Another person just quote-tweeted the post, referencing the percentage of the Jewish population, which implies Jews like Zuckerberg, have undue control and power over people’s lives.

Here one user is accusing him of staging it:

And this tweeter buys into the misinformed take, claiming Zuck has “absolutely no idea how to practice even basic holidays”.

These tweets got through to some high profile people such as Eylon Levy, Bibi Netanyahu’s former spokesperson.

Why misinformation like this is so dangerous

This tweet will be gone fairly soon, and nobody will remember it.

But it does offer a broader lesson about sharing material online, especially about Jews.

There are so many existing conspiracies - and an ideological infrastructure - that seeks to divide up Jews between ‘good Jews’ and ‘bad Jews’.

Unfortunately, sometimes this is also done amongst Jews themselves, so it really doesn’t need Jewish influencers with a decent following, adding fuel to the fire, and sharing misinformation.

In sharing this image, without context, implying Zuck was doing Chanukah wrong, the floodgates were opened on two counts.

Firstly the conspiracy theorists who are convinced ‘Zuck’ is an evil tech bro trying to steal all of our information, have another string they can add to their worldview: He’s an evil Jewish tech bro, with undue power and influence, and here he is, pretending to practice his Judaism with his kids to give a nice wholesome feel.

And secondly, it divvies him up into the ‘bad Jew’ category, despite the fact he was actually doing Chanukah, correctly. It presents him as a secular Jew who just does Chanukah celebrations for his public image. And coming from an Orthodox influencer, who makes content about wrapping tefillin on people; it implies that he Zuck is ignorant of his own faith.

The fact is, Zuckerberg is Jewish, because his mother was Jewish, and it’s as simple as that. We don’t need the implication he is less Jewish because he apparently does Chanukah wrongly.

Why we all need to just check

In the era of social media, everything is instant.

People fire off tweets that they think will get engagement, often even if they’re to the detriment of the truth.

On X especially, this is dangerous because of the lack of checks and balances under Elon Musk’s stewardship. It’s been saturated with far-right and bot accounts, who have reduced its functionality and usefulness. And of course, it’s now dominated by AI, doctored images and videos, and unreliable blue tick accounts.

Yet on the internet, it’s not hard to check things.

Before hitting retweet, anyone could just search the image Yossi shared with google.

That’s what I did, and it took me to Zuck’s original post from 2023.

It took one second.

This is a relatively small issue, given the trivial nature of what was posted, and the enormous influence of the person at the centre of it.

But it is a useful lesson to just take a bit more time and caution online.

Before you share something, check it’s true.

Before you retweet something, make sure you know the source is reliable, and accurate, and not doctored.

On this occasion it’s a Chanukah picture.

But even last weekend during the Bondi attack, within minutes, there were fake stories and misinformation claims circulating online.

Everyone needs to get into the habit of just being a bit more cautious, and a bit less trigger happy on the internet.

Whether it’s the politics of greetings, the row over having a tree, participation in ‘secret Santa’ or the iconic ‘Chrismukkah’ crossover, there’s plenty of issues for us Red Sea Pedestrians this time of year.

Subscribe now

As a relatively traditional British Jew, I have never had a Christmas tree. I have never really had a Christmas lunch. I don’t really do anything for it.

And for a long time, I really didn’t like this time of year. I felt alone, and as if everyone else was having a good time, while I was re-watching Gilmore Girls for the eighth time.

But in recent years, I’ve learned to be OK with not doing anything.

It’s gone from FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) to BOWMO (Being OK with Missing Out).

Hopefully this is a phrase that will one day make it into the dictionary….

No, I’m not offended

One of the biggest touchpoints for this time of year, is the British timidness about holiday greetings. We don’t like making a fuss.

I have lost count of the number of times I’ve been out with friends, or been at work, and everyone gets a ‘merry Christmas’, while I get a ‘happy holidays’ or a ‘oh it’s Chanukah soon isn’t it?’

This is obviously well-meaning, but really, it’s fine. You can wish me a merry Christmas, and I can say the same back. If you want to also wish me a Happy Chanukah, that’s lovely, thank you! Just bear in mind it’s an eight-day festival.

I am also perfectly happy to participate in a Secret Santa gifting, and also very pleased to go for Christmas drinks. None of these things make me less Jewish, or are remotely Christian really.

Christmas, for me, isn’t a religious holiday.

I dare say, this is the same for most Brits, who see it as a time of year when they can just have a break. They can go a bit easier with work, go for a drink, be with family and friends, and reset.

For millions it is a religious day, and as a Jew I respect that, not least because I am living in Britain, which has a state religion. But it’s not intrusive. Things shut down for a day, but it’s just 24 hours.

And this in-and-of-itself, brings out the best in many people.

In the US it’s become traditional for Jews to eat Chinese food on Christmas Day, owing to the part of New York both immigrant communities settled in more than 100 years ago.

And in the UK, I almost always go out with friends on Christmas eve. As transport shuts down, the only way to get home is often an Uber driver, who is invariably a Muslim.

Everyone gets along, fine, most of the time.

Jewish traditions at Christmas are quite fluid.

Figures released a few years ago by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, showed the variance in Jewish celebration of Christmas.

It’s pretty much as you’d think. 28% say they have a Christmas tree, with older respondents less likely to. They are more traditional.

Almost no Orthodox Jews had Christmas tree (1%, and I really wanna know who that 1% is). While over half of Jews who describe themselves as non-practising have one (58%).

It isn’t just about religiosity though. It’s also about which strand of Judaism. Jews who describe themselves as ‘Reform or Progressive’, are almost four times as likely to have a Christmas tree (38%) as those who describe themselves as ‘Traditional’ (8%).

Meanwhile, almost one-quarter of Jews in the UK both light Chanukah candles and have a Christmas tree in their house, at least some years.

It’s clear, that Jews aren’t a monolith. Religious or traditional Jews, refrain from celebrating Christmas. Progressive and less observant Jews indulge in some Christmas stuff. But it’s not mutually exclusive. They also do Jewish stuff.

For me personally, I don’t see why it needs to be a problem. I like this time of year. I like Christmas markets, mulled wine, and even the music.

As long as it doesn’t infringe upon my ability to attempt to make gluten-free latkes, I am down.

Chrismukkah

I’m gonna get this section out the way really early.

Jews celebrate Chanukah, and very often it falls around the same time as Christmas.

In Trafalgar Square, there’s a massive menorah, and a Christmas tree; a scene replicated in plenty of public spaces especially in London, but across the world too.

There is no conflict between Chanukah and Christmas, and in many ways their public celebration mutually enhances each other.

At the same time, they are not the same festival. Jews celebrate Chanukah over eight days in a distinct way, as a public celebration.

It is perhaps precisely this crossover, this public-faving celebration, which makes Chanukah the most popular festival. A recent study by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research in the UK, found that 89 percent of British Jews lit Chanukah candles at least once last year, which is a higher share than those who took part in a Passover seder (84 percent) or observed Rosh Hashanah (74 percent).

It’s hardly a surprise, that a festival where the focus is eating incredibly nice but unhealthy food, and lighting candles, with none of the regular restrictions of a festival, would be so popular.

Chanukah one might even argue, is the most secular-friendly festival, and simultaneously the event which allows Jews to be openly Jewish.

It is the most accessible festival for Jews and non-Jews, and for that reason, when it coincides with Christmas, there is a lot of mish-mashing, culturally.

It hasn’t always been like this

As with just about every modern Jewish tradition, it hasn’t always been hunky dory.

Christmas is a festival celebrating Jesus’s life, a Jewish man who Jews refused to accept as the messiah.

For 2,000 years, Jews were persecuted for their rejection of Jesus and Christianity, and also for various libels and accusations, including that Jews killed Jesus.

For that reason, a strange tradition has developed in the Chabad-Lubavitch world, where in Crown Heights, New York, Yeshiva students actually play chess throughout the night. This is done to abstain from Torah study, according to JTA, as a way of mourning for the many Jews killed during pogroms that occurred during (or as an indirect result of) Christmas.

While the Orthodox world responds to Christmas with a near mocking approach, playing chess, the more secular Jewish world, decided to… take over Christmas.

It’s fairly well known, that most Christmas songs were made by Jews. It’s kind of ironic really, that Jews who shed some of their religion to embrace a more secular worldview, helped do the same to an originally Christian festival. Christmas is in the West at least, now arguably more associated with Santa wearing a red coat, presents, consumerism, jingles and over-eating, than Jesus.

(I don’t really like that kind of Christmas music. This is amazing though. They absolutely killed it!)

After Bondi, Manchester, 10/7

This is gonna get a bit more serious now, because something really awful happened on the first night of Chanukah.

As a British Jew, it’s hard to consider Chanukah and Christmas at this time of the year, without thinking about the rising tide of antisemitism, and the polarization of politics.

The Bondi attack marked a bitter start to Chanukah, and continued the trend of antisemites murdering Jews on Jewish festivals; starting with October 7 2023 on Shemini Atzeret, and the Manchester attack, on Yom Kippur.

For Chanukah, most years I will go to a number of Chanukah celebrations, having previously gone to Chanukah in the Square, where a menorah proudly stands alongside a Christmas Tree.

I attended an event at Wembley Stadium, and the previous year at Lord’s, marking Chanukah.

And Chanukah in the Square is still taking place. It needs everyone there.

Subscribe now

But - and this is a big but - all Jews, this year, will be that little more on edge.

When I walk past a menorah in public, I will be checking it for anything hateful or abusive. I have seen stickers on them in the past, while others have been vandalised.

More than anything, I just hope that there is no more attacks on Jews, for simply being Jews. Especially not during Chanukah celebrations.

All that said, I am acutely aware of the dual story of Chanukah.

The tale told to younger children is about hope. It’s about light and oil lasting for eight days, and the miracles that took place. It’s about dreidels and yummy food. And that’s all great.

But with that, comes the Maccabees. The rebellion. The Jews fighting for their existence, and winning. Now more than ever it is in the back of Jewish community’s minds, that yes we need miracles and hope - but in an increasingly worrying world - we also need to push back against hatred.

We need to look after ourselves as a community, physically and spiritually.

BOWMI

Going on a little, I mentioned this before, but it really is true for me.

I used to have FOMO about Christmas, and now I am completely fine with missing out. Maybe as I have got older, and more attached to my Judaism, I care less about what is essentially a Christian festival.

I also didn’t do Christmas when I was younger. I didn’t have a tree, do presents, or do anything with family. It wasn’t really until I got to University when I fully had a Christmas experience, and that wasn’t even on actual Christmas, obviously.

My fomo was mainly social pressure, which I have learned to stop caring about.

When I was in my late teens and early 20s, I had a lot of anxiety at Christmas. I didn’t like the fact I did nothing, and felt the pressure to try and be involved, mainly because I was worried what people would say.

“What, you do nothing? Just with family?, they’d ask. “No, not even with family, I do nothing”, in response.

And, because I am vegetarian, I’ve never even had a proper Christmas lunch.

I’ve kind of made peace with it. It is fine. If I get invited to something, then I’ll go, and enjoy it. But I am OK with spending Christmas Day watching the Sopranos, drinking and eating, relaxing after a hard year of working my tuches off.

It’s also fine if Jewish people use it as a day to get together, watch TV, watch a movie, be with each other.

It is not a particularly religious festival for lots of Brits.

Lots of British Jews go to Christmas markets, own Christmas jumpers, and that is fine.

Why this year, it’s time to go the extra mile

2025 has been another difficult year for Jews, and especially after the Bondi Beach attack, it feels like many communities are under threat.

I generally don’t wear a kippah when I’m out, partially because I am not that observant, but also because I am genuinely scared of what might happen. I have also been feeling a lot closer to my faith in recent years; which is perhaps a sign of getting a bit older, and clinging on to traditions and familiarity, especially in such times.

Of late, I have been considering doing it, even just as an experiment to see if there’s a reaction. But I can never really pluck up the courage. Even as I left the Chanukah event at Wembley Stadium this week, I instinctively removed my kippah, but a part of me just wanted to walk home with it on. In hindsight, I think it would not be safe, and it’s probably not worth it, where I live and at that time of night.

One thing I have been thinking about, is going to shul. This year I have tried to make the minyan on Fridays more regularly, not just to support it, but also because it’s an absolutely beautiful service, and I like it.

I am conscious however that at this time of year, people don’t go to shul as much. Especially if Christmas Day or New Year’s Day fall on a Friday or Saturday. This year both are on a Thursday, which means Boxing Day is a Friday, and inbetwixmas starts on Shabbat (never thought I’d say that).

This year more than ever, I think it’s important than ever to try and get to shul in the dead days before, between and after Christmas and New Year.

All in all, this Chanukah, and Christmas, is going to feel a bit strange.

For Jews, it will be under the shadow of terrorism in Australia, with the attack on Manchester’s synagogue also in our mind.

There’s a distinct feeling of being isolated and under threat, that frankly doesn’t make me feel very festive. But it also erodes any last remnants of FOMO. This year more than ever, I feel distant from the festive joy that’s so apparent with everyone else.

This time of year can be stressful, not least for those who don’t strictly celebrate or participate in Christmas.

So if you’re reading this still (congratulations!), just bear in mind it’s always OK to ask how your friends or neighbours are. Don’t automatically exclude them because they’re a different faith, just ask. Some Jews like getting secret santa gifts too.

Subscribe now

It’s hard to know what to think, in part because I’ve attended public Chanukiyah lightings, and in the back of my mind, there's always a sense of fear.

As you stand in Trafalgar Square, no amount of CST or Police is really enough to reassure you that you’re safe, especially as you’re arriving or leaving.

Subscribe now

Most communal events don’t disclose a location, for fear of, being attacked.

But public Chanukah events are a little different.

They have to be advertised, celebrating the miracle of Chanukah is by its nature, public-facing. Indeed, the post for it, below, says exactly where it will take place.

Needless to say it shouldn’t be like this.

But in the past most attacks have not been in public.

They’ve been in shuls.

The Bondi massacre doesn’t only bring fears into reality, that Jews can be attacked simply for being Jewish.

But that both sacred spaces, like synagogues, and public spaces, are now seen as something Jews cannot be safe in.

The Bondi attack ratchets up these fears even more so than after the Yom Kippur terrorist attack in Manchester. And in Australia there have been countless other incidents, including an arson attack on another synagogue. And of course, the Tree of Life massacre a number of years ago, was a shocking massacre.

It’s no longer just Jewish paranoia that ‘everyone hates us’. It’s a legitimate and real threat, playing out before our eyes, and also a specific threat, coming from specific actors - namely Islamists and the far-right.

It’s exactly after these kinds of attacks, Jewish communities need support. And not just ‘thoughts and prayers’ and commitments to spend even more money on protection.

It needs politicians to acknowledge the problem, and not pussy-foot around it. Central to this is recognising the specificity of the victims of antisemitic attacks.

It’s not random. Jews were attacked for being Jewish.

Yet with this most recent attack, public figures can’t even bring themselves to say Jews, or antisemitism, or Chanukah.

No thanks, ‘Albo’

When you’re the Prime Minister and 12 Jewish people celebrating Chanukah are gunned down on the beach, there should be a very simple response.

Condemnation, and support for the Jewish community, un-caveated.

What prime minister Anthony Albenese said after the attack, was completely spineless and unacceptable.

He released a statement calling ‘the scenes’ at Bondi beach ‘shocking and distressing’.

He said his “thoughts are with every person affected”.

Every person?

This refusal to mention the victims being Jewish, or the event being a Chanukah event, isn’t acceptable. It removes the motivation behind the attack, and the specific target.

Afterwards, he made another comment, saying it was “an act of evil antisemitism, terrorism that has struck the heart of our nation”.

Why not just say that to start with? Would it really have been that hard?

But it’s not just Albo.

Starmer, Cooper, Martin

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer, had two moments this morning, which lacked sensitivity.

At 8.59, as news of the Bondi massacre was first being widely reported, a happy Chanukah tweet was timed, and went live. What he should have done, is remove that, or react immediately to the attack, so it didn’t look tone deaf.

Almost one hour later, he posted again, calling the massacre “deeply distressing” saying the UK “sends our thoughts and condolences to everyone affected by the appalling attack on Bondi beach”.

‘Everyone affected’.

You mean, the Jews who were on the beach, at a publicly advertised event, to celebrate the Jewish festival of Chanukah?

Someone in his comms team probably gave him a call at this point, as another statement was then put up.

Just the two hours after.

It was equally poor from Yvette Cooper, who called the massacre “deeply shocking and distressing”, before saying her thoughts were with “everyone affected and Australia’s emergency services”. Then she included details about contacting the British Consulate for help, as if that should be in the same message.

But again, complete failure to acknowledge the victims, or why they were there.

And it was no different from Micheál Martin, the Taoiseach of Ireland, who said he was “shocked and appalled” by the attack that “left ten people dead”.

He gave the standard prayers going out line before a bland comment about hate and violence never being tolerated.

“Ten people dead”? You mean ten Jews dead, for celebrating Chanukah publicly.

“Such hate and violence can never be tolerated”. Hate towards who, Micheál? Why?

He then posted another fuller statement just after 1pm UK time, which did mention Jews, Chanukah.

And it’s not even just politicians. Usman Khawaja, the Australian opener batter who has been vocal for Palestine since October 7, took to social media to post about the attack.

Unfortunately, he decided not to mention Jews, antisemitism or Chanukah.

One can’t help but think if a message such as this is put out, it’s more to shape their own image, than genuinely support the victims.

It shouldn’t be this hard

Condemning a terror massacre should be one of the easiest things to do in politics.

The fact so many high-level politicians and public figures chose to respond to this by not mentioning Jews, Chanukah or antisemitism, isn’t unimportant.

I wonder if it’s a reflection of their own fears, about the backlash for simply mentioning Jews on the internet.

As someone who spends copious amounts of time on Twitter/X, I am all too familiar with how little it takes for surface antisemitism to bubble to the top.

Indeed online, there are already false flag conspiracy arguments circulating.

In particular, from the left and from Islamist sympathisers, antisemitic arguments are put forward, but cloaked in the language of Israel/Gaza.

Or people look for links to Israel, to justify that antisemitic hatred.

Here, one tweeter posts a video of Rabbi Eli Shlatter, the Chabad emissary at Bondi who was murdered, saying he was a supporter of settlements.

As if the shooters knew that, and planned it, and it was therefore somehow more acceptable to gun people down on the beach.

This isn’t isolated

In Australia , the reaction to this massacre isn’t isolated.

It is the latest instalment of a series of attacks on buildings, synagogues, cars, people’s homes and businesses, which have been documented here.

And this doesn’t even touch upon the regular protests, which have routinely stepped over the line into illegality and antisemitism.

There has been a rise in tensions over the Israel-Hamas war, with Alex Ryvchin, co-chief executive of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, saying a series of events, including an arson attack and a restaurant being targeted “are a severe escalation directed towards our community”.

There was also of course the shocking video of two Australian nurses suspended, after saying they’d harm Israeli patients.

This is people coming off the internet - and on to the street. People using Israel, as an excuse to attack Jews.

So it’s understandable, that today after the massacre, Australia’s Jewish Association chief, Robert Gregory, condemned it as a “tragedy but entirely foreseeable.”

“The Albanese government was warned so many times but failed to take adequate actions to protect the Jewish community”.

It’s hard to tell if Albanese is just tone deaf, or deliberately chose not to mention Jews and antisemitism in his initial statement, for fear of the backlash.

If it’s the latter he’s an absolute coward.

But there’s clearly a profound lack of trust from the Jewish community, and this attack will only entrench that sense of helplessness.

Politicians need to understand that putting out statements after these types of incidents isn’t just a formality. Nor is it sufficient.

It immediately shapes the narrative behind the response, and shows how in control of the situation they are, and how much they understand the very real fears - and threat - the community faces.

But statements don’t protect people.

Money for security protects people, and directly addressing the root cause of the threat, protects people.

Single shots can take minutes, frames can occasionally even take more than an hour.

The audience must stay deathly quiet all day, with the referee shushing them before the every break.

It would be understandable, that Snooker would be just for crusty old men and misfits.

Subscribe now

But it isn’t. And the direction of travel is increasingly away from that, and towards a more global - and lucrative sport, which has its own risks.

At my local snooker club, the tables are packed, and it’s often younger people.

But it’s the combination of grassroots activity, and growing popularity at the highest level, which is most encouraging.

During the 2025 World Championship in May, new records were set for viewing, with 29 million BBC streams and 12.6 million TV reach in the UK, peaking at 3m for the final.

And that final, won historically by Zhao Xintong of China, picked up a casual cumulative audience of 180 million, from China’s state broadcaster.

That is astonishing, for what is essentially a pub sport.

The game is becoming global, and it’s something the UK is still quite good at.

Can we rock n roll that please?

I am no neo-Luddite, but Snooker is particularly appealing because it’s not been saturated with technology., that supposedly enhances the fan experience.

As a cricket and football fan, the use of DRS (Decision Review System) and VAR (Video Assistant Referee) has good intentions; to get the right decisions. But, both have become controversial at times, for both procedural and substantive problems.

On the procedural level, they take a lot of time. And decisions are still not always communicated to fans, or universally accepted, in part because laws are open to interpretation.

In Tennis, they’ve got rid of the line judges, while in cricket, teams can now burn three reviews an innings. How long before umpires just become glorified hat stands?

Replacing people with technology also means a lack of mediation between players, which in some sports is highly necessary. Ironically, in Snooker, it is, because of the amount of interaction between the players, for conceding frames, and decisions about replaying shots or asking the opponent to, or re-racking, for example.

Substantively, technology has become a problem in some sports, because it makes decisions binary, despite there being grey areas in the laws.

Either a player is offside, or they’re onside, either it is a handball or it isn’t a handball. That’s fine if it’s clear what a handball is, or in cricket, if a batsman has hit it. But it isn’t always clear especially when things happen quickly. Super-duper close up and slowed down cameras don’t always clarify things either, because fine the margins in elite sport aren’t easy to distinguish.

This leads to a problem in terms of the flow of a game.

It also leads to a problem which perhaps is not spoken about enough, in that this attention to minutiae isn’t something one can replicate, on a lower level.

Snooker doesn’t really have this problem.

The rules of snooker are unambiguously simple. There is rarely occasion when they are open to interpretation.

Coverage is quite straightforward too, they show the two players just playing snooker.

They show the relevant angles for the shots, and often will draw a line or two on the table, to indicate how a player might look to play a safety shot.

But there’s no over complication. No heat maps or funky cameras showing players weight distribution or body motions. And thank god, there are no* spider cameras asking for mid-frame interviews.

There are rarely even slow motion replays; what are you gonna do, have a clip of Mark Selby drinking some water?

Snooker already takes lots of time to play, so it’s almost a necessity not to have too much technology slowing it down.

And the substantive element, whenever there are contentious issues, is got around very simply: referees just ask someone staring at a screen in the room for help. Then they move on.

It’s a refreshing back-to-basics approach and it works for the sport itself.

It also works for fans, as they aren’t left in the lurch wondering what’s happened. Nor, are they drowning in a sensory overload of graphics and visual analysis.

Commentary which actually helps

Snooker is a very strategic sport, and with a lack of technology to explain what is happening, the commentators play a much more significant role than in other sports.

And for anyone who has been to these events, or watched them, you’ll now everyone in the audience has an earpiece in. Everyone laughs when the commentators make a joke. It’s deathly quiet, but it’s almost a silence of respect and the audience being engaged and engrossed in what’s happening.

Unlike in cricket, where TV commentary is more often than not a form of light entertainment, and the radio is largely descriptive (with lots of talk about cakes); Snooker’s commentators are there to not just describe the action - but actually explain why something is happening.

I like playing snooker, but honestly, I’m crap. A lot of it is whacking the ball and seeing where it goes, hoping for a good position. I don’t think one, two or three shots ahead.

Needless to say, professional Snooker players do. And the commentators can tell you their thought process, because many of them are either recently retired, or long retired; but all have been involved with the game for decades.

It adds value to the viewing experience.

The most accessible sport on the TV?

Snooker is popular at grassroots levels for, in my view, two reasons.

Firstly, it’s quite easy to play, and there are lots of pubs and snooker/pool clubs. I got myself a 10 year membership at one, and it wasn’t even remotely expensive . It’s a place of refuge in the winter, and there is genuinely a lovely community feel there.

The second, and most important reason, is IT’S ON THE BLOODY TV.

There I said it.

Not much live nationally watched sport is regularly on the BBC, or other terrestrial free to air channels, anymore.

Barring the odd inconsequential England football match, Rugby, Wimbledon and the FA Cup occasionally, most sport has gone to paid-for services like Sky and TNT. The cricket, the F1, the Premier League and golf, even the horse racing , have all moved away.

The model however that Snooker uses, reminds me of the Ashes 2005, where there was dual coverage on Channel 4, and Sky.

During the UK Championship this week, millions tuned into watch it on the BBC - but a friend of mine said he was watching on TNT, because he preferred the commentary.

This is a model which other sports should perhaps be mandated to follow by the government. Sport that is on paid-for services, should have to partner with a terrestrial television channel like the BBC or ITV, to ensure access for all.

For all the funding pumped into grassroots sport, the best way to get people engaged - from all backgrounds - is to stick it on the television.

At a crucial juncture

Snooker does a lot of things well, but it’s obviously not perfect.

First and foremost, there is a distinct lack of women. Televised snooker, is an almost entirely male-dominated sport. And really, there’s no good reason for it.

A fifty year old man with dodgy eyesight has no physical advantage over a 30-year-old woman. Women have become more established in their own right in just about every other sport on the planet, but Snooker seems to have largely evaded that.

It was of course positive, that Desislava Bozhilova recently became the first woman to referee the finals of all three Triple Crown events. But it can’t become a token. She said: “I believe from now on there will be more girls coming over”, but in truth this won’t happen by accident. It needs some proactive steps to get more women and girls involved.

Whether that is getting women’s Snooker on the TV more prominently, or establishing why there is a lack of interest, something has to change. Perhaps it’s owed to the bygone era, of Snooker being a game played in ‘smoke filled rooms’.

One of the most significant shifts in Snooker, is of courser the expansion to China.

In many ways it’s good. It brings in a huge new audience, and with that comes money.

But it also raises questions about the malign influence of a country which has used sport to spread its influence.

Snooker players are plastered with sponsors from China, the pockets have a sponsor from China, even Nongfu Spring’s water is a sponsor. And players look towards events in China, which are becoming more lucrative too.

The concern, is a loss of control over the sport, and this is a selfish point for a UK audience really.

The World Snooker Tour is currently run by a group of British white men.

Sport often changes hands when financial muscle talks, and China has already gone through somewhat of a sporting revolution with Snooker. The Ding Junhui victory in the UK Championship in 2005 set this in motion, and Zhao Xintong’s win at the Crucible, has power charged this movement further.

But while success breeds success, it also comes with risks. Snooker, a sport awash with betting, now has access to a massive Chinese market. And Xintong has already flown too close to the sun, being one of 10 Chinese players to be charged for match-fixing claims.

For all of Snooker’s benefits, particularly when it comes to UK broadcasting, interaction with the fans, connection with the grassroots, and a refusal to be saturated by technology and convoluted analysis - it’s at a crucial crossroads in many ways.

Those running the game know, that the sport has forever really, been run from the UK for a British-based audience. It’s all of a sudden expanding, especially in China and the far-east, and possibly diversifying, too.

As it continues this trajectory some key decisions have to be made about who controls the running of the sport, and how to ensure Snooker maintains its connection with a loyal and knowledgeable grassroots audience.

So I thought I’d add my perspective, as a long-condemned Middlesex and England fan.

Lots of speculation has been about England’s preparation, and their attitude. And it feels almost too easy to jump to that as a reason.

Subscribe now

After the first Test, Ben Stokes made a few telling comments, as reported by the BBC, which on face value are understandable. He said:

“If they think it is going to stop us enjoying this country when we have time off then it is not going to do that”.

After this comment, Ollie Pope told his teammates who went out on scooters without a lid, as per the law there, to wear a helmet. There was an awkward interview or two thereafter. Obviously this is a storm in a teacup, but England really should know how this machine operates by now. Every misdemeanour is going to be capitalised on.

Stokes continued, that: “Australia is the best country to tour away from cricket. There are so many things to do. You can go out and about and see things that only Australia has to offer, great golf courses, coffee shops and easy places to have lunch.”

He said that being able to “free your mind” and “enjoy yourself” is “one of the most important things” for players on tour.

“We are human,” he said. “We need to enjoy countries when we get the opportunity because we live in England where it is miserable, freezing cold and dark at 4pm.”

These comments made me really angry.

Yes Ben you are human. But, you are not on holiday. You’re the captain of England, this is your job.

England are there to play cricket, a career which most rubbish clubbies like me, would give an arm and a leg to do.

England should not need added motivation to play in the Ashes.

Sorry, but seeing the country, and “enjoying yourself” isn’t why any England player is there. It is a by-product, at best, of touring.

And needless to say, England fans are fully aware that in England it’s miserable, freezing, cold and dark.

The one ray of hope and sunshine, was seeing an England team compete in the Ashes; and instead, the first Test went two days, and the second Test; I wish went two days.

Meanwhile thousands of Brits have flown out to Australia, spending a huge amount of money on travel and tickets; only to be treated to a sub-par performance, whinging that England haven’t had enough down time, and after the second Test, Ben Stokes saying the team couldn’t deal with the pressure, and McCullum saying they ‘over-prepared.’

None of these external factors are good enough reasons or excuses for the performances.

Long term and short term preparation

Much has been made of England’s preparation for both Tests. Before the first, they were roundly criticised for not playing a proper warm up game, instead opting for some kind of intra-club affair.

Then before the second Test, which was a day/night game, England chose not to prepare with a pink ball game.

Only three fringe players went to Canberra for a match, Jacob Bethell, Josh Tongue and Matthew Potts; none of whom were used by England in the Test itself of course.

Curiously, England Lions won that Prime Minister’s XI game, with four of the top six notching up half centuries.

James Rew, who already has 14 professional centuries, scored 92*, while Jacob Bethell, who has just the one hundred in his career and has never got a First Class ton, failed.

Bethell is in the Test squad, and had been tipped to play from the start, while Rew is a reserve in the Lions.

This situation perfectly crystallises England’s approach, where potential trumps record.

The sanctimonious attitude of not needing to practice in the conditions they’ll be playing in is unforgivable. But the reliance on unproven players, needs much more careful examination, not least because it trashes the meritocratic nature of county cricket.

The disparity in which England and Australia approach this, is night and day.

Australia show why domestic cricket still rules

Australia, who were about to drop Marnus Labuschagne before the series, sent him back to the domestic game. He smashed five centuries before the Ashes.

Travis Head, who had a torrid time in the ODI series vs India, requested to go back to Shield cricket before the Ashes. He didn’t get many runs, but the attitude is key. He recognised the need to at least show willing, to get back into playing red ball cricket, as appropriate preparation for a Test match.

We all know what happened in the first Test. Now, there’s no way to know if that Shield game helped him prepare. But it’s certainly curious.

And it doesn’t stop there. Brendan Doggett played domestic cricket before his Test debut, taking 5/66 and 6/48 in consecutive games.

Steve Smith returned to New South Wales notching up a ton and two fifties (one unbeaten).

Cameron Green, a player plagued by injuries, returned to domestic cricket, smashing 94 before the series.

Alex Carey scored a pre-Ashes 50 and took 7 catches in domestic cricket, while Scott Boland bagged a five-for also.

And perhaps the most case in point selection by Australia, was Jake Weatherald, who was the top run-scorer in the Sheffield Shield last year, averaging 50.

It’s not rocket science, is it?

Playing cricket is good preparation, for playing cricket.

Rewarding those for doing well, might lead to the team doing well.

Rather have Dad’s army than a team acting like brats

Australia have been labelled ‘Dad’s army’ before the series, because of the age profile of their players, and the number of injuries piling up. Only Cameron Green is under 30 years old, while Pat Cummins and Josh Hazlewood were both unfit.

But unlike England, they are playing in the present.

In the first Test, without Cummins and Hazlewood, they turned to reliable domestic bowlers, who did the job bowling line and length; constantly coaxing hapless England into driving on the up.

In the second Test, they even had the luxury of not playing Nathan Lyon, as Michael Neser took five bowling the style of seam that you’d often see in English domestic cricket.

When I turned on the TV, they kept referring to his ‘shoebox’; meaning the very accurate grouping of balls he was sending down, in a small square outside off stump of the left-handers.

It was pooling all of his experience into the performance.

England ignored the reports about pitches in Australia being different to years gone by. They ignored reports about the ball offering more help than in previous years.

They packed their side with so-called pace, but not with match fitness. Heads dropped, paces dropped, and of course, catches were dropped; which is perhaps the most clear symptom of an underprepared team.

If England had been informed, even a little bit, by domestic performance over recent years, a line and length bowler like Ollie Robinson or Sam Cook, should have at the very least been in the squad, let alone the team.

What next for England?

I write this while England are two nil down. I don’t know what will happen in the third Test, but given England haven’t won a single game since 2011, with two whitewashes in that time, I am not hopeful.

I am resigned to the fact, that England will lose this series, certainly without winning a game; but probably five nil.

I think that’s existential for ‘Bazball’, but quite honestly, I am more worried about the levels of trust between England fans, and those in charge of running the game.

The ECB are asking for upwards of £100 for a ticket to Test matches next year. I already bought one before the Ashes, because I like to go to one Test a year if I can.

But quite honestly, I don’t know if I want to go anymore.

Certainly not unless something changes. Not unless this stubborn management decides to listen, instead of doubling down, and tripling down with each loss.

The first thing I would do, is look at domestic cricket.

I am not saying the top run scorers and wicket takers need to be automatically selected.

That would be daft.

But selectors, whoever they are post this tour; must start considering players who are the top run scorers and wicket takers.

England also need to abandon their absurd policy of picking players without any speakable record, other than being the ‘right kind of person’, or having ‘potential’.

It’s starting to really feel like an old boy’s club.

Fans might accept this when the team is doing well. But when they’re failing, and refusing to wrestle with why they’re failing, then fans will be vocal.

England’s captain and coach have tried to present this double loss as being the result of anything but the cricket.

But both structural problems, like county cricket being pushed to the fringes, and poor decisions from within that management, has led to this.

The Bazball cult’s failure to accept responsibility, its doubling down on poor decisions, and constantly blaming external factors for poor performance, is no longer acceptable.

Fans at home and in Australia deserve better.