Chapter 7 of my open access textbook has just been released. This chapter focuses on homelessness experienced by racialized persons.

A ‘top 10’ summary of the chapter can be found here (in English):
https://nickfalvo.ca/homelessness-among-racialized-persons/

A ‘top 10’ summary of the chapter in French can be found here:
https://nickfalvo.ca/litinerance-chez-les-personnes-racialisees/

The full chapter can be found here (English only):
https://nickfalvo.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Falvo-Chapter-7-Racializ...

All material related to the book is available here: https://nickfalvo.ca/book/

Newsletter offer

Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.

Sign up

Outstanding trials for rape and serious sexual offences have reached a record high and now represent one in seven of all cases in the crown court backlog – up from one in 11 just five years ago, according to data analysis by Byline Times and the Criminal Bar Association.

The backlog of almost 67,000 outstanding cases in England and Wales has reached its highest-ever level – more than double four years ago – and is continuing to rise, according to Ministry of Justice (MoJ) statistics released yesterday.

The problem is most acute among those concerning rape and serious sexual offences (RASSO). In the past five years alone, the number of such cases awaiting trial has more than tripled to almost 10,000 – also a record.

Delays can leave women waiting many years for their complaints to be heard, which experts say risks them pulling out altogether, highlighting how some of society’s most vulnerable people are being “let down” by an “under-funded” criminal justice system.

‘Reckless to the Point of Madness’: How the Murdoch Empire Hacked British Politics

Journalist Nick Davies talks to Alan Rusbridger and Lionel Barber in Prospect magazine’s ‘Media Confidential’ podcast about the new revelations from the settlement by News Group Newspapers

Nick Davies

G, who had to wait almost two years for her rape case to come to trial, during which time the defendant twice broke his bail conditions and she attempted to take her own life, told Byline Times that the figures "make me feel physically sick". 

“They make me feel unsafe in society and fearful for other women, such as my daughter, " she said. "But not only are the waits for trials huge, even if women get to trial, they don’t get a fair trial. I got to trial and I regret it. I was let down by the criminal justice system. There is no fairness in the criminal justice system. There is no ‘justice’ system. The saddest thing is I would tell women who are raped not to go even go to the police.”

The figures, which relate to MoJ data for July to September this year, show a 23-year record high for the overall case backlog of 66,547, making Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s March 2025 deadline of cutting the backlog to 53,000 cases appear increasingly unlikely.

This includes a record RASSO backlog of 9,792, which has more than tripled (226%) from 3,005 in December 2018.

That number has increased 5% (from 9,337) in just three months from the release of the previous quarterly figures in June. 

The Criminal Bar Association says RASSO cases, which require specialist barristers and intense preparation, are “disproportionately impacted by long-term failure going back years” and are “symptomatic of an under-funded criminal justice system”. 

Trials are often listed but not called due to lack of court time, lack of a judge or lack of a barrister to prosecute or defend.

And, as most RASSO defendants are bailed, their hearings tend to be heard after those with remanded defendants who need to have their cases heard quickest in part due to record prison population numbers.

ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.

PAY ANNUALLY - £39.50 A YEAR

PAY MONTHLY - £3.75 A MONTH

MORE OPTIONS

We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.

Tana Adkin KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, said: “Complainants in rape and sexual offence cases need to know that they will receive sensitive and fair treatment in our courts and that their cases will not be delayed for years.

"RASSO cases require the most skilled barristers to conduct them, are witness intensive and require detailed and careful preparation at an early stage. Criminal barristers who specialise in RASSO are proud to prosecute and defend these often traumatic cases involving sometimes the most vulnerable of witnesses.  

“However, we need government to respect and invest in the expertise of the barristers who chose this work.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “People who break the law must face justice, and these figures show crown courts are now dealing with the highest number of cases than at any point since 2019.

“This is a direct result of our decisive action to let courts run at full throttle – like lifting the cap on the number of court sitting days, keeping nightingale courts open, and investing more in our buildings to deliver a modern and effective justice system, including in magistrates’ courts where more than 90% of criminal cases are dealt with.”

Newsletter offer

Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.

Sign up

My 34-year-old sister is currently more likely to die an avoidable death than at any other stage in her life, according to a shocking new report.

In the latest NHS-funded annual review of deaths among people with learning disabilities, a bleak line graph shows an “odds ratio of avoidable death for age group”, which peaks between the ages of 25 and 49.

Right now, I hasten to add, Raana – who has the learning disability fragile X syndrome – is in good health and is well cared for by her supported living staff in Hampshire. 

But the report lays bare how part of our population is less likely to receive good quality health and social care. This makes people like Raana less likely to survive health problems that, for most of us, are preventable and treatable.

Researchers at King’s College London, the University of Central Lancashire and Kingston University London reviewed the deaths of 3,648 people with a learning disability. Overall, almost half died an avoidable death – compared to two in 10 in the general population. The median age of death in was 63 years – around 20 years less than usual.

These terrible facts shame our modern, civilised society, one that on Human Rights Day this Sunday will mark the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Day. The day partly reflects equality 'for all'.

In contrast, the new report highlights a deep inequality. It reflects how learning disabled people from ethnic minority backgrounds are likely to die earlier, as well as those in deprived areas. It also warns of “excess deaths” caused by heatwaves related to climate change.

‘Nearly All Leading Voices in Learning Disability Advocacy Are White – This Must Change’

When the narrative is dominated by people who look different and don’t share ethnic minority experiences, the system will continue to fail, writes Ramandeep Kaur

Ramandeep Kaur

The findings are shocking enough, but equally unsettling is the fact that evidence of such premature deaths – and the actions needed to prevent them – are well-established, and have been so for years.

This is the sixth annual report of its kind (the deaths review programme began in 2017), and it is also a quarter of a century since Sheila Hollins, now a crossbench peer, led a report into the increased risk of early death among people with learning disabilities.

In the 25 years since, those original findings have been amplified by a multitude of similarly focused reports and inquiries exposing the significant health inequalities faced by this group of people.

This includes 2013’s Department of Health-funded Confidential Inquiry into the deaths of people with learning disabilities, two reports by Mencap in 2004 and 2007, a Disability Rights Commission study in 2006, and a Department of Health inquiry in 2009.

Just a month ago, an investigation by the watchdog Health Services Safety Investigations Body showed that hospitals put patients with learning disabilities at risk because their need are not met. It found the health and care system “is not always designed to effectively care for people with a learning disability”.

Of course, the investigations and research have laudable aims – to raise awareness, learn from and prevent avoidable deaths, improve care and reduce health inequality. But data alone does not dent entrenched structural inequalities – we need more effort, not just more evidence.

Successive governments – particularly the current one – instead seem content with facilitating and encouraging yet more data alone, while generally turning a blind eye to the recommendations suggested alongside it.

The actions raised by researchers involved in this latest report and previous ones include issues like prioritising people with a learning disability for vaccinations and boosters, a special focus on the health of people from ethnic minority backgrounds, and steps to make medical communication and appointments more accessible.

Yes, there are welcome developments from some with the power to act, mostly in response to campaigners. There is a greater push within some NHS regions for learning disabled people to take up annual health checks or the launch of accessible vaccination clinics, with reasonable adjustments as standard. And there is the roll-out of e-learning for health and care staff through the Oliver McGowan Mandatory Training in learning disability and autism. 

But none of this is widespread or proportionate to need.

The hearings in the COVID Inquiry are another reminder that the Government had no plan for disabled people – especially disabled people from black, Asian or ethnic minority backgrounds – despite their higher risk of death in the pandemic. 

Alongside the lack of specific action on the health of learning disabled people, the Government is also failing to tackle the wider determinants of wellbeing.

ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.

PAY ANNUALLY - £39.50 A YEAR

PAY MONTHLY - £3.75 A MONTH

MORE OPTIONS

We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.

For example, it dropped long-awaited plans to reform the Mental Health Act, excluding it from the recent King’s Speech. These reforms would have meant fewer people with learning disabilities being detained in secure units (a group that is detained, despite not having mental health issues).

And it gave lip-service to Baroness Hollins’ long-awaited report calling for an end to the long-term segregation of learning disabled people in secure units. More than 2,000 people are still locked away in these inappropriate, restrictive and traumatising places.

More generally, the public sector cuts, lack of funding for social care, and the Government's move to block family members of overseas care workers from coming to the UK, threaten the already fragile support that exists. This further undermines the safety net that keeps people from a healthcare crisis. 

No wonder then at the anger, sadness, disappointment and fear expressed by the Kingston University-based Staying Alive and Well Group, an advisory group of 10 people with a learning disability which informed the Learning from Lives and Deaths report. 

In a statement and accessible video released as part of the report, the group renamed the study “Spot the Difference” because “we are saying the same things year after year after year… we sometimes feel like we are banging our heads against a brick wall, like nothing has changed”.

It is devastating that the words of this expert group of people with learning disabilities are as accurate and relevant today as they would have been when research in this area began – 25 years ago: “Everyone should be treated equally. Everyone has the right to live and be cared for. People with a learning disability can live well with the right support, but our lives are not valued enough.”

Saba Salman is the editor of 'Made Possible: Stories of Success by People with Learning Disabilities – In their Own Words’. She is the chair of the charity Sibs, which supports the siblings of disabled children and adults

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

“Let’s face it, the universe is messy. It is nonlinear, turbulent, and chaotic. It is dynamic. It spends its time in transient behavior on its way to somewhere else, not in mathematically neat equilibria. It self-organizes and evolves. It creates diversity, not uniformity. That’s what makes the world interesting, that’s what makes it beautiful, and that’s what makes it work.”

Donella H. Meadows, Thinking In Systems: A Primer

The Mont Pelerin Society was founded in 1947 by Friedrich von Hayek. The tenets of its faith can be described best in the words of David Harvey in his book ‘A Brief History of Neoliberalism’.

“Neoliberalism is in the first instance a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade.”

Whilst it took a few decades for its proponents to win their arguments, since the 70s it has formed the backbone of political and economic thought that has driven public policy globally through national governments, and institutions like the IMF and the World Bank.

Mrs Thatcher was enamoured by Hayek and his book ‘Road to Serfdom’ which she read as an undergraduate at Oxford. It is reputed that at a Conservative party policy meeting, she took her copy of another of his books, ‘Constitution of Liberty’ from her bag, slammed it down on the table and declared, ‘This is what we believe’. From there, everything is history. Her insistence that ‘There is no such thing as public money, there is only taxpayers’ money’, provided the modus operandi for successive governments of all political stripes to implement policies that reflected Hayek’s political and economic beliefs.

It led to, as David Harvey also went on to say, ‘ the financialisation of everything … A power shift away from production to the world of finance’. It has overseen over those same decades the dismantling of public services, social security, deregulation and the breaking of labour and the unions, as well as huge increases in poverty and inequality.

Inevitably, this toxic philosophy has made the rich elite richer in what can only be described as an ongoing wealth grab. It has been responsible for the exploitation of some of the poorest countries in the world, who not only have had to watch as their own resources are plundered by Western corporations, but also have had to watch as their own existence is threatened by a climate crisis, not of their own making, but which keeps the profits of global corporations flying high.

Let’s fast forward to the present, where the consequences lie before us in all their horror. With a particular emphasis here on the UK and the effects of neoliberal dogma on the lives of citizens, which has resulted not just from decades of such policies, but the last 13 years of Tory austerity which have done so much damage to the public and social infrastructure meant to provide the foundations for a functioning economy and societal well-being.

Analysing the effects of austerity on the population, a study compiled by the Glasgow Centre for Population Health and the University of Glasgow (and debated in the House of Lords) ‘adds to the growing evidence of the profound and deeply concerning changes to mortality trends observed as a result of UK Government economic ‘austerity’ policies. These have slashed billions of pounds from our public services and social security system with devastating impacts. Without support, people have been swept up by a rising tide of poverty and dragged under by decreased income, poor housing, poor nutrition, poor health and social isolation – ultimately leading to premature deaths…’

The response to the pandemic which began in 2020, highlighted as nothing ever could, the effects of cuts to public spending on public health systems and social care services, and the inhumane effects of welfare reform on working people and some of the most vulnerable in our society. The human reality is shocking.

Last week’s Autumn Statement exposes not just that cruelty, but also highlights the false narrative upon which that cruelty is meted out by politicians, and the economic dogma which directs public policy and spending.

Jeremy Hunt was clear; ‘There’s no easy way to reduce the tax burden. What we need to do is take difficult decisions to reform the welfare state’. His Chief Secretary to the Treasury was even blunter, people must ‘do their duty’, get back to work, sick or not, or face the consequences, lose benefits. As if these were choices to be made by the sick or those struggling with their mental health, and not political choices borne of a political class that has lost its way.

As Ayla Ozmen at the Charity Z2K commented, ‘There is no evidence to support the idea that there are fully remote jobs available that are suitable for these groups. This is simply a cut for those of us who become seriously ill or disabled in the future and need the support of social security, and risks worsening people’s health and pushing them further from work.’

Frances Ryan, disability campaigner and journalist at the Guardian put it even more starkly. ‘The Tories are back monstering people on benefits.’ This was nothing to do she said, ‘with saving money’, but was, in fact, ‘performative cruelty’, ‘nothing more than a raid on the income of those who already have the least whilst being demonised by those with the most.’

We have, as she said, been here before. People died. It can be no accident. This is a deliberate choice by a currency-issuing government to inflict harm on those least able to defend themselves, and to be frank, those who have suffered more than their fair share of the politics of austerity and cuts to public spending.

The Spectator predictably chose a divisive headline for this month’s publication, ‘Britain’s welfare system is out of control,’ writing that, ‘the number of Britons claiming sickness benefits – 2.8 million – will still keep rising to 3.4 million by the end of the decade. Reversing this trend, it seems, is a political impossibility.’ 

The more accurate headline would have been, ‘Tory Government out of control’, since the reality is that government austerity lies at the heart of an ailing nation. A government displaying psychopathic tendencies couching its plans in the language of reducing debt, taking a responsible approach to public spending, and rewarding hard work. Language reminiscent of George Osborne in 2012 when he commented in a radio interview that it was, ‘unfair that people listening to this programme going out to work, see the neighbour next door with the blinds down because they are on benefits. The nasty party isn’t back, it never went away. It is depressing to note, equally, that the opposition, in its rhetoric about fiscal discipline and growing the economy to raise the revenue for public services, promotes the same lie that drives their proposed policies.

Household budget economics rules the roost. A narrative that is designed to deceive by shifting responsibility away from the government, to create an ever more divided society, whilst at the same time shovelling more and more wealth upwards as data published by Oxfam at the beginning of the year demonstrated. That the richest 1% of Britons hold more wealth than 70% of Britons.

This is a government already using its currency-creating powers to serve wealth, but covering its tracks by using a false narrative about how it spends, so it can justify cuts to spending on serving the public purpose. Whilst the poorest must ‘do their duty’ and sacrifice themselves on the pyre of austerity, this as the evidence shows, does not apply if you are wealthy, a corporation, or an arms manufacturer selling death and destruction. The, ‘there is no alternative’ slogan applies only if you are poor, hungry, homeless, old or sick. See the contradictions?

It’s not much better in the Labour camp.

Whilst Wes Streeting, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health & Social Care, on the same neoliberal wavelength, proposes an open door for the private healthcare sector, (ignoring the fact it’s been open for decades, in fact since Tony Blair), he claimed a few weeks ago that ‘the money simply isn’t there to continue NHS spending because the Tories have trashed the public finances.’

Streeting, like his Labour colleague Rachel Reeves, promoting the myth that there is a finite pot of money and the Tories have spent it all, which will require some fiscal discipline, which will in turn involve not being able to afford free school meals for all children, or a functioning NHS.

‘I’m not going to be able to magic money out of nowhere’, said Rachel Reeves with her serious, former economist at the Bank of England face. As if she couldn’t possibly know how government really spends. But in a horrible game of, ‘we’ll be fiscally responsible one-upmanship,’ she is effectively denying monetary reality and condemning people to more hardship. Well, not the corporations of course. They’ll come in for some star partnership treatment. Labour’s proposal for a ‘partnership’ with business, as if somehow it doesn’t have already the monetary tools it needs to create an economy that works for everyone, not just those that have sufficient power and influence to swing the rules in their favour.

Next up, we have Gordon Brown, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer for Labour, who just prior to the Autumn Statement, and in the same vein, advocated partnerships with big business and charities to address the growing poverty that has arisen out of the politics of Tory austerity and neoliberal dogma.

Heady words like Corporate Social Responsibility were banded about by the man who advocated deregulation and a light-touch government, praising the City of London for its achievements. All just before the financial sector came crashing down around our ears and the government was forced to bail it out, using those elusive currency-issuing powers the current government is denying long-suffering citizens. His light touch led to the politics of austerity by the Tory government, the dismantling of public and social infrastructure, cruel welfare reform, food banks and growing homelessness, all based on a false narrative of how government spends.

Dear Gordon, we don’t need big business or charity to sort out this avoidable disaster. With 3.8 million people, including one million children, destitute in Britain today, what we need is a government that is politically motivated to change things for the better to give people the tools they need to live productive lives that enrich their existence and not condemn them to a life of penury. We need politicians to embrace how money really works, not the lie that passes for reality.

While Gordon Brown calls on companies to step in, the new Chair of the Charity Commission vowed to crack down on ‘squeamish charities accepting donations’ and accused wealthy British citizens of ‘not pulling their weight when it came to charitable giving.’ A little bit of philanthropy does you good, apparently, not to mention reducing the tax bill.

Putting aside the proposed crackdown on squeamish charities in an era when ethical and moral considerations have been thrown out of the window by a political class more concerned with serving the dictates of the US hegemon and its corporate masters, anyone demonstrating such values should be praised not castigated.

As we have said many times before, charities are a failure of government. Their purpose is to mitigate a rotten economic system designed to exploit and impoverish some people and enrich others. Whether charities like the Trussell Trust feeding hungry people or the myriad charities supporting the homeless living in temporary accommodation or on the street, they function as an alternative to state involvement in serving public purpose.  This was the point of Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ to shift responsibility into the wider society.

Such charities are now struggling to meet growing need as a result of government-imposed austerity that has ironically led to cuts in their funding. This is a government-created vicious circle deriving from the politics of austerity, the demonisation of deficit and public debt, and a market-driven neoliberal ideology that favours a small state, with charitable provision of welfare, and privatised public services acting not in the interests of citizens, but rather the state acting as a cash cow for private profit.

It also derives from a toxic ideology of personal responsibility designed to absolve the state from any duty of care for its citizens. This has involved blaming and shaming people for what we are told is personal failure. Just what the neoliberal doctor ordered to keep citizens poor, downtrodden, divided and struggling to survive by forcing them to sacrifice themselves to preserve the economic status quo for the already excessively wealthy.

A status quo which is transferring more wealth into the hands of corporations and wealthy individuals who, in turn, are then invited to do their bit and donate to charity. As if people are dependent on their philanthropy, their goodwill, on their largesse to keep body and soul together. A fabrication that rests on the false notion that the government needs taxes to spend.

This narrative is constructed on the lie that government spends like a household budget, that its sources of funding are taxation or borrowing. Economic well-being depends on neither. It depends on a government that puts the needs of citizens as a priority to create a functioning economy and a healthy, thriving society. That in turn depends on the political decisions a government makes as the currency issuer, imposer of taxes and legislator. Decisions about how real resources are distributed and to whom. In fact, we are talking here about the sort of society we as citizens want to live in.

Instead, we are told that our economic and social well-being is dependent on the state of the public finances, whether the economy is growing enough to afford public services, or for those on the left, how much we will need to tax the wealthiest to pay for public infrastructure.

We are living a destructive lie that is readily promoted by a self-serving media. The daily round of nonsense that passes as monetary reality.

Whether it’s Philip Inman in the Guardian suggesting that since the days of cheap investment credit are over, chancellors must find a different source of revenue, namely increased taxes, The Times implying that a lower borrowing bill will give the Chancellor some ‘fiscal headroom’, as if he’s suddenly found a few more quid in the pot to spend or deliver a tax cut because of it. Or indeed, Andrew Neil, who explained to his attentive audience in the Daily Mail, that ‘the bond markets are where governments go to borrow money from investors […] when their spending plans exceed the amount they are able to raise in tax.’ Apparently, we need to ‘free ourselves from their tyranny.’  ‘The era of big government, cheap money and untrammelled borrowing is over’ he said.

Presenting the public accounts as if the government were a business or private individual that has to cut back in hard times or borrow to fund its spending because it has a limited pot of money. The Treasury gnomes working hard to balance the books, find some spare money down the back of the sofa, rob Peter’s department to pay Paul’s, or beg the capital markets for a loan. All rubbish.

As Professor Bill Mitchell notes, ‘debt issuance is a redundant part of the process… a hangover from past currency arrangements.’ Clearly the media hasn’t caught up. This is the con that drives public policy decisions and leads people to believe that government’s primary role is to balance the accounts, rather than deliver a functioning, stable and sustainable economy, the corollary of which is societal well-being.

The bottom line is that lower interest rates for government borrowing make no difference at all to the capacity of government to spend, or indeed cut taxes.

The cost has been high and will continue to be. Neither of the main political parties frames its role as an initiator of public purpose, rather they think they are Dicken’s Mikawber borne again. We have two political parties obsessed with fiscal discipline, whilst at the same time aiming to shift responsibility into the wider economy and society through partnerships with business or charity. Full on neoliberalism. Full on Hayek vision for government and society.

This is how the government and ones in waiting, and media lackeys like Andrew Neil keep the public trapped in a lie about how government spends, by presenting government finances as a household budget. It serves as an ideologically driven justification for cuts to public spending, not because it’s necessary, but to keep the neoliberal stranglehold in place which is about dismantling public infrastructure and enslaving citizens. This is what Andrew Neil supports. This is the big lie that distorts reality and will ultimately be the death of us if we fail to grasp its fundamental importance to our survival.

According to this narrative, money is a scarce commodity. Which it is not. The role of government is not to balance the books, but to serve its citizens. To decide how real resources are distributed and to whom, through its spending, taxation and legislative policies. It should be pretty obvious by now, who the current beneficiaries are, the corporate estate, the military machine, and those with excessive wealth, power and influence.

This distribution is a political choice driven by ideological aims and it is regrettable that those seeking progressive change are still caught like rabbits in Mrs Thatcher’s headlights. There is a lot at stake. A liveable planet where world citizens have their needs met and crushing poverty and inequality cease to be the norm. When a Labour spokesperson justifies Rachel Reeves watering down her green transition pledges because of the state of the public finances, and that fiscal rules were more important than any policy, you know that without a doubt we are in serious trouble.

What happens in the wider economy starts at the top with the government and flows down resulting from its spending, taxing and legislative policies. We need to understand that the state of the public finances is an irrelevant sideshow and that the real test is what government has done to ensure a functioning and balanced economy, that respects the planet and the human beings that depend on it for their survival.

We need as a matter of urgency to understand what a functioning democracy, with an informed public no longer willing to throw themselves on the pyre of harmful austerity could achieve. The art of the possible to save humanity from a political class intent on serving the interests of a small group of people, not to mention their own interests through the revolving door. As Jason Hickel notes in his book ‘Less is more: How degrowth will save the world.

“When people live in a fair, caring society, where everyone has equal access to social goods, they don’t have to spend their time worrying about how to cover their basic needs day to day – they can enjoy the art of living. And instead of feeling they are in constant competition with their neighbours, they can build bonds of social solidarity.”

It is currently no more than an aspiration for change, but the struggle must continue to make it a reality for humanity.

Join our mailing list

If you would like GIMMS to let you know about news and events, please click to sign up here

Support us

The Gower Initiative for Money Studies is run by volunteers and relies on donations to continue its work. If you would like to donate, please see our donations page here.

Share

Tweet

Whatsapp

Messenger

Share

Email

reddit

Pinterest

tumblr

Viber icon
Viber

The post The empire of lies (and its consequences) appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.