You must be 18 or older to send us a story, photo or video.
By continuing, you confirm that you are at least 18 years old
and have permission to share the submitted material.
Tommy Robinson has criticised newly elected Holborn and St Pancras MP Sagal Abdi-Wali, reigniting debate over representation, community identity and political priorities in modern Britain. Share Political activist Tommy Robinson has sparked controversy after criticising newly elected Holborn and St Pancras MP Sagal Abdi-Wali, the politician chosen by local voters to succeed Prime Minister Keir Starmer in the constituency. In a social media post, Robinson accused the new MP of placing greater emphasis on her Somali heritage and community connections than on representing Britain as a whole. Referring to a speech in which Abdi-Wali spoke about community unity, Robinson suggested her loyalties were focused on Somalia rather than the constituency she has been elected to serve. The remarks have quickly divided opinion online. Supporters of Robinson argue that voters have a right to scrutinise elected officials and question where their priorities lie. Othe...
Why the King Will Not Apologise for Slavery: Why One Word Is So Difficult to Say
Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
Because some believe an apology is more than a word. It is an acceptance of responsibility.
The reason King Charles IIIis unlikely to issue a formal apology for slavery is simple: an apology is widely viewed as an acknowledgement of responsibility. While the King has expressed "personal sorrow" for the suffering caused by slavery and supported research into the monarchy's historical links to the transatlantic slave trade, Buckingham Palace has repeatedly stopped short of offering a formal apology. The Palace maintains that questions of apologies and reparations are matters for the British Government rather than the monarch.
For many campaigners, however, that distinction does little to address the wider issue. The transatlantic trafficking and enslavement of African people generated enormous wealth for Britain and benefited institutions that still exist today.
An historical depiction of Africans being marched into captivity during the era of the transatlantic slave trade. Millions were forcibly removed from their homes and subjected to centuries of enslavement in what the United Nations has described as the "gravest crime against humanity".
An apology would not undo that history, but supporters argue it would represent official recognition of the suffering endured by millions of people and the lasting impact on their descendants. Critics of the current position say expressions of sorrow, while meaningful, are not the same as accepting institutional responsibility.
The debate has taken on added significance following a landmark resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2026, which declared the trafficking and racialised chattel enslavement of Africans to be the "gravest crime against humanity". The resolution also recognised that claims for reparations are a legitimate step towards addressing historical wrongs and their enduring consequences.
This is why the refusal to apologise continues to resonate across the Caribbean and Africa. For many descendants of enslaved people, the issue is not about blaming individuals living today for crimes committed centuries ago. Instead, they argue it is about whether institutions connected to that history are prepared to acknowledge their role fully and participate in discussions about justice, repair and accountability. An apology, they believe, would be a powerful first step in that process.
The scarred back of an enslaved man, photographed after enduring repeated whippings. For many, images such as this are a reminder that the transatlantic slave trade was not an abstract chapter of history, but a system built on human suffering, violence and exploitation.
Meanwhile, Jamaica has chosen a different path. In 2026, the Jamaican Government submitted a petition seeking legal clarification on whether the enslavement of Africans constituted a crime against humanity and whether Britain has obligations arising from that history. The petition was referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, a move hailed by Jamaican officials as a significant moment in the pursuit of reparatory justice. Whether other nations will follow Jamaica's example remains to be seen, but the question at the heart of the debate is unlikely to disappear: if one of history's greatest injustices has been acknowledged, why does the word "sorry" remain so difficult to say?
