Rebel Justice

98. Why Defending Juries Matters When Protest Is Criminalised with Sir Jonathon Porritt & Dr Juliette Brown

• Rebel Justice - The View Magazine • Episode 98

Share episode

Send us a text

We sit down with Dr Juliette Brown, an NHS consultant psychiatrist and climate activist facing a retrial after a hung jury, and Sir Jonathan Porritt, a leading environmental thinker who has returned to civil disobedience, to explore how conscience, health, and the law collide in today’s UK.

Together, we unpack Defend Our Juries, the grassroots campaign centred on a simple principle: jurors have the right to acquit according to conscience. We look at how tightened protest laws, expansive uses of counterterror powers, and stricter bail and remand conditions have chilled speech and civic action—while solidarity networks have flourished to support defendants, coordinate court solidarity, and keep the public informed. When juries hear the whole story, they often reflect community standards better than any statute book; when they are denied that context, justice risks becoming mechanical and brittle.

If you care about the right to protest, jury equity, climate justice, and the health of our democracy, this conversation offers clarity. 

Credits

Guests: Sir Jonathon Porritt & Dr Juliette Brown

Producer: Charlotte Janes

Soundtrack: Particles (Revo Main Version) by [Coma-Media] 

Support the show

For more unmissable content from The View sign up here

Host:

You're listening to Rebel Justice, the podcast from The View magazine. When we think about justice, we think about it as an abstract. Something that happens to someone else, somewhere else. But justice and the law regulate every aspect of our interactions with each other, with organizations, and with the government. We never think about it until it impacts our lives or those of someone close. Our guests are women with lived experience of the justice system. Whether as victims or women who have committed crimes, people at the forefront of civic action who put their lives on the line to demand a better world. We ask them to share their insight into how we might repair a broken and harmful system with humanity and dignity. We also speak with people who are in the heart of the justice system, creating important change. Judges, barristers, human rights campaigners, mental health advocates, artists, and healers. Across the UK, a quiet crisis is unfolding inside our courtrooms. Ordinary people, teachers, doctors, students are standing trial for peaceful acts of conscience accused of crimes for trying to draw attention to the greatest existential threat humanity has ever faced. And while the government continues to license new oil fields and criminalize protests, another battle is taking place. The fight to defend the integrity of our legal system itself at the centre of this struggle is defend our juries, a grassroots movement challenging what it calls the erosion of one of our oldest democratic safeguards the right to a fair trial by a truly independent jury. Their message is simple but radical. Jurors have the absolute right to acquit a defendant according to their conscience. It's a principle etched in stone at the Old Bailey, but increasingly one that's being silenced in our courts. In today's episode, we're joined by two remarkable guests who are helping to illuminate these deep moral questions at the heart of justice. Dr. Juliette Brown and Sir Jonathan Porrit. Juliette is a consultant psychiatrist working in East London and the clinical lead for environment, sustainability and climate action across the capital. She is a member of Medact and Psych Declares, groups of health professionals taking collective action on the climate emergency. Juliette was recently one of six health workers tried for criminal damage after taking part in a nonviolent protest at JP Morgan's London offices, an act intended to highlight the bank's role in financing fossil fuel expansion. The jury in that case was unable to reach a verdict and she now faces a retrial in 2026. For Juliette, this is not just about protest, it's about integrity. Her work, both as a doctor and an activist, rests on the recognition that our health is inseparable from the health of the planet. She speaks with the clear-eyed compassion of someone who understands that psychological and planetary well-being are deeply intertwined. Sir Jonathan Porrit is one of Britain's most respected environmental thinkers and campaigners. For over fifty years, he's worked at the highest levels of politics, business, and civil society. From his time as director of Friends of Earth and chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission to co-founding Forum for the Future, a global sustainability charity working with businesses and government to accelerate systemic change. He's advised world leaders, written landmark books on sustainable development, and continues to champion intergenerational justice as one of the defining moral challenges of our time. His most recent work, Love, Anger and Betrayal, written in collaboration with young Just Stop Oil activists, gives voice to a generation who feel abandoned, a generation who see their futures burning whilst they're punished for trying to save them. Together, Julia and Jonathan embody two sides of the same truth that conscience is both personal and collective, and that defending the right to act according to it is inseparable from defending democracy itself. In this conversation, we'll explore what it means to stand up for moral integrity in an era of criminalized protest, why climate activism has become a matter of public health and psychological survival and how defend our juries is holding the line against a growing culture of repression in the UK's courts. We'll also ask the deeper questions What is justice when the law itself protects those driving ecological collapse? How do we resist despair and hold on to hope in a system that punishes care and rewards destruction? And what does it really mean to act as a citizen, a doctor, or a human being when the cost of silence has become too high? Thank you both for being with us today. Can you each briefly introduce yourselves and explain how you became to be involved in Defend Our Juries?

Juliette Brown:

Hi, I'm Juliette Brown. I'm an NHS consultant psychiatrist. So I kind of work with people with severe mental health problems in a very culturally diverse, economically deprived, and environmentally polluted part of East London. I guess for me it's sort of like it starts from health being a very political issue. So we have entire sort of economic, social, environmental policies and systems that are incredibly damaging to the health of our communities. I've been involved for a long time in environmental activism and also anti-racist work and queer politics and more recently kind of with climate activism and with activism around Palestine and Gaza. And I've been involved in Defend Our Juries for a few years now.

Jonathon Porritt:

Hi, I'm Jonathan Parrit. I've been um involved in the world of sustainability and um human rights for 50 years or so. And I first started working with Defend Our Juries as a consequence of the work I was doing with um 26 young just top oil campaigners and watching how they were being treated more and more repressively in the court system after their arrest with no opportunity to explain why they have done what they've done and all that kind of stuff, which Juliettete's also very familiar with. And at that point, Trudy Warner began to suggest that this was an absolutely appalling direction of travel for justice in the UK. And defend our juries at that point started by defending the right of jurors to make decisions according to their conscience. And that I started then holding signs outside various courts for various cases, trials that were going on. And then, of course, defend our juries evolved into now one of the most important organizations, I think, in the UK around the whole campaign for uh lifting the ban on Palestine action. And I've stayed involved in that um since then.

Host:

And you briefly mentioned it, but for those listeners who aren't aware, what is Defend Our Juries and why does it matter right now?

Juliette Brown:

So, I mean, it's a campaign that started sort of on the back of a whole series of trials in which defendants were denied the right to explain their motivation. So these were kind of trials of particularly climate activists. We've seen in the last kind of eight years a huge rise in the numbers of people who are willing to risk being arrested around the climate crisis, um and also, I guess, more recently, around Gaza and Palestine. And we saw when those cases came to trial, people were being acquitted by juries when they had the chance to hear the motivations of defendants, um, which is absolutely how the jury system is supposed to work as a kind of corrective to what are essentially kind of politically motivated trials of people who are trying to prevent arm and protect life. So, as a response to those acquittals, um, some would say that the government sort of changed the goalposts and made some very big changes to the laws around protest kind of around 2022, 2023, which heavily restricted our rights to protest. And kind of picking up on the mood music around protest, I think judges then started to become much more restrictive around uh people's ability to describe why they took the actions that they took. So that the kind of rights of juries to hear the true story, um the whole truth from defendants were being severely restricted.

Jonathon Porritt:

Absolutely. I think I'm interested in Juliette's terminology there of picking up on the mood music. I'm afraid I'm much more paranoid about this than Juliette. I'm absolutely certain that although there is meant to be, of course, clear lines between the Attorney General and the Home Secretary and what happens with the judiciary in their courts, I'm absolutely certain that they were instructed to close down on the rights of defendants once their trials were underway. I mean, that cannot have happened accidentally because it was systematic to begin with. Now, it's still the case, of course, that an individual judge will allow defendants to explain what their motives were and why they've done what they've done. And we're still getting acquittals even now. We had a case recently with Sam Holland, one of the Just Stop Oil campaigners and his colleagues, he's one of the co-authors in the book. And the judge in his case did allow them all to talk about why they'd done what they'd done. And hey, presto, the jury found them not guilty. So this is, you know, this is a really critical moment for justice in the UK. You can repress and repress and repress, but eventually, if you've still got an opportunity to explain to a jury what has driven you to that point, what your motivation has been, what your concerns are, and to give an indication of just how deep those moral convictions are, very often juries will continue to acquit rather than to find guilty, even if the judge in that case says you have no choice but to find these people guilty, which is what they always try and do.

Host:

Given what you've said, why do you feel that trial by jury is so important in a democracy?

Jonathon Porritt:

Yeah, well, I guess to a certain extent, the fact that juries will continue to acquit, or and Juliette can speak more to this than than I can, to not find guilty, as it were, so which is what happens on certain occasions, seems to me to be the ultimate test. And that's why now with the Palestine Action, the lift the ban campaign on the prescription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, with more than 2,000 people who have now found themselves charged under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act, the real story now is whether all of those cases are going to go to a Crown Court and to be heard by juries. Because if that's the case, the judicial system and the government has got itself in a right pickle. Because I think most people feel if it ever comes to that point that when juries hear what it is that motivated people to hold that sign up in Parliament Square or Trafalgar Square or wherever it might be, they're going to say, this government is bonkers. This is not, this has nothing to do with terrorism. And that's what I think reinforces the case for juries as the final arbiter of what is or isn't legally binding here in the UK. Not that jurors always get it right, as we know, but they sure as hell are there as a final defender of justice.

Juliette Brown:

Yeah, as Jonathan said, there were a number of trials where defendants were being acquitted, including, I think, Palestine Action's first trial, I think 2022 or 21, that they were acquitted having been able to explain why they did what they did. Yeah, I mean it's it's it's kind of vitally important. It's um, I think every trial is is kind of hinges on the character of the defendants and the the kind of context, you know, the who and the why of why someone's done what they're accused of. So it's I mean, it feels very wrong for people not to be able to explain the motivations, which you know is what led to kind of truly warner's actions and um the whole kind of obviousness of Defend Our Jury's campaign, um, both around jurors' rights in general, but also around the proscription of a non-violent direct action group as terrorists, which is, you know, I think frankly ridiculous to most people.

Host:

So on the podcast, we've previously spoken with Professor Ben Saul and Mothers of the Filton 24, and recently Dr. Sarah Benn, as well as that you mentioned the prescription of Palestine action, as well as further increases in legislation around protest. How do you see the government and lobbyists trying to undermine this principle of democracy or trial by jury?

Jonathon Porritt:

Well, I've kind of pitched in with making an outrageous allegation that the government has actually instructed the judiciary as to what they should do to close down proceedings in courtrooms. I have absolutely no evidence for this, obviously, Charlotte. Um, but I don't really believe in coincidences at that high level across state institutions. I think things happen for a political reason. Um there is now, of course, as I imagine listeners will know, Charlotte, there's a massive controversy already emerging as to how the defendants under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act, how those charges are going to be heard in magistrates' courts, and they're already trying to come up with a novel and expeditious way of processing hundreds, thousands of people through magistrates' courts in the first instance, um, to ensure that the system is somewhat less clogged up than it is otherwise going to be. I mean, this is ludicrous. We've already got cases, many, many cases involving civil disobedience running through the whole of 2026 and into 2027. I think, Juliette, you're caught in that logjam of crazy delays in the court system. So having to have put through another 2,000 people and knowing at the end of the day that there is literally no space in our prison system for any of them is the sort of height of the surrealism that surrounds this entire process. So I guess there are very high-level discussions going on between the uh justice departments, the home secretary, the attorney general, the court system. I mean, it it must be well, we know it's a nightmare to them. And it's a nightmare to the police who are having to make all these arrests who know perfectly well they're probably not going to go anywhere anyway. Such is justice in the UK at the moment, Charlotte.

Juliette Brown:

We know that kind of as far back as 2019, 2020, Rishi Sunak was boasting that policy exchange, who were funded by the fossil fuel industry, had helped to draft those anti-protest laws. Um, we know that the government has met with representatives from Elbit Systems and from the Israeli government who have put pressure on them around Palestine action and kind of specifically around designating as a terrorist organization. Um, we know that Lord Walney, the former Labour MP who produced a report on protest, was kind of bloating the idea of calling people terrorists a few years back. Um, and you know, that's very much kind of played out in the way that Palestine Action, who are an explicitly non-violent group, a peaceful direct action group, have now been designated in this way. At the same time, the people who've taken action with them who are being treated kind of under terror laws, even though some of them are not charged with terror offences. So we're kind of seeing the use of remand a lot more for certain types of protesters and lots of restrictions on association and bail restrictions that are much more draconian than they have been in the past. And I think it's it is fairly obvious that it is the result of pressures from the arms industry and the fossil fuel industry.

Host:

Absolutely. Uh Jonathan mentioned, Juliettete, you're being held up in the long queue, I guess, of trial. As a health professional, your daily work is about care and protecting life. What led you to direct action?

Juliette Brown:

Um, I think there's a kind of there's a sort of obvious framing that the climate crisis and genocide are a health issue. You know, we talk about the future of the climate crisis, but even even today, you know, 40,000 people are dying every year from air pollution. I took direct action with a group from Health for Extinction Rebellion, which is uh a group of around two or three hundred health professionals who are directly involved in direct action around climate justice. Uh, we cracked the glass at JP Morgan Bank, who were the biggest investor in new fossil fuel funding in the week of the 40-degree heat wave in the UK. And we stood trial last year, which resulted in a hung jury. So the jury couldn't decide in that case. So we're we're kind of due to be retried in February next year. I think for health professionals who are engaged in kind of health justice work, it's really that understanding that you know we can give politicians as much information as we like about the climate crisis. But if they're being corrupted by vested interests, then no amount of information is going to change things and lead to the action that we need to protect people's lives right now, so as well as in the future. Um, so if we kind of you know look at the history of social justice struggles, we know that it takes more than just asking for us to achieve a kind of fair and just world. The way that people are being treated now is as if some lives are completely expendable, and that's obviously very troubling to all of us, um, and in particular troubling as a health professional to kind of see that in our communities. You know, we see people dying from these conditions on a daily basis.

Host:

And then speaking about the work Defender Juries does, when you were in court the first time, did you feel you were able to fully explain your motivations to the jury?

Juliette Brown:

So there were myself and five other health professionals. Um, and we had, I guess, in some ways, one of the more lenient judges who gave us the opportunity to speak in the full knowledge that we had no legal defence and that he would be able to, as judges can, or judges do, instruct the jury with how they should find in our case. So I feel, I mean, we did have that opportunity to to kind of explain our motivations, um, which you could speculate was part of what led to a hung jury. At the same time, the process is very kind of opaque. You're not allowed to talk about jury equity.

Host:

Quickly for listeners, just to clarify what you mean by jury equity, if they haven't perhaps heard the phrase before.

Juliette Brown:

So juries are independent, essentially. So they are supposed to make a decision uh around guilt or innocence on the basis of the facts that they've heard, but they're not held accountable for those decisions. Nobody can harm them in any way as a result of the decision that they make. So it's it's a you know really fundamental right that they have to make their own minds up and to take into account the kind of bigger picture, which the law sometimes just cannot grasp. You're not allowed to talk about jury equity in court. It's just something that would kind of lead to contempt of court. Although in some cases people have kind of been brave enough to do that. Some of us were represented by lawyers who were kind of brave enough to tell the stories around jury equity as part of their summing up. But yeah, it's it's a it's a really difficult one because it's not something that people are allowed to kind of know about. So it's a right that people are not allowed to hear about when they they sit as jurors. They kind of have to guess that it's okay for them to make up their own minds.

Jonathon Porritt:

The only jurors who do get an opportunity to understand jury equity at first hand are those jurors that are impaneled in the old Bailey. Because as they walk in through the door of the old Bailey, there on a plaque on the wall is this summary of what jury equity really means, which reminds jurors that they have an absolute right to make a decision according to their conscience. Um, of course, they probably don't read it as they walk in because they go straight through into whatever part of the old bailey it looks like. But it is amazing how little this is referred to in court. And I again I suspect that is not accidental.

Host:

Absolutely, thank you. Um Jonathan, you've had a long career advising government on environmental issues. Was there a tipping point, perhaps, though, where you felt that working inside the system wasn't doing enough?

Jonathon Porritt:

Um there wasn't one tipping point. I mean, I started my life as a sustainability activist back in the 70s with the Green Party and Friends of the Earth. So for me, I then the fact that I then spent 30 years trying to advise governments and businesses about how important it was to wake up and understand the nature of the climate and crisis in one way or another, was just me trying to work inside a system that I felt at various points was open to a different way of interpreting their responsibilities. But after 30 years, I'd come to the conclusion that that was not making much headway. So I just um decided to revert to my more natural campaigning persona, which was what kept me busy between 1974 and 1990. So it's um, yeah, I've sort of come around full circle. And then I then I fell in with uh Just of Oil. I started supporting Just Off Oil when they launched in March 2022, then began to get to know some of the young campaigners for Just Off Oil, who were also involved in Insulate Britain and some of them even in Extinction Rebellion, going right back to 2018, and started working with them and interviewing them and got to know them, um, and became obviously much more committed then to the urgent need to justify the importance of civil disobedience in all of these different issues, whether it's the climate crisis or Palestine or so many other things, to be honest, civil disobedience is a crucial part of how we bring that much more radical voice to bear on systems that are often closed off from hearing those messages. And that's why I got more involved with Palestine Action because youth demand, a little bit of the just stop oil family, youth demand had actually carried out joint actions with um Palestine Action. And I got to talk to some of them at that time. So then decided like hundreds of thousands of people in the UK had been on the Palestine Solidarity marches, and you could see the way the government was just literally waving these astonishing outpourings of public sentiment. And we've never seen marching like this in the UK, sustained over nearly two years, and I think 32, 33 marches organized in this way, often involving tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people, hardly ever mentioned even in the media. So for me, it then became really important to actually join those who were holding up the sign in Parliament Square and to um yeah, to get involved personally at that level. Not quite sure how I feel now about being a suspected terrorist, but it's okay. There's a level of surrealism to it, which keeps me smiling as well as keeps me wondering what the hell is going to happen next.

Host:

Thank you. As you mentioned, I'm sure everyone's seen on social media, on the news, and even previous guests that people have been arrested simply for holding signs or sometimes even half-written, half-blank signs. What do you feel this says about the state or free expression in the UK?

Jonathon Porritt:

Honestly, I I think it borders on tragedy. It's just astonishing to watch the entire legal, judicial, police system grind into action to close down on thousands of almost entirely upstanding citizens of the UK, most of them middle, if not old age, and most of them just commenting on the fact that an organization like Palestine Action, as Juliette's already said, should never have been prescribed as a terrorist organization. It's quite a lot of interest at the moment, Charlotte, going back to the original debates in Parliament when the Terrorism Act was first brought into Parliament as a bill and then became an act. And a lot of people are now going back to the debates that happened at that time, involving some very eminent parliamentarians at that time, and listening to the then Home Secretary Jack Straw justified the decision to include in the Terrorism Act this little clause that causing damage to property, extreme damage or serious damage, I think is the actual wording to property, was a legitimate inclusion under the Terrorism Act, even though everybody else was saying, do not do that, because that does not meet the criteria for what terrorism is. It absolutely does not demonstrate that you're dealing with an organization that intends to threaten or use violence against people. And the Hansard debates at that time are astonishing. Now, all those reassurances given by Jack Straw and Tony Blair and all the rest of the year 2000 worth absolutely diddly squat. This this government, this uh the Tory government initially, and now the Labour government decided to interpret that part of the Terrorism Act in such a way that damage inflicted on property. Um, I think Juliette and her colleagues are probably quite lucky not to have been arrested under the Terrorism Act, because I think JP Morgan claimed that you cause whatever it was, hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage to those fancy windows that you were chipping away at. Um you were certainly causing severe damage to property, but they decided not to come down on you as a terrorist organization, as it were. But you can see how arbitrary this becomes. Just stop oil doing their protest, blocking traffic on the M25 by holding up the just stop oil signs. How much economic damage did that cause? I mean, if you actually calculate the consequences of that from an economic point of view, it's a big number. But obviously, the government decided not to go after just stop oil as a terrorist organization because they knew they would not be able to get away with it. But they wanted to shut Palestine action up once and for all because it was, uh, as Juliette said, so effective in its campaigning against Elbit and other Israeli arms manufacturers.

Juliette Brown:

I think this is, I mean, it shows the importance of solidarity across different parts of the kind of resistance movements. I think it's so it's remarkable actually that we have so many people who are willing to kind of sit and be arrested under terrorism laws. Some of them who've never been to protests before, some of them people who are who are sort of quite established and have been arrested themselves in the past, including kind of people who've taken direct action against um military bases in in the kind of 80s and and 90s, and not been treated as terrorists for having done so. And lots of people who you know you would normally sort of think of as quite establishment figures, you know, people like Jonathan. Um we had a former editor of the British Medical Journal who's been arrested under the Terrorism Act for holding that sign. 24 health workers at least have been arrested in the last few months in this lift the ban campaign, you know, former RAF people and you know, lots of lots of different people from all kinds of walks of life, including descendants of Holocaust survivors who are kind of making a stand against Zionism and the effects of it. And those people are, you know, very much standing in solidarity with the predominantly younger people who are on remand at this very moment, kind of waiting months and months for trials with Palestine action. And with the challenge to the prescription ban, so standing very much in solidarity and saying, you know, we have to draw a line here and protect what's left of our democratic rights, um, because this is you know a very serious threat to our democracies. Yeah, and we're seeing you know, people's bank accounts being frozen completely inexplicably, lots of very harsh bail conditions for people, dawn. Raids on people who are perceived as organizers of this campaign, Zoom calls getting shut down, you know, websites mysteriously crashing for defend our juries, lots of you know, attacks in all different ways.

Host:

So looking forward, what risks do you see if the government succeeds in undermining the jury system?

Jonathon Porritt:

I haven't been in front of a jury yet, uh, Charlotte, personally, unlike Juliette, who clearly has, and now we'll have to do it all over again in February of next year. And I know that talking to a lot of the Justop Oil young campaigners, that these can be really intimidating processes. I mean, it's not much fun going through these trials. And for many of them, they were representing themselves rather than having barristers or solicitors to do it. So it's quite an extraordinary thing to have to face up to at that age, with the whole of the rest of your career being influenced by whatever it is that happens in that particular courtroom at that particular time, facing that charge with that group of 12 people sitting in front of you. So it's a it's a formidably challenging thing to have to go through. I know that from having talked to so many of them, but it is absolutely critical that it should not, must not be undermined any further. And of course, you can hear all sorts of voices now in the background saying that maybe we've reached the point where we should limit the use of jury trials for all sorts of other charges or offenses, whatever it might be. Maybe this is the time where we streamline things by cutting down the number of cases that come before a jury. And we all know that those are symptoms of the slippery slope as we further weaken our judicial system and further undermine our democratic entitlements and rights. So I'm genuinely very apprehensive about all of this. And one of the reasons why I'm I'm along with so many other people, why I think this is the moment to stand up for those rights, the basic rights to protest, freedom of speech, etc., etc., is that this is a moment where they're at greater risk than they've ever been before.

Host:

The UN has said that Britain's restrictions on protests and jury trials are not acceptable in a democracy. What can listeners do to help fight against the scenario that Jonathan's just described?

Juliette Brown:

All of these kind of actions, um, all kind of political struggle of any kind sort of takes an awful lot of support outside of the kind of arrestable sphere. So that you know there are many, many ways in which people can show their solidarity and support without themselves being arrested. We know that that option is not available to everyone, but there's lots of kind of support networks around these kinds of actions that people can get involved with.

Jonathon Porritt:

I think that's so important, Julia. Um I I've never been involved in the world of NGOs for 50 years. I've never seen a more active, caring, compassionate support structure. The the support networks are astonishing. So I do have the people who may still feel nervous about wanting to actually hold the sign itself. Don't think, okay, that's it, I can't help here, because people really can help here without necessarily having to do that themselves.

Host:

Thank you again to Julia and Jonathan. We've heard today that defending our right to conscience and to a fair trial is not a luxury. It's a living, breathing cornerstone of democracy carried forward by ordinary people choosing to act with extraordinary integrity. If you want to learn more about the work highlighted in today's conversation and the legal principles at stake, we encourage you to educate yourself, stay informed, and keep the conversation going. This moment asks all of us to pay attention to refuse silence where injustice is being normalized. At Rebel Justice, we believe that defending the right to think, speak, and act according to conscience is a cornerstone of any truly democratic society. And as we've heard today, that foundation is being tested in our courts, in our climate, and in the lives of those who refuse to look away. If this episode has raised questions for you about the right to protest, the power of juries, or the future of climate justice, we encourage you to continue exploring these issues. Because in the end, the law is only just when it protects the people who protect each other. You've been listening to Rebel Justice. If you'd like to support our work and receive four digital editions and one print issue a year, subscribe to the View for just £20. Make sure to follow us on our social media. We're on Instagram at the underscore view underscore magazines. And you can also find us on LinkedIn, X, and TikTok. If you'd like to reach out to us directly, you can email inquiries to us at press at theview magazine.org. Please share this story.