Social Media

Texas Children Suffer Vitamin A Poisoning Amid Measles Outbreak Following RFK Jr's Claims Texas hospitals are treating children for vitamin A poisoning after Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the U.S. health secretary, promoted the supplement as a measles treatment. Covenant Children’s Hospital in Lubbock, Texas, has reported a small number of cases in which children, initially treated for measles, also displayed signs of vitamin A toxicity affecting liver function, Texas Public Radio reported. Similar cases have also been noted in neighboring New Mexico. Both Texas and New Mexico have been among the hardest-hit states in what experts warn is the worst U.S. measles outbreak in years, despite the disease being declared eliminated in the country decades ago. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed almost 500 measles cases across 21 states as of March 28—a staggering 360 percent increase from the previous week. Dr. Ashish Jha, former White House coronavirus response coordinator and current dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, told ABC News on Monday that the country is “on track to have the worst measles outbreak of this century.” The majority of those infected—97 percent—were unvaccinated, and two individuals have died, marking the first measles-related deaths in the U.S. in a decade. Kennedy, who has long been associated with vaccine skepticism, recently claimed in a Fox News article that vitamin A “can dramatically reduce measles mortality.” He further stated that the U.S. government is “delivering vitamin A” to West Texas to combat the outbreak and that doctors are seeing “very, very good results.” While Kennedy has expressed support for vaccines in general, he insists that immunization remains a “personal decision.” However, experts warn that his promotion of alternative treatments risks creating confusion among parents about how best to protect their children. Dr. Peter Hotez, co-director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, cautioned that such messaging could lead to dangerous consequences. “If people have the mistaken impression that you have an either-or choice of MMR vaccine or vitamin A, you’re going to get a lot of kids unnecessarily infected with measles,” he told CNN. “That’s a problem, especially during an epidemic. And second, you have this unregulated medicine in terms of doses being given and potential toxicities.” There has been a reported surge in demand for cod liver oil in Texas, which is naturally rich in vitamin A, indicating that parents may be administering the supplement at home as a measles treatment. However, excessive intake can result in toxicity, leading to headaches, nausea, vomiting, and, in severe cases, liver damage. In pregnant women, excess vitamin A can also cause birth defects. Although vitamin A can play a role in managing measles symptoms, experts stress that it should only be used in a controlled hospital setting. “Like much of what RFK says, there’s always a kernel of truth, which he sort of manipulates to legitimize the things he’s saying,” said Dr. Anita Patel, a pediatric critical care doctor in Washington, D.C. She explained to the Huffington Post that while vitamin A has been shown to reduce measles mortality, “high doses that you would never administer by yourself at home” are required, and only under medical supervision. A recent CDC advisory acknowledged that vitamin A supplements could be a therapeutic aid for measles but reaffirmed that vaccination remains the most effective prevention. The MMR vaccine, available in the U.S. as a two-dose regimen, has a 97 percent efficacy rate in preventing measles, according to the CDC. Based on a report by The Telegraph 2025-04-05

Fencer Disqualified After Protesting Match Against Transgender Opponent Stephanie Turner, a fencer representing the Fencing Academy of Philadelphia, was disqualified from competition after she refused to face transgender athlete Redmond Sullivan during a Division 1A Women’s Foil event at the Cherry Blossom tournament held at the University of Maryland. Turner took a knee in protest before the match, resulting in her receiving a black card — a sanction typically reserved for severe breaches of conduct or unsportsmanlike behavior. Having completed four matches that day, Turner found herself set to face Sullivan in the next round. Turner later explained her decision to protest rather than compete, stating, “I saw that I was going to be in a pool with Redmond, and from there I said, ‘OK, let’s do it. I’m going to take the knee.’” She added, “I knew what I had to do because USA Fencing had not been listening to women’s objections. I took a knee immediately at that point.” Turner recounted that Sullivan was unaware of her intentions and initially believed something was wrong. “Redmond was under the impression that I was going to start fencing. So when I took the knee, I looked at the ref and I said: ‘I’m sorry, I cannot do this. I am a woman, and this is a man, and this is a women’s tournament. And I will not fence this individual.’” She continued, “Redmond didn’t hear me, and he comes up to me, and he thinks that I may be hurt, or he doesn’t understand what’s happening. He asks: ‘Are you OK?’ And I said: ‘I’m sorry. I have much love and respect for you, but I will not fence you.’” Sullivan, who had previously competed in the men’s division, had transitioned and joined Wagner College’s women’s fencing team. Following the incident, USA Fencing publicly supported Sullivan, reaffirming its commitment to its transgender athlete policy introduced in 2023. In a statement, USA Fencing said, “USA Fencing enacted our current transgender and non-binary athlete policy in 2023. The policy was designed to expand access to the sport of fencing and create inclusive, safe spaces. The policy is based on the principle that everyone should have the ability to participate in sports and was based upon the research available of the day.” The organization acknowledged the ongoing debate, stating, “We understand that the conversation on equity and inclusion pertaining to transgender participation in sport is evolving. USA Fencing will always err on the side of inclusion, and we’re committed to amending the policy as more relevant evidence-based research emerges, or as policy changes take effect in the wider Olympic and Paralympic movement.” USA Fencing clarified that Turner’s disqualification was not based on her personal views but on the violation of competition rules. “In the case of Stephanie Turner, her disqualification was not related to any personal statement but was merely the direct result of her decision to decline to fence an eligible opponent, which the FIE [International Fencing Federation] rules clearly prohibit.” The statement concluded, “USA Fencing is obligated to follow the letter of those rules and ensure that participants respect the standards set at the international level. We remain committed to inclusivity within our sport while also upholding every requirement dictated by our governing body.” The incident drew sharp criticism from tennis legend Martina Navratilova, who took to social media to denounce USA Fencing’s actions. “This is what happens when female athletes protest! Anyone here still thinks this is fair??? I am fuming... and shame on @USAFencing, shame on you for doing this. How dare you throw women under the gender bulls--- bus!!!” Based on a report by The Telegraph 2025-04-05

Labour Under Fire as Foreign Secretary David Lammy Spends Over £1 Million on Private Jets in Three Months David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, has come under scrutiny after revelations that he spent more than £1 million on private jet travel in a single quarter, despite Labour’s earlier promises to crack down on the use of expensive ministerial flights. The significant expenditure, totalling £1.2 million between October and December 2024, places the spotlight on the party’s commitment to frugality and transparency while raising questions about potential hypocrisy. According to a report by the Guido Fawkes political blog, the bulk of Lammy’s travel expenses—around £1.1 million—were for private jet usage. This equates to more than £14,000 per day over the three-month period, a figure that has prompted criticism given Labour’s prior stance on the use of such aircraft by government officials. Although there is no indication that Mr. Lammy’s use of private jets deviates from the practices of previous foreign secretaries, the revelation comes at a politically sensitive moment. Labour ministers, including some of Lammy’s most senior colleagues, have previously condemned the Conservative Party for similar spending. Rachel Reeves, now serving as Chancellor, stated in October 2023 that a Labour government would “crack down on Tory ministers’ private jet habit.” At the time, she pledged that her party would “enforce the ministerial code on the use of private planes and save millions of pounds for taxpayers in the process.” Similarly, Angela Rayner, now Deputy Prime Minister, criticised former foreign secretary Liz Truss for relying on private jets, claiming such travel habits revealed “exactly quite how little respect this Conservative government has for taxpayers’ money.” The current situation has left Labour open to accusations of double standards. The Conservative Party faced similar scrutiny when former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak used private jets and helicopters during his general election campaign. At the time, Labour lambasted Sunak as being “out of touch” with the public. Following the recent revelations, Andrew Murrison, a former Conservative minister, described the actions of “newly-minted ministers” like Lammy as “jaw-dropping” and accused them of hypocrisy for “hopping on and off” private jets shortly after taking office. Mr. Lammy was reportedly under fire for his use of a private plane to travel to New Delhi within weeks of his appointment. In response to mounting criticism, Lucy Powell, Leader of the Commons, remarked: “I’m glad he raises that point because we’re actually having a debate this afternoon on trust in politicians and politics, as this Government brings forward its manifesto commitment to take action on the sleaze and scandal and cronyism we saw in the last Parliament.” A spokesperson for the Foreign Office defended Lammy’s travel expenses, stating, “At a time of significant global upheaval, it is vital that the Foreign Secretary can travel abroad – often at very short notice – to defend and champion the UK’s interests. Ministerial travel plans are decided with consideration of the best use of a minister’s time and overhead costs, in line with established practice by successive governments. These costs are consistent with his predecessors in the previous government. This Foreign Secretary remains committed to ensuring the most cost-effective way of travel, delivering best value for money for the taxpayer.” The controversy underscores the challenges facing Labour as it navigates the responsibilities of government while holding on to promises made in opposition. Based on a report by The Telegraph 2025-04-05

Title: Iran Withdraws Support from Houthis Amid Intensified US Airstrikes Iran has begun withdrawing its military personnel from Yemen, signaling a sharp shift in strategy as the United States increases its airstrikes against the Houthi rebel group. The move marks a significant turning point in Iran’s longstanding support for regional proxy groups, driven by Tehran’s desire to avoid a direct military clash with the United States. A senior Iranian official revealed that the decision was primarily motivated by concerns over the possibility of Iranian soldiers being killed during US attacks. “Every meeting is dominated by discussions about [Trump], and none of the regional groups we previously supported are being discussed,” the source said. Iran is reportedly narrowing its focus to deal directly with what it perceives as the more pressing threat from Washington, especially in light of the growing assertiveness of former US President Donald Trump. Since leaked group chat messages from Trump’s inner circle exposed the planning of the strikes, the US military has launched near-daily attacks targeting the Houthis. These airstrikes, described by Trump as “unbelievably successful,” have decimated key military infrastructure and eliminated several Houthi commanders. The Pentagon has remained tight-lipped about specific operations but confirmed that additional aircraft are being deployed to the region. The 124th Fighter Wing recently announced the dispatch of multiple A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft and 300 personnel to bolster operations in the Middle East. Meanwhile, a Russian military advisor based in Sanaa is reportedly assisting the Houthis in refining their offensive tactics while steering them away from targeting Saudi Arabia. Riyadh, which has been engaged in the Yemeni civil war since 2015, continues to host US-Russian talks aimed at resolving the war in Ukraine. In the Red Sea, the Houthis claim to have launched attacks on US naval vessels, including the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman. While no hits have been confirmed, the US Navy characterized the intensity of Houthi fire as the most severe since World War II. The USS Carl Vinson, another carrier currently stationed in Asia, is en route to the region to support these operations. Donald Trump on X: These Houthis gathered for instructions on an attack. Oops, there will be no attack by these Houthis! They will never sink our ships again! The Iranian regime appears to be re-evaluating its regional priorities. “The view here is that the Houthis will not be able to survive and are living their final months or even days, so there is no point in keeping them on our list,” the Iranian source added. “They were part of a chain that relied on Nasrallah and Assad, and keeping only one part of that chain for the future makes no sense.” Trump’s administration has made no secret of its intent to pressure Iran back to the negotiating table over its nuclear program. The recent deployment of B-2 stealth bombers to the Diego Garcia base underscores Washington’s more aggressive stance. “The strikes are connected to the maximum pressure campaign that he has endorsed,” said Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House. “He wants to simultaneously send a message to Iran and to the axis of resistance that his administration is going to take a bolder approach to destabilising regional activities.” Mahmoud Shehrah, a former Yemeni diplomat now with Chatham House, observed a dramatic shift from the Biden-era “defensive strategy” toward more assertive US military action. Speaking from Amman, he said: “The previous miscalculation about the Houthis in the US had made Trump carry heavier strikes against them now and [the US] have started to target individuals and key actors of them.” Shehrah also noted that the Houthis now possess advanced weaponry, surpassing other Iranian-backed groups in capability. “After the collapse of Hezbollah and Assad’s regime, the Houthis are now on the front line,” he said. “They get missiles and drones from Iran and rebrand them with Houthi names because they don’t want to show they have links with Iran because of domestic propaganda.” Israel’s successes against Hezbollah and Hamas have further eroded Iran’s regional influence. Analysts believe Tehran’s failed missile response to Israel last year weakened its deterrence credibility and demoralized its allies. In Syria, Bashar al-Assad’s fall to rebel forces in December dealt another major blow to Iran’s proxy network. With Hezbollah’s reach diminished, the Houthis have stepped up as Iran’s most active remaining proxy. Since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel, the Houthis have expanded their missile and drone capabilities and taken a more prominent public role. They exert control over Sanaa, manage finances, smuggle contraband, and disrupt global shipping routes. Yemen’s rugged terrain allows them to hide their weapon stockpiles in caves, much like fighters in Afghanistan. “They are not experienced like Hezbollah but are more aggressive and more dangerous at the same time,” said Shehrah. “Abdul Malik al-Houthi has an ambition of leading the axis of resistance. Yemeni streets are full of anger – the Houthis are not paying salaries and have absolute taxation with zero representation, so the social base for the Houthis is not very strong, that’s why they rely on the Gaza war.” With Iran stepping back and the US stepping up, the future of the Houthis looks increasingly uncertain. Based on a report by The Telegraph 2025-04-05 Related Topic: US deploys “overwhelming lethal force” against Houthis in Yemen

Tony Blair Cautions Starmer Against Retaliation Over Trump Tariffs Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has advised Labour leader and current Prime Minister Keir Starmer not to retaliate against newly imposed U.S. tariffs, warning that a tit-for-tat response would not be in Britain’s best interest. Speaking to students at King's College London, Blair commended Starmer for maintaining a calm and measured approach after President Donald Trump announced a 10 percent tariff on all British exports to the United States. “I don’t think it is in the U.K.’s best interest to retaliate,” Blair said, as first reported by The Independent. He applauded what he described as Starmer’s “cool heads” strategy, suggesting that avoiding escalation would better serve the long-term health of U.K.-U.S. relations. The British government has confirmed it is working to secure an economic agreement with Washington that could lead to the removal of the tariffs. Treasury Minister James Murray acknowledged on Sky News that discussions with businesses were ongoing to identify areas where the tariffs would cause the least damage to British firms. “We want to involve businesses in that decision, and we need to be clear that we keep all options on the table,” Murray said. “We reserve the right to retaliate, but we want a deal, and our full focus is on that.” In remarks made Thursday, President Trump claimed that Starmer had responded positively to the U.K.'s exemption from a harsher 20 percent tariff, which was instead applied to goods from the European Union. “We have a very good dialogue,” Trump said. “I think he was very happy about how we treated them with tariffs.” Blair, who led Britain from 1997 to 2007 and maintained a close relationship with Republican President George W. Bush, also expressed unease over Trump’s apparent wavering support for NATO. Reflecting on the 1990s conflict in Kosovo, Blair recalled the pivotal role of American military power and emphasized the importance of transatlantic cooperation. “It became clear to me that we could never have done it without the Americans,” he said. “I thought, ‘This is crazy — what happens if the Americans decide they don’t want to be part of it?’” According to Blair, efforts to encourage greater European defense contributions were quickly entangled in political debates around Euroskepticism, hindering long-term progress. Blair’s comments appear aimed at preserving the so-called "special relationship" between London and Washington—a diplomatic priority throughout his premiership—and come at a moment of economic tension and political recalibration. As Starmer navigates a delicate balancing act between defending British economic interests and maintaining transatlantic goodwill, Blair’s message is clear: confrontation may feel justified, but diplomacy is likely the wiser path. Based on a report by Politico 2025-04-05

UK Police Arrest Two Men Suspected of Links to Hezbollah Cell In a significant counter-terrorism operation, London’s Counter Terrorism Command has arrested two men believed to be connected to the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. One of the individuals, a 39-year-old man from North London, is suspected of preparing acts of terrorism and being involved in funding terrorist activities. Authorities allege that he was also a member of a proscribed organization, a designation that includes Hezbollah under UK law. The arrest took place on April 1, as part of a broader investigation focused on the activities of Hezbollah both in the UK and abroad. A second suspect, a 35-year-old man, was detained in west London on suspicion of membership in the same banned group. The Metropolitan Police confirmed that the investigation is centered on Hezbollah, one of the most heavily armed non-state actors globally. Aligned with Iran, Hezbollah has been actively engaged in hostilities against Israel, particularly alongside the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Over the past year, the group has sustained considerable losses. Searches related to the case were conducted at five different locations across northwest, southwest, and west London, as well as in Essex. Despite the nature of the investigation, authorities have stated that there is no indication of an imminent threat to the public. Commander Dominic Murphy, who leads the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command, emphasized the importance of addressing terrorist activity regardless of where it is focused. “Terrorism and terrorists have a global reach and impact and the activities of terrorist groups overseas can harm communities here in the UK as well as causing devastation to those abroad,” he said. “Our investigation remains ongoing, but I hope that these arrests show we will take robust action against anyone here whom we suspect as being involved in terrorist activity regardless of whether their activity is focused here in the UK or elsewhere.” The two suspects have been released on bail until mid-July, pending further investigation. Based on a report by Sky News 2025-04-05

Westminster Council’s “Privilege Test” Sparks Backlash over Race-Based Hiring Practices Westminster City Council, one of the UK’s most prominent Labour-run local authorities, has ignited a national debate after instructing its staff to undertake a “privilege” test and adhere to new hiring protocols prioritising “global majority” candidates over equally qualified white applicants. The controversial initiative is part of a broader effort to address unconscious bias and align council staff demographics with Westminster’s population, where 45 per cent of residents identify as part of the global majority—a term used to describe black, Asian and multiple ethnic groups that make up the majority of the world’s population. As part of the council’s diversity and inclusion strategy, managers must now complete mandatory unconscious bias and inclusive recruitment training. If a hiring manager fails to shortlist a global majority candidate, even when such a candidate is available but deemed unqualified, they are required to consult directly with Stuart Love, the council’s chief executive. According to documents seen by The Telegraph, hiring managers are also advised to seek further guidance if no global majority applicants come forward, before they can proceed with the recruitment process. Employees are offered a virtual “privilege walk” quiz to assess their level of social advantage. This interactive assessment assigns or deducts points based on indicators such as whether a participant’s parents read to them as a child, whether they own a new car, or if they have never been stopped by police. Being a white male scores +15, while deductions occur for those with disabilities, illnesses, or those living in rented housing. Staff are asked to reflect on their privilege scores and anonymously share their insights at the end of the exercise. The diversity strategy has been spearheaded by Mr Love, who has led Westminster City Council since 2018. He has attributed his dedication to equality to his personal experiences growing up in apartheid-era South Africa. “We should all be woke, but particularly in local government where we are delivering services to communities,” Mr Love told Management Today. He added, “When things have gone wrong here, I’ve heard people say it’s because I’m too ‘woke’ or I’m focusing on the ‘woke agenda’. But all this has done is double down on my efforts.” Critics have argued that the council's approach prioritises identity over merit and potentially contravenes anti-discrimination laws. Conservative MP Neil O’Brien denounced the policies as “racist hiring policies on an industrial scale.” He wrote in The Telegraph, “If all this is not breaking the law, it certainly should be. It shows how far the public sector has drifted from the idea of meritocracy.” O’Brien further criticised the requirement for managers to consult with the chief executive if they do not shortlist a global majority candidate, even when qualifications may not be met. “This is a deliberately opaque part of the process, presumably intended to lead to the production of such a candidate,” he said. In defence of its policies, Westminster Council maintains that all appointments are based on merit. A council spokesman said, “Westminster City Council’s recruitment policies are industry standard, entirely consistent with UK employment law and have been in place for a number of years. We are committed to ensuring all candidates can compete for a range of roles and we actively promote ourselves as an inclusive employer.” The council also distanced itself from the virtual privilege walk, describing it as a PowerPoint presentation from 2021 that does not form any formal part of policy, training, or recruitment. Nonetheless, critics argue the council’s practices reveal an inconsistent and politically motivated approach to representation. O’Brien pointed out that while black residents make up 8 per cent of Westminster’s population, they represent over 20 per cent of council staff, whereas Arabs—8 per cent of the population—comprise only 1 per cent of employees. “In reality, there is no attempt to really be ‘representative’ of their local population. Some groups are regarded as more equal than others,” he said. He concluded that Britain is drifting from principles of equal treatment, asserting, “Instead of your ability or the content of your character, in Britain your ability to get funding or a job increasingly depends on your skin colour. This is the opposite of the vision of Martin Luther King. Ironically, it resembles the naked racism of the old South Africa.” Based on a report by The Telegraph 2025-04-05

ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan Faces Retaliation Allegations Amid Misconduct Probe International Criminal Court (ICC) Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan is under increased scrutiny as United Nations investigators expand their inquiry into allegations of sexual misconduct to include accusations of retaliation against whistleblowers within his office. According to five sources briefed on the investigation, the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) is examining whether Khan demoted or otherwise punished staff who either reported the original allegations or expressed concern over how the situation was handled. Three sources with direct knowledge of the probe revealed that at least four staff members were demoted by Khan following their involvement in the internal reporting of misconduct or criticism of his response. All five sources requested anonymity, citing fears of reprisals. The original allegations emerged last October, involving accusations of sexual misconduct against a female lawyer who reported directly to Khan. While the investigation into the alleged misconduct continues, the new focus on potential retaliatory behavior significantly raises the stakes for the prosecutor, who is at the center of some of the most politically sensitive legal cases in the world today. Khan’s legal team, Carter-Ruck, firmly rejected the accusations in a written statement. “We refer you to what our client has said previously in this regard, including his firm denials. You will appreciate that our client cannot be expected to provide a running commentary on these matters,” the law firm said. “He has not engaged in sexual misconduct of any kind and nor, to be clear, has he engaged in any ‘retaliatory behavior’ as alleged.” Despite the ongoing investigation, Khan has vowed to remain in his role and continue his work. He has previously described the timing of the original complaint as coinciding with a disinformation campaign aimed at undermining the ICC. Under his leadership, the court has launched or advanced high-profile investigations into global figures including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Putin over the alleged deportation of Ukrainian children during the war in Ukraine. A separate warrant for Netanyahu accuses him of war crimes in Gaza. Both Russia and Israel deny the charges and reject the legitimacy of the ICC’s jurisdiction, as neither country is a member of the court. The ICC’s investigation into Israel has provoked international backlash, particularly from the United States, which has imposed sanctions on Khan. The court’s president has warned that such actions threaten the very independence and functionality of the ICC. Meanwhile, Hungary announced its withdrawal from the court just as it welcomed Netanyahu for a state visit, signaling broader geopolitical consequences tied to Khan’s prosecutions. Although the UN investigation has not yet resulted in Khan being formally questioned, the ongoing inquiry by the OIOS is expected to delve deeper into both the misconduct and retaliation claims. The ICC and OIOS declined to comment on the matter, and the court’s governing body stated it would not release further information until the investigation concludes. Based on a report by Reuters 2025-04-05 Related topic: UN to Lead Investigation into Sexual Misconduct Allegations Against ICC Prosecutor

Russell Brand Faces Multiple Charges Amid Historical Sexual Assault Allegations Comedian and actor Russell Brand has been formally charged with a series of serious sexual offences, including rape and sexual assault, following a long-running investigation sparked by media reports. The Metropolitan Police confirmed that Brand, 50, is due to appear before Westminster magistrates’ court on Friday, May 2, where he will face charges including rape, oral rape, indecent assault, and two counts of sexual assault. These charges stem from alleged incidents involving four separate women between 1999 and 2005, with the offences said to have taken place in both Bournemouth and London. According to Scotland Yard, the specific allegations include the rape of a woman in 1999 in the Bournemouth area, as well as the oral rape and sexual assault of another woman in 2004 in Westminster. Brand is also charged with indecently assaulting a woman in 2001, and sexually assaulting a fourth woman between 2004 and 2005, both of which also allegedly occurred in Westminster. In response to the charges, Brand issued a public denial through a video posted on X, stating, “I’ve never engaged in non-consensual activity. I pray that you can see that by looking in my eyes.” He added, “I want to thank all of you for your continuing support. Of course I am now going to have the opportunity to defend these charges in court and I’m incredibly grateful for that.” Detective Superintendent Andy Furphy of the Metropolitan Police, who is overseeing the investigation, emphasized the importance of ongoing support for the women involved. “The women who have made reports continue to receive support from specially trained officers,” he said. “The Met’s investigation remains open and detectives ask anyone who has been affected by this case, or anyone who has any information, to come forward and speak with police.” He provided details of a dedicated team available via email and highlighted the availability of support services through Rape Crisis and its 24/7 helpline. The charges follow a major joint investigation by The Times, The Sunday Times, and Channel 4’s Dispatches, which brought to light a number of allegations about Brand’s conduct towards women. Brand has previously denied all accusations, asserting that his past relationships were consensual. In September 2023, the Metropolitan Police acknowledged receiving contact from potential victims across the UK, launching an inquiry that resulted in Brand being interviewed under caution on three occasions. The investigation has involved cooperation between the Met and a special police unit established after the Jimmy Savile scandal, dedicated to investigating historical sexual offences. Following a 13-month inquiry, a file of evidence was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in November. Jaswant Narwal of the CPS said, “We have today authorised the Metropolitan Police to charge Russell Brand with a number of sexual offences. We carefully reviewed the evidence after a police investigation into allegations made following the broadcast of a Channel 4, Sunday Times and Times investigation in September 2023. We have concluded that Russell Brand should be charged with offences including rape, sexual assault and indecent assault. These relate to reported non-recent offences between 1999 and 2005, involving four women.” She added a reminder that criminal proceedings are ongoing and that Brand is entitled to a fair trial, urging the public to refrain from online commentary that could prejudice the case. Russell Brand, originally from Essex, rose to fame in the early 2000s as a television personality before making a successful leap to Hollywood. Known for his turbulent past, including struggles with addiction in his youth, Brand later became a vocal advocate for recovery and mental health. His media career includes roles on MTV, BBC radio, and appearances in films such as Get Him to the Greek and Arthur. His personal life has often been in the spotlight, from his short-lived marriage to pop star Katy Perry to his current role as a father and husband to Laura Gallagher. In recent years, Brand has reinvented himself as a digital influencer and wellness advocate, producing online content that includes spiritual teachings, yoga, and commentary on social and political issues. Last year, he publicly embraced Christianity, describing his baptism in the River Thames as a chance “to die and be reborn.” Based on a report by The Times 2025-04-05 Related Topics: Russell Brand Duped by Hoax Claiming British Sitcom Star Killed JFK BBC Apologizes Amid Review Into Russell Brand Allegations Russell Brand and why the allegations took so long to surface Russell Brand: BBC and Channel 4 investigate allegations Russell Brand posts new video claiming government wants to censor him

U.S.-Russia relations are on a political rollercoaster, with President Donald Trump navigating between flashes of frustration and flashes of familiarity when it comes to dealing with Vladimir Putin. Recent developments have thrown the relationship into sharp focus once again, particularly after Putin proposed replacing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s administration with a United Nations-led “external governance” body. Trump made clear that he was not pleased with Putin’s comments. “I was disappointed in a certain way, some of the things that were said over the last day or two having to do with Zelensky,” Trump said on March 30. “Because when [Putin] considers Zelensky not credible, he's supposed to be making a deal with him. Whether you like him or you don't like him.” Following a day of golf with Trump, Finnish President Alexander Stubb told The Guardian, “I think America, and my sense is also the president of the United States, is running out of patience with Russia.” In line with that tone, Trump issued a warning that secondary tariffs of up to 50% on Russian oil exports could be on the table if Moscow continued to stall peace negotiations with Ukraine. Yet Trump’s warning paled in comparison to the hard line taken by a bipartisan group of U.S. senators, who drafted legislation that would impose a staggering 500% secondary tariff on nations that continue to buy Russian oil, gas, and other resources. These sharp responses came as a surprise to many in Russia, where state media had recently been celebrating what they saw as warming ties between Washington and Moscow. Just last month, Nezavisimaya Gazeta claimed that U.S. and Russian officials had “started speaking the same language.” That optimism did not last. On Wednesday, Moskovsky Komsomolets lashed out at the Trump administration, accusing it of “administrative insanity… inexperience… immaturity.” The paper derided the administration’s “bragging and arrogance” and mocked its eagerness to claim “huge breakthroughs” when barely a first step had been made. Meanwhile, Komsomolskaya Pravda noted, “On Ukraine talks, Donald's mood changes as often as the wind.” Despite these criticisms and signs of cooling relations, there were still gestures suggesting some diplomatic openness. Notably, Russia was excluded from Trump’s latest list of countries hit by sweeping new tariffs. Instead, the U.S. granted a sanctions waiver for Putin’s foreign investment envoy, Kirill Dmitriev, who then traveled to Washington for direct talks with Trump officials. This momentary reprieve suggested that behind the harsh rhetoric, backchannels of cooperation remain intact. However, any hope for a detente was short-lived. By Friday, another stern message came from Washington. During a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio made clear that the Trump administration was growing impatient. “President Trump's not going to fall into the trap of endless negotiations about negotiations,” Rubio said. “We will know soon enough, in a matter of weeks, not months, whether Russia is serious about peace or not.” He added, “If they're not, then we'll have to re-evaluate where we stand and what we do moving forward about it.” This sentiment was echoed by America’s NATO allies. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy said, “Putin continues to obfuscate, continues to drag his feet. He could accept a ceasefire now, he continues to bombard Ukraine… We see you, Vladimir Putin, we know what you are doing.” Speculation that Trump and Putin were set to speak by phone on Friday was met with yet more confusion. While initial reports hinted at a call, the White House appeared to change course, and the Kremlin announced that no conversation was planned. Still, reports surfaced that American companies are planning to attend the upcoming St. Petersburg Economic Forum, leaving the nature of U.S.-Russia ties as murky as ever. The chaos leaves observers dizzy. It’s hard to keep pace with the constant shifts in tone, threats, and overtures. As the columnist put it bluntly: “Okay. Stop the ride. I need to get off.” The bigger picture, though, remains troubling. For months, Trump’s team avoided openly criticizing Putin and his full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Key figures like special envoy Steve Witkoff have been accused of parroting Kremlin talking points. While Washington now claims to be growing impatient and is threatening sanctions, nothing concrete has yet been enforced. Based on a report by BBC 2025-04-05

Title: Trade Turmoil Deepens as U.S. and China Lock Horns Over Tariffs Tensions between the United States and China are intensifying, with both sides showing no signs of backing down in a spiraling trade war that has left American exporters reeling. The latest move by Beijing to impose a 34% tariff on all U.S. goods entering China has come as a crushing blow, especially for American companies counting on access to the world’s second-largest market. For U.S. agricultural producers, the impact is particularly severe. Already burdened with existing tariffs of 10 to 15% following earlier trade disputes during the Trump administration, the new tariff hike is pushing many of them out of the Chinese market entirely. "Now, if you add 34% on top of that, it is probably pricing most of them out," one industry observer noted. China, meanwhile, seems unphased by the prospect of sourcing products like chicken, pork, and sorghum from elsewhere. At the same time, it's no secret that the latest wave of tariffs is aimed squarely at the U.S. president’s political base in America’s heartland. Analysts worldwide are growing increasingly anxious as the economic standoff escalates. Global supply chains have become so interconnected that parts for a single product might come from multiple continents. That complexity makes the current trade tensions more dangerous, with economic ripples threatening to spread far beyond the U.S. and China. "The world's two greatest economies are now at each other's throats with no indication that either is preparing to back down," one analyst remarked. In a symbolic display of defiance and environmental focus, President Xi Jinping and the six other members of China’s powerful Politburo Standing Committee appeared in public planting trees. It was a calculated image of calm, subtly suggesting that China is unfazed by Washington’s actions. “Do your best Washington, this is China and we're not interested in your nonsense,” the gesture seemed to imply. While there remains a possibility of a deal between the two nations, the rhetoric on both sides offers little hope. An alternative path for China could involve strengthening trade ties with other countries, even traditional U.S. allies, effectively bypassing the American market. Such a shift would further damage U.S. companies and consumers, who are already dealing with price increases as a result of the tariff policies. Markets have reacted swiftly and brutally. All three major U.S. stock indexes plunged by more than 5%, with the S&P 500 suffering a near 6% drop, marking the worst trading week since 2020. Across the Atlantic, the UK's FTSE 100 fell almost 5%, its largest decline in five years. Markets in Asia, Germany, and France followed suit with steep losses of their own. President Trump, undeterred by the global market reaction, continues to promote his trade agenda. “Hang tough,” he wrote to supporters on social media. “We can’t lose.” Citing the strength of the U.S. labor market, he dismissed concerns about the dramatic market declines. The broader economic toll, however, is undeniable. Since Trump announced sweeping new 10% import tariffs on goods from every country, global markets have lost trillions in value. These tariffs have affected products from dozens of nations, including major trading partners such as China, the European Union, and Vietnam. China’s countermeasures, including the new 34% tariff, export curbs on key minerals, and blacklisting of U.S. firms, came with a sharp rebuke. Describing Trump’s actions as “bullying” and a violation of international trade rules, Beijing made it clear it would not be intimidated. Amid the chaos, other countries are trying to assess their options. Some are holding out hope that they can negotiate favorable terms, though the unpredictable signals coming from the White House have left many uncertain about the future of global trade. Based on a report by BBC 2025-04-05

Off topic diversion post about Palestinian women has been removed along with replies.

Trump’s Tariff Strategy: A High-Stakes Gamble on Global Trade Donald Trump’s approach to trade has always been unpredictable, but his latest vision—dubbed "Liberation Day"—seeks to upend the global economic order. Unlike the traditional image of liberation, which conjures scenes of victorious armies and jubilant crowds, Trump's version involves a sweeping tariff policy designed to shield American industry from foreign competition. Beneath the chaos of his rhetoric, however, lies a fundamental economic reality: the United States can no longer sustain its role as the world's economic shock absorber, absorbing excess global production through imports and financing other nations by issuing Treasury bonds. For decades, the U.S. dollar has functioned as the world's reserve currency, meaning that countries with trade surpluses—whether oil-rich states or manufacturing powerhouses like China—have needed a safe place to store their wealth. U.S. Treasury bonds have provided that stability, offering a reliable store of value underpinned by American economic and legal structures. But this system has created massive distortions. As foreign countries stockpile dollars, the currency's value remains high, making American goods less competitive abroad. Meanwhile, cheap imports flood the U.S. market, undercutting domestic industries. This phenomenon has been brewing for decades, but the tipping point arguably came with China's entry into the global trading system in 2001. Since then, the imbalance has grown to extreme levels, with an estimated $7 trillion in U.S. bonds held by foreign governments and investors. This structural reality has made American manufacturing increasingly unviable—precisely the crisis that Trump’s tariffs are intended to address. Trump has long bemoaned the decline of U.S. industry, famously declaring: “IF YOU DON’T HAVE STEEL, YOU DON’T HAVE A COUNTRY.” His solution is simple in concept: impose tariffs on cheap imports to protect American factories from foreign competitors. However, as with all economic interventions, the results are complex. Critics argue that tariffs merely increase costs for American consumers, leading to higher prices on everything from televisions to automobiles. Others warn that higher tariffs could prompt the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates, further straining the economy. Yet, when Trump imposed tariffs during his first term, the outcome was not as expected. Contrary to fears that consumers would bear the brunt, the data suggests that the cost was absorbed in two key ways. First, U.S. importers accepted lower profit margins on foreign goods. Second, the dollar appreciated, increasing Americans' purchasing power and offsetting price hikes. However, a rising dollar works against Trump’s ultimate goal: if the currency remains strong, American exports will still struggle to compete, and manufacturing will continue to decline. Trump’s broader economic strategy, as envisioned by key figures like Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, is not just about tariffs but about restructuring global trade. His administration's plan appears to involve imposing tariffs on all trade partners initially, then using that leverage to negotiate a deal—what former government economist Zoltan Pozsar has called the “Mar-a-Lago Accord.” Under this framework, U.S. allies could gain tariff exemptions in exchange for helping to weaken the dollar by selling off Treasury holdings, opening their markets to U.S. goods, and joining a collective effort to impose economic pressure on China. In return, these allies would continue to enjoy U.S. military protection and access to American markets. The risks of this strategy, however, are enormous. If mishandled, it could trigger a financial crisis by destabilizing the U.S. Treasury market, which serves as the foundation of global finance. A sudden selloff of bonds could drive up borrowing costs, potentially bankrupting both the U.S. government and private enterprises that rely on cheap credit. Additionally, a poorly managed trade war could lead to severe currency fluctuations, stifling international commerce and triggering a global recession. Inflation, interest rate hikes, and retaliatory tariffs from other nations are all potential consequences. Adding to the uncertainty is Trump’s own volatile leadership style. His tendency to conflate economic policy with unrelated cultural and political grievances—such as criticizing foreign abortion laws in trade negotiations—creates confusion and undermines confidence in U.S. leadership. Effective economic diplomacy requires clarity and strategic focus, not impulsive decision-making. If Trump is to succeed in reshaping global trade to favor American industry, he must frame the debate in terms of fairness rather than nationalism. Why, he could ask, should American workers—many of whom lack basic economic security—subsidize the defense of trade routes that primarily benefit Europe? Why should the U.S. risk conflict with China to protect Japanese economic interests while Tokyo hoards American dollars instead of reinvesting them in trade? By articulating these points convincingly, he could increase the likelihood of forging a lasting international agreement rather than escalating a destructive trade war. However, if his administration fails to execute this vision with precision, the consequences could be dire. A global trade breakdown, financial market turmoil, and a further weakening of U.S. economic dominance all loom as potential outcomes. In the end, whether Trump’s trade war will be remembered as a bold economic recalibration or a reckless gamble depends on how well he can navigate the complexities of international finance and diplomacy. If he gets it wrong, the economic consequences could be far more chaotic than anything his rhetoric has suggested so far. Based on a report by The Times 2025-04-04

Katy Perry Promises to Bring Glam to Space in All-Female Blue Origin Mission Katy Perry is preparing to make history—and a bold fashion statement—as she joins Blue Origin’s first all-female spaceflight. The 40-year-old pop star, known for her extravagant style, declared that she plans to “put the ‘ass’ in astronaut” as she gears up for the upcoming launch. Perry will be part of a six-woman crew for the 31st mission of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’ New Shepard rocket. Joining her on the journey are CBS News anchor Gayle King, Bezos’ fiancée Lauren Sánchez, former NASA rocket scientist Aisha Bowe, civil rights activist Amanda Nguyen, and film producer Kerianne Flynn. The highly anticipated launch is scheduled for April 14. In a lively interview with Elle, Perry emphasized the importance of looking her best in space. “Space is going to finally be glam,” she told the magazine. “If I could take glam up with me, I would do that. We are going to put the ‘ass’ in astronaut.” Bowe, an aerospace engineer who has long dreamed of going to space, shared that she took her own beauty preparations seriously. To ensure her hairstyle could withstand the conditions of space travel, she performed a skydiving test in Dubai. “I also wanted to test out my hair and make sure that it was okay. So I skydived in Dubai with similar hair to make sure I would be good—took it for a dry run,” she said. Meanwhile, King, the most nervous of the group about the flight, expressed concern about whether their eyelash extensions would stay on during the journey. Sánchez, 55, reassured her with confidence. “Mine are glued on. They’re good,” she said. Nguyen, who studied astrophysics at Harvard before becoming a civil rights activist, supported the idea that the crew should feel empowered to embrace both science and beauty. “I think it’s so important for people to see us like that,” she explained. “This dichotomy of engineer and scientist, and then beauty and fashion. We contain multitudes. Women are multitudes.” She added, “I’m going to be wearing lipstick.” Alongside their beauty preparations, the women were given the opportunity to bring personal items with them on the trip. Bowe revealed she would be carrying a flag from the Apollo 12 mission back into space. Sánchez decided to bring a stuffed animal from her children’s book The Fly Who Flew to Space, while King opted for a more musical touch, planning to take a playlist for their celestial adventure. The idea of Perry performing in space quickly gained enthusiasm among the group, with the crew encouraging her to sing once they reach orbit. While their mission is short—lasting only 11 minutes—the women have partnered with universities and scientific organizations to conduct a few experiments during their journey. The launch, marking New Shepard’s 11th human flight, is set to take place in the morning on April 14. Based on a report by The New York Post 2025-04-04

Tesla’s Sales Plummet Amid Musk Controversy, Marking Lowest Numbers in Three Years Tesla’s vehicle sales have fallen to their lowest levels in nearly three years as the company faces growing backlash over Elon Musk’s political activities. In the first quarter of 2024, Tesla reported a 13% decline in sales, delivering just 336,681 vehicles compared to 386,810 in the same period last year. This marks the lowest sales figures since the second quarter of 2022. Analysts had expected deliveries to reach 372,410, according to estimates compiled by Visible Alpha. Musk had previously assured investors that Tesla would return to growth in 2024 after experiencing its first-ever annual decline in deliveries. However, the company has struggled with public protests and consumer dissatisfaction, largely stemming from Musk’s political alignments. His role in advising President Trump on federal spending cuts, as well as his vocal support for far-right political parties in Germany and other nations, has contributed to a negative perception of the Tesla brand. Sales in key European markets, including France and Sweden, fell for the third consecutive month in March. Meanwhile, Tesla also reported weaker-than-expected sales in China, despite the region seeing a broader surge in electric vehicle adoption. The company has also lost ground to competitors such as BYD and other Chinese EV manufacturers. Following the release of the disappointing sales figures, Tesla’s stock initially fell by $5.23, or 2%, to $263.23 on Wednesday morning in New York. This continued a downward trend that has seen the company lose roughly 30% of its value since mid-December. However, Tesla shares made a sharp recovery after reports emerged that former President Trump had informed three cabinet members that Musk would be stepping back from his role at the Department of Government Efficiency. By early afternoon, the stock had climbed $14.81, or 5.5%, reaching $283.35. Dan Ives, an analyst at Wedbush Securities and a longtime supporter of Tesla’s stock, described the delivery numbers as a “disaster for the bulls.” He stated: “With the current headwinds for Tesla across the industry including protests at Tesla dealerships, violence seen at Tesla drivers around the country/Europe, and more Musk-related brand worries, this delivery number was a disaster for the bulls, with continuous negativity around the Tesla brand. We are not going to look at these numbers with rose-coloured glasses … they were a disaster on every metric.” Tesla’s production was also affected by factory retooling efforts in preparation for the manufacture of the redesigned Model Y. In the first quarter, Tesla delivered approximately 323,800 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles, while deliveries of other models, including the Cybertruck, Model S, and Model X, totaled 12,881. Based on a report by The Times 2025-04-04