Social Media

Another troll post making unsubstantiated claims and deragotory remarks has been removed

A post has been removed for making a libelous statement regarding the OP source. For the poster @Chomper Higgot information, the article is correct in that the BBC are not included in the 2024 years list of most complained about programmes. The BBC use a BBC first model which is explained in the link provided in the OP and which for ease of access is additionaly provided below. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-standards/tvs-most-complained-about-programmes-of-2024-officially-revealed/ "Today’s figures don’t include complaints about programmes on the BBC. Under the BBC Charter, these are handled by the BBC in the first instance – this is known as the BBC first process." Please review the rules: 17. ASEAN NOW news team collects news articles from various recognised and reputable news sources. The articles may be consolidated from different sources and rewritten with AI assistance These news items are shared in our forums for members to stay informed and engaged. Our dedicated news team puts in the effort to deliver quality content, and we ask for your respect in return. Any disrespectful comments about our news articles or the content itself, such as calling it "clickbait" or “slow news day”, and criticising grammatical errors, will not be tolerated and appropriate action will be taken. Please note that republished articles may contain errors or opinions that do not reflect the views of ASEAN NOW. If you'd like to help us, and you see an error with an article, then please use the report function so that we can attend to it promptly.

A number of posts and replies have been removed all starting with claims by @stevenl that were not backed up with a credible link when asked and then a link provided did not back up the original claims. In the news section please provide a link when asked, so it does not clutter the topic with unnecessary bickering. Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to a mainstream media source.

Alan Edward, a 55-year-old neo-Nazi from Redding, Falkirk, has been sentenced to 10 years in prison after police uncovered an arsenal of weapons in his home and evidence of his intention to carry out a terror attack against an LGBT group. Edward’s plans came to light during an investigation that revealed his extremist ideology and communication detailing violent threats. In September 2022, armed officers from Police Scotland raided Edward’s residence, seizing an alarming cache of weapons that included a crossbow, machetes, a tomahawk, a samurai sword, knuckledusters, an extendable baton, a stun gun, and a variety of knives—some adorned with Nazi and SS insignia. Additional items recovered included an air pistol, a skull mask resembling SS regalia, goggles, a respirator, hardened-knuckle gloves, and hunting tips for crossbow arrows. Prosecutors referred to the collection as an “armoury,” indicative of his dangerous intent. Edward’s violent ambitions were discovered through a series of WhatsApp messages where he discussed targeting an LGBT group in Falkirk. Among his chilling remarks, Edward stated, “They have been pushing their luck for years, now they will pay in blood.” He also suggested carrying out the attack masked, saying, “We should get masked up and go do a few of them in at their little gay club.” The court heard further evidence of Edward’s neo-Nazi ideology, including a document on his computer referring to Anders Breivik—the far-right extremist responsible for killing 77 people in Norway in 2011—as “Saint Anders.” Police Scotland’s Operation Lightbox investigation revealed that Edward had posted and shared racist, homophobic, and violent content online, along with materials associated with extreme right-wing groups. Detective Superintendent Stephen Clark, head of counter-terrorism investigations at Police Scotland, described Edward’s actions as an effort to spread fear and hatred. “Edward shared extreme racist and homophobic content online with the aim of stirring up hatred and spreading fear and alarm,” Clark said. Edward first drew the attention of counter-terrorism officers when he posted a video of a National Action rally in 2016, shortly before the group was banned in the UK under the Terrorism Act. His online activity continued over several years, as he disseminated videos, memes, and images supporting neo-Nazi ideologies. Former Police Scotland superintendent and counter-terrorism expert Martin Gallagher emphasized the gravity of Edward’s potential threat, noting his idolization of Breivik. “I would not put someone who is acting alone on a different level from a group—they can be just as deadly,” Gallagher remarked. The case has left many shaken, with Christopher Clannachan of the Equality Network calling it “very frightening.” He highlighted the need for vigilance in combating the spread of extremist views that target marginalized groups. Edward’s sentence underscores the ongoing threat posed by far-right extremism and the importance of robust counter-terrorism efforts to prevent such individuals from carrying out acts of violence. Based on a report by Sky News 2024-12-21

A Romanian appeals court has delivered a significant ruling in the high-profile case against Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan, determining that the allegations of human trafficking and other crimes cannot proceed to trial in their current form. The decision, which found multiple flaws in the prosecutors' indictment, has left the case hanging in the balance. Andrew Tate, a controversial social media influencer who once referred to himself as the “king of toxic masculinity,” along with his brother, is accused of leading a criminal operation aimed at sexually exploiting women. Both brothers, dual US-British citizens, also face separate charges in the UK related to rape and human trafficking. On Thursday, the Bucharest appeals court ruled that the case must be returned to prosecutors for further revision, citing inadmissible evidence and procedural inconsistencies. Statements from the two primary alleged victims and remarks made by the Tate brothers had already been deemed inadmissible, further complicating the prosecution’s case. The Tates, who have been entangled with the Romanian legal system since their arrest in December 2022, celebrated the court’s ruling as a major victory. In a joint statement, they described their experience as “an ordeal lasting two-and-a-half years” and asserted that the court’s decision highlighted a “lack of credible evidence or consistency in the accusations” against them. However, the ruling does not absolve the brothers of wrongdoing. Prosecutors now have five days to address the flaws in their case or abandon it altogether. If charges are dropped, the door could open for their extradition to the UK, where additional allegations await. The accusations in Romania are wide-ranging, involving charges of human trafficking, forming an organized criminal group, sexual intercourse with a minor, and money laundering. Two Romanian women are accused of aiding the Tates, while Andrew Tate faces an additional rape charge. All four individuals have vehemently denied the allegations. Recent developments have marked setbacks for DIICOT, Romania’s anti-organized crime agency. In a prior ruling, the court excluded certain evidence, citing discrepancies in the descriptions of alleged acts and noting that prosecutors failed to adequately explain charges to one of the victims. This follows claims by seven women in 2022 that the Tates lured them into false romantic relationships before coercing them into creating pornographic content at a Bucharest property. Andrew Tate has leveraged his substantial social media presence, with over 10 million Twitter followers, to claim that the case against him is part of a political conspiracy. Despite bans from platforms such as TikTok, YouTube, and Facebook for alleged misogynistic content, Tate remains vocal online. “They’ve had years to build their case—years to tear apart my life, target everyone I know, and even subpoena the mother of my child. And yet, they have nothing,” Andrew Tate said in response to the ruling. “This is all a lie, and I will fight to the very end to expose it and prove my innocence.” Tristan Tate echoed his brother’s sentiments, questioning the rationale for their imprisonment given the court’s findings. “If there isn’t enough evidence to go to trial after all these years, that means there never was enough evidence. This begs the question, why was I in prison when my daughter was born if there was no evidence?” Their lawyer, Eugen Vidineac, characterized the court’s decision as a pivotal legal triumph. “After a thorough examination of the legality of the investigation, the court has rightly determined that there is insufficient basis to proceed with the case. This decision is a testament to the strength of our legal system and the integrity of its judges,” he said. Despite their legal battles in Romania, the Tate brothers face further scrutiny in the UK. Bedfordshire Police have secured international arrest warrants for the pair, citing allegations of rape and human trafficking between 2012 and 2015, charges the brothers deny. Additionally, British authorities recently seized £2 million from the Tates for unpaid taxes, a Westminster magistrates’ court ruling stating they had evaded taxes on £21 million in revenue from various online ventures. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-12-21

An 18-year-old George Mason University freshman, Abdullah Hassan, has been charged with conspiring to attack Israel’s general consulate in New York using explosive devices or other weapons. Federal prosecutors allege that Hassan, an Egyptian national, provided detailed instructions on how to construct explosives and suggested various attack methods, including a suicide vest, assault rifle, or a homemade bomb. Hassan faces one count of demonstrating how to manufacture an explosive with the intent to harm internationally protected individuals, a charge carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. Additional charges may follow as the investigation develops. In the meantime, George Mason University has barred Hassan from its campus, and U.S. authorities have placed him in deportation proceedings, which are likely to be delayed until the resolution of his criminal case and any subsequent sentence. The FBI’s investigation revealed Hassan’s active engagement in online propaganda, which included posts praising Osama bin Laden and sharing antisemitic content. According to court documents filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, these activities were linked to Hassan through his phone and home IP address. Agents also traced his use of social media accounts, including activity from a campus IP address, on the same day they observed him at George Mason University. In November, Hassan reportedly sent an Islamic State-themed video to an undercover FBI informant posing as a terrorist sympathizer. The video called for violence against Jewish people. After receiving the video, the informant pledged loyalty to Hassan and agreed to carry out a mass-casualty attack under his guidance, according to federal filings. Hassan then initiated several days of planning, suggesting different methods of attack. He provided the informant with an instructional video on how to create an acetone-peroxide bomb, marked with the Islamic State logo, and discussed alternative methods such as using firearms or a suicide vest. This case comes amid heightened scrutiny of George Mason University’s response to pro-Palestinian activism on campus. Recently, two sisters who served as current and former presidents of the university’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine were banned from campus for four years. This decision followed a law enforcement search of their home, which uncovered guns, ammunition, and materials bearing slogans advocating violence against Jewish individuals. Public defender Cadence Mertz, representing Hassan, has declined to comment on the case. Meanwhile, federal officials emphasize that Hassan’s arrest is part of an ongoing effort to address domestic threats involving terrorism and antisemitism. As the legal proceedings continue, the case has underscored the importance of vigilance against extremism while sparking conversations about the intersection of activism, free speech, and public safety on college campuses. Based on a report by WP 2024-12-21

Lord Peter Mandelson, a prominent Labour peer and architect of New Labour under Tony Blair, faces renewed scrutiny over his past criticisms of Donald Trump as he prepares to assume the role of British ambassador to the United States. His appointment by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer comes as Trump readies his return to the White House for a second term. In 2019, Lord Mandelson spoke candidly about his views on Trump during an interview with Italian journalist Alain Elkann. He described the former president as “a danger to the world” and “little short of a white nationalist and racist.” These remarks, made on Elkann’s podcast, now risk complicating efforts by Downing Street to build a positive relationship with the Trump administration. In the interview, Mandelson lamented the United Kingdom’s shift in global alliances, stating, “I wake up today and discover that not only am I seeing my country, which I love, being forced out of its own European neighbourhood, but is crossing the Atlantic to make common cause with an American president who is little short of a white nationalist and racist.” He expressed deep concern over Britain aligning itself with Trump, emphasizing, “This disturbs me greatly because it’s completely different from all my upbringing, whether my family or in politics, what I believe, and the identity I see for my own country.” Mandelson also criticized Trump’s approach to governance and diplomacy, arguing that his values are incompatible with those of the UK. “What Donald Trump represents and believes is anathema to mainstream British opinion,” he said, adding, “Even those who have a sneaking admiration for Donald Trump, because of the strength of his personality, nonetheless regard him as reckless and a danger to the world.” The Labour peer pointed to instances where Trump insulted British leaders and institutions, including the treatment of Her Majesty’s ambassador in Washington. “The way in which he has conducted himself in relation to the British government, our Prime Minister, who he has insulted, and the way in which he treated Her Majesty’s ambassador in Washington has been shocking to British people,” Mandelson remarked. Despite these past statements, Mandelson’s appointment is viewed as a strategic move by Starmer to signal a serious approach to engaging with the Trump administration. The decision bypassed other high-profile candidates, including David Miliband, Baroness Amos, and Baroness Ashton, reflecting Starmer’s confidence in Mandelson’s experience and political acumen. Trump’s endorsement of Nigel Farage for the ambassadorship in an autumn tweet added further intrigue to Mandelson’s selection. Farage, the leader of Reform UK, has been a vocal supporter of Trump, but his nomination was not entertained by Downing Street. Mandelson’s tenure begins at a critical time, with the UK navigating the threat of US tariffs on British exports and seeking to expand its services sector across the Atlantic. His ability to reconcile his past criticisms with the demands of fostering a constructive relationship with the Trump administration will be a key test of his diplomatic skills. As Trump resumes his role as president, Mandelson’s comments from 2019 serve as a reminder of the challenges that lie ahead in mending strained transatlantic relations. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-12-21

During Joe Biden's presidency, the White House adopted unique measures to accommodate the challenges of managing an aging leader. With Biden being the oldest president in U.S. history, aides implemented strategies to adjust his schedule, interactions, and public appearances, sparking both scrutiny and defense of his administration’s practices. Jill Biden’s energetic campaigning during the 2020 primary already highlighted Joe Biden’s more measured pace. Michael LaRosa, Jill’s press secretary at the time, recalled being advised to avoid comparisons that might inadvertently underscore the contrast. "The more you talk her up, the more you make him look bad," LaRosa was told by Anthony Bernal, then Jill Biden's chief of staff. This early incident foreshadowed the careful management that would define the White House during Biden’s term. Meetings were streamlined and often conducted with senior aides acting as intermediaries for Biden. Figures like National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and senior counselor Steve Ricchetti frequently engaged with high-ranking officials and conveyed information back to the president. Some prominent Democrats, including Rep. Adam Smith, found it difficult to secure direct access to Biden during critical moments, such as before the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal. "I was begging them to set expectations low," Smith said, expressing his frustration over not being able to communicate directly with Biden until after the fallout. The White House was designed to shield the president not only from the public eye but also from some of his own cabinet members. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen experienced decreasing direct interactions with Biden, relying more on staff members to carry out key directives. Yet, cabinet officials like Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack defended the approach, saying, "You don’t always have to raise the issue with the president." Public appearances were equally controlled. Biden’s speeches were heavily scripted, and aides often guided him during events, repeating instructions like where to stand or how to exit a stage. Despite these measures, missteps persisted, such as during a debate with Donald Trump, where Biden struggled to articulate thoughts. This performance intensified concerns about his mental acuity, leading to Vice President Kamala Harris eventually replacing him on the Democratic ticket for the 2024 election—a move that ended in defeat for the party. Critics of Biden's presidency highlighted the insulation created by his close-knit team. Rep. Jim Himes noted a lack of personal contact with the president compared to previous administrations, stating, "I really had no personal contact with this president." Meanwhile, Sen. Joe Manchin observed Biden’s reliance on staff, remarking that the "eager beavers" around him took on much of the heavy lifting. White House spokesperson Andrew Bates defended Biden’s leadership, emphasizing his legislative achievements and attention to policy. Bates also countered claims of decline, asserting that the president actively sought external advice and was kept informed of significant issues. However, some concerns were hard to dismiss. Biden’s preparation for interviews, including one with special counsel Robert Hur, revealed inconsistencies. According to a person familiar with the sessions, Biden struggled to recall key details, although the White House attributed this to his tendency to "over-share." The final report from that investigation characterized Biden as a "sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory." Biden's campaign strategy reflected similar efforts to manage perceptions. At donor events, pre-approved questions were provided to participants, and aides worked diligently to ensure the president remained on script. Still, these precautions did not always prevent errors, frustrating supporters. Throughout his presidency, Biden’s inner circle maintained an intense focus on supporting and protecting him. This approach, while keeping his administration operational, also drew criticism for its heavy-handed nature and raised questions about the broader implications of leading with a diminished capacity. Despite these challenges, Biden’s aides emphasized that the president remained deeply engaged with his agenda, even as his unique style of governance shaped the White House’s operations. Based on a report by WSJ 2024-12-21

Diane Abbott, known for her polarizing presence in British politics, once again captured public attention with a fiery Newsnight interview. At 71, the Mother of the House remains unyielding in her opinions, launching an unrelenting critique of Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer that resonated across political divides. Abbott’s grievances were numerous and scathing, underscoring her disdain for Starmer’s leadership style and political decisions. On the issue of compensating the “Waspi women”—the 3.8 million women born in the 1950s affected by state pension changes—Abbott remarked, “He doesn’t understand. That’s the problem. One of the things about Keir is he’s only been in the party for a short period of time. Then he got parachuted into Holborn and St Pancras. He didn’t even have to contest it. That was a safe seat, so he didn’t have to fight for that.” For Abbott, Starmer epitomizes what she detests in modern politics: a dispassionate, managerial approach coupled with an unwavering focus on electoral victories. She criticized his perceived lack of empathy and accused him of abandoning the socialist ideals that once characterized the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn. Reflecting on Starmer’s leadership, Abbott noted, “He has no feel for politics. He might say he has a great feel for politics because he smashed people like [me], but he’s got no feel for politics and he doesn’t know how [the Waspi women] feel. He’s on that fat DPP pension. What does he know about ageing women who rely on the state pension? He really doesn’t know.” The jab at Starmer’s pension struck a nerve, highlighting a 2013 controversy when he received a special “tax unregistered” pension scheme upon stepping down as Director of Public Prosecutions. This history, coupled with Abbott’s remarks, amplified accusations of Labour’s willingness to break promises and embrace double standards under Starmer’s leadership. Beyond policy disagreements, Abbott touched on what she perceives as Starmer’s greatest weakness: a lack of emotional resonance with voters. While he champions the necessity of tough decisions, Abbott argued that his approach risks alienating the public. Without offering a hopeful and inspiring vision, she warned, “the unpopular decisions he says he is being forced to make will cause public confidence to erode, to borrow from Larkin, ‘like a coastal shelf.’” The tension between Abbott and Starmer reflects broader divisions within the Labour Party. Abbott’s ties to Jeremy Corbyn—dating back to their brief romantic relationship in the late 1970s—serve as a reminder of the ideological battles that have long plagued the party. Her fallout with Starmer deepened in 2023 during a disciplinary dispute over an article she wrote, leading to the removal of the Labour Whip. The subsequent backlash, including allegations of systemic racism within Labour’s leadership, further strained relations. Abbott’s eventual reinstatement in May 2024 marked a rare concession by Starmer, who had otherwise succeeded in consolidating his authority. Yet the feud between the two persists, with mutual disdain evident in their recent interactions in the House of Commons. In the political arena, few rivalries are as intense as those within the same party. Abbott’s critiques have cast a spotlight on Starmer’s leadership challenges, leaving the Labour leader grappling with the task of proving his effectiveness to an increasingly skeptical public. Whether he can rise above the fray remains an open question, but one thing is clear: Abbott’s roar will not be silenced easily. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-12-21

Craig Wright, an Australian computer scientist who falsely claimed to be the creator of bitcoin, was found in contempt of a London High Court order on Thursday. Wright received a suspended 12-month prison sentence for defying the court's directive to cease legal actions related to bitcoin, which has skyrocketed in value since its inception during the global financial crisis in 2008. Justice James Mellor ruled that Wright had committed “a clear breach” of a March order barring him from initiating or threatening further legal claims concerning bitcoin. Despite the prohibition, Wright issued claims totaling over £900 billion ($1.1 trillion) in October against various companies and individuals, alleging violations of intellectual property rights tied to the cryptocurrency. Lawyers representing the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA), a coalition of technology and cryptocurrency firms, argued that Wright’s actions were a direct violation of the court’s ruling. In March, Mellor had determined that Wright was not the mysterious "Satoshi Nakamoto," the pseudonymous creator of bitcoin, nor the author of its original software. “It is beyond any reasonable doubt that Wright was in contempt of the court order,” Mellor stated in his judgment. Currently believed to reside in Indonesia or Singapore, Wright attended Thursday’s hearing via video link but was absent from the session the previous day, when COPA presented its case. He has announced plans to appeal the ruling. Wright’s association with bitcoin has been controversial since 2016, when he first claimed to be Nakamoto, the elusive figure behind the cryptocurrency. The origins of bitcoin trace back to 2008, during the height of the global financial crisis. A paper authored under the Nakamoto pseudonym outlined a groundbreaking system for transferring digital currency anonymously across the globe without relying on banks or national currencies. Nakamoto disappeared in 2011, leaving their identity shrouded in mystery. Bitcoin operates as a decentralized digital currency, with transactions recorded using blockchain technology. Unlike traditional money, bitcoin is not tied to any central authority, government, or banking institution. Its pioneering role has made it the most prominent cryptocurrency, though other digital assets like ethereum, tether, and dogecoin have also gained traction. Wright has faced accusations of attempting to capitalize on bitcoin’s massive increase in value. During the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, bitcoin traded at just over $5,000. Recently, in the wake of political developments, including Donald Trump’s U.S. election victory and his support for cryptocurrencies, bitcoin briefly surpassed $100,000. However, its value remains volatile, trading at approximately $80,000 on Thursday—down nearly 20% in just two weeks. While Wright continues to assert his role as Nakamoto, the court’s ruling further discredits his claims and underscores the lingering enigma surrounding bitcoin’s true origins. Based on a report by AP 2024-12-21

Sebastian Coe, renowned for his leadership of the 2012 London Olympics, has pledged to prioritize the integrity of women’s sports should he become president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Coe, one of seven contenders for the role, emphasized his commitment to implementing "science-based policies that safeguard the female category" during the announcement of his candidacy. In a conversation with Sky News, Coe confirmed his intention to explore a potential ban on transgender women competing in women’s Olympic events if he is elected. "We’ve taken the lead at World Athletics, as you know, and I think for me the principle is very clear," Coe stated. Referring to controversies at the Paris Olympics, Coe remarked, "If you have a vacuum around this policy position, then you end up with some of the things that we witnessed in Paris," a pointed reference to Imane Khelif, whose gold medal win in women’s boxing became contentious after a failed gender eligibility test. Coe underlined the importance of collaboration in shaping these policies. "I would have a very clear policy that would be unambiguous, clear-cut, but co-curated with all those stakeholders—so that it is relevant to the athletes, sport scientists, the national Olympic committees, the international federations. And they’re telling me that they want to be part of that journey," he explained. As the current president of World Athletics since 2015, Coe has already spearheaded restrictions on male-to-female transgender athletes and tightened rules regarding athletes with differences in sex development (DSD). His approach aligns with that of other international sports federations, such as swimming, which have adopted similarly restrictive policies. While Coe’s stance has drawn support from some, others have raised concerns about its implications for the transgender community. Balancing fairness in competition with inclusivity remains a polarizing issue. Juan Antonio Samaranch, a fellow IOC presidential candidate and current vice president, echoed the need for clarity but stopped short of endorsing a blanket ban. "We must do better," Samaranch told Sky News. "We need to find the scientific parameters that can help us put in a decision that affects everybody." Another candidate, Johan Eliasch, president of the International Ski Federation, argued for a unified policy across sports. "The IOC should lead the way, establishing a simple and clear policy to ensure a fair and safe environment for all athletes, particularly women," Eliasch wrote in his manifesto. In contrast, David Lappartient, head of World Cycling, advocated for a nuanced approach that respects the complexities of the issue. "It is a complex matter that must be dealt with rationally to strike the right balance between the need to respect human rights and the obligation to ensure fair competition," he wrote, emphasizing the need for solid scientific evidence. Not all candidates have addressed the issue in detail. Prince Feisal al Hussein of Jordan, Morinari Watanabe of the International Gymnastics Federation, and former Olympic swimmer Kirsty Coventry from Zimbabwe have largely refrained from proposing concrete measures. Coventry’s manifesto briefly mentions "strengthening women’s sports by protecting female athletes" without elaboration. Based on a report by Sky News 2024-12-21

The judge at the center of a contentious anonymity ruling in the tragic Sara Sharif case claimed that the media could not be trusted to report matters fairly, sparking intense debate over the principles of open justice. Urfan Sharif, 43, Sara’s father, and her stepmother, Beinash Batool, 30, were recently sentenced to life imprisonment for the 10-year-old’s murder. Following their trial, details of a family court decision that allowed Sara to remain in her parents' care despite warnings of potential abuse came under scrutiny. Mr. Justice Williams permitted the publication of information about the family court proceedings but prohibited the identification of the judges involved. He argued that such disclosure could provoke harassment in the digital age, citing the risk of a "lynch mob" mentality fueled by social media. "Experience regrettably shows that some reporting is better than others and that is not a reliable end point," he stated, acknowledging that while many media outlets report responsibly, others do not. His ruling revealed that during prior family court proceedings, Surrey County Council raised repeated concerns about Sara's vulnerability to physical and emotional abuse by her parents. However, allegations were never adequately tested in court, and Sara was returned to her father and stepmother in 2019. Tragically, she was murdered in their home in Woking, Surrey, in August last year. Mr. Justice Williams defended his anonymity decision, asserting, "The responsibility for Sara’s death lies on her father, her stepmother, and her uncle, not on social workers, child protection professionals, guardians, or judges." Nonetheless, his decision is now being challenged by several media organizations, including *The Telegraph*, with an appeal scheduled for January 14 and 15 in the Court of Appeal. Media groups argue that concealing the judges' identities undermines the principle of transparency central to public trust in the judicial system. Sir Geoffrey Vos, who granted permission for the appeal, acknowledged the issue's significance, stating, "It raises questions that are of considerable public importance, and it is in the public interest that the Court of Appeal considers them." The controversy comes amid broader debates over judicial anonymity, with other recent cases also sparking criticism. These include a ruling shielding the identity of an alleged Chinese spy barred from the UK and decisions in immigration tribunals where convicted criminals facing deportation were granted anonymity. One such case involved a Turkish crime boss, described as one of Britain’s largest heroin dealers, who avoided deportation despite a 16-year prison sentence. This growing trend of granting anonymity in high-profile cases highlights tensions between safeguarding individuals from undue harm and upholding the principles of open justice. As public and legal scrutiny intensifies, the forthcoming Court of Appeal decision in the Sara Sharif case could set a critical precedent. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-12-21

A fiery exchange between TalkTV presenter Julia Hartley-Brewer and Palestinian politician Mustafa Barghouti has been revealed as the most complained-about television event of the year, according to media regulator Ofcom. The interview, which delved into the contentious Hamas-Israel war, garnered an astonishing 17,366 complaints, almost doubling the highest number of complaints recorded for a single programme last year. By comparison, last year’s most complained-about moment involved Laurence Fox, who made widely criticized "misogynistic comments" about female journalist Ava Evans. That incident received 8,867 complaints, significantly fewer than the controversy surrounding Hartley-Brewer’s TalkTV segment. It is noteworthy that complaints directed at the BBC are not included in Ofcom’s figures, as the corporation handles such matters independently. The volume of complaints highlights the divisive nature of certain media discussions, particularly those centered on sensitive global issues. Based on a report by Daily Mail 2024-12-21

A post making unsubstaniated claims has been removed. If you are going to debate then do so without using other posters unsubstaniated claims to further those claims.

Troll post removed @OneMoreFarang If you don't agree then just discuss or move on, no need for insults. That is not what this forum is about. Comment on moderation by the same poster also removed. Anymore of the same and time off to read the rules will be the consequence