Social Media

Former national security officials have reacted with shock and disbelief following a report by The Atlantic that revealed members of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet had shared detailed operational plans for US military strikes on Yemen in a group chat using the encrypted messaging app Signal. Adding to the gravity of the situation, a journalist was mistakenly included in the conversation. The Trump administration acknowledged the authenticity of the messages but provided no explanation for why sensitive national security discussions occurred outside classified government systems. According to The Atlantic, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz initiated a text conversation earlier this month with top US officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, to discuss military action against Houthi militants threatening international shipping in the Red Sea. Unintentionally, Waltz also added Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, to the chat. The messages contained discussions on the timing of the strikes, which were later executed. Following the operation, the officials congratulated themselves before Goldberg discreetly removed himself from the chat. The incident left former officials stunned. “Dear Sweet Baby Jesus,” one former senior US official remarked in response to the report. Another former official, when asked if the Biden administration had ever used Signal in a similar manner, simply replied, “No.” Signal is widely used by journalists and government officials due to its strong encryption, but national security experts warn that discussing classified military operations on such a platform presents an unacceptable risk. Several officials confirmed they could not recall any previous instance in which Signal had been used to share classified information. Security protocols dictate that top officials should communicate through secure systems designed for classified material. “They broke every procedure known to man about protecting operational material before a military strike,” a former senior intelligence official said. “You have a total breakdown in security about a military operation.” Although Signal is considered highly secure, reports indicate state-backed hackers have attempted to breach it. A recent report from Google-owned security firm Mandiant found that Russian-linked operatives had tried to infiltrate the Signal accounts of Ukrainian military personnel. A Western intelligence official acknowledged Signal’s strong encryption but stated, “It should never be used for classified or operational data, let alone policy discussions at a top government level.” Using an unapproved app to discuss classified information and mistakenly including a journalist in the chat raises serious legal implications, including potential violations of the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the mishandling of national defense information. Former Justice Department officials noted that such an error would typically trigger an FBI investigation. However, because senior Trump administration officials were involved, it is unlikely that any internal investigation will take place. “If anyone else did it, no question it would be investigated,” a former Justice Department official said. Trump distanced himself from the controversy when asked about the revelations. “I don’t know anything about it,” he told reporters. “I’m not a big fan of The Atlantic… I know nothing about it. You’re telling me about it for the first time.” He dismissed concerns about the breach’s impact, saying, “It couldn’t have been very effective, because the attack was very effective.” According to The Atlantic, Hegseth shared specific operational details in the chat, including target locations, weapons to be deployed, and attack sequencing. CIA Director John Ratcliffe also contributed, sharing what appeared to be intelligence-related information. Former officials believe this information was likely classified at the highest level. Former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta criticized the blunder, saying, “Somebody needs to get fired. How the name of a journalist was added to that list—this is just a serious blunder.” Panetta warned that if the reporter had been someone other than Goldberg, they could have immediately relayed the information to Houthi militants, potentially leading to attacks on US forces. The US government has dedicated systems for classified communication, such as the Secret Internet Protocol Router (SIPR) network and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS). Experts pointed out that classified information cannot be forwarded from these systems to an unclassified network, meaning Hegseth or someone working for him would have had to manually transfer it. “He somehow had to transfer it or copy it to get it onto Signal in the first place,” a former defense official explained. “You can’t forward a classified email to an unclassified system.” National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes acknowledged the authenticity of the message thread and stated that officials were reviewing how an “inadvertent number” was added. “The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security,” Hughes said in a statement. Vice President Vance expressed concerns in the chat about the potential political ramifications of the strikes. “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.,” Vance reportedly wrote. Despite the breach, Trump administration officials focused on defending their internal discussions rather than addressing the security implications of using Signal. William Martin, communications director for Vice President Vance, insisted, “The Vice President’s first priority is always making sure that the President’s advisers are adequately briefing him on the substance of their internal deliberations. The President and the Vice President have had subsequent conversations about this matter and are in complete agreement.” The revelations sparked outrage among congressional Democrats, with some vowing to press intelligence officials for answers in an upcoming House Intelligence Committee hearing on national security threats. Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, the committee’s top Democrat, stated, “I am horrified by reports that our most senior national security officials, including the heads of multiple agencies, shared sensitive and almost certainly classified information via a commercial messaging application, including imminent war plans.” He emphasized the “calamitous risks of transmitting classified information across unclassified systems” and warned that, if true, such actions would represent a flagrant violation of laws designed to safeguard national security. The controversy is particularly ironic given past Republican criticisms of private email use for classified government business. In 2016, then-Senator Marco Rubio lambasted Hillary Clinton for using a private email server, saying, “Hillary Clinton put some of the highest, most sensitive intelligence information on her private server because maybe she thinks she’s above the law… This is unacceptable. This is a disqualifier.” Based on a report by CNN 2025-03-25

Please refer to rule 15. Posts from the usual suspects contravening this rule will be removed. 15. You will not discriminate or post slurs, degrading or overly negative comments on the basis of race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, nationality, disability, medical history, marriage, civil partnership, pregnancy, maternity, paternity, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other irrelevant factor.

A post that discussed historical aspects of Jermey Corbyn has been removed for being off topic (along with a couple of further posts following it), while he was ejected from the parliamentary Labour party over his antisemitism controversies, that it not the subject of this thread and only serves to divert what is bonafide and factual account of the report.

@Eric Loh please remain on topic, this is not about siding with Iran and laying the blame at Israel. Trump's Letter to Iran Sets Two-Month Deadline for Nuclear Deal

@MalcolmB enough of the off topic diversion attempts from the two posts I have just removed of yours.

Surrey Police have come under criticism for refusing to clarify whether a wanted "female" suspect is biologically male, prompting accusations that the force is misleading the public and hindering efforts to locate the individual. The controversy erupted after police issued a public appeal seeking information on the whereabouts of 49-year-old Skyla Stone, who failed to appear in court twice. The force initially described Stone as a "woman" and used the pronouns "she/her," stating: "We are appealing for the public’s help in finding wanted woman Skyla Stone. She is described as white, with brown hair and blue/green eyes and has links to Guildford." However, following public criticism, the police later updated their appeal to describe Stone as a "transgender woman" but continued to use female pronouns. Lisa Townsend, Surrey’s police and crime commissioner, was among those rebuking the decision, asserting that Stone is "a male, however they choose to identify." Heather Binning of the Women’s Rights Network (WRN) expressed concerns that the force’s wording could "seriously mislead the public and possibly put people in danger." The Surrey branch of WRN also criticized the police for making "it harder for this person to be located." Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at Sex Matters, linked the issue to broader concerns raised in the recent Sullivan review, which recommended that police forces record a person’s biological sex rather than their self-declared gender identity. "The day after the publication of the Sullivan review, which revealed widespread destruction of data on sex, we see a shocking example of the harms this does in policing," Joyce said. She further argued that using the term "transgender woman" still misleads the public, as "lots of people don’t know that a ‘transgender woman’ is not a woman at all, but a man who merely identifies as a woman." Calling the police’s wording "ideologically motivated nonsense," she warned that it undermines public trust and makes it harder for law enforcement to do their job. Deputy Chief Constable Nev Kemp defended the force’s approach, explaining that while they aim to respect personal pronouns, there is no national guidance on how such cases should be handled. "We have reviewed this appeal and have determined that it would have been appropriate to describe the person as a transgender woman, or someone who identified as a woman, to support our objective of finding and detaining this suspect," he stated. He confirmed that the force had since amended the appeal and was awaiting guidance from the National Police Chiefs Council on appropriate language use. This case has reignited debates over how police should handle gender identity in public appeals, with critics arguing that prioritizing self-identification over biological sex could compromise public safety and impede accurate data collection on issues affecting women. Based on a report by The Telegraph 2025-03-24

Former President Joe Biden is facing rejection from within his own party after offering to help raise funds and campaign for Democrats. Despite his efforts to re-enter the political spotlight, many Democratic leaders and donors remain hesitant, citing his connection to the party’s devastating 2024 loss. Biden recently met privately with new Democratic National Committee chairman Ken Martin, according to NBC, and pledged to help restore the party’s credibility and financial standing. However, his offer has largely been met with skepticism. Many Democrats argue that Biden, now 82, represents the past rather than the future and is too closely associated with the party’s recent electoral defeat. Some prominent Democrats have even expressed frustration over Biden’s handling of his 2024 campaign, particularly his decision to keep Kamala Harris as his running mate. Critics argue that he should have stepped aside sooner, allowing a stronger candidate to emerge. Though he ultimately endorsed Harris, many felt it was a case of too little, too late. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump’s victory in 2024 was decisive, marking the first time in decades that a majority of the electorate voted Republican. This shift has left the Democratic Party grappling with its identity and searching for a way forward. A recent NBC News poll revealed that only 27 percent of registered voters view the Democratic Party favorably—the lowest rating since 1990. As Democrats assess their losses, they are also in dire need of financial support. First Lady Jill Biden has reportedly stepped in, offering to help raise funds for the party. Still, many within the party are pushing for new leadership and a fresh direction. Despite this, some Democrats continue to stand by Biden. DNC Vice Chair Jane Kleeb told NBC that state party leaders would welcome Biden as a speaker at their events, stating, “He is beloved by the party and beloved by the voters.” However, polling suggests otherwise. A March CNN survey found that only 1 percent of respondents believed Biden best represented the party’s values. By comparison, 10 percent supported Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 9 percent backed Kamala Harris, and 8 percent favored Bernie Sanders. These figures indicate a steep decline in Biden’s influence within his own party. Further polling highlights the party’s broader struggles. Only about 27 percent of Americans currently hold a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party, down from 33 percent in January and 49 percent at the start of Biden’s presidency in 2021. This downward trend underscores growing dissatisfaction and a desire for a major shift within the party. Even as Democrats seek to move on from Biden, Trump continues to bring him up. Since taking office, Trump has referenced Biden more than 400 times, often using him as a political scapegoat. Trump also made a controversial decision this week, ending Secret Service protection for Biden’s two children without prior notice. This move contrasts with Biden’s decision in 2021 to extend security for Trump’s children for six months after leaving office. Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, defended the administration’s focus on Biden, explaining, “We are still very much fixing so many of the problems created or started by the Biden administration.” Despite leaving office two months ago, Biden’s legacy continues to shape political debates. The Democratic Party is at a crossroads, facing internal division, declining support, and an urgent need to rebuild. Whether Biden remains part of that rebuilding process or fades into the background remains to be seen. Based on a report by The Daily Beast 2025-03-24

Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, has rejected UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s proposal for an international force to oversee a ceasefire in Ukraine, calling it "a posture and a pose." Speaking in an interview with pro-Trump journalist Tucker Carlson, Witkoff criticized the idea as "simplistic," accusing Starmer and other European leaders of trying to emulate Winston Churchill. During the interview, Witkoff spoke highly of Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying he "liked" him and did not consider him a "bad guy." He described Putin as "super smart" and shared details of a recent meeting between them that took place ten days prior. According to Witkoff, Putin had been "gracious" and "straight up" in their discussions. He also claimed that Putin had prayed for Trump after last year's assassination attempt on him and had commissioned a portrait of the former U.S. president as a gift. "Trump was clearly touched by it," Witkoff added. Throughout the discussion, Witkoff echoed several Russian narratives, including the claim that Ukraine was "a false country" and questioned when the world would recognize the occupied regions of Ukraine as Russian. Although he leads the U.S. ceasefire negotiations with both Ukraine and Russia, he struggled to name all five Ukrainian regions that Russia has annexed or partially occupied. "The largest issue in that conflict are these so-called four regions, Donbas, Crimea, you know the names and there are two others," he stated. The five regions in question—Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Crimea—comprise significant parts of eastern and southern Ukraine. Witkoff made several assertions that have been widely disputed or debunked. He claimed that Ukrainian troops were surrounded in the Kursk region, a claim denied by Ukraine’s government and not supported by any available evidence. He also stated that referendums in the occupied regions showed overwhelming support for Russian rule, even though such referendums, held at different times, have been widely discredited by international observers. Additionally, he suggested that these regions were Russian-speaking, implying that this justified Russia’s occupation. While many people in Ukraine do speak Russian, this has never been a reliable indicator of support for Russian governance. He further justified Russia’s full-scale invasion by arguing that, from a Russian perspective, the occupied territories were already part of Russia. "The elephant in the room is, there are constitutional issues within Ukraine as to what they can concede to with regard to giving up territory. The Russians are de facto in control of these territories. The question is: will the world acknowledge that those are Russian territories?" he asked. Witkoff also stated that Russia’s view of Ukraine as an artificial creation was central to the conflict. "There’s a sensibility in Russia that Ukraine is just a false country, that they just patched together in this sort of mosaic, these regions, and that’s what is the root cause, in my opinion, of this war. Russia regards those five regions as rightfully theirs since World War Two, and that’s something nobody wants to talk about." Putin has consistently framed the war as a response to NATO expansion and the mere existence of Ukraine as an independent nation. Witkoff, however, argued that Russia had already achieved its objectives. "Why would they want to absorb Ukraine? For what purpose? They don’t need to absorb Ukraine… They have reclaimed these five regions. They have Crimea, and they have gotten what they want. So why do they need more?" When asked about Starmer’s plan to form a "coalition of the willing" to provide military security guarantees for Ukraine after the war, Witkoff dismissed it as both performative and naive. "I think it's a combination of a posture and a pose and a combination of also being simplistic. There is this sort of notion that we have all got to be like [British wartime prime minister] Winston Churchill. Russians are going to march across Europe. That is preposterous, by the way. We have something called NATO that we did not have in World War Two." He revealed that a ceasefire in the Black Sea was expected "over the next week or so" and suggested that a full 30-day ceasefire was "not far away." He also shared insights into Trump’s long-term vision for U.S.-Russia cooperation once relations are normalized. "Who doesn’t want to have a world where Russia and the US are doing collaboratively good things together? Thinking about how to integrate their energy policies in the Arctic, share sea lines maybe, send LNG gas into Europe together, maybe collaborate on AI together?" Based on a report by BBC 2025-03-24

The Trump administration has officially announced its intention to expand oil and gas drilling in the Arctic, reigniting a long-standing debate over environmental conservation and economic development. In a formal statement released Thursday, the Interior Department outlined plans to open the entire 1.56 million-acre Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to fossil fuel extraction, reversing restrictions imposed during the Biden administration. Under Biden’s policies, drilling in the Arctic refuge had been largely restricted, leading several oil companies to abandon their pursuits in the region. Now, with the Trump administration’s renewed focus on energy expansion, these opportunities may be revisited. Additionally, the administration aims to lift restrictions on the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska’s Western Arctic. The Interior Department stated that it intends to make 82 percent of the 23-million-acre reserve available for drilling, rolling back Biden’s decision that had limited development to less than half of the land. Beyond oil drilling, the administration also signaled its intent to revoke a Biden-era ruling that had blocked an Alaska mining road, as well as advance efforts to strengthen a gas pipeline project. “It’s time for the U.S. to embrace Alaska’s abundant and largely untapped resources as a pathway to prosperity for the Nation, including Alaskans,” said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in a written statement. “For far too long, the federal government has created too many barriers to capitalizing on the state’s energy potential. Interior is committed to recognizing the central role the State of Alaska plays in meeting our nation’s energy needs, while providing tremendous economic opportunity for Alaskans,” he added. The move aligns with President Trump’s long-standing stance on Arctic energy development. On his first day in office, he signed an executive order prioritizing expanded drilling in the region. During his previous term, he had already increased the percentage of the National Petroleum Reserve available for drilling from 52 percent under the Obama administration to 82 percent. While the administration’s announcement represents a key policy shift, these changes are not immediate. Implementing them requires navigating a complex regulatory process, meaning the expansion of drilling will not happen overnight. However, this formal declaration marks a significant step toward rolling back restrictions and pushing forward energy development. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge remains one of the most controversial drilling locations due to its ecological significance. It provides a habitat for diverse wildlife, including grizzly bears, polar bears, gray wolves, caribou, and over 200 species of birds. Furthermore, the land holds deep cultural and spiritual importance for the Gwich’in people. Despite environmental concerns, some Alaskan Native groups support drilling, seeing it as a crucial economic driver for the state. The debate over Arctic drilling continues to highlight the tension between conservation efforts and economic priorities, setting the stage for further legal and political battles in the years ahead. Based on a report by The Hill 2025-03-24

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is set to halve the UK’s growth forecast for 2025, dealing a significant setback to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves. The expected growth rate, initially projected at 2 percent, will now be downgraded to around 1 percent for the financial year spanning April 2025 to March 2026. Reeves, who will present the Spring Statement next week, is expected to attribute the decline to global economic challenges, particularly the economic impact of Donald Trump's trade policies. However, the revision poses a political embarrassment for both Starmer and Reeves, who have repeatedly stated that economic growth is their top priority. Critics have already pointed to Labour’s decision last October to implement £40 billion in tax increases—the largest tax hike in over thirty years—as a key factor in the UK’s weakening economic outlook. The increase in National Insurance for businesses has been widely blamed for slowing growth, with concerns mounting as Reeves prepares to announce significant spending cuts during her address to Parliament on Wednesday. While government sources insist that no additional tax increases will be announced, new efforts to combat tax avoidance are expected to generate extra revenue. It has been confirmed that without the revenue-raising measures already introduced, Reeves would have breached her own fiscal rules. In an attempt to explain the situation, Reeves is expected to argue that global conditions have shifted, citing Trump's return to office and rising global debt interest rates. However, this argument is undermined by surveys indicating that business confidence was already in decline before Trump took office. A British Chambers of Commerce study found that by early January, two-thirds of UK firms were already concerned about the growing tax burden. Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride did not hold back in his criticism, stating: "Before the election, Labour promised ‘growth, growth, growth,’ but their anti-business Budget has killed growth stone dead. The Chancellor has relentlessly talked Britain down, raised taxes to record highs, and burdened businesses with extreme employment legislation. With just six days until Labour’s emergency Budget, the Chancellor must think again." The worsening economic climate is expected to intensify debates within the government over the extent of spending cuts required. While the halved growth forecast aligns with projections from financial institutions, the precise figures remain closely guarded by the Treasury ahead of Wednesday’s announcement. In the autumn, the OBR faced accusations of excessive optimism in its projections. The latest forecast will bring it more in line with estimates from the Bank of England, which recently revised its 2025 growth estimate from 1.5 percent to 0.75 percent. Other economic indicators continue to decline, with the Bank of England warning on Thursday that inflation could rise from 3 percent to 3.75 percent by the end of the year. The official inflation target remains at 2 percent, a level briefly achieved in the final months of the previous Conservative government after a concerted effort to bring inflation down from double digits. The Bank of England’s decision to hold interest rates at 4.5 percent reflects concerns about declining business confidence, with more firms reportedly freezing hiring. Adding to the pressure, Reeves’ forthcoming increase in National Insurance for companies, expected to generate £25 billion, is set to take effect next month, sparking further backlash from the business community. Despite the bleak outlook, the Chancellor is expected to introduce new measures aimed at stimulating growth. Following a two-week focus on spending cuts, including reductions in welfare and Whitehall waste, Reeves will unveil policies designed to improve productivity and economic performance. However, the Spring Statement will not include detailed spending allocations for individual government departments, with those decisions postponed until June. Changes to overall Whitehall spending are anticipated. Reeves had previously announced a real-term increase of 1.5 percent in day-to-day departmental budgets, compared to the 1 percent rise planned by former Tory Chancellor Jeremy Hunt. However, much of her spending has been front-loaded, meaning the increase will taper off to 1.3 percent in the latter years of the decade. This figure is now expected to be revised downward. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that reducing the planned increase to 1.1 percent would save £5 billion annually. The reductions will help Reeves meet her fiscal targets, which include balancing day-to-day spending with tax revenues and ensuring public debt declines over a five-year period. However, they are also likely to provoke criticism from left-wing Labour MPs and reignite debates over similarities between Reeves’ approach and the austerity measures introduced by former Chancellor George Osborne. Treasury officials maintain that real-term public spending is still rising, arguing that their approach is not comparable to austerity. Last autumn, an additional £40 billion in public spending was announced. Nevertheless, economic analysts warn that the scale of cuts facing unprotected government departments in the coming years could be as severe as those imposed during the austerity era. Based on a report by The Telegraph 2025-03-24

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has decided to eliminate three internal watchdog agencies responsible for investigating complaints and advocating for immigrants, calling them unnecessary obstacles to immigration enforcement. The agencies, which had approximately 300 employees, played a crucial role in addressing concerns about detention conditions, green card and citizenship application delays, and the treatment of migrants in the U.S. DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin confirmed the decision, stating that the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, and the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman were being dismantled due to their role in “obstructing immigration enforcement by adding bureaucratic hurdles and undermining DHS’s mission.” Employees of these agencies now face termination within 60 days unless reassigned within the department. These watchdog offices were among the few internal mechanisms ensuring oversight of DHS’s immigration enforcement actions. They provided critical reports to Congress and offered information to immigrants facing deportation, many of whom lack legal representation. Former DHS Inspector General John Roth described the agencies as “the first line of defense when it comes to oversight.” The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which employed over 150 staff members with a $46 million budget, focused on more than just immigration issues. It investigated complaints related to natural disasters, cybersecurity threats, and terrorism. In one notable case, the office examined an incident involving a federal agent mistreating a traveler in a wheelchair. The agency also investigated allegations of sexual assault in detention centers and discrimination against minorities and disabled veterans seeking employment at DHS. The Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, which had over 120 employees, reviewed more than 11,000 complaints in 2023 alone. It conducted inspections and issued reports on detention conditions, advocating for improved treatment of detainees. The office even launched billboard campaigns informing detainees of their rights, which some Republican lawmakers opposed. One billboard read, “Your brother in immigration custody has rights. We’re here to help.” The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, with its 45 staffers, handled 30,000 requests for assistance in 2023. Many of these involved individuals whose green card or work permit applications were rejected due to clerical errors, as well as those desperate to reunite with their families. The office also processed appeals for immigrants seeking entry under the parole program, which was later discontinued by the Trump administration. “Many of the requests are heart-wrenching; individuals detail the danger, hunger, and desperation that family members face in their home countries,” said then-acting ombudsman Nathan Stiefel in his annual report to Congress. Despite the critical work these agencies performed, DHS maintains that their closure is necessary to “streamline oversight” and remove barriers to immigration enforcement. “Rather than supporting law enforcement efforts, they often function as internal adversaries that slow down operations,” McLaughlin argued. She emphasized that the move ensures taxpayer dollars are directed toward DHS’s primary missions: border security and immigration enforcement. The decision has drawn significant criticism, particularly from Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee, who accused the administration of trying to eliminate oversight that could expose illegal or unconstitutional actions. Critics argue that dismantling these offices weakens the department’s accountability, particularly as aggressive immigration enforcement measures continue. An official from the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, speaking anonymously, called the decision “senseless,” pointing out that the agency’s oversight helped identify unlawful behavior and contract fraud, ultimately saving DHS money by preventing lawsuits. “This is only for cruelty,” the official said. “You don’t fire organizations that save the agency money.” The closure of these watchdog agencies marks a significant shift in DHS policy, reducing internal oversight at a time when immigration enforcement remains a contentious issue. Whether this decision leads to increased efficiency or exacerbates existing concerns about detainee treatment and due process remains to be seen. Based on a report by WP 2025-03-24

Foreign Secretary David Lammy has found himself at the center of a political storm after revealing in a cabinet meeting that a member of his extended family had been claiming benefits they were "probably" not entitled to. His comments came during a heated discussion among senior Labour ministers over proposed welfare cuts aimed at saving the government £5 billion. The meeting, which saw tensions flare over the controversial reforms, included pushback from key figures such as Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, and Commons Leader Lucy Powell. They reportedly questioned whether restricting welfare benefits was the right approach to balancing the budget. Powell even interrupted Science Secretary Peter Kyle as he defended the cuts, arguing that they were both fiscally necessary and morally justifiable. A government source described the exchange as "tense." Lammy, who has often spoken about his own childhood struggles in poverty in Tottenham, North London, weighed in by citing his relative’s situation as an example of why reforms were needed. However, he has since refrained from publicly commenting on the matter. His remarks have added fuel to an already divisive debate, as Labour MPs voice concerns that the cuts could leave up to 1.2 million people without essential financial support. Criticism quickly followed from both inside and outside the party. Polly Billington, a former special adviser to Ed Miliband, questioned the impact of the changes in Parliament, asking how “reducing support for those who struggle to wash and dress themselves” would help address worklessness. Meanwhile, veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott strongly condemned Lammy’s justification of the cuts, accusing him of painting his own relative as a "scrounger." Abbott further argued that the real causes of financial hardship lay elsewhere, stating, “I hope people properly understand, it has never been migrants or asylum seekers making you worse off. It is your landlord, your bank, your supermarket, your energy supplier — and your government.” She warned that allowing the government to proceed with these cuts unchallenged would only lead to further austerity measures, which, she argued, do not actually improve public finances. The controversy surrounding Lammy’s comments highlights broader divisions within Labour over welfare policy. While the government insists the cuts are necessary to curb unnecessary spending and restore financial stability, critics within the party fear they will disproportionately harm vulnerable people. With public opposition growing and Labour MPs voicing their discontent, the battle over welfare reform is far from over. Based on a report by The Times 2025-03-24

Hassan Diab, the man convicted in absentia for the 1980 bombing of a Paris synagogue, remains free in Canada, sparking outrage among Jewish advocacy groups and political leaders. Despite an international arrest warrant and a life sentence handed down by a French court, Diab continues to live in the suburbs of Ottawa, where he has been seen walking and biking in recent weeks. Jewish organizations are condemning the Canadian government’s refusal to extradite Diab. “That Hassan Diab remains free in Canada is unacceptable,” said Richard Marceau, Vice President, External Affairs and General Counsel at the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), in a statement to DailyMail.com. Critics argue that his continued presence in the country is a failure of justice, made worse by the fact that he was convicted of carrying out a deadly anti-Semitic attack. On the evening of October 3, 1980, a powerful explosive device, hidden on a motorcycle, detonated outside the Rue Copernic synagogue in Paris, killing four people. French authorities identified Diab as a suspect years later, but he has always maintained his innocence, claiming he was taking university exams in Beirut at the time of the bombing. Diab was arrested in Canada in 2008 but was granted bail while awaiting an extradition decision. In 2014, he was sent to France, where he spent three years in pretrial detention. In 2018, French prosecutors dropped the charges due to a lack of evidence, allowing him to return to Canada. However, the case took a dramatic turn when the Paris Court of Appeal reversed that decision in January 2021, ordering Diab to stand trial. He refused to return to France, and on April 21, 2023, he was convicted in absentia of terrorism charges and sentenced to life in prison. Canada has so far refused to send him back to France, a decision made by the government of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. With a Canadian federal election expected this spring, political pressure is mounting for Diab’s extradition. Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has criticized the government’s inaction, writing on social media last November: “Why hasn’t he been extradited to France to face justice?” Diab himself has acknowledged the uncertainty of his situation, telling a Canadaland podcast, “I just have to be careful. It’s like you are living in constant fear. It’s not easy, it’s like waiting for a ghost to appear from somewhere.” Last year, Diab taught a course titled Social Justice in Action at Ottawa's Carleton University, using his extradition case in the class. B'nai B'rith Canada was one of the many Jewish groups that blasted Carleton University, in a statement posted on social media. 'We cannot stand by while a convicted terrorist, affiliated with a listed terrorist group, teaches on our campuses! Jewish organizations and victims’ advocates insist that allowing a convicted terrorist to remain in Canada undermines the justice system. Marceau emphasized that Diab’s trial in France was fair, stating, “He was afforded every protection under French and European law and was found guilty by an independent court of law.” He further argued that failing to extradite him is “an abuse of process” and added, 'Justice must be upheld. At a time of rising anti-Semitism, allowing a convicted perpetrator of a deadly anti-Semitic attack to remain in Canada is indefensible. Based on a report by Daily Mail 2025-03-24

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has called a snap election for April 28, setting the stage for a fierce political battle against Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre. As Carney launched his campaign, much of the focus was on his stance toward U.S. President Donald Trump, who has recently taken an increasingly aggressive approach toward Canada. Speaking in French about U.S.-Canada relations, Carney asserted that he was "fully able to stand up" to Trump. However, he emphasized that any future discussions on trade must be preceded by Trump acknowledging Canada’s sovereignty. "He has to say it and accept it," Carney declared, making it clear that recognizing Canada as an independent nation was a prerequisite for broader negotiations. Despite tensions, the two leaders have yet to speak since Carney took office nine days ago. Carney’s announcement comes at a moment of heightened strain between the two nations. Trump’s tariff policies and recent remarks suggesting that Canada could become America’s "51st state" have fueled political debate north of the border. Carney framed these tensions as existential threats. "He wants to break us so America will own us," he warned. "We will not let that happen." The prime minister said his government was seeking a "strong positive mandate" to push back against these challenges. The election campaign is expected to be fiercely contested, with Carney facing Poilievre as his main opponent. Poilievre, who has drawn comparisons to Trump, launched his campaign by pledging to cut taxes, expand natural resource development, and bring jobs back to Canada. His supporters argue that he represents a break from what they see as the economic struggles caused by years of Liberal leadership. Following Carney’s announcement, the Conservative Party swiftly responded. Former Conservative leader Andrew Scheer criticized Carney, stating that his leadership would make Canada "poorer, weaker, and more vulnerable to the U.S." Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner echoed this sentiment, writing that the "lost decade of Liberal-caused crises is about to end." Meanwhile, New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Jagmeet Singh wasted no time in attacking Carney. He accused the prime minister of siding with the wealthy over working Canadians. "When times get tougher, he won’t step in, he’ll step aside," Singh said. He also condemned Trump’s trade war as "illegal," arguing that it was causing job losses in Canada. Singh, along with Carney and Poilievre, made it clear that Canada would not become America’s "51st state." As the election campaign gets underway, polls suggest a tight race. The latest data from CBC’s Poll Tracker shows the Liberals at 37.5% and the Conservatives at 37.1%, making the contest virtually a dead heat. However, analysts warn that public opinion has been volatile in recent weeks. The NDP sits at 11.6%, while the Quebec-focused Bloc Québécois polls at 6.4% nationally but holds a strong 28.4% in Quebec. The Green Party has 3.8% support, while the People’s Party of Canada, still seeking its first parliamentary seat, is polling at 2.2%. With less than six weeks until election day, the battle lines have been drawn. Carney is positioning himself as the defender of Canadian sovereignty against an unpredictable U.S. president, while Poilievre presents himself as the leader who can reinvigorate the economy. Singh, in turn, argues that neither Carney nor Poilievre will stand up for ordinary Canadians. As the campaign unfolds, Canada’s relationship with the U.S. is likely to remain a dominant issue in the race for the country’s leadership. Based on a report by BBC 2025-03-24

A post making a false claim on the link provided has been removed @beautifulthailand99