Social Media

UN Court Set to Review Israel’s Humanitarian Responsibilities in Gaza Crisis The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague will commence a week of hearings on Monday to address Israel’s humanitarian responsibilities toward Palestinians, following more than 50 days of a complete blockade on aid entering Gaza. Proceedings will begin at 10:00 am (0800 GMT) with a presentation from United Nations representatives, followed by a submission from Palestinian authorities. In addition to the initial submissions, another 38 countries, including major global powers such as the United States, China, France, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, will present their arguments before the panel of 15 judges. International organizations like the League of Arab States, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and the African Union are also scheduled to participate in the hearings. The move comes after the UN General Assembly passed a resolution in December urging the ICJ to deliver an advisory opinion "on a priority basis and with the utmost urgency." The resolution, led by Norway, was adopted by a substantial majority, reflecting widespread concern over the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The UN has specifically asked the court to clarify Israel’s obligations under international law toward the UN and its agencies, other international organizations, and third-party states. The aim is to determine Israel’s duty to "ensure and facilitate the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies essential to the survival of the Palestinian civilian population." Israel maintains strict control over all incoming international aid intended for the 2.4 million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. Aid deliveries were entirely halted on March 2, just days before the breakdown of a ceasefire that had brought relative calm after 15 months of relentless conflict. Since the end of the two-month ceasefire in mid-March, the UN estimates that approximately 500,000 Palestinians have been displaced. On March 18, Israel resumed its aerial bombardments, followed closely by intensified ground operations. According to the UN, the escalation has resulted in what it describes as "likely the worst" humanitarian crisis to afflict the occupied Palestinian territory since the war began, triggered by Hamas's October 7, 2023, attack. The devastating Hamas assault led to the deaths of 1,218 people on the Israeli side, primarily civilians, based on an AFP tally derived from official Israeli statistics. Israel’s military response has since caused the deaths of at least 52,243 people in Gaza, also predominantly civilians, according to figures from the health ministry in the Hamas-run enclave. In addition, at least 2,111 Palestinians have died since hostilities resumed on March 18. The UN has affirmed that the ministry’s statistics are considered reliable. Israel asserts that its military campaign is focused on pressuring Hamas to release the remaining captives. While the ICJ’s advisory opinions are not legally binding, the court emphasizes that they "carry great legal weight and moral authority." As the hearings unfold, they reflect a growing global concern and "broad frustration" over the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza and the urgent need for clear legal guidance on Israel’s obligations under international law. Adpated by ASEAN Now from AFP 2025-04-28

A troll post has been removed @Chomper Higgot 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.

British Billionaire Brothers Relocate to Monaco Amid UK Wealth Exodus Two of Britain’s wealthiest real estate investors, Ian and Richard Livingstone, have officially left the UK, marking another high-profile departure among the country's elite as new tax hikes target the wealthy. The billionaire brothers, founders of the property firm London & Regional, now list Monaco as their place of usual residency, a change noted in recent registry filings. Previously, they had cited the UK as their primary residence. Their decision strengthens their long-standing connection to the glamorous French Riviera city-state, where they have maintained significant investments for over a decade. The switch took effect between late March and early April, according to the filings, coinciding with sweeping tax changes introduced by Keir Starmer’s Labour government. These changes, announced during the UK’s Autumn Budget in October, included restrictions on relief for inherited assets and increased levies on capital gains and private equity investments. A representative for Ian, 62, and Richard, 60, declined to comment on the move. According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, the brothers’ combined fortune stands at around $8.5 billion. The Livingstones’ relocation highlights a growing trend among wealthy individuals severing ties with Britain. Ultra-rich foreign nationals such as Egypt’s Nassef Sawiris and Belgium’s Frederic de Mevius have also been distancing themselves from the UK in response to a flurry of financial policy changes. Traditionally known for its legal and political stability, Britain had long been a magnet for global wealth. However, its reputation has been eroded since Brexit and the rapid turnover of prime ministers since 2016. The government has repeatedly tightened the rules for affluent residents, including the removal of inheritance tax breaks for overseas trusts. These measures are part of Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s strategy to address what she described as a £40 billion ($53 billion) economic shortfall. Monaco remains a preferred destination for those exiting Britain’s increasingly unfriendly fiscal environment. In the UK, the top 1% of earners typically contribute more than a quarter of all income taxes, whereas Monaco offers significant tax advantages, including no taxes on capital gains or income and substantial exemptions for inherited assets. It also boasts high levels of personal safety compared to many other European territories. The Livingstone brothers join other British billionaires like Jim Ratcliffe, founder of chemicals giant Ineos, who relocated to Monaco around 2018, motivated partly by the threat posed by then-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s policies. Growing up in London as the sons of a dentist, Ian and Richard Livingstone began amassing their real estate fortune in the 1990s by acquiring distressed properties following a sharp decline in UK real estate prices. Ian, who originally studied optometry, also founded an eyewear business that expanded to more than 200 stores before he sold his stake to Leonardo Del Vecchio’s Luxottica Group in 2010. Today, London & Regional’s expansive property portfolio includes assets such as London cinemas, office spaces in Madrid, and the Fairmont Monte Carlo, a four-star hotel in Monaco they purchased in 2007. Beyond business, their philanthropic foundations have actively supported initiatives for UK children, British fashion, and London educational institutions. Related Topics: London’s Wealth Exodus: Capital Falls from Top Five Richest Cities as Millionaires Depart UK Exodus of Millionaires Highlights Concerns Over Labour’s Tax Policies Adpated by ASEAN Now from Bloomberg 2025-04-28

BBC Contributor in Gaza Sparks Outrage with Anti-Semitic Hate Speech A journalist who has frequently appeared on BBC Arabic to report from Gaza has been exposed for posting violently anti-Semitic messages on social media, including a chilling call to "burn" Jews like Hitler did. Samer Elzaenen, who has featured on BBC Arabic over a dozen times since the outbreak of violence following the Hamas attacks on October 7, has stirred major controversy after his hateful online posts came to light. Elzaenen, 33, has provided live reports, including dispatches from the Nuseirat refugee camp last June after an Israeli rescue operation that resulted in numerous Palestinian casualties. However, investigations have uncovered a disturbing history of social media posts in which he not only singles out Jews for blame but openly incites violence against them. In one Facebook post from July 2022, Elzaenen wrote: "When things go awry for us, shoot the Jews, it fixes everything." His rhetoric went even further in a 2011 Facebook post, where he issued a direct and terrifying threat: "My message to the Zionist Jews: We are going to take our land back, we love death for Allah’s sake the same way you love life. We shall burn you as Hitler did, but this time we won’t have a single one of you left." Beyond these shocking statements, Elzaenen’s social media activity has consistently glorified violence against Jewish civilians. He has used hashtags like "#We Are All Hamas You Son of a Jewess," praised attacks on Jewish civilians as “blessed” and “heroic,” and referred to the perpetrators as “martyrs” who “ascended” to “heaven.” Following a February 2023 attack where a Palestinian terrorist killed two young boys and a 20-year-old man at a Jerusalem bus stop, Elzaenen remarked that the victims “will soon go to hell.” Elzaenen has repeatedly described the Hamas militants who carried out the October 7 atrocities, including the attack on the Nova music festival, as "resistance fighters," further underlining his deep-rooted extremism. He is not alone in this behavior. Ahmed Qannan, another freelance contributor for BBC Arabic, also expressed chilling sentiments online. After a deadly shooting near a Jerusalem synagogue on Holocaust Memorial Day in January 2023, Qannan responded to a Facebook comment wishing to "see some throats cut" by writing: "Don’t give up on your ambition." He also praised a 26-year-old Palestinian who murdered five people in Bnei Brak in March 2022, calling him a “hero.” While BBC insiders stress that neither Elzaenen nor Qannan are formal members of BBC staff, their continued use as freelance contributors has provoked widespread condemnation. Media watchdogs, including the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (Camera), argue that BBC Arabic’s choice to feature such individuals reflects a severe bias and a failure to maintain journalistic neutrality. Camera UK issued a scathing statement, saying: “The BBC misleadingly frames freelance journalists used by the Arabic service as mere 'contributors' so it won’t have to take responsibility for the hatred they regularly spew in social media. Freelancers who divulge such egregious bias should not be covering Israeli and Jewish affairs for the BBC." The controversy has prompted political action as well. Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservative Party, recently demanded "wholesale reform" of BBC Arabic after Camera's findings surfaced. In a letter to BBC Director-General Tim Davie, Badenoch stressed: “BBC Arabic is intended to provide high-quality, trusted news for the hundreds of millions of people who speak Arabic. Instead, it seems that the World Service may be fomenting extremism and misleading audiences – while funded by the taxpayer and licence fees. This is simply unacceptable and must stop.” Previously, the BBC conducted internal investigations into some Arabic presenters who liked or shared posts that appeared to celebrate the October 7 massacres, but no further disciplinary action was taken. Both Elzaenen and Qannan were contacted for comment but have not publicly responded. In a statement, a BBC spokesperson clarified: “International journalists including the BBC are not allowed access into Gaza so we hear from a range of eyewitness accounts from the strip. These are not BBC members of staff or part of the BBC’s reporting team. We were not aware of the individuals’ social media activity prior to hearing from them on air. We are absolutely clear that there is no place for anti-Semitism on our services.” Related Topics: BBC Doc Features Son Of Hamas Leader but Fails to Disclose to Viewers BBC Faces Backlash Over Use of Term ‘Revert’ in Islam Coverage BBC Faces More Serious Accusations of Bias in Gaza Hostage Release Coverage "Controversy Surrounds BBC Arabic's Coverage of Israel-Gaza Conflict" BBC uses account of journalist working for Iran-backed news agency in Gaza deaths article MPs demand inquiry Gaza doctors at centre of harrowing BBC report are Hamas supporters BBC criticized For failing To Disclose Affiliations of Palestinian Journalists Hamas Ties BBC Faces Backlash Over Terminology in Hamas Coverage BBC Chairman Calls For a Thorough Review of Israel-Hamas War Bias BBC Accused of Bias in Israel-Hamas Coverage: Over 1,500 Breaches of Guidelines Jeremy Bowen Defends BBC Amid Allegations of Bias Over Israel-Hamas Coverage New Report from former BBC Director Criticizes Coverage of Israel-Hamas Conflict Whistleblower Alleges Normalized Anti-Semitism at the BBC Adpated by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-04-28

Title: At a Crossroads: How Democrats Are Struggling to Find Their Voice Against Trump Democrats across the United States are grappling with a fundamental question: what should they do next? Answers vary widely, and in the wake of President Donald Trump's early months back in office, the Democratic Party has struggled to project a unified message. Internal fractures are evident, both within Congress and among the party’s base, leaving many wondering how the party can regroup during such a challenging moment. An unlikely setting, Bakersfield, California—a rural town dominated by agriculture and surrounded by a county that Trump carried by 20 points—became the backdrop for a striking show of Democratic energy. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Independent Senator Bernie Sanders recently rallied there as part of their Fighting Oligarchy tour, packing a local auditorium. The atmosphere resembled a 1960s sit-in, complete with renditions of Woody Guthrie's "This Land is Your Land" and thunderous boos whenever Sanders denounced Trump or tech billionaire Elon Musk. For local Democrats and left-leaning independents, the rally was a much-needed spark. Many expressed frustration not only with Trump but also with their own party’s inability to mount an effective opposition. "The Democratic party should be doing more to try to protect everybody," said 26-year-old Karla Alcantar. "I feel like some of them have just folded over completely, and there are some that are trying to do the work of all." Another attendee, Juan Dominguez, echoed the sentiment. "I understand that they don't have the power to, like, change like things drastically, but they do have the power to slow down like things even a little bit," he said. "It honestly feels like I'm not seeing any of that." The discontent is widespread. A CNN/SSRS poll from mid-March revealed that 52% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents believe the party’s leadership is headed in the wrong direction. Meanwhile, 57% want Democrats in Congress to actively resist the Republican agenda, a stark contrast to 2017, when a large majority favored working across the aisle. Former Pennsylvania Congressman Conor Lamb, who hosted a town hall in Pittsburgh, sensed this urgency. "I think they feel like the survival of the system we have all counted on is itself on the line, and they want us to act with that level of urgency," Lamb said. However, he cautioned, "it's important for us not to forget just to be advocates for things that are specific and concrete, and really affecting people." Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have kept their message tightly focused on economic struggles, pointing to soaring living costs and portraying Trump and billionaires like Musk as the true adversaries. Ocasio-Cortez framed the moment plainly: "Oligarchy or democracy?" Still, the Fighting Oligarchy tour represents just one vision for the Democratic future. According to Professor Christian Grose from the University of Southern California, "It is completely normal when a party loses, especially the presidency, for there to be this period of soul searching and asking, 'What's next?'" Some Democrats argue that the party has drifted too far from mainstream American values on cultural issues like transgender rights, while others insist the party needs to embrace a broader ideological range if it hopes to reclaim power. California Governor Gavin Newsom has taken a different approach, seeking to rebrand Democrats toward the center. Though Newsom denies any presidential ambitions, he has made headlines by launching a podcast featuring conversations with political opponents, including a controversial interview with right-wing strategist Steve Bannon. "I think it's important to have difficult conversations or even have a civil conversation that may be difficult for people to listen to," Newsom explained at a press conference. The Democratic Party's generational divide also looms large. David Hogg, a 25-year-old gun safety activist and vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, has publicly clashed with longtime strategist James Carville. Hogg pledged $20 million to fund primary challenges against entrenched Democratic incumbents, arguing, "We cannot win back the majority if we do not convince the American people that our party offers something that isn't just, not Donald Trump, but something substantially better." Carville, however, dismissed Hogg’s plan as "insane," warning, "Aren't we supposed to run against Republicans?" Despite these internal battles, Democrats at the Bakersfield rally made one thing clear: they want action, not endless debate. Lisa Richards, a 61-year-old who drove 230 miles from San Diego to attend, praised New Jersey Senator Cory Booker for his marathon 25-hour speech opposing Trump's policies. "Showing people in the country that they care," she said, is what matters most. Adpated by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-04-28

A Fleeting Encounter in Rome: Trump, Zelensky, and the Shadows of a Broader Conflict The unexpected death of Pope Francis created a rare and charged encounter between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky in Rome, marking their first face-to-face meeting since their ill-fated Oval Office conversation in February. Their 15-minute discussion was described by both sides as productive, with Zelensky notably calling it potentially “historic.” French President Emmanuel Macron appeared eager to join the meeting but was firmly rebuffed by Trump, a move that some have seen as fortuitous. It was the Europeans, after all, who had reportedly helped coach Zelensky ahead of his previous, disastrous White House visit. In this light, Zelensky’s optimism that his latest conversation with Trump could be “potentially historic” might well owe something to divine intervention. As Zelensky wrote on X, “Good meeting. We discussed a lot one on one. Hoping for results on everything we covered. Protecting lives of our people. Full and unconditional ceasefire. Reliable and lasting peace that will prevent another war from breaking out.” Meanwhile, Putin continues to weigh the costs of prolonging the war against the severe damage it is inflicting on Russia’s economy. Should a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement be reached, it could dramatically strengthen his position. In Moscow, he would easily be able to present any pause in fighting as a victory, regardless of the devastating human and economic toll the war has exacted from the Russian people. Zelensky, on the other hand, faces a far more perilous future. Accepting a ceasefire that cedes large portions of Ukrainian territory would almost certainly spell the end of his presidency. Putin is undoubtedly preparing for such an outcome, ready to exploit any political chaos that might follow in Kyiv. Looking more broadly, the future for Ukraine — and indeed the wider West — appears grim. NATO has revealed itself to be less formidable than hoped, a paper tiger just as Putin always believed. Despite the lofty promises enshrined in Article 5, there remains deep skepticism that NATO nations would truly commit their own soldiers to defend a member state under direct attack, particularly in Eastern Europe where future Russian aggression is likely to be focused. Rather than focusing blame on Donald Trump for the current dangerous state of affairs, European countries must finally get serious about defense, something they have neglected since the end of the Cold War. This would require massive investment in military capabilities, diverting funds away from social programs, international aid, and other ever-expanding government initiatives. Beyond just money, it demands preparing Western societies themselves to accept the sacrifices and hardships that serious national defense entails, a difficult prospect after decades of relative comfort and expanding welfare states. The alternative to facing these hard truths is starkly visible in Ukraine. As harrowing as the current conflict is, there have been few credible alternatives proposed that would end the bloodshed without simply emboldening future aggressions. The image of Trump and Zelensky, hunched together in quiet conversation inside St. Peter’s Basilica, may well linger in the collective memory for years to come — a haunting symbol of a world at a crossroads. Adpated by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-04-28

Harvard’s Shift: How Islamist Influence Took Root on Campus Harvard University, once a symbol of American academic excellence, has gradually transformed into a stronghold for leftist grievance groups, with antisemitism acting as the common thread binding them together. Having taught at Harvard from 1993 to 2014, I have little confidence that current federal interventions will succeed in reversing this cultural shift. Harvard’s leadership still does not grasp the full danger that this ideological transformation poses to the nation, nor the reasons it demands serious attention. The world changed dramatically on September 11, 2001, when al Qaeda’s Islamists turned American planes into deadly weapons. Fast forward to October 7, 2023, and Hamas militants similarly exploited Israel’s openness to launch a brutal attack, massacring civilians and kidnapping innocents. These jihadist strategies represent a new type of warfare, one that attacks from within rather than conquering outright. Most concerning is how elite American institutions like Harvard have been captured as ideological outposts for these movements. Harvard’s direct involvement became undeniable on October 8, 2023, when the Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee, supported by over 30 student groups, released a statement blaming “the Israeli regime” as “entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.” Shortly after, Students for Justice in Palestine declared October 12 a “day of resistance,” complete with a “toolkit” to organize the demonstrations and encampments that soon spread beyond campus. In a bold move, SJP asserted that Palestinian students were “PART of this movement, not in solidarity with this movement.” Back in 2001, Harvard had no such student organizations openly supporting Islamist causes. However, the university had already become a soft target for foreign ideological penetration. Its adversarial stance toward the American government began in the 1970s, when antiwar activists pushed the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps off campus for four decades. Later, exclusion of military recruiters was justified by opposition to the military’s policies on homosexuality, even as the university continued to accept government funds. The curriculum took a similarly critical turn, increasingly portraying America and Western civilization in a negative light. As civil-rights legislation of the 1960s left some activists unsatisfied, Harvard responded by embracing group preferences in hiring, elevating grievance-based identity groups and embedding itself firmly in the progressive activist camp. Conservatives found themselves unwelcome, both in faculty hiring and in the ideas taught. By the 1990s, campus groups invited Afrocentric and Nation of Islam speakers who spread hostility toward whites and Jews. In 1992, Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. warned: “This is anti-Semitism from the top down, engineered and promoted by leaders who affect to be speaking for a larger resentment.” The coalition expanded to include Marxists, anticapitalists, anticolonialists, and anti-imperialists. The Occupy Wall Street protests of 2011 were permitted to close Harvard Yard for months, reflecting how campus activism had been normalized. However, a unifying cause eluded these groups until the Palestinian issue provided a convenient rallying point. Students long discouraged from expressing patriotic sentiments or criticizing minority groups found in Israel a target sanctioned by political correctness. This shift was compounded by the influx of Middle Eastern money. The Department of Education reported that between January 2020 and October 2024, Harvard received over $100 million from countries including the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Bangladesh. In 2007, I began warning Harvard’s leaders that academic standards were being compromised by anti-Israel propaganda within the Center for Middle East Studies. While acknowledging the problem privately, administrators refused to take meaningful action, reasoning that other universities were just as complicit. The consequences became starkly visible after October 7, 2023. Students and faculty members not only excused but even celebrated the atrocities committed against Israeli civilians. A committee formed by the new Harvard Jewish Alumni Alliance found that campus “hatred” was “worse than we had anticipated.” Ideological anti-Zionism had permeated departments across Harvard, from the School of Public Health to the Divinity School, from anthropology to music, and even into the medical school. At the very moment when Harvard should have reaffirmed its proud heritage, it instead degraded its biblical studies programs and marginalized its Christian and Jewish traditions. Meanwhile, Islamist influence continued to grow amid America's broader cultural decline. There remain good people and valuable programs at Harvard. However, if Harvard continues to abandon its responsibility to uphold the pillars of American society and allows itself to be overtaken by an Islamist-fueled grievance movement, it cannot reasonably expect the support or trust of the American government. Related Topics: Harvard Advisor Resigns Amid Accusations of Aiding Hamas Operations in Gaza Harvard Becomes Resistance HQ in Trump’s Campus Culture War Biden's Surprise Visit to Harvard Marred by Protests, Gaffes, and Ice Cream Slip Adpated by ASEAN Now from Wall Street Journal 2025-04-28

Trump's First 100 Days: Supporters Weigh Progress, Pain, and Promises When Donald Trump staged his historic return to the presidency earlier this year, his diverse coalition of supporters — truck drivers, business owners, veterans, and others — played a crucial role. Now, 100 days into his second term, the BBC revisited five of them to gauge how they view the early days of Trump’s renewed leadership. Luiz Oliveira, a Brazilian immigrant who came to the U.S. legally in the 1980s, says Trump's fast-paced policy changes have been difficult to keep up with. Living in Nevada, Luiz is particularly pleased with Trump’s aggressive immigration stance, including new border restrictions and deportations, which have helped drive encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border to a four-year low. He describes the recent influx of migrants as an “invasion” and adds, “This is my house, my yard, and you're not going to stay here.” However, Luiz admits he is nervous about Trump's tariff policies. While he supports the goal of making other countries pay “their fair share,” he worries about the short-term economic pain. “It’s going to be painful [and] I don’t think it’s going to be as fast as he says. I’m a supporter, but at the end of the day, if this doesn’t work, I’ll say it’s a mistake — he did things too fast, scared the markets, scared the economy.” Amanda Sue Mathis, a 34-year-old Navy veteran, feels strongly that Trump is delivering on his promises. She praises him for focusing on domestic issues rather than foreign wars, saying, “There were a lot of people who cared about the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, but I think it’s time we look at our country and get things in order before we go fix other countries’ problems.” She welcomes Trump’s rollback of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies and supports executive orders banning gender-affirming care for minors and restricting transgender women from female sports. Believing that Trump is “kicking butt” and restoring a “merit-based society,” she says his first 100 days have made her “happier with [her] vote.” Yet, Amanda Sue is clear-eyed about her loyalty, stating, “I’m not one of those people who is always for Trump. If he messes up, I’ll be the first one to tell you.” For Ben Maurer, a 39-year-old freight truck driver from Pennsylvania, Trump's quick action on tariffs has reaffirmed his support. Tariffs were central to Ben’s backing of Trump, and he is thrilled the president wasted no time imposing them on countries from China to Canada. Despite some turbulence — with tariffs being raised, lowered, and delayed during trade negotiations — Ben feels the strategy is working. “Trump has earned back the respect [for the US],” he says, believing businesses will ultimately benefit. He adds that Trump’s greater preparation this term is evident, noting, “We are still the force to be reckoned with.” In California, artist June Carey has mixed feelings about Trump’s second term. “He’s a bit more aggressive and a little bit more erratic than I expected,” she admits. Nevertheless, she is impressed by the “waste” uncovered by the Department of Government Efficiency, led by billionaire Elon Musk. Though skeptical of Musk, June says, “Musk is a character I don’t understand. My feeling is that if Trump has trusted him as much as he has, then he must be a pretty good guy with the right ideas and the right goals.” Concerned about welfare spending, June supports many cuts but is anxious that Social Security remains protected. She asks, “Why would they cut [social security] when they’ve cut so many things that have saved them millions and millions of dollars?” Finally, in Maine, automotive shop owner Jeremy Stevens remains a faithful Trump backer. “Trump is very aggressively getting things he promised on the campaign trail done,” he says. Jeremy acknowledges customer concerns about the economic turbulence tariffs have caused, but believes critics are missing the bigger picture. “There definitely is a perception out there about the impact of these policies that is short-sighted,” he argues. Although economists warn of a possible U.S. recession, Jeremy is optimistic, saying, “It’s a temporary pain. This too shall pass.” From cautious optimism to unwavering faith, Trump’s supporters continue to navigate the triumphs and tensions of his turbulent return to power — convinced, for now, that the president is on the right path. Adpated by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-04-28

Just Stop Oil Declares Victory and Ends Direct Action Campaign in London After three years of headline-grabbing protests, Just Stop Oil (JSO) has declared its campaign a success and brought an end to its direct action efforts with one final march through central London. As activists ceremoniously hung up their iconic orange high-vis vests on Saturday, the group insisted, "It has been a success." Since its formation, JSO has drawn both attention and controversy through a series of bold actions. From disrupting major sporting events and throwing soup over Vincent van Gogh’s Sunflowers to climbing gantries over the M25 and spraying orange paint across Stonehenge, their protests have sparked fierce debate. The financial cost to police forces has run into tens of millions of pounds. Now, the group says those dramatic days are over. A few hundred activists took to the streets for a final time, blocking roads as they marched. Taxi drivers responded by blaring their horns, while football fans heckled from the pavements. During the protest, footage captured by the PA News Agency showed a tense moment when a white minivan appeared to drive towards demonstrators. Protesters shouted, "I'm being pushed back!" to police officers, while the driver could be heard shouting, "What about my right to get home?" Popularity was never the group's aim. Just Stop Oil believes that despite widespread public anger, its methods have been effective. They point to the new Labour government’s commitment not to issue any new oil or gas exploration licences as evidence of their success. "This moment marks the success of the JSO campaign - our demand was to end new oil and gas licences and that is now government policy," the group said. "As a result of which four billion barrels of oil are being kept under the North Sea. The campaign has reached a natural end." However, not everyone agrees that the group’s end is solely due to achieving its goals. Dr. Oscar Berglund, senior lecturer in international public and social policy, suggested to Sky News that declining public support and increased policing may have played a role. "They have very low levels of popularity. About 17% of the British population are kind of broadly supportive of what Just Stop Oil do. And that's too low to recruit. It's difficult to recruit members to something that is that unpopular, and then that a lot of people for good reason I think have kind of stopped believing in that kind of disruption as a means to achieve meaningful change." The group's activities have also led to changes but not in the way they intended. New laws. Policing commentator Graham Wettone noted, "Obstruction of the highway, obstruction of rail networks for example, these are specific offences now. It's given the police more tactics, more methods, more offences they can consider, even stopping and searching somebody who may have something to either lock themselves on or glue themselves to something." While Just Stop Oil follows in the footsteps of controversial movements like Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion, its departure leaves a lasting legacy. Other activist groups, such as Pro-Palestinian Youth Justice, have adopted similar disruptive tactics. Though the orange vests may be packed away, the spirit and methods of Just Stop Oil seem likely to continue through new causes and campaigns. Adpated by ASEAN Now from Sky News 2025-04-28

Terror Police Lead Investigation After Gun and Crossbow Attack Injures Three in Leeds A shocking attack involving a crossbow and a firearm has left two women injured and a man under arrest in Leeds, prompting counterterrorism police to take over the investigation. The incident unfolded on the northwest outskirts of the city on Saturday afternoon, with officers being called to Otley Road at 2.47pm following reports of an "ongoing serious incident involving a man seen with weapons," according to West Yorkshire Police. Police recovered a crossbow and a firearm from the area, which sits in the heart of Headingley, a busy and vibrant part of Leeds popular with university students and known for the famous "Otley Run" pub crawl. Officers said that multiple crime scenes were in place as they worked to piece together the full circumstances surrounding the incident. Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, responded quickly to the attack, labeling it a "serious violent incident." In a statement, she said: "I am being kept updated on the serious violent incident in Leeds this afternoon. Thank you to the police and emergency services for their swift response. My thoughts are with the victims and all those affected by this attack." Detective Chief Superintendent James Dunkerley, head of Counter Terrorism Policing North East, confirmed that while the investigation is still in its early stages, counterterrorism officers have assumed control. He stated: "Although our inquiries are still at a very early stage, the circumstances surrounding this incident have resulted in Counter Terrorism Policing taking the lead for this investigation." Dunkerley also sought to reassure the public, adding: "From the inquiries undertaken so far, there is no evidence to suggest anyone else was involved in the attack, and, at this time, we are not looking for anyone else in relation to the incident." As police continue their investigation, the community remains on edge, with many shocked that such violence occurred in a normally lively and safe part of the city. Authorities have urged anyone with information to come forward as they work to understand the full motive behind the attack. Adpated by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-04-28

@Jeff the Chef an inflammatory troll post has been removed. Please stop

Moderna at Risk of Suspension After Regulatory Breaches Over Covid Vaccine Trials Moderna is facing the possibility of suspension from Britain’s leading pharmaceutical trade group following multiple serious breaches of regulatory standards. The Covid-19 vaccine manufacturer is scheduled for an audit by the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) after its conduct was found to be "unacceptable" and damaging to the industry's reputation. Should the audit reveal that Moderna lacks adequate compliance systems, the company could be suspended or even expelled from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), a move that would mark a significant setback for the firm, which only joined the association in 2023. The potential penalties stem from a series of troubling incidents, including revelations that company representatives offered financial incentives to children to participate in Covid vaccine trials. Children were reportedly promised £1,500 and teddy bears to encourage their participation — a direct violation of the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) regulations, which strictly forbid offering financial inducements to children or their guardians. In a new ruling expected to be published imminently, it has also been determined that Moderna misled regulators about when it first became aware of the incentives. The company claimed it only learned of the situation in January 2024 following notification by the Health Research Authority. However, it has now emerged that senior executives had been alerted by the campaign group UsForThem in August 2023, but failed to act. The PMCPA criticized Moderna’s actions, describing the company’s lack of transparency as "completely unacceptable" and stating it had brought "discredit upon the industry." The investigation also uncovered that a senior Moderna employee co-authored three articles — including one with former vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi — promoting Moderna’s Covid vaccine without disclosing their employment with the company. Additionally, promotional tweets were posted from a personal account without any mention of the individual's ties to Moderna, a failure the PMCPA said constituted inappropriate advertising. Molly Kingsley, founder of UsForThem, condemned Moderna’s behavior, stating: "Many of the previous judgments against Moderna have revealed how readily it put profit ahead of the health and safety of children. Now it has also laid bare just how little regard it has had for the regulatory system that was supposed to keep it honest. Never before has a company so new to the pharmaceutical industry been rebuked in this way." In the latest findings, Moderna was cited for ten new breaches of the code, many involving three senior executives. The PMCPA has ordered an audit to assess whether the company’s culture, governance, and internal systems are functioning effectively. Following the audit, the Appeal Board will determine if further sanctions, including suspension or expulsion, are warranted. The Appeal Board’s power to suspend or expel is rarely used, having been invoked only nine times in the past four decades. The most recent case involved Novo Nordisk, suspended in 2023 over marketing practices related to its weight-loss and diabetes drugs; its membership was later restored in March. Despite being ordered to pay fines in previous cases, critics argue that the financial penalties are too small to deter a company with revenues approaching £7 billion in 2023. Esther McVey MP, a former member of the all-party parliamentary group on Covid vaccine damage, said: "There have now been six cases over the last few months where the UK Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) have ruled against Moderna regarding multiple breaches of the industry’s Code of Practice. The news that the PMCPA is taking the highly unusual step of ordering an audit of Moderna’s culture, governance and compliance framework is reputationally damaging, but it is incredible that the regulator has no real power to impose appropriate fines or other meaningful penalties which might make pharmaceutical companies think twice before breaking the rules. They know they can get away with it, and so they do; time and time again. It’s hardly surprising that public trust in the pharmaceutical industry and its regulators is through the floor." When approached for comment, Moderna told The Telegraph it would wait for the PMCPA rulings to be officially published before responding. Adpated by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-04-27

//closed// Topic already running here

Virginia Giuffre, Fierce Advocate and Epstein Survivor, Dies by Suicide at 41 Virginia Giuffre, one of the most outspoken survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking network and a driving force behind efforts to hold his enablers accountable, has died by suicide at the age of 41. Her death was confirmed by her family, who said she passed away at her farm in Neergabby, Western Australia, where she had lived for several years. “It is with utterly broken hearts that we announce that Virginia passed away last night at her farm in Western Australia,” her family said in a statement to NBC News. “She lost her life to suicide, after being a lifelong victim of sexual abuse and sex trafficking.” They described her as “a fierce warrior in the fight against sexual abuse and sex trafficking,” and added, “She was the light that lifted so many survivors. In the end, the toll of abuse is so heavy that it became unbearable for Virginia to handle its weight.” Raised in Florida, Giuffre endured abuse from a young age and experienced homelessness as a teenager before being lured into Epstein’s circle by Ghislaine Maxwell. She said Maxwell groomed her for sexual exploitation, and she suffered abuse from Epstein between 1999 and 2002. Giuffre also alleged she was trafficked to several of Epstein’s powerful associates, including Prince Andrew and French modeling agent Jean-Luc Brunel. Giuffre became one of the first women to publicly accuse Epstein, demanding justice long before the full scope of his crimes came to light. Her courage inspired other victims to come forward and played a vital role in triggering multiple investigations, including the successful prosecution of Maxwell, who was convicted in 2021 on five counts related to sex trafficking. She filed a civil lawsuit against Prince Andrew in 2021, alleging he sexually abused her when she was 17. He denied the allegations but reached an out-of-court settlement the following year for an undisclosed sum. Brunel, who was later charged with rape and sexual harassment, died by suicide in a French jail in 2022. Giuffre had testified against him in a Paris courtroom in 2021. “I wanted Brunel to know that he no longer has the power over me,” she said after her testimony. “I am a grown woman now and I’ve decided to hold him accountable for what he did to me and so many others.” She moved to Australia before Epstein’s arrest in 2019 and lived there with her husband and their three children. Her brother, Danny Wilson, told NBC News that Giuffre "pushed so hard to snuff the evil out" and that despite suffering from renal failure and physical pain, it was her mental pain that was harder to bear. “Her biggest push was, ‘If I don’t do this, nobody’s going to do it,’” he said. Giuffre's voice remained powerful even as she faced immense personal challenges. In a “Dateline” NBC special aired before the arrests of Maxwell and Brunel, she implored authorities to believe survivors. “Take us serious,” she said. “We matter.” Her attorney, Sigrid McCawley, called her a “dear friend and an incredible champion for other victims,” while her representative, Dini von Mueffling, said, “Virginia was one of the most extraordinary human beings I have ever had the honor to know.” McCawley added, “Her courage pushed me to fight harder, and her strength was awe-inspiring.” Giuffre’s death marks a tragic end to a life spent fighting for justice—not only for herself, but for countless others who endured abuse. Though her own battle has ended, the legacy of her bravery continues to echo in courtrooms and survivor communities around the world. Adpated by ASEAN Now from NBC 2025-04-26

A Shift in the Political Winds: Britain Begins to Move Beyond Woke Ideology Britain appears to be entering a new political era. While the Labour Party remains in government, a notable transformation is taking place beneath the surface—one that signals the decline of the progressive Left’s dominance. Voices long drowned out by the noise of radical activism are finally finding space to be heard. The once unassailable position of “woke” culture in shaping the national agenda is weakening, offering hope for a more balanced political conversation. Last week’s landmark Supreme Court ruling—that under the Equality Act, trans women are not legally considered women—marks a pivotal turning point. Though some activists and institutions continue to resist the ruling, clinging to their former interpretations, the legal and cultural tide is shifting. The director of the London Marathon, for instance, insists trans women should compete as females, and certain NHS managers have hinted they may defy the court’s judgment. Yet these acts of defiance are now beginning to seem like relics of a past era. Stonewall’s muted reaction to the ruling is telling. Once a powerful force in British politics, deeply enmeshed with the Labour Party, Stonewall appears to have recognized that its aggressive focus on trans issues may have undermined its earlier, widely respected legacy in gay rights advocacy. Its recent silence, alongside a softening of its stance on transphobia earlier this year, suggests a quiet reckoning is already underway. At the same time, the reach of woke ideology into the corporate world is starting to face resistance. For years, identity politics found fertile ground in human resources departments and corporate diversity schemes. However, that trend may now be reversing. Peter Daly, an employment lawyer, remarked, “This is a major blow for the HR industry. Executives need to reckon with the fact that they have been pushing out unlawful processes and procedures. Companies are going to have to ask themselves why they have been competing with each other to misapply the law for the sake of a high ranking on the Stonewall Workplace Index.” The implications of these shifts are significant, particularly for women. The long-standing tension between protecting female-only spaces and granting unrestricted access to trans women has always posed difficult questions. Full recognition of trans women often came at the cost of acknowledging the biological and legal realities of sex-based rights. For many women, especially those on the Left who raised concerns, the cost has been personal and professional. Some lost careers, reputations, and communities for voicing legitimate questions about identity politics' encroachment into public life. The movement for trans rights may have begun with good intentions, but its absolutist demands have eroded support and sparked a backlash that even former allies can no longer ignore. By asserting that individuals should change legal sex without any criteria or that biological males should compete in women’s sports, the trans rights lobby strained public sympathy. It also undermined the very principles of mutual respect and shared citizenship that sustain liberal democracy. As a result, public discourse around rights-based politics has begun to sour, increasingly viewed as self-indulgent and disconnected from reality. What’s changing now is not just public sentiment, but the ideological foundations themselves. The idea that lived experience should override objective truth has been legally challenged—and found wanting. In its place, a more grounded political alternative is emerging. Blue Labour, a faction within the party, seeks to reorient the Left around traditional values—work, community, and national cohesion—rather than identity and grievance. “There’s still too much party sympathy towards identity politics,” admitted one Blue Labour MP, “But then again, there are a lot of MPs who are very new and want to be loyal to Starmer.” There’s something timely about this resurgence. As people tire of ideological excess, the appeal of practical, people-focused politics grows. While woke ideology once seemed unstoppable, it now feels out of step with an era demanding realism and unity. The Supreme Court ruling may have marked the beginning of the end for a political movement that, for all its influence, ultimately lost sight of balance, inclusion, and truth. Adpated by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-04-26

Transgender Inmate Sues Trump, Claims His Rhetoric Incited Prison Assaults A transgender inmate in Indiana has filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump, alleging that his rhetoric incited a wave of sexual violence against her while incarcerated. Autumn Cordellionè, who was born Jonathan C. Richardson and is serving a 55-year sentence for the 2001 killing of her 11-month-old stepdaughter, claims that Trump's "transphobic and extremist" statements have emboldened other prisoners and staff to target her. In a handwritten legal complaint, Cordellionè alleged that she was raped and assaulted multiple times at the Westville Correctional Facility (WCA), an all-male prison where she was transferred after initially being held in protective custody at New Castle Correctional Facility. According to her account, the abuse began after she began transitioning in 2020 by taking hormones and testosterone blockers following a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Cordellionè stated that she was subjected to brutal treatment both by fellow inmates and prison staff. In one particularly harrowing claim, she recounted an inmate telling her, “Trump’s president now, and we won’t even get in trouble for f****** you trannies up. We’re patriots and even if you tell on us, Trump will pardon us and probably give us a medal.” She also alleges that two other attackers made similar remarks during assaults. Her lawsuit seeks $3.5 million in damages from Trump personally. Cordellionè claims that when she attempted to report the abuse, she was met with hostility from prison officials. One staff member allegedly told her, “I’ve seen your case on the news, and I personally don’t think us tax payers should have to pay for your surgery. God doesn’t approve of transgenders and gays, so what do you expect to happen when you dress like a woman and have t*** in a male facility.” The prison official was reportedly referencing a previous legal case Cordellionè filed to challenge a state law prohibiting taxpayer-funded gender-affirming surgery for inmates. As part of that case, she argued that the denial of surgery worsened her gender dysphoria and mental health, including self-harm and suicide attempts. A federal court ultimately ordered the Indiana Department of Corrections to provide sex reassignment surgery for her “at the earliest opportunity.” Cordellionè’s criminal past continues to weigh heavily on the public perception of her legal battles. In September 2001, she was convicted of murdering her infant stepdaughter while the child’s mother was away. Initially, she claimed to have discovered the baby with vomit in her mouth, but later admitted she had tried to calm the child and ultimately strangled her. At one point, Cordellionè allegedly told a corrections officer, “Well all I know is I killed the little f**king b*tch.” She was sentenced to 55 years in prison in 2002. Her latest lawsuit also references other alleged incidents of discrimination. She previously filed a complaint against the prison chaplain, claiming she was not allowed to wear a hijab despite identifying as a Muslim woman. Responding to the recent claims, a White House spokesperson commented, “President Trump has vowed to defend biological women from gender ideology extremism and restore biological truth to the Federal government.” Cordellionè’s case is likely to reignite debates around transgender rights in prison systems, particularly in relation to housing assignments, medical care, and the influence of political discourse on institutional treatment. Whether her claims will gain traction in court remains to be seen, but the legal action adds another layer to the ongoing and controversial discussion surrounding gender identity, incarceration, and justice in America. Adpated by ASEAN Now from Daily Mail 2025-04-26

ICC Appeals Judges Reopen Jurisdiction Debate in Israeli Arrest Warrant Case In a significant development at The Hague, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on Thursday ordered a lower court panel to reconsider Israel’s legal objections to the court’s jurisdiction in the case involving arrest warrants against two top Israeli officials. This decision represents a temporary procedural win for Israel and reopens a critical debate over the court’s authority to prosecute alleged crimes committed during the ongoing Gaza conflict. The appeal stems from a controversial move last year when ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan requested arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. The warrants were based on allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity in relation to the Israeli military’s actions in Gaza. Both Israeli and Palestinian leaders have rejected the allegations outright, questioning the legitimacy and impartiality of the prosecutor's actions. The Appeals Chamber ruled that the Pre-Trial Chamber had failed to adequately consider Israel’s jurisdictional objections before allowing the case to proceed. “The Appeals Chamber therefore reversed the decision and remanded the matter to the Pre-Trial Chamber for a new ruling on the substance of Israel's challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court,” the judges said in their statement. Israel has maintained that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over its nationals, arguing that Palestine is not a sovereign state and therefore not qualified to delegate jurisdiction to the court. Israel, which is not a member of the ICC, has long contended that the court does not have the authority to investigate its internal military and political affairs. The Appeals Chamber appeared to agree that Israel’s legal challenge deserved a more thorough review. It said the lower chamber had not sufficiently addressed Israel's claim that it has the right to dispute the court's jurisdiction before any action on arrest warrants is taken. This aspect, according to the ruling, must now be fully considered by the Pre-Trial Chamber. In response to the ruling, the office of the ICC Prosecutor issued a brief statement, noting that it was reviewing the decision but offering no additional commentary at this time. The court's ruling does not annul the arrest warrants but puts a pause on their progression while the jurisdictional challenge is revisited. The outcome of this renewed judicial scrutiny could have far-reaching implications for the ICC’s authority in politically charged conflicts, particularly when the states involved dispute the court’s legitimacy. As the legal battle continues, both Israeli and Palestinian representatives remain deeply critical of the ICC's involvement. Each side has accused the court and its prosecutor of political bias and overreach. With this new ruling, the ICC must now walk a delicate line between asserting its mandate to prosecute grave crimes and addressing complex questions of legal jurisdiction and state sovereignty. Related Topics: ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant Over Alleged War Crimes ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan Faces Retaliation Allegations Amid Misconduct Probe Trump Signs Executive Order Sanctioning ICC calls it 'illegitimate' Boris Johnson Accuses Starmer of Aligning with Hamas Over ICC Netanyahu Arrest Warrant Adpated by ASEAN Now from Reuters 2025-04-26

The Illusion of Liberty: How the Anti-Woke Right Betrayed Its Own Principles Once heralded as champions of free speech and defenders of constitutional liberty, the anti-woke right has morphed into a movement defined not by the ideals it once claimed to uphold, but by its thirst for power and its relentless crusade against the political left. This coalition of influencers, podcasters, and tech elites rose to prominence by voicing concerns many Americans shared — about cancel culture, censorship, and the overreach of public institutions. But their evolution has revealed a troubling truth: their fight was never about liberty, but about control. Fuelled by public frustration following the racial reckoning after George Floyd's murder and the divisive impact of COVID-19 lockdowns and mandates, the anti-woke right gained momentum. They spoke in plain terms that resonated with many: "Let us have a say," "We don’t mindlessly obey," and "The elite doesn’t have a monopoly on truth." In the face of overzealous pandemic policies and double standards — such as the case of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, which was denied permission for outdoor, masked worship even while protests and restaurant dining were permitted — their criticisms struck a chord. This moment could have sparked a constitutional revival, a chance to reaffirm the Bill of Rights and uphold freedom of expression amid societal upheaval. Instead, the movement turned inward and grew hostile. As Khawaja Asif said in a different but thematically resonant context, “We will not have any option, have absolutely no option.” The anti-woke right seemed to believe it had no choice but to mirror the tactics it once denounced. Their betrayal of free speech was not subtle. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis led the charge with laws banning the teaching of critical race theory and limiting discussions of gender and sexuality in schools. He attacked the autonomy of universities and punished Disney for opposing his policies. DeSantis proudly claimed Florida as the place “where woke goes to die,” but the real casualty was open discourse. In Donald Trump’s second term, the tactics of DeSantis have only been amplified. Trump has taken aim at law firms, private universities, and even individuals on the basis of their political beliefs or speech. Immigrants have been targeted simply for what they say. And through it all, few from the anti-woke right have voiced objections. Their movement now resembles a distorted reflection of the far left they once critiqued. Activist Chris Rufo, one of the anti-woke right’s most prominent figures, has openly embraced the Marxist theories of Antonio Gramsci, advocating for cultural dominance by seizing control of institutions and media. “The right needs a Gramsci,” Rufo argues — an astonishing admission from a movement supposedly built on opposing such ideological strategies. What we’re witnessing is not a defense of liberty but a consolidation of power. The anti-woke right has become a mirror image of Herbert Marcuse’s “repressive tolerance” — except in reverse. Where Marcuse advocated for silencing the right in favor of the marginalized, today’s right silences the left under the guise of protecting traditional values. As the Rev. Walter Fauntroy once said, “The First Amendment gave us the ability to speak,” and “Almighty God softened men’s hearts.” But the anti-woke right has discarded that legacy in favor of political advantage. The core of liberty lies in protecting individuals from power, not in wielding power to silence dissent. The anti-woke right cloaked itself in the language of liberty when it felt threatened, but now that it commands influence, its true aim is clear. This was never a movement for freedom. It was always a movement for dominance. Adpated by ASEAN Now from New York Times 2025-04-26

A surge in violence within the high-security prison where the brother of the Manchester Arena bomber attacked guards has triggered a sweeping response from the UK government, with Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood announcing new protective measures for prison staff, including the trial use of Tasers. HMP Frankland in Durham, the facility where terrorist Hashem Abedi launched a brutal attack on three prison officers using homemade knives and hot oil, has now recorded its highest rate of violence in nearly a decade. According to new Ministry of Justice figures, the monthly rate of assaults at the prison has climbed to 183.8 per 1,000 inmates—up from 169.5 last year and the highest since at least 2016. This spike comes amid a broader crisis within the prison system in England and Wales. A total of 10,605 assaults on staff were recorded across the prison estate in the past year, marking a 15 per cent rise from 2023 and setting a new record high. The violence has prompted union officials representing prison officers to meet with the Justice Secretary to demand enhanced security for frontline staff. In response, Ms Mahmood announced several immediate measures, including a trial deployment of Tasers to officers working in high-security prisons. She also ordered a snap review into the use of stab vests and announced that access to kitchens would be suspended for offenders housed in separation units, where the most dangerous inmates are typically held. Hashem Abedi, who is serving a life sentence for his role in the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing that killed 22 people, has since been transferred to HMP Belmarsh in south London following his attack on Frankland staff. The newly released MoJ data paints a disturbing picture of life inside Frankland. In the most recent reporting period, there were 59 assaults on staff, including four classified as serious. That followed 60 similar incidents the year before—double the levels recorded in 2019. Additionally, 107 prisoner-on-prisoner assaults were documented, the highest number on record, up from 83 last year. Eleven of those were deemed serious. Last year, Frankland’s Independent Monitoring Board warned that both staff and inmate safety was being compromised by an outdated CCTV system riddled with blind spots. The board also highlighted escalating tensions on the prison wings, citing increased discoveries of makeshift weapons and contraband drugs as key contributors. Many of the weapons, it noted, had been crafted from common items such as wood, pieces of furniture, and pens. While Frankland has drawn particular scrutiny, it is far from alone in experiencing rising violence. HMP Brinsford in Featherstone near Wolverhampton had the highest recorded monthly assault rate, with 928 incidents per 1,000 prisoners—nearly one per inmate. This was closely followed by HMP Styal in Wilmslow (864) and HMP Bedford (841). HMP Wandsworth topped the list for individual assaults on staff, with 386 incidents so far this year, including 27 serious attacks. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson acknowledged the gravity of the situation, stating, “These statistics once again lay bare the extent of the crisis facing our prisons – with levels of violence, assaults on staff and self-harm far too high.” They added, “We will do whatever we can to protect our hard-working staff. The Lord Chancellor has announced a review into protective body armour and a trial of Tasers in jails to better respond to serious incidents.” However, they also emphasized the need for systemic change, saying, “It is clear fundamental change is needed, which is why we’re also reforming our jails so they create better citizens, not better criminals.” Adpated by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-04-26

Klitschko Hints at Possible Land Concessions for Peace, Stirs Debate in Ukraine Kyiv’s mayor, Vitali Klitschko, has ignited a wave of controversy after suggesting Ukraine may have to consider territorial concessions to Russia as part of a future peace settlement. In a candid interview with the BBC, the former heavyweight boxing champion acknowledged that giving up land—even temporarily—might be one of the potential paths toward ending the war, though he emphasized that such a scenario would be painful and far from ideal. "One of the scenarios is… to give up territory. It's not fair. But for the peace, temporary peace, maybe it can be a solution, temporary," Klitschko said. However, he was quick to underline the steadfastness of the Ukrainian people, declaring, “the Ukrainian people would never accept occupation” by Russia. Klitschko’s remarks came in the wake of one of the deadliest Russian attacks on the Ukrainian capital in recent months. A coordinated missile-and-drone strike killed 12 people and injured more than 80, underscoring the devastating human cost of the conflict and the urgency felt by some to seek an end to the war. Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and currently occupies around 20% of Ukrainian territory. Klitschko’s statement marks one of the most high-profile acknowledgments by a Ukrainian official that territorial concessions might need to be considered, even if only as a temporary measure. Still, his suggestion is bound to prove divisive, especially given the strong national resolve against yielding any ground to Moscow. Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme from his office in central Kyiv, Klitschko described the capital as “the heart” of the country and reaffirmed his role as its steward during wartime. Despite the gravity of the situation, he noted that he has not been consulted by President Volodymyr Zelensky on any potential peace settlement. “President Zelensky does [it] himself. It's not my function,” he said. Klitschko and Zelensky have had a tense political relationship, with the mayor previously accusing the president and his team of undermining his authority. While discussing the strained dynamics between leaders, Klitschko alluded to a highly publicized confrontation between Zelensky and former U.S. President Donald Trump earlier this year. “Key issues between top politicians would be better discussed without video cameras,” Klitschko said, suggesting a more discreet approach to diplomacy. Tensions between Ukraine and Trump have resurfaced as the former U.S. president pushes for Ukraine to accept territorial losses, including the Crimean Peninsula, which Russia annexed in 2014. Trump recently criticized Zelensky for refusing to entertain any negotiations that would concede Crimea to Russia, arguing that the territory “was lost years ago” and is “not even a point of discussion.” Zelensky, however, has stood firm, pointing to a 2018 “Crimea declaration” made by Trump’s then-Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, in which the United States explicitly rejected Russia’s attempted annexation. The Ukrainian president’s stance reflects the broader sentiment within Ukraine and among its European allies, many of whom have expressed growing concern over what they perceive as Trump’s increasingly conciliatory posture toward Russian President Vladimir Putin. As the war drags on and geopolitical tensions mount, Klitschko’s comments may reflect a pragmatic, albeit controversial, recognition that hard choices could lie ahead. Whether Ukraine's leadership and people will ultimately entertain the idea of territorial compromise remains to be seen, but for now, the suggestion alone is likely to spark intense debate both within Ukraine and beyond. Related Topic: Why Zelensky Won’t Bargain Away Crimea — No Matter the Pressure Adpated by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-04-26

Tensions Between Nuclear Rivals Soar as Pakistan Warns of Possible War with India Pakistan's Defence Minister Khawaja Asif has issued a stark warning that the ongoing conflict over a deadly shooting in Kashmir could spiral into a full-scale war between Pakistan and India. In an interview with Sky News' The World with Yalda Hakim, Asif said that his country is prepared to respond decisively if provoked by New Delhi, underlining the seriousness of the crisis between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. The warning comes in the wake of a brutal shooting at a popular tourist site in Indian-administered Kashmir, which left 26 people dead. The Indian government was quick to accuse Pakistan of involvement in the attack, a charge that Asif flatly denied. He claimed the incident was staged by India itself, suggesting it was a "false flag" operation designed to provoke hostility. "We will measure our response to whatever is initiated by India. It would be a measured response," Asif told Sky News. "If there is an all-out attack or something like that, then obviously there will be an all-out war." The Defence Minister emphasized the global ramifications of the conflict, particularly given the nuclear capabilities of both countries. "Yes, I think so," he said when asked whether the world should be concerned. "The clash between two nuclear powers is always worrisome... If things get wrong, there could be a tragic outcome of this confrontation." The longstanding Kashmir dispute remains a flashpoint in South Asia. Both India and Pakistan claim the territory in its entirety but control different parts. The region has been a source of bloodshed for decades, with tens of thousands of lives lost. In recent years, relative calm had been restored, but the latest incident has shattered that fragile peace. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi responded to the attack with a vow to pursue the perpetrators "to the ends of the Earth," a pledge that has further fueled tensions. However, Asif insisted that India was behind the incident. "Yeah, yeah, yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely, they create these situations," he said, doubling down on his claim that the attack was orchestrated by New Delhi. Despite the heightened rhetoric, Asif expressed hope that a diplomatic solution might still be possible. "We should be solving our problems through negotiations," he said. When asked whether U.S. President Donald Trump should intervene to mediate the crisis, Asif responded affirmatively. "Definitely he leads the world power, the sole world power and he has been talking to different parties in different flashpoints all over the world," he said. "And this is also a flashpoint which has two nuclear powers that are drawn with each other. I think the attention of this situation and if the world power can intervene and there's some sort of sanity can be brought to this situation, it will be good." But he made it clear that Pakistan would not stand down if attacked. "Otherwise, if there is an initiative by India, we'll respond in kind. We will not have any option, have absolutely no option." The comments underline the fragility of peace in the region and the urgent need for de-escalation to avoid a potentially catastrophic confrontation. Adpated by ASEAN Now from Sky News 2025-04-26

"Rosie Duffield Says Labour Return Impossible Under Starmer After Gender Ruling ‘Vindicates’ Her Views" Rosie Duffield, the former Labour MP for Canterbury, has expressed a sense of vindication following a Supreme Court ruling that confirmed the legal definitions of "woman" and "sex" as biological in the context of the 2010 Equality Act. In an interview with ITV News Deputy Political Editor Anushka Asthana, Duffield stated plainly that there is “no way back” to Labour for her as long as Sir Keir Starmer remains at the helm. Duffield, who resigned from Labour in September last year citing her strained relationship with the leadership and her gender-critical stance, said she was effectively “hounded out” of the party. She described being the target of a “whispering campaign” from those who opposed her views on trans rights, with some allegedly trying to have the Whip removed from her on a daily basis. “They vehemently disagreed with my stance on women's rights and the issue that we've been talking about all week, that was the main thing,” she said. “I don't think many of those people were interested in having a conversation. They just wanted to sort of do their thing behind the scenes and, you know, they're part of socialist societies like LGBT Labour, and they'd made their mind up that that was their stance and that I was external to that.” The Supreme Court's ruling clarified that biological sex, not gender identity, governs access to single-sex spaces such as bathrooms and refuges. “Women like me have been vindicated because we've always said that that is the law,” Duffield said. “But, you know, I don't necessarily feel excited or jubilant about it. That's just the law. And I guess when other groups like Stonewall and those that are paid a lot to advise government departments and charities and workplaces have said differently, and we've always said that's not the law, then, yeah we have been vindicated.” Despite this, Duffield dismissed the idea of rejoining Labour under the current leadership. “Not under Keir Starmer's leadership. I can't imagine being able to do that,” she said. “Although I don't personally need an apology, there are hundreds of people who've been banned, barred, blocked, expelled from the party for saying exactly the same thing that the party are now saying. I never had any personal support from him and I think he's made it very clear that he's not particularly interested in me rejoining anyway. I mean, I don't think that's a thing at the moment.” She was also asked to respond to concerns from the trans community, particularly those voiced by trans cyclist Emily Bridges, who told ITV News the ruling made her feel as though she has a “target on her back.” Duffield acknowledged this sentiment was “really unfair,” but stood by her view that trans women should not compete in women’s sports categories. “When Emily wasn't competing against women, she didn't have as much success. And I think that's where women have always felt that biological men, or born men, coming into women's sports categories disadvantage biological women hugely,” she said. She also added that she would continue to respect Bridges' pronouns. During Prime Minister’s Questions, Duffield’s name was raised by Kemi Badenoch, who called on the PM to apologise to her following the court ruling. Duffield agreed with Badenoch’s description that she was “hounded out” and said she appreciated the way the Leader of the Opposition had approached the issue, in contrast to what she described as the PM’s “robotic” delivery and lack of “deep empathy.” Starmer avoided offering an apology and instead emphasized the need for respectful discourse. “My approach will be to support the ruling, to protect single-sex spaces and treat everybody with dignity and respect, and I believe there’s a consensus in this House and the country for that approach,” he told MPs. The prime minister’s official spokesman later added, “The PM has welcomed the court judgment as a welcome step forward in providing clarity in this area. He does want this debate to be conducted with care and compassion, for everyone to be treated with dignity and respect,” and condemned death threats against the women who brought the case, calling them “completely unacceptable.” Duffield’s resignation letter last year cited multiple reasons for her departure, including what she described as a “freebies” scandal, nepotism, and what she called the prime minister’s “cruel and unnecessary” policies. But the issue of gender identity and her exclusion from conversations within the party were clearly at the heart of her disillusionment. She concluded she was only “a little” surprised that Starmer had changed his stance again, adding, “But he's changed his mind a few times so not really no.” Related Topics: London Marathon Upholds Trans Inclusivity Despite Supreme Court Ruling Starmer U-turns on Gender Identity Following Supreme Court Ruling UK Supreme Court Rules ‘Woman’ Means Biological Female, in Landmark Decision Supreme Court Ruling Sparks Protests Wave of Threats and Backlash Amid Gender Rights Debate Adpated by ASEAN Now from ITV 2025-04-26

Wisconsin Judge Faces Federal Charges After Allegedly Aiding Immigration Suspect A Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge is facing serious federal charges after allegedly attempting to obstruct the arrest of an undocumented immigrant by federal agents. Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested by the FBI and charged with obstruction of justice and concealing an individual to avoid arrest, potentially facing up to six years in prison if convicted on both counts. FBI Director Kash Patel announced Dugan’s arrest, accusing her of “intentionally misdirecting” immigration agents who were attempting to detain Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national wanted on an immigration warrant. “Thankfully our agents chased down the perp on foot and he's been in custody since, but the Judge's obstruction created increased danger to the public,” Patel stated in a post on X. According to court documents filed by the FBI, the events unfolded on April 18 when six agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Agency arrived at the Milwaukee County courthouse to arrest Flores-Ruiz. The day before, an immigration judge had issued a warrant for his arrest following charges of three misdemeanor counts of battery related to a domestic altercation. When Judge Dugan became aware of the agents' presence outside her courtroom, the FBI affidavit reports she appeared visibly frustrated, calling the situation “absurd” before stepping down from the bench and entering her chambers. The judge then confronted the agents in the hallway and questioned the validity of the warrant, directing them to the office of the county’s chief judge. While several agents followed her instruction and went to that office, the affidavit alleges that Dugan escorted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney through a side door meant for jury members. Despite this attempt to evade detection, two remaining agents near the courtroom identified the fleeing Flores-Ruiz and apprehended him after a brief foot pursuit. Authorities later revealed that Flores-Ruiz had previously been deported from the United States in 2013. Judge Dugan was released on her own recognizance and is scheduled for a court hearing on May 15. The incident quickly drew national attention, especially following the recent arrest of a former New Mexico judge accused of harboring a suspected Venezuelan gang member. Attorney General Pam Bondi, speaking to Fox News, said, “I think some of these judges think they are beyond and above the law and they are not. And if you are destroying evidence, if you are obstructing justice, when you have victims sitting in a courtroom of domestic violence, and you're escorting a criminal defendant out a back door, it will not be tolerated.” Political reaction to Dugan’s arrest has been sharply divided. Senator Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat from Wisconsin, criticized the federal government's actions, stating, “Make no mistake, we do not have kings in this country and we are a democracy governed by laws that everyone must abide by. By relentlessly attacking the judicial system, flouting court orders, and arresting a sitting judge, this President is putting those basic democratic values that Wisconsinites hold dear on the line.” Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson echoed that sentiment, calling the arrest “showboating” and warning that it would have a “chilling effect” on court proceedings. Meanwhile, Republican Senator Ron Johnson supported the arrest, telling the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “I would advise everyone to cooperate with federal law enforcement and not endanger them and the public by obstructing their efforts to arrest criminals and illegal aliens.” Judge Dugan, first elected in 2016 and re-elected in 2022, has been endorsed in the past by Milwaukee’s Democratic mayor. Judicial races in Wisconsin are officially nonpartisan, but the political implications of this case are already sparking broader debate. If convicted, Dugan faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for the obstruction charge, and an additional year and $100,000 fine for the concealment charge. Adpated by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-04-26

Fetterman Rejects Diplomacy, Urges Trump Administration to Strike Iran’s Nuclear Sites Senator John Fetterman has made an unambiguous call for the Trump administration to abandon nuclear negotiations with Iran and instead launch a direct military strike on the country’s nuclear facilities. The Pennsylvania Democrat said, “Waste that s–t,” expressing his frustration with ongoing talks and his belief that military action is the only viable course. The Trump administration is currently preparing for a third round of negotiations with Iranian officials, aimed at dismantling Tehran’s nuclear program and averting a possible military conflict. Fetterman, however, dismissed the effort, stating, “You’re never going to be able to negotiate with that kind of regime that has been destabilizing the region for decades already, and now we have an incredible window, I believe, to do that, to strike and destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.” Fetterman also disregarded warnings from foreign policy analysts, many of whom caution that a military strike could trigger widespread instability or even a regional war. “So-called experts” have been wrong before, he argued, citing past concerns about the capabilities of Iran’s proxy groups. “You know, they’ve been saying for years and years Hezbollah was the ultimate badass that kept Israel in check, and we can’t move on anything beyond that,” Fetterman said. He added that in his view, these groups were overrated militarily. “And Hamas, literally, are just a bunch of tunnel rats with junkie rockets in the back of a Toyota truck. And now the Houthis have been effectively neutered as well. So what’s left? You have Iran, and they have a nuclear facility, and it’s clearly only for weapons.” The senator’s remarks come as Special Presidential Envoy Steve Witkoff is trying to craft a diplomatic framework with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. The two sides are expected to meet Saturday in Oman—a country maintaining friendly ties with both the U.S. and Iran—following a week of indirect discussions that were reportedly cordial and productive. Despite some optimism from both American and Iranian officials about the potential for peaceful resolution, Fetterman remains adamant that negotiations are not the answer. “Years ago, I completely understood why Trump withdrew from the Obama deal,” he said. “Today, I can’t understand why Trump would negotiate with this diseased regime. The negotiations should be comprised of 30,000-pound bombs and the IDF.” Meanwhile, Israel is said to be considering its own limited military strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, which could require less involvement from the United States if carried out. While Trump officials continue to favor diplomacy, Fetterman’s comments highlight the growing divide among U.S. policymakers over how to confront Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Adpated by ASEAN Now from NYP 2025-04-25

In Defense of the Indefensible: Pete Hegseth and the Mirror of Our Moment Pete Hegseth’s tenure as Secretary of Defense has ignited a storm of criticism, with detractors calling him unqualified, undisciplined, and wholly unsuited to lead the world’s largest military force. Yet perhaps the sharpest indictment lies not in these accusations themselves, but in the eerie alignment between Hegseth’s personal flaws and the current state of the nation he serves. While others mock or condemn, I come not to bury Pete Hegseth, but to consider what his rise reveals about the country that elevated him. Here is a man who has made it to the uppermost echelon of government without showcasing talent, discipline, or intellect—an achievement of its own kind. Hegseth, once flagged by a fellow soldier as a potential “insider threat,” now holds sway over an institution once renowned for precision and structure. Whatever harm he may have posed as an individual pales in comparison to what he now wields on a national scale as the military’s second-in-command. Even the character references from his personal life read like cautionary tales. In one email, his own mother described him as an “abuser of women.” Hegseth has had two former wives. But whatever damage he may have caused in private life now echoes through the broader defense establishment, as he systematically removes competent women and people of color from positions of leadership. If the military’s purpose is, in part, lethality, then Hegseth has redefined it as a weapon turned inward. Former Pentagon spokesperson John Ullyot has described Hegseth’s reign as one of “total chaos”—a characterization that feels less like an accusation and more like a mission statement. After all, chaos is the environment where his patron, Donald Trump, thrives. The military, once a bastion of chain-of-command discipline, now resembles a political circus, where loyalty to the commander-in-chief eclipses duty to country. Classified war plans are shared like party favors with friends and family, while military leaders like the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are shut out of decision-making processes. Is it governance or showmanship? Or, in Hegseth’s case, both? And still, he insists on his honor. “They take anonymous sources from disgruntled former employees, and then they try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputations. Not going to work with me,” Hegseth said defiantly at the White House Easter Egg Roll. In a way, he’s right. His reputation, already hardened like callus over scandal and bluster, remains unscathed in the eyes of those who matter most to him. Hegseth is far from alone. His name belongs on a roll call of men—Rubio, Lutnick, Navarro, Miller, Vance, Musk—each seemingly determined to reconstruct the United States in an image of their own making. They battle not to uphold the Constitution, but to overwrite it with a vision that lacks the restraint or empathy of the Framers. Their offenses are not just in what they do, but in the belief that they do it for our own good. These men are, in their own estimation, the tough-minded reformers needed for a country gone soft. But Hegseth has shown that courage without character leads to ruin. His legacy may be written not in policy or reform, but in the slow, steady dismantling of a once-proud institution. And in that, perhaps he does reflect this moment in America—loud, unchecked, and spiraling. So let the grave Pete Hegseth digs with every speech and leaked group chat be his alone. Let the military, and the country it defends, find a way to climb back out. Adpated by ASEAN Now from Daily Beast 2025-04-25