Social Media

@problemfarang so long as the links confirm to our forum community guidlelines then that will be fine.

Baiting troll post removed @thaibeachlovers

Reminder to please remain on topic: Another Jail Sentence for Holocaust Denier “Nazi Grandma”

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has cast doubt on the legal grounds used to prosecute hundreds of individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol riot. The Court ruled that federal prosecutors overstepped their bounds by broadly applying an obstruction law, a move that could have significant implications for ongoing cases, including one against former President Donald Trump. The justices, in a 6-3 opinion that cut across traditional ideological lines, determined that charges of obstruction must be supported by evidence that the defendants attempted to tamper with or destroy documents. This decision directly affects the more than 350 people charged with obstructing the certification of the 2020 presidential election. The law in question, part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act passed in 2002 to curb corporate misconduct following the Enron scandal, specifies penalties for anyone who "alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object," and also for those who "otherwise obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding." Federal prosecutors had argued for a broad interpretation of the law, which would include the actions of the January 6 rioters. However, the Supreme Court's ruling emphasized a narrower application, limiting the use of this law to cases involving document tampering. This decision has been welcomed by supporters of Donald Trump, who faces his own legal challenges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. While the ruling introduces a new complexity to his case, it is not expected to halt one of the key charges against him. Aziz Huq, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, noted that Trump’s charges involve falsifying or altering "records, documents, or objects," which aligns with the Court’s interpretation. Additionally, Trump faces other charges, including conspiring to defraud the U.S. and conspiring against the rights of citizens, which are unaffected by this ruling. The special counsel prosecuting Trump, Jack Smith, is under significant time pressure. If Trump wins the 2024 presidential election, he would have the authority to dismiss Smith and potentially end the federal case against him. For the hundreds of January 6 defendants, the Supreme Court's decision could lead to a reevaluation of their charges. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was one of several laws used against those who stormed the Capitol. Attorney General Merrick Garland emphasized that the ruling would not affect the vast majority of the over 1,400 defendants charged in connection with the riot, noting that most face additional charges beyond obstruction. The case that brought this issue to the Supreme Court was that of Joseph Fischer, a former police officer from Pennsylvania. Fischer, who attended Trump’s rally and briefly entered the Capitol, was seen on video arguing with police. His obstruction charge will now be reconsidered by lower courts, but he still faces several other charges, including civil disorder and assaulting a police officer. According to the Justice Department, more than 1,400 people have been charged with crimes related to the January 6 riot. Over 500 defendants have been charged with assaulting or impeding officers, and more than 130 have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious injury to police. Additionally, over 1,300 individuals have been charged with entering or remaining in restricted federal buildings or grounds, with more than 100 facing charges for entering a restricted area with a deadly weapon. The Supreme Court's decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal battles stemming from the January 6 Capitol riot, potentially reshaping the course of many prosecutions and influencing future legal strategies in related cases. Credit: BBC 2024-06-29 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Update Topic: Britain Challenges ICC Jurisdiction Over Israel, Delaying Arrest Warrant Decision https://aseannow.com/topic/1327742-icc-seeks-arrest-warrants-for-sinwar-and-netanyahu-over-war-crimes-october-7-attack/

A group of nurses from Darlington Memorial Hospital has initiated legal proceedings against County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, challenging a policy that permits trans women to use the women's changing rooms. The eight nurses involved in the lawsuit claim that this policy has led to sexual harassment and sex discrimination, making them feel unsafe in their workplace. The controversy began in March when 26 nurses submitted a letter to the NHS Trust expressing their concerns. These healthcare professionals, who must change in and out of their scrubs twice daily without the privacy of individual cubicles, raised alarms about a male staff member who identifies as a woman using their changing facilities. The nurses argue that this individual, who has not undergone gender transition, presents in a way that some find disconcerting. Bethany Hutchison, one of the claimants, recounted an unsettling experience of being alone in the changing room with this colleague. "There's been occasions where I've been in the changing room alone with this colleague who looks very masculine, and that was a real shock because you feel you want to challenge them. You think, 'Oh, there's a man in the changing room,' but you can't because of the trust's policy," Hutchison explained. Another nurse, who is a survivor of sexual abuse, stated that the presence of this trans colleague in the enclosed space triggers her PTSD. Lisa Lockey, another nurse involved in the lawsuit, emphasized their desire for a private changing room where they could feel comfortable and secure. Lockey also revealed that their ward manager was called into a meeting with HR and senior hospital officials, where it was suggested that the nurses needed to be "re-educated" regarding their concerns. The situation has garnered significant attention and support from prominent figures, including author JK Rowling and shadow health secretary Wes Streeting. Streeting expressed his support for the nurses on X, stating, "I support the nurses, and I'm horrified that they've had to resort to legal action. We've got to find a better way through this, and I'd be happy to meet them. We've got to find a way through that treats people with respect and respects women's safe spaces." The Christian Legal Centre is backing the nurses in their litigation. Andrea Williams, the centre's chief executive, remarked that this case, along with the Cass Review, underscores how transgender ideology has led to a public health crisis affecting both vulnerable children and patients on wards, as well as NHS staff who are simply trying to perform their duties. "This case and the Cass Review demonstrate how transgender ideology has led to a public health crisis, not only for vulnerable children and for patients on wards but now also for NHS staff who are just trying to do their job," Williams stated. At the core of this dispute is the interpretation of the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. There is ongoing debate over whether the Act refers strictly to biological sex or if it also encompasses transgender individuals with a gender recognition certificate. The Conservative Party has proposed amending the Act to clarify that it applies only to biological sex, which would prevent trans women from accessing single-sex spaces like changing rooms. Conversely, Keir Starmer has argued that the Equality Act does not need to be changed but has emphasized his commitment to safeguarding single-sex spaces. Cleo Madeline, head of public engagement at the transgender charity Gendered Intelligence, argued that the fear and misinformation surrounding this issue are causing harm to everyone, not just transgender individuals. "Including transgender people isn't hurting anyone. What's hurting everyone is this fear that has been stirred up, and that's not just hurting transgender people; it's hurting everybody," Madeline said. A spokesperson for County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust stressed that the claims made by the nurses are currently allegations that require thorough investigation. The Trust has initiated an internal review process and, due to the ongoing legal action, declined to comment further at this stage. "The trust would like to emphasize that at this stage, the claims being made are allegations which need to be fully investigated and reviewed. The trust has initiated this through its internal processes, and this work continues. However, as the allegations are now also subject to active legal action, it would not be appropriate for the trust to comment further at this stage," the spokesperson stated. As the legal battle unfolds, it highlights the broader societal debate over balancing the rights of transgender individuals with the protection of women's spaces. This case, with its profound implications for workplace policies and gender identity rights, underscores the need for a respectful and inclusive dialogue to find a solution that respects all parties involved. Credit: Sky News 2024-06-29 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

An undercover investigation by Channel 4 News has revealed disturbing instances of racist language and homophobic behavior within the Reform UK campaign in Clacton, where Nigel Farage is contesting a seat. The investigation also suggests that the party has potentially breached local electoral campaign spending limits. Filming for Channel 4 News was conducted secretly within the Reform UK campaign in Clacton, concluding just last week. The footage exposes a Reform UK canvasser making openly racist and Islamophobic remarks to potential voters while representing the party. Additionally, it captures a conversation involving George Jones, a veteran of UKIP and the Brexit Party who now organizes events for Mr. Farage’s campaign, Rob Bates, a senior Reform UK campaigner, and Roger Gravett, Reform UK’s regional manager for London and candidate for Tottenham. The conversation reveals apparent concerns over campaign spending limits. Gravett refers to the legal spending limit for a single seat campaign, saying, “A short campaign you’ve got, I don’t know, twenty grand or whatever it is, the figure.” Bates responds, “We’ve spent double that already, don’t worry,” while Jones adds, “It’s twenty grand minus… It’s six for VAT. So actually it’s only f****** fifteen.” Bates later distanced himself from his comment, claiming it was a joke and that he is not responsible for campaign spending. Reform UK has maintained that their campaign spending is “well within the legal spending limits.” The investigation also highlights the behavior of Andrew Parker, a Reform UK canvasser who claims to know Nigel Farage. During a car ride to canvass potential voters, Parker advises the undercover investigator on how to approach discussions about immigration, emphasizing the use of the term “illegal.” Parker makes several offensive comments about Muslims and suggests extreme measures for dealing with immigration, such as using army recruits for “target practice” on people arriving by boat. He also expresses derogatory views about Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and advises a paramedic to deny oxygen to certain patients. The footage also features senior campaign figures discussing their vision for the future under a Reform UK government. Jones explains why Reform UK chose Clacton, referring to it as “Proper England,” and makes derogatory remarks about London’s multicultural population. He also makes homophobic comments about a police car displaying a Pride flag, criticizing the police for promoting what he describes as “degenerate” symbols instead of focusing on crime. Nigel Farage, responding to the investigation’s findings, expressed dismay at the reported comments and announced that the individuals involved would no longer be part of the campaign. He emphasized that the sentiments expressed by the individuals do not reflect his views or those of Reform UK. Farage also questioned whether Channel 4 was applying the same scrutiny to volunteers from other political parties, pointing out a recent incident involving a Labour candidate in Clacton who had posted a racist message on social media. Peter Harris, Reform UK’s Agent and Campaign Manager in Clacton, also condemned the reported comments and assured that the campaign is well within legal spending limits. He emphasized that any individuals identified as holding unacceptable views would not be welcome in the campaign. Harris pointed to the Labour candidate’s racist post as evidence that no political party is perfect. Andrew Parker issued a separate statement apologizing to Nigel Farage and Reform UK for any harm his personal views may have caused. He clarified that his comments did not reflect the views of Farage or the party and expressed his support for Reform UK’s stance on illegal immigration. This investigation comes as new MRP polling from Electoral Calculus predicts that Reform UK could win up to 18 seats in the upcoming election. The revelations raise significant questions about the conduct and policies of the Reform UK campaign in Clacton, underscoring the need for accountability and transparency in political campaigns. Credit: Channel 4 News 2024-06-29 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a significant development, the United Kingdom has filed an amicus brief challenging the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) jurisdiction over Israeli nationals. This challenge comes amidst an ongoing investigation by The Hague tribunal into alleged Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Palestinian territories. The ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I announced on Thursday that it would allow the UK until July 12 to submit its brief. This decision effectively suspends the process of issuing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant until the court can make a determination on the UK’s challenge. According to court documents released on Thursday, the UK's request was made on June 10. The UK cited a 2021 decision by the same chamber, which asserted that despite the State of Palestine not being a sovereign state, the ICC had jurisdiction over alleged violations of the Rome Statute in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. This decision forms the basis of the current investigation, which includes high-profile figures such as Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh. The UK's brief argues that under the terms of the Oslo Accords, Palestinian authorities do not have jurisdiction over Israeli nationals, and thus cannot transfer such jurisdiction to the ICC. "The United Kingdom submits that the Chamber, pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Rome Statute, ‘is required to make an initial determination of jurisdiction in resolving the application for arrest warrants’ of which ‘[t]he Oslo Accords issue necessarily forms part,’” the court noted. The court also mentioned that other member states of the ICC could submit similar briefs by the July 12 deadline. Dr. Tal Mimran, a lecturer in law and technology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a program director at the Tachlith Institute, commented that he did not expect this decision to cause a significant delay in the ICC’s decision-making process regarding the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. The ICC’s Chief Prosecutor, Karim Khan, announced in May that he was seeking arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant on charges of "causing extermination, causing starvation as a method of war including the denial of humanitarian relief supplies, and deliberately targeting civilians in conflict." This move has been met with strong criticism from Israel, the United States, and other countries. Critics argue that Israel's independent judiciary and legal system are capable of investigating any criminal wrongdoing during the ongoing Gaza conflict, and that the prosecutor did not allow sufficient time for Israel to exercise that power. Further criticism of Khan’s approach has pointed out a perceived inconsistency in his engagement with Israel compared to other investigations, such as his approach to the regime of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. Critics argue that Khan has not engaged with Israel to understand what steps it might have taken or is currently taking to investigate possible criminal actions during the conflict. In response to the UK's legal maneuver, the decision-making process on whether to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant is now paused, awaiting the court's resolution of the jurisdictional challenge. This delay adds a new layer of complexity to the already contentious and politically charged investigation by the ICC into alleged Israeli war crimes. Related Topics ICC Seeks Arrest Warrants for Sinwar and Netanyahu Over War Crimes & October 7 Attack Credit: TOI | Reuters 2024-06-29 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a dramatic display of protest, pro-Palestine activists vandalized the offices of Barclays and JP Morgan in Leeds city center, covering the buildings in red paint overnight. The group, known as Palestine Action, targeted these financial institutions using modified fire extinguishers to spray the paint. The entrance of the Barclays Leeds branch was seen covered in bright red paint, with cash machines at the front also defaced. Police tape surrounded the site, indicating the extent of the vandalism. Similarly, the Pinnacle building, which houses JP Morgan, was splattered with paint at its entrance. Palestine Action has claimed responsibility for the vandalism, citing the banks' alleged links to Elbit Systems, an Israeli defense company. Activists allege that Elbit Systems manufactures weapons used in the Gaza Strip and accuse both Barclays and JP Morgan of holding shares in the firm. A spokesperson for Palestine Action declared, “Whilst the Gaza genocide rages on, our actions against the Zionist war machine and those who fund it will continue to intensify. There is no more time to waste on begging institutions to end their complicity. Ultimately, banks reduce Palestinian lives to profit on their accounts. As finance is the only language they understand, we will ensure they calculate the full cost of investing in Israel’s weapons trade.” West Yorkshire Police responded to the incident after receiving a report at 2:28 a.m. on Thursday morning regarding criminal damage at Barclays Bank on Albion Street. Additional damage was reported at other premises on Albion Street, including the Pinnacle building. The suspects reportedly fled the scene in a vehicle, which was later intercepted by police. Seven occupants were arrested and are currently in custody. This incident in Leeds is part of a broader campaign by Palestine Action, which has targeted around 20 branches of Barclays across the UK in recent weeks. Protests have included shattering windows, spraying paint, and stenciling over building facades from Glasgow to Brighton. JP Morgan has also been targeted in multiple locations, including Italy, Portugal, Manchester, Edinburgh, and now Leeds. Other companies such as Starbucks, McDonald’s, and Google have also been hit by similar actions. Palestine Action is planning to escalate its campaign with a series of demonstrations at the University of Cambridge in the coming days. These protests are expected to coincide with events for undergraduates and master’s degree holders, potentially causing significant disruption during the graduation period. Last week, the group, along with Youth Front For Palestine, claimed responsibility for spraying the University of Cambridge senate house with red paint. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-06-29 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a significant political development, European Union leaders have decided to nominate Ursula von der Leyen for a second five-year term as the head of the European Commission. This decision was reached at a high-stakes summit in Brussels, reinforcing von der Leyen’s leadership and signaling a continuity of the pro-EU centrist agenda. Alongside her, Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas has been chosen as the next foreign affairs chief, and former Portuguese Prime Minister António Costa is set to assume the role of chairman of EU summits. Ursula von der Leyen’s nomination comes from a strong base of support within Germany’s centre-right faction. Following the vote, she expressed her profound gratitude to the EU leaders who backed her for a second mandate. She stated, “I would plain and simply like to express my gratitude to the leaders who endorsed my nomination for a second mandate as president of the European Commission.” Her leadership over the past term has been marked by efforts to strengthen the European Union’s internal cohesion and its global standing. Kaja Kallas, who will take on the role of foreign affairs chief, is a prominent liberal figure and has been instrumental in shaping Estonia’s progressive policies. After her nomination, Kallas conveyed her honor and the weight of the responsibility she feels stepping into this significant role. She said, “My aim is definitely to work for European unity, protect European interests.” Her approach is expected to bring a fresh perspective to the EU’s foreign policy, emphasizing unity and the protection of European interests on the global stage. António Costa, who will become the new chairman of EU summits, has a strong background as the former Prime Minister of Portugal and a leading socialist. He praised both Kallas and von der Leyen, expressing confidence in their collaboration. “I’m sure our collaboration will be very successful to serve Europe and European citizens,” Costa said. Reflecting on the current challenges Europe faces, he emphasized the importance of unity among the member states. “The European Union has demonstrated its resilience in the past, always finding strengths in the unity, and building unity between member states will be my main priority when I take up my position in December focused on putting on track the strategic agenda which European Council has approved today.” Despite the broad support for these nominations, there was notable resistance from Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. As the leader of the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) bloc, Meloni abstained from voting for von der Leyen and cast her votes against Costa and Kallas. She expressed her dissatisfaction with the selection process, arguing that the recent European Parliament elections, which saw significant gains for hard-right parties like her own, were being disregarded. Addressing the Italian parliament, Meloni criticized what she described as an oligarchic tendency within the EU leadership. She stated, “European voters had asked the EU to take a different path to the one it has traveled on so far,” emphasizing that the EU needs to listen more closely to its citizens. Meloni went further to critique those who, in her view, believe that citizens are not mature enough to make certain decisions and argued that “oligarchy is essentially the only acceptable form of democracy.” The nominations of Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas will now go before the European Parliament for a vote. This next step could present challenges given the current political dynamics and the divisions within the Parliament. However, von der Leyen remains focused on fostering unity and steering the bloc through its many challenges. With her steady leadership, Kallas’s innovative approach, and Costa’s strategic vision, the EU aims to maintain its resilience and cohesion amid global and regional pressures. The nomination of these leaders marks a decisive moment for the European Union, as it strives to navigate internal divisions and external threats. Ursula von der Leyen’s leadership has been characterized by a strong commitment to European integration and unity. Her second term, if approved, is likely to continue along this path, with an emphasis on addressing key issues such as climate change, digital transformation, and geopolitical challenges. Kaja Kallas, known for her progressive policies and strong advocacy for digital innovation, is expected to bring a dynamic approach to the EU’s foreign policy. Her focus on European unity and the protection of European interests will be crucial as the EU faces complex international relations and security issues. António Costa’s experience as a former Prime Minister and his deep understanding of European politics will be invaluable in his new role as the chairman of EU summits. His emphasis on unity and strategic planning will be essential in guiding the EU through its upcoming challenges. In conclusion, the nominations of Ursula von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas, and António Costa represent a commitment to centrist, pro-EU policies and a vision of unity and resilience for the European Union. As these leaders prepare to assume their new roles, the EU stands at a critical juncture, ready to tackle the challenges of the future with renewed determination and a clear strategic vision. Credit: BBC 2024-06-29 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A soft, pink blob stares at the camera with glassy eyes before pulling its face into a dimpled smile. While it might look like the stuff of nightmares, this tiny robot covered in living skin represents a significant step forward in making robots more human-like. This innovative creation comes from researchers in Japan, who have discovered a new method to bind living skin tissue to mechanical robotic surfaces. The team behind this breakthrough is led by Professor Shoji Takeuchi of the Institute of Industrial Science at the University of Tokyo. Previously, Takeuchi developed a "living" robot skin using collagen—a fibrous protein in human skin—and human dermal fibroblasts, the main cell type in connective tissue. This skin could be applied to a robotic finger and bend without breaking. For their new technique, the team was inspired by the natural structure of human skin ligaments, creating "anchors" using a collagen gel applied to small, V-shaped holes on the robot's surface. This method provides "a more seamless and durable attachment," says Takeuchi. Takeuchi’s work is part of a broader effort to make robots more human-like. Ameca, often called the world's "most advanced humanoid robot," employs artificial intelligence to interact with people and respond appropriately to their responses. One feature that makes Ameca appear more realistic than other robots is her eyes. Will Jackson, the founder and CEO of Engineered Arts Ltd (the company behind Ameca), highlights the importance of eyes in human interaction. "Eyes are the windows to the soul. We read each other's emotions by eye contact," Jackson told CNN earlier this year, adding that with a "finite amount of motion" available in the robot's head, eyes provide "the most expressive capability." Unlike the 3.5 million industrial robots already working behind the scenes in sectors such as automotive manufacturing and electronics, humanoids like Ameca, or Hanson Robotics' Sophia and Grace, are destined for people-facing roles such as hospitality, healthcare, or education. Currently, their limited range of facial expressions creates an "uncanny valley" effect, a phenomenon that can make people uncomfortable with things that are trying to be human-like but miss the mark. "Realistic facial expressions enhance the robot's ability to communicate and interact with humans more naturally and effectively," says Takeuchi. "This is particularly important in applications such as healthcare, where empathy and emotional connection can significantly impact patient care." The research, detailed in the journal Cell Reports Physical Science this month, is an exciting development for the robotics field, says Yifan Wang, an assistant professor at the School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Wang’s work focuses on "soft robots" that mimic biological creatures. Skin, the largest organ of the human body, is vital for sensory perception, feeling temperature, humidity, and the textures of objects. "This kind of feature in biological systems is currently, with artificial robots, still very difficult to achieve," Wang notes. The research at the University of Tokyo offers a "hybrid solution" between soft and traditional robotics fields that is "very interesting," says Wang. Robots are often covered in a material made to resemble flesh, such as silicone, which is attached via an adhesive or fastening—leading to the skin falling off or breaking. The new method, however, offers a way of "adhering the skin onto a rigid surface very nicely, so that it does not detach easily and forms a very good interface between the rigid and soft," he says. For Wang, the most exciting implications of this research are around developments in the "sensing capability of robots." "Our human skin has these very delicate, high-density sensors on the surface, which currently you can still not quite achieve using some synthetic materials," says Wang. "But if we use biological skin on those traditional robots, we can achieve a similar type of sensing of different features." Takeuchi and his team hope to add more sensory functions in the next research phase, "to make the skin more responsive to environmental stimuli," he says. However, ensuring the consistency and quality of the living skin might not be so easy, Takeuchi admits. That’s why another part of his research is exploring how to create a vascular system for the robotic skin—a network of vessels and veins that carry blood and lymphatic fluids throughout the body—to provide the necessary nutrient supply to maintain the skin’s health over time. This would give the skin more moisture, "enhancing its durability and longevity," says Takeuchi. Such advancements would require substantial engineering efforts, says Wang, but if successful, it would enable humanoids to look and feel like people in the future. This breakthrough in robotics marks a new frontier, where the line between human and machine becomes increasingly blurred. The potential applications for such human-like robots are vast, ranging from more effective caregiving robots in healthcare to more intuitive and relatable machines in service industries. As researchers continue to push the boundaries of what robots can do, the integration of living skin tissue on robots not only represents a technological marvel but also poses profound questions about the future of human-robot interaction. The journey towards creating robots that can feel, empathize, and connect with humans on a deeper level is just beginning, and the implications for society are both exciting and challenging. Credit: CNN 2024-06-29 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The European Union has declared that Georgia's progress towards EU membership has reached an impasse due to a controversial foreign influence law. At a summit in Brussels, European leaders criticized the law as a significant setback on Georgia's path to membership, effectively halting the accession process. This development comes after Georgia was granted EU candidate country status last December, contingent upon the completion of a series of reforms, including justice reform. In a show of solidarity, EU leaders meeting in Brussels expressed their unwavering support for the Georgian people and urged the government in Tbilisi to reconsider its current trajectory. European Union officials have harshly criticized the new foreign influence law, which was passed amid significant anti-government protests and is set to take effect next month. Opponents of the legislation have labeled it a "Russian law" due to its resemblance to existing laws in Russia. They argue that the true intent of the legislation is to suppress dissent ahead of the parliamentary elections scheduled for October. Under the new law, media outlets and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive more than 20% of their funding from abroad will be required to register as "organizations acting in the interest of a foreign power." These organizations will also be subject to rigorous audits and potentially face punitive fines. The Georgian government defends the law as a measure to ensure transparency regarding foreign financial support for NGOs and to protect the country from foreign interference. However, the EU's ambassador to Georgia, Pawel Herczynski, indicated that the adoption of this law has severely strained relations between Tbilisi and the European Union. "The adoption of this law, as I see it, froze Georgia's integration into the European Union," Herczynski stated, as reported by Georgia's Interpress news agency. The United States has also voiced concerns, asserting that the law poses a threat to free speech. In recent weeks, thousands of Georgians have taken to the streets to protest the measure. Reports have emerged of NGO workers, activists, and opposition politicians facing threats or physical assaults during rallies. EU leaders have called for an immediate end to the increasing incidents of intimidation, threats, and physical assaults against civil society representatives, political leaders, activists, and journalists in Georgia. They emphasized their commitment to closely monitoring the situation and urged the Georgian government to ensure that the upcoming elections are "free and fair." The current situation in Georgia has placed the country's EU aspirations in jeopardy. The controversial foreign influence law has not only sparked domestic unrest but has also drawn significant international condemnation. As the October parliamentary elections approach, the Georgian government faces mounting pressure to align with EU expectations and uphold democratic principles. Credit: BBC 2024-06-29 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In the wake of the widely criticized debate performance, President Joe Biden remains steadfast in his commitment to face former President Donald Trump in a second debate scheduled for September. Despite concerns about his mental and physical fitness, Biden, 81, will not withdraw from the race, according to an advisor cited by CNN Senior White House Correspondent Kayla Tausche. Thursday night's debate saw Biden repeatedly freeze and misspeak, casting doubts among even his most ardent supporters. Doug Muzzio, a retired public affairs professor at Baruch College, described Biden's performance as "tentative, rambling, and sometimes incoherent," adding that many Democrats are now considering alternative candidates. One particularly troubling moment occurred early in the debate when Biden seemed to lose his train of thought for an agonizing nine seconds before stating, "I finally beat Medicare." This apparent gaffe provided Trump, 78, with an opportunity to pounce. "Well, he’s right. He did beat Medicare. He beat it to death and he’s destroying Medicare because all of these people who are coming in, they’re putting them on Medicare," Trump retorted. The debate left some Democrats reconsidering their support for Biden. "If I knew nothing about Donald Trump before that debate and judged him solely on that performance, I’d vote for him," one Democratic source told The Post. Despite the criticism and doubts, Biden is determined to press on. His advisor emphasized that he is not considering dropping out of the race. The second debate in September will be a crucial moment for Biden to reassure his supporters and counter the growing concerns within his party. Credit: New York Post 2024-06-29 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a recent crackdown on climate protest activities, six individuals associated with the Just Stop Oil movement were arrested during a meeting in east London. The Metropolitan Police stated that among those detained were several suspected "key organisers" of the group, which is known for its disruptive climate protests. The arrests, which occurred on Thursday evening, were made under a new section of the Public Order Act that criminalizes conspiring to disrupt national infrastructure projects. The police action is part of a broader effort to prevent anticipated disruptions at airports and other critical infrastructure, particularly during the busy summer travel season. "We know Just Stop Oil plan to disrupt airports and thousands of holidaymakers this summer," the Metropolitan Police said in a statement. The force emphasized their commitment to working with airport operators and other stakeholders to mitigate any significant disruptions. The Just Stop Oil group, however, characterized the police intervention as a raid on a benign gathering, dubbing it a "soup night." A video posted by the group on the social media platform X showed officers informing attendees that they were being detained. In one clip, a woman can be heard telling an officer, "I've come here for soup," while another officer accuses a handcuffed man of plotting to cause serious disruption to UK airports. The Metropolitan Police justified their actions, stating, "Activists do not have the right to commit criminal acts that may also endanger themselves and others. Anyone who disrupts the safety and security of an airport can expect to be dealt with swiftly and robustly." This stance comes in the wake of recent incidents involving Just Stop Oil activists, including an episode at Stansted Airport where private jets were sprayed with orange paint. Two women were charged with criminal damage and other offenses following this act of vandalism, which reportedly caused over £5,000 worth of damage. Despite the police's firm stance, Just Stop Oil continues to draw attention to their cause through high-profile demonstrations. Last week's incident at Stansted, which the group claimed targeted a private jet recently used by pop star Taylor Swift, highlights their ongoing efforts to challenge the use of fossil fuels and raise awareness about climate change. As the summer progresses, the tension between law enforcement and climate activists like Just Stop Oil is likely to intensify. The Metropolitan Police's recent arrests signal a proactive approach to maintaining public order and preventing disruptions, but they also underscore the ongoing debate about the balance between activism and legality in the fight against climate change. Credit: Sky News 2024-06-29 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Some off topic posts and replies removed. @susanlea please stay on topic and do not try to derail the thread with deflection posts Global Heat and Climate Extremes Endanger Billions

An immoral troll post about the 6 million Jews has been removed.

NASA has announced a landmark decision to partner with SpaceX for the deorbiting and controlled destruction of the International Space Station (ISS) later this decade. The U.S. Deorbit Vehicle, a spacecraft designed by SpaceX, will be tasked with guiding the ISS back into Earth's atmosphere when it is retired in 2030. This move is seen as essential to ensure that the decommissioning of the space station is done safely and responsibly, minimizing any risk to populated areas on Earth. The decision underscores the importance of planning for the safe disposal of the ISS, which has been a hub for scientific research and international cooperation since it first became operational in 2000. The ISS has hosted more than 3,300 experiments in microgravity, enabling research that would be impossible to conduct on Earth. These experiments have spanned various fields, including medical sciences and technology demonstrations, making the ISS a cornerstone of human space exploration and scientific advancement. Despite its invaluable contributions, the ISS is showing signs of aging. NASA and its primary partner, Roscosmos, have been unable to fully resolve issues such as microscopic leaks that are becoming increasingly problematic. The decision to intentionally destroy the ISS in a controlled reentry was made after careful consideration of various alternatives, including disassembling the station in orbit or boosting it to a higher orbit with a large spacecraft like SpaceX's Starship. Ultimately, NASA determined that preserving or reusing the ISS was not technically or economically feasible. NASA published a comprehensive study outlining the reasons behind this decision. The study noted, "The space station is a unique artifact whose historical value cannot be overstated. NASA considered this when determining if any part of the station could be salvaged for historical preservation or technical analysis." Despite acknowledging the ISS's historical significance, the agency concluded that extending its operational lifetime or salvaging parts of it was not practical. This decision, however, does not preclude the possibility of extending the ISS's operational life beyond 2030, which would require agreement with its international partners. As part of its broader strategy, NASA is looking to replace the ISS with private space stations. The agency is actively funding U.S. companies through the Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) program to develop these next-generation space habitats. These privately built space stations are seen as a cost-effective alternative to the ISS, which costs NASA about $4 billion annually to operate. The ISS itself was a $150 billion endeavor, making the shift to privately funded stations a financially prudent move. The SpaceX-built U.S. Deorbit Vehicle will play a crucial role in this transition. While NASA has not specified whether this new vehicle will be based on SpaceX's existing spacecraft, such as the Dragon capsules, it is clear that the project represents a significant technological and logistical challenge. "It is crucial to prepare for the safe and responsible deorbit of the International Space Station in a controlled manner," NASA stated in its press release. The agency emphasized that the U.S. Deorbit Vehicle is essential to "ensure avoidance of risk to populated areas." This partnership with SpaceX highlights the growing role of private companies in space exploration and infrastructure. As NASA looks to the future, the agency is leveraging the innovation and capabilities of the private sector to manage the end of the ISS era and pave the way for new advancements in space habitation. The decision to deorbit and destroy the ISS marks the end of an era in space exploration. The ISS has been a symbol of international cooperation and scientific progress, but its aging infrastructure necessitates a controlled and safe conclusion to its mission. NASA's collaboration with SpaceX ensures that this transition will be managed with the utmost care, setting the stage for the next generation of space exploration and research. As NASA prepares to retire the ISS, the agency remains committed to advancing human spaceflight and scientific research. The transition to private space stations represents a new chapter in space exploration, one that promises to build on the legacy of the ISS while offering new opportunities for innovation and discovery. The successful deorbiting of the ISS by the U.S. Deorbit Vehicle will be a critical milestone in this ongoing journey. Credit: NBC News 2024-06-28 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Bill Gates believes that artificial intelligence (AI) will significantly accelerate innovation and help combat climate change, but he stresses that it must be used by people with good intent. In an interview with Sky News at the Breakthrough Energy Summit in London, the philanthropist and Microsoft co-founder discussed the potential and pitfalls of AI. Gates noted that AI has so far played a modest role in addressing climate change, but its capabilities in modeling and understanding scientific phenomena could make innovation in this area much easier. "AI helps us model things in the sciences: understand materials better, and catalysts, and how to make proteins. AI, in every field of endeavor, will be accelerating innovation, whether that's in medicine or helping with tutoring, education. [With] climate [change], some of the complex things like modeling fusion energy - thank goodness AI is going to make that far easier to do." He acknowledged the potential risks associated with AI, including its use in cyber attacks and political interference. Gates emphasized the importance of ensuring that AI is used for good. "AI is so important that we have to make sure it's mostly being used by people with good intent," he said. He also pointed out that while new technologies are generally used by professionals like teachers, doctors, and scientists to enhance their work, they can also be misused. "AI could be used by people engaged in cyber attacks or political interference. So you have to make sure the good guys are staying ahead in detecting and preventing that type of usage." Gates downplayed the notion that AI might be used to overthrow governments, a scenario he had not encountered before. However, he did highlight the issue of misinformation and the need to develop methods to distinguish between authentic and fake content, particularly videos. "Because we know when something's printed on a piece of paper, anybody could have typed it, but we still think of videos as somehow authentic because it used to be hard to fake," he said. Gates suggested that laws with penalties for creating misleading content would be necessary to address this problem. Despite the challenges, Gates remains optimistic about the future of AI. He believes its greatest contributions will be in advancing medical science, improving education, and accelerating innovation to address climate change. He acknowledged the need for governments to adapt and respond to the changes brought by AI. "The biggest thing is going to be advancing medical science, advancing education, and taking this climate issue and getting that innovation to move even faster." When asked about the potential for AI to be used in cyber attacks on critical infrastructure such as hospitals, water systems, or electricity grids, Gates reiterated that defensive measures must be more advanced than offensive ones. Both sides will use AI to improve their capabilities. "The defense has to be smarter than the offense. And both sides will use AI to up their game." Gates concluded by emphasizing the importance of governments paying attention to AI developments and being agile enough to address the associated challenges. "It'll bring changes that will challenge governments to think: 'How do we step up?' And it's at a time where - do people trust government to step in and do those things? How agile will government[s] be? So this dialogue where governments are starting to pay attention, that's very important." Overall, Gates sees AI as a powerful tool that, when used responsibly, can drive significant progress in various fields, particularly in combating climate change. However, it requires careful management to prevent its misuse and to ensure that its benefits are realized by society at large. Credit: Sky News 2024-06-28 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Civil rights leaders have launched the "#UnmaskHateNY" campaign in response to a troubling rise in antisemitism in New York City. This initiative aims to pass laws that prevent individuals from using face coverings to hide their identities while harassing or terrorizing Jews, Black Americans, and other communities. Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, highlighted the importance of this effort by comparing it to past instances of violence, such as the Charlottesville rally in 2017 and the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, stating, "Those who carried out the violence at Charlottesville and on Jan. 6 may have felt there would be no repercussions. They were wrong, but only because we saw their faces. Had they been masked, not only would they have gotten away with literal murder, but they would have been emboldened to continue and escalate the violence." The #UnmaskHateNY coalition plans to fund a media ad campaign to promote awareness about the drive to outlaw "masked intimidation with intent" throughout the summer and fall. Jewish leaders have expressed alarm over the escalating antisemitism in New York, with some drawing parallels to the 1930s and the rise of Nazism. Recent incidents include vandals splashing red paint on the homes of Brooklyn Museum director and Jewish board members, and marking homes with a red triangle symbol used by Hamas to denote targets marked for death. Many of these crimes are carried out by masked groups, spreading terror in places such as the subway. Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, emphasized the alarming trend of antisemitic and harassing behavior being carried out by masked individuals on New York streets and campuses. "We have noticed a common, alarming trend. Many of those who are protesting are engaging in harassment and intimidation behind masks to conceal their identities and to terrorize their targets. We say enough is enough," Greenblatt declared. "UnMaskHateNY will hold those who engage in this harmful conduct accountable and make all of our communities safer." Hazel Dukes, president of the New York State Conference of the NAACP, noted that Black communities are well aware of the dangers posed by individuals who hide their identities to terrorize and harass others. "Reinstating New York’s masking laws will protect New Yorkers from some of the most terrifying periods in our history; when the Klan menaced Black Americans, faces covered, without accountability. We can’t let history repeat itself," she stated. The campaign will be announced during a press conference outside Columbia University, which has seen its own issues with antisemitism and anti-Israel vandalism. Mark Treyger, CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, condemned the act of using masks to terrorize Jews, particularly in the NYC subway, as "dangerous and despicable." Elected officials, including Assembly members Jeff Dinowitz, Brian Cunningham, Nily Rozic, and Jennifer Raju Rajkumar, as well as newly designated Manhattan Democratic Assembly nominee Micah Lasher, support the coalition and plan to attend the press conference. Dinowitz, who has proposed legislation to reimpose a mask ban for protesters, believes that such laws would help prevent masked individuals from committing hate crimes. The proposed law would likely include exemptions for those with medical issues or religious reasons for wearing masks. Governor Kathy Hochul and State Attorney General Letitia James have also expressed support for banning hate-mongers from using masks to conceal their identities. Eric Goldstein, CEO of the United Jewish Appeal-Federation of New York, reinforced the need for such measures, stating, "masked intimidation cannot be allowed in our city. This diverse coalition is critical in helping to reduce the escalating and frightening harassment of New Yorkers." Credit: New York Post 2024-06-28 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Tucker Carlson, known for his controversial stances, recently faced a heated exchange with a reporter in Australia over his views on Russian President Vladimir Putin. Carlson, who is currently on a speaking tour in Australia, was confronted by Sydney Morning Herald political correspondent Paul Sakkal. Sakkal asked if Carlson felt "any shame" about being labeled a "useful idiot" for Putin due to his sympathetic commentary towards the Russian leader. Carlson's tour in Australia includes appearances with notable and controversial figures such as Clive Palmer, a mining billionaire-turned-politician. In a video clip posted by Carlson on X, the confrontation with Sakkal began with the reporter barely able to start his question before Carlson interjected. Sakkal had only managed to mention President Putin before Carlson sarcastically repeated the name, mocking the question and shifting the conversation to the COVID-19 vaccines. When Sakkal defended the vaccines, stating they saved millions of lives, Carlson scoffed at the idea and mocked the media for promoting such views. Despite Sakkal's attempts to continue his question without interruption, Carlson repeatedly cut him off with derisive comments. When Sakkal finally got to ask his full question, he noted that many conservative figures, including former Australian Prime Ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott, as well as Boris Johnson, are strongly anti-Putin. He questioned Carlson's stance, pointing out that Putin himself had criticized Carlson's interview as weak and misleading. Carlson responded by dismissing Sakkal's question as an "absurd soliloquy" and accused the reporter of taking Putin's word despite previously considering him a "psychopathic liar." He then criticized Boris Johnson, labeling him a "criminal buffoon" and blaming him for prolonging the Ukraine conflict at the behest of the Biden administration. Carlson claimed that Johnson's actions had led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men and asserted that Ukraine cannot win against Russia due to the disparity in their populations. Carlson further argued that the best outcome for Ukraine would have been peace negotiations, which he claimed Johnson had obstructed. He also mentioned that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had passed a law allowing foreign corporations to own land in Ukraine, suggesting that this would lead to a future where Ukraine's land is owned by multinational corporations rather than Ukrainians. Concluding his response, Carlson stated that he feels shame not for his statements but for the actions of Western governments, including the United States and Australia, in their involvement in Ukraine. He described the Western efforts to prevent a Russian takeover of Ukraine as one of the great crimes of his lifetime and dismissed the notion that opposing these actions equates to supporting Putin. This confrontation is not Carlson's first instance of controversy regarding his views on Russia. In a 2019 episode of Tucker Carlson Tonight, he stated he was rooting for Russia in its conflict against Ukraine, a comment he later claimed was made in jest. Credit: Daily Beast 2024-06-28 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a significant policy shift, Germany introduced a new citizenship law on Tuesday, requiring applicants to affirm Israel's right to exist. This move aligns with Chancellor Olaf Scholz's socially liberal government agenda and responds to rising antisemitism and the polarized debate over Israel's actions against Hamas. The Scholz administration, which prioritized dual nationality during its 2021 campaign, has now reduced the waiting period for new citizens to five years. Previously, dual citizenship was not an option for first-generation migrants in Germany. However, the recent surge in antisemitic incidents, alongside increasing support for anti-immigrant, far-right ideologies, has led Berlin to frame the citizenship overhaul as a stringent affirmation of loyalty to German values. Interior Minister Nancy Faeser emphasized the balance between inclusivity and adherence to core values. “Anyone who shares our values and makes an effort can now get a German passport more quickly and no longer has to give up part of their identity by giving up their old nationality,” Faeser stated. “But we have also made it just as clear: anyone who does not share our values cannot get a German passport. We have drawn a crystal-clear red line here and made the law much stricter than before.” The new legal framework for citizenship was established in January, with the specific requirements of the citizenship test detailed by government regulation. Initially, the interior ministry indicated the inclusion of questions on Judaism and Jewish life but was non-committal about requiring a declaration regarding Israel's right to exist. The ministry confirmed on Tuesday that such a declaration is now mandatory. “New test questions have been added on the topics of antisemitism, the right of the state of Israel to exist, and Jewish life in Germany,” the interior ministry announced. The test will also require a commitment to gender equality, democracy, and Germany’s historical responsibility towards Judaism, stemming from the crimes of National Socialism. Felix Klein, Germany’s commissioner for fighting antisemitism, reported a “catastrophic” rise in hate crimes against Jewish people in Germany. Antisemitic incidents logged in 2023 increased by 83% to 4,782, most of which involved hate speech, but also included several hundred cases of physical violence. Despite the government’s zero-tolerance stance on antisemitism, it has faced criticism for perceived suppression of criticism against the Israeli government, particularly concerning its actions in Gaza. Sabine Döring, Germany’s junior minister for higher education, recently resigned after her ministry explored defunding research by academics who criticized police actions against anti-Israeli student protests. The controversy underscores the tension between combating antisemitism and protecting free speech, which has become a contentious issue, especially among Germany’s young Muslims who feel increasingly radicalized by what they perceive as governmental suppression of their right to express their opinions. Credit: Financial Time 2024-06-28 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Nigel Farage is once again set to shake up British politics, this time by becoming an unlikely asset for the left. Farage's previous ventures with the UK Independence Party (Ukip) and the Brexit Party had seismic impacts. Ukip's pressure led to the 2016 EU referendum, and the Brexit Party's success in the 2019 European Parliament elections showcased his ability to fragment Tory support. As Farage reenters the political fray, his actions appear to be the left’s greatest boon in the upcoming elections. Farage’s return to the political stage, having replaced Richard Tice as the leader of Reform UK, has set the stage for another significant disruption. Opinion polls currently predict a potentially devastating outcome for the Conservatives, with forecasts suggesting they could be reduced to as few as 50 seats, possibly even fewer than the Liberal Democrats. Labour leader Keir Starmer seems poised for a sweeping victory, with some polls indicating he could secure around 450 seats. This would grant him a robust majority and the ability to enforce party discipline with ease. Starmer’s rhetoric of a "decade of renewal" reflects his confidence, largely fueled by Farage’s influence in splintering the Conservative vote. Richard Tice’s motto for Reform UK, "Vote Reform, get reform," aims to present a conservative platform without the Conservatives. Their manifesto, advocating for NHS reform, lower taxes, immigration control, and opposition to net-zero targets and transgender policies in schools, closely mirrors traditional Tory policies. Despite this, the Westminster system’s inherent bias against smaller parties means that even with significant voter support, Reform UK is projected to win only a few seats. This undermines its own agenda by diluting the right-wing vote. Both Starmer and Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey have had underwhelming campaigns. Starmer maintains low personal approval ratings, while Davey has provided light amusement with his stunts. However, Farage has inadvertently become a boon for the Lib Dems, particularly in regions like Surrey and Cornwall, where they are now competitive in constituencies previously dominated by the Conservatives. Farage’s influence has even put traditionally Tory strongholds like Boris Johnson’s old seat of Henley and Tunbridge Wells at risk. The strategy behind Reform UK has been questioned for its lack of coherence. Critics argue that Farage's campaign seems more focused on inflicting damage than on promoting a substantive conservative agenda. Some within the Reform UK ranks, like Charlie Thompson and Tom Wellings, have withdrawn their candidacies to avoid inadvertently helping Labour candidates win. Even prominent figures like Lee Anderson, who defected from the Conservatives to Reform UK, now exercise caution in their campaigns. Farage’s purported long-term strategy of destruction followed by rebuilding is fraught with risks. The precedent set by Canada’s Reform Party, which decimated the conservative vote in 1993 and took nearly 13 years to recover, serves as a cautionary tale. Farage's recent controversial statements, such as his remarks on Vladimir Putin and Ukraine, have sparked backlash and dented his popularity, indicating potential limits to his influence. Should Starmer achieve a landslide victory, he is expected to leverage his majority to reshape the political landscape in favor of the left. This could involve stricter state regulation of the press, changes to the BBC Charter, and tightening online debate rules. Starmer may also seek to reintegrate the UK into the EU’s regulatory orbit, reversing some of the Brexit measures. Farage’s actions, while aimed at radicalizing the Conservative Party, might ultimately facilitate a long-lasting shift towards left-wing governance. Farage’s third act in British politics underscores the complex interplay of strategy and ideology. While aiming to rejuvenate the right, his current trajectory seems poised to consolidate power for the left, demonstrating the unpredictable and often paradoxical nature of political movements. The coming elections will reveal whether Farage’s gamble will pay off or if it will further entrench the very outcomes he seeks to oppose. Nigel Farage is about to turn British politics upside-down for a third time. His Ukip insurgency forced the Tories to offer the 2016 referendum on the EU and changed history. When his Brexit party pushed Tories into fifth place in our last-ever European parliament elections in 2019, his victory established him as the most effective Tory-slaying machine ever deployed in political battle. If Keir Starmer or Ed Davey could have had one wish before the election, it would have been for Farage to return and attack the Tories, so they could sit back to watch the right eat itself. ‘Farage has become our patron saint,’ says one Lib Dem strategist. So it has proved. Some opinion polls say the Conservatives could be looking at as few as 50 seats, perhaps fewer than the Liberal Democrats. Starmer is believed to be on course for about 450 seats and a majority so large that he could remove the whip from any rebel who defies him and still exert an easy control over parliament. He has started talking about a ‘decade of renewal,’ which shows how he is thinking: thanks to Farage’s Tory-felling, Labour is looking at ten years of power. ‘Vote Reform, get reform,’ said Richard Tice, who was the party’s leader until Farage replaced him earlier last month. But polls suggest that even if 17 percent of voters back Reform, the party will end up with just three seats. This is unfair, but the Westminster system is designed to be unfair. Whatever his intention, Farage has ended up serving as a purely destructive force. He has become the nemesis, not the rejuvenator, of the causes he purports to care about. The Reform UK manifesto looks like a souped-up Conservative pledge card: NHS reform, lower tax, immigration control, ditching net-zero targets, banning ‘transgender ideology’ in schools, replacing HS2. Reform wants to offer conservatism without Conservatives. But its effect will be to halve the number of MPs in parliament to promote these causes. That’s the paradox. Both Starmer and Davey have had lacklustre campaigns. Starmer has achieved his goal of saying nothing of interest. His personal approval ratings are almost as low as Gordon Brown’s in his final days. Davey has spent his time providing light amusement for the television news by falling off waterboards and tightropes and giving CPR to dummies. Meanwhile, Farage has been giving CPR to the Liberal Democrats in seats they would never be able to win on their own. Take Surrey: ten of its 12 constituencies are in play for the Lib Dems. The same is true in Cornwall and much of the southwest. Boris Johnson’s old seat of Henley may fall to Davey’s astonished troops and perhaps even Tunbridge Wells, which has been Tory for more than a century. ‘Farage has become our patron saint,’ says one Lib Dem strategist. ‘He can do more for our chances than we can. Our guys should really dress up as his and campaign for Reform.’ What about the argument that Reform’s election campaign is not really about Westminster seats but about purging and steering the Tory party? That voting Reform will make the Tories more radical, more Nigel-esque, more committed to principles of lower tax and small government? A template is waiting in the ‘popular Conservatism’ advocated by Liz Truss, Jacob Rees-Mogg, and Suella Braverman. If Farage were really interested in building something new, he might have decided not to put candidates against right-wing Conservatives. Why weaken the cause? But there is no real cause this time: just the schadenfreude of inflicting the damage. Braverman once called for Farage to ‘be welcomed’ by the Conservatives, but her formerly safe seat has become a four-way marginal thanks to Reform. Rees-Mogg went so far as to suggest that Farage could be made a minister in a Conservative government, but his comments haven’t spared him. Polls predict he will lose to Labour in the newly created North East Somerset and Hanham. This is thanks to a challenge by the Reform candidate Paul MacDonnell, a self-styled libertarian trying to unseat Rees-Mogg on the grounds that the Conservatives have become a ‘destructive left-wing organisation.’ When Rees-Mogg is being attacked as a sleeper for the left, we can see that Reform does not represent a coherent strategy or political philosophy but something entirely new and rather extraordinary: a party that exists merely to subvert rather than to promote its own cause. This is even dawning on a few Reform activists. One, Charlie Thompson, has pulled out of the election saying that he realised he would end up helping Labour replace Simon Clarke, a former Tory minister and low-tax Brexiteer. Reform UK was furious and has backed Rod Liddle, who’s running for the Social Democratic party. Tom Wellings, a lawyer, was due to stand for Reform against Gavin Williamson, the former education secretary, but stood down once he realised he would pave the way for a Labour MP. ‘This is a matter of deep concern to me and should be to anyone who supports the policies and agenda of Reform UK,’ he said. Lee Anderson, the former Conservative deputy chairman, used to warn that a vote for Reform helps Labour – before he was thrown out of the party and defected to Reform. He now says he won’t actively campaign against certain Tories, but there aren’t many others showing such restraint in his new party. Farage’s argument is that he’s playing the first part of a long-term game: destroy, then rebuild. It’s not hard to see what happens next. Credit: The Spectator 2024-06-28 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Former President Donald Trump has secured a notable four-point lead over President Joe Biden in the latest New York Times/Siena College poll, ahead of their anticipated Thursday debate. This surge represents Trump's most significant advantage in this election cycle. The poll indicates Trump has 48% support among likely voters, compared to Biden's 44%. In the previous survey conducted by the same pollsters in April, Trump had a marginal one-point lead over Biden among likely voters. Among registered voters, Trump held a six-point advantage, 48% to 42%. When third-party candidates were factored into the poll, Trump maintained an edge with 40% support, while Biden received 37%. Independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. garnered 7% support among likely voters. However, the New York Times cautioned that this poll could be an outlier, as the average of national polls up to Wednesday showed Trump leading by only one point, 46% to 45%. The poll also highlighted voter concerns about Biden's age, with 70% considering him too old to be effective, including a majority of his supporters. In contrast, only 40% of voters felt the same about Trump. The economy and immigration emerged as the top issues for voters, with 23% and 17% respectively identifying them as their primary concerns. Half of the respondents believed Trump would handle these issues better, while only 40% thought Biden was better suited to address their top concerns. The upcoming debate is highly anticipated, with 77% of likely voters planning to watch. Among those, 59% expect Trump to perform well, while less than half (48%) have the same expectation for Biden. This first debate will be crucial as both candidates seek to solidify their positions and sway undecided voters ahead of the November election. Credit: New York Post 2024-06-28 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Ursula Haverbeck, infamously known as the "Nazi grandma," has been sentenced once again for denying the Holocaust. At the age of 95, she faces another 16-month prison term, handed down by a Hamburg court on Wednesday. Haverbeck, a repeat offender in this regard, has been jailed multiple times for her persistent denial of the Nazi genocide. The court's decision took into account her previous convictions and her continued dissemination of Holocaust denial during the trial itself. Haverbeck repeated her denial of the Holocaust several times throughout the proceedings, prompting the judges to factor in her ongoing defiance and use of the trial as a platform for her views. Supporters of Haverbeck were present in court, and their repeated heckling disrupted the proceedings. Haverbeck was once the head of a far-right training center, which was shut down in 2008 for spreading Nazi propaganda. Over the years, she has been sentenced to jail on several occasions for her denial of the Nazi genocide. One of her most notorious declarations was made on television, where she claimed, "the Holocaust is the biggest and most sustained lie in history." This latest sentence comes after Haverbeck lost an appeal over a conviction related to comments she allegedly made in 2015 during the trial of Oskar Groening, a former Auschwitz guard. During that trial, she claimed that Auschwitz was merely a labor camp and that no mass murder occurred there. Her remarks, according to prosecutors, were a clear denial of the atrocities committed at Auschwitz, where approximately 1.1 million people, primarily European Jews, were murdered. The proceedings against Haverbeck were delayed several times due to the coronavirus pandemic and her health issues. This sentence also considers a previous conviction by a Berlin court in 2022 for statements she made in another interview and at an event. It remains uncertain whether Haverbeck will actually serve her sentence in prison. German law strictly prohibits the denial of the genocide committed by Adolf Hitler's regime. Holocaust denial and other forms of incitement to hatred can lead to up to five years in prison, and the use of Nazi symbols, such as swastikas, is also banned. Haverbeck's case highlights Germany's ongoing struggle with Holocaust denial and the legal measures in place to combat it. Despite her advanced age, the courts have continued to hold her accountable for her persistent spread of falsehoods and hatred. Credit: TOI 2024-06-28 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe