Social Media

Is Donald Trump already influencing Britain’s approach to the so-called "woke brigade"? After just seven days in office, his policies are sparking debates across the Atlantic. His direct opposition to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives has many wondering whether the UK might follow suit in reclaiming a sense of traditional values. A recent headline in the *Mail Online* even speculated on a ripple effect from Trump's administration, asking, “Will Trump plan save UK gender-neutral loo ban?” The link between the outspoken leader of the free world and the quirky rise of gender-neutral bathroom signs in Britain may seem tenuous at first, but there is a thread of logic. Last year, then-Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch proposed a law to curb the increasing prevalence of gender-neutral toilets in public buildings. The initiative, however, appears to have been shelved under Keir Starmer’s DEI-friendly government. With Trump’s administration actively dismantling DEI policies—declaring an end to funding in U.S. government departments and formally recognizing only two sexes—some are wondering if Britain might feel emboldened to revisit such proposals. Optimism aside, it’s wise not to hold our breath. While DEI programs have brought genuine progress in promoting fairness and equal opportunities, their ideological excesses have often led to absurd and counterproductive measures. Gender-neutral bathrooms, a classic example, have become a divisive topic. Britain’s response to such trends has been notably cautious and at times embarrassingly submissive, adopting these changes with little resistance, even when public opinion suggests otherwise. The reluctance to act boldly was evident last week when Cabinet Office Minister Georgia Gould provided a noncommittal response to queries about the gender-neutral loo legislation, saying the matter was “currently being reviewed.” Translation: no immediate action will be taken. It’s a far cry from the decisiveness many expected—or hoped for—in light of Trump's unapologetic stance on similar issues. Meanwhile, government-funded organizations, particularly the police, appear oblivious to the growing public backlash against “woke” culture. A recent DEI reference guide distributed by Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, and Cambridgeshire police has drawn sharp criticism for its excessive political correctness. Officers are advised to avoid phrases like “black sheep,” “blacklisted,” and “black mark” to prevent potential offense. These documents also perpetuate controversial ideas such as gender being a "social construct" and discourage “Christian-centric” language in a predominantly Christian country. One particularly absurd guideline urges the use of terms like “pregnant person” instead of “pregnant woman.” While this might make sense in niche contexts, its blanket application risks sounding absurd: imagine an officer announcing, “There’s a pregnant person shoplifting in Aisle 3.” Even the concept of “white fragility” makes an appearance, described as the inability of some white people to process discussions about racism. Critics argue that such ideas fuel division rather than unity, trivializing real issues of discrimination by focusing on inconsequential language debates. While Trump’s policies are likely to create many unwelcome ripple effects globally—his revival of capital punishment, for example, has already sparked renewed pro-death penalty rhetoric in some quarters—there’s one lesson Britain might benefit from: standing firm on core values. Instead of kowtowing to the excesses of DEI ideology, Britain could adopt a balanced approach that prioritizes fairness and common sense without veering into unnecessary virtue-signaling. The question is whether Britain still remembers what those values are. Without clarity or the courage to act decisively, the nation risks remaining mired in an ideological limbo. Perhaps, just perhaps, Trump’s unapologetic boldness could inspire a more confident assertion of Britain’s own beliefs. Based on a report by The Daily Telegraph 2025-01-29

President Trump signed a series of sweeping executive orders that mark a dramatic shift in U.S. military policy, signaling the end of diversity and inclusion initiatives and instituting a ban on transgender individuals serving in the armed forces. The president, who referred to recent years as a “dark period” for the military, intends to redefine its priorities, focusing on what he calls “lethality, readiness, and war fighting.” Central to Trump’s overhaul is the elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs within the military and associated government departments. An executive order will ban what Trump terms “discriminatory race or sex-based preferences,” while all federal DEI staff have been placed on leave pending further review. Trump has criticized these initiatives as being “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral,” claiming they undermine cohesion and operational readiness. Last week, the administration dismissed the military’s highest-ranking female officer, citing her “excessive focus” on DEI measures. Additionally, the Office of Personnel Management has been instructed to establish a hotline for government employees to report colleagues who promote DEI ideology. In what may be the most controversial move, Trump will reinstate a policy banning transgender individuals from serving in the military. The order specifically prohibits the use of “invented and identification-based pronouns” and bars transgender individuals from accessing facilities such as sleeping quarters and bathrooms that do not align with their biological sex. A draft of the order argues that individuals undergoing medical gender transitions are “not physically capable of meeting military readiness requirements.” Trump’s administration has justified the ban by emphasizing the importance of resilience and physical capability within the armed forces. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, newly confirmed in his role, stated, “The job of the military is lethality and readiness... We will not compromise on the standards required to deter our enemies and protect our nation.” The decision has sparked fierce debate, with critics highlighting the estimated 15,500 transgender service members who may be impacted. These individuals, many of whom have served honorably, face uncertain futures under the new policy. Trump’s executive orders also include other significant military changes. One will reinstate service members discharged for refusing COVID-19 vaccinations, addressing what the president referred to in his inauguration speech as “unjust expulsions.” Approximately 8,000 personnel were discharged for vaccine refusal, though only 43 had been reinstated before the Republican administration’s return. Another order focuses on an ambitious missile defense system for the United States, described as an “Iron Dome” for America. Modeled after Israel’s short-range missile defense system, this next-generation shield aims to counter threats such as ballistic and hypersonic missiles. A fact sheet released by the administration describes these potential threats as “catastrophic” and calls for a robust defense infrastructure. However, defense experts have raised doubts about the feasibility of such a system. To defend the continental United States, an estimated 24,700 missile batteries would be required, each costing $100 million. Critics argue that such a project would be prohibitively expensive and logistically challenging to implement. As Trump reshapes the military, his policies have ignited widespread debate. Proponents see a return to prioritizing strength and readiness, while opponents argue these changes risk sidelining vital inclusion efforts and alienating dedicated service members. Whether these measures bolster the military’s effectiveness or create deeper divisions remains to be seen. Based on a report by The Times 2025-01-29

Sir Stephen Timms, the minister for social security and disability, has sparked questions by attending the Muslim Council of Britain’s (MCB) annual leadership dinner, an event that appears to defy Whitehall’s longstanding “non-engagement” policy with the organization. The policy, in place since 2009, has prevented government officials from engaging with the MCB due to unresolved concerns about extremism. Timms, alongside Labour MPs Naz Shah, Afzal Khan, and Abtisam Mohamed, attended the dinner, held last Thursday and attended by over 300 Muslim leaders. The evening, described as one for reflection, also featured recognition for Shah and Khan, who received awards for their contributions. Footage from the event shows Timms alongside Zara Mohammed, the outgoing leader of the MCB. The MCB, representing over 500 mosques, schools, and charities, has faced strained relations with the government since Hazel Blears, the then-communities minister, suspended ties in 2009. This decision followed allegations that one of the MCB's leaders supported violence against Israel. Despite calls from some quarters to revisit the policy, a recent statement from Dan Jarvis, the security minister, affirmed in Parliament, “There has been no change to policy on engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain.” Nick Timothy, a Conservative MP and former special adviser to Theresa May, has questioned Timms’ attendance, asking whether it reflects a change in government policy or a breach of collective responsibility. In a letter to Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, Timothy stated, “All this raises serious questions about the government’s policy towards the MCB. Can you confirm that it is government policy that no minister should engage with the MCB? If that is so, why was Mr. Timms at the dinner on 23 January? Does this reflect a change in government policy or did Mr. Timms defy collective responsibility?” The controversy around the MCB remains tied to accusations of unresolved extremism concerns. Sir William Shawcross, who reviewed the Prevent strategy in 2023, supported the continuation of the non-engagement policy, citing these unresolved issues. This sentiment was echoed earlier this year when Mohammed Kozbar, the MCB’s deputy secretary-general, was removed as an adviser to the Metropolitan Police after a controversial social media post from January 2024 came to light. Adding to the uncertainty, a freedom of information request revealed that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government held records of internal discussions about the MCB since Labour’s election victory on July 4. However, the department declined to release the information, stating it would not be in the public interest. For now, the question of whether Sir Stephen Timms' attendance signals a shift in policy or a personal decision remains unanswered. The event has reignited debates over the MCB’s relationship with the government and the criteria for re-engagement, highlighting the political sensitivity surrounding the matter. Based on a report by The Times 2025-01-29

A new chapter in aviation history is set to unfold as Boom Supersonic's XB-1 demonstrator prepares to break the sound barrier above California's Mojave Desert. The US-based company, founded in 2014, envisions the prototype as a significant step toward reintroducing supersonic passenger travel, a feat not seen since Concorde's final flight two decades ago. On Tuesday, the XB-1 will aim to surpass Mach 1 (770 mph) during a series of four-minute runs, with Boom predicting the aircraft will achieve a cruising speed of Mach 1.1. The historic test will take place in airspace near Edwards Air Force Base, where Chuck Yeager famously became the first person to exceed the speed of sound in 1947. The XB-1 pays homage to this milestone, taking its name from Yeager’s iconic Bell X-1 aircraft. Boom has steadily ramped up its testing program since March, achieving speeds of Mach 0.95 earlier this month. The XB-1, a scaled-down version of the planned Overture passenger jet, measures one-third the size of its future counterpart. Once fully developed, the Overture is expected to cruise at Mach 1.7, doubling the speed of today’s fastest commercial aircraft. The Overture, designed to carry approximately 65 passengers, comes with a projected price tag of £200 million per aircraft. Boom has already attracted interest from major airlines such as United and American, who have placed preliminary orders. The Denver-based company’s factory in North Carolina, completed in June, has the capacity to produce 33 aircraft annually, with plans to double output once a second assembly line is operational. However, the road to commercial service is far from straightforward. Boom faces the daunting challenge of securing billions in additional funding to move from prototype to production, including the development of a new engine. Complicating matters further is the aviation industry's commitment to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, a goal that has intensified scrutiny of the environmental impact of supersonic travel. Blake Scholl, Boom’s founder and CEO, remains optimistic about the future of sustainable supersonic flight. “There’s no reason why the Overture can’t run on the same sustainable aviation fuel that airlines are adopting to decarbonize their regular operations,” Scholl has asserted. This fuel, derived from renewable sources, is seen as a critical tool for reducing the carbon footprint of air travel. As Boom’s ambitious plans take flight, the company hopes to redefine the possibilities of global travel, offering passengers the ability to cross oceans in half the time of today’s commercial jets. If successful, the Overture could usher in a new era of supersonic aviation, making once-distant destinations more accessible than ever before. For now, all eyes are on the Mojave Desert, where the XB-1 is poised to revive the dreams of supersonic travel. Based on a report by Live Science 2025-01-29

A former Catholic university professor has ignited widespread controversy after a provocative performance during a street party in Porto Alegre, a city in the southern Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul, ahead of the carnival season. The unnamed educator, previously associated with the Jesuit-run Unisinos University, shocked many with his daring display. Dressed to mimic Jesus on the cross, the professor adorned a fake crown of thorns and climbed a tree, capturing the attention of revelers. As the crowd gathered, he began to dance and shed his clothing, first removing his shirt and shouting to the onlookers, who responded with loud cheers and flag-waving. Escalating the performance, he threw his shirt to the ground, removed his belt, and stripped off his pants, tossing them into the crowd while participants chanted, “Let’s take Jesus down, let’s take him down, let’s take him down from the cross.” In response to the chants, the professor descended from the tree and went crowd surfing, further fueling the uproar. While the crowd’s reaction was enthusiastic, the performance drew immediate backlash from residents and members of the Catholic community, many of whom condemned the act as deeply disrespectful to Christianity. Calls for action quickly surfaced online, with critics demanding accountability from Unisinos University, despite the institution clarifying that the professor had resigned more than a year ago. “Fire him now,” one commenter urged on the university’s social media page, while another insisted, “We demand a retraction from the teacher at this institute who disrespected Christianity.” The outrage extended beyond social media. One individual shared how the incident had personal repercussions for their family, stating, “Absurd behavior towards Jesus Christ. My nephew will leave college because our family does not condone disrespectful attitudes.” Another suggested the entire carnival season be canceled, declaring, “As far as I’m concerned, it wouldn’t even happen!” Unisinos, a Jesuit institution with over five decades of history, responded to the controversy in a statement on Monday. The university emphasized its commitment to upholding Christian values and distanced itself from the former professor’s actions. “As a Jesuit, Unisinos has as one of its purposes social assistance to the dissemination of the Christian faith and ethics advocated by the guidelines of the Society of Jesus,” the statement read. “The University is against any form of exposure that constitutes religious intolerance and reaffirms its dedication to the principles that guide its mission: faith, justice, and service to society.” The professor’s performance has reignited debates about religious sensitivity and artistic expression, with many questioning the boundaries between freedom of expression and respect for sacred symbols. The controversy continues to ripple through the local community, casting a shadow over the festive season in Porto Alegre. Based on a report by The Daily Mail 2025-01-29

A viral video capturing a battle between a robotic dog and a drone has sparked widespread discussion about the potential future of warfare, raising questions about the role of artificial intelligence and autonomous machines on the battlefield. The scene, which seems like a page out of a science fiction novel, has taken the internet by storm, particularly on social media platforms in China. This isn’t the first time drones have featured prominently in warfare discussions. Over the past two decades, drones have evolved dramatically. In the early 2000s, the U.S. deployed large, costly drones with wingspans of up to 66 feet and cruising altitudes of 50,000 feet. Today, advancements in technology have made drones smaller, cheaper, and more agile, allowing them to be deployed in vast numbers. The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict offers a stark example of this shift. In 2024 alone, the Ukrainian defense ministry reported the use of over 1.2 million drones by its forces, while Russia deployed an estimated 1.4 million drones. These numbers highlight how drones have transitioned from cutting-edge technology to disposable tools of war, reflecting their ubiquity on the modern battlefield. Despite the playful nature of the viral clip, it has sparked speculation that such duels could represent the "First Machine War" or the "Dawn of Modern Warfare powered by artificial intelligence." Social media users have pointed out the strategic advantages of employing drones and robotic systems in various environments, predicting their inevitable integration into military operations. Interestingly, the video suggests that the drone and robotic dog used in this demonstration were not designed for military use. The drone appears to be a civilian model, likely manufactured by DJI, while the robotic dog seems to be from Unitree, another China-based company. Both manufacturers maintain that their technology is intended solely for civilian applications. DJI, for instance, ceased its operations in Russia and Ukraine last year, citing concerns about its drones being repurposed for military applications. However, the line between civilian and military technology continues to blur. Reports have shown how robotic dogs can be easily modified to carry and fire weapons. Additionally, China’s state-run companies have been actively developing military-grade robotic systems, such as Norinco's robotic wolf and Unitree's robotic dogs, both of which have been tested in joint military exercises. These developments reveal China’s broader ambitions to become a leading supplier of autonomous warfare technology. The Chinese military’s increasing integration of robotic systems into reconnaissance, transport, and even combat scenarios underscores the nation’s intent to leverage this technology on future battlefields. As these advancements accelerate, the question arises: how will other nations, particularly the United States, respond to this technological shift? The U.S. has already adapted civilian innovations, such as Microsoft’s HoloLens, for military applications, but drones and robotic dogs represent a far greater leap in utility and strategic impact. The viral duel between the drone and robotic dog may seem like entertainment, but it offers a glimpse into a future where autonomous machines could play a dominant role in warfare. With technology advancing at breakneck speed, humanity stands on the precipice of a new era—one where machines could redefine the very nature of conflict. Based on a report by Interesting Engineering 2025-01-29

Selena Gomez found herself at the center of controversy after sharing—and subsequently deleting—a heartfelt video on Instagram in which she cried over the plight of immigrants facing deportation in the United States. The 32-year-old actress and singer, whose family has Mexican roots, appeared emotional as she addressed the issue, which she linked to former President Donald Trump’s deportation policies. “All my people are getting attacked, the children,” Gomez said tearfully in the now-deleted video. “I don’t understand. I’m so sorry. I wish I could do something, but I can’t.” Alongside the video, she wrote “I’m sorry” accompanied by a Mexican flag emoji. The posts sparked an intense debate online, with many criticizing Gomez for her public display of emotion. Conservative commentator Tomi Lahren took to X (formerly Twitter) to say, “Certified moron @selenagomez crying for criminal illegal aliens is really something else. This is why we don’t take our political advice from Disney child stars.” Savanah Hernandez, another political commentator, echoed similar sentiments: “Selena Gomez filmed herself ugly crying about the current mass deportations. Because of course, the out-of-touch celebrity with zero understanding of how dangerous our country has become is crying for the criminals being deported. How pathetic.” Others questioned Gomez’s timing and actions. One user remarked, “Selena Gomez crying on Instagram isn’t helping a single family facing deportation. If she truly cared about ‘her people,’ where was she before this? She has the money, the platform, and the connections to fund legal aid, advocate for policy reform, or even assist families in navigating the path to legalization. Instead, she waited until it was too late, showing up with empty tears and vague apologies.” Another comment read, “Selena Gomez is crying because of mass deportations. She says she, ‘Doesn’t know what to do.’ Did she ever cry about the Americans killed by illegals? Of course not.” Others went even further, with one writing, “Selena Gomez shares a video crying about the deportations. You are welcome to leave as well. This also goes for everyone trying to stop mass deportations. No one will miss you!” Despite the backlash, Gomez did receive some support online. Many users defended her, pointing to her heritage and past efforts to shed light on immigration issues. “How can people be mad at someone with Mexican heritage being heartbroken by how the US treats Latinos? That’s literally her family!” wrote a fan account dedicated to Gomez. Another user commented, “Damn, this is sad. Glad Selena is bringing light to how terrible this is.” Someone else expressed empathy for Gomez, saying, “I understand she’s very empathetic due to her Mexican descent and feels responsible for them. I don’t blame her, as many good people among them came to feed their families.” This isn’t the first time Gomez has spoken about immigration. In a 2019 op-ed for *Time* magazine, she opened up about her family’s immigration story and the fears she has for those in similar situations. “Undocumented immigration is an issue I think about every day, and I never forget how blessed I am to have been born in this country thanks to my family and the grace of circumstance,” she wrote. That same year, Gomez produced the Netflix documentary *Living Undocumented*, which chronicled the lives of eight immigrant families in the United States. Reflecting on the project, she said, “I cried watching the documentary subjects’ deeply personal journeys,” noting that the film “captured the shame, uncertainty, and fear I saw my own family struggle with.” While Gomez has yet to comment on the backlash directly, her brief posts—and subsequent removal—have reignited discussions around celebrity activism and the complexities of addressing sensitive social issues in the public eye. Based on a report by NYP 2025-01-29

Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman left the hosts of *The View* momentarily stunned during a Monday appearance, as he declined to join their pointed criticism of former President Donald Trump. Fetterman, known for his pragmatic approach, instead offered a balanced perspective on Trump’s actions and policies, leaving the panel visibly frustrated with his refusal to engage in partisan outrage. The panel, typically vocal in their criticisms of Trump, offered only tepid applause. Alyssa Farah Griffin, the show’s most conservative voice, broke the silence, remarking, “Well said.” However, the tension escalated when Fetterman expressed his views on Trump’s legal battles. He described the 2023 prosecution of Trump in New York as “politically motivated,” a statement that visibly irritated the panel. “The trial in this city, in New York, was politically motivated,” Fetterman asserted. “That wouldn’t otherwise have been prosecuted if it was someone else.” This prompted co-host Sunny Hostin, a former legal analyst and attorney, to challenge him. “Just for clarification: Did you mean that the 34-count case in which Donald Trump was found guilty of various financial crimes was politically motivated here in New York?” she asked pointedly. Fetterman stood his ground, reiterating his stance. “Whether that’s a Democrat going after a Republican or a Republican going after a Democrat... I like to think I call it strikes and balls because the judicial system has to remain impartial. That’s really the cornerstone of our society. The judicial system [cannot be] weaponized [and target] political enemies for political gain.” Whoopi Goldberg, unimpressed with Fetterman’s remarks, interjected with a sarcastic comment. “Wouldn’t that be great if that’s actually the way that things worked?” she quipped. Fetterman, undeterred, refrained from taking the bait and shifted the conversation to his recent meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago. “I think overall, it was a positive experience,” Fetterman shared. “I mean, he was cordial. It wasn’t in any kind of theater. It wasn’t trying to get your picture taken to kind of put something out on social media. It was just really a conversation.” He revealed that the meeting lasted over an hour and included discussions on topics like immigration and agriculture. “Overall, it was just a straight-up conversation,” Fetterman continued. “I just have a rule: I’m going to engage and have a conversation that’s anyone playing it straight, and that’s doing my job.” Fetterman’s measured approach, focusing on dialogue and impartiality rather than political grandstanding, left the typically outspoken hosts momentarily at a loss for words. His remarks served as a reminder of his commitment to pragmatic leadership and his willingness to engage across the aisle, regardless of public or partisan pressure. Based on a report by The Daily Mail 2025-01-29

Bill Gates has spoken candidly about his past association with Jeffrey Epstein, describing it as a significant lapse in judgment. Reflecting on the relationship, Gates told *The Wall Street Journal* that he deeply regrets the time he spent with the late financier, who was a convicted child sex offender. "In retrospect, I was foolish to spend any time with him," the 69-year-old Microsoft co-founder admitted in the interview. "I think I was quite stupid. I thought it would help me with global health philanthropy. In fact, it failed to do that. It was just a huge mistake." Gates further explained that after Epstein’s criminal behavior came to light, he became much more cautious about the people he allows into his inner circle. Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges, had reportedly sought to leverage his connections to Gates in various ways. According to reports, Epstein attempted to pressure Gates into joining his multibillion-dollar charitable fund with JPMorgan Chase in 2017. The financier allegedly threatened to reveal an extramarital affair Gates had with Russian bridge player Mila Antonova if the billionaire refused to participate. Epstein had known Antonova since 2013 and had even financed her enrollment in a software coding school. During this period, Gates was reportedly involved in a years-long affair with Antonova, which overlapped with his marriage to Melinda Gates. The Gateses were married from 1994 until their divorce in 2021, and Melinda has since suggested that her ex-husband’s ties to Epstein contributed to the breakdown of their 27-year marriage. In a March 2022 interview on *CBS Mornings*, Melinda described her discomfort with Gates’s meetings with Epstein. "I did not like that he had meetings with Jeffrey Epstein, no. I made that clear to him," she said, explaining that she had met Epstein once to understand who he was. "I regretted it the second I walked in the door," she revealed. "He was abhorrent. He was evil personified. My heart breaks for these women." Despite their divorce, Gates has openly expressed his regrets about the dissolution of his marriage. In a recent interview with *The Times of London*, he acknowledged that the end of his marriage is the mistake he regrets most deeply. "There were lots of others in that situation, but I made a mistake," he said, referring to his association with Epstein. "I had several dinners with him hoping that what he said about getting billions of philanthropy for global health through contacts that he had might emerge. When it looked like that wasn’t a real thing, that relationship ended." Since their split, both Bill and Melinda have moved on in their personal lives. Melinda has been linked to entrepreneur Philip Vaughn, while Gates is currently dating Paula Hurd. However, the shadow of Epstein and the mistakes tied to that relationship remain a lasting source of regret for Gates. Based on a report by NYP 2025-01-29

A recent report has shed light on the motivations behind the involvement of hundreds of children in last year’s riots across England, revealing that distrust and resentment toward the police played a more significant role than far-right or racist ideologies. According to Dame Rachel de Souza, the children’s commissioner for England, the young participants felt disempowered and saw the riots as a chance to retaliate against law enforcement. Contrary to what she described as the “prevailing narrative,” De Souza emphasized that the actions of the children were not driven by far-right, anti-immigration, or racist views, nor by misinformation spread online. Instead, many of the children interviewed expressed deep animosity toward the police and cited their involvement in the riots as an opportunity to retaliate after negative experiences with officers. “There was quite a group of the children who were there because they hated the police, and they were clear about that,” De Souza told *The Guardian*. Others were motivated by curiosity or the thrill of the moment, rather than any ideological beliefs. The unrest, which erupted following the murder of three young girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport, Merseyside, drew in children as young as 11. Among those involved were “star pupils,” army cadets, and trainee electricians, illustrating the diverse backgrounds of the young rioters. De Souza’s team conducted interviews with 14 children charged in connection with the riots. She noted that while far-right influencers, such as Andrew Tate, were speculated to have played a role in inciting the unrest, the children interviewed did not cite these figures as significant motivators. “I thought I would hear far more about [influencers like] Andrew Tate. That’s not what I heard at all,” she said. The commissioner’s 36-page report also raises serious concerns about how the justice system handled the children involved in the riots. She described the punishments as “unusually severe and swift,” noting that many of the children had no prior run-ins with the law. Some were given custodial sentences that disrupted their lives at critical moments, while others were diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a condition characterized by impulsivity and risk-taking behaviors that may have influenced their actions during the riots. De Souza criticized the lack of consideration given to these factors by police, the Crown Prosecution Service, and the judiciary. She also highlighted troubling practices, such as children being arrested in their homes or in public by large teams of officers and held in custody for 48 to 72 hours. This violates Home Office guidelines, which caution against prolonged detention of children due to the potential harm it can cause. Beyond the riots, De Souza called for systemic changes to how young offenders are treated. She advocated for youth criminal records to be expunged at age 18 for all but the most serious offenses. Under current laws in England and Wales, youth convictions remain on police records permanently and can be disclosed to future employers, potentially hindering the rehabilitation of young people who have served their sentences. “The involvement of children in those riots and the reasons they told me they got involved raise some really serious questions about childhood in England and why our children feel so disaffected and disempowered,” De Souza said. Her findings challenge perceptions of the riots and highlight deeper societal issues, including a lack of youth opportunities, strained relations between communities and law enforcement, and the disproportionate treatment of young people in the justice system. Based on a report by The Guardian 2025-01-29 Related Topic: Badenoch Criticizes Starmer’s “Unequal” Handling of Southport Killer and Rioters

The emergence of Chinese tech firm DeepSeek and its groundbreaking AI model has ignited heated discussions across the global tech industry, with US President Donald Trump describing it as "a wake-up call" for American companies. DeepSeek's advancements have sent shockwaves through Wall Street, triggering a sharp decline in shares of major US tech firms, including Nvidia, which saw its market value drop by nearly $600 billion (£482 billion). What has truly unsettled the industry is DeepSeek's claim that its R1 model was developed at a fraction of the cost compared to its American counterparts. This has raised pressing questions about the future of US dominance in AI and the sustainability of the massive investments currently being made by American firms. DeepSeek’s cost-effective approach has introduced a new paradigm, potentially reshaping how AI innovation is pursued globally. In just a week since its launch, DeepSeek has already become the most downloaded free app in the United States, underscoring its immediate impact. Despite the disruption, President Trump has offered a cautiously optimistic perspective. "If you could do it cheaper, if you could do it [for] less [and] get to the same end result. I think that's a good thing for us," he said while addressing reporters aboard Air Force One. Trump also expressed confidence that the US would maintain its leadership in the AI sector, stating that he was not concerned about China's technological advancements. DeepSeek's AI success is powered by its open-source DeepSeek-V3 model, which, according to its researchers, was trained for approximately $6 million (£4.2 million). This figure is significantly lower than the billions spent by rival developers in the United States. However, these cost claims have been met with skepticism by other players in the AI field, sparking further debate about the company’s methods and technological processes. The rise of DeepSeek comes amidst heightened tensions between the US and China over technology, with Washington imposing restrictions on the sale of advanced AI-related chip technology to China. In response, Chinese developers have turned to innovative strategies, including greater collaboration and new approaches to AI development. These efforts have yielded models requiring far less computing power than previous iterations, drastically reducing development costs and creating a potential industry upheaval. The market reaction has been dramatic. While the FTSE 100 index of major UK companies showed resilience, rising 0.46% on Tuesday, US markets experienced volatility. Futures on the Nasdaq, a tech-heavy index, showed slight recovery with a 0.1% increase, and Nvidia shares ticked up in after-hours trading. However, Japanese AI-related firms such as Advantest, Softbank, and Tokyo Electron faced sharp declines, pushing Japan’s Nikkei 225 index down by 1.4%. The founder of DeepSeek, Liang Wenfeng, has become a focal point of attention. Liang, a 40-year-old information and electronic engineering graduate from Hangzhou, China, launched the company in 2023 with backing from a hedge fund he also founded. Recently, Liang attended a meeting with industry leaders and Chinese Premier Li Qiang, further cementing his influence in the tech world. In a July 2024 interview with *The China Academy*, Liang expressed surprise at the global reaction to his earlier AI model. "We didn't expect pricing to be such a sensitive issue," he said. "We were simply following our own pace, calculating costs, and setting prices accordingly." As the world watches DeepSeek’s rise, the implications for AI development, global competition, and market dynamics are profound. While the US remains confident in its dominance, the rapid evolution of cost-efficient AI models may redefine the rules of the game in the tech industry. Based on a report by BBC 2025-01-29

In a sudden and unexpected move, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been directed to cease all collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO), effective immediately. This directive came in the form of a memo from John Nkengasong, a senior CDC official, which was sent to agency leaders on Sunday night. The memo instructed all CDC staff engaged in any form of collaboration with WHO—whether through technical working groups, advisory boards, cooperative agreements, or other channels, in person or virtually—to halt their activities and “await further guidance.” It also prohibited CDC staff from visiting WHO offices. The abrupt cessation of collaboration has alarmed public health experts and is expected to significantly hinder efforts to combat ongoing health crises, including outbreaks of Marburg virus and mpox in Africa, as well as the global monitoring of bird flu outbreaks among U.S. livestock. “Stopping communications and meetings with WHO is a big problem,” said Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, a public health expert at the University of Southern California who has worked with WHO on initiatives to combat sexually transmitted infections. Klausner described the decision as a shocking development, adding, “People thought there would be a slow withdrawal. This has really caught everyone with their pants down.” The directive follows an executive order issued by President Trump last week, initiating the process for the United States to withdraw from WHO. However, the withdrawal is far from immediate and requires congressional approval, fulfillment of financial obligations for the current fiscal year, and a one-year notice period. The sudden stop-work order, therefore, represents an escalation that many experts did not anticipate. “Talking to WHO is a two-way street,” Klausner explained. He emphasized that the partnership allows U.S. health officials to gain critical insights into new tests, treatments, and emerging outbreaks that could potentially affect Americans both abroad and domestically. The collaboration also enables the sharing of U.S. expertise to assist in global health efforts. “The information exchange helps us protect Americans at home and overseas,” Klausner said. The Associated Press obtained a copy of Nkengasong’s memo, which outlined the sweeping scope of the directive. A U.S. health official, speaking on the condition of anonymity due to a lack of authorization to discuss the memo publicly, confirmed the stoppage. Experts have raised concerns that this abrupt severance of ties will disrupt critical ongoing projects and delay responses to emerging health threats. It also comes amid additional restrictions from the administration, which has instructed federal health agencies to limit most public communications until the end of the month. The sudden move has left many in the global health community scrambling for answers. As the world continues to face complex and interwoven health challenges. Based on a report by The AP 2025-01-28

UPDATE: King Charles: Remembering the evils of the Holocaust is vital "To be in Poland on International Holocaust Memorial Day... is both a sombre and indeed a sacred moment," the King said. He went on to say it is a time when we remember the millions murdered in "violence and hatred" by the Nazi regime, adding it is a "moment when we recall the depths to which humanity can sink when evil is allowed to flourish, ignored for too long by the world."

Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, has called on Elon Musk to remove a violent terror video from X, formerly known as Twitter, that was viewed by Axel Rudakubana shortly before he killed three children in Southport. The footage, depicting the stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel at a Sydney church in April 2024, remains accessible on the platform despite requests from authorities in both the UK and Australia to have it taken down. During a radio interview, Farage demanded that all terrorist material, including the video, be removed from social media platforms. Responding to a question about the video’s availability on X, Farage stated, “All terrorist material, of course, should be taken down.” When pressed specifically about the Sydney footage, he added, “If you tell me it’s still there, it should come down. Of course it should.” This stance may deepen tensions between Farage and Musk, the platform’s billionaire owner. Musk, who has reportedly been considering a significant financial donation to Reform UK, recently suggested that Farage step down as leader due to his refusal to support far-right activist Tommy Robinson. Robinson, currently jailed for contempt of court, has been described by Musk and others as a political prisoner. The video in question began circulating shortly after the attack on Bishop Emmanuel. While major tech companies acted swiftly to block its availability, X continued to host the content. Rudakubana searched for “Mar Mari Emmanuel stabbing” on X just six minutes before leaving his home to carry out the Southport killings, an act that shocked the nation and sparked widespread rioting. Farage also criticized the government’s handling of the aftermath and the subsequent inquiry into the Southport attack. He expressed distrust in the inquiry ordered by Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, suggesting it was a strategy to delay uncovering the truth. “No. None,” Farage said when asked if he had confidence in the inquiry. “I wonder how long it’ll take. Six years, seven years? Because that was the argument Keir Starmer gave about a grooming gang’s full inquiry. Oh, we can’t do that. It’ll take seven years.” Farage accused the government of concealing critical details about Rudakubana’s activities, including the discovery of ricin poison and an al-Qaeda training manual at his residence. “I think the… attempt to cover everything up about Southport from day one has been pretty appalling,” he remarked. He also criticized the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for advising Liverpool police not to release key information about Rudakubana. Reflecting on the riots that followed the Southport stabbings, Farage argued that a lack of transparency contributed to the unrest. “I personally think that the riots were on the scale that they were because of a lack of truth. I think people can accept the truth even if they don’t like it. If they’re not told the truth, then you do tend to get some crackpot theories,” he said. The incident continues to raise questions about the responsibilities of social media platforms in controlling harmful content and the government’s approach to transparency in matters of public safety. Based on a report by The Daily Telegraph 2025-01-28

A 37-year-old man who raped a vulnerable woman on Brighton Beach in full view of stunned members of the public has been sentenced to six years and nine months in prison. The incident, which occurred near Brighton Palace Pier in the early hours of September 10, 2023, was witnessed by horrified onlookers who alerted the authorities. Ali Mozaffari, of Golders Green, London, was caught in the act by police officers responding to the calls. Upon their arrival, Mozaffari attempted to avoid arrest by pretending to fall unconscious. However, his collapse was quickly exposed as a feigned attempt to evade justice. He was taken into custody at the scene, where further investigation confirmed his crime. The victim, deeply traumatized by the attack, was immediately taken to a place of safety and supported by specialist officers. Authorities commended her bravery in cooperating with the investigation despite the profound impact of the ordeal. Mozaffari was charged with rape and remained in custody while awaiting trial. On February 2, 2024, he pleaded guilty at Lewes Crown Court. He returned to court on January 22, 2025, for sentencing, where he was handed his prison term. Detective Constable Clare Byrnes, who was involved in the case, praised both the swift actions of witnesses and the courage of the victim. "Ali Mozaffari preyed on a vulnerable woman who had every right to feel safe in a public space," she stated. "Thanks to the quick thinking of witnesses at the scene and the rapid response from our officers, he was located while committing the offence and taken into custody." DC Byrnes also highlighted the victim’s resilience, noting, "The victim in this investigation has shown immense courage to support the process, while living with the impacts of her ordeal, and has helped bring a dangerous predator to justice." This harrowing case underscores the importance of public vigilance and rapid police response in bringing offenders to justice while offering crucial support to victims. Mozaffari’s sentence reflects the seriousness of his crime and the commitment of law enforcement to safeguarding public safety. Based on a report by The Daily Mail 2025-01-28

Over the years, Mark Zuckerberg and Meta have undergone a striking transformation in their approach to politics and content moderation, one that now aligns closely with Donald Trump’s agenda. However, the journey from adversary to ally has been anything but straightforward. Ten years ago, Zuckerberg was firmly opposed to Trump’s rhetoric, but today, Meta is embracing a MAGA-centered strategy to navigate the shifting political landscape. Back in 2015, when Trump proposed banning Muslims from entering the U.S. through a controversial Facebook post, Zuckerberg and his team were outraged. They debated removing the post under Facebook’s hate speech rules. Joel Kaplan, Meta’s Republican policy executive and a former George W. Bush administration official, disagreed. Kaplan urged Zuckerberg to keep the post up, ultimately convincing the then-31-year-old CEO to exempt politicians from most of Meta’s content guidelines. This decision allowed Trump and other political figures to post freely, despite Zuckerberg publicly decrying hate speech at the time. During Trump’s first term, Meta consistently deferred to Kaplan’s guidance, implementing policies that subtly favored Republicans. These changes, however, did little to appease the right, leaving Zuckerberg’s reputation with conservatives lukewarm at best. Now, with Trump’s return to power, Zuckerberg has decided to abandon attempts at neutrality and steer Meta directly into Trump’s orbit. Meta’s recent pivot includes dismantling once-touted initiatives like its fact-checking program and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. Joel Kaplan has risen further as the face of the company’s policy division, replacing liberal-leaning executive Nick Clegg. The company has also strengthened ties to Trump’s allies, with Zuckerberg reportedly attending private meetings at Mar-a-Lago, approving a $1 million donation to Trump’s inauguration fund, and adding UFC CEO Dana White, a known Trump supporter, to Meta’s board. The alignment was on full display at Trump’s inauguration, where Zuckerberg joined Trump’s inner circle, sharing celebratory moments with his wife, Priscilla Chan. A post on Zuckerberg’s social media captured the moment, showing the couple in formal attire with the caption, “Optimistic and celebrating us,” accompanied by an American flag emoji. This strategic alliance serves a clear purpose: to shield Meta from political attacks and gain a powerful ally against increasing tech regulations worldwide. But the cost of this pivot is significant. Many Meta employees and users, particularly those aligned with progressive values, have expressed discomfort with the company’s shift. On internal message boards, some employees criticized the company for silencing dissenting voices and suggested the so-called “free speech ethos” now favors conservatives disproportionately. Zuckerberg, however, remains resolute. In a recent video, he justified scaling back content moderation as necessary, claiming Trump’s victory signaled a “cultural tipping point” toward valuing free speech over censorship. He also took aim at traditional media, dismissing it as “legacy media” unworthy of trust, and introduced new hate speech policies that have drawn criticism from LGBTQ+ activists for using terms considered outdated or offensive. Internally, Meta’s culture has shifted as well. Job cuts and stricter rules on workplace discussions have created a climate of fear, silencing dissent among employees who once freely debated company policies. The shift reflects Zuckerberg’s broader goal of insulating Meta from external and internal challenges while aligning with the Republican agenda. As Trump’s second presidency begins to reshape the nation’s culture, Zuckerberg’s ambitions for Meta are clear: to remain a central player in the conversation, even if it means alienating some employees, users, and political factions. Whether this gamble will secure Meta’s long-term success or further polarize its audience remains to be seen. Based on a report by WP 2025-01-28

As the 2028 election approaches, the Republican Party finds itself facing significant challenges, while Democrats appear well-positioned to solidify their dominance not only in 2028 but also in 2032. This potential Democratic edge stems from a mix of historical trends, demographic shifts, and strategic opportunities that the GOP will struggle to overcome. At the forefront of the Democrats’ strategy lies the potential pairing of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. This dynamic duo could be a political powerhouse, capable of energizing the Democratic base and reclaiming the so-called "blue wall" of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—states that have consistently played a decisive role in presidential elections since 1988. Winning these three states essentially guarantees victory, and a Shapiro-Whitmer ticket would appeal to key voter blocs, particularly suburban women and urban voters, leaving Republicans with limited paths to electoral success. The Republican Party, meanwhile, must contend with two significant hurdles in 2028. First is the challenge of securing Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District’s electoral vote, which could prove critical in a close election. A shift to a winner-take-all system in Nebraska might bolster the GOP’s chances, but it remains a high-stakes gamble. Second is the looming threat of a MAGA voter drop-off. Historically, when popular Republican figures like Ronald Reagan left the ticket, voter turnout dropped precipitously. In 1988, the GOP saw a 10.4% decline in turnout, amounting to 6 million fewer votes. If Donald Trump’s base follows a similar pattern post-2024, Republicans could face a catastrophic 8 million vote deficit in 2028. Energizing this fervent but personality-driven faction without Trump on the ballot will be an uphill battle. Compounding these challenges is the risk associated with Trump’s second-term governance. By appointing high-profile congressional allies to Cabinet positions, Trump could inadvertently weaken the Republican grip on the House of Representatives. Vulnerable districts left in the hands of less-established candidates may flip to Democrats in the 2026 midterms. Should Democrats regain control of the House, Trump’s legislative agenda would stall, and the GOP would enter 2028 in a weakened position, with diminished grassroots organizing and fundraising efforts. The stakes are further raised by the potential Republican nominee for 2028, JD Vance. While Vance is considered a strong contender, history does not favor sitting vice presidents seeking the presidency. Since 1836, only one sitting vice president, George H.W. Bush, has successfully won the presidency. Vance’s task of uniting a fractured Republican Party—encompassing traditional conservatives, suburban moderates, and the MAGA base—could prove daunting, especially given the post-Trump ideological divides. For Democrats, the road to continued dominance appears smoother. Historically, incumbents tend to win reelection, and a Democrat elected in 2028 would likely secure a second term in 2032. Demographic trends also favor Democrats, as urbanization, younger voters, and an increasingly diverse electorate strengthen their coalition. If Republicans fail to broaden their appeal to these groups, their long-term viability remains in jeopardy. The Democratic advantage is also rooted in the strategic missteps of the GOP. A failure to address MAGA voter attrition, secure critical swing states like Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina, or hold the House in 2026 could spell disaster. Moreover, the Democrats’ ability to frame a clear, inclusive vision on key issues such as health care, education, and the economy will only deepen their appeal to suburban and independent voters. The GOP’s path to victory in 2028 is narrow but not impossible. To compete, Republicans must broaden their coalition beyond Trump’s base, unify the party, and craft a compelling policy agenda. Ignoring these challenges could lead to a devastating repeat of the 1988 voter drop-off, handing Democrats a generational advantage in American politics. For now, the odds favor Democrats. With Shapiro and Whitmer poised as a potential dream team and demographic trends tilting the electoral map in their favor, the stage is set for a Democratic resurgence that could define the political landscape for years to come. The question for Republicans isn’t just how to win in 2028 but how to prevent a long-term shift that could lock them out of power for a generation. Based on a report by The Hill 2025-01-28

Police officers in Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, and Cambridgeshire have been advised to steer clear of using terms such as "blacklisted" and "black sheep" due to potential concerns of causing offense. These recommendations are outlined in a diversity, equality, and inclusion reference guide created for officers and staff across the three forces. The nine-page document, published online last year and reported by *The Telegraph*, also discourages phrases like "black mark," arguing that such expressions associate "black" with negative connotations. In addition, the guide suggests adopting gender-neutral language, recommending terms like "pregnant person" instead of "pregnant woman," and advises against using “Christian-centric” language, such as the word "faith." The guide elaborates on broader concepts, such as the idea of gender being a "social construct relating to behaviors and attributes," noting that "there is a wider range of gender identities than just male and female." It also includes discussions on racial microaggressions and "white fragility," which is described as "a state in which some white people are unable to cope with or process the information they receive about racism." Officers are further reminded to avoid generalizations, such as stereotyping older individuals as grumpy or boring or assuming that women in their 50s are menopausal. Festus Akinbusoye, the UK’s first Black Police and Crime Commissioner and former PCC for Bedfordshire Constabulary, criticized the guidance as “utterly mad.” He questioned why terms like “whitewashing” were not scrutinized while terms like “blacklisted” and “black mark” were deemed unacceptable. "Had this come to my attention while serving as Police and Crime Commissioner, I would have questioned the necessity and the limited inclusivity of this document," Akinbusoye said. James Esses, a psychotherapist and campaigner, also expressed disapproval of the guidance, posting screenshots on X (formerly Twitter). “I think it is utter madness that after all the harm this woke ideology has done, this is being sent to police officers,” he commented. A spokesperson for the three police forces defended the initiative, stating: “We can confirm that this information has been made available as part of an online diversity, equality, and inclusion reference guide for our officers and staff. Our forces serve diverse communities, and we are pleased to have an inclusive, culturally intelligent workforce. The information aims to provide guidance to help our officers and staff identify differences in our communities and treat the public we serve with respect.” The spokesperson added that the guidance is reviewed regularly to ensure it remains relevant and current. “We are committed to ensuring everyone across our three forces takes personal responsibility to help create an inclusive workplace, where police officers and staff respect others, feel valued for their differences, and can be themselves,” they concluded. The guidance has sparked debates about the balance between fostering inclusivity and maintaining practicality within the police force. While some see it as a step forward in addressing societal biases, others question whether such measures go too far and potentially hinder common-sense communication. Based on a report by The Daily Mail 2025-01-28

More than 50 family members of asylum seekers are arriving in Britain every day, with Home Office figures showing that 19,154 relatives joined their loved ones in the UK over the past year. The increase, first reported by *The Sun*, highlights the rising numbers of those benefiting from family reunion policies once an asylum claim is granted. Under existing immigration laws, individuals granted asylum in the UK are entitled to bring their relatives to join them through legal and safe routes. Many of the arrivals are relatives of refugees from countries such as Syria, Sudan, Eritrea, Iran, and Afghanistan, where conflict and persecution have forced people to flee their homes. Alp Mehmet, chairman of Migration Watch UK, raised concerns about the financial impact of this process. “There are huge cost implications at play here, all paid for by the public, who are seldom kept in the picture. And it doesn’t end there,” he said. Mehmet emphasized that families reunited under these policies are eligible for housing if they have children under 18 living with them. He added, “This also includes access to benefits, schooling, medical and dental care. It’s no wonder there’s growing frustration and anger from people waiting for social housing or stuck in long NHS queues.” A Home Office spokesperson responded by reaffirming the UK’s commitment to offering protection to those in need through established legal routes. “We have a long history of providing protection through various safe and legal routes for those in need,” the spokesperson told *The Sun*. Meanwhile, separate data obtained by *The Telegraph* revealed the scale of illegal migration in London. A previously confidential report commissioned by Thames Water estimated that the city is home to as many as 585,000 illegal migrants, equivalent to one in 12 of London’s population. This figure, uncovered through environmental information laws, sheds light on the broader challenges of migration management in the UK. The increasing number of family reunifications and broader migration concerns continue to provoke debate about the financial and logistical strain on public services. While the UK has long been recognized for its support of those fleeing war and persecution, tensions remain over how best to balance humanitarian obligations with the needs of local communities. Based on a report by The Daily Telegraph 2025-01-28

French President Emmanuel Macron has hit a new low in public approval since his election in 2017, according to a poll published on Sunday. The survey, conducted by Ifop and featured in the Journal de Dimanche newspaper, revealed that only 21 percent of respondents expressed satisfaction with Macron’s leadership. This marks a significant decline, surpassing even the unpopularity he faced during the height of the "yellow vests" protests in 2019. Those demonstrations, which spanned more than a year, saw weekly anti-Macron rallies across the country. At that time, his popularity had dropped to 22 percent—a figure that, until now, was his lowest recorded approval rating. In this latest poll, an overwhelming 79 percent of respondents voiced discontent with the president, with 35 percent stating they were dissatisfied and 44 percent expressing great dissatisfaction. Adding to the concern for Macron is the noticeable shift among one of his traditionally loyal voter bases. Since a similar poll conducted in December, his approval rating among older people and pensioners—typically strong supporters of the president—has plunged by 10 percent. The timing of this decline coincides with a series of political challenges. Macron’s decision to dissolve parliament last summer, just before Paris hosted the Olympic Games, has contributed to an ongoing political deadlock. The subsequent parliamentary elections yielded inconclusive results, throwing France into a period of political uncertainty that has yet to be resolved. The survey was conducted online between January 15 and 23, gathering responses from 2,001 people aged 18 and over. As Macron’s administration faces increasing scrutiny, these results underscore the mounting dissatisfaction within the French electorate. Based on a report by AFP 2025-01-28

Kemi Badenoch has accused Sir Keir Starmer of adopting an inconsistent approach in his handling of the trials of Axel Rudakubana, the convicted murderer behind the Southport killings, and the individuals involved in the riots that followed. The Tory leader alleged that Starmer’s responses to these events demonstrated a disparity in treatment, particularly in how he handled public communication around the cases. Axel Rudakubana, who fatally attacked three young girls during a Taylor Swift-themed dance class on July 29, was sentenced last week to a minimum of 52 years in prison after pleading guilty to the murders and eight attempted murders. It later emerged that Rudakubana had been referred multiple times to the counter-terror programme Prevent, information that Sir Keir Starmer did not disclose at the time, citing concerns over prejudicing the trial. However, following the Southport killings, riots erupted, and Starmer openly condemned those involved in the unrest. In a press conference, he labeled them as a “gang of thugs” responsible for “crime [and] violent disorder.” Badenoch criticized this contrasting stance, stating that Starmer seemed more concerned with avoiding prejudicing Rudakubana’s trial than with safeguarding fairness in his comments about the rioters. Speaking on *The Camilla Tominey Show* on GB News, Badenoch argued, “The problem we have now is that it’s no longer 1950 or 1980, and when you leave an information vacuum, all sorts of things start filling that vacuum. As politicians, we need to ensure the public knows the truth. And when things can’t be said, we must explain why.” She continued, “What went wrong with Keir Starmer is that his initial reaction was to rush to criticize the people who were worried. Yes, some people committed crimes, but he wasn’t concerned about prejudicing their trials. He was worried about prejudicing *this* trial. That’s where the unequal treatment lies, and that’s where we need to be careful.” Badenoch also expressed support for the public inquiry into the Southport killings, announced earlier this month by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, but stressed the need for a broader scope. “It needs to go further,” she said, “and also look at the immediate response.” She emphasized the challenges posed by social media in addressing public concerns, adding, “We can’t just answer questions like we did in 1950 or 1980, saying, ‘Don’t worry, people, we’ve got it.’ We’ve got to do better.” Critics of Starmer have suggested that greater transparency from Downing Street about Rudakubana at the time might have prevented the unrest that followed. Badenoch highlighted the need for a deeper discussion on integration, noting Rudakubana’s background as the child of Rwandan asylum seekers who fled the genocide. “This is a family that was given asylum in this country,” she said. “They were from the ethnic group, I believe, that were the victims of the genocide. He should have been in love with this country. He should have been saying, ‘This is the best country on earth.’” As more details emerge, the debate over how these cases were handled continues to spark controversy, with calls for a transparent and consistent approach to such sensitive events. Based on a report by The Daily Telegraph 2025-01-28

Astronomers affiliated with Harvard University recently announced what seemed to be the discovery of a new asteroid dangerously close to Earth. However, the excitement turned to embarrassment when they realized the so-called asteroid was actually a Tesla sports car that Elon Musk launched into space as part of a publicity stunt seven years ago. Just 17 hours later, the discovery was revoked. The astronomers learned that the object was not a newly identified asteroid but Musk’s cherry-red Tesla Roadster. The car had been launched into space in February 2018 during a SpaceX test of the Falcon Heavy rocket. For added flair, the stunt included a mannequin in a white spacesuit sitting behind the wheel of the electric vehicle, which was sent into orbit as part of Musk’s audacious and unconventional demonstration of SpaceX’s capabilities. On January 3, the Minor Planet Center officially removed “2018 CN41” from its records, acknowledging the misidentification. The error highlighted a broader issue in the field of astronomy: the increasing challenge posed by untracked objects in space. Astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell, from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, expressed concern over the implications of such incidents. “Objects like Musk’s car could hinder astronomers’ ability to protect the Earth from potentially hazardous asteroids,” McDowell told *Astronomy*. McDowell warned of the risks associated with mistakenly identifying such objects. “Worst case, you spend a billion launching a space probe to study an asteroid and only realize it’s not an asteroid when you get there,” he said. The bizarre mix-up serves as a reminder of the complexities of modern space observation, as well as the growing clutter of artificial objects in the cosmos. While Musk’s Roadster may not be a threat to Earth, its confusion with an asteroid underscores the challenges scientists face in distinguishing genuine celestial dangers from man-made debris. Based on a report by NYP 2025-01-28

A depraved transgender sex predator was today jailed for 12 years after lying in wait at a beauty spot and abducted and raped a 14-year-old girl at knifepoint on her walk to school. Oliver Smith, 21, pounced on the terrified lone teenager in her school uniform and pulled a box-cutter blade on her as she walked through a nature area. In the 45 minute ordeal, the porn addict subjected her to 'gratuitous threats of violence' and forced her to a secluded woodland spot where Smith raped her. When the 'scared' and 'sobbing' schoolgirl tried to flee, Smith chased after her and grabbed hold of her mouth to cover her screams, threatening they would stab her in the throat. A court heard the pervert meticulously planned the attack by scoping out the woods, wearing gloves, washing the victim in a river afterwards, and had a 'deeply disturbing' manifesto. Nine months before the attack Smith was convicted of voyeurism and having child abuse images - but escaped jail. After the horrific rape they fled to 600 miles away to Scotland but couldn't go any further as the 21-year-old didn't have their passport. Today, at Portsmouth Crown Court Smith - who the court heard uses they/them pronouns and suffers from 'gender issues' - was jailed for 12 years as the schoolgirl's parents watched on. The court heard Smith raped the girl at woodland by Bordon Inclosure in Bordon, Hants, on the morning September 27 last year. Home-educated Smith, who lived with their grandmother in the town, was seen leaving home early in the morning but not in his work clothes. Prosecutor Simon Foster said Smith was waiting at the woods for 30 minutes before the girl arrived. A week before, a walker had seen 'a man standing there in a manner that scared her'. Mr Foster said: 'On any view the defendant was at the scene some time before she [the schoolgirl] entered the woods. 'He must have either been waiting for her - she said she had seen someone like him standing in the woods on her walks to school - or he was waiting for someone like her. 'She said he knew exactly where he was going as if it was planned before. In mitigation, Rupert Hallowes said Smith suffers from 'gender issues' and at the time was suffering from a depressive episode. 'This defendant is beginning to wake up to the impact their actions on this family', Mr Hallowes said. Smith 'lacked maturity' and is 'very sorry', he added. Judge James Newton-Price KC jailed Smith for 12 years. He said it was a 'horrific and traumatic ordeal' and that he 'paid tribute to the extraordinary courage' shown by the girl. Based on a report by The Daily Mail 2025-01-28

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) must halt all operations in Jerusalem and vacate its premises by January 30, 2025, according to Israel's ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon. This directive aligns with a controversial Israeli law recently passed by lawmakers, despite significant international concern. The legislation prohibits UNRWA, an agency considered essential for Palestinian humanitarian support, from operating in Israel or in east Jerusalem, a sector annexed by Israel following the 1967 Six-Day War. While the agency has long faced criticism from Israel, tensions have escalated since the outbreak of the Gaza conflict. Israel has accused several UNRWA staff members in Gaza of being involved in the deadly October 7, 2023, Hamas attack. In a letter addressed to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Danon confirmed the deadline, stating, "UNRWA is required to cease its operations in Jerusalem, and evacuate all premises in which it operates in the city, no later than 30 January 2025." UNRWA provides critical assistance to over six million Palestinian refugees in Gaza, the occupied West Bank, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. In east Jerusalem, the agency has played a pivotal role in running schools, health clinics, and administrative services. Despite the new restrictions, Israel has not extended the ban to UNRWA operations in Gaza or the West Bank, although it has passed legislation barring Israeli officials from engaging with the agency. Philippe Lazzarini, the commissioner-general of UNRWA, warned that curtailing the agency's work could have dire consequences, particularly for Gaza. "Preventing the agency from operating might sabotage the Gaza ceasefire, failing once again hopes of people who have gone through unspeakable suffering," he cautioned. On social media platform X, Lazzarini emphasized the importance of UNRWA’s mission: "The work of UNRWA must continue in Gaza + across the occupied Palestinian territory." Based on a report by AFP 2025-01-28

@newbee2022 a comment on moderation has been removed