Social Media

Former President Donald Trump has taken a slight lead over President Joe Biden in the latest presidential election forecast by 538. As the presumptive Republican nominee gears up for a rematch with Biden, the race is proving to be much tighter than many anticipated, with the two candidates frequently appearing neck and neck in various polls. The recent projection by 538 indicates Trump winning 51 times out of 100 simulations, while Biden wins 49 times out of 100. This marks a notable change from the project's launch in April, where Biden had a more comfortable lead, being projected to win 58 times out of 100 compared to Trump’s 41 times out of 100. This lead persisted until last week when Biden's projected victories dropped to 53 times out of 100 against Trump's 47. The slim margin highlights the volatility and competitiveness of the upcoming election. The 538 simulation forecast considers a multitude of factors to predict likely election outcomes. These include adjusted polling averages, economic and political indicators, and demographic data. Such forecasts are significant as they provide a glimpse into the potential direction of the election, though they are not definitive predictions. The real outcome will hinge on a few key swing states, given the Electoral College system's weight. A candidate must secure 270 electoral votes to win, meaning national popular vote results do not necessarily guarantee a win. Despite Trump’s current edge in the 538 projection, other polls suggest a different story. For instance, an Echelon Insights poll conducted between June 10 and June 12 found Biden slightly ahead, with 48 percent of respondents indicating they would vote for him compared to 47 percent for Trump. Furthermore, Biden and Trump are currently tied in Virginia, a state that has not supported a Republican presidential candidate since George W. Bush in 2004. Experts caution against drawing definitive conclusions from these early projections. Heath Brown, an associate professor of public policy at the City University of New York, emphasizes the split nature of the polling. "I think all the polling for the last six months suggests the country has been and will remain evenly split," he told Newsweek. "Slight ups and downs for either candidate in any given poll are largely washed out by the next set of polls. My conclusion is Biden and Trump have just about equal support right now, with a sizable portion of the country undecided about who they support and whether they'll turn out on Election Day." The significance of these forecasts lies in their ability to influence campaign strategies and voter perceptions. As both candidates prepare for the first of two scheduled debates in Atlanta on June 27, the focus will be on how they perform and whether they can sway the undecided voters. The debates will provide a crucial platform for both Trump and Biden to present their visions for the country and address critical issues facing the electorate. 538’s daily updates on its forecast simulator will continue to reflect the latest data and trends, offering an evolving picture of the race. As the November 5 election day approaches, both campaigns will be keenly watching these forecasts, adjusting their strategies to gain an edge in what promises to be one of the most closely contested elections in recent history. The unpredictable nature of the political climate, compounded by external factors such as economic conditions and international events, ensures that the race will remain dynamic and uncertain up until the final votes are cast. Credit: Newsweek 2024-06-19 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Gary Lineker, the host of Match of the Day, appears to have breached BBC guidelines by donning his own range of Next menswear during the broadcast of England’s opening game at the Euros. The former footballer, who signed an endorsement deal with the clothing brand last year, was seen wearing a pale green knitted T-shirt and a sage green jacket from the Next collection during the coverage of England vs Serbia. This sartorial choice has raised eyebrows as it seems to conflict with BBC's strict rules. According to BBC guidelines, presenters are prohibited from wearing clothing or using products they have been contracted to promote or endorse. The guidelines specifically state, "Presenters or other individuals must not appear on-air wearing clothing or using products or services which they have agreed/been contracted to promote, advertise or endorse or in which they have a specific financial interest." Additionally, any promotional deals involving clothing must be declared to the BBC. Lineker’s choice of attire during the Euros game, which mirrors his promotional appearances for Next, has been widely noted. In promotional materials on Next’s social media channels, he appears in the same T-shirt and jacket, priced at £16 and £55 respectively. This is not the first time Lineker has found himself in hot water over advertising conflicts. During the 2018 World Cup, he was found to have breached guidelines by promoting a TM Lewin shirt on Instagram after signing a deal with the brand. The BBC at the time acknowledged that Lineker had made "a genuine mistake." Lineker is not the only BBC presenter to face such scrutiny. During the 2022 World Cup, his colleague Alex Scott was reprimanded for promoting fashion brands while presenting coverage. Scott posted a selfie on Instagram from the BBC studio in Qatar, wearing a suit from Reiss, a brand she was an ambassador for and tagged in the post. The BBC responded by instructing Scott to remove the tag and not to repeat the behavior. In various interviews, Lineker has openly discussed his collaboration with Next and his personal fashion choices. Speaking to OK! magazine, he explained that he typically selects his own clothes for television appearances, noting, "There’s no wardrobe budget at BBC Sport so we all dress ourselves." He further elaborated on his partnership with Next, highlighting the brand's connection to his home city of Leicester and its British heritage. He told The Guardian, “I think it’s because it’s British – from Leicester. And then they came to us with a range and I kind of liked it. It’s quite flattering that, in my grand old age, I can still do something like this.” Despite the controversy, Lineker's collaboration with Next has brought attention to his improved fashion sense. He admitted that working with the retailer had made it easier for him to dress for events, as he now has a clearer idea of what outfits work well together. However, this partnership has not been without its challenges. The animal rights group PETA previously criticized Lineker for modeling a mohair suit jacket from the range, condemning mohair as "made from the hair of abused goats." Next has yet to comment on the recent controversy. The BBC, while refraining from commenting on individuals, reiterated its policy. A spokesman stated, “Presenters/contributors provide their own wardrobe and all presenters/contributors are regularly reminded of the guidelines in relation to clothing, even if they are not doing proactive promotional work.” Related Topic: Gary Lineker Faces Backlash for Alleged Breach of BBC Election Guidelines with Anti-Israel Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-06-19 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The United States has officially designated Harakat Ansar Allah al-Awfiya, an Iraq-based group aligned with Iran, as a terrorist organization. This move is part of the Biden administration's broader strategy to curb the influence of Iran-backed militias amidst the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. The U.S. State Department has categorized Harakat Ansar Allah al-Awfiya as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist organization. Along with the group, its 46-year-old secretary general, Muzhir Ma'lak al-Sa'idi, has also been sanctioned. In a statement, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller emphasized the U.S. commitment to countering Iran’s support for terrorism, aiming to diminish the operational capabilities of these Iran-backed groups. Harakat Ansar Allah al-Awfiya is a component of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq. This group has claimed responsibility for numerous recent attacks on U.S. military personnel and facilities in Iraq and Syria. Notably, they were implicated in a January drone strike that resulted in the deaths of three U.S. service members in Jordan. The State Department noted that this attack was orchestrated by Harakat Ansar Allah al-Awfiya. The designation targets the group for its involvement in acts of terrorism that threaten U.S. nationals and national security. Specifically, it states, "HAAA is being designated for having committed or attempted to commit, posing a significant risk of committing or having participated in training to commit acts of terrorism that threaten the security of United States nationals or the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States." Al-Sa'idi’s leadership role in the organization also brought him under individual sanctions, denying them access to the U.S. financial system. This designation comes amid a heightened period of conflict in the region, particularly with Israel's ongoing war against Hamas in Gaza. The conflict has galvanized various Iran-backed militias, leading to increased attacks on U.S. military assets. In response, the U.S. has taken retaliatory actions, including a significant airstrike in early February targeting dozens of locations in Baghdad following the killing of three American soldiers. In addition to Harakat Ansar Allah al-Awfiya, the U.S. has previously designated other members of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, such as Kata'ib Hezbollah, Harakat al-Nujaba, and Kata'ib Sayyid al-Shuhada, recognizing them as terrorist entities due to their activities and affiliations. Furthermore, the U.S. has also sanctioned networks supporting Yemen's Houthi rebels, another Iran-aligned militia. The Houthis have been actively attacking ships in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, contributing to regional instability amid the broader conflict. The ongoing efforts by the U.S. aim to disrupt and degrade the capabilities of these Iran-supported groups, emphasizing a robust stance against terrorism that threatens American interests and allies in the region. Credit: UPI 2024-06-19 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a forthcoming autobiography, former chief White House medical adviser Anthony Fauci divulges a contentious phone call with former President Donald Trump during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. The book, titled "On Call: A Doctor’s Journey in Public Service," reveals Trump's frustration, marked by expletives, directed at Fauci three months into the pandemic. According to reports from The New York Times and The Daily Beast, Fauci recounts a series of expletive-laden rants from Trump during a phone call in 2020. Trump reportedly berated Fauci, dropping numerous f-bombs and accusing him of exacerbating the nation's troubles. "The president was irate, saying that I could not keep doing this to him," Fauci wrote, according to the Times. Fauci described the call as highly charged, with Trump expressing his frustration over the economic implications of Fauci's public health advisories. "He said he loved me, but the country was in trouble, and I was making it worse," Fauci recounted. Trump allegedly added that the stock market's modest rise of 600 points in response to positive Phase 1 vaccine news was insufficient, blaming Fauci for costing the country a trillion dollars. The memoir details that Trump punctuated his complaint with an expletive. The chapter discussing Trump's actions during the early days of the pandemic is aptly titled, “He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not.” Fauci reflects on the challenges of working under such intense scrutiny and pressure, stating, "I have a pretty thick skin, but getting yelled at by the president of the United States, no matter how much he tells you that he loves you, is not fun." Fauci's memoir, encompassing 480 pages, dedicates approximately 70 pages to the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, a period marked by frequent clashes with the Trump administration. The book, scheduled for release on Tuesday, chronicles Fauci's extensive career, including his tenure as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, a position he held for nearly four decades. During the pandemic, Fauci emerged as a prominent public health figure, often at odds with Trump's approach to handling the crisis. His visibility made him a target for criticism from many Republicans, who accused him of mismanaging the pandemic response. Earlier this month, Fauci defended his actions and recommendations during a House committee hearing, where he faced rigorous questioning from Republican lawmakers. In response to Fauci's revelations, Steven Cheung, Communications Director for the Trump campaign, issued a statement to The Hill. "Mr. Fauci is desperately trying to rewrite history to cover for his bad instincts and ill-advised recommendations that President Trump overturned, which saved millions of lives," Cheung asserted. He added that Trump's decisions, contrary to Fauci's advice, prevented the country from remaining open to China and other threats while allowing the economy to reopen, thus protecting millions of lives. Fauci's book provides a detailed account of his life and career, including his experiences under seven U.S. presidents, beginning with the Reagan administration. It offers a candid look at the challenges he faced during the COVID-19 pandemic and his efforts to navigate the complex dynamics of public health and political pressure. The release of "On Call: A Doctor’s Journey in Public Service" is expected to reignite debates over the handling of the pandemic and Fauci's role in it. As the nation continues to grapple with the pandemic's aftermath, Fauci's memoir serves as a significant historical document, shedding light on the unprecedented public health crisis and the contentious political environment that accompanied it. Credit: Hill 2024-06-19 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

President Joe Biden is poised to unveil a new policy aimed at providing legal protections to hundreds of thousands of undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens, administration officials have announced. This move, which applies to those who have resided in the United States for at least a decade, will also allow these individuals to work legally within the country. This initiative represents the most significant relief program for undocumented migrants since the Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was introduced in 2012. The Biden administration anticipates that this policy will benefit over 500,000 spouses of U.S. citizens, as well as 50,000 young people under the age of 21 whose parents are married to American citizens. This announcement aligns with Biden's earlier commitment to making the U.S. immigration system "more fair and more just," as polls indicate that immigration remains a major concern for voters ahead of the upcoming presidential election in November. The policy will be officially announced at an event marking the 12th anniversary of the DACA program, which has protected over 530,000 migrants, known as Dreamers, from deportation since its inception. According to senior administration officials, undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens will qualify for the program if they have lived in the country for 10 years and were married as of June 17. Qualifying individuals will have three years to apply for permanent residency and will be eligible for a three-year work permit. The White House estimates that those eligible for this process have lived in the United States for an average of 23 years, with the majority having been born in Mexico. These individuals will be "paroled in place," meaning they can remain in the U.S. while their status is adjusted. Despite the potential benefits, the policy has faced criticism from immigration reform groups such as NumbersUSA. The organization’s chief executive, James Massa, condemned the policy as "unconscionable," arguing that it circumvents the legislative process and encourages illegal entry into the United States. "Rather than stopping the worst border crisis in history, President Biden has overreached his executive authority to use an unconstitutional process," Massa stated. On the other hand, immigration lawyer and professor Alex Cuic from Case Western Reserve University in Ohio sees the policy as a positive development for a historically underserved segment of the immigrant population. Cuic noted that many undocumented spouses would otherwise face significant hurdles in normalizing their status, often requiring them to leave the country and re-enter lawfully. By allowing these individuals to parole in place, the policy aims to prevent family separations during the application process for lawful permanent residence. The application process for this new program is expected to be available by the end of the summer. Additionally, the Biden administration plans to streamline and expedite the visa process for highly skilled undocumented immigrants, particularly those with degrees from U.S. universities or job offers in their field, including Dreamers. This announcement follows a recent executive order issued by Biden, allowing U.S. officials to swiftly remove migrants entering the country illegally without processing their asylum requests once a daily threshold is met and the border becomes "overwhelmed." This measure has faced legal challenges from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which argues that it violates U.S. immigration law. Biden has urged patience from those who find the measure too stringent, promising further actions to improve the fairness and justice of the immigration system. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, suggested that the recent actions by the Biden administration are attempts to address criticisms from both sides of the immigration debate. While the new policy for undocumented spouses may generate positive headlines, it also aims to balance the administration's response to new arrivals and the long-term undocumented immigrant population struggling with the complexities of the current immigration system. Credit: BBC 2024-06-19 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Russian President Vladimir Putin is set to visit North Korea on Tuesday, marking his second trip to the reclusive nation. This visit comes after months of speculation and follows an invitation extended by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, who had traveled to Russia’s Far East last year. The Kremlin has confirmed the trip, signaling a significant moment in the evolving relationship between the two countries. This visit is being framed as a "friendly state visit," with reports suggesting that Putin and Kim may sign a partnership agreement covering various issues, including security. Putin’s upcoming visit to North Korea has garnered global attention for its potential implications for the ongoing war in Ukraine and broader geopolitical dynamics. It is his second time visiting North Korea, the first being in 2000 when Kim Jong Un's father, Kim Jong-Il, was in power. This trip comes at a time when Russia and North Korea are among the most heavily sanctioned countries in the world. Russia faces sanctions for its invasion of Ukraine, while North Korea is sanctioned for its nuclear weapons program. This shared status has fostered a mutual disdain for Western sanctions and created a foundation for closer cooperation. Political scientist and Putin ally Sergei Markov suggests that Russia is likely seeking ammunition, construction workers, and even volunteers to support its efforts in Ukraine. In exchange, North Korea could receive Russian produce and technological assistance for its military programs, including its long-range missile program. This partnership would not only bolster Russia's war efforts but also advance North Korea's military ambitions. Recent reports indicate that North Korea has already shipped nearly five million artillery shells to Russia. This military cooperation is seen as a way for both nations to circumvent the economic and political isolation imposed by Western sanctions. The visit also serves a broader diplomatic purpose. By forging closer ties with North Korea, Putin is signaling his ability to circumvent Western pressure and sanctions. This defiant stance is part of a larger strategy to challenge the West's dominance and to build alliances with nations that share a similar anti-Western sentiment. Putin's outreach extends beyond North Korea. At a recent economic forum in St. Petersburg, one of Putin's key guests was the president of Zimbabwe, another country facing significant Western sanctions. This is part of a concerted effort to promote a "multipolar world" and to rally support against what Putin perceives as an arrogant West bent on maintaining global hegemony. Russia has also strengthened ties with Iran, another heavily sanctioned country. Tehran has been supplying Russia with drones, further enhancing Russia’s military capabilities and demonstrating the benefits of these new alliances. North Korea, under Kim Jong Un, has also shown interest in deepening ties with Russia. Kim has referred to North Korea as an "invincible comrade-in-arms" with Russia. This relationship, though partly born out of necessity, also reflects a strategic alignment against shared adversaries. One symbolic aspect of the visit is the Kerch Bridge, which links mainland Russia to Crimea. For Putin, this bridge is a significant achievement, symbolizing Crimea's "return" to Russia. Ukraine has targeted this bridge twice since Russia's invasion but has not succeeded in destroying it. Putin's visit to North Korea and the strengthening of this alliance can be seen as part of his broader strategy to demonstrate resilience and defiance in the face of Western opposition. While the visit underscores Russia's pivot towards the East, it may not be universally welcomed within Russia. The cultural and historical ties between Russia and Europe are strong, and many ordinary Russians may not support closer ties with North Korea, a country known for its isolation and oppressive regime. This domestic unease is a potential risk for Putin, who must balance these international maneuvers with domestic sentiment. Internationally, the visit is likely to draw strong reactions from Western powers. The deepening of ties between two of the world’s most sanctioned nations will be closely monitored, and any agreements reached during the visit could have significant implications for global security dynamics. As Putin prepares to travel to North Korea, the world watches with anticipation. The visit is a clear demonstration of Putin's defiance against Western sanctions and his determination to forge new alliances. It highlights Russia's shift away from traditional Western partnerships towards a new, albeit controversial, set of allies. In the end, the specifics of any agreements between Putin and Kim Jong Un may remain undisclosed. However, the symbolism of the visit and the images of the two leaders together will send a powerful message to the world: Putin is willing and able to pursue his strategic goals, irrespective of Western opposition. This visit to one of the world’s most isolated countries underscores his resolve to challenge the established global order and to seek out new partners in his bid to reshape Russia's geopolitical landscape. Credit: BBC 2024-06-19 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A post with numerous unsubstantiated claims and off topic video removed.

An unapproved social media link to Euro Med Ramy Abdu| has been removed

Video from an unapproved conspiracey channel removed along with replies.

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has entered the heated debate on transgender rights, asserting clear biological definitions while questioning why politicians have become so entangled in the issue. Blair, who led the UK from 1997 to 2007 and converted to Catholicism after his tenure, made his views known in an interview with Holyrood magazine. "A woman has a vagina and a man has a penis," he declared, expressing confusion over why this question has stumped many contemporary politicians. Blair acknowledged that some people genuinely feel they are in the wrong body and should be allowed to change their legal gender. However, he emphasized the need for protections in single-sex spaces, such as changing rooms and female sports, particularly when individuals with male genitalia are present. "I don’t know how politics got itself into this muddle. What is a woman? Well, it’s not a very hard thing for me to answer really," he stated. "I’m definitely of the school that says, biologically, a woman is with a vagina and a man is with a penis. I think we can say that quite clearly." Blair articulated three key qualifications for his stance: maintaining the ability to discuss biological womanhood, protecting single-sex spaces, and carefully considering irreversible treatments like puberty blockers for young people. "It shouldn’t stop women talking about being biological women. This idea that you can’t refer to pregnant women, I think most people think that’s completely ridiculous," he said. Blair also mentioned the discomfort some women might feel sharing changing rooms with individuals who still have male genitalia, insisting that this should be addressed to ensure women feel comfortable and safe. Blair's comments come amidst significant controversy and debate within the Labour Party. Notable figures such as Sir Keir Starmer, Yvette Cooper, and Rosie Duffield have all faced scrutiny and backlash over their positions on defining what constitutes a woman. Duffield, the Labour MP for Canterbury, was notably criticized for her statement that "only women have a cervix" but was ultimately cleared of transphobia allegations by party bosses. The former prime minister also highlighted the controversy surrounding the use of language in women's health and the General Medical Council's decision last year to remove mentions of "mothers" from a maternity document for staff. He stressed that the overwhelming majority of Britons would likely agree with his balanced approach, which supports gender reassignment with protections for specific contexts and terminologies. Blair's intervention is seen as a call for common sense amidst what he views as a polarized debate. He concluded that it was "weird" for such a fundamental issue to cause so much division, given that the basics are rooted in common sense. The discussion around trans rights has also seen Labour frontbenchers struggling with the question of defining a woman. Starmer initially hesitated but later stated that 99.9% of women "haven’t got a penis." This issue has become a focal point, with Labour's support for Nicola Sturgeon's self-ID reforms in Scotland facing significant backlash, particularly after the case of trans rapist Isla Bryson being initially sent to a women’s prison. The Conservative Party has pledged to shift the responsibility for creating new gender recognition laws in Scotland from Holyrood to Westminster to prevent the reintroduction of self-ID. Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has opposed this plan, advocating instead for "appropriate guidance on single-sex spaces based on biological sex" under a potential Keir Starmer government. Blair's comments reflect a broader societal debate on transgender rights and the need to balance inclusivity with protections for single-sex spaces and clarity in language pertaining to women's health. As the discussion continues, Blair’s intervention underscores the complexities and sensitivities surrounding this issue in contemporary politics. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-06-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Morgan Freeman, an iconic actor and producer, has shared his strong opinions on Black History Month, expressing a deep dissatisfaction with the concept. “I detest it. The mere idea of it. You are going to give me the shortest month in a year? And you are going to celebrate ‘my’ history?! This whole idea makes my teeth itch. It’s not right,” Freeman told Variety. He argued that his history is not separate from American history, but a fundamental part of it. “It’s the one thing in this world I am interested in, beyond making money, having a good time and getting enough sleep.” Freeman's thoughts on the past extend beyond his views on Black History Month. He recently served as an executive producer on the Civil War series “The Gray House” alongside Lori McCreary through their company, Revelations Entertainment. The historical significance of the series resonates deeply with Freeman. “If you don’t know your past, if you don’t remember it, you are bound to repeat it,” he remarked, emphasizing the importance of historical awareness, especially during election years. Freeman's reflections on his career and the entertainment industry reveal his philosophy on timing and persistence. He noted how projects can lie dormant for years before suddenly gaining interest. “Do you know this song? ‘To everything, there is a season.’ It really, really works in show business. You are trying to sell something 15 years ago and nobody even looks at you. Then they go: ‘Didn’t you have a project, some time ago? Do you still have it?’ Life is like that, in this industry.” “The Gray House,” which opened the Monte-Carlo Television Festival and saw Freeman receive the Crystal Nymph award, is a testament to the enduring relevance of American sagas. Kevin Costner, another executive producer of the series, highlighted the current appetite for such stories. “It must be, because here we are,” Freeman concurred. The series, inspired by true events, revolves around four Southern women—Elizabeth Van Lew, her mother, Mary Jane Richards, and a prostitute—who become spies for the Union. Freeman praised the series for its inclusive portrayal of history, saying, “It’s so wide-ranging. There are so many people in the series, because we are acknowledging they were there. If you can do that, if you are given space to do that, bravo. It didn’t just happen to one group of people.” Lori McCreary echoed Freeman's sentiments, emphasizing the importance of timely storytelling and historical mindfulness. “Morgan’s motto is: ‘Every project has its time and its team.’ I think the universe conspired to have us have this time for this project. It’s very much on our mind now, to be mindful of what we have been through. And make sure the future is brighter. We need to learn—as a planet. As communities around the world.” The series does not shy away from the harsh realities of history, particularly the violence and dehumanization faced by African Americans. McCreary insisted on an authentic portrayal, stating, “We are not white-washing, we are not sugar-coating the fact that African Americans were enslaved. They weren’t treated as a full person. When you come out of watching these eight hours, maybe you will look at someone who looks like Morgan or me differently. You will understand their experience, their ancestors’ experience and you will be able to relate.” McCreary also highlighted the significant roles of the series' female characters, who are far from passive. “When I watch something and it’s an authentic portrayal of women, I am engaged. And many times, I feel like those I can relate to are in the background. The more people like Morgan and I can tell our own stories—because nobody else will—the more we’ll understand that women are everything. We are housewives, mothers and scientists. And spies!” In researching the series, McCreary was particularly struck by Mary Jane Richards, a formerly enslaved Black woman with a photographic memory who risked her life to spy for the Union. “She volunteered herself to be gifted to the ‘Gray House’ [the White House of the Confederacy] and pretended to be a slave. She was serving tea and looking at all the maps. I didn’t know there was someone who risked her entire life like that. There should be chapters in history books dedicated to her. I don’t know why she was overlooked.” Freeman offered a simple explanation: “I will tell you why: She was a woman.” Credit: Variety 2024-06-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a significant move aimed at curbing the influence of white supremacist groups, the U.S. State Department has designated the Nordic Resistance Movement (NRM), Sweden's largest neo-Nazi group, and its three leaders as terrorists. This rare designation marks only the second time the U.S. has applied the terrorist label to a white supremacist organization known for its history of violence and extremist activities. The State Department's decision underscores the Biden administration's broader strategy to counter domestic terrorism, particularly the threat posed by white extremist groups. The designation allows the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control to block any American property or assets belonging to the NRM. It also prohibits Americans from financial dealings with the organization and facilitates the banning of its members from entering the United States. The Nordic Resistance Movement, founded in 1997, operates not only in Sweden but also in Norway, Denmark, Iceland, and Finland, where it has been banned since 2020. The group's stated goal is to dismantle Nordic democracies and replace them with a "united ethnic Nordic nation," promoting a violent and fanatical Nazi ideology. The designation follows concerns over the NRM's increasing violence and its efforts to forge connections with like-minded organizations in the United States. “The group’s members and leaders have carried out violent attacks against political opponents, protesters, journalists, and other perceived adversaries,” the State Department stated, highlighting the group's role in inciting domestic terrorism. In recent incidents, the group's violent ideology was apparent when a neo-Nazi with suspected ties to the NRM stabbed a 12-year-old in Finland, an attack reportedly motivated by the child's foreign background. Additionally, masked members of the NRM attacked a migrant camp in northern Stockholm earlier this year. The designation also names three key figures in the NRM: Tor Fredrik Vejdeland, the group's leader; Par Oberg, a member of the national council and head of its parliamentary branch; and Leif Robert Eklund, another council member and coordinator of the group's Swedish divisions. While the Biden administration's action is a significant step, some experts believe it could go further. Mary McCord, a former top Justice Department official, suggested that the U.S. could have classified the NRM as a foreign terrorist organization, a move that would activate the material support statute, providing the government with more potent tools against such groups. The NRM's designation comes amid a historical context of increasing attention to domestic terrorism. The Trump administration, although criticized for its stance on domestic terrorism, included this threat in its National Strategy for Counterterrorism and, in 2020, designated the Russian Imperial Movement, another ultranationalist group, as a terrorist organization. This was the first time the U.S. had applied the terrorist label to a white supremacist group. The Russian Imperial Movement has been known to support neo-Nazi organizations in Scandinavia, aligning with the Russian government's broader strategy of sowing chaos and stoking internal divisions within Western democracies. The designation of the Nordic Resistance Movement reflects an ongoing effort by the U.S. to combat the global rise of white supremacist extremism and protect democratic institutions from the violent ideologies that threaten them. Credit: NYT 2024-06-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

As immigration and border security take center stage in American political discourse, the rhetoric from former President Donald J. Trump and current President Joe Biden has been scrutinized. With high migrant apprehensions at the southern border, both leaders' statements on their immigration policies deserve a closer look. Public polling indicates substantial support for Trump's hard-line approach, while Biden, who initially campaigned on overturning Trump's immigration policies, has recently adopted a more restrictive stance. Despite their fervent declarations, both leaders have made misleading or exaggerated claims about their records and the current state of border security. In a May radio interview, Trump claimed, "We had the strongest border ever. I built 571 miles of wall. We’re going to add another 200 in three weeks. It was all made, all fabricated. They sold it for five cents on the dollar. The wall was all fabricated. I built much more wall than I said I was going to build." This assertion is false. During his 2016 campaign, Trump promised to build a wall spanning at least 1,000 miles along the southern border and have Mexico pay for it. However, the Trump administration only constructed 458 miles of border barriers, most of which reinforced or replaced existing structures, with new primary barriers erected along just 47 miles. According to a Government Accountability Office report, contracts were awarded for a total of 631 miles of barriers, but these projects were in various stages of completion when Biden took office and halted construction. The claim that 200 miles of wall were ready for installation is inaccurate, and while it's true that some procured materials were sold at a discount, it was far less than Trump suggested. Trump's assessment of border security under his administration as the "strongest" in history is subjective and not supported by data. Apprehensions in the 2020 fiscal year were higher than in 2011, 2012, and 2015. In the 2019 fiscal year, apprehensions topped 800,000, the highest in a decade, indicating that the border faced significant challenges during his tenure. In a June interview on Fox News, Trump stated, "And the numbers are probably 16 million, 17 million or 18 million people. You’re going to have over 20 million people, I think, I believe, and a lot of other people do, too, by the time he hopefully gets out." This estimate is exaggerated. Since February 2021, Customs and Border Protection has recorded 9.6 million migrant encounters nationwide. This figure includes repeat encounters, as one migrant can be "encountered" multiple times. Government and independent analyses estimate that repeat offenders account for a quarter to more than half of all encounters. Border officials estimate about 1.7 million migrants have evaded capture and entered the United States since the 2021 fiscal year, but Trump's figures suggest vastly higher numbers than these estimates. Furthermore, Trump has baselessly claimed that recent migrants are criminals being "dumped" by other countries and are receiving a host of U.S. government benefits. At a May rally in Michigan, he said, "Prison population all over the world is down, and nobody knows why except for us. We know why. Because the prisons are being emptied into the United States, and the mental institutions are being emptied into the United States of America, like we’re a dumping ground." He also remarked, "He’s letting millions of people from jails, from prisons, from insane asylums, from mental institutions, drug dealers, pour in. Venezuela, if you look at their crime statistics, they’ve gone down 72 percent in crime because they’re releasing all their criminals into our country because of this horrible president that we have." These statements lack evidence. The global prison population has actually been increasing. Penal Reform International reported that the global prison population reached a record 11.5 million in 2023, an increase of 500,000 since 2020. Claims about Venezuela's crime rate dropping due to prisoners being sent to the U.S. are also unsupported. While an article in Breitbart mentioned an unspecified number of Venezuelan inmates headed for the U.S., no other news organization or government source has verified this report. The Venezuelan Prison Observatory stated that the prisons in the country were at 170 percent capacity, contradicting Trump's claims. Trump's assertion that unauthorized immigrants are burdening U.S. social programs is also misleading. At a May rally in New Jersey, he declared, "If the Biden invasion is not stopped, it will also demolish Medicare and Social Security. It cannot survive, but it cannot survive 20 million people coming into the country." In reality, unauthorized immigrants contribute positively to both Social Security and Medicare. While they are generally barred from receiving benefits, they pay taxes into these systems. The Social Security Administration estimated that 3.1 million unauthorized immigrants were working and paying Social Security taxes, contributing about $12 billion to the trust in 2010 and about $100 billion over a decade. Similarly, a study estimated that unauthorized immigrants contributed about $35.1 billion to Medicare from 2000 to 2011. The Center for Immigration Studies noted that unauthorized immigration benefits these trust funds but warned that legalizing these immigrants could reverse these gains. In contrast to Trump's sweeping and often inaccurate claims, Biden's statements have also been prone to exaggeration. For instance, Biden said in a speech at the border in February, "On my first day as president, I introduced a bill I sent to Congress: a comprehensive plan to fix the broken immigration system and to secure the border. But no action was taken." He repeated a similar claim in March, stating, "The first bill I ever introduced as a president of the United States was essentially what got passed this time out, led by the conservative Republican who they’re vilifying now for having worked out this deal." These statements are exaggerated. While Biden did release a framework for the "U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021" on his first day in office, the legislation was formally introduced about a month later. This bill focused on creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and expanding legal immigration, including some border security measures, but it did not include provisions for hiring more border patrol agents or significantly altering the asylum process. In contrast, the bipartisan border deal that Congress rejected this spring, negotiated by Senator James Lankford, focused more heavily on border security, including funding for additional Customs and Border Protection agents and stricter asylum measures. Biden has at times acknowledged the need for a shift in his approach to illegal crossings. In announcing his new asylum policy in June, Biden stated, "While I’m still fighting for comprehensive immigration reform, we must first secure the border." This new policy prevents migrants from seeking asylum at the border if illegal crossings exceed a certain threshold, with exceptions for minors, trafficking victims, medical emergencies, and visa holders. The Center for Immigration Studies criticized the policy's loopholes but noted it would likely reduce illegal entries in the short term. The debate over immigration and border security remains a contentious and complex issue. Both Trump and Biden have made statements that require careful scrutiny and fact-checking to understand the true state of affairs. As voters consider their positions, it is essential to rely on accurate information and recognize the exaggerations and inaccuracies in the claims of both leaders. Credit: NYT 2024-06-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A recent poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) between May 26 and June 1 has revealed a significant increase in support for Hamas among Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza. The survey's findings reflect shifting attitudes towards armed struggle and political leadership in the Palestinian territories, painting a complex picture of the current political climate. Support for Hamas and Fatah The poll indicates that overall support for Hamas in the Palestinian territories has risen to 40%, a six-point increase from the previous survey conducted three months ago. In contrast, support for the Fatah party, led by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, stands at only 20%. This marks a considerable shift from pre-war figures, where support for Hamas was at 22% and for Fatah at 26%. In the West Bank, 41% of residents now support Hamas, up from 35% three months ago, while support for Fatah has increased slightly to 17%, from 12%. In Gaza, support for Hamas has also grown to 38%, up from 34%, whereas Fatah's support has marginally declined to 24% from 25%. A notable portion of respondents, 8%, expressed support for other groups, while 33% stated they did not support any group or were unsure. Increasing Support for Armed Struggle The survey also found a rise in support for armed struggle as the preferred method to end Israeli rule and establish a Palestinian state. A little over half of Palestinians (54%) now favor armed struggle, an eight-point increase compared to March. In contrast, only a quarter of respondents preferred negotiations, and 16% opted for nonviolent resistance. West Bank vs. Gaza Perspectives The survey, which sampled 1,570 adults divided almost equally between the West Bank and Gaza, revealed a stark difference in perspectives between the two regions. A significant majority in the West Bank (79%) believe that Hamas will emerge victorious from the current conflict and 71% want the group to rule Gaza post-war. In stark contrast, only 48% of Gazans expect Hamas to win, an 8-point decrease from three months ago, and 25% predict that Israel will prevail. Additionally, 46% of Gazans want Hamas to remain in power after the conflict. PCPSR director Khalil Shikaki attributes this discrepancy to the different sources of information available in the two territories. West Bank residents primarily rely on Al Jazeera for news updates, which may shape their perceptions differently from Gazans, who directly observe military developments and the dismantling of Hamas's capabilities. Media Influence and Information Disparities Al Jazeera, a Qatari-owned outlet, has been criticized in Israel for its perceived biased coverage of the war, particularly its portrayal of the October 7 attack by Gazan terror groups. Israel has responded by taking Al Jazeera broadcasts off the air, seizing equipment, and sealing its offices, citing national security concerns. Leadership Preferences and Future Governance When considering future governance of Gaza, besides Hamas, the next preferred option among Palestinians is a revitalized Palestinian Authority (PA) with newly elected leadership, supported by 16% of respondents. Only 6% favor the current PA under Abbas. The survey highlights Abbas's deep unpopularity, with 94% of West Bankers and 83% of Gazans wanting him to resign. A mere 1% of respondents expressed a desire for the Israeli army to control Gaza, 2% preferred UN control, and 1% favored governance by one or more Arab states. Furthermore, there is widespread opposition (75%) to the deployment of an Arab security force in Gaza, even if it were to assist Palestinian forces. International and Legal Perspectives The survey also explored Palestinians' views on international legal efforts. A significant majority (75%) do not believe that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will be able to halt Israeli military actions in Rafah due to U.S. protection of Israel. Similarly, 71% doubt that the International Criminal Court (ICC) will succeed in arresting or prosecuting Israeli or Hamas leaders. The findings from PCPSR provide a nuanced understanding of the current political and social sentiments among Palestinians, reflecting increased support for Hamas and armed struggle, alongside deep-seated discontent with current leadership and skepticism about international intervention. Credit: TOI 2024-06-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Oleksandr Lytvynenko, head of Ukraine's national security council, has issued a chilling warning regarding the potential use of nuclear weapons by President Vladimir Putin should Russia face a significant military setback in Ukraine. Speaking to The Times, Lytvynenko outlined scenarios in which a catastrophic defeat could lead to the collapse of Russian front lines, mass desertions, and protests in Moscow, pushing Putin to consider using tactical nuclear weapons. Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, there have been frequent threats from Russian officials to deploy nuclear weapons against Ukraine and its Western allies. While these threats have become more routine and thus less shocking, they remain a serious concern. Recently, G7 leaders at a summit in Italy reaffirmed that any use of chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons by Russia would result in severe consequences. Lytvynenko emphasized the gravity of the situation, stating, "We can’t rule out anything if Russia is on the verge of a catastrophic defeat." He elaborated that such a defeat could lead to the collapse of Russian front lines and widespread instability within Russia itself. However, he noted that there is no indication Putin would resort to nuclear weapons while Russia maintains the upper hand in the conflict. Tactical nuclear weapons, designed for battlefield use and with lower yields than strategic nuclear weapons, have not been used in conflict since 1945. Lytvynenko expressed doubt that Putin would use strategic nuclear weapons due to the almost certain risk of igniting a third world war, saying, "He wants to live." He added that a battlefield defeat in Ukraine might not automatically lead to nuclear escalation, as Putin could try to spin the situation as a victory to the Russian public, given the Kremlin's control over national media and its crackdown on dissent since the invasion. Skepticism about Lytvynenko's concerns was voiced by Oleksandra Ustinova, an opposition MP, who remarked, "Putin is crazy, but even so, he understands that there are some things that you can do and some things you can’t do." Lytvynenko's extensive background, including his studies at the KGB academy in Moscow and his tenure at the Royal College of Defence Studies in London, lends significant weight to his assessments. In parallel, a global peace conference organized by President Volodymyr Zelensky in Switzerland saw participation from delegates of over 90 countries, excluding Russian and Chinese officials. The conference’s final declaration, as seen by Reuters, called for the respect of Ukraine’s territorial integrity but did not outline a clear path to ending the war or initiating talks with Moscow. However, it did explicitly condemn Russia's nuclear threats. Zelensky has steadfastly ruled out direct talks with Putin and any negotiations over Ukrainian territories claimed by Russia. Putin recently issued an ultimatum for a ceasefire, demanding Ukraine surrender several regions and lift Western sanctions, which Kyiv and its allies swiftly rejected. Russia's recent drills involving tactical nuclear weapons near Ukrainian-controlled areas and in the northwest were presented by Putin as a response to Western support for Ukraine. Zelensky, however, contends that the domestic and international backlash from using nuclear weapons would be detrimental to Putin’s regime. Nevertheless, he acknowledged the psychological instability of Putin and his close associates, making it impossible to dismiss the threat entirely. "These people are sick in the head, that’s a fact. Therefore, it’s impossible to say for sure whether they are capable of this or not," Zelensky stated. The United States has been preparing for the possibility of a Russian nuclear strike since late 2022, particularly as Ukrainian forces made significant gains. A U.S. official told CNN, "The risk level seemed to be going up, beyond where it had been at any other point in time." NATO has noted that there are no indications of imminent nuclear use by Russia. However, the covert nature of tactical nuclear warheads means that preparations could be difficult to detect. In recent developments, delays in the delivery of American weapons to Ukraine earlier this year, due to a congressional row, allowed Russia to make significant advances on the battlefield. However, renewed supplies have enabled Ukraine to push back, stabilizing the situation in the eastern Kharkiv region. Lytvynenko outlined Ukraine’s dual military strategy, emphasizing the importance of halting Russian advances on the front line and targeting critical infrastructure deep within Russia. "We have two very important military tasks. The first is to stop the Russians on the front line — the second is to strike deep inside Russia," he said, insisting that Ukraine targets infrastructure essential for Russia's war efforts, not civilians. As the conflict continues, the specter of nuclear escalation remains a potent threat, underscoring the high stakes involved and the volatile nature of the ongoing war. The international community remains vigilant, with diplomatic and military strategies constantly adapting to the shifting dynamics on the ground. The warnings from Kyiv serve as a reminder of the precarious balance that must be maintained to prevent further escalation and strive for a resolution to the conflict. Credit: Times 2024-06-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

As the first presidential debate of the 2024 election cycle approaches, CNN has announced that both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump have agreed to new debate rules designed to ensure a more orderly and respectful discussion. The debate, hosted by CNN's Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, will take place in Atlanta, Georgia, on June 27. The new rules include several measures aimed at maintaining decorum and fairness. Both candidates will stand at uniform podiums, with their positions determined by a coin flip. To prevent interruptions and maintain the flow of the debate, microphones will be muted except when it is the respective candidate's turn to speak. Tapper and Bash will have the authority to enforce timing and ensure a civilized discussion using all tools at their disposal. The debate is scheduled to last 90 minutes and will include two commercial breaks. During these breaks, campaign staff will not be allowed to interact with their candidates. Each candidate will be provided with a pen, a pad of paper, and a water bottle, but they will not be allowed to bring any prewritten notes onto the stage. In a departure from past debates, there will be no studio audience present. This debate marks the first of two agreed-upon encounters between Biden and Trump ahead of the 2024 election. The agreement to debate twice was reached in mid-May, representing the first time the two have faced each other since the contentious 2020 debate. Trump chose to skip the GOP primary debates this cycle in favor of campaign events, while Biden released a campaign video challenging Trump to meet for debates in June and September. Trump accepted the challenge, and the dates were promptly set. The timing of the June debate is notably early in the general election calendar. The second debate is scheduled for September 10 and will be hosted by ABC. The Biden campaign proposed the June date to accommodate the president's return from the Group of Seven summit in Europe and the conclusion of Trump’s hush money trial. The 2020 debate between Biden and Trump was infamous for its chaotic atmosphere, with frequent interruptions and personal insults exchanged between the candidates. At one point, Biden famously asked Trump, "Will you shut up, man?" This year's debate rules are a direct response to the disorder of their previous encounter, aiming to provide a more structured and substantive exchange. As the date approaches, anticipation builds for what promises to be a significant moment in the 2024 election cycle. Both candidates have expressed their readiness to engage in a direct comparison of their visions for the future of the United States. The debate will offer voters an early opportunity to evaluate their options as the race intensifies. Credit: CNN 2024-06-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The war in Ukraine, which began with the annexation of Crimea, might very well see its conclusion in the same region. Defense experts highlight that Ukraine's recent successes in Crimea signal a potentially decisive turn in the conflict against Russia. At the beginning of the year, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy underscored the strategic importance of Crimea and the Black Sea, emphasizing that reclaiming the peninsula would be a central objective. Success in this area would not only be a strategic victory but also a significant psychological blow to Russian President Vladimir Putin. "Russia's defeat in Crimea would be not just a defeat, but a humiliation," stated Olga Khvostunova, a fellow in the Eurasia Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. This sentiment echoes the dramatic events of February 2014, when unmarked Russian forces, known as "little green men," swiftly took control of Crimea, culminating in its annexation by Russia's Federal Assembly by the end of March that year. The ensuing conflict in the Donbas region began shortly thereafter. Zelenskyy has consistently maintained that any peace agreement must include the return of Crimea to Ukraine. In recent weeks, Ukraine has executed a series of successful attacks in the region, targeting Russian air-defense systems and the Belbek airfield near Sevastopol. Elina Beketova, a democracy fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, attributed these successes to thorough preparation, enhanced capabilities of the Ukrainian defense forces, and intelligence support from NATO allies. Ukraine, which lost its traditional naval fleet during the annexation of Crimea, has effectively targeted Russia's Black Sea Fleet using sea drones. These attacks have disrupted Russian naval operations, allowing Ukraine to resume vital grain shipments through the Black Sea. The impact of these operations forced Russia's Black Sea Fleet to relocate some activities away from its base in Sevastopol. One of the most significant successes was the sinking of the Black Sea Fleet's flagship, the Moskva. "Crimea is the key to Russia's Black Sea access and operations," said Maria Snegovaya, a senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program. She explained that controlling Crimea enables power projection over the Black Sea, making it crucial for Ukraine to deter Russian naval positions there. Beketova further noted that Ukrainian attacks on Crimea and the Black Sea Fleet aim to deprive Russian forces of a strategic base for launching attacks on mainland Ukraine and to disrupt logistical support for Russian troops in the occupied southern territories of Ukraine. The Kerch Bridge, which links mainland Russia to Crimea, stands as a powerful symbol of Russia's annexation. Its destruction would be both a strategic and symbolic victory for Ukraine and a major blow to Putin. Despite two previous attempts, Ukraine has not yet managed to destroy the bridge. However, Ukrainian officials remain determined, with plans to target the bridge again this year. Russia is evidently concerned about the threat to the Kerch Bridge. The UK Ministry of Defence recently reported that Russia has installed barges to protect the bridge from potential Ukrainian attacks. Additionally, Russia is constructing a railway line from Rostov-on-Don to Crimea to reduce reliance on the bridge, indicating Putin's acknowledgment of the vulnerability. Dmitry Pletenchuk, a spokesman for Ukraine's southern military command, interpreted this as a recognition that the Crimean Bridge is doomed. Historically, Crimea holds significant sentimental value for Russia, dating back to its annexation by Russian Empress Catherine the Great in 1783. During the Soviet era, it was a beloved vacation destination, cementing its place in Russian national memory. The reality of the conflict hit home for many Russians in 2022, when massive explosions at the Saki air base brought the war to vacationing Russians, who captured the event on video from beach huts. Tourist numbers in Crimea have since plummeted, with significant economic repercussions. Strategically, Ukraine's focus on Crimea, particularly targeting Russian ground-based air-defense (GBAD) systems, is seen as "preparing the ground" for future air strikes once F-16 fighter jets arrive. Frederik Mertens, a strategic analyst at the Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, emphasized that Crimea's limited maneuver space makes it particularly vulnerable. "Putin has a lot to lose both politically and militarily," Mertens said. He suggested that a limited number of fighters could have a significant impact on the region and the Black Sea if Ukraine can neutralize Crimea's air defenses. Russia has responded by relocating its most advanced S-500 air-defense system to Crimea to protect against such threats. According to Ukraine's spy chief, Kyrylo Budanov, this move underscores the critical importance of Crimea to Russia's military strategy. "Russia cannot afford to lose Crimea," Snegovaya reiterated, suggesting that the peninsula could serve as a crucial bargaining chip in future negotiations. Beketova added that regaining control of the Black Sea and Crimea, or exerting enough pressure to threaten Russian control, could potentially mark the end of the war. In conclusion, as Ukraine continues to target strategic assets in Crimea and the Black Sea, the region's significance in the broader conflict becomes increasingly apparent. The outcome of these efforts could determine the future trajectory of the war, potentially leading to a resolution that sees Crimea returned to Ukraine. Credit: Business Insider 2024-06-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The Metropolitan Police found three handguns concealed in a children's underwear drawer among the 386 illegal firearms seized in London last year. This unsettling revelation highlights the extent to which criminal networks go to hide their activities. Despite these concerning facts, gun crime in London has dropped to its lowest level in 15 years, thanks to the Met's intensified efforts against firearms offenses. A Significant Decline in Gun Crime The Metropolitan Police's rigorous crackdown on illegal firearms has led to a notable reduction in gun crime. Firearms offenses fell from 196 to 145 since March 2023, and shooting murders dropped from 12 in 2021/22 to eight in 2023/24. Commander Paul Brogden of the Metropolitan Police attributed these improvements to relentless police work and heightened community awareness. However, despite these successes, the force still faces challenges, with nearly half of all shootings remaining unsolved. Recent Tragedies and the Unsolved Cases The ongoing battle against gun crime was tragically underscored by a drive-by shooting in Dalston, east London, last month. This incident left four people injured, including a nine-year-old girl who remains in critical condition. This tragedy highlights the collateral damage of gang violence, where innocent bystanders often become victims. Commander Brogden emphasized that while most shootings in the capital involve gangs, these incidents illustrate the broader societal impact of gun violence. Another heartbreaking case is the murder of 22-year-old Tyrese Miller, who was shot dead in Croydon in a case of mistaken identity. Miller was returning home from a night out with friends when he was tragically killed. His mother, Jackie Taylor, poignantly stated, "I worry that if this can happen to Tyrese, it can happen to anyone. No mother should have to bury their son like I have." The Mechanics of the Illegal Firearms Trade The illegal firearms trade in London is complex and multifaceted. Some weapons are smuggled into the country via ferries or the mail system. Increasingly, however, gang members are turning to converted blank-firing guns. These firearms, originally intended for drama or farming and sold for as little as £100, are converted to fire real bullets and resold for thousands of pounds. While the emergence of 3D-printed weapons is a growing concern globally, they have yet to significantly impact London's streets. High-Profile Cases and Pursuit of Justice The arrest and conviction of individuals like Danny Butler illustrate the audacity of those involved in gun crime. Butler, a 44-year-old gang armourer, was sentenced to 18 years in prison after police found six guns, ammunition, and Class A and B drugs in his family home. His case is a stark reminder of how deeply entrenched these criminal activities can be, with weapons hidden in children's rooms and other unsuspecting places. The Met has made substantial progress, but challenges remain. Victims of gang shootings often hesitate to cooperate with the police, opting instead for personal retribution. This cycle of violence perpetuates the risk that "today's victim could be tomorrow's suspect," as noted by Commander Brogden. Broader Impact and Future Efforts The devastating effects of gun violence extend beyond immediate victims, rippling through communities and instilling fear and distrust. The Met's continued focus on reducing gun crime and bringing perpetrators to justice is crucial. "Guns destroy lives and communities," said Commander Brogden. "The recent shootings in parts of London are a sad reminder that there is still work for us to do when it comes to cracking down on illegal firearms." The Metropolitan Police’s ongoing efforts serve as a stern warning to criminals and gang members. The significant reduction in gun crime rates and the highest detection rates in over a decade reflect a determined police force committed to safeguarding the capital. Commander Brogden’s message is clear: "We will come after you, and we will bring you to justice." As London continues to grapple with the challenges of gun violence, the combined efforts of law enforcement and community cooperation are vital in sustaining the progress made and ensuring the safety of all residents. The battle against illegal firearms is far from over, but the strides made thus far provide hope and a path forward in the ongoing fight to rid the streets of these lethal weapons. Credit: Sky News 2024-06-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a chilling development for Sweden’s democratic fabric, employees at the national news channel TV4 were recently advised to avoid wearing clothing or badges identifying their employer in public. This caution stems from escalating threats against the station and its reporters following an investigative report by TV4’s program, *Kalla Fakta* (Cold Facts). The program exposed the far-right Sweden Democrats, the country’s second-largest political party, for allegedly operating a vast network of anonymous social media accounts designed to attack political opponents and the media. Sweden, renowned for its robust democracy and high trust in media and political institutions, now sees its journalists covering domestic politics fearing for their safety. The increased threats represent a significant challenge to the freedom and security that Swedish journalism has long enjoyed. Nationalist "troll farms" have been reported in Sweden before, but this investigation was unprecedented. A TV4 journalist spent a year undercover in the communications department of the Sweden Democrats. The investigation revealed at least 23 anonymous social media accounts operated from within the department, which garnered 27 million views across various platforms in just three months. This suggests a substantial network dedicated to spreading misinformation and ultra-nationalist hate speech. The revelations about these anonymous accounts were significant, but the response from Sweden Democrats leader Jimmie Åkesson was even more alarming. Instead of apologizing, Åkesson launched an aggressive attack on the media, accusing *Kalla Fakta* of being part of a "gigantic, domestic influence operation by the left-liberal establishment" aimed at demoralizing far-right voters ahead of the EU elections. In subsequent interviews, Åkesson ridiculed reporters, using bullying language to undermine their credibility. This marks a dangerous phase for Swedish democracy. By attacking the legitimacy of the news media, the far right is escalating tensions and threatening the future stability of Sweden’s democratic institutions. The conservative coalition government, which relies on the Sweden Democrats for parliamentary support, has responded weakly to the scandal. Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson initially condemned the anonymous accounts but soon resorted to whataboutery, attacking the opposition Social Democrats over an old controversy involving an anonymous blog post from a student wing of the party. This tepid response has emboldened nationalists, with Sweden Democrats MP Josef Fransson praising Kristersson for not taking action against his party and using the term "ljugmedia" (lying media), reminiscent of Goebbels’ Nazi slur "Lügenpresse." Without formal sanctions, the far right continues to operate and expand these anonymous accounts. Åkesson's defiant reactions gained substantial traction on social media, while opposition responses struggled to reach a comparable audience. As Renée DiResta of Stanford Internet Observatory notes, in the current social media-dominated news cycle, "if it trends, it’s true." Among the far-right memes shared by the Sweden Democrats' troll farm are racist and antisemitic content from American hate groups, Holocaust-denying cartoons, pro-Russian propaganda, and deep fakes of political opponents. One employee was placed on leave after being exposed by *Expressen* for expressing support for Putin’s invasion of Crimea in 2014. A particularly disturbing video depicted an animated Åkesson driving a tank through Rinkeby, a Stockholm suburb with a large immigrant population, accompanied by a cartoon frog shooting an automatic weapon. Despite some conservative MPs’ condemnation, Åkesson found the video amusing and dismissed critics as lacking a sense of humor. This tactic of using humor to deflect criticism is well-documented. In 1944, Jean-Paul Sartre wrote about Nazi apologists in France who used humor to intimidate and disconcert their adversaries. The intimidation appears to be effective in Sweden, as a study by the Union of Swedish Journalists revealed that 39% of reporters self-censor to avoid threats and harassment, especially on topics related to racism and immigration. Åsa Wikforss, a philosophy professor at Stockholm University and member of the Swedish Academy, warns, “When democracy’s key players, journalists, researchers and politicians, fall silent, democracy is already in trouble.” The current wave of misinformation and hate speech is not just a local issue but a global one, exacerbated by tech companies that allow these toxic environments to flourish. Nobel laureate Maria Ressa highlighted this crisis in her speech at Harvard University, stressing that "without facts, you can’t have truth, and without truth, you can’t have trust. Without these three, we have no rule of law, no democracy." For Sweden and its Nordic neighbors, this is a particularly grave issue. The Nordic model is built on high levels of trust in institutions, media, academia, and interpersonal relations. The recent clustering of Scandinavian countries at the top of the UN’s World Happiness Report is attributed to this trust. Over 60% of Swedes believe that “most people can be trusted.” However, this trust is at risk. The Sweden Democrats' poor performance in the recent European elections, their first significant electoral setback, was quickly blamed on the media, especially TV4. This reaction underscores the ongoing battle for control over public perception and truth. If trust in political news media is undermined, political accountability and, ultimately, the truth itself are at stake. Sweden's response to this crisis will determine the resilience of its democratic institutions. The fight against misinformation and hate speech requires robust measures from both the government and the media to protect the integrity of the Nordic model. Credit: The Guardian 2024-06-18 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A post contravening our community standards has been removed. Please stay on topic, this is not about the US consitution. UK Police Arrest London Man for Pro-Hamas Social Media Post

In most narratives about the war in Gaza, the conflict is often misrepresented regarding its origins. The war did not start in Gaza. It began on October 7, fifty years after Egypt and Syria launched an attack on Israel. On this day, Palestinian Hamas terrorists committed an unimaginable massacre in Israel, recording their actions as if they were heroes and celebrating their bloodbath. Their celebrations extended back to Gaza, where they paraded severely abused hostages as war trophies to a jubilant Palestinian crowd. This macabre jubilation even spread to Berlin, where in the Neukölln district, people danced in the streets, and the Palestinian organization Samidoun distributed sweets. The internet buzzed with joyous comments. The massacre claimed over 1,200 lives. After enduring torture, mutilation, and rape, 239 people were abducted. This massacre by Hamas represents a total collapse of civilization. There is an archaic horror in this bloodlust that seemed impossible in modern times. This atrocity follows the historical pattern of pogroms aimed at annihilating Jews, a pattern the Jewish people have endured for centuries. This is why the entire country is traumatized; the state of Israel was founded to protect against such pogroms. Until October 7, this protection was believed to be secure, despite Hamas's persistent threat since 1987. The Hamas founding charter explicitly stated that the destruction of Jews was their goal, proclaiming that "death for God is our noblest wish." Despite some changes to this charter over time, it remains clear that Hamas's objectives are unchanged: the destruction of Jews and Israel. This goal mirrors that of Iran, where the destruction of Jews has been state doctrine since 1979. When discussing Hamas's terror, Iran must be included in the conversation. Iran finances, arms, and uses Hamas as a henchman. Both regimes are merciless dictatorships that become more radical over time. Iran's government, dominated by hardliners, operates as a ruthless, expansionist military dictatorship disguised as a theocracy. Political Islam, as practiced in Iran, entails contempt for humanity, public floggings, death sentences, and executions in the name of God. Iran's war obsession coexists with the pretense of not building nuclear weapons, despite evidence of a clandestine nuclear program since 2002. Iran’s aim for nuclear deterrence, following North Korea's example, is a frightening prospect for Israel and the world. The obsession with war between Iran and Hamas transcends the religious divide between Shiites and Sunnis, subordinating everything else to this focus. The population is kept in poverty while the wealth of Hamas leaders, such as Ismael Haniyeh in Qatar, increases immeasurably. For the general population, martyrdom is all that remains. Hamas has driven out all other political factions from Gaza with incredible brutality, establishing an unchallenged dictatorship since Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2007. Hamas turned Gaza into a military fortress with tunnels beneath hospitals, schools, and kindergartens, funded by the international community. Gaza has become a military barracks, a deep state of anti-Semitism. The Israeli army was forced into this trap in response to October 7, compelled to defend itself and inadvertently causing civilian casualties. This inevitability is precisely what Hamas wanted and is exploiting. Hamas controls the news from Gaza, manipulating images to garner global sympathy while presenting itself as the Palestinians' sole defender. This cynical calculation has paid off. Since October 7, I am reminded repeatedly of Christopher R. Browning's book, *Ganz Normale Männer*, which recounts the annihilation of Jewish villages in Poland by Reserve Police Battalion 101 before the large gas chambers of Auschwitz existed. The brutal slaughter of 1,500 Jews in the village of Józefów mirrors the bloodlust seen in Hamas's attack on the Israeli music festival and kibbutzim. These were ordinary men who turned into monsters, similar to the Hamas terrorists. The massacre of October 7 evokes the memory of the Shoah because Hamas intended it to. They sought to demonstrate that Israel is not a guarantee for Jewish survival, challenging the state's legitimacy. Symbols like the red triangle from the Palestinian flag, reminiscent of Nazi concentration camps, are used in Hamas videos and graffiti in Berlin, calling for violence and marking targets. The hatred of Jews has infiltrated Berlin's nightlife, with anti-Semitic sentiments now pervasive even in supposedly inclusive spaces. I lived under a dictatorship for over thirty years and believed that Western democracy could not be similarly questioned. However, I am appalled that young people in the West seem confused, unable to distinguish between democracy and dictatorship, and unaware of their freedoms. It is absurd that LGBTQ+ individuals demonstrate for Hamas, ignoring that Palestinian culture punishes homosexuality severely. The irony of such demonstrations is highlighted by David Leatherwood’s satirical comparison of supporting Palestine as a queer person to supporting Kentucky Fried Chicken as a chicken. American university students who chant pro-Hamas slogans also demonstrate a lack of understanding. Their actions are often devoid of historical context, and the massacre of October 7 is disregarded. This ignorance and misrepresentation of events are troubling, indicating a failure to critically engage with complex issues. Influencers and social media have played a significant role in shaping these misguided perspectives, promoting simplistic and often harmful views. The hostility faced by the Oberhausen Short Film Festival director Lars Henrik Gass, who called for solidarity with Israel, exemplifies the regression in political debate. Instead of nuanced discussions, there is an esoteric, conformist understanding of politics. It is now challenging to stand up for Israel's right to exist while also criticizing its government. Hamas’s manipulation of global outrage over Gaza’s suffering is part of its strategy, aiming to isolate Israel and maintain anti-Semitism as a global sentiment. Hamas wants to reinterpret the Shoah, questioning the legitimacy of Israel and the Jewish people’s right to self-defense. The Jewish poet Yehuda Amichai’s words resonate deeply in this context. Paul Celan’s visit to Israel and his poignant letter to Amichai underscore the importance of Israel’s existence for the Jewish people. Herta Müller The writer and Nobel Prize winner read this text at the October 7 Forum of "Jewish Culture in Sweden" Credit: TOME 2024-06-17 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

As Labour holds a commanding lead in the polls with a historically strong position on various indicators, concerns still linger within the party. Despite the Conservatives struggling for a distant third place, memories of past electoral disappointments like those in 1970, 1992, and 2015 haunt Labour. Each generation of Labour supporters has scars from nights of unexpected defeats in suburban leisure centers, a reminder that strong polling leads can evaporate. The narrative that this is not a Labour country but a Tory one that occasionally allows Labour in has become a part of the party’s psyche. The notion that there is no such thing as a safe lead underscores Labour’s cautious approach. Although recent polls indicate a slight softening in Labour's vote share, their lead remains robust, partly due to the Conservatives' numbers sagging even more. Yet, many voters remain undecided, including 2019 Conservative voters who seem temperamentally inclined towards the Tories but are lukewarm about Labour’s offer. Despite Labour’s dominance in the early stages of the campaign, uncertainty looms over the final stretch. The media has begun treating the election as a foregone conclusion, focusing on Labour as a government-in-waiting rather than a failing Conservative incumbent. Labour's manifesto, released last week, is replete with small, specific promises but vague on broader plans. The slogan “Little by little” lacks the inspirational appeal needed to rally the electorate. This cautious approach may frustrate voters, particularly those on Labour’s "wobbly left wing" who have strong views on issues like the climate emergency and the Gaza crisis. The Greens, standing a record number of candidates, are attracting young voters, remainers, and 2019 Labour voters, maintaining a 6-8% support according to an Opinium poll. A recent Savanta poll of British Muslims shows Labour’s enduring strength in this group, but also substantial losses to the Greens and others, especially among British-born and Asian-heritage Muslims who prioritize the Israel-Palestine conflict. These losses matter because many target seats require Labour to successfully convince supporters of third-placed parties to lend their votes to Labour to defeat the local Tory incumbent. Convincing voters to accept a second-best option is difficult if Labour’s offer seems weak or if they believe Labour will win nationwide regardless. A leftward shift to secure progressive tactical votes carries its own risks. It could alienate moderate Tory switchers whose dissatisfaction with the government does not equate to affection for Labour. Such voters may be wary of giving a dominant Labour government a blank cheque and may reconsider their switch if Labour moves leftwards late in the campaign. Labour's dominant position, while impressive, is precarious. Historical trends show that Labour's vote shares were often overstated in polls between 1992 and 2015, with Conservative vote shares underestimated. If the polls are wrong again, Labour is likely to be the one disappointed. Another risk is abstention. Continued cautious campaigning might lead less-engaged voters to lose interest and stay home on election day. Turnout slumps accompanied Tony Blair’s landslide wins in 1997 and 2001, with significant drops in safe Labour areas. Low turnout is a bigger risk for Labour now, as their support is particularly strong among young and struggling voters who are often hard to mobilize, whereas Tory strength is concentrated among pensioners who are more likely to vote. These vulnerabilities are not only campaign risks but also early indicators of future challenges. Currently, a universally reviled Conservative government provides a unifying target for anger, masking cracks in Labour’s broad and unwieldy electoral coalition. This unity is unlikely to last once the Conservatives are ousted and Labour becomes the target of voter grievances. Labour’s cautious campaign has left voters with a vague sense of their plans. The strict message discipline designed to minimize campaign risks has stored up problems for future governance. The lessons from 2019 are particularly relevant: Boris Johnson’s disciplined campaign promised change but was vague on specifics. This strategy swept him into office, but betrayal and disappointment soon followed. For Starmer, a promise of change can get him into No. 10, but to survive, that promise must be kept. Labour must navigate a careful path, balancing the need to maintain broad appeal with the necessity of mobilizing their base. They must articulate clear, inspiring plans that address major issues to maintain support beyond just winning the election. The challenges ahead are staggering, and Labour’s current approach, while minimizing immediate risks, may not be enough to ensure long-term success. Credit: The Guardian 2024-06-17 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The persistent nuclear threats emanating from Moscow are nothing more than "bluff and bluster," intended to intimidate the West and its more hesitant leaders. The European nuclear deterrent remains robust enough to keep even a tyrant like Vladimir Putin in check. It is imperative that the West’s leaders recognize this and act accordingly, ignoring Russian threats of a tactical nuclear strike. Leftist politicians must come to terms with the fact that our nuclear deterrent is a primary reason why Putin will not press the strategic nuclear button. This is a crucial understanding for anyone in power, highlighting why figures like Jeremy Corbyn, known for their anti-nuclear stance, should never hold significant influence in the government. Keir Starmer, likely to be the next Prime Minister, must maintain a firm stance on this issue, even though some members of his cabinet have previously voted against the deterrent—a reason to reconsider their roles in his government. Nuclear deterrence serves as a formidable tool of control. Putin’s almost daily threats since February 25 of this year aim to paralyze Ukraine’s resistance by instilling fear of Western retaliation. However, as the tide of war turns in Kyiv’s favor, Ukraine has begun to strike targets within Russia. This shift necessitates further action. To secure a Ukrainian victory, leaders must dismiss Putin’s hollow threats and acknowledge the decrepit state of Russia’s nuclear capabilities. The tactical nuclear threat posed by Putin and his cronies is baseless. Having countered nuclear terrorism and threats for nearly four decades, I can confidently state that Russia's nuclear arsenal is likely in a dire state of disrepair. Even if their delivery systems could operate, there is a significant chance the weapons would fail to detonate. This week’s nuclear drills conducted by Russia utilized dummy warheads, underscoring the likely dysfunction of their real arsenal. These drills are relics of strategies conceived in the 1960s and 1970s, eras devoid of today’s sophisticated intelligence assets. Putin’s announcements about these drills are redundant; our intelligence probably knew of them before he did. Ukraine now possesses the capability to strike targets up to 400 kilometers within Russia, allowing them to preemptively neutralize Putin’s launchers and aircraft. This development dramatically diminishes the likelihood of a Russian tactical strike. European leaders who fear NATO involvement leading to World War III need not worry. Such an escalation is highly improbable. Non-nuclear Ukraine can effectively thwart Armageddon. If Russia were to fire a small nuclear weapon at Ukraine, the US and UK would be compelled to respond in kind, a doctrine well understood by Putin. Putin, for all his tyrannical ambitions, is more rational than his idol, Adolf Hitler. He comprehends that a nuclear strike would precipitate the destruction of his cherished "fatherland." As his "special military operation" crumbles, he knows that resorting to nuclear weapons would only hasten Russia’s downfall. Regrettably, many aspiring leaders in the West, along with most European leaders, fail to grasp this reality. Exceptions exist among the Baltic states, but the rest use the threat of nuclear war as an excuse to withhold full support from Kyiv. Betting on caution when dealing with tyrants wielding planet-destroying weapons is untenable. The urgency to act decisively is heightened by the potential return of Donald Trump, which could complicate the geopolitical landscape further. Supporting Ukraine in decisively defeating Russia, confident in the absence of nuclear repercussions, is essential. Kyiv stands poised to dismantle Putin’s crumbling nuclear arsenal at any moment—a fact Russia is well aware of. Ensuring a Ukrainian victory not only liberates Ukraine but also secures Europe from the shadow of nuclear threat. The West’s leadership must shed its timidity and recognize the reality of Russia’s weakened nuclear stance. By doing so, they can empower Ukraine to end the conflict and neutralize a key element of Putin’s intimidation strategy. Only through resolute action can we ensure that nuclear threats remain a relic of the past and not a tool for modern-day tyranny. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-06-17 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In the heart of Stratford, east London, lies Townley Court, an estate once seen as a decent place to live but now overrun by gangs, drug dealers, and sex workers. Residents here are living in constant fear, feeling abandoned by the authorities meant to protect them. With rising crime rates and police seeming to have 'given up', the community is left to fend for itself in an environment that feels increasingly lawless and dangerous. Locals recount horrifying experiences of being mugged multiple times and witnessing sex acts on their way to school. Many residents are too scared to leave their homes or even look out their windows, having lost faith in the police's ability to provide protection. This fear is compounded by the blatant and brazen behavior of criminals, who operate openly, knowing there will be little to no consequence for their actions. In April 2024 alone, the Metropolitan Police recorded 166 crimes in the area, with violence and sexual offenses accounting for a significant portion. Graffiti referencing a 'Demon Gang' has also appeared, further fueling the residents' fears that the situation is spiraling out of control. One resident, a furious mother, shared doorbell camera footage of her nine-year-old son encountering a prostitute and her client having sex in the stairwell. Another resident described witnessing a sex act in broad daylight, within view of playing children. A disabled resident recounted a terrifying experience of having a gun pulled on him after challenging a gang inside his building. "We're under siege," said one resident who chose to remain anonymous. "It's like a horror show. It's so dangerous around here." Another elderly resident has been mugged twice and recounted how the police never turned up after the latest attack, citing a lack of available vehicles. He described how one gang member smirked at him, boasting, "You can't do nothing." The community's fear is palpable. One mother expressed her anxiety about even looking outside in case she is seen by the hostile elements prowling the estate. She added that criminals operate openly because they know that the police response, if it comes at all, will be inadequate. Police often drive past people openly using drugs and do nothing, further eroding any confidence the community might have in their protection. Residents are so disillusioned that many have stopped calling the police altogether. One man noted, "The police talk to us like we're a crowd of idiots. They have a script, and they just stick to it." Another woman added, "It's like things have got out of control and they can't get it back now, so they've just given up." The Metropolitan Police claim they are engaging with sex workers and conducting patrols to counter antisocial behavior, but residents see little evidence of this. The situation has deteriorated to such an extent that addicts and prostitutes have obtained keys used by firefighters, allowing them to enter residential blocks to use drugs, have sex, vomit, and defecate. Locals report that sex workers sometimes walk around naked, oblivious to the presence of children. "I feel sorry for them," one man said. "They are humans like us. But we are not disturbing other people's lives. We don't need this happening right in front of our doors." Drug users hold noisy gatherings in doorways and gardens every night, with fights breaking out over drugs and knives. A school worker who has lived on the estate for over 20 years said the situation is taking a toll on children. "It's just relentless," they said. "Sometimes I'm going to work on two, three hours' sleep. Some of the kids from around here are at my school and they're not sleeping either." The community has grown accustomed to finding addicts passed out in the street. Last month, the London Ambulance Service was called to assist an unresponsive woman who remained in the same position all day. One man recounted being threatened with a machete after confronting a gang member, who then stole his children's trainers. Residents have risked gathering evidence of the criminal activity, only to be ignored by authorities. When addicts realized locals were filming them, they started using umbrellas to hide their actions. Despite collecting photos and videos of a suspected drug dealer's car, no action seems to have been taken. One man summed up the situation grimly: "Someone is going to get killed. We're all suffering." Authorities have admitted the issues often occur outside of operational hours, leading to "pointless" daylight patrols. Newham Council has promised overtime patrols and new locks for blocks of flats to prevent intruders from entering with fire keys. A spokesperson for the Met Police stated: "We are working hard to tackle the issue in order to make residents feel safer. We have listened to concerns and are actively working with partners to reduce problems in the area. As part of this work, we have a Design Out Crime officer visiting the area. They will make recommendations on what needs to change." However, for many residents, these promises ring hollow. A young woman whose parents bought their home on the estate in the 1990s expressed her disbelief at how things had deteriorated. "Stratford is a prime location. How can they let things get this bad? It's like they just don't give a damn." The woman’s car was recently broken into, and when she started parking further away, she received a fine. "So they don't mind coming around here to give out parking tickets," she fumed. "It's embarrassing, as well as being unsafe. You don't want to invite people to your house. The police are doing absolutely nothing. Maybe, one of these days, if somebody gets hurt, then they will come." One pensioner echoed this sentiment, saying: "It's like they are waiting for someone to actually get stabbed. I just don't know how it's going to end. It's got to be stopped, one way or another. It's going to get deadly otherwise." As the community waits for effective action, they continue to live in fear, feeling abandoned by those meant to protect them. Until substantial changes are made, the residents of Townley Court remain under siege in their own homes, hoping for a day when they can feel safe once again. Credit: Daily Mail 2024-06-17 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a fascinating video on the DEEP YouTube channel, ex-MI6 agent Harry Ferguson evaluated various spy gadgets available on Amazon, sharing his insights on their effectiveness and practicality. The video, produced by Strong Watch Studios, aims to demystify the world of espionage through the eyes of a former spy. Here’s a summary of Ferguson’s take on these gadgets and why he believes crisps are the ultimate intruder detection system. 1. Stash Tin Disguised as a Heinz Spaghetti Tin Ferguson starts by examining a stash tin designed to look like a Heinz spaghetti tin. While he acknowledges its seemingly low utility, he shares an anecdote about an Iranian spy who effectively used a similar device. Despite its simplicity, this method proved useful for hiding important documents. 2. Secret Camera Detector Next, Ferguson reviews a secret camera detector that plugs into a phone’s charging port. It works by emitting a red light that reflects off camera lenses. Although it functions as advertised, its practicality is limited as it requires close proximity to detect hidden cameras, making it conspicuous and less useful in real spy scenarios. 3. Rearview Sunglasses These sunglasses have mirrors on the sides, allowing wearers to see behind them. Ferguson explains that while they might seem gimmicky, they are based on real counter-surveillance techniques used by the CIA. By subtly using reflections, spies can discreetly monitor their surroundings. 4. Lock Pick Contrary to popular belief, Ferguson reveals that spies rarely use lock picks due to the risk of being mistaken for burglars and the difficulty of picking modern locks. Instead, spies prefer using skeleton keys or obtaining genuine keys from their contacts. 5. Concealment Plug Socket This device looks like a regular plug socket but has a hidden compartment. Ferguson notes that experienced search teams will check such items for hidden cameras or bugs. While it’s a clever idea, its effectiveness is limited by the thoroughness of professional searches. 6. Hidden Cameras Evaluating hidden cameras, such as those concealed in necklaces, Ferguson points out their limitations. While they may be useful for capturing visual data, their practicality is hindered by battery life and the difficulty of capturing specific details, like keypad numbers. 7. Lie Detector Tests Ferguson debunks the effectiveness of lie detector tests, or polygraphs, stating that they do not reliably detect lies. These tests measure physiological responses, which can be influenced by various factors, making them unreliable for determining truthfulness. 8. Tiny Spy Cameras Discussing tiny spy cameras hidden in everyday objects, Ferguson highlights the main issue: power. With limited battery life, these devices are impractical for long-term surveillance. He suggests that mains-powered audio devices are more reliable but have their own limitations, such as poor audio quality. 9. Laser Traps Ferguson explains that laser traps are used to detect intruders by triggering an alarm when the laser beam is broken. However, carrying such equipment into certain countries can raise suspicions, making them less practical for covert operations. 10. Crisps as Intruder Detection In a surprising twist, Ferguson reveals that crisps (potato chips) are the best low-tech intruder detection tool. By placing a crisp under a rug or doormat, spies can determine if someone has entered their room. The distinct shape of a broken crisp is nearly impossible to replicate, making it a simple yet effective method. Additionally, crisps are innocuous items that won’t raise suspicion if found in luggage. Full video Credit: Daily Mail 2024-06-17 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe