Social Media

Trump Proposes Path for Undocumented Workers to Return Legally With Employer Support President Donald Trump floated the idea of a possible pathway for undocumented immigrants working in U.S. farms and hotels to return to the country legally if they exit voluntarily and receive support from their employers. Though light on details, Trump’s remarks hint at a shift in tone toward a more pragmatic approach to immigration in key labor sectors. “We have to take care of our farmers, the hotels and, you know, the various places where they tend to, where they tend to need people,” Trump said at the meeting, which was open to the press. He outlined a vague process whereby undocumented workers could leave the country and return as legal laborers if their employers submitted letters vouching for their character and work ethic. “So a farmer will come in with a letter concerning certain people, saying they’re great, they’re working hard,” Trump explained. “We’re going to slow it down a little bit for them, and then we’re going to ultimately bring them back. They’ll go out. They’re going to come back as legal workers.” The phrase “slow it down a little bit for them” remained unclear, especially given the administration’s aggressive pursuit of immigration enforcement throughout Trump's tenure. The policy direction included ramped-up arrests and deportations in line with his campaign promise of sweeping deportations of undocumented immigrants. Still, Trump indicated a willingness to support those who left the country “in a nice way.” He added, “We’re going to work with them right from the beginning on, trying to get them back in legally. So it gives you real incentive. Otherwise they never come back. They’ll never be allowed once a certain period of time goes by, which is probably going to be 60 days.” Pressed for more information, White House spokesman Kush Desai issued a statement saying the Trump administration “is committed to delivering on the mandate that the American people gave to President Trump with a whole-of-government approach to secure our borders, enforce our immigration laws, mass deport criminal illegal migrants, and put America First.” Though the U.S. currently operates guest worker programs such as H-2A for agricultural workers and H-2B for temporary jobs in sectors like hospitality and tourism, employers often voice frustration over regulatory hurdles and processing delays. Trump has previously used the H-2B program in his own businesses. According to a White House official speaking to NBC News, Trump is interested in improving both the H-2A and H-2B visa programs. Advocates for farmworkers and immigrants have consistently pushed for better oversight of these programs to prevent exploitation and poor living and working conditions. Trump’s comments followed remarks from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who promoted a new policy requiring undocumented individuals to register with the Department of Homeland Security through an app called “CBP Home” or risk criminal charges and fines. A federal judge has allowed the rule to proceed. Undocumented labor plays a significant role in the U.S. economy. The Department of Agriculture estimates that around 40% of crop farmworkers lack legal status, and the American Immigration Council found that approximately 1.1 million undocumented workers were employed in the hospitality industry in 2023—representing 7.6% of that sector’s workforce. “What we are seeing is President Trump beginning the negotiations of what a Trump-based immigration plan would look like,” said Artemio Muniz, an attorney and employer who works with the American Business Immigration Coalition, though he spoke in a personal capacity. “We now want to secure the undocumented workers because we don't want to lose them, because if we do, we see an increase in costs. I respect the fact that Trump is willing to initiate the discussion.” Based on a report by NBC News 2025-04-12

After Asylum: A Glimpse Inside the Hidden Realities of the UK Refugee Hotel System From behind the guarded doors of a migrant hotel in northern England, a clinical lead offers a sobering portrait of life within the UK's asylum system—one not often captured in headlines or political manifestos. Working inside a facility not designed to house hundreds long-term, this insider describes a dysfunctional, opaque, and profit-driven world where newly recognised refugees often move directly from government support to local homelessness, and many may never enter the workforce. The hotel is a modern structure in the centre of a British town, run not by the government, but by a network of for-profit contractors. "The Home Office is not focused on the details in any meaningful way," the clinical lead says. “The physical building is owned by a group of investors. The security is contracted to the lowest bidder… Day-to-day operations are run by a large housing management firm.” These organisations, operating largely in secrecy, have profited from a system that commodifies displaced people, often with little regard for their long-term integration or well-being. Inside the hotel, life is controlled and constrained. There are strict rules: no pets, no electric scooters, no bicycles, and certainly no attempts to personalise rooms with extra furnishings. "It’s hard to make these spaces feel like home," the lead notes. Despite these conditions, many residents resist transfers to dispersal housing. “They have skin in the game: their kids are in school, healthcare is immediately available and they like the city,” the clinician says. While the recent change of government has brought swifter resolutions to asylum claims, it has not been matched with investment in local support services. “Our only multiple-occupancy homeless shelter is entirely full with asylum seekers granted the right to remain,” they explain. “A large number of people will never work a day in their lives, but I am optimistic that, in time, their children will.” Some residents carry stories of extreme suffering. An Eritrean man, tortured and enslaved in Libya before escaping to Italy, eventually made it to the UK. Others arrive from war-torn regions—Ukrainians escaping conscription, Yemenis and Sudanese unable to renew passports from failed states, or failed international students whose circumstances changed mid-study. "People flee death threats and torture abroad," the doctor adds. “I have seen petrol burns from the boat trip, trench foot from the Calais Jungle, men with 100 cigarette burns on their bodies, women separated from their husbands crossing Libya who can barely speak of it.” Many residents arrive without documentation, often having discarded their identities. The Home Office assigns them new names and birthdates based on what they declare. "They may have tried and failed previously under their original name, or they may be wanted overseas. There is no way to verify it." The system, the clinician explains, runs on rules and process rather than humanity. When residents receive their right to remain, the official response is cold and bureaucratic. “You don’t get a letter congratulating you. You get a letter saying you have 28 days to vacate the accommodation. If you don’t, that means they will come and remove you.” With eviction comes the abrupt end of financial support. The £49.18 per week for self-catering stops, as does the £8.86 for those receiving hotel meals. Former asylum seekers must now navigate the same overwhelmed public systems as British citizens—Jobcentres, council offices, homelessness declarations—without the structured support they previously received. “I have seen whole families banging on the hotel door to see the doctor days after departure. But we can’t see you; you are no longer our patients. You are not asylum seekers anymore; you are ordinary British citizens.” In a system where the end of the asylum process is marked not by relief, but by disorientation and struggle, one quiet truth echoes through the words of the clinician: “After the right to remain comes the hard part, the one that nobody had really told you about.” Based on a report by The Telegraph 2025-04-12

Harvard Advisor Resigns Amid Accusations of Aiding Hamas Operations in Gaza Billionaire Palestinian-American businessman Bashar Masri has stepped down from his position on the Dean’s Council at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government following a lawsuit that accuses him of providing material support to Hamas through development projects in Gaza. The Kennedy School confirmed the resignation, stating, “Mr. Masri has resigned from the Dean’s Council. The lawsuit raises serious allegations that should be vetted and addressed through the legal process.” The resignation comes just days after a civil suit was filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. by nearly 200 relatives of victims of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. The suit alleges that Masri aided the terror group by facilitating the construction of underground tunnels and rocket launch sites on properties he helped develop in Gaza. According to the plaintiffs, these properties included a Gaza-based industrial park near the Israeli border and luxury hotels used by Hamas operatives. Masri, a well-known figure in Palestinian development, is best recognized for spearheading the creation of Rawabi, a modern city in the West Bank. His work has earned praise from international organizations and governments, including the U.S., European Union, United Nations, and World Bank. Through his holding company, Massar International, and his chairmanship of the Palestine Development and Investment Company (PADICO), Masri directed multiple construction projects across the Palestinian territories. The civil complaint asserts that “Defendants provided services that legitimized Hamas and gave its operations under and within Defendants’ properties greater protection from Israeli and U.S. action.” It further states, “All of this assistance was beneficial to Hamas in sustaining its iron-fisted rule in Gaza and in committing acts of international terrorism.” The legal team includes prominent attorneys such as Lee Wolosky, who served under four U.S. presidents, and Gary Osen, known for representing Holocaust victims’ families. In response, Masri’s office strongly denied the accusations, calling the lawsuit “baseless.” The statement added, “Neither he nor those entities have ever engaged in unlawful activity or provided support for violence and militancy. Bashar Masri has been involved in development and humanitarian work for the past decades.” The lawsuit claims that Masri knowingly violated the Anti-Terrorism Act by assisting Hamas in the lead-up to the October 7 massacre, which killed 1,200 people, including 46 Americans, and led to 254 hostages being taken into Gaza. Among the plaintiffs are relatives of victims such as Itay Chen and Hersh Goldberg-Polin, as well as high-profile figures including Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter and philanthropist Eyal Waldman, whose daughter was murdered at the Nova music festival. Photos submitted in the complaint show Masri signing a 2022 joint venture agreement for the Gaza Industrial Estate (GIE) with senior Hamas officials, including Abdel Fattah Zrai and University of Gaza professor Dr. Muhamad Ziyara, both linked to Hamas tunnel construction. The GIE project, which manufactures goods ranging from pharmaceuticals to Coca-Cola products, reportedly received substantial funding from the World Bank, USAID, and other international bodies. The lawsuit describes how the GIE and nearby hotels like the Blue Beach Resort and Al Mashtal Hotel—now the Ayan Hotel—were used to conceal tunnel shafts and serve as operational bases for Hamas, with anti-tank weaponry even placed in water towers. It also states that former Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, killed by the IDF in 2024, frequently used these hotels as a command center for launching attacks against Israel. Masri had previously acknowledged his role in planning the First Intifada but has since cultivated an image as a proponent of peace and development. In a 2019 interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” he said, “If we can build a city — a futuristic city, a secular city, a democratic city — then we can build a state.” Despite this image, the lawsuit claims that beneath the surface, Masri’s projects became deeply entangled with Hamas infrastructure. Based on a report by NYP 2025-04-12

Stanford Protesters Face Felony Charges for Building Takeover Twelve pro-Palestinian demonstrators, including current and former Stanford University students, are now facing felony charges in connection with a June 2024 protest that saw the occupation and vandalism of a key administrative building on campus. According to the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office, the individuals have been charged with felony vandalism and felony conspiracy to trespass following the early morning demonstration that left the university property extensively damaged. The protest began at dawn on June 5, 2024, the final day of Stanford’s spring classes. Protesters, rallying in support of Palestine, barricaded themselves inside the building housing the university president’s office while others formed a line outside. The Stanford Daily reported that during the occupation, demonstrators chanted, “Palestine will be free, we will free Palestine.” The occupation lasted approximately three hours before authorities intervened. Prosecutors allege the demonstrators caused widespread damage during the takeover, including spray-painting walls, breaking windows and furniture, disabling security cameras, and splattering a red liquid resembling blood on various items throughout the building. The DA’s office estimated the total damages at several hundred thousand dollars. The age range of those charged spans from 19 to 32. They are scheduled to be arraigned later this month at the Hall of Justice in San Jose. A student journalist who was also arrested during the incident was not charged, as prosecutors determined they had not participated in the acts of vandalism. Evidence gathered during the investigation included cellphone records that revealed messages among the accused, detailing plans for the protest. These communications reportedly included a “do-it-yourself occupation guide” that prosecutors say helped organize and coordinate the illegal occupation. “This was not an impromptu protest. It was a calculated and deliberate act that caused real damage,” a spokesperson for the district attorney’s office said. The felony charges reflect the seriousness of the alleged crimes and the impact on university operations and property. The protest at Stanford was one of many that occurred across U.S. college campuses in 2024 amid growing unrest and demonstrations against the war in Gaza. According to the Associated Press, at least 86 incidents involving arrests were recorded during campus protests over the spring. The university has not yet commented publicly on the charges but had previously condemned the incident, noting the safety risks and significant disruption caused to campus operations. The case continues to unfold as legal proceedings move forward, with the arraignments expected to draw national attention amid ongoing debates about protest rights and the limits of civil disobedience. Based on a reports by NYP 2025-04-12 Related Topics: Pro-Palestinian Protesters Take Over Columbia Hamilton Hall "Intifada" hangs from windows Police Retake Building from Pro-Palestinian Protesters at UC Irvine Russia & China Manipulating UK Public Opinion by Promoting Pro-Palestinian Rhetoric If You’re Tearing Down Hostage Posters, ‘you’re not pro-Palestinian — you’re pro-Hamas’ Anti-Israel radical at Columbia University event ‘Nothing wrong with being a Hamas fighter’

Trump Presses Putin for Ukraine Ceasefire as Witkoff Holds High-Level Talks in St Petersburg In a significant diplomatic development, U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in St Petersburg on Friday, marking their third encounter this year. The high-level meeting lasted over four hours and centered on what the Kremlin described as "aspects of a Ukrainian settlement." As talks unfolded, former President Donald Trump publicly urged Russia to accelerate efforts toward a ceasefire in Ukraine, expressing deep frustration over the ongoing conflict. "Russia has to get moving. Too many people ere [sic] DYING, thousands a week, in a terrible and senseless war," Trump wrote on social media Friday. His direct message to Putin came as European nations pledged €21 billion ($24 billion) in military aid to Kyiv. Despite these efforts, European defense ministers stated they saw no indication that the war was nearing an end. Kirill Dmitriev, special envoy and head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, described the talks between Witkoff and Putin as “productive.” Dmitriev had previously met with Witkoff at the Grand Hotel Europe in St Petersburg, ahead of the official engagement with the Russian president. He had also recently visited Washington, becoming the most senior Russian official to do so since Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. As speculation grows about the possibility of a future meeting between Trump and Putin, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov maintained a cautious stance. “Let’s see. It depends on what Witkoff has come with,” he said when asked if discussions could lead to setting a date for a Trump-Putin summit. Peskov also sought to lower expectations, saying, “No need to expect breakthroughs,” as the “process of normalising relations is ongoing.” While diplomatic efforts continued behind closed doors, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made a poignant visit to his hometown of Kryvyi Rih, which suffered a deadly missile strike by Russian forces on April 4. Nineteen people were killed in the attack, including nine children. Zelensky laid flowers in front of photos of the young victims, including Herman Tripolets, nine, and seven-year-olds Arina Samodina and Radyslav Yatsko. During his visit, Zelensky accused Russia of prolonging the war and claimed that Chinese nationals were now being deployed alongside Russian troops. “We have information that at least several hundred Chinese nationals are fighting as part of Russia's occupation forces,” he said. “This means Russia is clearly trying to prolong the war even by using Chinese lives.” Zelensky also renewed calls for enhanced air defense capabilities. “We discussed this with President Trump – Ukraine is not just asking, we're ready to purchase these additional systems,” he posted online. “Only powerful weapons can truly be relied upon to protect life when you have a neighbour like Russia.” Trump, who has repeatedly insisted he could resolve the Ukraine-Russia conflict within 24 hours, reiterated his belief that the war would have never started had he been in office in 2022. “A war that should ld [sic] have never happened, and wouldn't have happened, if I were President!!!” he wrote. Despite recent attempts at diplomacy, tensions remain high. In February, U.S. and Russian officials met in Saudi Arabia for their first face-to-face discussions since the invasion. However, a proposed ceasefire in the Black Sea collapsed after Russia insisted on the lifting of post-invasion sanctions. Trump has since expressed growing irritation, stating he is “very angry” and “pissed off” with Putin over the lack of progress in reaching a truce. This week, the U.S. and Russia completed a rare prisoner exchange. Ksenia Karelina, a Russian-American sentenced to 12 years in prison for donating $51 to a Ukrainian charity, was released. In return, Arthur Petrov, a dual German-Russian citizen accused of illegally exporting microelectronics to Russia for military use, was handed back to Moscow after his arrest in Cyprus in 2023. Based on a report by BBC 2025-04-12

Title: London Schools Face Growing Safety Concerns as Police Pull Out School Officers Educators and students across London are raising serious concerns over the Metropolitan Police’s decision to remove hundreds of specialist officers from schools, warning that the move could lead to an increase in violence, drug use, and gang exploitation. The decision, which will see 371 safer schools officers reassigned to neighbourhood policing teams, has sparked strong criticism from school leaders who say they were not consulted beforehand and are now urging the force to reverse its course. Safer schools officers were first introduced in 2009 to help address student conflicts and keep youth away from criminal activity. Their presence within schools was seen as crucial in fostering safer environments and building trust between young people and law enforcement. However, starting in May, these officers will no longer be based in schools, a shift the Met says is intended to bolster its ability to respond to incidents in the wider community. The Metropolitan Police stated, “Children should be able to travel to and from school and study without the fear of violence. This is where we know young people are most at risk of violence and gangs, and it is where our officers will continue to be, ensuring that they are able to quickly respond to any incidents or concerns in the community.” Despite this reassurance, education leaders are deeply concerned. In a letter obtained by Sky News, 15 headteachers from northeast London warned that the absence of these officers could leave vulnerable students at risk. “Without the support of safer school officers, vulnerable students may become prey to exploitation and, in turn, perpetrators of crime,” the letter reads. Sam Jones, chair of The Waltham Forest Secondary Heads group and a signatory of the letter, described the decision as “very misguided” and said it was made without input from schools. “We think that it will increase in violence, potentially increase bullying and weapons-related incidents,” he told Sky News. He added that these officers serve as a “key deterrent when it comes to gang recruitment and county lines issues,” calling the removal “a huge backward step.” These fears are not unfounded. Knife crime in London reached a record high in the year ending September 2024, with 16,521 reported offences—an 18% rise from the previous year, according to the Office for National Statistics. A Sky News survey also found that nearly one in five secondary school teachers in England had seen pupils with knives. Students themselves are voicing their fears. “There will be more knives,” said Tyrelle, a 14-year-old student. “There will be fighting, there will be drugs coming into school and no one will be there to actually stop it.” He emphasized the importance of having someone to report issues to: “If anything happens outside of school you can tell them [the safer school officer] and let them know.” Another student, 15-year-old Mikolej, said the presence of officers helped him and others build more trust with police. “It was a good thing that helped young people speak more to police officers outside of school,” he said. Chris Hall, headteacher at Footsteps Trust, said it was “quite staggering” that no one in education was consulted before the change. He praised the officers as “very, very valuable assets” who helped students see the police in a positive light. “I would 100% ask them [the Met] to reconsider,” Hall said. Walthamstow MP Stella Creasy also urged the police to revisit their decision, stating, “I hope the force will sit down with all of us so that we can work together on this.” In a letter sent to headteachers, the Met stressed that the decision was “not made lightly” and is aimed at improving community policing. But for many school leaders, the risk to student safety is too great a cost. Based on a report by Sky News 2025-04-11

West Yorkshire Police Faces Backlash Over Alleged Discriminatory Recruitment Practices One of Britain’s largest police forces has come under fire for a recruitment strategy that critics say unfairly blocks white British candidates from applying, while allowing early access for individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds. West Yorkshire Police (WYP) is currently facing accusations of running a “hidden” recruitment scheme in an effort to increase diversity within its ranks — a move some legal experts believe may constitute unlawful positive discrimination. According to information disclosed by The Telegraph, white British applicants have been excluded from applying to entry-level police constable programmes while “under-represented” groups are encouraged to submit applications ahead of general recruitment windows. The force, which serves a region where nearly a quarter of the population is from an ethnic minority background, argues that the approach is necessary to better reflect the communities it serves. A whistleblower, previously involved in the sifting of applications, claimed that black and far east Asian candidates were given top priority or “gold” status, followed by south-east Asians marked as silver, and “white others,” such as Irish or eastern European applicants, designated bronze. “This feeds into a general theme where the pipeline for anyone white British is strangled, whilst anyone not white British is ushered through onto the next available stage,” he warned in a report to senior officers. The force has stated publicly that early access does not provide an advantage in the application process and is only meant to attract a wider pool of candidates. “Enabling people from an ethnic minority background to apply early does not give them an advantage in the application process, it simply provides us with more opportunity to attract talent from a pool of applicants who reflect the diverse communities we serve,” WYP stated on its website. Despite these assurances, the internal document seen by The Telegraph suggests that vacancies were kept open far longer for minority applicants — 446 out of 489 days analysed — while white British candidates had only 99 days to submit applications during the same period. In one notable instance, white applicants were given just two days in December 2022 to apply for a position in the police constable degree apprenticeship scheme. Concerns also center on the role of WYP’s Positive Action Team (PAT), which mentors minority applicants through the process. The whistleblower alleged that PAT officers not only offered coaching, but also conducted interviews and reassured candidates that they had effectively already passed. “I have several examples of direct dishonest, fraudulent and incompetent actions by candidates that PAT have not only turned a blind eye to, but often defended in order to hit their figures,” he wrote. In what he described as unprofessional conduct, the former officer claimed, “I have personally witnessed members of the PAT greeting candidates with unprofessional hand clasps and hugs and heard them tell candidates on numerous occasions words to the effect of ‘don’t worry, you’ve already passed and this is just a formality’.” He further asserted that while official policy mandates interviews only begin once recruitment windows are open to all, PAT candidates were regularly processed — shortlisted, assessed, and even invited to interview — before white British applicants were allowed to apply. He claimed some candidates who failed initial assessments were merely “put on hold” and invited to try again in the next round, while white applicants had no such fallback. A spokesperson for West Yorkshire Police responded to the criticism, stating: “The most recent census found that 23 per cent of people in West Yorkshire identified as being from an ethnic minority background. Our current police officer representation from ethnic minority backgrounds is around nine per cent. To address this under-representation, we use Positive Action under the Equality Act 2010.” The force noted that its approach had been recently reviewed by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services during an inspection focused on activism and impartiality, and “no issues were identified.” Still, a senior employment lawyer who spoke to The Telegraph argued the practice veered into “a grey area in law” and might not qualify as a “proportionate” response under current UK legislation. “This kind of approach mirrors positive discrimination as practiced in the US, but that is not allowed in the UK,” the expert said. While the debate continues, West Yorkshire Police stands at the center of a growing controversy, with questions mounting over whether its efforts to improve representation have crossed legal and ethical lines. Based on a report by The Telegraph 2025-04-11

Trump Administration Freezes Billions in Federal Funds at Cornell and Northwestern The Trump administration has escalated its scrutiny of elite academic institutions by freezing nearly $2 billion in federal funds allocated to Cornell University and Northwestern University. According to a Trump administration official, Cornell is facing a freeze on over $1 billion in federal funding, while Northwestern’s freeze amounts to approximately $790 million. These actions are part of an expanding investigation into alleged civil-rights violations, as the administration broadens its campaign to crack down on major research universities across the United States. The funding in question involves a wide array of grants and contracts with key federal departments, including the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services. A person familiar with the matter confirmed that a portion of the frozen funds is tied to Cornell’s medical school, highlighting the breadth of the administration’s reach. A spokesman for Northwestern University stated that the school has not received any official notification about the funding freeze. Cornell University has yet to respond to requests for comment. These recent freezes are part of a much larger wave of financial crackdowns that have so far affected more than $10 billion in federal funding at several top-tier institutions. Schools such as Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, Brown, and the University of Pennsylvania are also facing funding pauses or ongoing reviews. President Donald Trump has been vocal about his intent to confront what he perceives as liberal dominance on college campuses. He has accused these institutions of failing to protect Jewish students during a series of pro-Palestinian protests that have disrupted academic life over the past two years. The administration has also targeted programs associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), criticizing them as inconsistent with its policy objectives. On Tuesday, the Trump administration took further action by terminating nearly $4 million in federal funds to Princeton University. The Department of Commerce claimed that the programs in question exaggerated the dangers of climate change and contributed to what it described as “climate anxiety” among the youth. These developments underscore a growing tension between the federal government and some of the nation's most prestigious universities. With billions in research funding now on the line, the investigations and funding freezes represent a significant shift in how federal resources are used to influence institutional policies and priorities. Based on a report by WSJ 2025-04-11

Trump Wields Executive Order to Dismantle State Climate Laws In a dramatic move that intensifies his campaign against climate policy, President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order late Tuesday aimed at halting the enforcement of a wide array of state climate laws. Declaring that these measures conflict with his administration’s energy priorities, Trump has instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to “stop the enforcement of State laws” that the White House argues are unconstitutional, unenforceable, or superseded by federal authority. States named specifically in the order include California, New York, and Vermont. “These State laws and policies are fundamentally irreconcilable with my Administration’s objective to unleash American energy,” Trump declared in the order. “They should not stand.” The executive order marks a sharp escalation in Trump’s ongoing assault on environmental regulations. It targets not only state cap-and-trade programs and permitting processes but also lawsuits brought by Democratic-led states and municipalities against fossil fuel companies. These legal actions aim to hold energy corporations accountable for the environmental and economic damage caused by climate change, from sea level rise to intensified wildfires. Trump’s announcement coincided with a White House event focused on reviving the coal industry, where he stood flanked by coal miners and promised that the Department of Justice would challenge “every single unconstitutional state or legal regulation that’s putting our coal miners out of business.” Despite the sweeping nature of the order, some legal experts question its potential impact. “Trump has no authority on his own to nullify state laws,” said Michael Gerrard, faculty director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. He added that the effectiveness of Trump’s order would ultimately depend on the judiciary, particularly state judges overseeing the ongoing climate lawsuits. Still, climate advocates remain on high alert. “If you’re asking me to evaluate on a scale of 1 to 10 how concerned I am — I’m at a 10,” said Justin Balik, vice president of states for Evergreen Action. “It’s another seemingly abstract legal maneuver with incredibly tangible, real world consequences if successful.” Democratic governors were quick to push back. “The federal government cannot unilaterally strip states’ independent constitutional authority,” said New York Governor Kathy Hochul and New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham in a joint statement. “We are a nation of states — and laws — and we will not be deterred. We will keep advancing solutions to the climate crisis that safeguard Americans’ fundamental right to clean air and water, create good-paying jobs, grow the clean energy economy, and make our future healthier and safer.” The executive order also threatens the viability of landmark policies such as California’s cap-and-trade system and similar programs in Washington and across the Northeast. The administration labeled these initiatives as attempts to “punish carbon use,” citing the economic burden they allegedly impose on businesses and energy projects through complex environmental reviews. California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office responded, saying it was reviewing the order but remained committed “to using the full force of the law and tools of this office to address the climate crisis head-on and protect public health and welfare.” The Trump administration’s action also follows private discussions with oil and gas executives, who reportedly voiced concerns about state climate efforts and litigation. According to a source cited by POLITICO’s E&E News, Trump appeared receptive to industry pleas, signaling a willingness to act on their behalf. Ryan Meyers, senior vice president and general counsel for the American Petroleum Institute, praised Trump’s order. “Directing the Department of Justice to address this state overreach will help restore the rule of law and ensure activist-driven campaigns do not stand in the way of ensuring the nation has access to an affordable and reliable energy supply,” he said. Whether Trump’s executive order proves enforceable or not, it sends a clear signal: his administration is prepared to fight state-led climate initiatives at every turn, potentially reshaping the battleground over environmental policy in the United States for years to come. Based on a report by Politico 2025-04-11

Hamas Challenges UK Terror Ban, Citing Human Rights and Peace Efforts Hamas has launched a legal bid to overturn its designation as a terrorist organisation by the UK government, claiming the ban violates the European Convention on Human Rights and obstructs peace efforts in the Middle East. The Islamist group has filed a 106-page application through British lawyers, arguing that the decision to proscribe the group is legally unsound and morally unjustified. The legal action is directed at the Home Office’s decision to list Hamas in its entirety as a terrorist group, making it a criminal offence in the UK to support or associate with it. Hamas contends that the ban breaches fundamental rights, stating it “unlawfully restricts freedom of speech” and asserting that the organisation “does not pose any threat to Britain or British citizens.” In the legal document obtained by The Times, Hamas accuses the UK of siding with what it calls the “Zionist oppressor,” urging Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to reverse what it described as Britain’s “morally and legally indefensible policy.” The group also alleges that the UK is ignoring its “duties” under international law to help “end genocide” and that the proscription undermines efforts toward a political resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hamas’s military wing, the Qassam Brigades, has been outlawed in the UK since 2001. In 2021, then-Home Secretary Dame Priti Patel extended the ban to the group’s political wing, stating there was no meaningful distinction between the two. Patel defended the proscription in response to the legal challenge, saying, “Hamas is an evil Iranian-backed terrorist organisation, which kidnaps, tortures and murders people, including British nationals. They pose an ongoing threat to our security and to the peace and stability of the Middle East.” Mousa Abu Marzouk, the head of Hamas’s foreign relations office. She added, “They show no respect for human rights, life and dignity and have oppressed people living in Gaza for too long. Eighteen months ago, Hamas carried out the worst terror attack in Israel’s history and the most murderous pogrom against the Jewish people since the Holocaust. It continues to hold 59 innocent hostages in cruel captivity. Nobody should be in any doubt about the true nature and intentions of Hamas.” In its legal application, Hamas describes itself as “an organised resistance movement that exercises the right of the Palestinian people to resist Zionism and the colonisation, occupation, apartheid and genocide carried out in its name.” The legal team involved has clarified that they are not being paid by Hamas, in accordance with UK law that prohibits financial transactions with proscribed groups. Furthermore, the legal profession’s cab rank rule does not compel barristers to take on such cases. Some lawyers associated with the case have previously made controversial remarks. On the day of Hamas’s October 7 attacks, which killed more than 1,100 Israelis, barrister Magennis tweeted, “Victory to the intifada.” If the Home Office rejects the application, Hamas can appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), though such reversals are rare. Since the Terrorism Act 2000 came into effect, only four organisations have successfully been removed from the banned list. A spokesperson for the Board of Deputies of British Jews criticised the legal challenge, stating, “As Palestinians in Gaza protest for the removal of Hamas, this deeply misconceived challenge shows the regrettable addiction of large parts of the UK Palestine movement to the terrorist organisation Hamas. Hamas documented their own record of murder, rape, and kidnap on October 7th 2023 in obscene detail. Hamas has been proscribed in the UK since 2021 for its longstanding record of terror. The firm and others assisting them in bringing this case for Hamas should be ashamed of their support for a proscribed terrorist organisation.” Based on a report by The Times 2025-04-11 Related Topic: New UK Parliament Report: Unveiling the Horrors of 7 October A Truth That Cannot Be Denied

In an escalation of its ideological campaign against perceived Western threats, Russia’s lawmakers have turned their attention to what they now describe as a direct threat to statehood—Satanism. At a recent meeting in Moscow, senior Russian MP Andrei Kartapolov, chairman of the State Duma’s defence committee, declared that Satanism, much like the “international LGBT movement” previously outlawed by the Kremlin, represents a form of Western aggression aimed at undermining Russian sovereignty. “Satanism and everything connected with it must be considered as a direct threat to Russian statehood,” Kartapolov announced. He further alleged that satanic groups operating in Russia are being funded by foreign entities. “We need to look at what money and what means these satanists live on. Where are their books and posters printed, who pays for their concerts, shows, performances, the renting of halls, bars, and clubs?” he asked, calling it a “form of warfare waged by the united West against our country.” The parliamentary meeting, focused on “counteracting the spread of satanism and other destructive cults and ideologies,” began with a prayer session. Participants appealed to the Holy Spirit to “cleanse us of all impurities.” The session marked yet another chapter in President Vladimir Putin’s framing of the war in Ukraine and Russia’s wider geopolitical struggle as a spiritual battle, one in which Christian traditional values are under siege by foreign forces. Putin and his allies have repeatedly invoked the rhetoric of defending Russia from moral decay, describing their military actions as a crusade against Western liberalism, LGBT rights, and now, Satan himself. The shift is especially dramatic given the history of the Soviet Union, during which the state imposed official atheism and persecuted religious institutions. Nikolai Burlyayev, a Soviet-era actor turned pro-Kremlin MP, added sensational claims to the discussion, alleging without evidence that reports of “satanic sex orgies” had been received from several Russian cities. Kartapolov called for legislation similar to the 2023 laws that designated members of the alleged global LGBT movement as “extremists and terrorists.” That law equated the non-existent movement with groups like Islamic State and al-Qaeda, allowing for prison sentences of up to ten years for those found guilty. Critics have expressed concern over the vague and expansive nature of these legal categories. “If this becomes law, they could arrest absolutely anyone on suspicion of satanism,” said a Moscow resident, who requested anonymity. “I mean, how can you prove that you don’t worship Satan?” Anna Shafran, a television host with the Orthodox Christian network Spas, claimed—again without evidence—that Ukrainian intelligence agencies were attempting to infiltrate satanic groups within Russia to recruit operatives for terrorist activity. She urged law enforcement to scrutinise detainees’ tattoos, lamenting the lack of Russian experts in “infernal symbolism.” Fyodor Lukyanov, a senior church official, presented a chart titled “Common features of the LGBT Movement and the Satanic Movement,” asserting a connection between the two. He claimed both use similar recruitment tactics and commit sacrilegious acts against religious symbols. Despite the official crackdown on satanism, the Kremlin has shown a willingness to recruit individuals with satanic or neo-pagan affiliations for its war in Ukraine. In 2023, Nikolai Ogolobyak, a convicted member of a satanist gang notorious for murder and cannibalism, was released from prison to serve on the front lines. After six months of military service, he was pardoned by Putin. That same year, Rusich, a Russian paramilitary group, posted online about seeking a Ukrainian prisoner for a “ritual sacrifice to Slavic gods.” Questions remain over how such a ban would affect cultural works like *The Master and Margarita*, the iconic novel by Mikhail Bulgakov that features the devil visiting Moscow. The book is considered a classic of Russian literature, and a recent film adaptation became one of the country’s highest-grossing films. This campaign against satanism and LGBT rights is part of a broader crackdown on Western influence since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Recent legislative efforts have also targeted so-called “child-free ideology” and even the subculture of children pretending to be animals, known in Russia as kvadrobing. Despite the high-profile topic, attendance at the parliamentary session was lower than expected. Kartapolov noted the lack of turnout with a hint of irony, saying that many MPs were “wary of signing up as open enemies of Lucifer.” Based on a report by The Times 2025-04-11

U.S. President Donald Trump has issued a stark warning, stating that Israel would take the lead in any potential military strike against Iran should Tehran refuse to abandon its nuclear weapons program. Speaking ahead of high-stakes talks in Oman between American and Iranian officials, Trump made it clear that military action remains on the table if diplomatic efforts fail. “If it requires military, we’re going to have military,” Trump declared. “Israel will obviously be very much involved in that. They’ll be the leader of that. But nobody leads us, but we do what we want to do.” The comments come as Iran inches closer than ever to developing a functional nuclear weapon, intensifying concerns in Washington. While Trump did not commit to a specific timeline for the current negotiations, he expressed skepticism about the direction they’re heading. “When you start talks, you know, if they’re going along well or not,” he said. “And I would say the conclusion would be what I think—they’re not going along well. So that’s just a feeling.” The talks in Oman are expected to involve U.S. and Iranian officials, although there remains a discrepancy over the format. Trump has characterized the discussions as “direct,” whereas Iran has insisted they are “indirect.” Back in 2015, a nuclear deal was reached between Iran and several world powers, placing strict limits on Iran’s uranium enrichment in exchange for the easing of economic sanctions. However, in 2018, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the agreement, calling it the “worst deal ever.” Subsequent efforts under President Joe Biden to revive the deal through indirect negotiations in Vienna in 2021 failed to produce a resolution. Amid these ongoing tensions, the U.S. Treasury Department announced a new round of sanctions targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. The measures cited five Iranian entities and one individual for their roles in supporting the nuclear program. Among those sanctioned were the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran and several affiliated companies, including Iran Centrifuge Technology Company, Thorium Power Company, Pars Reactors Construction and Development Company, and Azarab Industries Co. Despite the mounting pressure, Trump struck a somewhat conciliatory note when addressing Iran’s future. “I want Iran to be great,” he said. “The only thing that they can’t have is a nuclear weapon. They understand that.” Meanwhile, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reiterated his country’s stance against developing nuclear arms. “We are not after a nuclear bomb,” he said on Wednesday, adding an economic olive branch by expressing openness to American investment in Iran should a deal be reached. In a speech in Tehran, Pezeshkian referenced Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s approval for such an initiative. “His excellency has no opposition to investment by American investors in Iran,” he said. “American investors: Come and invest.” Pezeshkian’s remarks signal a potential shift in tone from Iran’s earlier post-2015 approach, when interest in American products such as aircraft clashed with internal policies effectively barring U.S. business operations. As talks resume, the outcome remains uncertain, but the stakes are higher than ever. Based on a report by PBS | AP 2025-04-11

Greens candidate Mandy Nolan continues to enjoy the party’s full support ahead of the 2025 federal election, despite renewed scrutiny over controversial comments she made more than a decade ago referencing Adolf Hitler. The comedian-turned-politician, who is once again contesting the marginal seat of Richmond in northern New South Wales, faced backlash over remarks made in a 2011 YouTube video in which she used Hitler to illustrate a point about responsibility. “Just look at Hitler. He had fun. He did whatever he wanted to do,” Nolan said in the video. “Just ask six million Jews how they feel about that now and he still didn’t get his sociopathic fill – you just can’t do it, it’s unethical.” The comments resurfaced in 2022, prompting public outcry and calls for her disendorsement. Despite the controversy, Greens leader Adam Bandt defended Nolan at the time, emphasising her record of activism. “Mandy has a strong history of fighting anti-Semitism and fascism, and has apologised for any distress caused by her comments,” Bandt said in 2022. The party has maintained that position in the lead-up to the next election, reaffirming their support for her candidacy. “These comments were addressed when Mandy apologised years ago. We maintain our unwavering support for Mandy,” a Greens spokesperson said on Tuesday. The controversy was reignited following a 2023 podcast appearance in which Nolan recounted how the news cycle shifted on the day the remarks were republished. Speaking with comedian Wil Anderson on the *Wilosophy* podcast, she revealed her reaction upon learning of Shane Warne’s sudden death. “I went, no, everyone is going to go look for this terrible thing,” she said. “It ended up being on the second page of *The Australian* and in the morning I was waiting for it to hit and get completely smashed…” “As I pick up my phone and look at the news it just says Shane Warne died … and I went f*** yes. That story just died and I was saved,” she said. “I felt really lucky about that.” The remarks sparked criticism, particularly from Jewish community leaders. David Ossip, President of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, strongly condemned both Nolan’s past comments and the Greens’ continued support. “Adam Bandt must be kidding himself. This must be the first time that someone who has claimed that ‘Hitler was having fun’ has been described as a strong campaigner against antisemitism,” he said. “It says everything about the Greens political party that this individual is an endorsed candidate for the party.” At the last federal election, Labor’s Justine Elliott retained the seat of Richmond with 58.2 per cent of the vote on a two-party-preferred basis, defeating the Nationals. However, Nolan’s first-preference vote was a competitive 25.3 per cent, just behind Labor’s 28.8 per cent, positioning her as a serious contender. Despite the criticism and controversy, the Greens remain firmly behind Nolan’s candidacy, betting that her grassroots support and high profile in the Byron Bay region will outweigh the fallout from remarks made over a decade ago. Based on a report by The Australian 2025-04-11

@Jeff the Chef a number of your posts have been removed for baiting and off topic diversion attempts. Please stop now.

//closed// topic running here

Labour has quietly revised its plans for investigating grooming gangs, opting to drop its original proposal for five formal local inquiries and instead adopting a more flexible funding model for local councils. The change was announced just before Parliament went into recess, drawing criticism from the Conservative Party, which accused the Government of scaling back its commitment. Earlier this year, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper had pledged £5 million for up to five judge-led inquiries, modelled on the Telford investigation that uncovered systemic failures in tackling child sexual exploitation. That announcement came amid calls for a broader national inquiry, including from billionaire Elon Musk, who has vocally criticised the UK’s handling of grooming gang scandals. However, the Government now says the funding will be made available for a wider range of local initiatives. Jess Phillips, a Home Office minister, explained that “following feedback,” the £5 million will be offered to local councils to address grooming gangs in ways that suit their specific needs. “This could mean full independent local inquiries,” she said, “but could also include more bespoke work, including local victims’ panels or locally led audits of the handling of historical cases.” In response to criticism from the Conservatives, a Home Office spokesperson defended the decision, stating: “The £5 million funding announced in January is being made available to local authorities to help strengthen local responses to child sexual exploitation, and all local authorities will be able to apply for funding for local inquiries or other work in this area.” The spokesperson added, “The Home Secretary has written to every local authority on our plans to support local inquiries, and after listening to local authorities about what they need, we made the decision to implement the fund in a flexible way.” The original plan included collaboration with Tom Crowther KC, who chaired the Telford inquiry. He was expected to assist in developing a framework for victim-centred, locally led investigations and to work with Oldham and up to four other areas. But last week, Crowther revealed to the Home Affairs Committee that he had been left in the dark by the Home Office and even questioned whether his role was still required due to a lack of communication. Jess Phillips also told MPs that the Government is now developing a new best-practice framework to support councils seeking to carry out inquiries or other related work. “Alongside that, we will set out the process through which local authorities can access the £5 million national fund to support locally-led work on grooming gangs,” she said. In addition to the shift in approach to grooming gang inquiries, the Government announced the creation of a new child protection authority. This move responds to one of the central recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), led by Professor Alexis Jay. The IICSA, which ran for seven years, issued 20 recommendations in its final report in 2022 and described child sexual abuse as an “epidemic” across England and Wales. Speaking to Parliament, Phillips said the report’s publication should have marked a turning point. “But victims and survivors were failed again when recommendations were not properly taken forward under the previous government,” she said. “I can announce to the House that to prioritise the protection of children and to improve national oversight and consistency of child protection practice, this Government will establish a new child protection authority.” She added that the new authority would build on the work of the national child safeguarding review panel. “Work to expand the role of the panel will begin immediately, and we will consult on developing the new authority this year.” A Home Office source indicated that a detailed framework for selecting areas to host inquiries would be released soon and would be informed by the ongoing Baroness Casey audit, which is examining the scope, ethnic makeup, and geographical spread of grooming gang activity in the UK. The source added: “Arrests for child sexual exploitation and grooming have increased in the last nine months and following our action with police forces, cases where no further action was previously taken are now being looked at again. This Government will leave no stone unturned for victims of child sexual abuse.” Based on a report by The Telegraph 2025-04-10 Related Topics: The Silenced Truth: How Political Correctness Delayed Justice for Grooming Victims Britons Overwhelmingly Support a New Grooming Gang Inquiry Romanian Grooming Gang Convicted of Sexually Exploiting Women in Dundee Ethnicity of Grooming Gangs, Says Whistleblower’s Aide Grooming Networks Persist in Oxford, Warns Former Investigator Convicted Rochdale Grooming Gang Leader Still in the Town & not Deported Starmer Condemns 'Lies and Misinformation' Over Child Sexual Abuse UK Ex-MP Claims Grooming Gang Ethnicity Was Suppressed to Protect Votes Elon Musk Advocates for Tommy Robinson’s Release Amid Criticism of UK Leadership Kemi Badenoch Urges National Inquiry into UK Grooming Scandal

London has slipped out of the ranks of the world’s five wealthiest cities, suffering a dramatic loss of high-net-worth residents over the past year. According to a new report by New World Wealth, commissioned by Henley & Partners, the UK capital has lost 11,300 dollar millionaires in just twelve months — a higher percentage drop than any other city apart from Moscow. Among those leaving were 18 centimillionaires, individuals worth at least $100 million, and two billionaires. The report defines wealth as “liquid investable” assets such as cash, bonds, and equities, deliberately excluding property. Before the recent downturn in global markets, driven by economic uncertainty following Donald Trump’s tariff announcement, London already stood out as one of only two cities in the global top 50 — along with Moscow — to have seen a net decline in wealthy residents over the past decade. While cities like Paris recorded a five per cent rise in millionaires, London has seen its ultra-wealthy population shrink by 12 per cent since 2014. The causes behind London’s decline are multifaceted. Tax hikes, Brexit, and a weakened pound have all contributed to the exodus. But perhaps the most significant recent change has been the abolition of the UK’s centuries-old non-domiciled tax status. The Times reported last week that the flight of wealth intensified in the first quarter of the year, in anticipation of the change. From Monday, the non-dom regime has been replaced with a less generous residence-based system, meaning that foreign nationals who have lived in the UK for more than four years are now liable for income and capital gains tax on their global earnings. Should they remain in the country long enough, they will also face one of the world’s highest inheritance tax rates, set at 40 per cent. Wealth advisers suggest that affluent individuals are relocating to more tax-friendly jurisdictions, such as Portugal, the UAE, Greece, Spain, Italy, and the Caribbean island of St Kitts and Nevis. Italy, for instance, offers foreigners the opportunity to shield their global wealth from local taxes for an annual fee of €200,000. “Capital gains tax and estate duty rates [IHT] in the UK are amongst the highest in the world, which deters wealthy business owners and retirees from living there,” said Andrew Amoils, head of research at New World Wealth. “It’s worth noting that most of the companies on the FTSE 100 were started by centimillionaires, so the loss of these individuals has a massive impact on an economy.” He also pointed to long-term structural problems in the UK economy, including its inability to recover fully from the 2008 financial crisis and a failure to foster growth in technology and innovation. “The growing dominance of America and Asia in the global hi-tech space has caused wealthy tech entrepreneurs in the UK to reconsider their base location. Brexit has arguably had an exacerbating effect on this,” Amoils said. Another factor is the “dwindling importance” of the London Stock Exchange, which has fallen to 11th place globally by market capitalisation. “The past two decades have been particularly poor, with a large number of company de-listings and relatively few new IPOs,” he added. “The continued ascendance of nearby financial hubs such as Dubai, Paris, Geneva, Frankfurt and Amsterdam has eroded London’s status as Europe’s top financial centre.” In absolute numbers, London has lost around 30,000 millionaires over the past decade, more than any other city. Moscow, by comparison, has seen 10,000 millionaires leave, primarily due to the fallout from Vladimir Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. While London has now been overtaken by Los Angeles, American cities dominate the wealth rankings, with 11 in the global top 50. New York remains the wealthiest city on Earth, home to 384,500 dollar millionaires, followed by the San Francisco Bay Area, Tokyo, and Singapore. Manchester is the only other British city to make the top 50, ranking 46th with 23,400 millionaires. Henley & Partners CEO Juerg Steffen highlighted a global trend: “A clear pattern is emerging in 2025: cities that blend investment freedom with lifestyle dividends are winning the competition for mobile capital. These urban centres share common DNA — robust legal frameworks, sophisticated financial infrastructure and, perhaps most critically, investment migration programmes that welcome global talent and capital. Seven of the top ten wealthiest cities are in countries with residence-by-investment programmes, creating direct pathways for entrepreneurs and investors seeking access to these wealth hubs.” Despite the drop in its millionaire population, London still holds its place as one of the world’s most expensive cities. Its property prices per square metre trail only Monaco, Hong Kong, and New York, underlining its continued allure, albeit increasingly for those who can afford the cost without the tax advantages that once defined it. Based on a report by The Times 2025-04-10

Nurse Suspended After Refusing to Use Preferred Pronouns for Transgender Sex Offender A Christian NHS nurse has been suspended from her duties after refusing to refer to a transgender convicted paedophile as a woman, citing her faith. Jennifer Melle, 40, was removed from her post at St Helier Hospital in Carshalton, London, following an internal investigation. The decision comes after earlier disciplinary action against her for refusing to use female pronouns for a patient who was born male but identifies as a woman. Ms Melle said she was left in tears after a five-minute meeting with hospital management that resulted in her being escorted out of the building. “I am devastated to have been suspended simply for whistleblowing,” she said. “As a dedicated Christian nurse, I am experiencing relentless institutional abuse, harassment, bullying, and racial discrimination. Ever since I expressed my Christian beliefs under extreme pressure, I have been a marked woman. Despite being the one placed at risk, I am the one being punished. I have been made to feel like a criminal.” The incident that sparked the disciplinary measures occurred last year when a patient known only as Patient X was transferred from a men’s prison to Ms Melle’s ward for urinary treatment. During her shift, Ms Melle was informed that the patient intended to self-discharge, prompting a call to a doctor for guidance. While speaking with the doctor outside the patient’s room, Ms Melle referred to the patient using male pronouns and titles, explaining that she was describing a medical situation involving the removal of a catheter from a male body. “This was a real-life medical scenario that required accurate terminology to avoid any doubt between medical professionals,” she said. The patient, however, overheard the conversation and became upset at the use of male pronouns. Ms Melle told the patient, “Sorry I cannot refer to you as ‘her’ or ‘she’, as it’s against my faith and Christian values, but I can call you by your name.” According to Ms Melle, the patient responded with racial abuse, saying: “Imagine if I called you n-----? How about I call you n-----? Yes, black n-----.” She also claimed the patient tried to lunge at her while restrained and threatened to file a complaint. Despite the verbal abuse she endured, it was Ms Melle who faced formal disciplinary action. In October, she received a final warning and was referred to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). She has now filed a legal complaint, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, against the Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals Trust for harassment, discrimination, and human rights violations. It is understood that Ms Melle will remain on full pay during her suspension. Her case has sparked wider public debate, with Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative minister for women and equalities, describing her treatment as “completely crazy”. Badenoch added, “She has my full support. It’s time the Government pulls its finger out and intervenes to make it clear no one should be punished at work for stating biological reality to paedophiles.” A spokesperson for the NHS trust said: “We expect all members of staff to follow professional standards such as the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s code of conduct – this includes maintaining confidentiality for any patients in their care at all times. There is no excuse for racially abusing our staff, and we’re sorry that Ms Melle had this experience, and we’re investigating her complaints. As proceedings are still ongoing, it wouldn’t be right for us to comment further.” According to NMC guidelines, “As a nurse, midwife or nursing associate, you owe a duty of confidentiality to all those who are receiving care. This includes making sure that they are informed about their care and that information about them is shared appropriately.” Based on a report by The Telegraph 2025-04-10

Council Sparks Outrage by Calling VE Day Parade ‘Too Elitist’ Plans to mark the 80th anniversary of VE Day in Dacorum have ignited public backlash after the local council rejected a military parade, calling it “too elitist.” Instead, the Liberal Democrat-led Dacorum Borough Council in Hertfordshire has encouraged residents to organise their own street parties to commemorate the end of World War II in Europe on May 8. This decision stands in sharp contrast to last year’s lavish “50 Fest” organised by the same council to celebrate its own 50th anniversary, which featured a full-scale public parade in Hemel Hempstead. Now, with the country preparing for national commemorations—including a Westminster Abbey thanksgiving service attended by the Royal Family and veterans, and a London flypast—Dacorum’s refusal to host an official event has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Speaking at a council meeting on April 2, Caroline Smith-Wright explained the reasoning behind the decision: “We have decided at this point to enable communities to come together and have street parties and I think that is for the community, that is for everyone, that encompasses everybody – it doesn’t just leave the elite and people to just, kind of, parade. This is about normal people celebrating in their communities, bringing people together, sharing food, sitting at a table, celebrating and I think that’s a fine way to celebrate VE Day.” However, many councillors and residents felt the council had completely misjudged the importance of the occasion. Conservative councillor Graeme Elliot voiced his dismay: “I’m very dismayed about the lack of celebrations. My father fought in that war. I had an uncle who died in the Battle of France. That was the golden generation. So you think 50 years of a council is far more important than the men and women who gave their lives?” Labour councillor Pete Hannell echoed those sentiments and urged the council to rethink its decision in order to properly honour those who served. “My children and grandchildren are facing a war in Europe now where the aggressor is being appeased in the way that Chamberlain was arguably appeasing Hitler in 1938,” he said, drawing a parallel with modern conflicts. Independent councillor Jan Maddern also weighed in with disappointment, highlighting how the Covid pandemic had already disrupted previous plans for the 75th anniversary of VE Day. “I’m quite dismayed by this as well,” she said. “We missed in effect the 75th anniversary of VE Day because we were in Covid. I can remember having street parties where we all sat on our drives in my cul-de-sac, safe distancing from everyone else. I think we should do better.” She also noted that the council had previously provided party decorations for the last Royal wedding, yet offered nothing for the VE Day anniversary. In response to the criticism, Smith-Wright maintained that the council was still enabling commemorations through community events. “I do appreciate and understand everyone’s strong feelings. As far as street parties go, we invite residents to sign up to have their road closed – that’s an immense expense. It costs thousands to shut a road for a street party, it’s free currently.” The Liberal Democrats, who took control of Dacorum Borough Council last May, have faced internal upheaval in recent months. Allegations of misogyny and bullying led to the resignation of two council leaders, and eight female councillors left the party to sit as independents, leaving the council without overall control. Based on a report by The Telegraph 2025-04-10

Title: Trump Administration Pulls Nearly $4 Million in Climate Research Funding from Princeton The Trump administration has withdrawn close to $4 million in federal funding from Princeton University, according to a Tuesday announcement by the U.S. Department of Commerce. This move marks the latest in a series of funding halts and reviews impacting major Ivy League institutions, following similar actions taken against Columbia and Harvard in recent weeks. The funding cuts specifically target research projects related to climate change, including one focused on how global warming affects water availability. These projects were previously supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a subagency of the Department of Commerce. The administration justified the decision by stating that the programs “are no longer aligned with the program objectives of NOAA” and “are no longer in keeping with the Trump Administration's priorities.” The Commerce Department elaborated on the decision, saying, “Using federal funds to perpetuate these narratives does not align with the priorities of this Administration and such time and resources can be better utilized elsewhere.” The department emphasized that this latest move followed “a detailed, careful, and thorough review” of its financial assistance programs to NOAA. The administration stated that ending these projects would help to “streamline and reduce the cost and size of the Federal Government, consistent with President Trump’s promise for his Administration.” The implication is that climate research, particularly research pointing to global warming risks, is not considered a federal funding priority under the current administration. This decision is part of a broader pattern of reduced support for environmental and climate science under President Trump, who has frequently expressed skepticism toward climate change. Critics argue that pulling funding from leading research institutions hampers scientific progress and undermines efforts to understand and address climate risks. Representatives for Princeton University, NOAA, and the Department of Commerce did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment. Based on a report by AXIOS 2025-04-10

Supreme Court to Lower Judges: Stay in Your Lane — Trump Scores Three Judicial Victories In a series of key rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court has delivered what amounts to a triple win for President Donald Trump, while issuing a firm reminder to lower courts: respect judicial boundaries and procedures. These decisions, handed down over the course of a week, do not decide the underlying legal merits of the cases but emphasize the importance of proper legal channels and standing. On Monday, a narrow 5-4 majority gave the Trump administration a partial victory regarding the deportation of Venezuelan nationals suspected of being involved with the Tren de Aragua gang. The Court allowed the administration to proceed under the Alien Enemies Act, but clarified that challenges to such deportations must be filed through habeas corpus petitions in the districts where the individuals are detained, rather than as broad class actions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Court also insisted that deportees be given notice and an opportunity to contest their deportations. This means that although deportations may continue, the administration cannot summarily deport these individuals without due process, and the use of the Alien Enemies Act remains subject to legal scrutiny. In essence, deportees retain the right to challenge the law’s application in court. The liberal Justices, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, dissented, preferring to keep a lower court’s order blocking deportations in place. However, critics argued this would have rewarded plaintiffs for forum-shopping after they initially filed and then withdrew habeas petitions to pursue a more favorable venue. Justice Brett Kavanaugh supported the majority’s position, writing in a concurrence that “the use of habeas for transfer claims is not novel. In the extradition context and with respect to transfers of Guantanamo and other wartime detainees, habeas corpus proceedings have long been the appropriate vehicle.” The ruling essentially opens the door for multiple district courts to weigh the legal viability of using the Alien Enemies Act for gang-related deportations, preventing one judge from halting the process nationwide. On Tuesday, the Court again checked judicial overreach by lifting an order that had required the Trump administration to reinstate 16,000 fired federal employees. The Justices did not rule on the merits but found that the environmental groups and labor unions behind the lawsuit lacked legal standing. To bring a case in federal court, plaintiffs must show they are likely to suffer a direct and concrete harm—a principle rooted in Article III of the Constitution. The plaintiffs’ claim that public service reductions might result from the firings was deemed speculative. Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the ruling. The majority pointed out that the fired employees still had recourse to challenge their dismissals through the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Supreme Court issued its third ruling on Friday, again emphasizing procedural discipline. In a 5-4 decision, the Court permitted the Department of Education to withhold $65 million in grants intended for teacher training. A lower court had ordered the funds to be disbursed, but the Supreme Court ruled that the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity does not extend to enforcing contractual obligations to pay money. Those seeking such payments must pursue claims in federal claims court instead. This echoed an earlier dissent from Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh, which Justice Barrett joined this time—though Chief Justice John Roberts did not. Justice Elena Kagan dissented sharply, accusing the conservative majority of “making new law on our emergency docket,” and arguing, “we should have allowed the dispute to proceed in the ordinary way.” However, the majority countered that it was doing precisely that—ensuring cases proceed through regular judicial processes. The consistent thread through all three decisions is a reassertion of the Supreme Court’s expectation that lower courts stick to their jurisdictional responsibilities and uphold procedural integrity. Whether or not the cases ultimately favor the Trump administration, the High Court’s message is clear: judicial order must be preserved. Based on a report by WSJ 2025-04-10

Prince Harry Claims Unfair Treatment Over Security in UK Court Battle Prince Harry has appeared in court to argue that he was unfairly treated when his automatic taxpayer-funded police protection was withdrawn following his decision to step back from royal duties. The Duke of Sussex, now 40, is suing the UK home secretary over a decision made by the royal and VIP executive committee (Ravec), which removed his entitlement to publicly funded security while visiting the country. Arriving at the Court of Appeal in London on Tuesday, flanked by two bodyguards, Harry claimed he had been “singled out” for “inferior treatment” compared to others in similar positions. His legal team insists he is not demanding a reinstatement of the same protection he received as a working royal but is instead asking to be treated like any other individual considered for security under Ravec’s guidelines. “His case is that he should be considered under the terms of reference and subject to the same process as any other individual being considered for protective security by Ravec, unless there is a cogent reason to the contrary,” said his barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC. Fatima argued that Ravec failed to apply its usual risk assessment procedures to Harry’s case, opting instead for a “bespoke process” that wasn’t used for anyone else. “Harry does not accept that ‘bespoke’ means ‘better’. In fact, in his submission, it means that he has been singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment,” she told the court. She also stated that the risk management board, which provides independent expert advice to Ravec, was not consulted in Harry’s case, meaning the committee made its decision without vital analysis. In a written statement submitted to the court, Harry’s team said that he and Meghan, 43, felt forced to step back from being full-time working royals in 2020 because “they were not being protected by the institution”. However, they had hoped to continue supporting the late Queen Elizabeth as privately funded members of the royal family. The prince, who was seen taking notes in a cream-coloured notebook with a black pen, has returned to the UK for the first time since attending the WellChild awards in September. It is understood that despite being in the country, King Charles did not meet with Harry before departing for Italy on Monday. During the hearing, the court was told that following the Ravec decision, an al-Qaeda-linked group had issued a threat calling for Harry “to be murdered”, claiming his death “would please the Muslim community.” Additionally, his legal team cited the “dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi” in New York in May 2023, which they say demonstrated a “reckless disregard of vehicle and traffic laws”. The court has also heard that Harry offered to pay for his own security during a key family meeting at Sandringham in January 2020. In his memoir Spare, Harry described the terms of that departure as a “fix”. Fatima told the court, “It was deemed that Harry and his wife ceased to be full-time working members of the royal family on March 31, 2020, even though it had been agreed at the Sandringham meeting that ‘this agreement will be reviewed in one year’s time to determine suitability for all parties’.” Representing the home secretary, Sir James Eadie KC argued that Harry’s changed status meant his entitlement to security could no longer be automatic. “The decision was that, his position having materially changed, protective security would not be authorised on the same basis as before. Instead, [Harry’s] security would be considered depending on the circumstances,” he explained. Eadie added that Harry would still be eligible for protection “in particular circumstances” when visiting the UK. Harry previously faced a legal setback when a High Court judge dismissed one of his claims, leaving him with a legal bill that could reach £1 million. The Home Office disclosed that its own legal expenses had already reached £407,000 before the earlier trial began. If Harry is successful in this case, the additional legal costs, which are expected to be substantial, could be covered by taxpayers. Sir Geoffrey Vos, the master of the rolls, announced that the court would hear two and a half hours of confidential evidence behind closed doors on Wednesday. The hearing is ongoing. Based on a report by The Times 2025-04-10

Man Accused of Plotting Trump Assassination Allegedly Tried to Buy Rocket Launcher from Ukraine Ryan Wesley Routh, the 58-year-old man accused of attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump, reportedly sought to purchase a rocket launcher from Ukraine just weeks before his arrest, according to new court documents filed by federal prosecutors on Monday. Authorities say Routh engaged in a series of encrypted messages with someone he believed to be a Ukrainian contact who had access to military-grade weapons. In these exchanges, Routh allegedly made direct requests for powerful armaments, including a rocket-propelled grenade or a Stinger missile, expressing clear intent to use them against Trump. “Send me an RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] or Stinger and I will see what we can do… [Trump] is not good for Ukraine,” he wrote in one of the messages, according to the filings. Routh reportedly continued the conversation by asking about logistics and cost, inquiring whether the weapon could be shipped to him. “I need equipment so that Trump cannot get elected,” he stated. The filings indicate a premeditated effort to interfere with Trump’s political prospects using violent means. In what prosecutors argue demonstrates both motive and intent, Routh acknowledged the difficulty of obtaining such weapons within the United States, saying, “Going to the local store for such an item is impossible – however you are at war so those items lost and destroyed daily – one missing would not be noticed.” The court documents claim Routh also sent an image of Trump’s private plane to his contact, noting, “he gets on and off daily,” in what appears to be reconnaissance related to a planned attack. Prosecutors are using these messages as critical evidence that Routh had been actively planning to kill Trump. The alleged plot was disrupted on September 15 at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida, where a Secret Service agent noticed the muzzle of a rifle emerging from shrubbery near the property. Routh reportedly dropped his SKS semiautomatic rifle and fled the scene in an SUV, leaving behind two backpacks, the firearm, and a GoPro camera. Authorities captured him approximately 40 minutes later on Interstate 95 in Martin County, Florida. A subsequent search of Routh’s vehicle revealed handwritten notes about joining the war effort in Ukraine, further linking his political motivations with the ongoing conflict overseas, according to court documents. Routh’s defense attorneys are currently attempting to have several pieces of evidence—including an eyewitness account—excluded from his upcoming trial, which is expected to draw significant national attention. This case, steeped in international intrigue, political motivation, and allegations of attempted presidential assassination, continues to unfold as prosecutors and defense attorneys battle over what evidence will be admissible in court. Based on a report by NYP 2025-04-10

Tensions Escalate as Israel Orders Closure of Six UN Schools in East Jerusalem Israeli forces have raided six United Nations-run schools in East Jerusalem and ordered their closure within 30 days, according to statements from both Israel’s Ministry of Education and UNRWA, the UN agency that supports Palestinian refugees. The closures will directly affect approximately 800 Palestinian students, who may now be unable to complete their academic year, UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini stated on social media. “UNRWA schools are protected by the privileges and immunities of the United Nations,” said Lazzarini. “Today’s unauthorized entries and issuance of closure orders are a violation of these protections.” The affected schools serve Palestinian communities in East Jerusalem, part of the territory Israel has occupied since 1967. UNRWA also operates in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel’s Ministry of Education released a statement confirming the closures and said parents had been instructed to register their children at alternative schools. “The professional staff at the Ministry of Education continue to support the educational framework for each student,” the ministry noted, without elaborating on how displaced students would be accommodated. The move follows a law passed by Israel’s parliament in October that bans UNRWA from operating within Israeli territory and annuls a decades-old treaty signed in 1967 that allowed the agency to function in the area. Yulia Malinovsky, a member of the Israeli parliament and sponsor of the legislation, confirmed the schools would have until May 8 to shut their doors. “We’re doing everything we can to implement the UNRWA bills fully in all institutions and in all aspects,” Malinovsky said. Israel has long criticized UNRWA, accusing it of harboring Hamas sympathizers among its staff and promoting anti-Israel content through its educational materials. These allegations intensified following claims by the Israel Defense Forces that a few of UNRWA’s 13,000 employees in Gaza were involved in the October 7 attacks. However, UNRWA has categorically denied these assertions, saying there is “absolutely no ground for a blanket description of ‘the institution as a whole’ being ‘totally infiltrated.’” An independent inquiry commissioned by the United Nations found that while there were occasional instances of anti-Israel bias in textbooks used by UNRWA, these examples were considered “marginal” but still amounted to “a grave violation of neutrality.” The decision to close the schools marks a new low in the already strained relationship between Israel and the United Nations agency. As the May 8 deadline looms, the future of education for hundreds of Palestinian children in East Jerusalem hangs in the balance. Based on a report by CNN 2025-04-10 Related Topics: January 30 Deadline Approaches for UNRWA to cease Operations in Jerusalem UNRWA in Gaza: Aid and Allegations Amid Complex Tensions Moment Debate | Should UNRWA be shut down? Victims of October 7 Attack Sue UNRWA for $1 Billion, Accusing It of Aiding Hamas UNRWA textbooks were pivotal in radicalizing generations of Gazans — watchdog ‘We did not know’: Hamas data center directly under UNRWA Gaza City HQ US lawmakers demand resignations of UN secretary general & UNRWA chief

Wall Street Rebounds Sharply as Trump Softens Tariff Stance U.S. stocks experienced a dramatic rebound after President Donald Trump unexpectedly announced a reversal on steep tariff hikes, choosing instead to implement a 10% universal import tax. The announcement sparked a surge across financial markets, marking one of the biggest rallies in recent years. The decision comes just a day after new tariffs had taken effect, targeting key U.S. trade partners including Vietnam, which had been hit with a sharp 46% levy. These measures, unveiled by Trump the previous week, were broader and more severe than expected, triggering a steep selloff in equities and a wave of recession fears both domestically and abroad. In a significant shift, the White House stated that higher tariffs would be paused for countries open to negotiation. However, Trump maintained a hard line on China, stating that tariffs on Chinese goods would rise “effective immediately” to at least 125%. The market responded with enthusiasm. The S&P 500 soared 9.5%, notching its largest single-day gain since the 2008 financial crisis. The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed more than 7.8%, while the Nasdaq surged over 12%. Companies heavily reliant on Asian manufacturing, such as Nike and Apple, saw notable gains of 11% and 15% respectively. The market’s dramatic turnaround followed days of intense volatility. Prior to Trump’s pivot, fears of an economic downturn had spilled over into the bond market, with investors dumping U.S. government debt in anticipation of a prolonged trade war. “Although President Donald Trump was able to resist the stock market sell-off, once the bond market began to weaken too, it was only a matter of time before he folded,” said Paul Ashworth, chief North America economist at Capital Economics. Ashworth suggested that the president’s retreat reflects a return to his original campaign promise of a broad 10% tariff across the board, but warned that resolving tensions with China will be a lengthy process. “It is difficult to see either side backing down in the next few days,” he said. “But we suspect that talks will eventually happen, although a full rollback of all the additional tariffs applied since Inauguration Day appear unlikely.” Despite the day’s bullish rally, major indexes remained below pre-tariff levels. The S&P 500 was still down about 3% from last week and over 8% year-to-date. Tariffs on Chinese goods continue to loom large over the economy, with China accounting for more than $400 billion in U.S. imports last year, including 60% of footwear and 36% of apparel, according to the American Apparel and Footwear Association. Prior to the policy shift, the National Retail Federation had warned that shipping traffic through U.S. ports could fall 20% in May compared to the previous year. Following his announcement, Trump expressed optimism about reaching a deal with China and floated the possibility of granting tariff exemptions to certain companies, an approach that contrasts with his previously hardline stance. “I saw last night where people were getting a little queasy,” Trump said, acknowledging market unease while reiterating his intent to maintain tariffs on sectors such as autos, steel, aluminium, and possibly pharmaceuticals and lumber. Political pressure is believed to have played a role in Trump’s sudden change of course. Influential backers like Tesla’s Elon Musk, hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman, and Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy had urged the president to reconsider his tariff strategy. The about-face even surprised major financial institutions. Just before Trump’s announcement, Goldman Sachs released a report warning of a potential recession due to escalating tariffs. Mere hours later, the bank revised its outlook, still predicting minimal economic growth for the year and putting the chances of recession at 45%, despite the softened policy. Ackman, who had previously called for a 90-day tariff moratorium, praised the president’s decision. “Thank you on behalf of all Americans,” he wrote on social media. Based on a report by BBC 2025-04-10