Social Media

Off topic post on US opiods removed. @frank83628

President-elect Donald Trump has fiercely criticized President Joe Biden's decision to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, who faced potential prison sentences for federal felony gun and tax convictions. In a post on Truth Social on Sunday, Trump lambasted the move, calling it a "miscarriage of justice" and questioned whether the pardon extended to the Jan. 6 Capitol rioters. "Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years? Such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice!" Trump wrote, drawing a comparison between Hunter Biden’s pardon and the treatment of those incarcerated for their roles in the Capitol attack. Trump's reaction highlights a significant shift in his stance. Months earlier, during an October interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Trump had entertained the notion of pardoning Hunter Biden himself, should he return to the White House. While Trump denounced Hunter as a "bad boy," citing allegations linked to the infamous "laptop from hell," he expressed reservations about the broader implications for the country. "Despite what they’ve done to me... I happen to think it’s very bad for our country," Trump remarked, signaling that a pardon might be in the national interest to quell political discord. President Biden’s pardon spares Hunter significant prison time related to two federal cases brought by Special Counsel David Weiss. Over the summer, Hunter was convicted on three felony counts connected to his purchase and possession of a firearm while battling drug addiction. Later, in September, he agreed to plead guilty to nine tax-related charges, including three felonies, narrowly avoiding a contentious trial. Initially, President Biden had vehemently denied that he would intervene on his son’s behalf, emphasizing judicial independence. Yet, on the Sunday evening after Thanksgiving, in a low-profile announcement, Biden reversed course. In a statement, the president defended his decision, framing it as a response to relentless attacks on his son and their broader impact on him as a father. “There has been an effort to break Hunter - who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution,” Biden explained. “In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me - and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.” The move has reignited debates about justice and accountability, with critics arguing that the pardon demonstrates political favoritism and a rewriting of ethical norms. Supporters, however, view it as a necessary step to protect a family subjected to extraordinary scrutiny and personal attacks. As the nation grapples with the implications of Hunter Biden’s pardon, Trump’s criticism reflects the deep political divide over the issue, signaling that it will remain a contentious point in the months leading up to his own return to office. Based on a report by the ABC News | BBC 2024-12-02

Trolling image removed making unsubstaniated claims along with an inflammatory troll posts

Troll post has been removed @JBChiangRai, the topic here is: Australia Urged to Rethink ICC Membership Amid Controversial Arrest Warrants

Topic re opened after clean up, one poster removed.

A post containing a link with false claims from an unappoved source has been removed.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has plunged into a legitimacy crisis following its issuance of an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This action, which has been denounced as improper, extra-jurisdictional, and illegitimate by France and other nations, has raised serious questions about the court's credibility and relevance. Far from upholding international justice, the ICC's decision appears to undermine its own authority and purpose. Critics argue that the warrant is not only without merit but also a profound violation of the court's own principles. The ICC’s decision has effectively positioned itself as an institution disregarding legal norms and overstepping its jurisdiction. This episode, in the view of many observers, signals the court's descent into irrelevance. Like the League of Nations after World War I, the ICC now risks being seen as an ineffectual and obsolete body, unworthy of continued funding or support. Former Attorney General Sir Michael Ellis underscores the foundational problem: the ICC has no authority over nations that are not signatories to its treaty. Both Israel and the United States have refrained from ratifying the Rome Statute that established the ICC, primarily due to concerns about potential bias. By targeting Netanyahu, the court disregarded this crucial limitation, effectively imposing its rules on a non-member state. This is akin to being forced to adhere to the policies of an organization you have no affiliation with—a glaring overreach that undermines the court’s credibility. Even among member states, the ICC's jurisdiction is limited. It can only intervene when a signatory nation is either unwilling or unable to prosecute credible allegations of wrongdoing. Israel, however, boasts a robust and impartial judicial system. Its courts have consistently demonstrated their independence, with decisions often challenging government actions. A notable example includes an Arab Israeli Supreme Court judge presiding over a case involving a Jewish prime minister. Despite these facts, the ICC chose to bypass Israel's established legal processes, further eroding its own legitimacy. The court’s dismissal of diplomatic immunity adds another layer of controversy. Diplomatic immunity for heads of government is a principle deeply rooted in international and British law, dating back to the early 18th century and recognized even in antiquity. Herodotus documented its existence in ancient times. By ignoring this long-established norm, the ICC has disregarded yet another cornerstone of international legal practice. The precision and legality of Israel's military actions have also been highlighted by experts such as Professor John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point Military Academy. Spencer asserts that Israel’s military operations are conducted with a level of precision surpassing those of Western powers, including the U.S. and the U.K. Despite these commendable standards, the ICC's focus has shifted to a democratically-elected leader defending his nation, rather than addressing more egregious violations of international law by regimes in Iran or Syria. The backlash to the ICC’s actions has been swift and widespread. Both the Biden administration and the anticipated Trump administration have expressed outrage, fearing the precedent set by targeting Netanyahu could extend to U.S. leaders. Other Western nations share this concern, viewing the warrant as an act of "lawfare"—the misuse of legal mechanisms to achieve political objectives. This debacle has dealt a severe blow to the ICC’s credibility. For an institution ostensibly committed to impartial justice, it has veered dangerously off course. If the ICC continues to prioritize politically motivated actions over principled legal standards, its survival as a meaningful entity is doubtful. As Ellis aptly concludes, the ICC may already be a sinking ship. Letting it slip beneath the waves might be the only way forward. Based on a report by Sir Michael Ellis ex Attorney General for England and Wales, Daily Telegraph 2024-12-02 Related Topics ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant Over Alleged War Crimes Australia Urged to Rethink ICC Membership Amid Controversial Arrest Warrants Boris Johnson Accuses Starmer of Aligning with Hamas Over ICC Netanyahu Arrest Warrant Trump's Storm Looms Over the ICC

Imagine yourself as president, grappling with the fallout of your child’s legal troubles. Would you use the power of your office to offer them a second chance? For most parents, the answer would be yes, regardless of the consequences. President Joe Biden likely feels the same about his son Hunter. And while pardoning Hunter is a decision laden with political risk, it is one Biden should make—and one that Donald Trump should publicly endorse. Hunter Biden’s struggles have been well-documented. Once a man mired in addiction, his past actions have made him a polarizing figure. Though speculative accusations, like the recent cocaine incident at the White House, remain unproven, Hunter’s legal convictions for tax fraud and violating federal gun laws are undeniable. His misdeeds have made him a target for criticism, especially among those who dislike his father. However, his transgressions, serious as they are, have little personal impact on the broader public. Pardoning Hunter isn’t about absolving him of guilt or forgetting the consequences of his actions. Instead, it’s about recognizing the bond of family. Joe Biden has consistently emphasized the importance of family throughout his career, and offering clemency to his son would align with those values. It wouldn’t mean Hunter escapes public judgment—his convictions will remain a part of his narrative. Even with a pardon, the public won’t forget his crimes, just as no one forgot the O.J. Simpson trial despite a not-guilty verdict. However, this situation transcends personal redemption. It has the potential to become a political quagmire. Without bipartisan support, a pardon would likely be framed as an act of favoritism or a desperate move to protect a family member. This is where Donald Trump could play a transformative role. By publicly encouraging Biden to pardon Hunter, Trump has the opportunity to demonstrate magnanimity and defy his critics. Such an act would portray Trump not as the divisive figure his opponents paint him to be, but as a leader capable of empathy and understanding. He could frame his support as a reflection of the universal challenges of parenting, saying something like, “I know Hunter is guilty, but I also understand a father’s love. If he has turned his life around, I believe he deserves a second chance.” This move would also benefit Trump strategically. It would shift the narrative surrounding him, presenting him as someone willing to set aside political differences for the greater good. Moreover, supporting the pardon would reduce the media frenzy likely to ensue if Biden acted without such endorsement, sparing Trump’s incoming administration from unnecessary distractions. In essence, Hunter Biden’s potential pardon could serve as a rare moment of political unity. For Joe Biden, it would be a demonstration of familial loyalty. For Donald Trump, it would be a calculated yet compassionate gesture, showing his critics—and perhaps the world—that he is more than the caricature often portrayed. Ultimately, offering clemency to Hunter Biden doesn’t erase his past, nor does it diminish the seriousness of his crimes. But it does offer a chance to acknowledge growth, forgiveness, and the enduring power of family. By encouraging this act, Trump could redefine perceptions of his character and pave the way for a smoother transition into his administration, all while making a statement about the human side of politics. Based on a report by The Hill 2024-12-02

Despite widespread public frustration, the ideology often referred to as "wokery" is not only alive in the UK but thriving within its major institutions. Elon Musk may have declared that “the tide has turned” on woke culture in the United States, but such optimism does not hold true across the Atlantic. In Britain, the progressive values associated with this movement have become deeply entrenched, extending their influence over sectors ranging from education and healthcare to arts and media. The apparent quieting of prominent activists doesn’t signify a loss; rather, it signals their victory. These ideals dominate some of the nation’s most influential organizations, including the civil service, universities, and even unexpected corners such as luxury car advertising. A prime example of this influence can be seen at the BBC, an institution funded by the British public. The broadcaster recently awarded its “Women’s Footballer of the Year” title to Barbra Banda, a player who had been disqualified from competing in the 2022 Women’s Africa Cup of Nations for failing to meet sex eligibility standards. The decision sparked outrage, with J.K. Rowling summarizing public sentiment by stating, “Presumably the BBC decided this was more time-efficient than going door-to-door to spit directly in women’s faces.” Football itself offers another striking example. In a women’s match this summer, a teenage player questioned whether a member of the opposing team was a man. The player was biologically male, yet the governing authorities deemed the question transphobic. The result? A six-match ban for the teenage girl. The decision highlights a growing trend: concerns over fairness and safety in women’s sports are often dismissed as discrimination, leaving those who question such practices vulnerable to censure. This issue underscores the growing chasm between the public and the cultural elite. Many Britons find the inclusion of biologically male athletes in women’s sports problematic, citing safety concerns and the inherent physical advantages males often possess. The public prioritizes safeguarding fairness and physical well-being over the potential for emotional offense, but such views are increasingly marginalized by those in power. Despite polls and surveys reflecting public discontent, the ideology persists, largely because it has been absorbed into the worldview of those shaping policies, culture, and education. These values are no longer fringe; they are the norm among those who govern and influence British society. The resistance from ordinary citizens seems irrelevant when faced with the institutional grip of this "pious, poisonous progressivism." The reality is inescapable: woke culture is not in decline. It is firmly established, unapologetically present, and poised to remain a dominant force. Its advocates are not merely content with their victories; they continue to reinforce their ideals, ensuring that their influence extends even further. For those who resist, the message is clear—woke culture is not just alive but thriving, and its proponents show no signs of relenting. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-12-02

The European Parliament has entered into a groundbreaking agreement with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), marking the first formal collaboration between the two institutions to facilitate internal investigations into corruption and fraud. The agreement, signed by European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, reflects a continued effort to bolster transparency and accountability within the EU. The agreement, obtained by POLITICO, provides EPPO with streamlined access to the Parliament’s premises and documents relevant to ongoing investigations. It also establishes protocols for requesting the relinquishment of immunity for lawmakers and staff, a move intended to enhance the effectiveness of corruption probes. “This agreement will make our fight against crime and fraud faster and better. Ultimately, this is about protecting EU taxpayers’ money,” said Metsola, underscoring the broader goal of safeguarding public funds. The signing of the agreement follows a similar arrangement EPPO reached with the European Commission in 2021 and comes amidst an ongoing EPPO investigation into the European People’s Party (EPP), one of the Parliament’s political groups. Under the new framework, investigations involving Members of the European Parliament will require coordination through Metsola, while inquiries related to staff will go through the secretary-general. Victor Negrescu, the Parliament’s vice-president overseeing anti-corruption and transparency policies, praised the agreement as a major advancement. “It is a huge step forward for our institution and a clear message of support for EPPO by the European Parliament,” he said. Negrescu highlighted the dual purpose of the agreement: to enhance anti-corruption mechanisms and provide legal certainty for EPPO’s investigative efforts. To ensure mutual accountability, the agreement stipulates that EPPO must notify the Parliament at least 48 hours before conducting any raids and keep the institution informed about the progress of investigations. Conversely, the Parliament is required to report any financial criminal conduct among its staff to EPPO. This collaboration underscores the European Parliament’s commitment to fostering transparency and accountability within its ranks, sending a strong message of support for EPPO’s efforts to combat corruption and protect EU resources. Based on a report by Politico 2024-12-02

The Scottish government has announced that all pensioners in Scotland will be eligible for a winter fuel payment beginning in the 2025/26 financial year. This significant move, intended to alleviate fuel poverty among older residents, was revealed by Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville in a statement to the Scottish Parliament. The policy, which aims to reverse recent changes to winter fuel support, will benefit an estimated 900,000 pensioners in Scotland. These individuals had previously been excluded from universal access to the winter fuel payment after changes by both the UK and Scottish governments limited eligibility to those receiving pension credit or other means-tested benefits. Under the new proposal, payments will vary based on eligibility and age. Pensioners receiving pension credit or other qualifying benefits will be entitled to payments of either £200 or £300, depending on their age group. Those who do not meet the criteria for these benefits will still receive a reduced payment of £100, ensuring that support is extended universally to all pensioners. Shirley-Anne Somerville, addressing the Parliament, emphasized the Scottish government’s commitment to fairness and respect in social policies. She stated, "This Scottish government is determined to stay true to our values. On our watch, we will treat people in this country with fairness, dignity, and respect." The announcement marks a shift in policy following the decision earlier this year to limit winter fuel payments to a narrower group of recipients. Explaining the rationale behind the new plan, Somerville added, "We will not abandon older people this winter, or indeed any winter, and we will continue to protect our pensioners from the harsh reality of a UK Labour government." If the regulations are approved, the universal Pension Age Winter Heating Payment will come into effect before the winter season of 2025. This development reaffirms the Scottish government’s pledge to support its older population during the challenging winter months. Based on a report by Sky News 2024-12-02

The global climate crisis has scientists sounding the alarm about the potential collapse of a vital oceanic system that could wreak havoc across the planet. The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), often described as the Earth’s central heating system, is weakening at an alarming rate. If it collapses, the consequences could include severe droughts, rising sea levels, frozen European winters, and a reduction in the ocean’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide—a critical function in mitigating climate change. The AMOC operates as part of the global conveyor belt, a system of deep-ocean currents driven by temperature and salinity. This intricate circulation moves warm water northward and cold water southward, helping to regulate global temperatures and sustain marine ecosystems by transporting nutrients. However, an influx of freshwater from melting glaciers and ice sheets—particularly in Greenland and Canada—is disrupting this delicate balance. Freshwater, being less dense than saltwater, slows the currents, compounding the already fragile state of the AMOC. Recent research from the University of New South Wales highlights the accelerating impact of climate change on this crucial system. The study reveals that the AMOC is now weaker than at any point in the past thousand years and is projected to become one-third weaker than its strength 70 years ago if global temperatures rise by 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. Such a temperature increase could trigger simultaneous climate disasters, from extreme weather to ecological collapse. The situation grows more dire when factoring in the accelerated melting of Greenland’s ice sheet. The study warns that the AMOC could weaken by an additional 30% by 2040—two decades earlier than previously anticipated. These findings challenge the projections of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has underestimated the speed of the AMOC’s decline, according to Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf, an expert on the subject who was not involved in the study. “I’ve compared it to sailing with a ship into uncharted waters,” said Rahmstorf. “You know there are rocks under the surface that you can’t see. It’s dangerous, but you don’t know exactly where they are. That’s the kind of situation we are facing here.” While the collapse of the AMOC would not be immediate, it would unfold over 50 to 100 years once the tipping point is reached. However, this tipping point could arrive within a few decades, a scenario Rahmstorf describes as “entirely plausible.” The implications of such a collapse are severe, with impacts requiring further study. Yet Rahmstorf emphasized the urgency of prevention over analysis. “It’s more important to try and prevent this from happening than studying in more detail what it would mean. Of course, we can do both at the same time, hopefully,” he said. Rahmstorf and 43 other international scientists recently issued a stark warning to the Nordic Council of Ministers, calling for immediate action to avoid crossing this catastrophic tipping point. Among the co-signers were UC Riverside’s Dr. Wei Liu and NASA’s Dr. Anastasia Romanou, who highlighted the inadequacies of current climate models. “The IPCC had said, for example, that we don’t expect this to happen before 2100,” Romanou explained. “But what people don’t realize is that the IPCC models don’t simulate ice sheet collapse or extreme events like the ones we’ve witnessed in recent years.” She added that while the precise timing remains uncertain, the collapse of the AMOC could happen within decades and would be nothing short of catastrophic. “Whether it happens in 20, 30, or 50 years, we have to take measures now to avoid these effects.” The path forward is clear to many scientists: reduce greenhouse gas emissions drastically to limit further warming. The world must act swiftly to preserve this critical ocean system and stave off the devastating impacts of its collapse. Based on a report by The Independent 2024-12-02

President Joe Biden, backed by an administration brimming with accomplished advisers, has faced sharp criticism over his handling of the war in Ukraine. Despite decades of foreign policy experience and a team of highly credentialed experts, Biden’s approach has been viewed by some as cautious to a fault. Rather than seizing a pivotal opportunity to decisively aid Ukraine and reshape the geopolitical landscape, his administration’s measured response has been accused of prolonging the conflict and emboldening adversaries. When Russia amassed its invasion force in late 2021 and early 2022, the U.S. had accurate intelligence and warned Ukraine of the impending attack. However, U.S. officials misjudged what would unfold. They assumed Ukraine stood no chance against Russia’s seemingly formidable military and prepared for a swift Russian victory. Reeling from the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan months earlier, Biden reportedly lamented the new crisis, saying, “Jesus Christ! Now I’ve got to deal with Russia swallowing Ukraine?” as detailed in Bob Woodward’s book, *War.* This pessimistic outlook proved incorrect. Russia’s military, though powerful, was riddled with corruption, logistical challenges, and morale issues. In contrast, Ukraine displayed extraordinary resilience, adaptability, and determination. This unexpected dynamic presented the U.S. with a rare strategic opportunity. Aiding Ukraine in swiftly defeating Russia could have significantly altered global power dynamics. A victorious Ukraine could have joined NATO, shifting the balance of power in Europe toward democratic nations, securing the region, and restoring confidence in U.S. leadership following the Afghanistan debacle. Such a victory might have allowed the U.S. to reduce its military focus on Europe and redirect resources to the Indo-Pacific, countering the growing influence of China. However, Biden’s administration pursued a cautious “Goldilocks strategy,” attempting to support Ukraine without provoking Russian President Vladimir Putin excessively. Early in the war, the U.S. limited its military aid to Ukraine, providing only short-range weaponry and restricting its use. The Biden administration was reluctant to enable Ukraine to strike Russian forces in Crimea, despite its internationally recognized status as Ukrainian territory illegally occupied by Russia since 2014. This hesitancy, critics argue, constrained Ukraine’s ability to capitalize on its early successes and prolonged the war. Biden’s recent decision to allow limited strikes on military targets in Russia, coming nearly three years into the conflict, underscores this incremental approach. Meanwhile, Russia has deepened its alliances with China, Iran, and North Korea, creating a formidable anti-Western bloc. The prolonged conflict has brought untold suffering to Ukraine, with rising casualties and a growing catalog of war crimes. It has also diminished the West’s standing as Russia showcases its ability to endure prolonged economic and military pressure. For Biden, the war represents a missed moment—an opportunity to decisively counter Russian aggression, strengthen NATO, and reshape the global order in favor of democratic alliances. Instead, the world has become more dangerous. Ukraine continues to fight valiantly, but the U.S.’s piecemeal support has left the conflict unresolved. Critics argue that the administration’s reluctance to take bolder action has squandered a chance to ensure global stability, leaving a more fractured and volatile international landscape in its wake. Based on a report by The Atlantic 2024-12-02

Allegations against Gregg Wallace, the prominent TV presenter of *MasterChef* and *Eat Well for Less*, have intensified as a former producer has come forward, accusing him of inappropriate conduct. Georgia Harding, who worked on *MasterChef* between 2014 and 2015 and later on *Eat Well for Less*, has publicly raised concerns about his behavior, claiming it was dismissed at the time as part of his personality. Harding alleges that Wallace undressed in front of colleagues despite having access to a private changing room and frequently made inappropriate sexual jokes in the presence of the crew and show participants. She stated, “It was like ‘oh, that’s Gregg.’” According to her, this casual dismissal of his actions created a culture where his behavior was normalized. Harding further described how Wallace often spoke about sex, flaunted his physique, and maintained an overly familiar demeanor with some contestants on set. “He would show off his ‘muscles’ from having a personal trainer. It made us feel uncomfortable,” she said. The controversy has also extended to interactions with participants. One woman who appeared on *Eat Well for Less* shared her own experience, saying Wallace behaved in a way that made her and others uneasy. “He was too close to me and made inappropriate comments about sex,” she revealed. On one occasion, Wallace reportedly questioned why people weren’t laughing at his jokes, remarking they should because he was the “talent.” These allegations are part of a growing list of accusations against Wallace. Earlier this year, he stepped back from his high-profile role on *MasterChef* after the BBC launched an inquiry into claims of sexual misconduct. The investigation began following a formal complaint made to the broadcaster by a woman regarding an incident from over a decade ago. In this case, Wallace allegedly held the woman’s head and mimicked a sex act while she was kneeling to clean a mark off his trousers. One person who reportedly witnessed this alleged incident has spoken with both the BBC and journalists. Harding’s claims and other allegations have prompted *The Telegraph* to investigate Wallace’s behavior for over four months. The outlet has interviewed more than 20 people, including former contestants and production staff, who have alleged inappropriate conduct by Wallace across various BBC programs. Among these allegations is a claim by a former *MasterChef* contestant that Wallace groped her while she was cooking on the show. She told *The Sun* that she moved away after the incident, only for Wallace to call her a “stupid cow” when she later scalded her hand. The BBC has yet to comment publicly on the ongoing investigation, which has placed Wallace’s future in television under intense scrutiny. Despite the growing chorus of accusations, the network’s handling of these claims remains a focal point for critics, particularly given Harding’s assertion that her initial complaints were dismissed. “Nothing was done,” she said, highlighting what she described as an acceptance of Wallace’s behavior at the time. As the inquiry unfolds, these revelations again raise pressing questions about accountability within the entertainment industry and the mechanisms in place to address allegations of misconduct. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph | Sky News 2024-12-02

Two buses carrying students from a London Jewish school were attacked at a bus stop by a swarm of around ten. The group of Jewish school children experienced a terrifying ordeal in north London when their school buses were attacked by teenagers throwing rocks and hurling antisemitic abuse. The incident occurred on Wednesday afternoon as students from Jews' Free School (JFS) in Kenton were traveling home on two number 688 buses operated by Uno. The attack unfolded in High Street, Edgware, where witnesses reported that a large group of teenagers from another school began throwing "big heavy rocks" at one of the buses. The situation escalated when four teenagers boarded the bus, shouting profanities and making offensive remarks targeting the Jewish students. One witness recounted to the *Jewish Chronicle*, “They were also swearing at us, saying, ‘F*** Israel, nobody likes you. F*** off, you b****es.’” The chaos left many children cowering under their seats, while others fled the bus in fear. Another student described the atmosphere as "completely terrifying," noting that the attackers appeared to film the incident on their phones, compounding the distress. Despite the gravity of the attack, the bus driver, reportedly a temporary employee, did not immediately report the incident. Instead, it was a parent of one of the affected children who alerted the police. The Metropolitan Police have since launched an investigation into what they describe as a "potential hate crime." A spokesperson stated, “Officers in Barnet are investigating a potential hate crime after a school bus was targeted on High Street, Edgware. Stones were thrown at the bus before a group of other students got on and made antisemitic remarks towards those on board. Officers from the safer transport team have spoken to the victims involved, as well as their parents, and enquiries are ongoing.” Superintendent Lorraine Busby-McVey, responsible for neighbourhood policing in Barnet, condemned the incident, calling it “distressing” and emphasizing that such behaviour is “completely unacceptable.” She added, “There is no place for hate crime either here or across the rest of London, and a thorough investigation is underway.” Transport for London (TfL) has expressed its alarm over the attack, vowing to support the investigation. “No one should ever have to fear or experience abuse when using our network,” TfL said in a statement. As of now, no arrests have been made in connection with the attack, leaving parents and the community concerned about the safety of students. The investigation continues, with authorities urging anyone with information to come forward. This incident has heightened concerns about the rise of antisemitic incidents and the safety of Jewish communities in London. Parents, students, and advocacy groups are calling for swift justice and measures to prevent similar occurrences in the future. Based on a report by Daily Mail 2024-12-02 Related Topic: Teenage Girl Seriously Injured in Antisemitic Attack in London’s Stamford Hill

In a bold statement on Truth Social, President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to impose a 100% tariff on BRICS countries if they pursue plans to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar in global trade. Trump’s remarks reflect a staunch defense of the dollar’s dominance in international markets and a warning to nations considering alternatives. “The idea that the BRICS countries are trying to move away from the Dollar while we stand by and watch is OVER,” Trump declared. He emphasized that the U.S. would demand a clear commitment from BRICS members to refrain from creating or supporting any currency intended to replace the U.S. dollar. “They will face 100% tariffs and should expect to say goodbye to selling into the wonderful U.S. Economy,” Trump wrote, adding, “They can go find another ‘sucker!’” The BRICS alliance—comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—was formed to enhance economic cooperation among major non-Western economies. Since its first official summit in 2009, the group has focused on challenging the dominance of Western financial systems. At the 2023 summit, the alliance expanded, adding Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The issue of "de-dollarization," a key topic at the recent summit, seeks to reduce the U.S. dollar’s influence in international trade. While the idea has gained traction, experts remain skeptical about its feasibility. Analysts cite significant challenges within BRICS, including infighting among members and stark differences in their economic policies and financial systems. Trump dismissed the possibility of the BRICS countries succeeding in replacing the dollar in international trade, warning any nation attempting such a move to "wave goodbye to America." His remarks underscore the U.S.’s strategic interest in maintaining the dollar’s central role in global financial systems, a position that has provided Washington with significant economic and geopolitical leverage for decades. Representatives for the BRICS countries have not responded to Trump’s comments, but the group’s plans to explore alternatives to the dollar continue to generate debate. Despite internal challenges, the expanding coalition signals a growing push among non-Western nations to redefine global trade dynamics, a development that the incoming U.S. administration appears determined to counter. Trump’s threat to impose sweeping tariffs is a clear message that his administration views any move to undermine the dollar as a direct challenge to American economic dominance. As the world watches the unfolding dynamics between the U.S. and BRICS, the stakes for international trade and diplomacy continue to rise. Based on a report by NBC News 2024-12-02

Boris Johnson, in his characteristic style, has launched a scathing critique of Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, focusing on the recent downfall of Transport Secretary Louise Haigh. Johnson paints a vivid picture of Haigh’s situation, describing her as a symbol of a government he views as riddled with deceit and hypocrisy. The saga begins with Haigh, whose youthful misjudgment has come to define her current predicament. A decade ago, she worked in the insurance industry at Aviva and was convicted of fraud after falsely claiming her mobile phone had been stolen to secure a replacement. Johnson, with characteristic flair, describes her as a young woman swept up in the consumerist desire for the latest gadgets, a scenario many might empathize with. "She wanted the same snazzy device as her friends," Johnson writes, adding that the ruse seemed "painless, victimless, and virtually cost-free." Yet the truth emerged when Aviva discovered one of the supposedly stolen phones in her home, leading to a criminal conviction. Johnson spares no sympathy for Haigh, dismissing her as “just a casual everyday fraudster, a swindler.” He also questions Starmer’s decision to appoint her, stating, “Starmer picked a fraudster for his Cabinet because he is the fraudster-in-chief. And he knows, in his heart, that the whole government is a fraud.” Johnson’s critique extends far beyond Haigh. He accuses the Labour government of breaking promises, particularly regarding taxation and fiscal responsibility. He recalls Labour’s pledge not to increase taxes on working people, which was later followed by a national insurance hike, contributing to inflation and economic strain. Johnson contends, “They attempted to justify this tax raid by falsely claiming that there was a black hole in the nation’s finances.” On foreign policy, Johnson lambasts the Labour government’s approach to Ukraine and their decision to hand over the Chagos Islands, a move he attributes to “Lefty spite and hatred of Britain’s colonial past.” He claims Labour’s actions have alienated allies and weakened Britain’s global standing. Johnson also revisits Labour’s stance on Brexit, mocking Starmer’s recent suggestion that Brexit contributed to high immigration numbers. He counters that Brexit is “the only mechanism” allowing Britain to control its borders, criticizing Labour’s abandonment of the Rwanda plan, which he argues was deterring illegal migration. Starmer himself is not spared from personal criticism. Johnson accuses him of hypocrisy, noting Starmer’s relationship with millionaire Waheed Alli, who reportedly provides him with suits and spectacles. “He portrayed himself as a pharisaical opponent of sleaze and corruption,” Johnson writes, referencing Starmer’s purported efforts to deceive the public. In closing, Johnson highlights Labour’s latest policies on the NHS, describing them as measures that will “oppress elderly people, divide families, agonize doctors, and enrich lawyers.” He claims these policies reflect a government out of touch with the needs of the people, focused instead on ill-conceived initiatives. Despite his sharp critique, Johnson ends on a note of optimism for his party, celebrating the Conservative lead in the polls under Kemi Badenoch’s leadership, the first such lead since his tenure as Prime Minister. This moment, for Johnson, signals a potential turning of the tide in British politics. Based on a report by Daily Mail 2024-12-02

President-elect Donald Trump has announced Kash Patel as his choice to lead the FBI, a move that signals significant changes ahead for the bureau. This decision, coming two months before Trump’s inauguration, casts doubt over the tenure of current FBI Director Christopher Wray, whose term is set to expire in 2027. Trump praised Patel in a post on Truth Social, describing him as “a brilliant lawyer, investigator, and ‘America First’ fighter” dedicated to exposing corruption, defending justice, and safeguarding Americans. “He played a pivotal role in uncovering the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, standing as an advocate for truth, accountability, and the Constitution,” Trump wrote. He emphasized Patel’s potential to address pressing national issues, including crime, drug trafficking, and border security, promising that the FBI under Patel would restore its core values of fidelity, bravery, and integrity. Wray has faced criticism from Trump, who accuses him of mishandling politically sensitive investigations. Trump was particularly vocal about the FBI’s raid of Mar-a-Lago, which led to an indictment for allegedly retaining classified documents. He also referenced Wray’s comments regarding a 2020 rally incident, which Trump claims revealed ignorance about the broader threats facing the nation. Furthermore, Trump accused Wray of “lying to Congress” about President Joe Biden’s cognitive and physical health. These tensions have fueled speculation about Wray’s future, as he would need to resign or be dismissed for Patel to assume the role. Kash Patel, a seasoned attorney and public servant, brings a wealth of experience to the table. A former public defender and Justice Department attorney specializing in national security, Patel also held prominent roles in Trump’s first administration. He served as a National Security Council official, senior adviser to the acting Director of National Intelligence, and chief of staff to the acting Secretary of Defense. A vocal critic of what he views as governmental overreach, Patel has long opposed federal investigations targeting conservatives. His writings, including his book *Government Gangsters*, advocate for an overhaul of the Justice Department and intelligence agencies. Patel has called for the dismissal and prosecution of officials who misuse their authority for political purposes. Trump has hailed the book as a “blueprint” for his administration’s future reforms. Speaking on his podcast, Patel expressed his intent to bring transparency to the FBI. He suggested that Trump could expose documents revealing past misconduct and hinted at high-profile disclosures, mentioning the controversial “Epstein list” and allegations involving music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs. Patel’s nomination, however, will require Senate confirmation, a process likely to draw sharp partisan debate. His deep loyalty to Trump and advocacy for reforming the FBI have made him a polarizing figure, celebrated by Trump’s allies and criticized by his opponents. The announcement underscores Trump’s commitment to reshaping federal institutions and addressing what he perceives as systemic corruption. As Patel prepares for the confirmation process, all eyes will be on the unfolding drama surrounding the future of the FBI. Based on a report by NYP 2024-12-02

A number of posts removed @frank83628 unattributed claims, unattributed images and unapproved source. Along with a comment on moderation from the same poster. Getting very close to a little more time out to read the rules.

Sarah Holman’s journey from a dedicated council employee to a passionate advocate for women’s rights highlights the complex interplay of inclusion policies and personal safety concerns. The 56-year-old, a mother of two, had long enjoyed her role at Bracknell Forest Council in Berkshire, regenerating land for housing. Yet, her principles and past experiences drove her to make a difficult decision: resigning after 12 years of service due to the council’s shift to gender-neutral toilet policies. For Sarah, the policy change resurfaced a buried trauma. More than three decades earlier, while on holiday abroad, she had been sexually assaulted in a unisex restroom. “I’d walked into the cubicle, and a man followed me, blocking the doorway and gesturing that he wanted sex,” she recalls. “He lunged at me, putting his hands on me. I was too startled to fight back.” The assault ended only when another man passed by, but the memory lay dormant until the council’s decision triggered a visceral response. “I saw the sign on the door, and memories came flooding back,” Sarah shares. “I had an anxiety attack—palpitations, a racing heart. It was the first time I’d felt unsafe at work.” Her concerns deepened when the council adopted a “Trans and Non-Binary Policy” that effectively removed all single-sex toilets in the office. While Sarah supports equality, she believes the move neglected women’s rights. “All a male has to do is say, ‘I’m going through gender reassignment,’ and they can access women’s toilets. That’s really insulting to women.” Sarah’s personal experiences added weight to her objections. In 2000, she suffered a miscarriage at work. Reflecting on that harrowing ordeal, she says, “I was in a toilet cubicle, crying and in pain. I can’t imagine how much worse it would’ve been in a shared space with men. Women need privacy for moments like this.” Despite raising her concerns, Sarah found little support. “The council said sharing toilets with males was no different than sharing a lift. If staff objected, they’d be referred to counseling. It felt dismissive.” When the council formalized its policies in mid-2023, Sarah felt compelled to resign. The council’s use of the Progress Pride flag also troubled Sarah. She saw its prominence—as screensavers, meeting backdrops, and outside the building—as disproportionate. “It felt like virtue signaling, prioritizing trans rights over women’s,” she explains. Her suggestion to include other flags, like one for menopause awareness, was met with indifference. Sarah’s departure has not been the end of her fight. She is taking the council to an employment tribunal, alleging discrimination for her gender-critical views. “Councils across the country are gaslighting women, brushing aside our concerns in favor of ideological policies. This has to stop.” Bracknell Forest Council defends its stance, with Chief Executive Susan Halliwell stating that the policies aim to promote equality and diversity. The council maintains that it offers both single-sex and gender-neutral facilities. Yet for Sarah, this is inadequate. “In their efforts to be inclusive, they’re excluding women. Women’s dignity, privacy, and safety are being compromised.” Her decision to step away from a job she loved was not easy, but Sarah stands firm in her belief that women’s voices deserve to be heard. “I’m not a radical feminist, just an ordinary woman standing up for what’s right.” Based on a report by Daily Mail 2024-11-30

Fran Unsworth, the former head of BBC News, has shared her reservations about the potential implications of the broadcaster’s Verify unit, a fact-checking initiative launched under her successor, Deborah Turness. Speaking at the Voice of the Listener and Viewer conference in London, Unsworth questioned whether positioning Verify as the BBC's hub for truth and accuracy might inadvertently cast doubt on the credibility of the organization’s broader journalism efforts. “I think if you want to set your stall out and say what you’re about, it’s probably a pretty good branding exercise,” Unsworth remarked. However, she added, “My anxieties are… What does it say about the rest of the journalism? Is that not true, then?” Despite these concerns, she acknowledged that the unit's objectives are likely being achieved, describing the initiative as “broadly successful.” The Verify unit has been both praised and criticized since its launch. While its aim to combat misinformation and provide transparent, evidence-based reporting aligns with the BBC’s public service mission, detractors argue that it could unintentionally highlight flaws in other areas of the corporation's output. Defending the initiative, Jonathan Munro, deputy chief executive of BBC News, addressed criticisms during the conference, dismissing claims of political bias and errors within Verify’s fact-checking processes. He also defended the controversial decision to cancel the long-running BBC programme HARDTalk, attributing the move to declining viewership. Munro suggested reallocating resources to projects like Verify would better serve the public. However, Verify has faced scrutiny recently, including accusations of political slant. Last week, the unit came under fire for its reporting on inheritance tax changes affecting farmers. It initially cited Dan Neidle, a former Labour activist, as an “independent tax expert,” later removing that designation without acknowledgment. Danny Cohen, a former BBC Television director, has also criticized Verify, accusing the unit of an “unhealthy obsession with stories related to Israel.” His comments reflect broader concerns about editorial priorities within the BBC’s expanding focus on fact-checking and investigative reporting. The Verify unit’s introduction is part of a broader effort to reinforce trust in the BBC’s journalism amid an era of widespread misinformation. However, as Unsworth’s comments suggest, its branding and positioning may provoke unintended consequences by raising questions about the BBC’s traditional news output. This balancing act between innovation and preserving the reputation of established journalism remains a challenge for the corporation as it navigates its role in an increasingly polarized media landscape. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-11-30

The BBC is once again grappling with allegations of misconduct involving one of its prominent stars, this time Gregg Wallace, the long-time presenter of *MasterChef*. However, the revelations of alleged inappropriate behavior only emerged following investigative work by external journalists, particularly *The Telegraph*, rather than through the corporation’s internal processes. Gregg Wallace has thanked people for their "support" in a video posted on Instagram. He stepped down from MasterChef over allegations he made inappropriate sexual comments on a range of programmes over 17 years. Additional allegations have emerged from various individuals who worked with Wallace. Kirsty Wark, a *Newsnight* host, is among 13 individuals accusing Wallace of inappropriate "sexualized" behavior during filming. Wark recalled two instances during the 2011 *Celebrity MasterChef* series where Wallace shared jokes and comments of a sexual nature in front of contestants and crew, describing his remarks as “really, really in the wrong place.” “It was completely one-way traffic,” Wark said. “I think people were uncomfortable. It was something I really did not expect to happen.” Adding to the tension, Scottish broadcaster Aasmah Mir, who participated in the 2017 *Celebrity MasterChef* series, posted a cryptic social media message: “Always keep your receipts.” While it is unclear whether Mir has filed a complaint, her statement has further fueled speculation about Wallace's behavior. The BBC now finds itself under scrutiny not only for the alleged actions of its star but also for its failure to uncover and address these issues internally. Critics argue that such revelations should not rely on the diligence of outside media organizations. With Wallace’s *MasterChef* career hanging in the balance and the corporation facing yet another scandal involving sexual misconduct, the BBC’s handling of these allegations is likely to come under intense public and institutional review. As the inquiry proceeds, questions persist about the corporation’s ability to safeguard its workplace and respond to concerns effectively. For now, the spotlight remains on Wallace and the broader culture within the BBC that allowed these claims to surface only through external pressure. Based on a report by Daily Mail | Daily Telegraph | Sky News 2024-11-30

In a groundbreaking discovery, researchers have uncovered evidence that two distinct species of ancient human relatives, *Homo erectus* and *Paranthropus boisei*, walked the same ground at the same time approximately 1.5 million years ago. The footprints, preserved in dried mud near a lake in northern Kenya, were left within hours or days of one another, raising intriguing questions about the interactions and relationships between these species. The discovery, detailed in a study published in *Science*, offers the first direct evidence that these species coexisted in the same location. By analyzing the footprints’ shapes and strike patterns, researchers concluded that the tracks were made by two different species. “We think that these individuals, these two species that were there, probably would have been aware there were members of another species nearby,” said Kevin Hatala, associate professor of biology at Chatham University and lead author of the study. “They would have seen each other and recognized each other as different species, which raises questions about what those interactions would have been like. Were they competitors? Were they totally OK with each other being there?” The study adds to the growing understanding among anthropologists that ancient human relatives not only coexisted but also likely interacted. Previously, fossil remains of both species were found in the region, showing that they lived there during overlapping time periods. However, these footprints provide direct evidence of their simultaneous presence. While both species were bipedal, their walking styles differed significantly. *Homo erectus* exhibited humanlike anatomy from the neck down, used stone tools, and possibly cooked with fire. This species had a varied diet that likely included meat and managed to spread across Asia, Indonesia, and other regions. Its resilience allowed it to survive for over a million years after these footprints were made, disappearing from the fossil record a little over 100,000 years ago. Hatala described *Homo erectus* as “a very successful species” and a potential direct ancestor of modern humans. Homo erectus In contrast, *Paranthropus boisei* was characterized by a smaller brain, massive chewing muscles, and large molars. This species is thought to have specialized in eating tough foods such as hard nuts and fibrous plants. Its evolutionary journey ended much sooner than that of *Homo erectus*, representing an evolutionary dead end. “Human evolution is complicated and messy, and there’s lots of experimentation. It’s not a straight line,” said William Harcourt-Smith, associate professor of anthropology at Lehman College, who was not involved in the study. Paranthropus boisei The conditions under which the footprints were preserved also provide valuable insights. The tracks, untouched by other animals and uncracked before being buried in sediment, suggest they were left in quick succession. “The sediment protected them and prevented them from cracking and allowed them to be entered into the geologic record,” Hatala explained. One possible reason the two species coexisted peacefully in the area could be their differing diets, which may have reduced competition for resources. However, researchers also speculate that they might have had antagonistic relationships or competed for other resources. The discovery highlights that ancient human species interacted and coexisted across different habitats over millions of years. These findings illuminate the complex and intertwined pathways of human evolution. While species like *Paranthropus boisei* represent evolutionary dead ends, others like *Homo erectus* laid the groundwork for modern humans. The discovery of these footprints serves as a poignant reminder of the diverse and interconnected nature of our ancestral history. Based on a report by NBC News 2024-11-30

A group of travelers embarking on what they hoped would be the adventure of a lifetime to Antarctica has turned to drastic measures after mechanical issues derailed their plans. Passengers aboard the luxury cruise ship SH Diana, operated by Swan Hellenic, have begun a hunger strike to demand full refunds after their voyage was cut short due to an engine failure. The SH Diana, a state-of-the-art vessel just a year into operation, encountered problems with one of its electric motors, forcing the cancellation of key stops at South Georgia and the entirety of its planned exploration of Antarctica. This abrupt change of plans has left the ship traveling at a sluggish 6 knots (11 km/h) as it heads toward Ushuaia, Argentina, where it is scheduled to dock on Saturday. Engineers will board the vessel in Ushuaia to address the issue before its next scheduled departure on December 3. Swan Hellenic, a company specializing in luxury cruises to remote destinations, prides itself on offering "boutique 5-star ships" designed for polar expeditions. However, for the 170 passengers aboard the SH Diana, including about ten British travelers, the current experience has fallen far short of expectations. One anonymous passenger expressed disappointment to *The Times*, acknowledging that while the decision to abandon Antarctica for safety reasons was justified, the company’s handling of the situation has left much to be desired. “To go to Antarctica is a trip of a lifetime, and this specific sailing made it achievable for many on board as it’s a repositioning sailing that had attractive deals,” the passenger said. The ill-fated journey, which began in Cape Town on November 13, was meant to be a 20-night repositioning cruise to Ushuaia, where the ship would prepare for its Antarctic summer season through March 2025. The itinerary included planned visits to renowned Antarctic destinations such as Elephant Island, Paulet Island, Yankee Harbour, and Deception Island. In an attempt to placate disgruntled passengers, Swan Hellenic has offered a partial refund of 50 percent or a 65 percent credit for future cruises, valid for two years. Additionally, complimentary excursions in Ushuaia have been promised to passengers as they await their departure on December 3. Despite these gestures, many passengers remain dissatisfied. Reports from aboard the ship indicate growing tension, with some passengers calling for better compensation. “Many of the passengers are very angry, and it was getting nasty yesterday,” said a source on the ship. They added that the company “needs to make a better offer to quell the continuing rising anger.” Among the passengers, a group of Russians has initiated a hunger strike, displaying signs demanding full refunds. Written complaints to Swan Hellenic have also surfaced, underscoring the frustration of those onboard. For travelers who embarked on this journey with dreams of exploring the icy expanse of Antarctica, the experience has turned into an ordeal marked by delays, dissatisfaction, and mounting unrest. As the ship inches toward Ushuaia, the passengers’ demands for fair treatment and accountability continue to resonate. Based on a report by The Times & Sunday Times 2024-11-30

Facing a host of domestic and international pressures, Iran appears to be shifting its rhetoric and strategy, moving away from combative postures towards a more conciliatory approach. Recent diplomatic moves, including engaging with Hezbollah to encourage a cease-fire with Israel, initiating dialogue with Elon Musk as a gesture towards President-elect Donald J. Trump’s network, and scheduling talks in Geneva with European countries, mark a significant departure from its earlier aggressive stance. In late October, Iran had seemed poised to launch a large-scale retaliatory strike on Israel. A deputy commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps stated emphatically, “We have never left an aggression unanswered in 40 years.” However, within weeks, the tone had softened, with actions suggesting a preference for de-escalation. This pivot stems from a combination of challenges both at home and abroad. Iran’s recalibration was influenced by multiple factors, not least of which was the outcome of the U.S. election. According to five Iranian officials, including a member of the Revolutionary Guards, and two former officials, Trump’s November 5 victory triggered strategic concerns. Trump’s unpredictable nature and his previous "maximum pressure" campaign on Iran left the country wary of provoking a hostile U.S. administration. The officials, who spoke anonymously due to the sensitivity of the matter, explained that Iran suspended plans to attack Israel to avoid further straining relations with a U.S. leadership that was already stacking its cabinet with pro-Israel, anti-Iran figures. Domestically, Iran is grappling with economic turmoil. The national currency has been steadily devaluing against the dollar, and a looming energy crisis threatens to exacerbate hardships as winter approaches. On the regional front, Hezbollah, Iran’s closest and most vital ally, suffered significant losses in Lebanon, undermining its influence and raising tensions among the displaced Shia population who look to Iran for support. Sanam Vakil, the Middle East director at Chatham House, highlighted how this shift in tone aligns with Iran's need to safeguard its broader interests. “It all came together, and the shift in tone is about protecting Iran’s interests,” she noted. The decision reflects a pragmatic effort to adapt to an evolving geopolitical landscape and the changing dynamics in Washington. Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a former Iranian diplomat and nuclear negotiator now at Princeton University, emphasized Iran’s strategic patience. “Iran is now applying restraint to give Trump a chance to see whether he can end the Gaza war and contain Netanyahu,” he said, referencing Israel’s prime minister. “If this happens, it will open the path for more comprehensive negotiations between Tehran and Washington.” The plight of Hezbollah, however, remains a pressing concern for Iran. Reports of widespread displacement and growing dissatisfaction among Shia Lebanese communities have added pressure on Tehran to recalibrate its approach. Mehdi Afraz, director of a research center at Baqir al-Olum University, candidly acknowledged Iran’s misjudgment of Israel’s military capabilities, remarking that war with Israel is not akin to “a game on PlayStation.” Iran’s evolving stance underscores the complexities of navigating both domestic crises and international threats. While its actions suggest a desire to lower tensions, the underlying challenges remain formidable, requiring a delicate balance between strategic restraint and regional ambitions. Based on a report by NYT 2024-11-30