Social Media

A mayor in Georgia, previously recognized for his activism with the Black Lives Matter movement, now faces serious accusations of financial misconduct. Khalid Kamau, the mayor of South Fulton, is alleged to have used approximately $26,000 in public funds for unauthorized expenditures, raising concerns about accountability and transparency within her administration. According to reports, the accusations include the misuse of city-issued credit cards for personal expenses, such as an overseas trip and other unrelated purchases. This revelation has sparked outrage among local officials and constituents who trusted the mayor to prioritize the community's needs over personal gain. “This is a blatant violation of public trust,” stated a local government watchdog. “The public funds allocated to elected officials are meant to serve the city and its residents, not to finance personal indulgences.” Kamau’s background as a BLM activist and his rise to public office were marked by promises of reform and community-centered governance. His supporters have expressed shock and disappointment over the allegations, as they contradict the values she championed during her activism and campaign. In his defense, Kamau has claimed that the expenditures were misunderstood and insists that no malicious intent was involved. “Every action I have taken has been in service of the people of South Fulton,” he said during a recent interview. “These allegations are an attempt to discredit the progress we’ve made as a city.” Despite his defense, questions remain about the oversight mechanisms in place to monitor the use of public funds. City officials are reportedly conducting an internal audit to determine the full extent of the alleged misuse. Local residents have voiced mixed reactions. Some are calling for the mayor’s immediate resignation, while others believe he deserves a fair investigation before any judgment is passed. “I feel betrayed, but I also think we should wait for the facts to come out,” one resident commented. This situation highlights the ongoing challenges faced by elected officials in maintaining transparency and trust with their constituents. As the investigation unfolds, the outcome will likely have lasting implications for both Kamau’s career and the political landscape of South Fulton. Based on a report by NYP 2025-01-20

The UK prison service has begun recruiting prison officers from Nigeria and other countries to address severe staffing shortages, marking the first time it has sponsored skilled worker visas for overseas employees. However, this move has led to unexpected challenges, with reports of some recruits sleeping in cars or setting up makeshift camps due to a lack of accommodation. The recruitment follows an October 2023 policy change that added prison officers to the list of skilled workers eligible for sponsorship. While this initiative aimed to tackle workforce shortages, it has revealed logistical and operational shortcomings. Some overseas recruits, particularly those from Nigeria, arrived assuming that accommodation would be provided, only to find none available. Mark Fairhurst, president of the Prison Officers Association (POA), highlighted troubling cases where recruits were forced into difficult living conditions. “We have got problems with people who turn up at the gates with cases in tow and with their families saying to the staff: ‘Where is the accommodation?’” he said. One recruit reportedly commuted 70 miles from Huddersfield to Nottingham before opting to sleep in his car outside the prison. In another case, officers set up camp in a wooded area near their workplace. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has sponsored up to 250 foreign nationals to join the prison service, with candidates undergoing online interviews and vetting processes. Prison governors suggest the demand has grown significantly, with many applicants hearing about the opportunity through online networks, particularly within the Nigerian expatriate community. Tom Wheatley, president of the Prison Governors Association (PGA), noted that this influx has created challenges in certain areas. “It’s turned into an approach that has been promoted online by the expat Nigerian community,” he said. In rural prisons, disproportionate numbers of foreign officers have led to difficulties with integration into local communities, as well as concerns about language barriers and communication issues. The recruitment strategy has also drawn criticism for its reliance on remote hiring methods. Mr. Fairhurst expressed concerns over the lack of face-to-face interviews, describing the Zoom-based process as inadequate. “Recruits were then given only six weeks’ training, which was not enough time to learn how to manage prisoners,” he said. He labeled the current system as “simply not fit for purpose,” warning that it could lead to the hiring of underqualified or corrupt officers. The prison service has defended its approach, asserting that all officers undergo robust assessments and extended training before beginning their roles. A spokesperson stated, “We also continuously review our recruitment process to ensure our officers are best suited to their role and have strengthened vetting procedures to root out applicants who fall below our high standards.” While the initiative to recruit overseas workers seeks to address the staffing crisis, the accompanying issues highlight significant gaps in planning and execution. As the prison service continues to adapt, questions remain about how effectively it can balance workforce demands with ensuring proper integration, training, and support for its recruits. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2025-01-20

Gloucestershire County Council recently found itself at odds with local farmers after launching a campaign encouraging residents to switch from cow’s milk to vegan alternatives to reduce their carbon footprint. The council's "Swaps in Seconds" campaign initially recommended this change as part of a broader effort to promote small, environmentally friendly lifestyle adjustments among Gloucestershire’s population of over half a million. The campaign was soon revised following objections from farmers and the Countryside Alliance, who viewed the recommendation as an attack on the dairy industry. The council subsequently removed the suggestion from its promotional materials. Councillor David Gray, the cabinet member for the environment, explained the rationale behind the campaign to the BBC. “Dairy is one of the biggest producers of methane, so our suggestion is: every so often instead of having milk with your coffee, you have oat milk or soy, and that way make a small difference in the overall impact of your lifestyle on the environment," he said. However, local farmers were not convinced. Jacob James, a dairy farmer, expressed his frustration with the campaign, labeling it “extremely frustrating.” Speaking to the BBC, James argued, “Unfortunately, emissions are a given, no matter what route we go down, and we should be looking at getting the best bang for our buck in terms of the nutrients produced from those emissions.” James elaborated on the importance of local resources, pointing out, “We have a plentiful supply of water here and also land that is best at growing grass. Grass is the primary driver of high-quality milk production and the cows actually fertilise their own land.” Gloucestershire, as noted on the council’s website, is predominantly agricultural, with the Vale of Gloucester traditionally associated with dairy farming, beef pasture, and orchards. Given this backdrop, the suggestion to replace dairy products with plant-based alternatives struck a nerve with the local farming community. The Countryside Alliance also criticized the council's recommendation. Mo Metcalf-Fisher, the organization’s director of external affairs, described the move as an attack on freedom of choice and a disregard for the pressures facing dairy farmers. “At a time when our farmers are under immense pressure because of the family farm tax, it is astonishing that Gloucestershire County Council would choose to prioritize attacking dairy farmers in this way,” Metcalf-Fisher stated. In response to the backlash, a spokesman for Gloucestershire County Council clarified the intent behind the campaign. “Gloucestershire has an amazing farming community who go beyond the call of duty to produce local milk that people across the county enjoy. What we’ve published today is a series of swap suggestions for people to consider, from food to transport to clothing. We didn’t mean to cause offence or to suggest people shouldn’t support their local farmer,” the spokesman explained. The council’s attempt to encourage small, environmentally conscious choices inadvertently sparked a debate about the balance between environmental initiatives and support for traditional farming practices. As the council backtracked on its dairy swap suggestion, it highlighted the sensitivity surrounding agricultural livelihoods in the face of growing environmental concerns. Based on a report by BBC 2025-01-20

Labour has been accused of a "conspiracy of silence" after several MPs representing areas affected by grooming gangs declined to state their position on a national inquiry into the issue. The accusations emerged as only a handful of MPs responded to inquiries from the *Daily Mail*. Out of more than 20 Labour MPs contacted from constituencies with histories of child rape and sexual abuse, only three replied. This led to criticism of a "dereliction of duty" for those who remained silent. Among the respondents, Luke Myer and Shaun Davies, representing Middlesbrough South and Telford, respectively, voiced their support for a national inquiry. Their statements added to the growing number of Labour MPs—now five—who have openly backed the call for a comprehensive investigation. The push for a national inquiry gained momentum after MPs Sarah Champion from Rotherham and Paul Waugh from Rochdale reversed their initial stance against it. Their change of heart was seen as a significant shift in the party’s approach to handling the sensitive issue. Further support came from other Labour figures, including Dan Carden, MP for Liverpool Walton, and Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, who have also expressed the need for a broader probe into grooming gangs. However, not all Labour representatives share this view. Chi Onwurah, MP for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, reiterated her previous position, suggesting that a national inquiry might not be necessary. She referred to a statement she made last week, emphasizing a more localized approach. Amidst the political debate, the Government initiated small-scale local investigations into the grooming gang problem. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced that five reviews would be conducted in towns severely impacted by these crimes. Yet, the scope of these investigations has drawn criticism for being insufficient, as they lack the authority to summon witnesses, leading to concerns about their effectiveness. The controversy over Labour’s response to grooming gangs and the broader call for a national inquiry highlights the tension between addressing local issues and ensuring comprehensive national oversight. As the discussion continues, the Labour Party faces mounting pressure to clarify its stance and demonstrate a commitment to tackling this critical issue head-on. Based on a report by Daily Mail 2025-01-20

Canada needs to take stronger measures to prevent becoming a refuge for members of Iran’s regime, according to Iranian Canadians who participated in consultations released by the Hogue Commission. The commission summarized concerns raised by the Iranian diaspora about foreign interference and proposed steps to address the issue. Participants highlighted the necessity of more robust screening processes to identify and block former officials of the Islamic Republic government from entering Canada. “Certain attendees talked about the presence of Iranian government officials who were involved in criminal activities and human rights abuses in Canada,” the commission noted. Additionally, some community organizations have reportedly been “infiltrated and taken over by persons acting on behalf of the Iranian regime.” Nazanin Afshin-Jam MacKay, a Tehran-born human rights activist, underscored these concerns, calling Canada “a safe haven for Islamic regime officials and their families.” She recounted the emotional toll of seeing regime-affiliated individuals in Canada, including an incident where “Iranian nuclear officials” attended an event at the University of British Columbia. Afshin-Jam MacKay also described how children of regime officials displayed wealth in Vancouver, driving luxury cars, while some realtors allegedly facilitated the laundering of funds from Iran. One witness recalled spotting a former Iranian police chief in Richmond Hill, Ontario, and mentioned a former cabinet minister vacationing in Montreal. Such accounts point to broader issues of accountability. As one unnamed witness told the inquiry, the Iranian regime “wants to exert influence in Canada because there is a large and well-educated Iranian diaspora.” Suggestions to address the problem included creating a specialized section within immigration or foreign affairs to scrutinize applications from Iran more rigorously. Witnesses also advocated for better training for border agents and using tools like the Faces of Crimes online database to track regime officials’ human rights violations. The commission also highlighted recent incidents of threats against Iranian dissidents in Canada, often extending to their families still in Iran. Javad Soleimani, whose wife was killed when Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) shot down a passenger plane in 2020, revealed that Iranian intelligence contacted him months after the tragedy. Soleimani, who lost 55 Canadian citizens and 30 permanent residents in the attack, was told to remove a social media post critical of the regime. When he refused, they threatened his family in Iran. Soleimani also alleged that IRGC members “freely work and study here in Canada” and that Iran actively pushes its agenda through community groups and mosques. He urged authorities to investigate these activities thoroughly. The accounts and recommendations brought forward by the Iranian Canadian community illustrate the urgency of addressing foreign interference and ensuring Canada remains a sanctuary for those fleeing oppression, not for those perpetuating it. Based on a report by Global News 2025-01-20

As Donald Trump prepares to assume office as the 47th President of the United States, the nomination of Lord Peter Mandelson as the UK ambassador to Washington has sparked diplomatic tension. Trump is reportedly considering rejecting the appointment, a move that would be highly unusual and indicative of strained relations between the incoming administration and Sir Keir Starmer's Labour government. Sources within Trump’s team revealed uncertainty over whether Peter Mandelson’s credentials will ultimately gain Trump’s approval. Concerns about Mandelson’s perceived connections to China appear to be at the heart of the controversy. “It is quite possible that Mandelson’s credentials could still be rejected,” said one source, adding that “there are serious concerns about his links to China.” Labour officials have framed the nomination as a testament to Mandelson’s stature, calling it “a huge compliment” that Sir Keir Starmer would choose such a senior figure. However, a source from Trump’s camp dismissed the gesture, stating bluntly, “We are not buying that.” Efforts to ease tensions have not been universally embraced. Notably, Lord Mandelson declined an invitation to a pre-inauguration event in Washington hosted by Nigel Farage, a key ally of Trump, where the outgoing UK ambassador, Dame Karen Pierce, was present. Pierce’s attendance reportedly left a positive impression on Trump’s transition team, further complicating Mandelson’s position. The approval process for an ambassador requires the presentation of “letters of credence” to the host country’s head of state. In this case, Trump would need to formally accept Mandelson’s credentials for the appointment to proceed. While rare, the rejection of a nominee at this stage is not without precedent and would signal a significant diplomatic rift. The nomination of Lord Mandelson, who previously served as a business secretary and EU trade commissioner, was partially motivated by a desire to bolster prospects for a US-UK trade deal. However, his perceived ties to China have raised red flags within Trump’s administration, further straining an already delicate relationship. In a conciliatory opinion piece, Mandelson acknowledged Trump’s broad electoral appeal, noting, “The astute among America’s allies will be observing the comprehensive nature of Trump’s November election win. On the numbers alone – across the popular vote and spanning different demographic groups – this victory demonstrated a campaign that responded to the central concerns and interests of a vast swath of the American people.” Despite Mandelson’s diplomatic overtures, sources suggest that tensions between the Labour government and Trump’s team have only deepened due to the nomination. The decision on whether Trump will accept Mandelson’s credentials remains unresolved, casting a shadow over the early days of the UK’s relationship with the new administration. Based on a report by The Independent 2025-01-20

In the closing chapter of Joe Biden's presidency, discussions surrounding the 82-year-old leader's visible decline have taken center stage. Observers from both sides of the political spectrum, ranging from Speaker of the House Mike Johnson to members of Biden's own team, have expressed concerns about his capabilities during his final months in office. Johnson, who will continue as Speaker of the House, recounted a troubling interaction with Biden in January 2024. According to Johnson, the president made a bewildering admission during a meeting, stating that he "didn't do" an executive order he had, in fact, signed months earlier. Johnson said after fighting for 9 weeks with Biden's staff, he was finally able to get a meeting with the president. When he arrived, Johnson says he was "ambushed" by Kamala Harris, Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries. Biden, who apparently didn't know what was going on, asked the others to leave so he could meet privately with Johnson. "It occurred to me he was not lying to me. He genuinely did not know what he had signed. I walked outta that meeting with fear and loathing because I thought, 'We are in serious trouble.'" Based on a report by Daily Mail 2025-01-20

The release of hostages in the Israel-Hamas conflict has been met with widespread relief and celebration, but the implications of the deal cast a troubling shadow over the future. While the return of men, women, and children held in terrifying captivity is undeniably grounds for rejoicing, the broader consequences of this arrangement reveal a grim reality: Hamas has once again demonstrated that hostage-taking is an effective strategy. Had Hamas simply murdered the over 1,200 individuals during the October 7 attacks, they would have gained no diplomatic leverage. But by capturing hostages, they achieved a series of significant advantages: hesitation on Israel’s part, divisions within Israeli politics, manipulation of international opinion, and increased diplomatic clout. This deal validates their actions, setting a precedent that could embolden similar tactics in the future. For Hamas and other Islamist groups, the internal message is clear—capturing, torturing, and killing a proportion of hostages yields power. It is a chilling lesson that threatens future stability. As Hamas hopefully fulfills its part of the agreement by returning around 60 hostages, alongside 34 dishonored corpses, the evidence of their brutality will be undeniable. Yet, outside Israel, they are likely to receive praise for their so-called compliance. This reaction will be a bitter pill to swallow for many, as it rewards and normalizes abhorrent behavior. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) demonstrated extraordinary heroism, reminiscent of the Six-Day War of 1967, in protecting their nation from an attempted genocide. Despite global pressure, including from U.S. leaders such as President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Israel pursued its own course, dealing significant blows to Hamas. However, Hamas remains entrenched in Gaza, continuing to dominate civilian life, manipulate aid, and influence Palestinian media. Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’s leader, may be in a weakened position, but figures like his brother Mohammed are working to regroup and rebuild the organization’s power. Unlike the 1982 siege of Beirut, which forced Yasser Arafat and the PLO into exile in Tunis, Hamas retains its stronghold in Gaza. Even under devastating attacks, their leaders can frame survival as divine endorsement. As one survivor might argue, “Even under the satanic attack of the Jews, backed by America, we fought on. Allah is with us!” Such rhetoric, coupled with the readiness of international bodies like the International Criminal Court to scrutinize Israel, ensures Hamas’s narrative will endure for years. Former U.S. President Donald Trump has presented a stark contrast to the Biden administration, warning Hamas of severe consequences should they overstep again. The deal is being sold in Israel with assurances that, under Trump’s leadership, the U.S. would back any necessary retaliatory actions—a position seen as more robust than Biden’s perceived reluctance. Regional dynamics also favor a strong Israel. Moderate Arab powers, including the Gulf states, Egypt, and Jordan, prefer an Israel that projects strength rather than one mired in vulnerability. The weakening of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran’s influence was welcomed across these nations. However, the deal's potential to prolong Hamas’s ability to fight and kill complicates the outlook for Israel’s security and broader regional peace. Ultimately, while this agreement provides temporary relief for hostages and their families, it also allows Hamas to regroup and rearm. The terrorists remain intact, poised to exploit future opportunities to inflict terror. What might seem like a fleeting victory for diplomacy risks evolving into a recurring nightmare for the region. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2025-01-20

A Jew baiting post removed @Hummin followed by a number of replies that it created.

@Highball a number of your posts have been removed for trolling misinformation and personal attacks. Any more and you will also face removal

UPDATE: Israel says Gaza ceasefire delayed until Hamas provides names of first hostages to be freed With less than half an hour to go before the ceasefire is due to begin, Israel is still waiting for the names of the three hostages expected to be released today, according to the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. According to the ceasefire agreement, the names should be provided at least 24 hours before the planned exchange, which is supposed to happen sometime after 16:00 local time today. The statement said that Netanyahu had instructed the Israeli military not to continue with ceasefire preparations until the list of names had been received. As of late last night, the location of the hostage exchange was also unclear, with the Israeli military preparing three separate possible locations near the border with southern, central, and northern Gaza. IDF spokesman Hagari: Hamas has not met its commitment and, contrary to the agreement, the names of the hostages who will be returned have not yet been forwarded. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/ckg0znng8x2t

@Neeranam your post has been removed for trolling and attempting to make an equivilance to Blinken and Nazi figues including Rudolph Hess on accountability.

Personal attack and off topic/inflammatory troll posts removed. This is the second public mod post referring to staying on topic, no more will be made but expect action if you do not remain on topic. A post that edited the response out of context also removed along with some further trolling posts.

This topic is not about the historical conflict but is about the war "al aqsa flood" that was started by Hamas with their massacre and invasion of Israel on Oct 7th 2023. The topic is about the current ceasefire of that war with regards to Trump. They love Trump, but many on the right loathe the Israel-Hamas ceasefire deal he demanded

An off topic news troll post has been removed: 17. ASEAN NOW news team collects news articles from various recognised and reputable news sources. The articles may be consolidated from different sources and rewritten with AI assistance These news items are shared in our forums for members to stay informed and engaged. Our dedicated news team puts in the effort to deliver quality content, and we ask for your respect in return. Any disrespectful comments about our news articles or the content itself, such as calling it "clickbait" or “slow news day”, and criticising grammatical errors, will not be tolerated and appropriate action will be taken. Please note that republished articles may contain errors or opinions that do not reflect the views of ASEAN NOW. If you'd like to help us, and you see an error with an article, then please use the report function so that we can attend to it promptly.

Topic re-opened after clean up. One poster has been removed due to personal inflammatory attacks on other members and false claims. Please discuss the topic nicely and within forum community guidlines.

The concept of "wokeism" continues to ignite debates across the globe, with political movements increasingly capitalizing on the backlash it generates. In France, the National Rally has framed "the danger of wokeism" as a core issue, using it to appeal to voters disenchanted with progressive ideologies. This strategic pivot mirrors trends in the United States, where some argue that resistance to woke ideology contributed to Donald Trump’s rise to power. According to The Economist, America has become less “woke” since its peak in 2020, coinciding with Joe Biden’s election. Opinions and practices associated with the term appear to be in decline. While Merriam-Webster defines "woke" as being "aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)," the term has no universally accepted definition. Democrats often view it as a call for empathy and recognition of systemic injustices, while Republicans tend to see it as an agenda promoting far-left priorities and gender ideology. For many, however, “woke” has become shorthand for political correctness gone too far. Merriam-Webster notes that the term can imply political liberalism or progressivism perceived as extreme or unreasonable. This perception reached a flashpoint in 2021 when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proposed rule changes to “honor all gender identities,” replacing traditional terms like mother, father, son, and daughter with gender-neutral alternatives such as parent, child, and sibling. Pelosi’s support for Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential candidate further fueled criticism. Harris, portrayed as a champion of woke-feminist progressivism, alienated segments of the Democratic voter base. "We have to stay woke. Like everybody needs to be woke," Harris said in 2017, a sentiment her critics seized upon to frame her as emblematic of radical-left ideologies. In contrast, Trump positioned himself as the antithesis of woke culture, appealing to voters disillusioned with what they saw as excessive liberalism. Some analysts believe his success stemmed less from personal endorsement and more from a rejection of the cultural values associated with Harris and her ilk. Critics argue that woke ideology often focuses on historical injustices, fostering shame rather than pride in one’s country. Trump’s rhetoric about the American Dream provided an alternative narrative centered on patriotism and upward mobility. The anti-woke sentiment is not confined to the U.S. In France, President Emmanuel Macron has expressed concerns about the racialization of French society due to imported woke culture. While he champions universalism over identity politics, his 2022 appointment of Pap Ndiaye as education minister—decried by some as a “true woke”—sparked a cultural clash. The National Rally, under Jordan Bardella, has made anti-wokeism a cornerstone of its platform, marking a departure from Marine Le Pen’s strategy of sidestepping societal issues. Bardella aims to broaden the party’s appeal, particularly to centrist voters, by framing woke ideology as a threat to traditional values. In Eastern Europe, where societies are generally more conservative than in Western Europe, anti-woke rhetoric resonates strongly. Even center-left parties in the region often reject progressive gender and climate policies, reflecting broader skepticism toward liberal ideals. As this anti-woke wave gains momentum, it underscores the global polarization over cultural and societal values. Whether this pendulum will continue to swing or eventually find balance remains a question for the years ahead. Based on a report by euractiv 2024-01-18

BRUSSELS ― The European Parliament, often marked by nearly empty chambers during debates, is launching an experiment aimed at addressing the issue of absentee lawmakers. The initiative, set to begin next week, could reshape the culture of parliamentary attendance. An internal email obtained by POLITICO revealed that two debates scheduled for next week’s plenary session in Strasbourg will be conducted without publishing their timetables. This means Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) will need to remain present throughout the entire debate if they wish to participate. Damian Boeselager, an MEP from the center-left Volt group, remarked, “Step by step, we need cultural changes to increase attendance and make debates more fun.” This pilot initiative was agreed upon by Parliament President Roberta Metsola and political group leaders during a closed-door meeting on Wednesday. The plan aligns with efforts led by a coalition of 60 younger MEPs seeking to modernize the institution. Metsola’s office emphasized the importance of this trial, stating, “For the president, it is about making sure that MEPs are present in the hemicycle during the debates. If it goes well, we will roll-out this approach increasingly.” The first debate under this new system will take place on Tuesday, addressing enforcement of the Digital Services Act and its implications for foreign interference, particularly recent alleged meddling by Elon Musk, owner of X (formerly Twitter), in European politics and elections. On Wednesday, the trial will continue with a discussion on December’s European Council summit, which gathers the EU’s 27 leaders. Despite the significance of these topics, even high-profile debates have historically suffered from low attendance, with many MEPs appearing only briefly to deliver their speeches and leaving immediately afterward. The trial seeks to reverse this trend by implementing stricter participation requirements. Under the new rules, the president or vice president overseeing the session will have the discretion to decide speaking order following the initial round of statements by group leaders. The email outlined that “members who request and are allocated speaking time will need to attend the whole debate in which they want to speak and check on the screens if they are the next to be called.” The initiative stems from a December proposal by the younger MEP group, which included ten suggestions to enhance debate attendance, engagement, and relevance. Their recommendations also called for mandatory attendance quotas, spontaneous reactions to speeches, and the removal of seating restrictions that currently reserve front rows for group leaders. The group is determined to create momentum for these changes. Boeselager, who coordinates the coalition, shared their plans to “hijack” next week’s debate. By attending as a unified bloc and utilizing the Blue Cards system, they intend to engage speakers in impromptu Q&A sessions, injecting energy and interaction into the discussions. “Let’s establish a culture of testing improvements over the upcoming sessions,” their December letter urged. If successful, this trial could mark the beginning of a new era for the European Parliament, where debates are not only better attended but more dynamic and meaningful. Based on a report by Politico 2024-01-18

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) has reintroduced a bill aimed at rolling back pandemic-era remote work policies for federal employees. The proposal, known as the SHOW UP Act, seeks to require federal workers to return to in-person office settings and reinstate stricter telework guidelines from 2019. “The pandemic is long over, and it’s past time for the federal workforce to show up to the office to better fulfill agencies’ missions and serve the American people,” Comer stated in his announcement of the bill. As chair of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, Comer has been vocal in his criticism of the Biden administration’s approach to telework, accusing it of hindering government efficiency and performance. Originally introduced nearly two years ago, the SHOW UP Act successfully passed in the House but failed to gain Senate approval. Comer’s renewed push comes amid broader discussions about the future of work within the federal government and rising tensions over potential policy changes under the next administration. The proposed legislation would require federal agencies to reduce telework policies to pre-pandemic levels within 30 days. Additionally, agencies would need to provide Congress with retrospective studies within six months to evaluate the impact of hybrid work models on their operations. Comer’s insistence on these measures reflects growing skepticism among some lawmakers about the long-term viability of widespread remote work in federal agencies. Meanwhile, the Biden administration has taken steps to secure hybrid work protections for federal employees. These efforts, which extend telework accommodations through 2029 for many roles, particularly in agencies like the Social Security Administration, aim to provide stability for employees who have adjusted to the flexibility of remote work. The administration has emphasized maintaining current telework levels, framing the policy as a pragmatic adaptation to modern workforce needs. However, federal workers are bracing for potential disruptions tied to former President Donald Trump’s expected return to the White House. If Trump reassumes office, policy shifts could significantly impact federal employment practices. Notably, tech entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who have been tapped to lead Trump’s proposed “Department of Government Efficiency,” have outlined plans for extensive federal workforce layoffs. As debates over remote work and government efficiency intensify, the fate of the SHOW UP Act remains uncertain. Should it gain traction, it could signal a dramatic shift in federal workplace norms, forcing thousands of employees to return to traditional office environments. For now, federal workers and agencies are navigating a rapidly evolving landscape with potentially far-reaching implications for their daily operations and long-term futures. Based on a report by The Hill 2024-01-18

Despite the recent backlash over the treatment of columnist Allison Pearson, it seems some lessons are yet to be learned by the police regarding their approach to speech on social media. Like children needing repeated admonitions, the police appear to require further instruction on where to draw the line. The recent incident involving an anonymous social media user, known as “Cillian,” is a testament to this. Just as the controversy surrounding Pearson’s tweet was beginning to fade, law enforcement officers are once again embroiled in an investigation of a social media post that, while controversial, hardly merits police intervention. Pearson’s ordeal began with a tweet about the differential policing of pro-Gaza protests, which led to an unwarranted investigation by Essex Police. The public outcry that ensued embarrassed the chief constable and should have served as a clear warning to other forces. Yet, here we are again, witnessing another overreach, this time by South Wales Police. Cillian's offense was expressing outrage on X about a video featuring two young schoolgirls welcoming asylum seekers to Wales. In his viral post, he connected the video to the grooming gang scandal and criticized the Welsh Refugee Council for using young girls in promotional material aimed at attracting migrants. His post was provocative, certainly, but is it criminal? The police seem to think it’s worth investigating, much to the dismay of those who believe their resources would be better spent addressing more pressing issues. The timing of the complaint, coming in late on a Saturday night, further highlights the questionable judgment at play. One would think the police would be preoccupied with serious crimes like assaults or robberies at that hour. Instead, they are diverting their attention to what many see as a waste of time, particularly when crime rates in South Wales are on the rise. The video in question was originally intended for Ukrainian refugees as part of a school project. However, it broadly welcomed anyone fleeing conflict, listing various forms of support available in Wales. This raises concerns about what children are being taught regarding immigration and whether they are encouraged to critically evaluate the impact of such policies. While the project may have had good intentions, its dissemination by the Welsh Refugee Council transformed it into a controversial public statement, leading to backlash and the eventual removal of the video from the council's platforms. Cillian's commentary, albeit harsh, has sparked debate—a debate that perhaps should not be stifled by police intervention. Instead of involving law enforcement, it would be more constructive to engage in open discussions about the issues he raised. The police now face a choice: continue to entertain such complaints and risk being mired in similar controversies, or dismiss them as unwarranted and focus on their primary duty—upholding public safety. The hope is that they choose the latter, learning from past mistakes and respecting the boundaries of free speech. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-01-18

In the years following the George Floyd protests, the United States appeared ready to confront its deep-seated issues of discrimination and inequality. Yet, the recent rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in corporate America and educational institutions signals a troubling retreat from those commitments. While DEI programs have faced criticism for their shortcomings, their rapid dismantling suggests a country regressing rather than progressing. Major companies like Facebook, McDonald’s, and Walmart have recently announced reductions or complete discontinuations of their DEI efforts. These initiatives, ranging from specific hiring targets for women and people of color to broader goals of fostering inclusive workplaces, are now being scaled back. This shift reflects a disturbing trend: corporations are signaling less concern about creating environments that support women, LGBTQ+ individuals, people of color, and those with disabilities. The retrenchment isn't limited to the corporate world. Educational institutions are also rolling back diversity measures. Some colleges have halted efforts to increase enrollment of Native, Black, and Latino students or cut scholarships designated for minority groups. Others have shuttered campus centers that offered support and resources for Black, LGBTQ+, and female students, among others. The legal climate has undoubtedly played a role in this shift. The 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling restricting affirmative action in college admissions has emboldened conservative legal groups to challenge corporate DEI programs, arguing that they resemble the policies struck down by the court. In response, many companies are preemptively abandoning these initiatives, fearing legal repercussions. However, the decline of DEI is not solely a legal issue. The social and political environment in the U.S. has shifted significantly. For some corporations, the expansion of DEI programs may have been more about aligning with the prevailing societal mood than a genuine commitment to combating racism and sexism. As the fervor surrounding the George Floyd protests subsides, so too does the urgency of these initiatives. The rise of anti-DEI sentiment is rooted in two flawed premises. The first, often espoused by conservatives, is the belief that acknowledging gender, race, and other identities is inherently divisive. This argument suggests that ignoring identity would lead to fewer tensions, an approach that overlooks the systemic issues these initiatives aim to address. The second premise comes from a segment of liberals and Democrats who, while supportive of certain diversity measures like campus centers for Black students, resist initiatives that seem to challenge the concept of meritocracy. This group sometimes aligns with conservatives in opposing the consideration of race or gender in admissions and hiring, fearing it undermines a merit-based system. Both premises weaken the case for necessary and overdue societal changes. Ignoring identity does not erase the inequalities tied to it, and clinging to a flawed notion of meritocracy often perpetuates existing disparities. The decline of DEI initiatives is more than just a policy change; it is a reflection of a shifting national consciousness, one that risks undoing progress made in recent years. As memories of George Floyd's killing and the subsequent protests fade, there is a danger that the hard-fought gains in diversity and inclusion will be lost, leaving the U.S. further entrenched in its historical patterns of inequality. Based on a report by WP 2024-01-18

A teenager involved in what police have described as a Satanist terror network targeting children online for sexual blackmail and violence has been jailed for six years at the Old Bailey. Cameron Finnigan pleaded guilty to encouraging suicide, possessing a terrorism manual, and indecent images of a child. The court heard the 19-year-old from Horsham was part of an extreme right-wing Satanist group called 764, which anti-terror police warn poses "an immense threat". At least four British teenagers have been arrested in connection with the activities of the group, which has blackmailed children - mainly girls - into carrying out sexual acts, harming themselves or or even attempting suicide. At a previous hearing Finnigan admitted five charges and he has now been given a six-year sentence with an extended three-year licence period. Mr Justice Jay said he posed "a high risk of serious harm to the public". Finnigan was arrested in March 2024 after police received information that he had a gun. No firearm was found at his home but after analysing his digital devices, officers found online chats where he encouraged one young female, believed to be in Italy, to livestream her own suicide. Officers have been unable to identify this woman and do not know what happened to her. In online chats Finnigan boasted to other members of 764 about his attempts to get children to hurt themselves. Det Ch Supt Claire Finlay, head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East, says the members competed to see who was the most extreme: "If you can get someone to self-harm, you're doing quite well in that group. If you can get them to kill themselves, you're reaching the pinnacle." An 11-page PDF document was also found on Finnigan's computer, giving detailed instructions on how to carry out a "mass casualty" terrorist attack using a lorry, firearm or knives. And on the Telegram messaging platform, he and other members plotted what they called "terror week". He told the group he planned to murder a homeless man living in a tent near his home, and even posted pictures of the location. "I won't stop until he's dead," he wrote online. "This case has been very shocking," said Det Ch Supt Finlay. "Cameron Finnigan was dangerous. There was a threat to public safety there." 'An immense threat' The 764 network was founded in 2020 by a US teenager, Bradley Cadenhead, who was then 15. It is believed to be named after the partial postal code of his hometown in Texas. Police say it is part of a loose, international network of far-right extremist groups that have adopted what officers call "militant accelerationist ideology". Those who have researched the groups say they seek to destroy modern, civilised society by committing depraved acts of violence and sexual exploitation - often involving children. Cadenhead was arrested in 2021 and is now serving an 80-year prison sentence in Texas for the creation of videos in which children were not only being sexually abused, but also choked, beaten, suffocated and seriously injured. The network uses Nazi and Satanist imagery. Finnigan, who went by the online username "Acid", adorned his bedroom in West Sussex with swastikas and pentagrams. Based on a report by BBC 2024-01-18

Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, is facing criticism for her approach to addressing the issue of grooming gangs in the UK. Despite the Government allocating £5 million for five initial local inquiries, modeled after the judge-led investigation in Telford, critics argue that the lack of statutory powers to compel witnesses will hinder the efforts to uncover the full truth. The first inquiry will take place in Oldham, marking a reversal of the Home Office’s previous decision not to support such investigations. This change came after significant criticism, including comments from tech billionaire Elon Musk on social media platform X. In a statement to the Commons, Cooper also announced a rapid three-month national audit led by Baroness Louise Casey. This audit aims to establish the current scale of grooming, focusing on the societal and cultural drivers as well as the ethnicity of the gangs. Following this, Baroness Casey will move on to address the social care crisis. These measures have been designed to counter demands for a comprehensive national inquiry from various political figures, including Conservatives, Reform UK, and some Labour MPs. However, Cooper's approach has been met with disapproval from within her party. Senior Labour politicians, such as Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester, and Sarah Champion, MP for Rotherham, have voiced concerns over the lack of statutory powers in the local inquiries. Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, labeled the local inquiries as "wholly inadequate," given that the problem affects up to 50 towns. “These local inquiries won’t have the legal powers under the Inquiry Act 2005 to compel witnesses to attend, take evidence under oath, and requisition written evidence,” Philp stated. He emphasized that victims, the public, and even Labour leaders like Burnham want a full national public inquiry with the necessary powers to compel evidence. Echoing these sentiments, Sarah Champion highlighted that without statutory powers, local inquiries would only ensure no cover-ups if they had the ability to compel witnesses. Despite the criticism, Cooper defended the local inquiry approach, arguing that they can provide more detailed, locally relevant answers and changes than a nationwide inquiry. She revealed plans to utilize the Government’s new “duty of candour,” a legal obligation on public servants, including police, to tell the truth. This measure aims to hold those involved in cover-ups or resisting scrutiny accountable, ensuring that truth and justice are upheld. Tom Crowther, who led the Telford inquiry, will establish a national framework for these local investigations, starting with Oldham and four other pilot areas. Additionally, Cooper asked police forces to review and potentially reopen cold cases related to historic child sexual exploitation and abuse allegations. The police’s Child Sexual Exploitation Taskforce is also tasked with improving the collection of ethnic data on perpetrators and victims, following evidence that some abuse allegations were suppressed to avoid damaging community relations. Official data recently revealed that individuals of Pakistani descent are up to four times more likely to be reported for child sex grooming offenses than the general population. This has intensified the call for robust action and thorough investigations to address the systemic issue of grooming gangs in the UK. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-01-18

Donald Trump's guest list for his inauguration as U.S. president on January 20 is shaping up to be an unusual collection of global far-right populists, signaling a clear ideological stance for his upcoming administration. Inaugurations are typically domestic-focused ceremonies, with foreign diplomats attending as a courtesy rather than foreign leaders. However, Trump’s approach deviates from tradition. His invitations extend to many leaders he's engaged with, including Argentinian President Javier Milei and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Notably absent are key figures from the European centrist mainstream, such as EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. In contrast, prominent far-right and nationalist politicians, including British anti-EU figure Nigel Farage, French nationalist Éric Zemmour, and Belgium’s Tom Van Grieken, have been invited. Edward Frantz, chair of the department of history and political science at the University of Indianapolis, notes the abnormality of foreign leaders attending such a ceremony, highlighting that it is "entirely a domestic matter." Yet, the presence of these far-right figures reveals much about the political direction Trump may pursue and who could influence him once in office. The list of invitees reads like a Who’s Who of right-wing populism. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Argentinian President Javier Milei, both likened to Trump in their rhetoric and policies, are set to attend. Meloni’s visit earlier this month to Mar-a-Lago, where Trump praised her as a "fantastic woman," underscores her significance on this list. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, another far-right leader and admirer of Russian President Vladimir Putin, was also invited, though he will not attend. For other leaders, attending Trump’s inauguration is a calculated move, reflecting the need for diplomatic leverage and the importance Trump places on personal relationships and public respect. While some, like Meloni, may prefer to engage with the new administration after the inauguration week, her interest in attending indicates a strategic respect for Trump. EU diplomats acknowledge that the request to attend, though unusual, is taken seriously because it matters to Trump, and many leaders need to maintain good relations with the U.S. China’s Xi Jinping was invited in a move seen as an attempt to open dialogue, although the likelihood of his attendance is slim due to the short notice and the rarity of such appearances by Chinese heads of state. Still, China may send senior officials to represent its interests and initiate discussions with Trump’s incoming foreign policy team. India's Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar and Japan’s Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya have confirmed their attendance. Latin American leaders such as El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele and Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa are also expected, alongside former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who, due to legal issues, cannot attend. The tech industry will be represented by figures like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg, with French billionaire Xavier Niel also attending. From Europe, the guest list includes far-right politicians like Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) candidate Tino Chrupalla, who will represent the party following Elon Musk’s endorsement. Spain’s Vox leader Santiago Abascal and Portugal’s Chega leader André Ventura will also be present. In contrast, notable figures like EU Commission President von der Leyen and French far-right leader Marine Le Pen were not invited, suggesting a preference for those who have openly supported Trump. This guest list, packed with far-right leaders and allies, not only highlights Trump’s political leanings but also sets a tone for his administration’s international relationships, favoring those aligned with his ideologies. Let me know if you'd like any further adjustments. Based on a report by Politico 2024-01-18

In what is expected to be his final Oval Office interview, President Joe Biden shared candid insights about his biggest regrets, his deepest fears, and his most accurate prediction during a conversation with MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell. The 82-year-old president, whose term concludes on Monday, leaves office with low approval ratings and after stepping back from a reelection bid that saw Vice President Kamala Harris defeated by former rival, President-elect Donald Trump. Throughout the interview, Biden made several notable missteps. Discussing the presence of North Korean forces in Russia’s war in Ukraine, he initially referred to them as Chinese before correcting himself. Reflecting on his 2021 meeting with Vladimir Putin, he mistakenly said Sweden before clarifying that the meeting took place in Switzerland, a pivotal dialogue eight months before Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Additionally, while recounting the October 7 Hamas terror attack, Biden inadvertently referred to it as 9/11, a comparison he has drawn before to highlight the gravity of the incident. When asked about this week’s ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, Biden defended his administration’s approach amid criticism from progressive voices that labeled his policies as overly pro-Israel. He revealed details of a conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following Hamas’ attack on Israel. "When I went to Israel immediately after their attack on the—by Hamas, eight days later, whatever it was, and I told them we were going to help, I said: ‘But, Bibi, you can’t be carpet-bombing in these communities,’” Biden recounted. The president shared Netanyahu’s retort, which drew historical parallels. "And he said to me: ‘Well, you did it. You carpet-bombed’—not his exact words—‘but you carpet-bombed Berlin. You dropped a nuclear weapon. You killed thousands of innocent people because you had to in order to win a war,’” Biden said. Acknowledging the argument’s legitimacy, Biden noted that Hamas militants were using tunnels beneath civilian buildings, complicating Israel’s efforts to retaliate effectively. "Only way to get to them is to take out the places where they were under," he explained. In response, Biden pointed out the evolution of global conflict protocols, referencing the establishment of the United Nations as a result of lessons learned from World War II. “That’s why we came up with the U.N.,” he said. The interview offered a glimpse into the personal and political reflections of a president nearing the end of a tumultuous term, leaving behind a complex legacy shaped by global conflicts, domestic challenges, and moments of profound introspection. Based on a report by Daily Mail 2024-01-18