Social Media

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

//closed// topic running here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A baiting post making light of the incident explanation has been removed @Jeff the Chef

@SMIAI please use the quote button when replying to another member instead of pinging them with their user name. It creates confusion and a disjointed reply that can lead to bickering in addition to not quoting their full in context post which is against forum rules. Comment on moderation from the same poster also removed. This topic is not about the West Bank.

A way off topic post with oversize font and a comments on moderation have been removed.

Title: Submerged Secrets: Could Japan’s Yonaguni Monument Rewrite Human History? Off the southern coast of Japan, beneath the waters surrounding the Ryukyu Islands, lies a mysterious stone formation that has reignited global fascination with ancient civilizations. The Yonaguni Monument, sitting 82 feet underwater and rising nearly 90 feet in height, may be far more than just a natural rock formation. If proven to be man-made, it could predate Egypt’s pyramids and England’s Stonehenge by thousands of years, suggesting the existence of a sophisticated civilization long before the dawn of agriculture. Discovered in 1986, the Yonaguni Monument features wide terraces, angular steps, and formations that appear carved with purpose. The precision and scale of the site have led some researchers and enthusiasts to call it “Japan’s Atlantis.” Many now speculate that it could be the oldest known human-made structure on Earth — potentially over 10,000 years old. If true, such a revelation would challenge everything we currently believe about the capabilities of ancient humans and the timeline of civilization. Supporters of the theory argue that Yonaguni shows clear signs of intelligent design. Author Graham Hancock, known for his controversial work on lost civilizations, recently debated the monument’s origins on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast with archaeologist Flint Dibble. “To me, Flint, it’s stunning that you see that as a totally natural thing, but I guess we’ve just got very different eyes,” Hancock said. He pointed to what he believes are carved steps, megaliths, arches, and even a face-like engraving etched into the rock. “If this really was built by a mysterious civilization more than 10,000 years ago, it would place Yonaguni in the same league as Göbekli Tepe in Turkey — one of the oldest known man-made structures, dated to around 9500 BC.” Dibble, however, remains unconvinced. “I’ve seen a lot of crazy natural stuff and I see nothing here that to me reminds me of human architecture,” he said during their discussion. That skepticism is shared by other scientists, including Boston University’s Robert Schoch, who has argued the structure is the result of natural geological processes. “The sandstones tend to break along planes and give you these very straight edges, particularly in an area with lots of faults and tectonic activity,” Schoch explained in a past interview with National Geographic. Yet not all experts dismiss the possibility of human involvement. Japanese geologist Masaaki Kimura has long supported the theory that Yonaguni is a man-made structure and has even linked it to the mythical lost continent of Lemuria. Kimura once suggested the monument could have been constructed 2,000 to 3,000 years ago, when sea levels were lower and the site was potentially above water. Whether a submerged city lost to time or simply a remarkable geological oddity, the Yonaguni Monument continues to provoke curiosity and controversy. For now, the mystery remains unresolved — resting quietly beneath the sea as divers and scientists continue to search for answers. Based on a report by NYP 2025-04-09

Famed paranormalist and former CIA collaborator Uri Geller has sounded an alarming warning of impending global catastrophe, issuing a plea to former President Donald Trump to take decisive action against Iran's nuclear ambitions. Geller, known for his decades of work with intelligence agencies and his alleged psychic abilities, claims to have seen a terrifying vision of Armageddon—one that he insists is not rooted in imagination but in genuine premonition. “I have seen Armageddon and it is real — with walls of fire, US bases in flames and Middle Eastern cities in ruins. Even the sea boils,” Geller revealed. “This is not mere imagination. I have had premonitions all my life. I see things before they happen. But the vision that has been haunting me for the past few days is the most terrifying yet.” According to Geller, his vision began with a nuclear bomb being launched by Iran. He described seeing Iranian military personnel turning keys and hearing the Farsi language. He is convinced this marks the beginning of a global disaster unless urgent action is taken. “There is only one nation on Earth that has the firepower to prevent this nightmare from becoming reality: the United States of America,” he stated. Geller’s plea is direct: do not strike a new nuclear agreement with Iran. “The US must not sign any deal with Iran that gives it time to keep developing its nuclear weapons. The only safe course of action is to halt Tehran's bomb-making right now.” He refers to recent testimony by General Anthony Cotton, head of US Strategic Command, who told the Senate that Iran could produce enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb in under a week. “Gen. Cotton last month told the US Senate that Iran's 'breakout time' — the period needed to enrich enough uranium for one bomb — is now a matter of days.” The paranormalist fears that if Iran cannot yet launch a nuclear missile, they may smuggle a bomb into Israel, Europe, or even a major US city like Philadelphia, New York, or Miami. “It would not require any sophisticated type of delivery system, just an overwhelming hatred of the West and everything we stand for,” Geller said. “Iran's Quds Force, which operates overseas, could be ordered to make this happen.” Geller paints a chilling picture of a regime that might view the destruction of a Western city as divine justice, saying, “Iran's leaders, who speak of the US as 'the Great Satan', might see the obliteration of an American city as God's will — even though it could lead to a worldwide nuclear holocaust and the end of human civilization.” His confidence in these visions comes from a lifetime of experiences, including a notorious moment in 1970 when, during a demonstration in Tel Aviv, he spontaneously declared that Egypt’s President Nasser had died—just moments after the heart attack that took his life. “Later, I discovered that my premonition came within a few minutes of Nasser's death, perhaps even at the moment he died.” Following this, both the Israeli military and the CIA took Geller’s abilities seriously, enlisting him in the top-secret Stargate program, which used psychic “remote viewing” to spy on foreign threats during the Cold War. He claims that such programs likely continue today in hidden rooms across the United States. “My role was to absorb whatever I felt as we flashed overhead,” he said of missions conducted at high speed over suspected nuclear sites. He even participated in surveillance over tunnels from North Korea into South Korea, an experience he says makes him certain Iran’s program is not peaceful. “I can even feel the existence of the tunnels, spiraling out like a subterranean spider's web.” He believes that the ayatollahs of Iran will do whatever it takes to achieve nuclear capability and that they view it as essential for their survival. “The regime knows it cannot survive without the ultimate deterrent. But it is not there yet. President Trump must prevent this – and do so now.” Geller warns that any deal with Iran will be used as a smokescreen. “The ayatollahs will lie their way to a bomb and use a deal with the US as the perfect cover. President Trump can go down in history as the savior of the world... or as the leader who let Iran destroy it.” In his closing plea, he states with unwavering urgency, “Dear Mr President, do not let my warning go unheeded.” Based on a report by The Daily Mail 2025-04-07

BBC Faces Backlash Over Use of Term ‘Revert’ in Islam Coverage The BBC has come under fire for using the term “reverts” to describe Muslim converts in a recent news article, sparking accusations that the national broadcaster was echoing “Islamist propaganda.” The contentious term appeared throughout a piece published on BBC News about Eid, the Muslim festival marking the end of Ramadan, before the article was later edited in response to growing criticism. The term “revert” is rooted in the belief held by some Muslims that every human is born into Islam and that conversion later in life is, in fact, a return to that original faith. This notion is not universally accepted within the Muslim community and is often associated with more hardline or fundamentalist interpretations of the religion. Tom Tugendhat, a Conservative MP and former security minister, condemned the language used, stating, “Calling converts ‘reverts’ is ideology, not fact. It’s claiming we’re all ‘originally’ Muslim and those who convert are rediscovering their faith. That’s Islamist propaganda and has no place on the BBC.” Tugendhat, who holds a master’s degree in Islamic studies from the University of Cambridge, further argued that, “Mainstream Islam is clear on conversion as a route to salvation in keeping with other faiths. This is not the same. I don’t object to theological language, I object to the BBC claiming it is the appropriate term.” Following the backlash, the article was edited on Saturday to remove most instances of the word “revert.” Initially, it remained in the headline and in quotes, but a second round of edits later replaced “reverts” with “converts” in the headline as well. An explanatory note was also added to clarify the context: “Some Muslims refer to ‘revert’ when talking about people who have converted to the Muslim faith. This is based on the belief that everyone is born as a Muslim and those who embrace Islam are returning to their ‘natural state’.” The original article had focused on the experience of new Muslims during Eid, emphasizing the sense of isolation some converts may feel during a holiday typically spent with family. It also highlighted the work of New Muslim Circle, a charity in Peterborough that supports people who have embraced Islam by teaching them how to pray and organizing community gatherings. However, criticism of the terminology continued from various experts and public figures. Dr Taj Hargey of the Oxford Institute for British Islam was especially blunt in his assessment. “It is used by Islamic fundamentalists in their propaganda that everyone is born Muslim,” he said. “It is utter tosh and the correct term to use is ‘convert’. It is concerning that the BBC has chosen to use this divisive term that most Muslims would not use, only extremists and supremacists.” Dr Paul Stott, head of security and extremism at the Policy Exchange think tank, questioned the editorial judgment behind the original wording. “Why is the national broadcaster using such a loaded term without quote, qualification or detailed explanation?” he asked. “The position that Islam is the natural state of all humans, and that converts to the faith are reverting to it, may be something some or even most Muslims accept. But believers in other faiths do not think that. Nor do atheists. So why is the BBC giving it currency?” Steve Baker, the former Conservative MP, also weighed in, expressing concern over the implications. “This kind of excess does Muslims a grave disservice and surely is among the reasons a worrying anti-Muslim hatred is rising. Moderation is the key. This from the BBC is not it.” In response to the criticism, a spokesperson for the BBC said: “This piece has been edited, and the headline changed, to make it clearer for readers.” According to internal sources, BBC editors later concluded that the use of the term “revert” should have been clearly attributed to interviewees and explained in full in the original publication. Based on a report by The Telegraph 2025-04-07

Beneath the Surface: The Silent Battle for Britain's Waters Russian surveillance sensors designed to track the UK’s nuclear submarines have been uncovered in British waters, revealing a hidden front in what military officials describe as an escalating campaign of “greyzone” warfare. These covert devices, discovered by the British military, include several that washed ashore and others found by the Royal Navy. While the exact locations have not been disclosed, the sensors are believed to be the work of Moscow, deployed to monitor the Vanguard-class submarines that carry the UK’s nuclear deterrent. The revelation, which has not been made public until now, points to a serious threat to national security. One of the four Vanguard submarines is always at sea under the UK’s continuous at-sea deterrent, a defence strategy that depends on stealth. The aim of these hidden Russian devices, officials believe, is to detect and track these submarines as they vanish from their base at Faslane, Scotland, for months-long patrols in unknown locations. A three-month investigation by The Sunday Times has shed light on this underwater espionage through interviews with more than a dozen former defence ministers, senior military officials and experts. It also included rare access to the RFA Proteus, a newly commissioned deep-sea surveillance ship at the heart of Britain's response to these undersea threats. Military commanders have compared the growing technological struggle beneath the waves to the Cold War space race. With Russia decades into its investment in seabed warfare, Britain is now scrambling to catch up. On March 21, a speedboat carried journalists and senior naval officers to the RFA Proteus anchored off Scotland’s west coast. Towering above the waters near the Isle of Arran, the ship is a floating fortress outfitted with a helipad, deep-sea cranes, and a moon pool the size of eight snooker tables for launching underwater vehicles. The crew includes members of the navy’s diving and mine-hunting squadrons—experts trained to locate and neutralise threats on the ocean floor. Their mission has become more urgent amid fears that Russia is using its formidable underwater capabilities to map and sabotage Britain’s critical infrastructure. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Russia’s conventional forces diminished, but it never stopped pouring resources into its submarine fleet. Unlike any other country, Russia maintains a fleet dedicated to seabed warfare and espionage. These submarines are not only highly advanced but also capable of deep-sea operations beyond the reach of many NATO vessels. Russia’s undersea strategy intensified even before its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. According to military sources, the Kremlin’s focus expanded to surveillance and sabotage of underwater internet cables, pipelines, and military lines—critical arteries for the West. The Nord Stream gas pipeline explosion in 2022 was widely believed to be a greyzone attack orchestrated by Moscow. Since then, at least 11 internet cables in the Baltic Sea have suffered damage—some by ships dragging their anchors across the seabed in suspiciously calculated patterns. “You really need to keep the [engine] power on to drag, so it is a deliberate act,” said one defence insider. British military sources also suspect that oligarch-owned superyachts may have been used to support Russia’s underwater reconnaissance. These luxury vessels often feature moon pools—hidden underwater openings—capable of deploying deep-sea equipment covertly. The Russian program is coordinated by the Main Directorate for Deep-Sea Research, or Gugi, and features vessels such as the Yantar, a spy ship capable of deploying mini-subs with manipulator arms that can cut or tap cables and lay explosive devices. These minisubs are supported by larger “mother” submarines, allowing them to operate globally with near-total secrecy. “There should be no doubt, there is a war raging in the Atlantic,” said a senior British military official. “This is a game of cat and mouse that has continued since the ending of the Cold War, and is now heating up again. We are seeing phenomenal amounts of Russian activity.” As British forces work to locate and counter these threats, the question now is not just how to respond—but how to stay ahead in a silent war already underway beneath the waves. Based on a report by The Times 2025-04-07

George Santos Faces Seven-Year Prison Term in Federal Fraud Case as Prosecutors Cite ‘Unparalleled Crimes’ Federal prosecutors are calling for a prison sentence of more than seven years for former U.S. Representative George Santos, citing what they describe as “unparalleled crimes” that exploited the American electoral system and left a trail of deceit, fraud, and public mistrust. In a court filing submitted Friday, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York urged the court to impose an 87-month sentence, the higher end of federal sentencing guidelines, arguing Santos’ conduct had “made a mockery” of the democratic process. “From his creation of a wholly fictitious biography to his callous theft of money from elderly and impaired donors, Santos’s unrestrained greed and voracious appetite for fame enabled him to exploit the very system by which we select our representatives,” prosecutors wrote in the filing. They described him as “unrepentant and defiant,” pointing to his long-standing denials and characterization of the prosecution as a “witch hunt” even as damning evidence emerged and calls for his resignation mounted. Santos ultimately pleaded guilty to federal fraud and identity theft charges in August 2023, admitting he deceived donors, stole the identities of nearly a dozen individuals—including family members—and falsified financial documents to secure campaign donations and federal matching funds. The once-promising Republican from New York, who served barely a year in Congress before his expulsion in December, now awaits sentencing on April 25. Despite his guilty plea, prosecutors say Santos has not shown genuine remorse. They argue his post-plea apologies “ring hollow,” noting that he has neither forfeited the financial gains nor made restitution to his victims. They also raised concerns about the potential for reoffending, citing his continued attempts to profit from his notoriety, including through the video platform Cameo and a new documentary, which they say earned him over $800,000 since his ouster from Congress. Santos’ attorneys, however, have called the sentencing recommendation “absurd and unfounded.” In their own memo submitted Friday, they urged the judge to impose the mandatory minimum two-year sentence for aggravated identity theft, claiming such a term would be consistent with those handed down in similar political scandals, including the case of former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. They also highlighted Santos’ lack of prior criminal history and his role in supporting his sister and her young daughter, arguing these are mitigating factors the court should weigh. “This sentence, coupled with the significant collateral consequences Mr. Santos has already suffered—including the loss of his congressional seat and public humiliation — would send a clear message that such conduct will not be tolerated,” his legal team wrote. Santos’ fall from grace has been as swift as it was stunning. Once hailed as a Republican newcomer representing parts of Queens and Long Island, he was exposed for having fabricated nearly every aspect of his resume. He falsely claimed to be a wealthy financier with degrees from elite universities and a thriving real estate portfolio. In reality, he was facing eviction and financial hardship. His lies and financial misconduct prompted a historic response from the House of Representatives, which voted to expel him—the sixth time in U.S. history a member has been removed by their peers. Santos’ criminal case has also ensnared two of his former aides. Sam Miele, a top campaign fundraiser, was sentenced last month to just over a year in prison after admitting he impersonated a senior congressional aide to solicit donations and charged credit cards without consent. Nancy Marks, the campaign’s treasurer, has pleaded guilty to filing fake financial reports, including a fictitious $500,000 personal loan from Santos, to meet fundraising targets that unlocked national party support. She is scheduled to be sentenced in May. Santos’ own sentencing was originally scheduled for February but was delayed to give him time to come up with more than $500,000 in court fines. As part of his plea deal, he agreed to pay nearly $375,000 in restitution and forfeit $205,000. At the time, his lawyers stated he had just over $1,000 in liquid assets and needed additional time to generate income from his newly launched podcast “Pants on Fire.” Whether that effort will satisfy the court remains to be seen. For now, George Santos stands as a cautionary tale about the vulnerabilities of the political system and the severe consequences of exploiting them. Based on a report by NBC News 2025-04-07

A sweeping rise in National Insurance (NI) contributions introduced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves is prompting almost half of UK companies to pull back on recruitment, according to new research. The move, which increases the rate of employer contributions from 13.8 per cent to 15 per cent, officially comes into effect this Sunday and is already reshaping hiring plans across the country. In a survey conducted by recruitment firm Reed, 46 per cent of the 254 companies surveyed—representing over 260,000 employees—indicated they would cut recruitment due to the NI increase. The tax change, first announced in last October's Budget, is projected to bring in an additional £25 billion in employer taxes, but many firms say it could be the final straw in an already hostile economic environment. The added burden arrives as businesses are also contending with higher minimum wages, rising business rates, and the cost of complying with updated workers' rights legislation. Many companies reported they had already postponed or cancelled hiring plans even before the rise officially began. Concerns over the increase were widespread, with nearly two-thirds of firms voicing worries about the higher NI payments. On average, respondents estimated their annual profits would fall by 29 per cent due to the change. The NI hike isn’t just freezing recruitment—it’s also triggering job losses. Sixteen per cent of the surveyed businesses said they had already begun making redundancies. Meanwhile, 19 per cent have delayed or scrapped planned salary reviews, and 22 per cent reported they were slashing departmental budgets to cope with the rising costs. London appears to be bearing the brunt of the policy shift. Sixty per cent of firms in the capital reported that the NI increase was affecting their hiring decisions, compared to 38 per cent outside the city. Furthermore, 24 per cent of London businesses said they were already making redundancies, double the 12 per cent seen in other regions. The recent rise in the national minimum wage, from £11.44 to £12.21 per hour for workers aged 21 and over, is compounding the situation. Twenty-six per cent of businesses said they had paused hiring because of the higher wage floor, while 35 per cent said it had significantly hampered their ability to recruit. James Reed, chairman and CEO of the Reed Group, voiced concern about the direction of government policy. “Everyone understands there are difficult decisions to be made given the state of the public finances, but we warned when the increase in employers' National Insurance was announced it was a tax on jobs and so it has proved,” he said. “The findings of our survey clearly demonstrate the impact and suggest the jobs market will remain under pressure. The hole this tax increase has made in a million company balance sheets is regrettable. These are tough times for companies that want to hire and expand and this will feed through into weaker economic growth.” Based on a report by The Daily Mail 2025-04-07

The Shadow War: When Vigilantism Crosses a Dangerous Line Over the past decade, self-proclaimed "paedophile hunters" have taken to the streets and screens of the UK in a mission they claim is driven by justice. Operating independently of law enforcement, these online vigilantes pose as children on social media platforms, lure suspected predators into meetings, and livestream dramatic confrontations in an effort to expose alleged offenders. But beneath the surface of this modern crusade lies a murky, dangerous undercurrent that has destroyed innocent lives, led to criminal convictions of the hunters themselves, and in some cases, pushed uncharged men to take their own lives. These groups often rely on tips from the public or online rumours to identify supposed predators. Once a suspect engages in what the hunters deem to be inappropriate communication, a meeting is arranged—only instead of a child, it’s members of the group who appear, cameras rolling, ready to shame the individual publicly. Supporters applaud their efforts, pointing to cases where police acted on the information and courts secured convictions. But the cost of these unsanctioned actions has proven devastating. One of the most tragic consequences of this vigilantism is the suicide of individuals accused before any legal process has taken place. In February, 48-year-old father of four Adrian Smith died hours after being arrested, following a confrontation filmed and streamed by hunters who accused him of sending explicit messages to someone posing as a 14-year-old girl. Though released on bail and not charged with a crime, Smith jumped from a motorway bridge later that same day. The group who had posted the video made no apology. "We exposed a paedophile and handed him to the police," they said. "We have no control over the choices made by him." The online response was horrifying. Users cheered his death, with comments such as “One down, one million to go,” and “Fantastic.” Others suggested his suicide saved taxpayers’ money. Similar circumstances surrounded the death of David Baker in 2017, who was accused of arranging to meet a boy for sex. Confronted by hunters and then released under police investigation, Baker took a fatal overdose just days later. A coroner ruled that social media posts after his arrest directly contributed to his death. Steven Dure, who led the sting, expressed no remorse: “The only tragedy here is that justice could not be done before he took his life.” These outcomes are not isolated. Numerous individuals, later found to be innocent, have had their lives shattered. Darrell Edmondson lost his job and was ostracised by friends and family after being falsely accused by a group who mistook his identity. The group later admitted their error, but the damage was done. Similarly, Shiz Hussain was livestreamed being assaulted and publicly accused after a false tip-off rooted in personal revenge. The mental toll left him hiding in his shop's toilet for days. And the hunters themselves are far from infallible. Several have been arrested and convicted for crimes ranging from false imprisonment and assault to impersonating police officers. Sam Miller was jailed after violently confronting an innocent man, and Tim Heron, once a prominent hunter in Northern Ireland, was convicted for possessing indecent images of children. The behaviour of some groups has even resulted in charges against actual suspects being dropped due to the illegality of their methods. The line between justice and harassment has blurred dangerously. In one case, a Hull city council worker passed confidential data to hunters, sparking a mob attack on a registered sex offender’s home. The court found that the leak had “whipped up a frenzy” and placed public safety at risk. There’s also the troubling revelation that some individuals posing as hunters are predators themselves. Lee Philip Rees, for example, ran a blackmail operation while pretending to be a teenage girl, extorting money from men by threatening to expose them. He was later convicted of 31 offences, including computer misuse and blackmail. While their mission might claim moral righteousness, the reality is far more complex and, at times, deeply sinister. With tragic consequences for both the guilty and the innocent, the actions of these vigilante groups raise a sobering question: in trying to protect society from harm, how much damage are they doing themselves? Based on a report by Daily Mail 2025-04-07

The Anglicisation of France: A Language Under Siege by Its Own People France is witnessing a striking transformation, not at the hands of external forces, but by its own institutions and citizens. The recent renaming of the national lottery from FDJ to FDJ United has stirred controversy, renewing longstanding debates about the increasing dominance of English in French life. While critics decry this anglicisation as grotesque and idiotic, many believe the root cause lies not in foreign influence, but in a French inferiority complex towards Anglo-American culture. Paul Rondin, director of the Cité Internationale de la Langue Française, a center dedicated to celebrating the French language, doesn’t mince words. “My hypothesis is that it’s an inferiority complex. Not so much towards the English language, but towards Anglo-American culture,” he says. Rondin describes this linguistic shift as a form of cultural submission. “I think we need collective group psychotherapy,” he adds. “Why is it that all these French people, who are supposed to be so arrogant, so sure of their culture and their history, are spending their time transforming words into an anglicised name? What does that mean? I don’t have any hypotheses or answers to give you at this time, but there’s something deeply troubling going on here.” Senator Mickaël Vallet echoes the frustration but directs his ire at those within French business and branding circles. “These are people who were paid to come up with a new name, and are lazy and, in general, just idiots,” he states bluntly. “They’re people with no inventiveness whatsoever. They’re paid a lot of money not to think.” For him, FDJ United’s new name is “totally ridiculous.” The rationale behind the rebranding, according to FDJ CEO Stéphane Pallez, was to reflect the lottery group’s growing international footprint, particularly after acquisitions in Ireland and Sweden. “Today, our group is beginning a new chapter in its history, more diversified and more international,” Pallez explained. Despite French being the fifth-most spoken language globally, its influence is shrinking. In Africa, once a bastion of francophone culture, countries like Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso have distanced themselves from the French language amidst political tensions. In Europe, hopes that French might reassert itself post-Brexit were dashed, as English retained its dominance across EU institutions, particularly among officials from the Baltic and Scandinavian regions. What truly alarms French language advocates is not just the presence of English, but the widespread use of "Globish"—a simplified form of English with a narrow vocabulary. “Globish is a code. It’s not a language,” says Vallet. “And when I speak to someone, I want to speak to them with a language, not with a code.” He argues that this creates a chasm between elites and the public, fueling far-Right populism. “The far-Right thrives on rifts between the elites and the people… when those in power no longer speak a language that can be understood by those they represent.” The Académie Française has similarly condemned what it calls the “invasive anglicisation” across French institutions, warning in a 30-page report that such trends risk “a proportional impoverishment of the French lexicon” and could increase societal divisions. Even President Emmanuel Macron isn’t exempt from criticism. Louis Maisonneuve, co-founder of the collective Dare to Speak French, points to Macron’s frequent use of English in his speeches and at major events like “Choose France” and “One Planet Summit.” Maisonneuve sees this not as a benign embrace of internationalism but as a form of cultural surrender. “It’s the French who are bowing down in front of everything that comes from the Americans. We’re rolling out the red carpet for the Anglo-American language.” Maisonneuve’s group has taken action, filing legal complaints to ensure multilingual signage includes languages beyond English, like Spanish. “It’s not a criticism of English expression. It’s a criticism of those who only use English,” he says. Linguist Bernard Cerquiglini goes further, highlighting that many English words are, in fact, derived from French. “My book is part of that reaction. I say to the French, ‘You’re stupid. You want to abandon French in favour of American English, without realising that English comes from French.’” With his book The English Language Doesn’t Exist – It’s Just Badly Pronounced French, Cerquiglini underscores the irony of France abandoning a language that has, in many ways, shaped English itself. “Anglomania has existed for a long time,” Cerquiglini notes, “but at the moment, it’s taking on an astonishing aspect. With [Donald] Trump right now, I don’t feel like being American.” Based on a report by The Telegraph 2025-04-07

Trump Bets the White House — and GOP Control of Congress — on Tariffs In a dramatic and risky move, President Trump has thrown his political future — and that of the Republican Party — behind a sweeping new global tariff regime that has already sent shockwaves through the economy. Dubbed “Liberation Day” by the administration, the rollout of massive new tariffs has triggered a market meltdown, wiped out trillions in value, and rattled both allies and adversaries. The numbers are stark. Last Thursday and Friday alone, $6.4 trillion in stock market value evaporated, with many Americans watching helplessly as their retirement accounts and investment portfolios took a 10% hit. The economic pain is compounded by a sense of confusion. Many wonder why, at a moment when Trump was riding high on a string of policy wins and enjoying record approval ratings, he would take such a bold gamble. Indeed, Trump’s second term had been coasting on notable victories: a crackdown on illegal immigration, a government waste audit that vindicated long-standing claims of bureaucratic fraud, and a high-profile campaign to penalize universities accused of tolerating antisemitic behavior. His firm grip on swing states and a strong economy had given Republicans a solid majority in Congress. That momentum has now been put at risk. According to a Wall Street Journal poll conducted before the market crash, voters disapproved of Trump’s economic leadership by 8 points. His handling of inflation was underwater by 15. And as prices begin to climb due to import taxes, and growth forecasts dim, the situation could worsen. JPMorgan now predicts a sharp slowdown in U.S. GDP, warning of a 60% chance of a global recession if tariffs persist. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell added fuel to the fire, cautioning that tariffs could trigger both higher inflation and reduced growth. Senator Ted Cruz didn’t mince words: “If the tariff war pushes the US into a recession, particularly a bad recession, 2026 in all likelihood politically would be a bloodbath. You would face a Democrat House, and you might even face a Democrat Senate.” Yet despite the backlash, Trump remains undeterred. For him, tariffs are not a detour but the destination — a cornerstone of his America First doctrine. The goal is to revive U.S. manufacturing, shrink the trade deficit, and force global competitors to open their markets to American goods. At a post-election celebration at Mar-a-Lago, Trump hosted CEOs, including SoftBank’s chief, who pledged a $100 billion investment in the U.S. The administration claims the tariffs will generate as much as $700 billion in federal revenue this year — enough, it argues, to help fund tax cuts and other domestic priorities. More importantly, Trump insists the tariffs are about fairness. “Why is that if you go to Tokyo, there’s no American cars, if you go to Berlin, there’s no American cars, but on our streets, we have every foreign car there is?” said White House adviser Stephen Miller. “They’ve blocked their markets from our cars. President Trump is saying that has to end.” Critics accuse the White House of weaponizing tariffs too aggressively and too quickly. Rather than a phased, targeted approach, Trump has opted for a full-scale blitz across virtually all sectors and countries. Some argue this leaves no room for adjustment and threatens to alienate not just adversaries like China but allies in Europe as well. Still, there are signs the strategy might be working. Trump revealed that Vietnam’s leadership, in a call with him Friday, expressed interest in cutting their tariffs to zero in exchange for a broader trade deal. That statement appeared to confirm what many suspected: the tariffs are a bargaining tool as much as a policy in themselves. The reaction from China was swift and furious. Beijing retaliated with its own 34% levy on U.S. goods and accused Washington of “bullying.” But even Trump’s critics admit China’s trade practices — including IP theft, forced tech transfers, and state subsidies — are longstanding and egregious. Europe, while less openly abusive, has its own trade barriers, including agricultural subsidies and high VAT taxes that hit American imports hard. In other words, Trump’s argument about unfair global trade has merit. But whether his methods will achieve the desired outcome — and whether the American economy and political system can withstand the initial blow — is another question entirely. With 19 months until the midterm elections, Trump is betting big. If the gamble pays off, he could solidify his legacy as a transformational economic nationalist. If not, the political and economic fallout could be immense — and swift. Based on a report by The NYP 2025-04-07

Labour MP Dan Norris has been arrested on suspicion of rape and child sex offences, prompting his immediate suspension from the Labour Party and the removal of the party whip. The 65-year-old politician, who represents the newly formed constituency of North East Somerset and Hanham, is also being investigated for child abduction and misconduct in a public office. A Labour Party spokesperson stated, “Dan Norris MP was immediately suspended by the Labour Party upon being informed of his arrest. We cannot comment further while the police investigation is ongoing.” The party’s action followed confirmation from Avon and Somerset Police that a man in his 60s had been arrested on Friday, April 4, in connection with non-recent sexual offences against a girl. The force added that the man had been released on conditional bail while enquiries continue. In their official statement, Avon and Somerset Police said, “In December 2024, we received a referral from another police force relating to alleged non-recent child sex offences having been committed against a girl. Most of the offences are alleged to have occurred in the 2000s, but we're also investigating an alleged offence of rape from the 2020s.” The investigation is being led by officers under Operation Bluestone, a unit dedicated to rape and serious sexual assault cases. “The victim is being supported and given access to any specialist help or support she needs,” the force added. They further noted, “A man, aged in his 60s, was arrested on Friday (April 4) on suspicion of sexual offences against a girl (under the Sexual Offences Act 1956), rape (under the Sexual Offences Act 2003), child abduction and misconduct in a public office. He’s been released on conditional bail for enquiries to continue.” In light of the sensitivity of the case, the police urged the public to avoid speculation: “This is an active and sensitive investigation, so we'd respectfully ask people not to speculate on the circumstances so our enquiries can continue unhindered.” Mr Norris, who gained national attention in July 2024 when he defeated prominent Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg in the general election, has not commented publicly on the arrest. In addition to losing the party whip in Parliament, Norris has also stepped down from his position as chair of the League Against Cruel Sports. A spokesperson for the charity confirmed his resignation, stating, “The charity cannot comment further while an investigation is ongoing.” Dan Norris first entered Parliament in 1997 during Tony Blair’s Labour landslide, representing the former Wansdyke constituency. He served in government roles, including a position as assistant whip and later as a junior minister under Prime Minister Gordon Brown. After losing his seat in 2010, Norris remained active in public life and became mayor of the West of England in 2021. He was due to step down from that role ahead of local elections in May. Sky News has contacted Mr Norris for comment, but he has yet to respond. As the investigation continues, political and public reaction remains cautious, with many awaiting further details from the authorities. Based on a report by Sky News 2025-04-06