Social Media

One of the most alarming prospects is the potential role Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.) could play in the Trump administration's handling of public health. After abandoning his own bid for the presidency, RFK Jr. threw his support behind Donald Trump, helping to fuel his campaign with the promise of significant influence in shaping U.S. health policy. Trump has openly stated that he intends to give Kennedy a “big role” in guiding health initiatives, enabling him to make sweeping changes in areas like food, medicine, and public health. This could have disastrous consequences—not only for the United States but for global health as well. The implications of Kennedy's potential role are wide-ranging. For one, his rhetoric about returning health agencies to a “gold-standard, evidence-based science” is at odds with his history of spreading unproven treatments and rejecting established medical knowledge. In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, both Trump and Kennedy promoted unverified treatments like hydroxychloroquine, which has since been proven harmful to many patients. RFK Jr. is also well known for his crusade against fluoride in drinking water—a substance that has played a major role in reducing tooth decay in the U.S. and around the world. His anti-fluoride stance has gained traction among a vocal minority, and should he gain power, he may attempt to roll back fluoridation programs, undermining one of the most significant public health achievements in history. The potential for such a rollback of public health protections is alarming. If Kennedy's influence expands, outbreaks of preventable diseases like measles could rise, especially as vaccine hesitancy grows. His legacy, framed under the banner of “Make America Healthy Again,” could in fact leave the U.S. with a sicker, more vulnerable population. The impact wouldn’t be limited to the U.S. alone. In 2019, Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization visited Samoa, where a misinformation campaign about the safety of the measles vaccine led to a catastrophic outbreak, killing 83 people. His insistence that a defective vaccine caused the deaths was disproven, but the damage had already been done, with vaccination rates in the country plummeting to just 31%. This is just one example of the global ripple effect that RFK Jr.'s dangerous influence can have. The Trump administration's embrace of Kennedy as a health czar raises troubling questions about the future of public health worldwide. If Kennedy, who has openly criticized the rapid development of COVID vaccines, were to hold a position of power during a future pandemic, the U.S. would likely be much less prepared to respond. The success of Operation Warp Speed, which led to the rapid development of vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic, would be unlikely to repeat itself if Kennedy were in charge. Ultimately, the health of Americans—and the world—could be at risk. With a distorted reality based on misinformation, RFK Jr.’s rise to power would signal a dangerous departure from scientific consensus, and his policies could lead to the erosion of vital health protections. The risk of increased vaccine-preventable diseases, reduced access to safe medicines, and the spread of dangerous pseudoscience could have long-lasting consequences for global health, far beyond the borders of the United States. Based on a report by The Conversation 2024-11-11

In a move that has sparked widespread outrage, Iraq’s conservative Shia Muslim political factions are pushing a new law that would drastically lower the age of consent for girls, from 18 to just nine. This proposed amendment, if passed, would not only allow men to marry young girls but also strip women of basic rights such as divorce, child custody, and inheritance. The law in question, known as Law 188, was originally introduced in 1959 and is seen as a progressive piece of legislation in the Middle East. It established a set of rules that governed family matters across Iraq, regardless of sect or religious affiliation. But now, under the influence of conservative Shia factions, Iraq’s parliament is on the verge of repealing this landmark law in favor of an amendment that aligns with a strict interpretation of Islamic law. The proposed changes are chilling, particularly for Iraq’s women and girls. The age of consent would be slashed, allowing men to marry girls as young as nine—a move that is being framed as a means to protect “young girls” from “immoral relationships.” Furthermore, the amendment would erase women’s rights to divorce, child custody, and inheritance, essentially placing women under the control of their male relatives. Dr. Renad Mansour, a senior fellow at Chatham House, noted that this is the closest the amendment has come to passing, citing the significant political backing from Shia Islamist parties. "It has more momentum than it's ever had, primarily because of the Shia parties," Mansour explained, emphasizing how these groups are seeking to consolidate their power and regain legitimacy by pushing for the amendment. If passed, the law would be a devastating blow to Iraq’s social fabric. Human rights experts, such as Sarah Sanbar of Human Rights Watch, warn that the amendment would not merely undermine the rights of women but would actively erase them. These changes would further entrench a system where women are denied access to education, health care, and financial independence. Athraa Al-Hassan, an international human rights legal adviser, expressed concern that this shift could pave the way for Iraq to adopt the Guardianship of the Jurist system—a form of religious rule that places supreme authority in the hands of a religious leader, similar to the system in place in Iran. Al-Hassan fears that such a change would not only harm women but could also destabilize Iraq’s already fragile governance. Already, child marriage is a significant issue in Iraq, with some 28% of women married by the age of 18, according to the United Nations Children’s Fund. A loophole in the current personal status law allows religious leaders, rather than the courts, to officiate marriages, some involving girls as young as 15. This practice often leaves these girls in marriages that are unrecognized by the state, denying them a range of legal protections, including health care access and rights to inheritance. The new amendment would legitimize these religious marriages, exposing young girls to even greater risks of physical and sexual violence. It would also make it more difficult for women to escape abusive situations or pursue opportunities for education and employment. The impact of the proposed amendments goes beyond women’s rights, with fears that they could deepen Iraq’s sectarian divides. While the law would offer citizens the option to choose between secular or religious legal systems, it would also prioritize the sect of the husband in cases of dispute, stripping women of their agency and reinforcing patriarchal control. Protests have already erupted across Iraq, with activists calling out the government for attempting to legalize child marriage and institutionalize gender inequality. One such activist, Al-Hassan, condemned the proposal as a "very dangerous" infringement on Iraq's constitution and democratic principles, adding that it would set the country back decades in its quest for progress and equality. “Iraq is a civil state,” she argued. “We aspire to progress, not regress.” As Iraq faces this critical juncture, the battle for women’s rights and gender equality is intensifying. The outcome of this proposed law could determine the future of not only women’s freedoms but also the nation’s ability to heal from the divisions that have long plagued it. If passed, it would signal a significant retreat into a patriarchal, theocratic system that would jeopardize the rights of the most vulnerable members of Iraqi society. The world is watching to see whether Iraq will choose progress or regression. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-11-11

In the heart of Santiago, Chile's bustling capital, a small yet growing group of individuals has begun to challenge the longstanding dominance of Catholicism in the country's spiritual landscape. On a typical Friday night, a diverse group of 15 members of the Temple of Satan gathers in a downtown apartment, their gathering marked by the scent of incense, tobacco, and the glow of black candles flickering atop an altar adorned with symbolic chalices and knives. They are preparing for a ritual, one that does not invoke the worship of Satan as commonly imagined, but instead represents a rebellion against religious dogma and societal expectations. Five years after the Satanic Temple in the United States made headlines by securing legal recognition as a church, a similar movement is gaining momentum in Chile. Despite the country's deeply Catholic roots—about half of its 18 million citizens identify as Catholics—the Temple of Satan in Chile is pushing for government recognition as a legitimate religious entity. The request for official status comes amid a broader cultural shift in Chile, where many have lost faith in the Catholic Church, partly in the wake of ongoing sexual abuse scandals that have rocked the institution. Luis Bahamondes, a professor at the University of Chile's Center for Judaic Studies, explains that Chile's religious landscape is undergoing significant change. "These types of organizations now feel they have greater support to challenge what was virtually impossible before," he says. He notes that the Catholic Church, which historically held considerable influence over the nation’s politics, economics, and social norms, has lost much of its power and credibility. The Temple of Satan in Chile, while invoking the name of Satan, is not what one might expect from popular media portrayals of Satanism. The group, which has around 100 members, does not engage in ritualistic sacrifice or the worship of an evil deity. Instead, its members—who include professionals such as lawyers, psychologists, police officers, and firefighters—embrace Satanism as a philosophy of individualism, rationality, and personal freedom. They view the figure of Satan not as a supernatural being but as a symbol of defiance against oppressive traditions and authority. "You are the owner of your present and future, there is no God that makes decisions for you," says Haborym, a spokesperson for the Temple, as he walks through the General Cemetery of Santiago. The group’s rituals are designed to evoke emotions and foster a connection to the present moment, leaving aside intellectual constraints. Haborym emphasizes that Satan is not a figure they worship but one they use symbolically to represent human autonomy and freedom of thought. Despite its controversial name, the Temple of Satan in Chile is committed to principles that oppose many of the darker, more sensationalized aspects of Satanism depicted in films like *Rosemary’s Baby* or shows like *True Detective*. Modern Satanists, including those in Chile, are staunchly against animal cruelty and violence, particularly in the name of Satan. "We don’t want people killing in the name of Satan," Haborym asserts firmly. The process of becoming a member of the Temple of Satan in Chile is rigorous and includes background checks, interviews, and psychological evaluations to ensure applicants are aligned with the group’s values. Those accepted into the Temple are given the option to adopt a new name—often that of a demon or fallen angel—under which they will be known among fellow members. While the Chilean government has yet to decide whether it will officially recognize the Temple of Satan as a religious organization, the mere existence of the group has already sparked a broader conversation about faith, morality, and the role of religion in a rapidly changing society. The push for recognition reflects the core values of Satanic philosophy: a challenge to the status quo, a rejection of outdated traditions, and a call for greater freedom of thought and expression. "We comply with everything that is requested of us as a religious entity," says Haborym. "So there would be no reason to reject us beyond the fact that we’re a controversial figure." Whether or not the Temple of Satan in Chile receives legal recognition, its presence has undeniably opened a space for dialogue about the future of religion in a country where the traditional dominance of Catholicism is slowly, but surely, being questioned. Based on a report by ABC News 2024-11-11

In the unlikely arena of modern warfare, an unexpected weapon might emerge, one that could be a game changer in the event of a conflict between the West and China: online pornography. Recent reports from the front lines of the war in Ukraine, where North Korean soldiers are reportedly fighting alongside Russian forces, reveal a striking development: these soldiers, having lived in a strictly controlled society where pornography is banned, have become addicted to explicit material after being exposed to it for the first time. North Korea's strict control over its citizens' access to the internet has made such content virtually non-existent in the lives of its people. For the thousands of soldiers sent to Ukraine, their exposure to online pornography is a shock to their system. The initial reactions have been dramatic, with reports suggesting that these soldiers have become “hopelessly addicted” to the material. Once disciplined and focused, these men are now described as “drooling, glassy-eyed, good-for-nothing layabouts” after just a short period of immersion in this new, intoxicating world. The consequences of this shift in behavior could be far-reaching. These soldiers, who once followed orders with the precision of trained combatants, are now distracted and demoralized, unable to focus on their mission. It’s a shift that might seem trivial in isolation, but it could be part of a larger strategic opening for the West in the event of a broader military conflict with China, particularly if the Chinese military is similarly unprepared for such a distraction. Why is this important? The answer lies in China’s own censorship laws. Like North Korea, China restricts access to pornography. While Chinese soldiers may have some familiarity with explicit content through underground networks or black-market channels, the vast majority of them have not had widespread exposure. This presents a potential vulnerability. Should the West be faced with the daunting task of confronting China’s massive military, a strategic use of the material that has so thoroughly derailed the North Korean soldiers could offer an unconventional, but highly effective, edge. Imagine the scene: instead of bombing Chinese military installations, Western forces could deploy planes to drop old copies of magazines like *Penthouse* and *Razzle* onto Chinese military bases. While it may sound absurd, the idea is that these soldiers, unfamiliar with such material, would be entranced and distracted, unable to focus on the task at hand. The result? A significant weakening of morale, and with it, a tactical advantage. This strategy might seem ludicrous at first glance, but history has shown that the most unlikely solutions can sometimes prove effective. The magazine industry, once a thriving corner of Western pop culture, is now mostly a relic of the past, with publications like *FHM*, *Nuts*, and *Zoo* long gone. These magazines, often dismissed as crass and unworthy of attention, could now take on an entirely new role. If the West is truly up against a military power like China, and if warfare reaches the extremes of World War Three, these discarded magazines might just have the power to do what bombs cannot: destabilize an entire fighting force. It’s a curious thought, but perhaps it’s time to reconsider what truly constitutes a weapon in the modern world. In the right circumstances, even something as seemingly innocuous as a magazine could become a tool of warfare—one that, for all its absurdity, might just save the world. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-11-11

Donald Trump has made a pledge that, when returns to the White House, he will immediately restore the bust of Winston Churchill to its rightful place in the Oval Office as a tribute to the iconic British leader. The move would reverse a controversial decision made by President Joe Biden, who replaced the bronze bust of Churchill with one of Hispanic civil rights leader Cesar Chavez following his victory in 2020. Trump, a self-professed Anglophile with Scottish heritage, has long expressed his admiration for Churchill, often referring to him as his idol. A source close to the former president revealed that returning the bust of Churchill would be one of Trump's first acts upon taking office. "Donald idolizes Churchill and believes he’s the greatest leader the world has ever seen," the source said. "He will restore him to a position of honor as a mark of respect." Trump’s admiration for Churchill is no secret. He has called the film *The Darkest Hour*, in which Gary Oldman portrays Churchill, "my favorite film ever." The bronze bust of Churchill, crafted by renowned British sculptor Sir Jacob Epstein, was originally gifted to President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 by the Wartime Friends of Winston Churchill. It remained in the Oval Office until 2009 when Barack Obama replaced it with a bust of Martin Luther King Jr., a gesture that sparked criticism in the UK. Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a biographer of Churchill, had famously described Obama’s decision as a sign of "an ancestral dislike of the British Empire." When Trump won the presidency in 2016, he immediately reinstated the Churchill bust, removing the statue of Martin Luther King Jr. in the process. Trump had condemned the Black Lives Matter protesters who defaced a statue of Churchill in London, calling their actions "shameful" and a disrespect to the man who "saved the world from the tyranny of Hitler." Trump’s commitment to Churchill goes beyond mere symbolism. During his first term, Trump formed a close bond with Churchill’s descendants, including the 12th Duke of Marlborough, whom Trump affectionately refers to as "The Dook." The two men became fast friends, with the Duke even visiting Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida in 2019. This new promise to bring back the bust of Churchill to the Oval Office is likely to draw mixed reactions. While it is seen as a symbol of the enduring bond between the United States and Britain, it also has the potential to stir political tensions. Foreign Secretary David Lammy, a vocal critic of Trump, once described him as a "deluded, dishonest, xenophobic narcissist," making it unclear whether the return of Churchill’s bust will ease relations between Trump and the UK’s Labour government. Despite these potential tensions, historians and public figures have praised Trump’s decision. Andrew Roberts, a renowned Churchill biographer, expressed approval, calling it "excellent news," though he urged Trump to back up the gesture with action. "This makes sense if President Trump also adopts Churchill’s policy of defiance against totalitarian regimes that invade their neighbors," Roberts said. Rory Stewart, a broadcaster and former Conservative MP, also welcomed the news, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a positive relationship between the UK and the U.S. "Whatever we all think of Donald Trump—and I am, to put it mildly, no fan—it’s very important for Britain that we retain a positive relationship with the President of the United States," Stewart remarked. "The U.S. remains the indispensable power in the world and the linchpin of the international order." Lord Michael Dobbs, author of the *House of Cards* trilogy, also expressed his support for Trump’s decision, noting Churchill’s American roots. "It’s a beautiful sculpture. Churchill himself was half-American—his mother was born in Brooklyn," Dobbs said. "He believed that the partnership between our two countries was the best guarantee of a safe world." Even Churchill’s grandson, Lord Nicholas Soames, shared his approval. "I am very glad, obviously. That’s lovely. I am delighted," Soames told the *Mail on Sunday*. The potential return of the Churchill bust to the Oval Office stands as a potent symbol of Trump’s enduring admiration for the British leader, one that could shape both the cultural and political dynamics of his second term in office, should he win the presidency once again. The move underscores the significance of U.S.-UK relations, even as it highlights the deep divisions within the political landscape. Based on a report by BBC 2024-11-11

A woman who alleges she was raped by Irish mixed martial arts star Conor McGregor in 2018 has faced intense cross-examination in a Dublin court, with defense lawyers accusing her of fabricating parts of her story. Nikita Hand, who is seeking civil damages from McGregor and another man, claims she was sexually assaulted by McGregor in a hotel room in December 2018. During her testimony, Hand described a harrowing encounter in which she says McGregor pinned her to a bed and raped her. The case, which has drawn considerable attention, saw Hand recount the trauma of the alleged assault, though her credibility came under close scrutiny as the defense raised inconsistencies in her statements. Hand's emotional testimony was followed by pointed cross-examination from Remy Farrell SC, the defense attorney representing McGregor. Farrell highlighted a key contradiction in Hand’s account: she had allegedly told her ex-partner that McGregor had threatened to kill her after the assault. However, when questioned, Hand struggled to recall whether McGregor had made such a threat. "You told your former partner that 'he told me he'd kill me'. That was a reference to McGregor, wasn't it?" Farrell asked. Hand confirmed the statement but then failed to substantiate the claim during subsequent police interviews or in court. "Is that something that happened or didn’t?" Farrell pressed. Hand’s response was unclear: "I can't remember." Further discrepancies were uncovered as the defense challenged Hand on statements she made about the events following the alleged assault. She had reportedly told her ex-partner she had taken a taxi with a friend after leaving the Beacon Hotel, where the attack supposedly took place. Hand admitted under cross-examination that this was untrue and that she had been alone in the taxi. She explained she had made the statement to reassure her ex-partner that she was okay, but Farrell suggested that these fabrications were part of a broader "web of lies" she had woven. "You were telling lies to your ex-partner and he was catching you out on some," Farrell remarked. Hand responded tearfully, explaining that she had been in a state of shock and distress after the alleged assault. "I was raped and battered a few hours before that, so my mind wasn’t perfect at the time," she said. "I didn’t care about anything at the time. All I cared about was my body and how hurt I was." Meanwhile, another aspect of the case involving James Lawrence, a co-defendant, was raised during the trial. Lawrence, who is accused of being involved in the events of that night, was implicated in the case primarily due to his own statements to police. Lawrence had reportedly told authorities in January 2019 that he and Hand had engaged in consensual sex. His defense lawyer, John Fitzgerald SC, further claimed that during the evening in question, McGregor and Hand were heard having "pleasurable" sex in the hotel room, while Lawrence and Hand’s friend were also engaged in sexual activity in the next room. Fitzgerald suggested that Hand was fully aware of what was happening with her friend and Lawrence, alleging that she had seen them together. "I think this is another made-up story," Hand responded firmly, denying Fitzgerald's assertions. The defense also questioned Hand's denial of having sex with Lawrence, who reportedly told police they had engaged in intercourse twice. "Lies," Hand declared, dismissing the claim as untrue. When asked directly by Fitzgerald, "You think he's lying about having sex with you?" she responded with a resolute "Absolutely." As the trial continues, the contrast between Hand's testimony and the defense’s claims has raised significant questions about the truth of her allegations. Hand’s emotional distress and contradictions in her statements have complicated the narrative of what transpired on that night in December 2018, as the court grapples with the complex and contentious nature of the case. The trial is set to continue as both sides prepare to present further evidence. Hand’s pursuit of civil damages remains at the heart of the legal battle, while McGregor and Lawrence continue to deny all allegations. Based on a report by BBC 2024-11-11

Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City and staunch ally of Donald Trump, is facing severe financial pressure following a defamation suit that has left him struggling to pay his bills. The legal battle, stemming from false claims Giuliani made about Georgia election workers after the 2020 election, has resulted in a staggering $148 million judgment against him. In response, the embattled former attorney has taken to social media, claiming that he is now too broke to afford basic necessities like food. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Giuliani lamented his financial woes, accusing the Wilkie Farr Law firm and U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman of making it impossible for him to earn a living. “Wilkie Farr Law firm and Judge Liman are trying to inhibit me from making a living,” he wrote. “They seized my measly checking account so I can’t buy food. Help me fight.” Giuliani linked the post to a fundraising campaign hosted on GiveSendGo, a crowdfunding platform often associated with right-wing causes and, controversially, white nationalist movements. His appeal seemed to resonate with some supporters, as the campaign raised nearly $100,000 within just a few hours. The description of the fundraising campaign paints Giuliani as a victim of a political and legal system bent on persecuting him due to his support for Trump. “America’s Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, has been persecuted to the highest level through lawfare due to his support of President Donald Trump,” the campaign read. "Therefore, we are raising funds to go directly to his legal defense.” Despite the funds raised, Giuliani has yet to pay any of the hefty judgment owed to Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, the Georgia election workers who sued him for defamation after he falsely accused them of election fraud. Giuliani’s financial difficulties are not limited to his inability to pay the judgment. On Thursday, Judge Liman ordered him to turn over valuable assets as part of the legal proceedings. Giuliani has complied by handing over access to his Manhattan apartment, but a number of luxury items, including signed memorabilia, valuable watches, and a vintage Mercedes that once belonged to actress Lauren Bacall, remain at the center of the dispute. Among the most contentious items are four Yankees World Series rings that Freeman and Moss have laid claim to as part of the judgment. Giuliani initially claimed that the rings, estimated to be worth around $200,000, had been given to his son Andrew as a gift. However, when Freeman and Moss attempted to collect the rings, Giuliani’s story was called into question. In response, Judge Liman authorized Freeman and Moss’s legal team to subpoena Giuliani’s accounting firm, allowing them to review his tax returns to verify whether Giuliani’s claim about the rings was legitimate. This move has further intensified the legal battle, as the former mayor continues to fight the judgment and the collection of assets. Giuliani's financial troubles and his growing legal problems have become a major public spectacle, with his latest social media appeals adding to the drama. Despite his claims of poverty, many critics have pointed out the irony of a man once known for his wealth and high-profile career now struggling to meet the financial obligations resulting from his own actions. As Giuliani continues to fight the defamation lawsuit, his legal battles and fundraising efforts are likely to remain a focal point of public attention for some time. Based on a report by Daily Beast 2024-11-11

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pointed to President Joe Biden's delayed exit from the presidential race as a factor in the Democrats' disappointing performance in Tuesday’s election. In an interview with *The New York Times*, Pelosi expressed that if Biden had stepped down earlier, the party may have had better results. “Had the president gotten out sooner, there may have been other candidates in the race,” Pelosi said, adding her voice to a growing chorus within the Democratic Party assessing blame for the recent loss of the White House and potentially both chambers of Congress. Pelosi is reported to have been one of the primary advocates pushing Biden to step down after a particularly poor debate performance against Donald Trump. Biden eventually ended his campaign in late July, endorsing Vice-President Kamala Harris as his successor. However, Harris lost to Trump on Tuesday, a defeat some Democrats attribute to the president’s timing. “The anticipation was that, if the president were to step aside, that there would be an open primary,” Pelosi noted, explaining that a competitive primary could have bolstered Harris’s candidacy and strengthened her prospects in the general election. “But we don’t know that. That didn’t happen. We live with what happened,” she said. Pelosi also remarked that Biden’s immediate endorsement of Harris essentially foreclosed the possibility of a primary, making it “almost impossible to have a primary at that time.” Had Biden exited earlier, Pelosi believes the race would have been more dynamic and beneficial for the party. Harris aides have echoed Pelosi’s sentiments, suggesting that Biden’s delayed exit hampered the campaign. One unnamed Harris aide told *Politico*, “We ran the best campaign we could, considering Joe Biden was president. Joe Biden is the singular reason Kamala Harris and Democrats lost tonight.” However, a former Biden aide refuted this narrative, telling *Axios* that Harris's team was avoiding responsibility. “How did you spend $1 billion and not win?” the aide asked, adding an expletive for emphasis. Further complicating matters, a former Biden aide told *Politico* that former President Barack Obama’s advisers had exacerbated tensions by promoting intraparty discord to hasten Biden's exit. According to this aide, the Obama camp “publicly encouraged Democratic infighting to push Joe Biden out” and didn’t fully support Harris as the nominee. Several prominent Democrats have also weighed in, each highlighting different issues they believe contributed to the loss. Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman criticized the faction that pushed Biden out of the race, suggesting they should bear responsibility for the election's fallout. “For those that decided and moved to break Biden, and then you got the election that you wanted, it’s appropriate to own the outcome and fallout,” he told *Semafor*. In New York, Congressman Tom Suozzi said the Democrats' electoral struggles were partially due to an excessive focus on “being politically correct.” He argued that the party failed to effectively counter Republican criticisms on issues such as “anarchy on college campuses, defund the police, biological boys playing in girls' sports, and a general attack on traditional values.” Similarly, Congressman Ritchie Torres criticized the “far left” for alienating a broad base of voters. He posted on X, “The far left managed to alienate historic numbers of Latinos, Blacks, Asians, and Jews from the Democratic Party with absurdities like ‘Defund the Police’ or ‘From the River to the Sea’ or ‘Latinx.’” Meanwhile, Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who ran as a Democrat in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, criticized the party leadership for losing touch with working-class Americans. “While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change,” Sanders wrote. He expressed doubt that Democrats would learn from their recent defeat. In response, Democratic National Committee Chairman Jaime Harrison posted on X, refuting Sanders' critique, calling it “straight up BS.” Based on a report by BBC 2024-11-11

Troll posts from the usual suspect @thaibeachlovers removed.

A post @thaibeachlovers making numerous rambling unsubstaniated claims removed along with an off topic response to it.

The U.S. government has charged an Iranian national, Farhad Shakeri, in connection with an alleged plan to assassinate Donald Trump. In an indictment unsealed by the Department of Justice, Shakeri, 51, is accused of being directed by an Iranian Revolutionary Guard official to develop a strategy to surveil and kill Trump. Prosecutors revealed that Shakeri has not been apprehended and is currently believed to be in Iran. Attorney General Merrick Garland stated, “The Justice Department has charged an asset of the Iranian regime who was tasked by the regime to direct a network of criminal associates to further Iran’s assassination plots against its targets, including President-elect Donald Trump.” The indictment alleges that Shakeri’s orders to formulate an assassination plan came in September. Initially, he informed Iranian officials that he did not intend to devise a plan within their requested seven-day timeline, prompting the officials to postpone their directive. Shakeri later claimed that his contacts within the Iranian government believed it would be simpler to attempt the assassination following the election, under the assumption that Trump would lose. In addition to Trump, two other individuals—Carlisle Rivera, 49, and Jonathon Loadholt, 36—have been charged in connection with the case. The two men were allegedly recruited by Shakeri to target an American journalist who has publicly criticized Iran. The journalist, identified by Brooklyn-based reporter Masih Alinejad as the intended victim, reported that the FBI intervened to arrest two men for attempting to kill her outside her home. “I came to America to practice my First Amendment right to freedom of speech—I don’t want to die,” she stated on social media, adding, “I want to fight against tyranny, and I deserve to be safe.” Prosecutors revealed that Shakeri’s orders extended beyond Trump and Alinejad. Allegedly, the Iranian government also sought to kill two Jewish American businesspeople in New York who supported Israel on social media. Shakeri also claimed that his Iranian contacts had requested a plan for a mass shooting to target Israeli tourists in Sri Lanka, allegedly planned for October 2024. Shakeri’s background includes a 14-year prison sentence for robbery before his deportation in 2008. Since then, prosecutors allege he has used a network of criminal associates to conduct surveillance on Iran’s targets. Shakeri reportedly promised Rivera and Loadholt $100,000 to murder the targeted American journalist. All three men now face charges of murder-for-hire, money laundering conspiracy, and conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire, which carry potential sentences ranging from 10 to 20 years in prison. Based on a report by BBC 2024-11-09

Sainsbury's, one of the UK’s largest supermarket chains, is facing significant financial challenges following recent budget measures that will add a £140 million burden to its operating costs. Chief Executive Simon Roberts warned that this increase, stemming from the hike in employers' national insurance contributions, is likely to lead to further inflation and potentially tough choices for the company. Roberts noted the financial strain that the increased national insurance contributions will impose, saying, "This impact on national insurance was unexpected and is coming in fast, it will have a very significant impact, it will impact our costs base... and our suppliers' cost base." This unexpected financial weight will come into effect in April, following Chancellor Rachel Reeves' announcement in last week’s budget. The Sainsbury’s CEO expressed concerns about the inflationary impact of these new costs, noting that they are beyond what the company can absorb. "There’s a barrage of costs," he said, highlighting that Sainsbury’s customers might ultimately bear the financial brunt of these changes. Roberts pointed to the analysis of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), an independent forecaster, which suggested that Reeves’ budget measures will drive inflation higher than originally anticipated. "It’s difficult to disagree with" the OBR’s assessment, Roberts added. In addition to the national insurance increase, the new budget also raised the national minimum wage, another factor contributing to overall cost increases. While Roberts did not put a specific number on how much these changes would inflate prices, he acknowledged the growing pressure, saying, "There’s a lot of pressure in the pipeline... there’s pressure in the system in inflation already." Roberts expressed disappointment over the budget's impact on business rates as well. Many businesses had anticipated a reduction in these rates, but instead, they are now expected to rise next year. Roberts commented, "Business rates will go up this year. I certainly didn’t expect them to go up next year; I expected them to go down." As for the potential impact on Sainsbury’s workforce, Roberts stated that it is "too early to be specific," but he acknowledged that "difficult decisions" would likely have to be made. Although he did not elaborate on whether these decisions could involve staffing changes, he hinted that the combination of rising national insurance, minimum wage costs, and other pressures may lead to unavoidable adjustments in operations. Sainsbury’s is not alone in dealing with the implications of the new budget. Other major UK companies have reported similar concerns. JD Wetherspoon, the pub chain with more than 1,000 establishments, announced that the budget measures would increase its costs by £60 million next year. Marks & Spencer, another prominent UK retailer, expects to see a £120 million impact on its finances. These announcements highlight the widespread concerns across the retail and hospitality sectors, which are grappling with the same financial pressures as Sainsbury’s. Based on a report by Sky News 2024-11-09

Prince William has candidly described the past year as "brutal" and "probably the hardest year in my life" after both his father, King Charles, and his wife, the Princess of Wales, were diagnosed with cancer. In a rare and open interview concluding his tour in Cape Town, the Prince of Wales reflected on the emotional toll these challenges have taken, sharing insights into how his family has coped with these profound hardships. He expressed particular pride in Kate, calling her “amazing” and sharing that she is “doing well.” This praise for Kate reflects his gratitude for her strength and resilience as they navigate this challenging period together. Over the year, both King Charles and the Princess of Wales have periodically stepped back from their royal duties to focus on their health, which has added more responsibilities to William’s role. As the heir to the throne, William has taken on additional engagements, often attending events solo and fulfilling obligations that his father and wife were unable to manage. The Prince acknowledged the pressures he’s experienced but also shared his feelings about his evolving role as Prince of Wales. He explained, “It’s a tricky one. Do I like more responsibility? No. Do I like the freedom that I can build something like Earthshot? Then yes.” Prince William’s honesty in this interview provides a rare glimpse into his personal life, marking the first time he has openly discussed the impact of his father’s and wife’s health on his own well-being. While he continues to balance his public duties with family obligations, his reflections reveal the complex emotions he is facing as he supports his loved ones. In his words and demeanor, it’s clear that William remains deeply committed to his family and to the causes he champions, even as he endures one of the most challenging periods of his life. Based on a report by Sky News 2024-11-09

An independent review has exposed that the Church of England concealed “horrific” abuses committed by John Smyth, a lawyer and church volunteer, who inflicted physical, sexual, psychological, and spiritual abuse on children and young adults at Christian summer camps during the 1970s and 1980s. Despite learning of these abuses in 2013, the ceremonial head of the Anglican Communion failed to report Smyth’s actions to authorities, allowing the abuse to remain hidden until much later. The review, released on Thursday, details the findings in a 251-page report commissioned by the church. Smyth, who died in South Africa in 2018, is considered the most prolific serial abuser ever linked to the church. Over five decades, he targeted approximately 30 boys and young men in the United Kingdom and around 85 in Africa. According to Keith Makin, who led the review, “Many of the victims who took the brave decision to speak to us about what they experienced have carried this abuse silently for more than 40 years.” Makin further criticized the church, saying, “Despite the efforts of some individuals to bring the abuse to the attention of authorities, the responses by the Church of England and others were wholly ineffective and amounted to a coverup.” Smyth’s role as a volunteer leader at the Iwerne camps—a series of Christian camps associated with the Church of England and intended to train young men from prestigious schools for future leadership—gave him access to vulnerable young people. He used his position to manipulate campers, punishing them for what he defined as “sins” such as “pride,” making sexual remarks, masturbation, or, in one instance, simply looking at a girl for too long. According to the report, these punishments involved violent beatings in which both Smyth and his victims were often partly or fully naked. The report chillingly describes the extent of Smyth’s punishments, noting, “The scale and severity of the practice was horrific.” Instances included beatings of 100 strokes for masturbation, 400 for pride, and even one of 800 strokes for an unspecified “fall.” A minister secretly documented these abuses in 1982, yet no police report was ever filed. One church official, the late Rev. David Fletcher, defended his silence by saying, “I thought it would do the work of God immense damage if this were public.” Smyth eventually left the United Kingdom, moving to Zimbabwe with his family, with the encouragement and financial assistance of church officials who knew of his abusive actions. The report condemned these officials, stating, “Church officers knew of the abuse and failed to take the steps necessary to prevent further abuse occurring.” In 2013, another opportunity to report Smyth’s crimes emerged. Church leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby—who himself had attended Iwerne camps and knew Smyth—were informed of the past abuse. However, as the report outlines, they chose not to alert authorities, missing a critical chance to prevent any further harm. Welby later acknowledged his personal failure to act, stating, “Nevertheless the review is clear that I personally failed to ensure that after disclosure in 2013 the awful tragedy was energetically investigated.” Had the church reported Smyth at that time, the report suggests, law enforcement might have been able to bring him to justice. “In effect, three and a half years was lost, a time within which John Smyth could have been brought to justice and any abuse he was committing in South Africa discovered and stopped,” the report concludes. Public awareness of Smyth’s abuses did not emerge until a 2017 Channel 4 investigation, which finally prompted Hampshire Police to launch an inquiry. Authorities had planned to question Smyth and were preparing for a possible extradition before his death later that year. The report underscores a painful truth: had action been taken earlier, many victims might have been spared years of suffering, and the church might have avoided the lasting stain of complicity in a tragedy it helped to conceal. Based on a report by AP 2024-11-09

Donald Trump previously supported the United Kingdom’s claim over the Chagos Islands, a position that could disrupt Sir Keir Starmer’s recent deal to transfer control of the islands to Mauritius. During Trump’s last term as U.S. president, his administration filed a legal document backing Britain’s stance that the international courts should not intervene in the sovereignty dispute over the archipelago, according to information revealed by *The Telegraph*. The U.S. government’s legal support for the UK during Trump’s administration is a strong indication that he may oppose the current Labour plan to relinquish British control of the islands to Mauritius. The Chagos Islands hold strategic importance for both the United States and the UK, as they are home to an American military base on Diego Garcia, the largest island in the chain. Mike Pompeo, Trump’s former Secretary of State, previously emphasized that UK control of Diego Garcia was vital for maintaining U.S. military operations in the area. Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform UK party and an ally of Trump, noted that individuals close to the former president-elect are critical of Labour’s plan to cede the islands. The situation has led to speculation that Trump could oppose the deal, with two former UK Foreign Office officials telling *The Telegraph* they anticipate Trump may publicly contest it. The transfer of sovereignty to Mauritius, which Starmer announced in early October, remains in a legally uncertain phase as the treaty necessary to formalize the change is still under negotiation. The deal is an “agreement in principle,” and some senior Republicans in the U.S. have voiced concerns that the handover could empower China in the region. This cautionary perspective has been echoed by prominent UK officials, including Robert Buckland, former justice secretary and head of the UK’s case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Reflecting on the potential impact of Trump’s return, Buckland expressed hope that Trump would reconsider Starmer’s arrangement. He stated, “Along with many other countries, the previous Trump administration steadfastly and rightly opposed Mauritius’s use of the ICJ to resolve what is a sovereignty dispute. I hope that the new administration will come to our aid.” The fate of the Chagos Islands remains uncertain, as the legal process to solidify the change has yet to be completed. If Trump voices opposition to the deal upon assuming office, the future of Starmer’s agreement with Mauritius could be in jeopardy, adding a layer of complexity to the UK’s foreign policy in the Indian Ocean region. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-11-09

Former Republican White House candidate Nikki Haley has urged both sides of the political spectrum, as well as corporate and government institutions, to take the recent election results as a critical “wake-up call.” With her former primary rival, President-elect Donald Trump, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris, Haley emphasized the need for reflection and recalibration within the spheres of politics, business, and governance. Haley’s endorsement of Trump was a notable turn in her campaign narrative. Though she had been one of Trump’s more outspoken critics on the campaign trail, she ultimately chose to endorse him after dropping out of the race. This decision raised questions about her stance, but Haley has since voiced her support for his candidacy, positioning herself as a pragmatic figure willing to back the Republican cause in hopes of advancing the party’s overall goals. The former South Carolina governor’s remarks add to a broader dialogue within the Republican Party about how best to address national divides and strengthen the party’s appeal to a wider audience. Haley’s call for a return to a more centrist approach suggests her desire to attract a broader base while addressing concerns about an increasingly polarized political climate. For Haley, the recent election isn’t just a Republican victory—it’s a potential moment of reckoning for all players, from corporate leaders to political strategists, as they consider the way forward. Based on a report by the Hill 2024-11-09

Akheel Khan, a 24-year-old engineering graduate with first-class honors, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison after being caught on CCTV wielding a hammer and roaming Middlesbrough streets with a gang during summer riots. The footage shows Khan and two associates, armed with metal poles, searching residential areas, evidently in pursuit of those responsible for damaging Khan's car. Khan appeared in Teesside Crown Court, where he pleaded guilty to violent disorder. His solicitor, Michele Turner, requested leniency on behalf of her client, explaining that Khan had been a victim of the riots himself, with his car damaged in the chaos. She urged the judge to consider suspending his sentence, pointing out that Khan’s job in Sheffield was being held open for him. According to Turner, Khan had stayed behind at the mosque after prayers that day, discussing with others what actions they might take if the mosque were attacked. It was only minutes later that he discovered his car had been damaged, which led him to seek those responsible. Despite these considerations, Judge Richard Bennett handed down a 15-month prison sentence, noting the severity of the charge. Under this sentence, Khan will serve 40 percent of his term before being released on license. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-11-09

A senior official leading the COP29 climate conference in Azerbaijan has reportedly used his position to facilitate a meeting about fossil fuel investment opportunities, according to a BBC investigation. A secret recording reveals Elnur Soltanov, the chief executive of Azerbaijan's COP29 team, discussing “investment opportunities” with a man posing as a prospective investor interested in Azerbaijan’s state-owned oil and gas company, Socar. “We have a lot of gas fields that are to be developed,” Soltanov is heard saying in the recording. This development has sparked criticism, with a former head of the UN body responsible for climate talks condemning Soltanov’s actions as “completely unacceptable” and calling it a “betrayal” of the COP process. Along with leading COP29, Soltanov also serves as Azerbaijan’s deputy energy minister and holds a position on Socar’s board, further complicating the optics of his involvement. Despite multiple inquiries from the BBC, neither Azerbaijan’s COP29 team nor Socar has issued a statement on the matter. Currently, oil and gas contribute to roughly half of Azerbaijan’s economy and over 90% of its exports, according to U.S. data. COP29, scheduled to open in Baku on Monday, is the 29th annual UN climate summit, intended as a platform for global leaders to strategize on limiting climate change and enhancing global climate ambitions. This revelation marks the second consecutive year that the host government of COP has been implicated in controversial behavior. Last year, leaked documents exposed plans by the UAE, which hosted COP28, to leverage the summit for securing oil and gas agreements. The latest claims against Azerbaijan stem from documents and covert video recordings obtained by the human rights organization Global Witness, which involved a representative posing as the head of a fictitious Hong Kong-based investment firm focused on energy. According to reports, the fake company offered to sponsor COP29 but expressed interest in discussing investment opportunities with Socar in exchange. During a virtual meeting, Soltanov explained that the primary goal of COP29 was to address the climate crisis and work toward a “just, orderly, and equitable” transition from hydrocarbons. However, he also invited discussions on oil and gas deals, stating, “There are a lot of joint ventures that could be established.” Soltanov explained that Socar trades oil and gas globally, including in Asia, and described natural gas as a “transitional fuel,” noting, “We will have a certain amount of oil and natural gas being produced, perhaps forever.” In the recording, Soltanov expressed his willingness to facilitate discussions, telling the supposed investor, “I would be happy to create a contact between your team and their team [Socar] so that they can start discussions.” Shortly after, the fake company received a follow-up email from Socar indicating interest in pursuing the opportunity. The idea of striking business deals during COP events is widely seen as a violation of the ethical standards expected of COP officials. These gatherings are designed to focus on strategies to reduce fossil fuel reliance—the primary driver of climate change—rather than promoting fossil fuel investments. The BBC also reviewed emails exchanged between the COP29 team and the fake investors. In one thread, officials discuss a potential $600,000 sponsorship deal with the fictitious company in exchange for an introduction to Socar and participation in an event titled “sustainable oil and gas investing” at COP29. The BBC sought comments from both Azerbaijan’s COP29 team and Socar, but neither responded. As the world faces urgent calls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, revelations like these add to concerns about the integrity of the COP process and the commitment of host nations to advancing global climate goals. Based on a report by BBC 2024-11-09

An Oxford University student, Alexander Rogers, took his own life after facing a wave of social isolation and backlash following an allegation, an inquest at Oxford Coroner’s Court revealed. The 20-year-old’s body was discovered in the Thames in January, and his death has since raised questions about the impact of “cancel culture” on mental health within academic communities. At the inquest on Wednesday, Coroner Nicholas Graham concluded that the allegation and subsequent social exclusion led Rogers to decide to end his life. Days before his death, Rogers, a student at Corpus Christi College, faced an accusation from a former relationship partner, which led many of his friends and peers to sever ties with him. This sudden isolation left Rogers “distraught,” the court heard, as he faced ostracism from a community he had once been close to. According to Dr. Dominique Thompson, an independent consultant who examined the events surrounding his death, Rogers became a target of a “pile-on” effect among students who felt an “unwritten” obligation to “do the right thing.” She remarked on the severity of his isolation, stating, “It was shocking to hear that students were treating each other in this way, but I was not surprised by this pattern of behavior.” The incident unfolded just as Rogers had been looking forward to returning to his studies after winter break. Instead, he became socially isolated, which had a devastating impact on his mental health. Rogers was reported missing by a concerned friend on January 15, and his body was recovered by police and fire crews later that day. The cause of death was determined to be a severe head injury. The student’s family expressed their grief in a statement shared by the coroner, describing the profound toll the events took on their son’s mental state. They said, “For the student, the rational became the irrational, and he ended what could have been a beautiful life.” Rogers’s friends remembered him as the “epitome of what is good in this world,” commemorating his life with a fundraising marathon for a suicide prevention charity. Coroner Graham extended his condolences to the family, noting, “Alexander was an extremely able and popular young man, and his passing is sad indeed.” In response to Rogers’s death, a spokesperson for Oxford University and Corpus Christi College offered their sympathies to his family, emphasizing their commitment to student welfare. “The college commissioned an independent review to identify all learning in this case with the aim of minimizing the chance of such a tragic loss happening again. The wellbeing of our students remains our absolute priority, and we are committed to maintaining the safety of all those within our university and college community.” The college added that Rogers was known for his “vibrant presence” across campus, noting his involvement in the Junior Common Room, the boat club, and his cohort in Materials Science. “Whilst the loss of any young life is tragic, we have felt Alexander’s death particularly keenly.” Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-11-09

NATO allies should prepare for a significant increase in defense spending, according to NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who backed U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s call for members to invest more in their own security. Trump has consistently advocated for NATO countries to move beyond the current target of 2 percent of GDP for defense spending, even suggesting in 2018 that this contribution be doubled to 4 percent. Rutte, acknowledging the validity of Trump’s stance, stressed the necessity of these increases during the European Political Community summit in Budapest, stating, “We will have to spend more ... It will be much more than the 2 percent. I’m clear about that.” During Trump’s first term in office, he frequently criticized European countries for falling short of their defense commitments, accusing them of relying too heavily on the United States for their security. In a rare agreement with Trump, Rutte affirmed, “He is right about this. You will not get there with the 2 percent.” Rutte’s support for increased contributions aligns with the sentiments of several NATO members who now recognize the need for bolstered military spending, especially since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which has heightened security concerns across Europe. A few countries, such as Germany, have recently made notable strides in ramping up military expenditures, overcoming historical reluctance. Meanwhile, Poland and the Baltic nations have already committed upward of 4 percent of their GDP to defense, citing the threat posed by Russian aggression. This shift represents a broader movement across NATO as more countries aim to meet or exceed the alliance’s minimum spending target. In 2014, only three NATO members fulfilled the 2 percent requirement, yet by 2023, that number had increased to 23 countries, a notable step forward in shared responsibility within the alliance. Momentum for higher defense spending continues to build. The United Kingdom has pledged to reach 2.5 percent of GDP on defense within this decade, marking a substantial increase in its commitment. This evolving perspective was further emphasized by Andrius Kubilius, the incoming EU Defense and Space Commissioner, who stated during his European Parliament confirmation hearing, “We need to discuss — but that is perhaps for NATO, we can ask NATO to discuss — [whether] the 2 percent target [is] enough. From my point of view, it is not enough.” Rutte’s comments ahead of his anticipated meeting with Trump in Budapest underscore a new chapter in U.S.-European defense relations. “I look forward to [sitting] down with Donald Trump to discuss how to face these threats collectively,” he remarked, signaling a readiness for transatlantic dialogue on bolstering collective defense efforts. Based on a report by Politico 2024-11-09

Elon Musk’s estranged daughter, Vivian Jenna Wilson, has announced her plans to leave the United States following the re-election of President-elect Donald Trump. Wilson, who severed ties with her father in 2022, made her feelings clear in a recent post on Threads, expressing her concerns over the future political climate and her disappointment with the support Trump received. “I’ve thought this for a while, but yesterday confirmed it for me. I don’t see my future being in the United States,” she wrote. Acknowledging that Trump’s term could last only four years, she added, “Even if the anti-trans regulations magically don’t happen, the people who willingly voted this in are not going anywhere anytime soon.” In a revealing interview with NBC News, Wilson described Musk as “cold” and “cruel,” recounting painful memories from her childhood that highlighted their troubled relationship. She recalled one specific incident during a road trip, which she later learned was intended as an advertisement for one of Musk’s cars. “I was in fourth grade… and he was constantly yelling at me viciously because my voice was too high,” she remembered. These moments, according to Wilson, defined Musk as “very quick to anger” and as having an “uncaring and narcissistic” nature. Wilson also took issue with Musk’s claim that he was “tricked” into approving her trans-related medical treatments as a teenager. She refuted his assertions, stating, “He was not by any means tricked. He knew the full side effects.” These accusations and counter-accusations have cast a shadow over their relationship, which, according to Wilson, has seen little to no communication over the past four years. As she contemplates leaving the country, Wilson’s decision is fueled by both personal and political motivations. Her move underscores her desire to establish an independent identity far from the shadow of one of the world’s wealthiest men. While Musk’s influence continues to shape industries, Wilson’s journey represents a stark divergence from her father’s path. Based on a report by NYP 2024-11-09

Foreign Secretary David Lammy has downplayed his past criticisms of Donald Trump, calling them "old news" and emphasizing his ability to find "common ground" with the president-elect. This marks a significant shift from his prior statements, where he described Trump in harsh terms. As a backbench MP in 2018, Lammy referred to Trump as a "tyrant" and a “woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath." Yet, following Trump’s recent election victory, Lammy has publicly acknowledged the president-elect as "someone that we can build a relationship with in our national interest." In an interview with the BBC’s *Newscast* podcast, Lammy commended Trump’s campaign, stating, “I felt in my bones that there could be a Trump presidency.” When asked about his previous statements, he shrugged them off as a thing of the past, pointing out that one would “struggle to find any politician” who hadn’t made similar remarks about Trump. Lammy argued that there is a difference between what a politician might say as a backbencher and how they act in an official capacity. “I think that what you say as a backbencher and what you do wearing the real duty of public office are two different things,” he explained, adding, “And I am foreign secretary. There are things I know now that I didn’t know back then.” Lammy highlighted the importance of open discussions with Trump, especially on issues where they might not see eye to eye. “We will agree and align on much and where we disagree, we’ll have those conversations as well, most often in private,” he added. The foreign secretary was also asked about Trump’s stance on trade, particularly his campaign pledge to increase tariffs on foreign imports, a move that could impact British exports such as Scotch whisky, pharmaceuticals, and airplane parts. Lammy expressed hope that the UK could avoid these tariffs, stressing the long-term importance of economic cooperation. “We will seek to ensure and to get across to the United States, and I believe that they would understand this, that hurting your closest allies cannot be in your medium or long-term interests,” he said. Lammy’s comments reflect a shift towards diplomacy, emphasizing the practicalities of holding office and the importance of maintaining a strong UK-US alliance despite past criticisms. Based on a report by BBC | X 2024-11-09

Off topic posts removed along with responses. Israeli fans violently attacked after Amsterdam soccer match Please provide a link to any claims made. 5. You will not use ASEAN NOW to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. Topics or posts deemed to be scaremongering, deliberately misleading or which deliberately distort information will be removed. In factual areas such as news forums and current affairs topics member content that is claimed or portrayed as a fact should be supported by a link to a relevant reputable source.

The topic here is: Latest developments and discussion of recent events in the Ukraine War

cross posting troll post removed @Gweiloman you are having a lot of posts removed. It will be you removed. next.