Social Media

Labour MP Dawn Butler recently came under scrutiny after retweeting a post that accused Kemi Badenoch, the new Conservative leader, of being a "black collaborator" in support of "white supremacy." The original tweet, written by British-Nigerian author Nels Abbey, referred to Badenoch as "the most prominent member of white supremacy’s black collaborator class" and included what Abbey described as "handy tips for surviving the immediate surge of Badenochism (i.e. white supremacy in blackface)." Butler, representing Brent East, quickly deleted her retweet but not before receiving backlash from Conservative politicians who found the comment offensive. One of the strongest responses came from Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty, who condemned Butler’s action, claiming that she wasn't alone in her perspective within the Labour Party. "This will be a test to see whether Keir Starmer removes the whip, or effectively condones Butler's abhorrent approval of this smear," Obese-Jecty commented. His remarks echo the frustration of Conservative supporters who have urged Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer to take swift action, given his history of responding decisively to controversial remarks within his party. Starmer has faced similar controversies before, taking disciplinary measures against Labour members for their comments on Black Conservative figures. In 2022, he suspended Labour MP Rupa Huq following her statement describing former Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng as "superficially" Black. Huq later apologized for her remarks and had the whip restored after six months. So far, however, the Labour Party has not issued a formal response to the recent controversy surrounding Butler. Nels Abbey later defended his tweet as satirical, stating that his comments were meant as a form of “sketch” rather than literal critique. He suggested that Butler’s criticism of Badenoch might be based on strong political differences, noting that she “may not welcome the ascendancy of an extremely right-wing reactionary Black person.” Abbey went further to explain that for many Black Britons, Badenoch’s ascent may not symbolize progress in the way it does for others. “Because of stuff like this, which is vehement political disagreement, it is both fair and to be expected that many Black people may not view Badenoch as (leader of the opposition) to be a ‘proud moment for our nation,’” Abbey wrote. Kemi Badenoch’s recent leadership victory, in which she succeeded Robert Jenrick, has been acknowledged as historic. Sir Keir Starmer marked her selection as the first Black leader of a Westminster party as a “proud moment” for Britain, saying, “Congratulations, Kemi Badenoch on becoming the Conservative Party’s new leader. The first Black leader of a Westminster party is a proud moment for our country.” Badenoch is expected to announce her shadow cabinet lineup, with her first official meeting scheduled for Tuesday. This latest incident reflects the underlying tensions that persist within British politics over race, representation, and political alignment. While some celebrate Badenoch’s leadership as a breakthrough, others, like Abbey, feel that the ideological stance she represents does not reflect the broader interests of the Black community in the UK. Based on a report by Sky News 2024-11-05

An off topic rant making unsubstaniated claims has been removed @watchdog2

The Jewish community center JW3 in north London, a space for gathering and open dialogue, recently found itself at the center of an intense protest. Raymond Simonson, chief executive of JW3, described the experience as one of “intimidation and bullying” rather than a constructive demonstration. “We were besieged,” Simonson recalled, adding that visitors were “pressed up against the outer perimeter” as protestors hurled accusations at them. "This racist rant happened outside a Jewish centre. What stabbed at my heart is they filmed and harassed Sharone Lifshitz who attended the peace conference. Her 84 year old father Oded is a hostage now. He would drive Gazans to hospital. This is truly sick." Simonson noted, recognizing that the police, equipped in full protective gear, worked diligently to defuse the situation. They attempted to speak with protest leaders, eventually moving them across the street by 10:45 am, while remaining on-site to maintain order. “All the police, including the ones here at the start, did their best while facing vile, disgusting hate-fuelled abuse,” Simonson acknowledged. The incident also saw counter-protestors gathering around 11 am, some of whom were accused by an activist across the road of delivering “an onslaught of racist, derogatory heckling from the ‘Zionist Entity’… fueled with genocide and absolute sickness.” In a video she shared, the activist went on to suggest that those present at JW3 were “responsible for what is happening in Palestine… and people will pay for complicity and crimes.” Simonson, directly confronted by protestors, was distressed by accusations leveled at him personally. “I got called a Nazi,” he shared. “That was screamed at me. I got called that for hosting an event designed to talk about solutions to this conflict.” For Simonson, whose mother was born in Nazi-occupied France and whose relatives perished in Auschwitz, these slurs were especially painful. He noted that, regardless of the agenda of the event—be it critical of Israel or not—such inflammatory rhetoric would still be unacceptable. The tension at JW3 comes amidst a backdrop of heightened global anxieties, with recent conflicts adding to the strain. For those who gathered at the community center, the experience underscored the growing divisions and fears surrounding these complex issues, and how these tensions continue to shape everyday interactions and public spaces. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-11-04

The Biden administration issued a warning to Iran against launching further attacks on Israel, emphasizing that it may be unable to restrain an Israeli response if provoked. A U.S. official and a former Israeli official, both informed on the situation, revealed this cautionary message, underscoring the fragile state of affairs. This development follows an escalation in hostilities that began on October 1, when Iran retaliated against Israel for a series of targeted assassinations by launching an attack. Israel’s response was forceful but controlled, focusing on Iranian military targets without striking nuclear or oil facilities. A U.S. official stated, "We told the Iranians: We won't be able to hold Israel back, and we won't be able to make sure that the next attack will be calibrated and targeted as the previous one." This message was reportedly delivered directly to Iran, an unusual move given the infrequent acknowledgment of such direct communication. The Israeli official mentioned that the message from Washington was conveyed to Tehran via the Swiss government. While both the White House and Iran’s UN mission declined to comment, the gravity of this exchange was palpable. Iran, however, seems resolute. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei remarked during a public event that both the U.S. and Israel "will definitely receive a crushing response." Furthermore, Esmail Kowsari, a member of Iran’s national security committee, disclosed that Iran’s security council had decided on a counterattack, though the specifics of timing and scale remain undetermined. Kowsari indicated that the action would involve regional "resistance" groups and surpass Iran's October 1 assault, which utilized 180 ballistic missiles. The White House reiterated its position through press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who stated on Friday, "Iran should not respond," adding that the U.S. would maintain its support for Israel. Meanwhile, Pentagon press secretary Gen. Pat Ryder confirmed that the U.S. was reinforcing its presence in the region, deploying ballistic missile defense destroyers, fighter squadrons, tanker aircraft, and B-52 long-range bombers. Ryder emphasized that "Secretary Austin continues to make clear that should Iran, its partners, or its proxies use this moment to target American personnel or interests in the region, the United States will take every measure necessary to defend our people." Tensions spiked further after Israel conducted a significant retaliatory strike on October 25, coordinated with the U.S. in response to the October 1 attack from Iran. The U.S. and Israel mutually agreed to avoid targeting Iranian oil and nuclear facilities, although they remained vigilant against other strategic sites. Recent intelligence has heightened concerns, suggesting that Iran might be preparing an assault on Israel from Iraq, potentially before the U.S. presidential election. This strategy would involve the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) alongside Shia militias in Iraq, potentially utilizing drones and ballistic missiles. U.S. officials acknowledge the plausibility of such an attack in the near term. Using Iraqi territory to execute an attack could be Iran’s strategy to mitigate retaliation against its critical infrastructure, including oil and nuclear facilities, by distancing itself from direct involvement. However, both Israeli and U.S. officials have made clear that Israel would likely respond even if the attack originates from Iraqi soil. An Israeli official noted, "It will depend on how massive the attack is and what are its results," highlighting the uncertain yet volatile nature of this unfolding situation. Based on a report by AXIOS 2024-11-04

The recent Budget under Sir Keir Starmer’s administration has intensified concerns about an emerging “two-tier” economy in the UK. As financial markets react to the new policies, a clear disparity has begun to surface between the private and public sectors. The public sector is being shielded from the recent increase in employer National Insurance contributions, with Treasury funds allocated to cover these additional costs. The private sector, however, is left to absorb the full impact, a shift that is likely to affect wages, profits, and job growth. The effects of this approach are particularly worrying for organisations like GP surgeries, care homes, and hospices, which depend heavily on public sector funding but operate independently. These institutions face the prospect of higher costs without any governmental relief. On this issue, the Health and Social Care Secretary, Wes Streeting, has stated that he is “working through” whether social care will be granted any protection, but until these discussions progress, such organisations are left in an uncertain position. In one example, Paul Stanley of the Gas House Lane GP surgery in Northumberland estimates that his practice will incur an additional £40,000 annually due to the increased National Insurance contributions, forcing difficult decisions about staffing levels. This sentiment is echoed by other leaders who fear that hiring plans and service improvements may need to be scaled back. The government’s response has included tentative offers of financial support in future contracts, particularly for GP practices. Downing Street has suggested that the next GP contract negotiations may include funds to compensate for the tax hike. However, this reliance on temporary exemptions for those closely linked to the public sector highlights a troubling trend: a preference for protecting public sector workers over fostering economic growth and competitiveness in the private sector. Such an approach may also increase market distortions, especially in sectors where private firms and public entities compete for talent. This selective support strategy has raised questions about the government's commitment to economic growth. As it stands, a tax increase that requires significant carve-outs to avoid harming essential services is a tax policy that deserves serious reconsideration. Many critics argue that rather than placing a disproportionate burden on the private sector, the government should be transparent about what level of public services the economy can feasibly sustain without compromising private sector health. By forcing the private sector to bear the brunt of these costs, Starmer’s administration risks stifling the very economic dynamism it seeks to encourage. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-11-04

Kemi Badenoch, the newly elected leader of the Conservative Party, steps into the role with a daunting task ahead. Known as "the worst job in politics," being Leader of the Opposition brings intense scrutiny and an even greater weight of expectations. With only seven months until the May local elections, Badenoch must act quickly to revive a demoralized Tory base, rebuild voter confidence, and halt the party’s downward trend in recent years. However, defining what today’s Conservative Party stands for remains Badenoch’s principal task. She has called for a “reset” in the party’s politics and thinking, a goal that echoes the sentiments of Tory members who saw her as a leader open to listening and shaping policies reflective of the party’s core values. In contrast to Jenrick, whose supporters criticized Badenoch’s campaign as lacking concrete policy details, her willingness to engage and take feedback appears to have resonated strongly with members eager for a fresh start. Although Badenoch won by a margin of around 56% to 44%, she received a strong mandate with nearly 73% voter turnout among party members. However, only one-third of Conservative MPs backed her, which could lead to a challenging divide between parliamentary members and the grassroots. This division highlights the importance of her promises to grant members a more influential role in shaping party policies and selecting candidates, moves that could solidify her support among the volunteers crucial for door-to-door campaigning during elections. Concerns persist within the party about potential shifts in membership numbers, with the Reform Party’s count on the rise and the Conservatives’ dipping just above 131,000. While some of her colleagues view Badenoch’s assertive personality as a potential flaw, Tory members see her tenacity as a strength. They believe she will stand firmly by her convictions, something they doubted about Jenrick, whose policies were seen as appealing but whose image seemed out of touch. Michael Gove’s label of Jenrick as another “Tory boy” reflected a worry among members that he would lack the fortitude to withstand challenges from Farage. Badenoch has already branded herself as “Labour’s worst nightmare,” with her unique background countering claims that the Conservatives harbor prejudice or racism. Despite his criticisms of Badenoch, Farage is likely to recognize that she poses a formidable challenge to his ambitions; of the two candidates, she is the one with the charisma and appeal to keep his party in check. Should Badenoch guide the Conservatives to success in the May elections, it could affirm her leadership as a step toward the party’s resurgence. If these early tests fall short, members might still grant her time to solidify her position by 2026. However, if she cannot deliver progress by then, her future as leader might be at risk before a general election. Both Badenoch and Jenrick described this leadership race as an existential moment for the Conservatives, highlighting the critical juncture at which the party stands. With history on her side, Badenoch embarks on a path that could shape not only her party’s future but also the course of British politics in the years to come. Based on a report by the Daily Telegraph 2024-11-04

Vice President Kamala Harris made a surprise appearance on *Saturday Night Live*, joining comedian Maya Rudolph, who has famously portrayed Harris on the show since 2019. Harris’s appearance, where she played herself as Rudolph’s mirror-image double, brought a wave of excitement from the audience as the two interacted onstage. The vice president’s detour to *SNL* added a unique element to her busy campaign schedule. Harris had been in Charlotte, North Carolina, earlier that Saturday and was scheduled to travel to Detroit. However, aides on Air Force Two informed reporters of an unscheduled stop in New York City, where Harris headed straight to 30 Rockefeller Plaza, home of *SNL*. She arrived just in time for a quick rehearsal before the live broadcast. Harris’s unexpected appearance marked a special occasion for the show, as this was the last episode before Election Day. An official familiar with Harris’s plans confirmed her attendance to reporters traveling with her moments before the live show aired, enhancing the surprise factor. Rudolph has become well-known for her portrayal of Harris, affectionately calling herself “Momala”—a nod to the vice president’s nickname from her stepchildren—and has delivered memorable lines like her season premiere opener, “Well, well, well. Look who fell out of that coconut tree.” Rudolph’s impression has won widespread praise, including from Harris herself. “Maya Rudolph—I mean, she’s so good,” Harris commented during an interview on *The View*, applauding Rudolph for nailing her “mannerisms” and the attention to detail in her portrayal, from the suit to the jewelry. Harris was joined on set by former cast member Andy Samberg, reprising his role as her husband, Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, and Dana Carvey, who played President Joe Biden. Despite Rudolph’s humorous impersonation of Harris, Jason Miller, a senior adviser to Trump, expressed surprise at Harris’s willingness to appear on *SNL*, given her portrayal on the show. He also stated he was unaware if Trump had received an invitation to appear. Politicians making guest appearances on *SNL* is a longstanding tradition, though it’s rare for candidates to participate so close to Election Day. Notable examples include Hillary Clinton, who joined Amy Poehler’s portrayal of her in 2008, and then-Senator Barack Obama, who appeared alongside Poehler’s Clinton in 2007. Republican Senator Bob Dole famously appeared on *SNL* days after his loss in the 1996 presidential election, and Tina Fey’s Emmy-winning portrayal of Sarah Palin in 2008 became iconic, with Palin herself appearing on the show weeks before the election. Harris, echoing Clinton’s reaction to Poehler’s portrayal, responded to Rudolph’s exaggerated version of her laugh, asking, “Do I really laugh like that?” With the election just days away, Harris’s lighthearted visit to *SNL* served as a final outreach effort, injecting humor into the intense campaign season while connecting with viewers nationwide. Based on a report by CBS 2024-11-04

Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, has reportedly been cut off financially by his brother, King Charles, according to royal biographer Robert Hardman. In an updated version of his biography on King Charles, Hardman claims that the King has ceased funding security costs for Prince Andrew’s residence and has also withdrawn his personal allowance, a move believed to cost several million pounds a year. Buckingham Palace has declined to comment on these claims, which have been highlighted in a recent serialisation by the *Daily Mail*. Andrew has been under growing financial pressure in recent years due to the costs associated with maintaining his 30-room Royal Lodge, a 19th-century property in Windsor. According to Hardman, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, responsible for managing royal finances, has been instructed to end both the security payments and the personal allowance provided to the Duke of York. The BBC had previously reported that King Charles was reluctant to subsidize Prince Andrew’s lifestyle indefinitely, but this recent claim suggests a definitive decision has now been made. Without royal funding, Prince Andrew will need to independently manage the upkeep and security costs of Royal Lodge, a listed property leased from the Crown Estate. The prince, who stepped down from official royal duties following his widely publicized 2019 BBC Newsnight interview about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, now faces an uncertain future as he no longer has the royal support previously afforded him. Described by some commentators as “de-royalled,” Prince Andrew has also lost his military titles and royal patronages in the wake of public scrutiny and has since lived a more private life at Royal Lodge. The question of Prince Andrew’s long-term living arrangements and finances reportedly dates back to discussions before King Charles’s reign. Some sources suggest he may need to relocate to a smaller residence, such as Frogmore Cottage, which was once occupied by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. This property, unlike Royal Lodge, can be offered at the discretion of the monarch and would reduce both security and maintenance costs. However, Andrew’s personal lease on Royal Lodge, lasting until 2078, presents a complex situation. He has reportedly invested heavily in the property, spending over £7.5 million on initial renovations and making additional payments to reduce his annual rental costs, which make him less inclined to give it up. Documents from the National Audit Office reveal that the prince made a substantial one-off payment of £1 million to his landlords, the Crown Estate. Additionally, he secured an agreement for potential compensation should he leave within the first 25 years of his lease, although this arrangement will soon expire, further diminishing any financial incentive to vacate the property. Despite his reluctance to leave, the absence of royal funding may ultimately compel him to reconsider his situation. The book quotes a source stating, “The duke is no longer a financial burden on the King,” underscoring the sense of finality in this decision. With the pressures mounting to fund his home independently, Prince Andrew’s future at Royal Lodge remains uncertain as he navigates the demands of financial independence from the monarchy. Based on a report by BBC 2024-11-04

Israeli naval commandos infiltrated deep into Lebanon to capture a high-ranking Hezbollah operative in a late-night raid on November 1, 2024. The Israeli military confirmed on Saturday night that this unprecedented action took place over 140 kilometers north of Israel’s maritime border, marking a significant escalation both in the nature and location of operations against Hezbollah forces. The operation highlights Israel's determination to confront threats beyond its borders and demonstrates a growing focus on Hezbollah’s increasingly sophisticated naval operations. Hezbollah’s naval wing, reportedly bolstered by years of Iranian support, poses a latent threat to Israeli security in the Mediterranean. Israeli intelligence has indicated that Hezbollah has been expanding its naval capabilities in recent years, which include tactics and weapons that could endanger Israeli vessels and infrastructure. The cross-border operation signifies the IDF’s emphasis on preemptive strategies to counter regional threats. Israel’s security officials view Hezbollah as a primary adversary, especially given the group’s growing arsenal and intelligence networks. While Hezbollah has a stronghold in southern Lebanon, this raid on northern Lebanese shores is a clear signal that Israel is willing to reach further to neutralize threats. This bold action has garnered attention both for its strategic significance and the geopolitical implications it may entail. Hezbollah and its regional allies are likely to interpret the operation as a signal of Israel’s commitment to its security objectives, regardless of geographic boundaries. As regional tensions continue to simmer, this high-stakes raid underscores the complexities and risks inherent in the longstanding conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, raising questions about potential responses and the future course of this decades-old rivalry. Based on a report by BBC 2024-11-04

On September 3, 2021, Josseli Barnica lay in a hospital bed in Houston, facing the devastating news that the sibling she had hoped to give her daughter would not survive. Just 17 weeks into her pregnancy, she was experiencing an unavoidable miscarriage. Her fetus was in the process of emerging, its head pressed against her cervix, and medical records indicated the miscarriage was “in progress.” According to over a dozen medical experts consulted by ProPublica, doctors should have acted swiftly to help her, either by expediting delivery or clearing her uterus to prevent a potentially fatal infection. When Barnica’s husband hurried from his job to the hospital, she shared what the medical team had told her: “They had to wait until there was no heartbeat.” Barnica’s husband recounted this in Spanish to ProPublica, adding, “It would be a crime to give her an abortion.” Texas law strictly limits actions that could terminate a fetal heartbeat, even in cases where a miscarriage is underway and the pregnancy is no longer viable. This legal limitation left Barnica enduring 40 excruciating hours as her body was exposed to infection while doctors withheld care. Three days later, she succumbed to infection after delivering. Barnica’s tragic story highlights a dire consequence of Texas’s restrictive abortion policies, which critics argue deter doctors from intervening even when necessary to save the life of the pregnant person. ProPublica identified Barnica as one of at least two Texas women who died under similar circumstances, where delayed care during miscarriages contributed to fatal outcomes. Neither of these women had sought an abortion; they simply needed urgent medical attention. Although supporters of the laws argue that they safeguard both fetal and maternal lives, in practice, many physicians hesitate to act out of fear of prosecution, loss of medical licenses, and possible imprisonment. ProPublica’s investigation into Barnica’s death underscores the human toll these laws can have. Her story, which experts called “preventable,” was reviewed by more than a dozen specialists who examined summaries of her hospital and autopsy records. Experts described her death as “horrific,” “astounding,” and “egregious.” The doctors who oversaw Barnica’s care at HCA Houston Healthcare Northwest declined to comment, though HCA Healthcare stated that it follows state and federal laws, leaving care decisions to physicians’ “independent judgment.” Texas, like other states, has a maternal health committee to assess deaths like Barnica’s and develop preventive measures. However, these reviews are confidential, and as of now, the committee has not completed its assessment of cases from 2021, the year Barnica passed away. Filling in these gaps, ProPublica pursued a thorough examination, analyzing death data to pinpoint Barnica’s case, obtaining family interviews and medical records, and consulting a team of experts on the care she received. After reviewing a timeline of her hospital records and the summary compiled by ProPublica, every consulted expert agreed that forcing Barnica to wait until the fetus’s heartbeat ceased violated medical standards. They asserted that withholding intervention created a critical window for infection to take root. Experts noted that Barnica’s life could likely have been spared if immediate intervention had been provided. Dr. Susan Mann, an obstetric care specialist and patient safety expert at Harvard University, remarked, “If this was Massachusetts or Ohio, she would have had that delivery within a couple hours.” Barnica’s tragic passing reveals the unintended, often deadly consequences of abortion restrictions on miscarriage management. Her story raises urgent questions about the ethical responsibilities of healthcare providers and lawmakers in Texas and similar states, emphasizing the need for policies that prioritize patient safety and timely medical intervention. Based on a report by CNN 2024-11-04

Detectives from the Metropolitan Police have formally passed a file of evidence concerning historical sexual offence allegations against comedian and actor Russell Brand to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), requesting that charges be considered. This development marks a significant step in the 13-month investigation into Brand’s conduct, which was initially prompted by a joint investigation by *The Sunday Times*, *The Times*, and Channel 4’s *Dispatches*. Brand has denied all allegations, asserting that his relationships have always been "absolutely always consensual." The police inquiry began after four women came forward in September 2023, accusing Brand of rape, sexual assault, and emotional abuse. These claims relate to incidents that allegedly occurred between 2006 and 2013, during the height of Brand's career as a television presenter and Hollywood actor. Detective Superintendent Andy Furphy, who leads the case, stated, “Our investigation continues and a file has now been passed to the CPS. We have a team of dedicated officers providing specialist support to the women who have come forward. We are committed to investigating sexual offences, no matter how long ago they are alleged to have taken place.” Brand, 49, has been interviewed by the police on three occasions, including a previously undisclosed meeting in January, where he was questioned under caution about various allegations. Following the initial allegations, additional reports of sexual offences were made by other women, prompting investigations by the BBC, Channel 4, and production company Banijay, which acquired Endemol, the producer of *Big Brother’s Big Mouth*, a show Brand hosted in the mid-2000s. Brand’s past controversies, including his resignation from BBC Radio 2 in 2008 following the “Sachsgate” scandal involving prank calls to actor Andrew Sachs, have further fueled media attention on the case. The investigation has involved Operation Hydrant, a specialized unit established after the Jimmy Savile case to handle non-recent sexual offence allegations. The Met confirmed that the allegations involve incidents both in and outside London, and stated that Brand had voluntarily attended interviews with detectives on November 16, 2023, December 14, and again on January 17 of this year. The decision now rests with CPS prosecutors, who will assess whether the evidence warrants charging Brand and if pursuing a case would serve the public interest. Brand's public image has transformed in recent years, and he has drawn attention for his support of political figures and conspiracy theories. In May, Brand appeared at a campaign event for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and subsequently endorsed Donald Trump after Kennedy’s campaign ended. He defended his stance on his podcast, asserting, “If you care about freedom, I don’t know how you could do anything other than vote for Donald Trump, for precisely the reasons that they claim that you can’t.” In recent years, Brand has also embraced Christianity, sharing spiritual content online and even baptizing others. He was baptized by adventurer Bear Grylls in the River Thames earlier this year and has since taken to baptizing others, posting an image of a baptism he performed on social media with the caption, “It might seem a bit soon to be baptising people, but the Apostles did it on day one, so here we are.” As the CPS reviews the police evidence, Brand’s evolving public persona and personal history continue to be a focal point in the media. Based on a report by The Times 2024-11-04

In a Manhattan courtroom, Daniel Penny’s attorney defended the former Marine’s actions on a New York subway, arguing that he intervened to protect fellow passengers from a “psychotic” Jordan Neely. Penny, now on trial for manslaughter, faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted for the chokehold that led to Neely’s death. His defense attorney, Thomas Kenniff, began the trial by asserting that Penny “did for others what we would want someone to do for us,” stepping in to shield subway riders from what he described as an “unhinged” and threatening individual. "Jordan Neely was still alive when he was released by Daniel Penny." Penny’s legal team insists his actions were not racially motivated, while Neely’s family attorney has questioned Penny’s decision to use a chokehold instead of less lethal methods. Outside the courthouse, protesters gathered in support of Neely, chanting “Justice for Jordan Neely” and “being homeless is not a crime.” The demonstration included members of Black Lives Matter, with some calling Penny the “subway strangler.” The trial, expected to span four weeks, will feature testimonies from police officers who witnessed the aftermath and officials from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. For Penny, this case represents a pivotal judgment on his choice to act in what his defense calls a moment of “panic” but the prosecution sees as “indifference” and excessive force. Based on a report by NYP 2024-11-04

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed disappointment on Wednesday over the leak of a confidential request for U.S.-made Tomahawk missiles, which was disclosed by the White House to the New York Times. This revelation adds tension to Ukraine's strategic partnership with the United States as it seeks critical military support against Russia. During an interview, Zelenskyy confirmed that Ukraine had formally requested Tomahawk long-range missiles from the U.S. government to aid in their defense efforts against Russia. The missiles, which have a range of up to 1,500 kilometers, would enable Ukraine to strike strategic targets well within Russian territory, a capability seen as essential in Ukraine’s "Victory Plan" against Russian forces. However, Zelenskyy voiced his displeasure with the White House’s decision to share details of this request with the media. "And this was confidential information between Ukraine and the White House," Zelenskyy remarked. "How should we understand these messages? So, it means between partners there’s nothing confidential?” he questioned, raising concerns about trust within the alliance. The New York Times reported that the Ukrainian request was met with skepticism by senior U.S. officials, who viewed the plan as unrealistic. These officials, speaking anonymously, explained that the American military was not prepared to commit the limited supply of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, as they were also factoring in potential requirements for other regions like the Middle East and Asia. Additionally, they noted that Ukraine’s list of intended targets was extensive and, according to their assessment, unlikely to sway the momentum of the war on the battlefield. Zelenskyy’s concerns were echoed by other high-ranking Ukrainian officials, who were also taken aback by the leak. Speaking to POLITICO, one Ukrainian official, granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive topic, defended the practicality of the Victory Plan and emphasized that it had undergone review by the U.S. military itself. “We know the plan is realistic. U.S. own military studied it and said it is realistic,” the official stated, expressing disappointment over the negative framing of the leaked information. The leak has prompted questions over whether sensitive negotiations and strategies between the United States and Ukraine can remain secure, especially as Kyiv relies heavily on Washington’s continued support in the fight against Russian forces. The leaked information has highlighted underlying differences in how each government views the utility of long-range strikes in the conflict. As Ukraine continues to seek international assistance, the breach of confidential discussions risks complicating the delicate diplomatic and military relationship between the two allies. Based on a report by Politico 2024-11-04

US intelligence officials have recently highlighted a suspected Russian disinformation effort involving a fake video of a man claiming to be a Haitian voter in Georgia. According to intelligence agencies, "Russian influence actors" were responsible for creating and spreading a fabricated 20-second clip that has been widely shared on social media, including the platform X. The video, which shows two men in a car identifying themselves as Haitian, features one individual claiming that he obtained U.S. citizenship within six months of arriving in the country and has since voted multiple times in Georgia counties such as Gwinnett and Fulton. He also encourages other Haitians to migrate to the United States. However, researchers at Clemson University have linked the video to a Russian disinformation campaign called Storm-1516, known for targeting the U.S. electoral process. Darren Linvill, a Clemson researcher, remarked, “This narrative is consistent with what we’ve seen from Storm-1516, especially in recent weeks since they’ve turned their focus squarely on the US election.” He cautioned against underestimating the impact of such operations, adding, “We should absolutely not be surprised that they are focused on undermining the integrity of the US election. This is consistent with Russian strategy over the last two election cycles." Linvill further explained that the "narrative focus, style, and production of the video" closely align with earlier content attributed to Storm-1516, which is reportedly linked to the Russian Foundation to Battle Injustice. This organization was founded by Yevgeny Prigozhin, the former head of the Wagner Group, a mercenary organization. Prigozhin's association with the organization continued until his rebellion against Moscow, which ended with his death in a plane crash. The incident has prompted a strong response from U.S. officials. Brad Raffensperger, Georgia's Secretary of State, condemned the clip as "fake and part of a disinformation effort," calling on X owner Elon Musk and other social media platform operators to remove the video. In the clip, one man displays multiple driver's licenses as supposed evidence of identity. BBC Verify analyzed these images, discovering that the addresses on two licenses led to non-residential locations, one being a business site and the other a spot on the road near a gas station. Additionally, a reverse image search revealed that one of the license photographs was a stock image produced by a South African company, further proving the video’s inauthenticity. This isn't the first instance of alleged Russian interference in U.S. elections. Just last week, U.S. intelligence disclosed another fabricated video purportedly showing a poll worker destroying mail-in ballots marked for Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, which was also "manufactured and amplified" by Russian actors. These findings underline the persistence of foreign influence efforts aimed at sowing doubt and discord within the U.S. electoral system. Based on a report by BBC 2024-11-04

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, currently running as the Democratic vice presidential nominee alongside Kamala Harris, referred to Elon Musk as “that gay guy.” The comment, which quickly sparked reactions online, was later clarified by the Harris-Walz campaign, which insisted that Walz simply misspoke. Later that evening, the Harris-Walz campaign addressed the comment, explaining that Walz had stumbled over his words. A campaign spokesperson told *The Post*, “The governor stuttered while trying to say ‘that guy got,’” emphasizing that Walz had no intention of calling Musk gay. The spokesperson added, “In the video, you can hear someone in the crowd yell ‘dips–t!’ when the governor brings up Musk.” The unexpected outburst reportedly led Walz to laugh and fumble his words, getting “stuck on the G in ‘that guy got’ while trying not to laugh.” The campaign’s clarification attempted to dispel any misconceptions about the remark, insisting that the phrase was not intentional but rather an innocent misstep influenced by the crowd’s reaction. Despite the initial wave of social media criticism, Musk’s lighthearted response seemed to defuse much of the tension around the incident. Based on a report by NYP 2024-11-04

In a surprising twist just days before Election Day, a new poll from the Des Moines Register/Mediacom shows Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump in Iowa, a state where Trump has won handily in previous elections. According to the poll, conducted by Selzer & Co., Harris leads Trump by 47% to 44% among likely voters. This unexpected result has shocked political observers and defied predictions, as analysts previously did not foresee a win for the Democratic candidate in Iowa. “It’s hard for anybody to say they saw this coming,” commented J. Ann Selzer, the president of Selzer & Co., the firm that conducted the poll. Known for its accurate and respected polling methods, Selzer & Co.’s findings have historically carried weight in political circles, making the result all the more noteworthy. Despite the close margin, with Harris's advantage falling within the poll's 3.4 percentage point margin of error, the data signals a significant 7-point shift in voter support toward Harris since September. Neither Harris nor Trump has recently campaigned in Iowa, a state where Trump secured strong victories in both the 2016 and 2020 elections. This absence of direct campaigning, combined with Iowa’s historical lean toward Trump, made the poll’s outcome even more surprising to analysts. Polling expert Selzer noted the shift, remarking, “She has clearly leaped into a leading position.” The Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll surveyed 808 likely voters from Monday through Thursday, and the results highlighted a few critical demographic insights. According to Selzer, support for Harris is notably strong among women, particularly older and politically independent female voters. “Age and gender are the two most dynamic factors that are explaining these numbers,” she explained. This trend suggests that the gender and age divide is playing an influential role in shifting the political landscape in Harris’s favor. The poll also noted that 3% of respondents indicated support for independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who ended his campaign to back Trump but remains on Iowa's ballot. Kennedy’s decision to endorse Trump did not appear to sway significant support away from Harris, though his name still holds relevance in the polling results. This number, while small, could still play a role in a tight race like this one. When comparing these latest results to previous polling, the change in Iowa’s political sentiment becomes even more striking. In September, Trump held a 4-point lead over Harris, and earlier in the summer, he was up by 18 percentage points over the then-presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden. Trump secured an 8-point win in Iowa in the 2020 election and a 9-point victory in 2016, marking Iowa as a reliably red state in recent years. However, the Trump campaign has cast doubt on the new poll’s validity. In a memo issued Saturday night, they labeled the Des Moines Register poll an “outlier.” The memo pointed to an Emerson College poll released the same day, which presented a different picture, showing Trump ahead of Harris by a margin of 53% to 43%. “Des Moines Register is a clear outlier poll,” the Trump campaign memo stated. “Emerson College, released today, far more closely reflects the state of the actual Iowa electorate and does so with far more transparency in their methodology.” As Election Day approaches, this surprising Iowa poll adds an element of unpredictability to the race. While it remains to be seen if Harris’s lead in this survey will translate to actual votes, the findings illustrate a potential shift in the state’s political dynamics. Regardless of the outcome, Iowa's electorate appears more divided than in recent elections, making it a crucial state to watch in the days leading up to November 3rd. Based on a report by CNBC 2024-11-04

An off topic post and link has been removed: Four Thai Nationals Killed in Attack Near Israel-Lebanon Border

An off topic conspiracey nonsense post removed along with another off topic video from the same poster

In a blistering critique of the Labour government’s first hundred days, former Conservative MP Ben Wallace argues that Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his team have already begun to diverge from their campaign promises, creating a divisive, two-tier society that favors the public sector over the private. Instead of unity, Labour has reportedly fostered an atmosphere of division and uncertainty across the United Kingdom, undermining the very promises on which it was elected. According to Wallace, Labour's actions reveal its true priorities, which are not in line with the needs of the many, but rather tailored to benefit a select few. One of the central criticisms Wallace raises is Labour’s handling of tax promises. During the campaign, Labour assured voters it would not raise taxes on “working people.” However, Wallace contends that what Labour really meant was that it would avoid tax increases only on public sector employees. In practice, he argues, those who rely on taxpayer money for salaries and benefits enjoy increased protections and “record pay rises,” all financed by taxpayers in the private sector. Wallace argues that Labour is driving a wedge between those who spend taxpayer money—mainly in the public sector—and those who generate it in the private sector, including small business owners, farmers, and self-employed individuals. The disparities Wallace outlines are significant, particularly in terms of pension contributions. He points out that while the average public sector worker benefits from an employer pension contribution of approximately 24 to 30 percent, along with guaranteed job security, private sector workers receive only 4 to 8 percent in employer contributions with far less security. Wallace also highlights the burden of the national debt—over £1.5 trillion—and the public sector pension liability of more than £2.5 trillion, questioning why Labour has focused so heavily on wages without addressing the “overall package” of benefits public sector workers receive. This approach, he believes, shifts the financial burden onto those in the private sector, who often lack similar job protections or retirement benefits. Wallace also raises concerns about Labour’s transparency and integrity, emphasizing that “there isn’t a week that goes by without another election pledge being exposed as false.” He accuses Starmer and his team of hypocrisy, citing specific examples, including Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ campaign commitment not to raise national insurance and her “iron-clad” pledge to maintain fiscal discipline. He criticizes Labour’s habit of blaming unfulfilled promises on the argument that “things were worse than we thought,” suggesting this refrain is added to every government statement to obscure Labour’s failure to act on its election promises. According to Wallace, Labour’s campaign language was strategically “slippery and nebulous,” particularly in references to “working people” in its manifesto. He questions whether Labour, during its 14 years in opposition, was too occupied with political theater to prepare for governance, noting the frequency with which election pledges are exposed as misleading or outright false. He also accuses the government of leveraging envy and divisiveness, alienating private sector workers and citizens outside the public sector. Reflecting on his own experiences in office, Wallace underscores the importance of cross-party cooperation, something he says he was criticized for, yet firmly believes is essential for effective governance. While he once admired former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair’s “live and let live” philosophy, he laments that Starmer’s Labour seems to lack this unifying approach. Instead, Wallace accuses Labour of a politics driven by “envy and division,” governing in a way that favors a select few at the expense of the many. For Wallace, Labour’s policies represent a betrayal of the unity it promised, revealing a government that, in his view, does not truly serve the majority. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-11-02

The Economist announced its endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris on Thursday, citing concerns about the “unacceptable risk” that a second term for former President Donald Trump would pose to both America and the world. The influential U.K.-based publication, which has a history of supporting Democratic candidates in U.S. elections since endorsing John Kerry in 2004, highlighted Trump’s potential impact on critical issues, including economic stability, the rule of law, and global peace. The editorial team at The Economist acknowledged Harris' limitations, describing her as “underwhelming” but ultimately deeming her shortcomings as “ordinary” and not disqualifying. They argue that Harris, despite her perceived flaws, represents a far safer choice for America and its role on the global stage than her Republican opponent. The editors underscore the gravity of the choice facing American voters, stating, “By making Mr. Trump leader of the free world, Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace.” The publication’s endorsement comes amid mounting concern among international economists and leaders over Trump’s policy proposals and governance style. Recently, nearly two dozen Nobel Prize-winning economists publicly expressed their support for Harris’ economic plans, describing them as “vastly superior” to Trump’s. In their statement, The Economist editorial team underscored the dangers they see in Trump’s potential return to office. “We cannot quantify the chance that something will go badly wrong: nobody can,” they explain, further cautioning voters against underestimating the risks. “But we believe voters who minimize it are deluding themselves.” As Harris continues to campaign, endorsements like The Economist’s add a dimension of international perspective to the U.S. election, particularly from an established, respected voice known for its global outlook. The publication's assessment reflects not only concerns about domestic issues but also a broader apprehension over how American leadership influences global stability and economic progress. Based on a report by Daily Beast 2024-11-02

The International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) recent endorsement of Rachel Reeves’s budget has stirred controversy in the UK, with critics calling it a blow to working people struggling under rising taxes and slow wage growth. In a statement, the IMF praised the budget, particularly its aim to reduce the deficit through sustainable revenue measures and a plan to increase public investment, which they believe will spur growth and address crucial public service needs. "We support the envisaged reduction in the deficit over the medium term, including by sustainably raising revenue,” an IMF spokesperson remarked. The budget’s strategic increases in public investment were also applauded as necessary steps toward addressing urgent issues in public services. However, Robert Jenrick, a potential leader within the Conservative Party, expressed frustration with the IMF’s stance, describing it as a “slap in the face” to working citizens already stretched by rising taxes. Jenrick criticized the IMF's support of the budget's tax measures, especially given that the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) projects these tax increases will slightly hinder economic growth over the next decade. The OBR warns that living standards, particularly as measured by disposable income adjusted for inflation, will experience slower growth due to higher employer National Insurance contributions. Jenrick’s criticism went further, calling the budget "gloom-and-bust," a reference to fears it may trigger higher inflation and escalating national debt. “This gloom-and-bust Budget is predicted by the OBR to lower growth, increase inflation, and cause debt to balloon. For working people being crippled by higher taxes, the IMF’s comments welcoming this Budget will feel like a slap in the face,” Jenrick stated. The IMF’s support has not been universally shared among economists, either. Douglas McWilliams, deputy chairman of the Centre for Economics and Business Research, was openly skeptical of the IMF’s assessment, questioning both the reliability of the Fund’s forecasts and its understanding of policy. McWilliams argued, “The IMF does not have a great track record of either forecasting or understanding policy. If you keep getting your forecasts wrong, it calls into doubt virtually everything else you do.” He further explained that slowing growth, as projected by the OBR, is likely to reduce tax revenues, which could mean higher borrowing down the line. “So the numbers on which the IMF is commenting on are almost certainly wrong,” he added. Rachel Reeves, the architect of the budget, has maintained that her plans are designed as a “once in a parliament Budget.” Still, she has conceded that further tax hikes may be necessary in the future. Despite her assertion, concerns linger that Britain’s tax burden is on course to reach a historic high, potentially hitting 38.2% by the end of the decade. This would be a significant rise, marking an increase of 5.1 percentage points compared to pre-pandemic levels. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-11-02

A Chicago man has been charged with terrorism and hate crimes following a violent attack on a Jewish man who was walking to his synagogue. Police have reported that the suspect, 22-year-old Sidi Mohamed Abdallahi, is accused of not only shooting at the Jewish man but also firing multiple times at police officers and paramedics who responded to the scene. Terrifying moment captured on camera: In addition to terrorism and hate crime charges, Abdallahi faces six counts of attempted first-degree murder, seven counts of aggravated discharge of a firearm, and one count of aggravated battery with a firearm. His next court appearance is scheduled for November 7. Superintendent Snelling emphasized the importance of a thorough investigation to ensure that the charges were properly founded, denying that the charges were influenced by public or media pressure. "There must be sufficient evidence to support hate crimes and terrorism charges, and it was important we took our time to thoroughly investigate and confirm that this was indeed a crime of that nature,” Snelling said. He added, “We will never go out in public, make statements, allegations, accusations or attempt to bring charges without any proof of what we’re attempting to charge someone for.” Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson condemned the attack, describing it as an assault on the city’s values and calling hate toward the Jewish community “hideous” and “wicked.” Johnson spoke out strongly against antisemitism, stating, “This is not just an attack against our beloved community of Jewish people; this was an attack against us as a city.” He affirmed that no one in Chicago should live in fear because of their beliefs, religion, or identity. Johnson assured the Jewish community that “we’re using every aspect of government to ensure that they are safe.” Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx remarked on the rarity of terrorism charges and highlighted the gravity of Abdallahi’s actions. “This charge sends a clear message: Any acts that seek to destabilize our communities through fear and hatred will face the fullest measure of accountability under the law,” Foxx stated. She added that the crime was not simply meant to intimidate but aimed to “inflict terror.” The Midwest branch of The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement on X (formerly Twitter) on Thursday, acknowledging that the charges appropriately reflect the severity of the crime. “We must all turn our attention to supporting the victim and the West Rogers Park Jewish community as they recover from this heinous act,” the statement read. Abdallahi, a Mauritanian national, was first encountered by US Border Patrol in San Ysidro, California, on March 31, 2023, according to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Following his recent arrest, ICE “lodged an immigration detainer with Cook County Jail” on Tuesday, spokesperson Erin Bultje confirmed in a statement. ICE has not provided further information about his immigration status. Meanwhile, the victim of the shooting was discharged from the hospital on Saturday afternoon. Chicago's 50th Ward Alderman Debra Silverstein shared relief at his condition, expressing gratitude that he did not suffer life-threatening injuries. Superintendent Snelling also reflected on the long-term impact this event might have on the survivor, stating, “Thankfully, this victim did not suffer life-threatening injuries. We know that this is something that he’s going to have to deal with the rest of his days.” Based on a report by CNN 2024-11-02

Following the release of a documentary detailing alleged abuses by Mohamed al Fayed, the former Harrods and Fulham FC owner, over 400 individuals have come forward with testimonies, according to the Justice for Harrods Survivors group. These allegations span various accusations, including rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, and the abuse of minors. Many individuals who have spoken out had connections to Harrods, Fulham FC, and other locations linked to Fayed's business empire. Among those who have come forward is Bianca Gascoigne, daughter of former footballer Paul Gascoigne, who alleges that Fayed groomed and assaulted her when she worked as a teenager at Harrods. In addition, Ronnie Gibbons, a former Fulham Women captain, claims she was twice assaulted by Fayed. The allegations build on 21 previous claims made by women to the Metropolitan Police between 2005 and 2023, demonstrating a long-standing pattern of accusations. Harrods, the luxury department store formerly owned by Fayed from 1985 to 2010, has publicly distanced itself from the allegations. The company stated it is “utterly appalled” by the claims and emphasized that it is a “very different organization to the one owned and controlled by Fayed.” Based on a report by Sky News 2024-11-02

A New Zealand judge is set to determine whether the owners of Whakaari, the volcanic island where a tragic eruption in 2019 took the lives of 22 tourists and guides, were unjustly convicted. The three-day appeal hearing concluded Thursday, and Justice Simon Moore informed the High Court in Auckland that he would reach a decision by the end of the year. The owners’ company, Whakaari Management, controlled by three brothers, was previously convicted for not ensuring visitor safety on the island. This March, the company was ordered to pay substantial fines and restitution to the victims, most of whom were U.S. and Australian tourists who had traveled to the island by cruise ship. Following the conviction, Whakaari Management quickly appealed, with the case’s primary question being whether the company had a legal responsibility for visitor safety under New Zealand’s workplace health and safety laws. The case has spurred a debate on whether Whakaari Management should have been held accountable as an authority responsible for workplace safety on the island, as argued by New Zealand’s workplace regulator. Lawyers representing the regulator stated that Whakaari Management’s entire business model revolved around granting access to a naturally hazardous location, charging permit fees to tourists and scientific groups alike. As the prosecutor Kirsty McDonald argued in court, the company “had a duty to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that the workplace it was granting access to was without risks to the health and safety of any person.” Prosecutors contended that the company should have carried out risk assessments to determine whether it was even safe for tourists to be allowed on the island. However, attorneys for Whakaari Management have countered that the company acted only as a landlord, merely granting access to Whakaari, rather than managing or supervising the tours themselves. Rachael Reed, a lawyer representing the company, argued, “the company did not run, direct or supervise the tours,” maintaining that responsibility for visitor safety lay with the tour operators, not with Whakaari Management. The legal team further emphasized that the conviction, if upheld, could have significant implications on how other landowners allow public access to natural sites across New Zealand. They argued that a precedent set by this case could discourage landowners from allowing visitors to areas with natural hazards, impacting the nation’s adventure tourism industry. Before the 2019 eruption, Whakaari—also known as White Island—was a favored tourist destination, reachable by boat or helicopter from the Bay of Plenty on New Zealand’s North Island. On the fateful December day, 47 individuals, including tourists and tour guides, were present on the island when superheated steam erupted from the volcano. Some visitors were killed instantly, while others sustained severe burns. Survivors recounted in court that they had been unaware of the risks posed by the active volcano and were not provided with any protective equipment. Many were wearing clothing that worsened the impact of the burns they suffered. Judge Evangelos Thomas, who initially ruled on the case, noted in his judgment that Whakaari Management failed to undertake a necessary risk assessment, despite a prior eruption on the island three years earlier. He ruled that the company should have sought expert guidance to evaluate the dangers and, based on that advice, either restricted public access entirely or implemented rigorous safety controls. In 2023, New Zealand’s workplace safety regulator charged 13 entities and individuals, including Whakaari Management, for safety lapses related to the eruption. Among these were helicopter and boat tour operators, a scenic flight operator, and the scientific agency GNS Science. Several of the parties accepted their charges, while others, including Whakaari Management, contested them. Some charges were subsequently dropped. The appeal’s outcome is eagerly awaited, with Justice Moore reserving his decision, yet refraining from committing to a specific date. The result could have profound effects on the responsibilities of companies offering access to natural attractions, potentially reshaping the regulatory landscape for adventure tourism in New Zealand. Original Court case Conviction Based on a report by AP 2024-11-02

A new report has advised citizens of the European Union to stockpile emergency supplies in anticipation of potential conflict or other severe crises. The report, published on Wednesday, was prepared by former Finnish President Sauli Niinistö in his role as Special Adviser to the President of the European Commission. In it, Niinistö warns that the EU’s current approach to crisis management is largely reactive and must become more proactive. Highlighting lessons learned from recent crises like the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the report stresses the importance of individual preparedness and self-reliance. It recommends that EU member states encourage households to stockpile essential goods, sufficient for at least 72 hours, in preparation for any emergency. Such supplies include food, water, medicine, flashlights, and a battery-powered radio, among other critical items. The goal, according to the report, is to better equip citizens for a range of crises, from pandemics to extreme weather events or even armed conflict. This advice aims to avoid the widespread shortages experienced during the pandemic when people began panic-buying essential items. Although the report considers several potential threats, it highlights Russian aggression as a significant concern. “We do not have a clear plan on what the EU will do in the event of armed aggression against a Member State. The threat of war posed by Russia to European security forces us to address this as a centerpiece of our preparedness, without undermining the work to prepare for other major threats,” the report states. The report underscores that the EU’s security is interconnected across all its 27 member states. Any aggression against one member would inevitably affect the bloc as a whole. “The territorial integrity and political independence of every Member State is inextricably linked with that of other Member States, and the EU as a whole,” the document asserts. Niinistö’s report recommends empowering EU citizens as central to a successful crisis readiness strategy. He emphasizes that the EU must work to raise awareness and foster a sense of self-reliance across its population. Additionally, the report suggests significant increases in security investments, proposing that at least 20 percent of the EU’s budget should be allocated toward security and crisis preparedness. Enhanced intelligence sharing among EU member states is also advised to improve response coordination and strategic planning. The 165-page document, which was formally presented to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, marks a substantial call for a shift in EU policy. Niinistö’s recommendations indicate a pressing need to bolster both civilian and military defenses, preparing for potential threats to the EU’s collective security. By adopting these preparedness measures, the EU seeks to reassure its citizens of greater protection against a wide range of possible emergencies, while remaining vigilant of escalating threats. Based on a report by Newsweek 2024-11-02