Social Media

Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister and a known advocate for flexible working, is now encountering calls within her own department for a four-day work week without a reduction in pay. Over 500 civil servants at the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government have requested the right to work four days instead of five. This proposed change, often linked to improved work-life balance and reduced sick leave, has already seen successful trials in parts of the private sector and local government. The Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union, which represents these workers, argues that a four-day work week benefits both employees and employers. Fran Heathcote, PCS’s secretary general, stated, “A four-day week benefits both the employer and the employee. Employers offering a four-day week have better staff retention, find recruiting easier and lose less to sick days.” Heathcote emphasized that such a shift would allow workers more personal time, reducing burnout and potentially lowering care costs for employees with family obligations. This push comes at a time when Rayner is advancing the Employment Rights Bill, a piece of legislation designed to improve worker protections around flexible schedules, compressed hours, and the rights of those on zero-hours contracts. If the proposed reforms pass, employers would be required to accommodate requests for flexible or compressed work schedules unless a valid business reason is given to deny them. Despite Rayner’s advocacy for worker rights, the Housing Secretary is resisting the demand for a four-day work week in her department. A government spokesperson clarified, “It is not government policy or something we are considering,” firmly indicating the government's current stance on the issue. The demand for shorter work hours also comes as the Government tightens its stance on in-office attendance, with new directives requiring civil servants to spend at least 60 percent of their work hours in the office. This directive, recently emphasized by Cabinet Office permanent secretary Cat Little, seeks to ensure compliance with existing Whitehall guidelines. Additionally, the government is set to resume quarterly publications on civil servants’ work patterns, aiming to monitor remote work trends within the public sector. This data initiative highlights the growing emphasis on accountability in civil service working arrangements. Meanwhile, other officials have taken a more flexible approach. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds has previously stated that he does not prioritize location as long as the work is effectively completed. “I care about are they doing the job for me, not the location they are in,” he said, underscoring a different outlook within the government on where and how civil servants can best fulfill their roles. Based on a report from the Daily Telegraph 2024-10-26

A recent United Nations report warns that despite advances in clean technology, the world remains on a perilous path toward surpassing the climate targets set by the Paris Agreement. Issued as the “Emissions Gap Report” by the UN Environment Program (UNEP), the annual report highlights the disconnect between countries' emissions reduction plans and global climate targets. Disturbingly, it shows that this gap has seen little improvement since 2023. The report projects global warming to reach between 2.6°C and 3.1°C above pre-industrial levels, with the lower end of this range assuming the full implementation of emissions reduction commitments. The higher end reflects the trajectory of current policies, which suggests that warming could extend beyond the current century. Though these temperature differences may appear minor, the planet has already warmed by approximately 1.3°C, leading to severe and widespread impacts. These include increasingly frequent and intense weather events, rising sea levels, and shifts in precipitation patterns. Scientists have long cautioned that surpassing 1.5°C of warming risks triggering irreversible tipping points within the climate system. These could include the collapse of polar ice sheets and significant shifts in ocean currents. UNEP’s findings are stark: only a massive global effort to reduce emissions, particularly from the world’s 20 largest economies, would keep the world within the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. “Climate crunch time is here,” stated UNEP executive director Inger Andersen. “We need global mobilization on a scale and pace never seen before — starting right now, before the next round of climate pledges.” She emphasized the urgency, noting, “The 1.5°C goal will soon be dead” without immediate action. Small island nations and countries most vulnerable to climate impacts see the 1.5°C target as essential for survival. The report underscores that keeping warming below 2°C would require emissions reductions of 28% from 2019 levels by 2030 and 37% by 2035. The likelihood of reaching the 1.5°C target is “virtually zero” unless countries not only meet their most ambitious commitments but also clarify their net-zero pledges, which are currently uncertain. Delays since 2019 now mean that, to reach the 1.5°C target, global emissions must fall by 7.5% annually through 2035. Limiting warming to 2°C would require an annual reduction of 4%. In contrast, emissions increased by 1.3% between 2022 and 2023. If major emitters like the U.S., China, India, and the EU delay cutting emissions further, they’ll face the need for even more drastic reductions over a shorter period. Although the size of the emissions gap has remained nearly unchanged since last year, every fraction of a degree in avoided warming helps to mitigate climate change’s most severe impacts. UNEP’s report clarifies that the technology exists to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030 and double global energy efficiency rates by the same year. Meeting these goals will demand an extraordinary, large-scale commitment, but UNEP emphasizes that the initial costs of such efforts would pay off by avoiding greater climate-related damages. UN Secretary-General António Guterres summarized the severity of the situation, saying, “We are teetering on a planetary tightrope.” Looking ahead, countries are due to submit their next round of emissions pledges before the COP30 summit in Brazil next year, which will include targets for 2035. Based on a report from AXIOS 2024-10-26

Morgan Stanley has taken a step towards advancing carbon removal technology through a new partnership with Climeworks, a Swiss company specializing in direct air capture (DAC) of carbon dioxide. This agreement, announced today, signals a shift in Wall Street's engagement with the emerging carbon capture sector, as financial institutions increasingly seek to purchase carbon removal credits to support climate goals. The financial details of Morgan Stanley's investment remain undisclosed, but the bank's commitment involves capturing 40,000 tons of CO₂ from the atmosphere over the duration of the partnership, which extends until 2037. This collaboration follows a similar $20 million investment from JPMorgan last year, underscoring growing enthusiasm among major financial players to invest in long-term solutions for carbon removal. Climeworks, known for its leading role in DAC technology, operates the world’s largest direct air capture plant, which opened this year in Iceland. With Morgan Stanley’s backing, the company aims to expand its technology, which focuses on efficiently capturing carbon dioxide from the ambient air and securing it for safe storage. According to Climeworks, this contract is its second-largest to date and is part of a broader effort to enhance DAC's impact. The company has also joined forces with the U.S. Department of Energy as a technology partner for Project Cypress Direct Air Capture Hub in Louisiana. Morgan Stanley’s move to invest in DAC aligns with its broader sustainability goals, such as achieving net-zero financed emissions by 2050 and mobilizing $1 trillion in sustainable finance by 2030. This investment marks an expansion in the bank’s portfolio of climate-oriented projects, showing a proactive stance on emerging technologies as part of its strategy to address climate impacts. Christoph Gebald, co-founder and co-CEO of Climeworks, noted, “By securing access to high-quality carbon removals now, companies position themselves ahead of the curve of future regulatory changes and competitive pressures.” However, the 40,000 tons of CO₂ targeted by Morgan Stanley's agreement represent only a small fraction of emissions at a global scale. This quantity equates to the annual carbon emissions produced by roughly 9,000 traditional gasoline-powered cars in the U.S., according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Although this number is modest, it reflects the current scale of DAC technology, which is still in its early stages. DAC is focused on removing residual CO₂ already present in the atmosphere, complementing efforts to reduce ongoing emissions by other means. Morgan Stanley’s investment illustrates the financial sector’s increasing willingness to engage with innovative climate solutions that, while still in their infancy, hold the promise of supporting long-term climate stability. As Climeworks continues to scale its DAC technology, partnerships like these highlight a growing intersection between finance and technology in the fight against climate change, one that is likely to evolve as regulatory frameworks and environmental priorities advance. Based on a report from AXIOS 2024-10-26

Russia’s role in supporting Houthi rebel assaults on international shipping routes in the Red Sea has recently come to light, revealing a strategic move by Moscow to destabilize a key artery of global trade and divert U.S. attention away from other pressing issues. The Houthis, a group backed by Iran, have been launching missile and drone attacks against Western ships, relying on Russian satellite data for targeting assistance, according to sources familiar with the matter. These attacks, which began in response to the Gaza war in late 2023, expanded significantly as the Houthis gained access to Russian intelligence. The targeting data, passed through Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) members embedded with the Houthis, has been instrumental in allowing the group to effectively strike one of the world’s busiest maritime routes. This cooperation marks a significant escalation in Russia’s efforts to challenge the U.S.-led Western order. The Russian support, though previously unreported, underscores President Vladimir Putin’s willingness to foster instability in the Middle East. By aiding the Houthis, whom the U.S. designates as a terrorist organization, Russia has contributed to a series of attacks that threaten global trade and further strain international relations. This is part of a broader strategy, analysts suggest, aimed at stretching U.S. resources thin and diverting its focus from the challenges posed by Russia and China. "For Russia, any flare-up anywhere is good news, because it takes the world’s attention further away from Ukraine and the U.S. needs to commit resources—Patriot systems or artillery shells—and with the Middle East in play, it’s clear where the U.S. will choose," said Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. As of now, both Russian and Houthi representatives have declined to comment on these allegations. However, the cooperation between Russia and Iran in the region signals a deeper shift in Moscow’s foreign policy. Traditionally aligned with Israel, Putin’s government has cooled its relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while bolstering ties with Tehran. The conflict between Israel and Iranian-backed militias, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, has become a major point of contention, with Putin openly criticizing the U.S. and Israel’s actions in Gaza. On Thursday, he warned that the situation was edging closer to a full-scale war. The Houthis began their assaults in late 2023, primarily in protest against Israel’s invasion of Gaza, targeting ships navigating the Red Sea to and from the Suez Canal. Since November, over 100 ships have been attacked, with two sunk and another hijacked. Russia’s involvement in the arms trade has also come under scrutiny, as reports surfaced that Viktor Bout, a notorious Russian arms dealer, had attempted to sell $10 million worth of automatic weapons to the Houthis earlier this year. As vessels connected to Israel and its allies continue to face danger, many ships have begun switching off their radio signals to avoid detection, further complicating efforts to track them. Only high-quality satellite imaging, such as that provided by Russia, has been able to monitor these “dark” ships in real time, making the flow of vital intelligence essential for targeting. In supporting these attacks, Russia appears to be leveraging global instability to its advantage, disrupting Western trade routes and forcing the U.S. to divert military and political resources. This new revelation highlights how Moscow continues to use unconventional methods to challenge the existing international order, further entrenching itself in global conflicts. Based on a report from the WSJ 2024-10-26

Despite claims of a democracy in crisis, the American political system demonstrates resilience, even through extraordinary challenges. As author and professor James Gibson explains in *Democracy’s Destruction?*, understanding the balance between genuine threats and mere hyperbole can be difficult, especially in the context of events surrounding the 2020 presidential election. Former President Donald Trump’s claims of having “absolute proof” of election fraud, along with his criticism of the Supreme Court for being “weak” in rejecting these claims, were indeed a serious test of the country’s democratic integrity. Yet, the system held firm, with 86 judges—some appointed by Trump himself—siding with democratic norms over party loyalty. Even Vice President Mike Pence, under intense pressure, upheld the electoral process by refusing to reject state-certified results, despite chants of “hang Mike Pence” echoing through the Capitol. In the end, the institutions prevailed. Gibson’s analysis extends to public opinion, examining anti-democratic sentiments in surveys taken after these events. Questions about whether Americans would ever acknowledge Joe Biden as president or respect laws passed under his administration revealed that fewer than 12 percent of respondents endorsed such views—a percentage similar to those who still believe the moon landings were faked. The data indicates that while there is room for improvement, there is not substantial evidence of impending democratic collapse. Demand for democracy may even be increasing, as seen when the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade returned abortion rights legislation to elected state legislatures. This move did not result in any widespread desire to diminish or abolish the Court’s authority; instead, Americans generally continued to express faith in the system, even if some were dissatisfied with specific outcomes. Concerns about the future persist, however. Surveys reveal that 72 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans worry about the integrity of democracy in upcoming elections, fueled by polarized perceptions of figures like Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. Some view Trump as an authoritarian, while others see Harris as emblematic of a systemically flawed political establishment. Yet, Trump’s various legal troubles—culminating in 34 charges—have not prevented him from leading in national polls in several swing states. The enduring lesson appears to be that the most effective means of defeating a candidate is still through democratic elections, rather than legal action or attempts to disqualify opponents. This tendency to equate losing an election with democratic decay is not exclusive to the United States; similar claims were made in Britain post-Brexit, with some, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, casting Brexit in a nationalist and populist light. But these reactions, often resorting to accusations of “fascism” in opposition to populism, miss the larger democratic message. The rise of populism across Europe signals the need for established parties to address long-ignored issues—like demographic shifts—rather than dismiss opposing voices. In some cases, restrictions on freedom arise from popular support, not authoritarian imposition. During the pandemic, measures like lockdowns were largely backed by the public, which shows the need for those championing liberty to make their case more convincingly within a democratic framework. Whether viewed as a reactionary force or a corrective, Trump is not meaningfully fascist, and both political sides now recognize that the outcome of the next election will be determined by turnout, with each side casting the race as a battle between democracy and dictatorship. America excels at high-stakes political theater, captivating voters with intense campaigns and portraying elections as existential struggles. British Labour activists often seek to experience this firsthand, drawn by the unmatched energy of American campaigns. In the end, rather than signaling a democratic crisis, these fervent contests reflect the vibrancy and endurance of the American democratic system—one still capable of staging the world’s most dynamic political spectacle. Based on a report from the Daily Telegraph 2024-10-26

Is the system letting down people who were harmed by Covid vaccines? There is nothing in life that is free of risk. That includes vaccines. But the evidence is compelling that the benefits of getting immunised with those vaccines recommended in the UK far outweigh the possibility of serious side effects. The level of benefit from Covid vaccines is well documented. And the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is credited with saving more lives in the first year of its use than any other - 6.3m globally compared to 5.9m for Pfizer/BioNTech’s jab. However, we need to discuss not just the huge positives that Covid vaccines brought, but also the small minority left injured or bereaved by the AstraZeneca vaccine. Around 50 families affected by rare blood clots have begun a group legal action for compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, arguing that the vaccine was not as safe as the public were entitled to expect. This includes people who have been left with severe physical injuries, those who are unable to work, and bereaved families who lost a loved one due to vaccine damage. They are a tiny fraction of all those vaccinated, but that is no comfort to the families affected, who feel like they have been airbrushed out of the pandemic and that their pleas for support have been ignored. Those families include Jane and Ian Wrigley from Buckinghamshire. Jane, 62, used to run, ski and climb mountains. Now she can barely walk due to extreme weakness down her left-hand side. Two weeks after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine in March 2021, Jane was admitted to hospital. She suffered blood clots in her brain and required emergency surgery to remove part of her skull. Jane’s medical records clearly state that she suffered these blood clots as a direct side effect of the vaccine. Her husband Ian is now her full-time carer. Jane told me: “Before I had the vaccine I was a very independent, active woman doing half marathons and enjoying my life. Now I’ve lost every bit of independence.” Her case, and those of others affected by blood clots, raises serious questions about whether the system is letting down those who have suffered serious harm as a result of taking Covid vaccines. Almost 25m adults in the UK received a first dose of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine in 2021, and nearly all those had a second. It is estimated that the Covid vaccine programme prevented over a quarter of a million hospital admissions and over 120,000 deaths in the UK up to September 2021. The side effects of vaccination are usually mild and short-lived such as a sore arm, fever and fatigue. However, in the very rare event that something goes seriously wrong, we have a right to expect that we will be supported. This is a kind of social contract between individual and state. That’s where the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) comes in. The VDPS was established in 1979 in the wake of a scare over the safety of the whooping cough vaccine in use at the time. The government-backed scheme offers a one-off financial payment of £120,000 in the event that, on the balance of probability, a vaccine has caused at least 60% disablement. Between the late 1970s and 2020 there were just below 6,500 claims under the scheme for all vaccines and 944 awards. Something dramatic has happened since the pandemic. There have been more than double the number of claims under the VDPS for Covid jabs than during the previous four decades for all other vaccines combined. Since the pandemic there have been almost 16,000 claims against Covid vaccines and 180 awards. Just over half of all claimants have yet to find out if they have been successful. So what is happening? Of the awards, all but a handful are for damage done by the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine, which is no longer used. There is a long list of different health conditions that qualify for a payment but the AstraZeneca jab had one specific rare side effect not seen in the mRNA vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna, which are now the mainstay of all Covid booster campaigns. The side effect is a type of blood clot, often in the brain, combined with low platelet levels, almost always within a few weeks after receiving the first dose. This can cause damage in the brain and to multiple other organs. Last year, the government announced that it had modernised the operations of the VDPS to allow cases to be processed more quickly and increased the number of staff dealing with claims from four to 80. But a huge backlog of claims has built up. Based on a report from the BBC 2024-10-26

A post making unsubstainiated claims and questioning facts on whether the hostages were sexually abused has been removed @Neeranam A reply to this post was also removed

Last year, when I first suggested that António Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, should step down, many dismissed the idea as far-fetched. Now, however, as Guterres mingles with questionable actors at the BRICS Summit in Russia, the situation is no longer a laughing matter. At a time when Europe is embroiled in war, the very individual who should be championing peace seems to be aligning himself with an aggressor. Putin’s so-called "special military operation" in Ukraine has been widely condemned as illegal, yet Guterres’ actions suggest a willingness to engage with this regime. This raises serious concerns about his commitment to the rules-based international order and the importance of international law. Guterres’ absence from Ukraine’s first peace conference in Switzerland—while managing to travel to Russia—suggests a misalignment of priorities. He appears to support a regime led by an indicted war criminal, a stance that contradicts his role as Secretary-General. With Russia holding a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and the power to veto decisions, Guterres’ actions expose the urgent need for reform within the UN itself. This seeming alliance between Guterres and Putin has left the world in a precarious position, one that China is poised to exploit. When the time comes to rebuild Ukraine and parts of the Middle East, it’s likely that British companies will be pushed aside in favor of those shaking hands and raising glasses with Putin in Kazan. A year ago, I argued that Guterres should resign. Today, that call is more urgent than ever. The world needs a leader who is not beholden to Moscow, Beijing, or any other regime seeking to undermine international peace. Guterres’ continued tenure threatens the integrity of the UN, and he must step down to make way for someone who can truly serve the best interests of the world. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon Based on an article from the Daily Telegraph 2024-10-25

In 2020, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement garnered immense global attention, becoming a symbol of the fight against racial injustice following the murder of George Floyd. Donations poured in from corporations, individuals, and organizations eager to support the cause, with BLM collecting over $90 million in revenue. However, as the movement’s leaders enjoyed multimillion-dollar homes and deals with media giants like Warner Bros., many began questioning where the money actually went. BLM, originally a grassroots movement led by three female founders, quickly struck gold in 2020. The donations and opportunities that followed led to fame and fortune, but little of that wealth seemed to benefit the actual cause. While the founders were busy acquiring tailored suits, hosting lavish birthday parties, and purchasing expensive properties, accusations of mismanagement and greed surfaced. “Big-ass cribo” became the infamous phrase used in text messages by Tyree Conyers-Page, the former leader of BLM’s Greater Atlanta chapter, after he pocketed donations for personal luxury, including buying a house in Ohio and spending on nightclub tabs and a prostitute. The shift in focus from grassroots activism to personal gain was a far cry from the earlier civil rights campaigns, which were driven by selflessness and a commitment to social justice. Instead, BLM’s trajectory more closely resembled the stories of infamous grifters like Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos, who used public goodwill to amass personal fortunes. The murder of George Floyd, a pivotal moment that ignited a global conversation about racial injustice, became an opportunity for financial gain, as millions of dollars meant for activism were funneled elsewhere. By 2024, the promise of BLM had faded. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs that surged in the wake of the protests were now in retreat. Corporations, once eager to demonstrate their commitment to racial justice, had largely pulled back from making political statements. As America’s political landscape shifted, with Donald Trump and Kamala Harris positioning themselves as law-and-order candidates, BLM appeared increasingly irrelevant. The final blow to BLM’s reputation came with the sentencing of Conyers-Page earlier this month. The former leader was sentenced to 42 months in federal prison for money laundering and wire fraud. He had raised $450,000 from 18,000 donors, claiming the funds would be used to "fight for George Floyd" and advance the movement. Instead, he used the money for personal extravagance, a symbol of the larger mismanagement within BLM. The movement, which once symbolized a hopeful push for racial equality, now stands as a cautionary tale of misused donations, internal conflicts, and a squandered legacy. What began as a rallying cry for justice has been marred by scandal, leaving many supporters disillusioned and the movement’s future in doubt. Based on a report from TFP 2024-10-25

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has asserted that his relationship with former U.S. President Donald Trump remains intact despite accusations from Trump's campaign of "blatant foreign interference" by Labour Party activists in the ongoing U.S. election. The Trump team recently filed a legal complaint alleging that Labour members volunteering for Kamala Harris’s campaign amounted to illegal foreign contributions, potentially impacting the tight race for the presidency. Speaking to reporters while en route to Samoa for the Commonwealth heads of government summit, Starmer downplayed the controversy, insisting that Labour Party members were acting as independent volunteers in their personal capacity. "The Labour Party has volunteers, who have gone over pretty much every election," Starmer said, emphasizing that these individuals were neither officially on the Labour Party's books nor receiving financial support from the party itself. "They’re doing it in their spare time, they’re staying with other volunteers over there. That’s what they’ve done in previous elections, and that’s what they’re doing in this election," he added. The Trump campaign's legal complaint, filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), cited reports that senior Labour officials, including Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney and Downing Street communications director Matthew Doyle, had traveled to the U.S. in recent months to offer advice to Harris's campaign. Additionally, a now-deleted LinkedIn post by Labour’s director of operations, Sofia Patel, suggested that the party may have provided housing support for activists, a claim the Trump campaign seized upon as evidence of potential violations of U.S. campaign finance laws. "Those searching for foreign interference in our elections need to look no further than [the] LinkedIn post," wrote Trump’s lawyer, Gary Lawkowski, in a formal letter. The complaint argued that any material or financial support provided by a foreign political party could be considered a breach of U.S. law, which strictly limits foreign actors from contributing more than $1,000 to American election campaigns. Despite the escalating legal and political row, Starmer sought to distance himself from the situation, insisting that his relationship with Trump had not been damaged. "I have established a good relationship with Mr Trump," the prime minister maintained, downplaying the likelihood that the Trump campaign’s allegations would significantly affect diplomatic ties or his standing with the former president. The Labour Party has also been quick to clarify that it is not funding any of the travel or accommodation costs for activists who have chosen to volunteer in the U.S. election, reinforcing that those involved are acting independently of the party. However, Trump's legal team has demanded a thorough investigation into what it describes as "blatant foreign interference," ensuring that the issue will remain a contentious point in the final stretch of the U.S. presidential race. As the election continues to unfold, the accusations have added a layer of international complexity to the campaign, raising questions about foreign influence and the rules governing political contributions. Based on a report from Sky News 2024-10-25

Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve, survivors of the devastating Manchester Arena bombing in 2017, have won a legal case against conspiracy theorist Richard Hall, who falsely claimed the attack was staged. Hall, a former television producer, has repeatedly alleged without any basis that the bombing, which occurred at an Ariana Grande concert, was an "elaborate hoax" orchestrated by British government agencies. He even went so far as to suggest that no one was genuinely injured during the attack, despite the well-documented physical and emotional toll on the victims. Hall defended his actions by claiming he was acting in the public interest, positioning himself as a self-styled journalist exposing what he called a lie bought by millions of people. However, this defense was rejected by the court. The Manchester Arena bombing was a suicide attack carried out by Salman Abedi, who detonated a homemade bomb in a crowd leaving the concert on May 22, 2017. The attack killed 22 people and left hundreds more injured. For Martin and Eve Hibbert, the ruling offers some measure of justice after enduring years of pain and distress, both from the attack and from the conspiracy theories that sought to diminish their experience. Based on a report from Sky News 2024-10-25

Federal Judge Aileen Cannon, who gained attention after dismissing Donald Trump’s classified documents case in July, is being considered as a potential candidate for attorney general in a possible second Trump administration. According to multiple sources familiar with the situation, Cannon's name is included on a proposed personnel list that is currently circulating within Trump’s campaign and transition team. This document, titled “Transition Planning: Legal Principals,” outlines potential candidates for key legal positions, including the Department of Justice, the FBI, and U.S. attorneys’ offices. Sources have indicated that Trump’s top advisers, with input from Boris Epshteyn, who manages Trump’s legal team, were responsible for drafting the list. Cannon’s name reportedly appears second, right after Jay Clayton, former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The list of possible candidates for attorney general includes nearly a dozen names, and sources confirmed that Cannon’s inclusion came after she dismissed the classified documents case over the summer. Cannon’s ties to Trump date back to 2020, when the former president nominated her to serve as a U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Florida. Trump has openly praised Cannon for dismissing the 40 criminal counts brought against him by special counsel Jack Smith, which related to Trump’s handling of classified documents after leaving the White House. Cannon’s ruling came at a significant time, coinciding with the first day of the Republican National Convention in July. She ruled that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional since he was neither appointed by the president nor confirmed by Congress. The special counsel’s office has since appealed her decision. Cannon has not publicly commented on her inclusion in the list, and her chambers did not respond to ABC News’ repeated requests for a statement. It remains unclear how Cannon’s potential consideration for the attorney general role might influence future proceedings in the classified documents case, especially if an appeals court overturns her ruling. When contacted, a spokesperson for the special counsel’s office also declined to comment. In a related case, Ryan Routh, a man accused of attempting to assassinate Trump at one of his Florida golf clubs, recently asked Cannon to recuse herself from his case. Routh’s legal team argued that Cannon’s potential career advancement, should Trump win re-election, presented a conflict of interest. However, the Department of Justice opposed this motion, stating that no legal authority required Cannon’s recusal. Sources familiar with the proposed transition plan have noted that some figures from Trump’s first administration are also under consideration for top posts at the Department of Justice. Among them are Steve Engel, a former assistant attorney general in the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, and Will Levi, who served as chief of staff to former Attorney General Bill Barr. Other potential candidates have publicly encouraged Trump to break with traditional norms that maintain the independence between the White House and the nation's law enforcement agencies. Based on a report from ABC News 2024-10-25

The tragic case of Chris Kaba, a man fatally shot by police in 2022, has become a flashpoint for discussions around race, policing, and justice in the UK. However, rather than waiting for the facts to emerge, many on the political Left rushed to frame Kaba as an innocent victim, distorting the narrative to fit their own agendas. The story of Chris Kaba, a man involved in dangerous activities, is a stark reminder of how preemptive judgments can lead to public misinformation. Soon after Kaba’s death, Labour MP Diane Abbott was one of the first to comment publicly. In a September 2022 article for *Morning Star*, a hard-left newspaper, she lamented the "terrible fate of Chris Kaba," claiming that "people can lose their lives even when going about their daily lives." Yet, as subsequent investigations revealed, Kaba wasn’t simply going about his daily routine. He was behind the wheel of an Audi believed to be linked to a recent shooting, and when police ordered him to stop, he rammed the vehicle into a police car, endangering those around him. Mike Graham hits out at London Mayor Sadiq Khan for his "distasteful" sympathy for Chris Kaba, who was shot and killed by police. Isabel Oakeshott: "He was a violent, drug-dealing thug! I'd like to see that little pip-squeak of a politician try to do the job of police!" The real question is how so many on the Left managed to construct a narrative of Kaba as an “aspiring architect” and “father-to-be” without considering the broader context of his life and actions. They seemed determined to turn him into a martyr, a British equivalent of George Floyd, without pausing to reflect on who he truly was. It appears that in their haste to signal virtue and draw parallels with other tragic cases, many chose to ignore inconvenient truths about Kaba’s dangerous behavior. In doing so, they risk undermining the credibility of the very causes they seek to champion. Based on a report from the Daily Telegraph 2024-10-25

A United Nations report has shed light on the growing debate surrounding transgender athletes in women’s sports, revealing that female athletes have lost nearly 900 medals to transgender competitors. The report, titled “Violence against women and girls in sports,” found that more than 600 women have been outcompeted by athletes who were born male, sparking a fresh wave of controversy and concern. According to the report, “by 30 March 2024, over 600 female athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different sports.” It pointed to the increasing inclusion of transgender athletes in female sports categories, which it claims has resulted in a growing number of women losing out on opportunities and recognition. “The replacement of the female sports category with a mixed-sex category has resulted in an increasing number of female athletes losing opportunities, including medals, when competing against males,” the report stated. The report, authored by Reem Alsalem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, was presented to the UN General Assembly earlier this month. It highlights the challenges faced by female athletes in the wake of policies implemented by various international federations and national governing bodies, which have allowed transgender athletes to compete in women’s sporting categories. While the report does not provide specific details on the sporting events or the timeframe over which these losses occurred, Alsalem emphasized that male athletes tend to have physical advantages, such as greater strength and higher testosterone levels, which can affect fairness in certain sports. “Some sports federations mandate testosterone suppression for athletes in order to qualify for female categories in elite sports,” Alsalem wrote. “However, pharmaceutical testosterone suppression for genetically male athletes — irrespective of how they identify — will not eliminate the set of comparative performance advantages they have already acquired.” Alsalem argued that the current approach to testosterone regulation is flawed and fails to level the playing field for female athletes. “The testosterone levels deemed acceptable by any sporting body are, at best, not evidence-based, arbitrary and asymmetrically favor males,” she wrote, adding that this could also harm the health of the athletes involved. The findings of the report have led Alsalem to call for stronger protections for women and girls in sports. She advocated for the creation of open categories that would allow athletes of different sexes to compete together while maintaining separate female-only categories. She also recommended the introduction of “non-invasive, confidential, and simple sex screenings” to ensure fairness for women in sports. In addition to the debate over transgender participation, the report highlighted other challenges that women face in sports, including harmful social stereotypes, sexism, and limited access to training facilities and resources. “Women and girls already have many odds stacked against them that impede their equal and effective participation in sports. In addition, their ability to play sport in conditions of safety, dignity, and fairness has been further eroded by the intrusion of males who identify as female in female-only sports and related spaces,” Alsalem said. The release of this report comes at a time when the issue of transgender athletes in women’s sports remains highly contentious, particularly as the topic gains prominence ahead of upcoming elections. In New York, billboards have sprung up opposing the state’s proposed "Equal Rights Amendment," which critics argue would further allow transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports. One such billboard in Syracuse reads, “Vote No to ERASING Women,” encouraging voters to reject the proposal on November 5th. As debates around the inclusion of transgender athletes in women’s sports intensify, the findings of the UN report will likely add fuel to an already heated conversation about fairness, inclusion, and the future of women’s sports. Based on a report from NYP 2024-10-25

Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, a prominent advocate for transgender rights and gender-affirming care, recently admitted to withholding the publication of a $10 million, taxpayer-funded study on the effects of puberty blockers on American children. Despite the widespread use of these treatments, the study found no evidence that they improve the mental health of trans-identifying youth. Olson-Kennedy explained that she was concerned the findings could be "weaponized" by critics and used in court to argue against the use of puberty blockers. In an interview with *The New York Times*, Olson-Kennedy acknowledged that while the research was significant, she feared the results could fuel legal challenges to transgender care for minors. "I do not want our work to be weaponized," she said. "It has to be exactly on point, clear and concise. And that takes time." Olson-Kennedy, who frequently testifies in legal battles over state bans on gender-affirming care, admitted that the study’s lack of mental health improvements might one day be used to argue that puberty blockers should not be prescribed. The National Institutes of Health-funded study, which began in 2015, involved 95 children with an average age of 11. These children were given puberty blockers to delay the physical changes that occur during adolescence, such as breast development or voice deepening. After two years of follow-up, the study concluded that the treatments had no significant impact on the participants' mental health. Olson-Kennedy suggested this could be because the children were already in good mental health when the study began, but earlier data contradicted this, showing that about 25% of the participants were suffering from depression or suicidal thoughts before receiving treatment. The study’s findings also challenge a widely cited 2011 Dutch study, which found that children treated with puberty blockers experienced improved mental health and fewer emotional issues. That research has been a cornerstone in the argument for providing such treatments to trans-identifying youth. However, Olson-Kennedy’s more recent study did not replicate those results, leading to questions about the effectiveness of puberty blockers for mental health support. Critics, including Amy Tishelman, a fellow researcher on the project, have voiced concerns about the decision to withhold the findings. Tishelman acknowledged the fear of the results being misused but emphasized the importance of making the research public. "No change isn’t necessarily a negative finding," she said, suggesting that the lack of improvement could still offer valuable insights into the preventative aspects of puberty blockers. "We just don’t know without more investigation." Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist and expert on transgender youth, expressed shock at the decision to keep the data hidden. She argued that withholding such vital information is contrary to the scientific process. "You do research, and then you disclose what the results are," Anderson told *The Post*. "You don’t change them, you don’t distort them, and you don’t reveal or not reveal them based on the reactions of others." Olson-Kennedy’s reluctance to release the study results comes amid growing debate in the U.S. over the use of puberty blockers and other medical treatments for transgender youth. A recent Washington Post-KFF survey found that 68% of U.S. adults are against providing puberty blockers to children aged 10 to 14, and 58% oppose hormone treatments for those aged 15 to 17. In April, England’s National Health Service (NHS) discontinued the use of puberty blockers for children after a four-year review by independent researcher Dr. Hilary Cass. The report concluded that "for most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress." Similarly, Dr. Riittakerttu Kaltiala, a Finnish expert on pediatric gender medicine, stated in 2023 that "four out of five" children questioning their gender eventually reconcile with their biological sex without medical intervention. Despite mounting questions over the efficacy of puberty blockers, Olson-Kennedy has yet to respond to *The Post*’s request for further comment. However, her admission of deliberately withholding the study has ignited a debate over the balance between scientific integrity and advocacy in the field of transgender care for minors. Based on a report from NYP 2024-10-25

Kim Jong Un has issued a stark warning about North Korea's nuclear ambitions, emphasizing the need to bolster its "strategic deterrence" in response to what he claims is the "ever-increasing threat" posed by the United States' nuclear arsenal. During a visit to one of North Korea's strategic missile bases, Kim expressed concern over the growing risks to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, citing the U.S. as a primary threat to its security. He remarked that the U.S. nuclear arsenal represents "ever-increasing threats to the security environment of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea." In his address, Kim emphasized the need to not only modernize but also fortify North Korea’s missile capabilities. According to the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), the North Korean leader is adamant about enhancing the country's strategic missile bases to meet what he perceives as escalating threats. North Korea, which faces significant international sanctions due to its continued development of ballistic missiles and nuclear weaponry, has remained secretive about the actual size of its nuclear arsenal. However, in July, the Federation of American Scientists estimated that North Korea may possess enough fissile material to construct up to 90 nuclear warheads. Kim has not been shy about North Korea’s willingness to utilize its military might. Just a few weeks ago, he issued a chilling statement asserting that North Korea would "without hesitation use all its attack capabilities against its enemies" if military forces were deployed against the regime. "The use of nuclear weapons is not ruled out in this case," he declared in a speech delivered on October 7 at the Kim Jong Un University of National Defense, signaling a clear willingness to consider nuclear options in the event of conflict. Sydney Seiler, a former national intelligence officer specializing in North Korea, raised alarms over the broader implications of Kim Jong Un’s growing assertiveness. Writing for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Seiler warned that heightened tensions on the Korean Peninsula could have serious ramifications for the U.S. While these tensions may not appear to be directly related to U.S. domestic affairs, Seiler suggested that the U.S. now faces "a new provocation environment on the peninsula." He further elaborated: "What was once seen as dangerous but ultimately containable North Korean coercive diplomacy could evolve into something more dangerous and fundamentally threatening to the status quo." With North Korea's growing nuclear capabilities and possible backing from Russia, Seiler cautioned that Kim Jong Un might feel emboldened to take greater risks than in the past. "Overconfidence in his nuclear deterrent may lead Kim Jong Un to coercive actions not seen in the recent past," Seiler noted. As North Korea's arsenal continues to grow and its leadership becomes increasingly confrontational, the international community watches with heightened concern. Kim’s rhetoric and actions serve as a reminder of the fragile state of security on the Korean Peninsula and the potentially devastating consequences of any misstep in diplomacy or military engagement. Based on a report from Newsweek 2024-10-25

Stacey Williams, a former model, has come forward with serious allegations against former U.S. President Donald Trump, claiming that he groped her in 1993 during an encounter at Trump Tower. Williams, who had previously met Trump through her then-acquaintance Jeffrey Epstein, described the incident as part of what she believes was a "twisted game" between the two men. Trump’s spokesperson has denied the allegations. Williams said she first met Trump in 1992 at a Christmas party, where she was introduced to him by Epstein, who at the time was a close friend of Trump. “It became very clear then that he and Donald were really, really good friends and spent a lot of time together,” Williams explained. Epstein, who was later convicted of sex offenses and died in prison in 2019, had casually dated Williams for a few months. She said that during this time, she became aware of the close relationship between Epstein and Trump. The alleged assault took place in early 1993, when Epstein suggested that they stop by Trump Tower while on a walk. Upon arriving, Williams claims Trump immediately pulled her toward him and began groping her. She described feeling “deeply confused” as Trump put his hands on her breasts, waist, and buttocks. As the incident unfolded, Williams recalled seeing Epstein and Trump exchange smiles, which only heightened her confusion. “I felt like I was caught in some kind of strange game,” she said. Following the alleged assault, Williams shared that Epstein’s demeanor changed abruptly. After they left Trump Tower, she said Epstein became enraged, berating her for what had occurred. “Jeffrey and I left and he didn’t look at me or speak to me,” she said. “When we got down to the sidewalk, he looked at me and just berated me, and said: ‘Why did you let him do that?’” Williams expressed how humiliated and confused she felt by both men’s behavior, describing how she began to feel shame and disgust in the aftermath. Although Williams posted parts of her story on social media in the past, she revealed more details about the alleged encounter during a recent Zoom call organized by Survivors for Kamala, a group supporting Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. The call included notable participants like actor Ashley Judd and law professor Anita Hill. Williams also shared a postcard that Trump allegedly sent her later in 1993. The postcard, which Williams provided to *The Guardian*, featured an aerial view of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and included a message from Trump: “Stacey – Your home away from home. Love Donald,” written in what appeared to be his signature black Sharpie. Trump’s campaign has vehemently denied Williams’ allegations. Karoline Leavitt, press secretary for Trump’s campaign, issued a statement dismissing the claims, calling them “unequivocally false” and accusing the Harris campaign of fabricating the story for political gain. “These accusations, made by a former activist for Barack Obama and announced on a Harris campaign call two weeks before the election, are obviously a fake story contrived by the Harris campaign,” Leavitt said. Williams, who is now 56 and originally from Pennsylvania, has since distanced herself from Epstein. She stated that she had no knowledge of his criminal behavior at the time, which later became widely known. Epstein is now considered one of the most notorious pedophiles in modern history. Reflecting on the experience, Williams said, “I felt like a piece of meat,” and described how the incident has lingered with her over the years. Though the public spotlight on Epstein’s crimes has grown since his death, Williams’s story adds another layer to the ongoing accusations against Trump, who has faced multiple allegations of sexual misconduct. However, as with previous allegations, Trump’s team has continued to deny any wrongdoing. Based on a report from the Guardian 2024-10-25

Former President Donald Trump has launched a scathing attack on his former White House chief of staff, Retired Gen. John Kelly, calling him a "lowlife" and a "total degenerate." This came in response to Kelly's recent comments, in which he criticized Trump’s alleged admiration for authoritarian rulers and his supposed desire for unchecked power. Taking to his Truth Social platform, Trump vehemently denied Kelly's claims, framing them as nothing more than fabrications driven by what he termed "Trump Derangement Syndrome." In his post, Trump expressed gratitude for the support he has received against Kelly's accusations, asserting that his former chief of staff was both “tough and dumb,” qualities he believed did not serve Kelly well. "The problem is his toughness morphed into weakness, because he became JELLO with time!" Trump wrote. He also took aim at a particularly controversial claim made by Kelly about Trump’s disrespect for military personnel. Kelly had alleged that Trump made derogatory comments about soldiers during his presidency, a story Trump was quick to label as a lie. "The story about the Soldiers was A LIE, as are numerous other stories he told," Trump stated emphatically. Despite initially indicating that Kelly was not worth his time, Trump continued his tirade: "Even though I shouldn’t be wasting my time with him, I always feel it’s necessary to hit back in pursuit of THE TRUTH." The former president further accused Kelly of being ineffective during his time in the White House, claiming that he eventually stopped seeking Kelly’s advice altogether. "John Kelly is a LOWLIFE, and a bad General, whose advice in the White House I no longer sought, and told him to MOVE ON!" Trump wrote in the same post. These remarks from Trump followed Kelly’s recent interviews, where he painted a deeply concerning picture of Trump’s mindset. In an interview with *The New York Times*, Kelly went as far as to claim that Trump "certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure." Kelly had also previously told *The Atlantic* that Trump expressed a desire for the U.S. military to show him the same level of loyalty as “Hitler’s generals” did to the Nazi regime during World War II. These comments have not gone unnoticed in political circles. Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign was quick to amplify Kelly's warnings. In a public statement on Wednesday, Harris condemned Trump's alleged aspirations, calling him “increasingly unhinged and unstable.” She warned that, should Trump win a second term, people like Kelly—who, despite their later differences, had served as a check on some of Trump's more extreme impulses—would no longer be in place to offer resistance. “The bottom line is this, we know what Donald Trump wants. He wants unchecked power,” Harris said. “This is a window into who Donald Trump really is. From the people who know him best.” As the feud between Trump and Kelly escalates, the retired general’s comments have further fueled concerns among Trump's critics about what a potential second term might look like. For now, Trump appears determined to discredit his former chief of staff, even as the broader political implications of Kelly's remarks continue to reverberate. Based on a report from the Hill 2024-10-25

With just two weeks left until the 2024 U.S. presidential election, tensions between the candidates are intensifying. Former President Barack Obama joined the campaign trail for Kamala Harris, appearing at a rally in Michigan where he was introduced by none other than rap legend Eminem. Obama even performed a verse of Eminem’s hit song "Lose Yourself," a move that drew attention from both media and political circles. However, Donald Trump wasted no time in responding, dismissing the event and calling Obama "a real jerk." As the election approaches, Kamala Harris made it clear that her team is prepared for a potential legal battle. In an interview with NBC News, she stated that they are ready to challenge any attempt by Trump to declare victory prematurely. The 2024 race has already been marked by intense scrutiny, with concerns about election integrity and voter suppression hanging in the balance. Harris expressed her confidence that America is ready for a female president of color, reflecting on the progress the country has made and the importance of this election for future generations. In contrast, Donald Trump ramped up his personal attacks on Harris. Speaking at an event in Miami, where he was trying to appeal to Latino voters, Trump called her "lazy as hell," a phrase he’s used in previous campaigns to describe his political opponents. His rhetoric took an even sharper turn later that day at a rally in Greensboro, North Carolina, where he called Harris a "stupid person" and went further, asking the crowd, "Does she drink? Is she on drugs?" These aggressive comments highlight the escalating hostility in the race as both candidates push to secure key battleground states. While Harris focuses on policy and preparing for potential electoral disputes, Trump continues to use inflammatory language in an effort to rally his base. As the clock ticks down to Election Day, the outcome remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: this election will be fought until the very last vote is counted. Based on a report from Sky News 2024-10-25

A political action committee (PAC) aligned with Elon Musk has drawn the attention of the U.S. Justice Department for a controversial sweepstakes aimed at voters in swing states. The PAC, known as America PAC, offers million-dollar prizes to individuals who sign petitions supporting First and Second Amendment rights. However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has warned that this unusual tactic might be violating federal laws. Robert Heberle, the head of the DOJ’s Election Crimes Branch, issued a warning letter to an attorney representing America PAC, cautioning that the sweepstakes might breach a federal statute prohibiting the payment of individuals to vote or register to vote. According to a person familiar with the situation, Heberle’s message suggested the sweepstakes could violate this law, which includes penalties of up to five years in prison or fines up to $10,000 for each violation. The source requested anonymity because the letter has not been made public. This warning was first reported by 24sight News. The DOJ has refrained from commenting further on the issue, and Chris Gober, the lawyer for America PAC, has yet to respond to inquiries. As of Tuesday, the PAC claimed to have already awarded four $1 million prizes. Three of the recipients were from Pennsylvania, and one was from North Carolina. Initially promoted as an incentive to get voters in seven key swing states to register, the PAC now refers to the prize winners as spokespeople for the organization rather than simply participants in the sweepstakes. Musk, the founder of Tesla and SpaceX, and owner of X (formerly Twitter), has publicly endorsed former President Donald Trump's attempt to return to the White House. The sweepstakes he supports has prompted legal experts to weigh in, with some saying the offer clearly violates the law. These experts argue that federal statutes make it a felony to offer payments related to voter registration or voting in federal elections. However, there are differing legal opinions on whether the sweepstakes truly violates the law. Some attorneys suggest that Musk’s plan does not constitute a direct payment for voter registration since the prize recipients must have already registered before signing the PAC’s petition. Furthermore, the law requires proof that someone “knowingly or willfully” violated the statute. Musk’s legal team may have advised him in a way that could shield him and the PAC from prosecution. Although concerns have been raised, election-related investigations by the Justice Department tend to be lengthy, sometimes taking months or even years. It is unlikely that this issue will be resolved before voters head to the polls on Election Day. Based on a report from Politico 2024-10-24

Pure troll baiting post from the usual suspect @Gweiloman has been removed

Minnesota Governor and Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz launched a sharp critique of Elon Musk during a rally in Madison, Wisconsin. Appearing alongside former President Barack Obama, Walz took aim at Musk’s support for Donald Trump, likening the tech billionaire to Trump’s "running mate" in an unexpected jab. The governor then turned his attention back to Musk. Since purchasing Twitter in 2022 and rebranding it as X, Musk has been increasingly involved in the political arena, funneling money into super PACs such as America and Future Coalition. Musk’s efforts to promote these political action committees have drawn attention, including his controversial plan to randomly hand out $1 million checks to individuals who sign a petition supporting his PAC. Earlier in the month, Musk made headlines when he appeared on stage with Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, a location where Trump had been shot earlier in the year. Musk’s performance onstage, which included some energetic jumping, didn’t go unnoticed by Walz, who used it as material for a biting onstage insult in Madison. "Look, Elon is on that stage jumping around skipping like a dips*** on these things," Walz remarked, drawing laughter and applause from the crowd. The mocking tone was clear, as Walz emphasized the spectacle Musk had made of himself during the rally. "You know it," he added, to roaring approval from the audience. Walz’s remarks underscore the growing political entanglement of Musk, once known primarily for his roles at Tesla and SpaceX, and now increasingly seen as a figure with significant influence in conservative political circles. With Musk’s overt political donations and his public appearances alongside Trump, he has become a target for Democratic figures like Walz, who are eager to call attention to Musk's role in bolstering Trump’s platform as they work to galvanize voter support. Based on a report from the Independent | X 2024-10-24

Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Threads, recently suspended accounts that tracked the private jets of public figures, including Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg and former president Donald Trump. This move mirrors actions taken by Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter), which sparked controversy over the balance between privacy and free speech. Meta's decision to block these accounts comes after they posted publicly available flight data about the private jets of well-known figures like Zuckerberg, Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Kim Kardashian, Kylie Jenner, and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Alongside this data, the accounts also shared estimates of the carbon emissions generated by these flights. However, the posts did not disclose who was on the planes or the purpose of the flights. Meta's spokesperson Andy Stone stated that the accounts were disabled for “violating our privacy policy” and posing a “risk of physical harm to individuals.” According to Stone, this decision was based on a recommendation from Meta’s Oversight Board. However, the board’s 2022 guidance primarily addressed the sharing of private residential information, such as home addresses, and did not reference flight or travel data. This leaves ambiguity around the platform's rules for posting information about public figures’ travel. The flight information tracked by these accounts, though publicly available, has been used by journalists and researchers to report on public figures. For instance, details about Elon Musk’s private jet flights have been included in news stories that documented his travels across Pennsylvania during the 2020 U.S. presidential election to attend rallies in support of Donald Trump. Jack Sweeney, a college student from the University of Central Florida, ran many of these jet-tracking accounts, including those on Instagram and Threads. He said that Meta provided no warning or explanation before suspending his accounts. "This is exactly what Elon did," Sweeney remarked, referencing Musk’s earlier move to block his X accounts. Sweeney defended the accounts, stating that “this information has journalistic value. It lets you see what these people are working on with the businesses they run. It brings awareness to the climate, that these people are flying all around the world.” Sweeney was also critical of Meta’s justification, arguing that the planes he tracks are not private residences. “The jets I track are not ‘private residences’ even if you claimed they sleep on the plane,” he said. After X suspended Sweeney’s accounts in 2022, the platform also temporarily suspended several journalists, including one who reported on the account suspensions. While X now prohibits real-time location sharing, Sweeney continues to post about Musk's jet on X, but with a 24-hour delay. Alex Howard, a government transparency advocate, criticized Meta's decision on Threads, writing, “Meta has just created an opaque offline privacy policy for certain oligarchs & public figures that [Zuckerberg] will enforce when & how he wishes.” Meta sought advice from its Oversight Board on broader privacy concerns but did not ask specifically about flight data. The board suggested that Meta consider suspensions for serious violations where sharing private residential information leads to threats of violence or harassment. Stone declined to comment on whether any specific incidents of physical harm were linked to the jet-tracking accounts or if anyone had requested the suspension of the accounts. In a related incident, representatives of singer Taylor Swift threatened to sue Sweeney for “stalking and harassing behavior” earlier this year, though no legal action has been taken. An account tracking Swift’s private jet had already been suspended. Musk, Bezos, and Swift’s representatives did not respond to requests for comment. Meta’s decision, much like Musk’s, has reignited debates over the tension between protecting privacy and allowing public access to information that can hold powerful figures accountable. Based on a report from the WP | X 2024-10-24

At this crucial juncture, our party stands at a crossroads, but I am confident that, with the right leadership, we can meet the moment. Leadership contests give us the opportunity to reflect, renew, and move forward. Both Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick have stepped up to the plate, not merely out of personal ambition but from a profound sense of duty to the party and the country. Their determination to tackle the challenges before us is evident, and I believe either of them would lead with distinction. As we navigate these testing times, it’s critical that our next leader embodies the values, vision, and authenticity needed to steer Britain through the storm. In recent years, we've not always struck the right balance. We all share responsibility for the missed opportunities following the 2019 election, but we cannot dwell on past mistakes. Our party has proven time and again that when united behind a compelling vision, we can rebuild, inspire, and lead. We can do it again. Kemi and Robert have demonstrated an acute understanding of the pressing issues facing our nation: immigration, economic growth, policing, and national identity. These aren't mere political talking points but critical issues that impact the daily lives of people across the country. It’s essential that we address these challenges honestly and openly. Too often, we’ve avoided or diluted tough conversations. Our voters expect transparency, and they deserve it. This is how we will reclaim our place as the voice of the hardworking, patriotic majority. We must reject half-measures and decline management. Instead, our vision must be bold, anchored in the values that have always strengthened our party: responsibility, fairness, and opportunity for all. We cannot rely on Labour’s weaknesses to carry us forward. Yes, Labour is faltering, and Keir Starmer’s leadership is uninspiring, but we must guard against complacency. The political landscape is shifting rapidly, and we must adapt. While the challenges we face are daunting, we have overcome adversity before. With the right leader, we will do it again. The trust of the British people is something that we must earn through action, not rhetoric. One of the key issues that has caused disillusionment among our supporters is our failure to control legal migration and halt the small boats. This is a matter central to our nation’s future, and we must offer clear, decisive solutions. Before we can expand our support, we need to rebuild trust with our core voters by proving that we are serious about tackling the global migration crisis. For this reason, I am throwing my full support behind Robert Jenrick. He has laid out clear policies on defence, housing, economic growth, and energy, and his principled resignation from government was a bold statement of conviction. This is exactly the kind of leadership we need. Robert has presented a strong, unambiguous plan to address the issues that matter most to our voters, and he understands that leadership is about more than just vision; it requires the determination to see it through, even when the road is tough. We cannot afford to be timid or hesitant. We need a leader with clarity, strength, and courage—someone who will face challenges head-on. Robert Jenrick is that leader. His proposal to reform migration policy by withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and imposing visa caps is not just a necessity; it is the foundation upon which we can rebuild trust and win back voters who have lost faith. With my decades of experience working within these legal frameworks, from immigration barrister to Attorney General and Home Secretary, I am convinced that this is the responsible path forward. Our party is at a turning point, but I am confident that with the right leadership, we can rise to the occasion. We’ve done it before, and we will do it again. With courage, conviction, and a clear sense of purpose, we can lead Britain into a new era of opportunity and prosperity. Robert Jenrick has the vision and resolve to take us there, and I believe he is the leader who can unite us and deliver the future Britain deserves. Based on a report from the Daily Telegraph | X 2024-10-24

Former U.S. President Donald Trump has encouraged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to act independently regarding a potential retaliatory strike against Iran. In an interview with Saudi state-owned news outlet Al Arabiya, which aired on Sunday, Trump expressed his support for Netanyahu's decision-making in response to Iran’s recent missile barrage against Israel. “Well, I think [Netanyahu is] going to do what he wants to do. And I think he has to do that,” Trump stated when asked about possible Israeli airstrikes on Iran in retaliation for the October 1 missile attack. Trump also criticized current U.S. President Joe Biden's foreign policy approach, calling it “horrible” and urged Netanyahu to follow a path contrary to Biden’s advice. “Biden was giving him some very bad – look, Biden has been historically horrible on foreign policy. Incompetent,” Trump said. “I would say what you do is anything [Biden] says, do the opposite, and you’ll be brilliant.” He further implied that Biden's instructions to Netanyahu put Israel in a precarious situation, saying, “[Biden] gave [Bibi] instructions not to do anything, and Israel is under great danger.” In the interview, Trump responded to the suggestion that he might be the only leader capable of ending the ongoing Middle East conflict due to his close ties with Netanyahu. Trump agreed, saying, “I think you’re right. He does listen to me.” While he refrained from disclosing how he would prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, Trump expressed respect for the Iranian people, labeling them as “great negotiators.” He hinted at the possibility of reaching a diplomatic solution, noting, “In its own way, [Iran is] probably in danger, maybe more so than they would have thought a month ago.” He stressed his desire to avoid further bloodshed, remarking, “I don’t want to see people killed. Everyone’s being killed in the Middle East. I don’t want to see that.” Iran launched roughly 180 ballistic missiles at Israel in retaliation for the Israeli strikes that killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh. This recent barrage marks the second direct attack on Israel by Iran since the Hamas terror attack on October 7, 2023. Based on a report from the NYP 2024-10-24