.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
Personal Safe Box services
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
-
-
Latest posts...
-
828
What Movies or TV shows are you watching (2025)
Watching The Pitt now. As I get older, medical dramas become more interesting. -
0
Farage’s Reform UK Projected to Lead Hung Parliament in Surprise Poll Upset
Farage’s Reform UK Projected to Lead Hung Parliament in Surprise Poll Upset In a political twist few would have predicted a year ago, a new survey suggests that Nigel Farage’s Reform UK could become the largest party in a hung parliament if a general election were held today. The startling projection comes from polling organization More in Common, whose data model, based on responses from 16,000 voters, places Reform at 180 seats—15 more than both the Conservatives and Labour, who are each predicted to secure 165. Luke Tryl, director of More in Common, described the findings as a reflection of a political landscape in flux. “British politics has fragmented to an unprecedented level,” he said, highlighting the breakdown of traditional party loyalties and the volatility that now defines the electorate. The poll paints a bleak picture for Labour, suggesting that Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership could deliver an outcome even worse than Jeremy Corbyn's disastrous 2019 result. According to the model, Labour would lose 246 seats, with some of its most high-profile MPs at risk of defeat. Ten cabinet ministers are forecast to lose their constituencies, including Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, Defence Secretary John Healey, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, and Health Secretary Wes Streeting. Labour’s previously formidable coalition appears to be fracturing from both ends of the political spectrum. The poll suggests major losses across key heartlands such as the red wall, Scotland, and South Wales valleys—areas that have historically underpinned the party’s electoral strength. Although polls conducted so far in advance of an election are speculative and cannot accurately predict future outcomes, the numbers still offer a significant morale boost to Reform UK, which currently holds only four seats, having lost one of the five it gained in last year’s election. “Nigel Farage’s Reform UK emerge as the biggest winners of this parliament so far, with our model suggesting they could well become the largest party in parliament, something almost unthinkable a year ago,” said Tryl. He acknowledged that while Reform remains far from a governing majority, its growing support signals a seismic shift in public sentiment. “It is clear Reform’s momentum is real, and the question is whether their new level of support represents the start of a path to government or a ceiling that Farage’s polarising brand finds hard to overcome,” Tryl added. Meanwhile, Labour finds itself increasingly vulnerable in the face of rising public frustration. “Labour, meanwhile, having secured a historic victory, now find themselves on the wrong side of a disillusioned electorate frustrated at the slow pace of change and some of the government’s early missteps,” Tryl noted. With just weeks remaining before Reform UK faces its next significant electoral test, this poll—however speculative—underscores the unpredictable nature of Britain’s current political climate and the growing appetite among voters for something radically different. Adpated by ASEAN Now from The Independent 2025-04-22 -
0
Historic Endless Stalemates: Why Peace in Ukraine Remains Elusive
Endless Stalemates: Why Peace in Ukraine Remains Elusive Efforts to halt the war in Ukraine have repeatedly collapsed under the weight of history, mistrust, and political maneuvering. Russia’s most recent ceasefire, declared during the Orthodox Easter, lasted only 30 hours and was limited in scope. Despite this brief lull, both sides quickly accused each other of violations, continuing a pattern that has marked the conflict since its earliest days. Ukrainian officials noted a rare calm during the truce. “There had been no air raids alerts on Sunday,” Kyiv reported. President Volodymyr Zelensky suggested that the Easter truce could represent the "easiest" model to expand into a longer ceasefire, perhaps 30 days or more. The United States had also tried to initiate a 30-day ceasefire, but this effort faltered without ever taking hold, exposing how difficult it is to secure even a temporary pause in the violence. One major obstacle is the entrenched mistrust between Ukraine and Russia. Zelensky, during a tense meeting with Donald Trump in February, accused Russia of breaking 25 ceasefire agreements since 2014. He stressed that any future deal would be meaningless without firm security guarantees. The mistrust runs deep, going back to 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea, breaching a 1997 treaty between the two countries that pledged to respect each other’s territorial integrity. The war has always been marked by accusations of betrayal. General Viktor Muzhenko, Ukraine’s former chief of General Staff, blamed Russia for ambushing withdrawing Ukrainian troops in Ilovaysk in August 2014, killing at least 366 soldiers. This event followed broken promises of safe passage. The first formal ceasefire was signed on 5 September 2014 in Minsk but was quickly violated, with Ukrainian forces reporting attacks on Donetsk airport within hours. A second truce, known as Minsk-2, went into effect on 15 February 2015 and also failed almost immediately. Observers from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) reported mortar and artillery fire shortly after the ceasefire began, though they did not assign blame. Numerous other ceasefires followed, but they too failed swiftly. These included annual “Easter truces,” “school ceasefires,” “Christmas truces,” and “bread ceasefires” intended to protect seasonal activities like harvesting or school attendance. None held for long. A “comprehensive ceasefire” declared on 27 July 2020 lasted only 20 minutes, though it did help reduce casualties among Ukrainian forces in the year that followed. Matthew Savill of the Royal United Services Institute believes that Russia has never engaged in ceasefire talks with sincerity. “Russia has never been sincere about removing or ending the risk of the use of force in seeking its objectives,” he said. While acknowledging that “Ukraine bears some responsibility,” Savill emphasized that the persistent Russian or Russian-backed threat was the dominant issue. John Herbst, former U.S. ambassador to Kyiv, also pointed to Russia as the “serial violator” of the Minsk agreements. Independent verification of violations is complicated by the near-total exclusion of journalists from Russian-controlled territories. Russian-backed forces even attacked Debaltseve after the Minsk deal, claiming the town was not covered by the agreement. Zelensky has called the Minsk accords a “trap,” arguing that they allowed Russia to prepare for the full-scale invasion launched in 2022. Putin, meanwhile, claimed Ukraine and the West never intended to uphold the agreements. When Russia recognized the separatist Donetsk and Luhansk republics as independent, it effectively buried the accords. Putin’s Easter truce, brief as it was, failed to produce any meaningful change. Trump expressed hope that “Russia and Ukraine will make a deal this week,” but warned that if either side stalls negotiations, “we're just gonna take a pass.” With Russia insisting that “the underlying causes of the conflict” must be addressed—code for undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty—it’s clear that peace remains a distant goal. Vladislav Surkov, a former advisor to Putin, captured the Kremlin’s stance when he described peace itself as “nothing but a continuation of war by other means.” Adpated by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-04-22 -
0
Harvard Becomes Resistance HQ in Trump’s Campus Culture War
Harvard Becomes Resistance HQ in Trump’s Campus Culture War When Harvard University refused to comply with sweeping federal demands from the Trump administration, it marked the most high-profile confrontation yet in an escalating war between the White House and elite academic institutions. This week, Harvard became the first university to publicly reject orders from the administration to overhaul hiring, admissions, and curriculum policies. The White House claims the changes are aimed at combating anti-Semitism, but critics argue they amount to a political assault on academic freedom. Within hours of Harvard’s refusal, the Department of Education froze more than $2 billion in federal funding earmarked for the university. Trump responded with characteristic venom on Truth Social, calling Harvard “a JOKE” and suggesting it should lose its tax-exempt status for promoting “ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness.’” He had long telegraphed his plans to target elite universities, accusing them of becoming ultra-liberal strongholds that discriminate against conservatives and Jewish students. The clash comes amid broader reforms from the administration, including crackdowns on DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs and the creation of a Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. That body, led by conservative commentator Leo Terrell, has already helped suspend over $11 billion in federal funding from seven schools and revoked student visas en masse. Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania have complied; Harvard has not. The administration demanded that Harvard report students deemed “hostile” to American values, hire a government-approved auditor to review certain programs, and ensure “viewpoint diversity” in all departments. Harvard President Alan Garber refused, arguing that yielding would compromise the school’s independence. “No government… should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” he said. Supporters of the administration see Harvard’s resistance as emblematic of everything wrong with higher education. “If Trump breaks Harvard, he breaks the system — and that needs to happen,” said Melissa Rein Lively, CEO of “anti-woke” PR firm America First. “These places are bloated hedge funds disguised as colleges.” Harvard is still reeling from controversies of its own. It faced backlash over its handling of pro-Palestinian protests following the Hamas attacks on Israel in October 2023. That, combined with a plagiarism scandal involving former President Claudine Gay, triggered donor withdrawals and a 34% drop in endowment value. Despite this, the university remains the wealthiest in the world, with a $50 billion endowment and a $6.4 billion annual budget. Prominent alumni, including Barack Obama, praised Harvard’s stand. “It has set an example by rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom,” he said. But critics say universities brought this on themselves. “The Trump administration regards elite universities as enemies and wants to reduce their influence,” said conservative scholar Harvey Mansfield, who taught at Harvard for six decades. Some conservatives warn the administration’s approach is overreach. “I support more intellectual diversity,” said economist Greg Mankiw, “but this is not the way. Change must come from within.” A White House official pushed back, saying, “We’re not taking away anybody’s freedom. We’re ending cancel culture and promoting fairness.” The fight has energized both sides of the cultural divide. But many believe it won’t be settled on campus — it will be decided in the courts. “This is heading to the judiciary,” said education historian Jonathan Zimmerman. “You’ve got a conservative Supreme Court full of elite law school grads. It’s going to be a tough balance between their politics and the value they place on academia.” Ultimately, Harvard’s refusal has turned it into the epicenter of a national showdown over the future of American education. Whether the university holds the line or buckles under pressure, the outcome may redefine the boundaries between academic independence and political power. Adpated by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-04-22 -
0
In Britain Criticizing your child’s school can land you in jail, astonishing and disturbing
Britain’s Free Speech Crisis: From Criticism to Criminalization In Britain today, expressing dissent — even about your child’s school — could potentially lead to arrest, a reality that has alarmed both domestic observers and international allies. In a tense February exchange in the Oval Office, U.S. Senator JD Vance raised this very issue with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, citing concerns that the UK’s crackdown on free speech might impact American tech companies and, by extension, American citizens. “There have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British,” Vance said. Starmer, clearly uncomfortable, responded with strained diplomacy: “In relation to free speech in the U.K.,” he said, “I’m very proud of our history there.” That word — “history” — speaks volumes. Britain has long been a champion of free expression, home to giants of liberal philosophy like John Milton, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill. Yet today, this legacy is being overshadowed by a legal regime that increasingly prioritizes feelings over freedom. A recent investigation by The Times revealed that police in the UK are making over 12,000 arrests annually under “hate speech” laws — over 30 per day — citing statutes such as the Malicious Communications Act of 1988 and the Communications Act of 2003. The latter criminalizes not only content deemed “indecent, obscene or menacing,” but also any communication that causes “annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety.” In January, this sweeping legal standard resulted in six police officers arresting two parents in Hertfordshire for privately criticizing their daughter’s school via email and WhatsApp. Though later released, the parents were fingerprinted, searched, and held for eight hours. The justification? Their messages were “upsetting for staff.” Under Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, arrests must be “necessary,” a threshold many argue was not met in this case. The state’s definition of “hate” has grown so broad that it now includes so-called “non-crime hate incidents” — acts that don’t meet the threshold for criminality but are still logged by police. Between 2014 and 2019, over 250,000 such incidents were recorded. According to official guidance, the “victim” need not provide evidence; officers are instructed not to challenge the complainant’s perception. These entries can show up in background checks, with real-world consequences for careers in teaching, healthcare, and beyond. The rationale behind this surveillance is rooted in psychologist Gordon Allport’s 1954 “pyramid of hate,” which posits a linear progression from offensive speech to violence. Gavin Stephens, chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, supports this logic: “Hate left unaddressed, whether that’s propagated online or in person, has real-world consequences.” There are numerous examples of successful prosecutions for offensive speech. In August 2024, Lee Joseph Dunn was sentenced to eight weeks in jail for posting three memes on Facebook, one of which depicted a group of knife-wielding immigrants with the caption “Coming to a town near you.” In April 2018, teenager Chelsea Russell was convicted for quoting rap lyrics containing racially offensive language on her Instagram page as a tribute to a dead friend. She was given a community order and placed on curfew, later overturned on appeal. Scotland has gone even further. Its Hate Crime and Public Order Act, enacted last year, criminalizes private speech at home and the public performance of plays that could stir up hatred — a definition so vague it threatens artistic freedom itself. There have already been several high-profile convictions for speech crimes. In 2024, Lee Joseph Dunn was jailed for posting anti-immigrant memes. In 2022, Joseph Kelly was sentenced to community service for an offensive tweet about Captain Tom Moore, which was deleted within minutes. And in 2018, a teenager named Chelsea Russell was convicted for quoting rap lyrics on Instagram in memory of a friend, a sentence later overturned on appeal. Most disturbing are recent events tied to the tragic murder of three girls in Merseyside. Protests followed, some marred by racism, others peaceful but critical of immigration policy. Royal Marine veteran Jamie Michael was arrested after posting a video criticizing the government. He was acquitted. Lucy Connolly, however, was not so lucky. Her post, made in grief and deleted shortly after, called for the burning of hotels housing migrants. Despite expressing regret, she was sentenced to 31 months in prison. “If that makes me racist so be it,” she had written. Starmer, in response to the riots, encouraged courts to issue the “harshest sentences.” The absurdity of Britain’s current trajectory is perhaps best captured by the so-called “banter ban” being debated in the House of Lords, which could require pubs to eject customers whose jokes offend staff. Under the proposed law, hearing an opinion one disagrees with in the workplace could amount to harassment. The question remains: is society better served by tolerating offensive speech or by empowering the state to define and police acceptable thought? As history warns — and as current trends in Britain increasingly confirm — the latter path carries far greater dangers. Adpated by ASEAN Now from The Washington Post 2025-04-22 -
0
Stephen A. Smith and the Search for a Democratic Trump
Stephen A. Smith and the Search for a Democratic Trump The rising chatter about ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith as a possible 2028 presidential candidate may seem outlandish, but it reflects the Democratic Party's current mood of anxiety, desperation, and disillusionment. In the wake of a second electoral loss to Donald Trump, Democrats are casting an unusually wide net in search of a compelling leader—one who might channel the plainspoken charisma and outsider appeal that powered Trump’s political rise. Since the 2024 election, Smith has become a surprising voice in political discourse, vocally criticizing Democratic leadership and hinting at his own political ambitions. “No choice,” he told ABC News, referencing the growing number of fans, donors, pundits, and even politicians encouraging him to run. Though he clearly does have a choice, his remarks illustrate a peculiar moment in Democratic politics: a willingness, or perhaps a desperation, to consider even celebrity outsiders in the search for a winning candidate. Smith’s media ubiquity—commenting on immigration, tariffs, and national affairs across outlets like CNN, Fox News, and Pod Save America—has positioned him in the public imagination as something more than a sports commentator. While most Democrats would not seriously place him on a presidential shortlist, many agree the party needs a figure with Smith's qualities: confident, media-savvy, capable of connecting with younger voters and particularly with Black and Latino men. The appeal lies in his outsider status, his plainspoken delivery, and his distance from the traditional Democratic establishment. Party insiders acknowledge that many of their 2028 hopefuls—Pete Buttigieg, Wes Moore, Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer—lack the populist fire or cultural reach to galvanize skeptical and disengaged voters. Kamala Harris’s underperformance among Black and Latino men has only heightened concerns. Her hesitant media appearances and cautious demeanor have left Democrats convinced that the next nominee must exude confidence and clarity. Meanwhile, faith in traditional political structures is eroding, and that trend favors outsiders—just as it did for Trump in 2016. The desire for a fresh political persona has prompted governors like Newsom and Kentucky’s Andy Beshear to launch podcasts and videos in an effort to bypass the mainstream press and connect directly with voters. However, such efforts often fall flat, annoying base voters rather than inspiring them. Smith, in contrast, already commands attention and possesses a well-honed ability to frame arguments clearly and provocatively—skills that many Democrats feel are sorely lacking among current party leaders. The comparison to Trump isn’t about policy but about presence. “Who is a left-leaning political outsider who might particularly connect with Black and or/Latino men; has strong media skills; is extremely confident in public settings; and isn’t known for progressive views on social justice issues?” That’s more Smith than it is traditional Democrats like Josh Shapiro or Tim Walz. Others, like Mark Cuban, have also been floated as potential Democratic versions of Trump—non-politicians with bold voices and public visibility. But Cuban, like most in his position, has declined. Still, the enthusiasm around Smith’s political commentary reveals more about Democratic fears than any real groundswell for his candidacy. “No one I know is clamoring for Stephen A. Smith 2028,” one observer wrote, “but Smith has correctly assessed there is significant anxiety and desperation among Democrats for a candidate who can win—and they will consider ANYONE.” Yet history warns against reading too much into post-election panic. After George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004, Democrats believed they needed a moderate white candidate to win over rural voters. They chose Barack Obama instead and won resoundingly. Likewise, after Mitt Romney’s 2012 loss, Republicans assumed they needed a diverse and moderate candidate. Instead, they got Trump. Some of the ideas that seemed urgent in late 2024 have already faded. Newsom’s attempts to appeal to conservatives through his podcast have irritated liberal voters. The rightward pressure on issues like diversity and immigration has lessened in the face of renewed crackdowns by the Trump administration. Progressives are rallying once again around Bernie Sanders—an outsider in tone, if not in tenure. Smith may have momentarily captured a public frustrated with cautious insiders, but that doesn’t make him a viable leader. While winning elections is paramount, Democrats must also prioritize effective governance. “Implementing policy is actually hard,” the article notes. “Trump has been a disastrous president in part because he has so little knowledge about governing.” Democrats would be wise not to repeat that mistake. Stephen A. Smith is free to speak his mind—and he does so better than most. But while he may dominate sports debates and capture headlines, the Democratic Party must look beyond celebrity appeal if it hopes to lead the country effectively. It might be best to leave Smith to his day job sparring with LeBron James, and turn instead to seasoned leaders who understand both communication and governance. Adpated by ASEAN Now from WP 2025-04-22
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now