LTFRB opens appointment schedule for TNVS application until mid-June
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
-
-
Latest posts...
-
0
Police Chiefs Warn Starmer of Crime Fight Crisis Amid Looming Budget Cuts
Police Chiefs Warn Starmer of Crime Fight Crisis Amid Looming Budget Cuts Senior police leaders, including Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, have issued a stark warning to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, cautioning that planned spending cuts could cripple frontline crime-fighting operations. In a direct letter to the prime minister ahead of next week’s anticipated spending review, the UK's most senior police officers outlined the “far-reaching consequences” of Treasury-driven austerity-style reductions, warning that such decisions could force them to abandon investigations into certain crimes altogether. The warning comes amid deteriorating negotiations between the Home Office and the Treasury, with the outcome set to determine the future resourcing of both the police and the National Crime Agency (NCA). “We understand that the Treasury [is] seeking to finalise departmental budget allocations this week and that the negotiations between the Home Office and the Treasury are going poorly,” the chiefs wrote in the letter, as reported by The Times. Their concerns point to the impact of a funding model that has already failed to keep pace with rising demands and inflationary pressures. “We are deeply concerned that the settlement for policing and the [NCA], without additional investment, risks a retrenchment to what we saw under austerity. This would have far-reaching consequences,” the letter warned. The police chiefs painted a dire picture of overstretched resources and shrinking capacity. “Policing and the NCA have seen a sustained period where income has not kept pace with demand. Often, this has been masked by attempts to defer costs in the hope of more income in future, but that now leaves policing with very limited room for manoeuvre,” they wrote. The consequences of continued underfunding, they argue, would be unavoidable. “A settlement that fails to address our inflation and pay pressures flat would entail stark choices about which crimes we no longer prioritise. The policing and NCA workforce would also shrink each year.” These warnings arrive as Starmer’s government faces mounting internal tensions over the spending review. Chancellor Rachel Reeves is under growing pressure from within the Labour Party to abandon plans for departmental cuts and instead introduce taxes on the wealthy to shore up public spending. Critics argue that Reeves is veering too close to what some have dubbed “austerity 2.0,” and fear that slashing budgets now will mean discarding key promises made to voters. The dispute has been described by Labour insiders as a “proxy war,” with key departments still locked in budget negotiations just days before the spending plan is due to be unveiled. Among them are Yvette Cooper’s Home Office, which is central to the police funding talks, and Angela Rayner’s Ministry of Housing. As the clock ticks down to the announcement, the tension between the need for fiscal discipline and the pressure to maintain public services is becoming ever more pronounced. For police leaders, the message is clear: without urgent investment, the thin blue line may soon become even thinner. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Independent 2025-06-05 -
0
Labour Rift Deepens as Rachel Reeves Faces Spending Review Showdown
Labour Rift Deepens as Rachel Reeves Faces Spending Review Showdown Chancellor Rachel Reeves is at the centre of an escalating internal battle within the Labour cabinet as tensions mount over her upcoming spending review. The conflict, described by insiders as a “proxy war”, is pitting senior ministers against each other and against Reeves, as concerns grow that key manifesto promises could be abandoned in the face of looming budget constraints. Reeves, tasked with defining the government’s fiscal direction, is under mounting pressure to explore alternative revenue sources—chief among them, wealth taxes—rather than resorting to spending cuts. The Treasury’s tight financial limits are leaving little room for manoeuvre, and this pressure is compounded by likely reversals on major cost-saving plans such as scrapping winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners and lifting the controversial two-child benefit cap. Combined, these changes could add up to £5 billion in additional spending, significantly narrowing Reeves' fiscal options. Major departments, including Yvette Cooper’s Home Office and Angela Rayner’s Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, remain locked in budgetary disputes just days before the chancellor is due to present her plans on Wednesday, June 11. Although Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson is reported to have reached an agreement with the Treasury, most departments have not, despite an informal deadline having passed the previous weekend. Adding to Reeves’ challenges is the government’s pledge to raise defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP—a goal that has become more complicated following NATO’s call for members, including the UK, to increase their commitments further to 3.5 per cent. The internal discord has sparked fears that Labour's broader political strategy is faltering. “The chancellor's decisions over the next week will ‘see the ending of a number of manifesto pledges as actually being deliverable,’” a senior Labour source told The Independent. Reeves’ efforts to maintain fiscal discipline are already being likened by critics to “austerity 2.0”, stoking frustration among Labour MPs and trade unions who want her to consider taxing the wealthy instead of slashing budgets. Calls for alternative fiscal measures have been growing louder, with a leaked memo from Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner proposing eight wealth tax options. These include raising dividend tax rates for high earners and clamping down on property speculators who exploit corporate structures to avoid stamp duty. In the words of one senior Labour insider: “I think the spending review is becoming a proxy war to desperately try and stop Labour facing an existential crisis – the breathtaking collapse in support continues, and [the plan for the party is to] just try and deliver some of its manifesto so that ordinary voters can see and feel that they have.” They concluded with a stark prediction: “I cannot see how Rachel Reeves lasts.” Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Independent 2025-06-05 -
0
Chinese Nationals Accused of Smuggling Agroterrorism Fungus into U.S. Lab
Chinese Nationals Accused of Smuggling Agroterrorism Fungus into U.S. Lab Two Chinese nationals have been charged in the United States for allegedly attempting to smuggle a biological pathogen into the country, a case that federal authorities say poses significant national security risks. Yunqing Jian, 33, and Zunyong Liu, 34, face multiple charges including conspiracy, smuggling goods, false statements, and visa fraud, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan. The federal complaint alleges that Liu attempted to bring a dangerous fungus, Fusarium graminearum, through Detroit Metropolitan Airport. The fungus is known to infect vital crops such as wheat, barley, maize, and rice, causing a disease that can decimate agricultural yields. If consumed in contaminated food, the pathogen can lead to vomiting and liver damage. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the fungus has been described in scientific literature as a “potential agroterrorism weapon,” responsible for “billions of dollars in economic losses worldwide each year.” Authorities allege that Liu intended to study the fungus at a laboratory at the University of Michigan, where Jian, his girlfriend, was employed. Investigators further claim Jian received research funding from the Chinese government and is a member of the Chinese Communist Party. United States Attorney Jerome F. Gorgon Jr. did not mince words in describing the severity of the situation. “These two aliens have been charged with smuggling a fungus that has been described as a ‘potential agroterrorism weapon’ into the heartland of America, where they apparently intended to use a University of Michigan laboratory to further their scheme,” he stated. “The allegations raise the gravest national security concerns.” The joint investigation was conducted by the FBI and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Jian is scheduled to appear in court in Detroit, Michigan, on Tuesday. As of now, there has been no public comment from the University of Michigan or the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C., though both have reportedly been contacted for a response. This case surfaces amid increasing tensions between Washington and Beijing. The charges were filed just days after the Trump administration announced plans to “aggressively” revoke the visas of Chinese students studying in the United States. On the diplomatic front, Beijing has criticized Washington for what it described as a severe violation of a recent trade truce reached in Geneva, where both nations had agreed to reduce tariffs on a range of goods. Adding to the tense atmosphere, another Chinese national—this time a student at the University of Michigan—was charged earlier this week with voting illegally in the 2024 U.S. election, further fueling debate about the presence and activities of foreign nationals in sensitive U.S. institutions. The case involving Jian and Liu is now seen as part of a broader narrative of deteriorating U.S.-China relations, with implications stretching beyond criminal courtrooms and into the spheres of national security, agriculture, and international diplomacy. Related Topic: Trump Administration Targets Chinese Students in New Visa Crackdown Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC | X 2025-06-05 -
0
MI5 Under Fire: BBC Accuses Security Service of Repeated Deception Over Neo-Nazi Agent
BBC Accuses Security Service of Repeated Deception Over Neo-Nazi Agent MI5 deliberately and repeatedly misled the courts in its defense of a neo-Nazi informant who abused women, the BBC has claimed before a panel of High Court judges. In a case that has raised serious concerns about the integrity of the Security Service and the limits of government secrecy, the corporation argued that the threshold had been met for contempt of court proceedings to be initiated against MI5 and three of its officers. Sir James Eadie KC, representing MI5, issued what he called an "unreserved apology" on behalf of the agency but maintained that "the errors that had been made had not been deliberate." Despite this, the High Court panel—including Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr, Dame Victoria Sharp, and Mr Justice Chamberlain—reserved judgment on whether the case should proceed further. The dispute began in 2022 when MI5 attempted to prevent the BBC from publishing a report about the man known only as X, a violent neo-Nazi and misogynist who is alleged to have used his status as a state agent to intimidate and control a former partner, referred to publicly as "Beth." MI5 insisted in court that it had not broken its strict “neither confirm nor deny” (NCND) secrecy protocol regarding X’s status. However, in February, the BBC presented phone recordings and notes that showed otherwise. According to the BBC, an MI5 officer had explicitly confirmed X’s role as an agent while attempting to convince a journalist to drop the investigation. This revelation directly contradicted previous sworn statements made by the Security Service in three separate court proceedings. As a result, MI5 conceded in this week’s hearing that it could no longer maintain its NCND stance in this case. The fallout from this admission has far-reaching consequences, including the opening up of previously closed evidence that had excluded both the BBC and Beth from proceedings. Kate Ellis, solicitor for Beth, welcomed the development, stating, “It’s a huge outcome for Beth. She's had to fight this all the way to the High Court. This case has really undermined MI5’s credibility in the courts.” Beth’s barrister, Charlotte Kilroy KC, echoed the BBC's argument, telling the court there had been “copious levels of dishonesty” in MI5’s handling of the matter—failures which, she said, were not fully addressed in the agency's own internal investigations. Contempt of court, which can result in fines or imprisonment of up to two years, is a serious charge that applies to actions obstructing justice or compromising the legal process. The BBC’s legal counsel, Jude Bunting KC, asked the court to consider contempt proceedings not only against MI5 but also against three individual officers—one of whom directly confirmed X’s identity in a recorded phone call and another, known as Witness A, who delivered false evidence in court. Bunting criticized MI5’s internal review, conducted by Sir Jonathan Jones KC, noting that it had failed to interview two key witnesses and that the explanations offered to the court “lack candour.” “There is a real concern,” he said, “that the court has not been given a full explanation of what went wrong.” Sir James Eadie, speaking on behalf of the Attorney General and MI5, reiterated the agency's apology and insisted that senior leadership, including Director General Sir Ken McCallum, acted promptly once the issue came to light. “Everyone from the director general downwards acknowledges the seriousness caused,” he said. However, Eadie maintained that the internal investigation had been "full and comprehensive" and found that while mistakes were made, “there had been no misleading or lying.” The judges are now considering whether the case should move forward, in what may prove to be a landmark decision on the accountability of the UK’s intelligence agencies. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-06-05 -
0
Trump Justice Department Probes Biden’s Use of Autopen in Controversial Family Pardons
Trump Justice Department Probes Biden’s Use of Autopen in Controversial Family Pardons In a move that has drawn sharp political scrutiny, the Trump administration’s Justice Department has launched an investigation into former President Joe Biden’s use of the autopen to sign a series of pardons and commutations during his final days in office. Among the pardons under review are those granted to five of Biden’s own family members, as well as 37 commutations that converted federal death sentences to life imprisonment. The investigation was confirmed by an internal email obtained by Reuters, in which Ed Martin, the Justice Department’s pardon attorney, told staff he had been instructed to examine the legality and propriety of the documents. “The investigation centred around whether Biden was competent and whether others were taking advantage of him through use of autopen or other means,” Martin wrote in the email. The autopen—a device that automatically reproduces a signature—has become the focal point of allegations first raised by conservative outlets and championed by Trump. The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, suggested earlier this year that nearly every document issued under Biden’s presidency bore the same signature, calling into question whether Biden personally approved them. The organization pointed to documents signed even while Biden was vacationing in the U.S. Virgin Islands in late 2022. Samuel Dewey, a lawyer affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, elaborated on the suspicions during an appearance on Real America’s Voice, stating that while most signatures looked machine-generated, the one on the pardon of Biden’s son Hunter appeared different. “Shaky,” he described it. Hunter Biden, who pleaded guilty to tax violations and was convicted on firearms charges, received a pardon from his father in December. Adding to the controversy, Biden also pardoned several other family members, including his brothers James and Frank Biden, his sister Valerie Biden Owens, and their respective spouses, John Owens and Sara Biden. While the internal email did not name which pardons were under direct investigation, Martin confirmed that the scope included the 37 death penalty commutations issued by Biden, as well as all family-related clemency orders. On January 20, just before departing the White House, Biden addressed his controversial decisions, stating that he aimed to shield his family from “future politically motivated investigations” likely to come under the returning Trump administration. Trump has repeatedly cast doubt on Biden’s mental acuity, particularly in the final stretch of his term. He has taken to Truth Social to allege that many pardons were issued without Biden’s knowledge or consent. “In other words, Joe Biden did not sign them but, more importantly, he did not know anything about them!” Trump wrote. He further accused members of the January 6 committee—some of whom received clemency—of engineering their own pardons while Biden was allegedly unaware, calling them “void, vacant and of no future force of effect.” Though Martin noted last month that he did not view autopen use as “necessarily a problem,” he nonetheless affirmed that the circumstances surrounding the Biden pardons “warranted scrutiny.” Amid growing questions about Biden’s health following his cancer diagnosis and his recent decision to withdraw from the 2024 race, the investigation into the final actions of his presidency has intensified partisan tensions. Despite the constitutional authority granted to presidents to issue pardons and commutations without oversight, Trump’s Justice Department appears determined to challenge the legitimacy of Biden’s final clemency decisions—especially those affecting political adversaries or members of his own family. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-06-05 -
0
Trump Policies Credited as Critics Mock Washington Post’s “Mystery” Over Fentanyl Decline
Trump Policies Credited as Critics Mock Washington Post’s “Mystery” Over Fentanyl Decline The Washington Post is under fire from conservative circles and even the White House after publishing an article expressing confusion over a sharp decline in fentanyl trafficking across the southern U.S. border. Describing the drop as a “mystery,” the Post's framing has sparked widespread mockery, with critics accusing the liberal-leaning outlet of downplaying the effectiveness of the Trump administration’s border security measures. Fentanyl, a potent synthetic opioid responsible for tens of thousands of deaths annually in the U.S., is often smuggled in by drug cartels through both southern and northern border points. In 2024, the CDC linked fentanyl to 48,422 deaths nationwide, underscoring its lethal impact on American communities. As a central promise during his campaign, President Trump vowed to dismantle fentanyl trafficking networks by tightening border security and addressing illegal immigration. Since assuming office, he has mobilized U.S. troops to the southern border, designated drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations,” and imposed sanctions on cartel leaders in an effort to disrupt their operations. Recent statistics released by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) suggest that these actions may be yielding results. According to the CIS, law enforcement seizures of fentanyl—a key indicator of broader smuggling activity—have decreased by 50% since the November election. The Washington Post acknowledged a similar trend, noting that seizures have dropped nearly 30% compared to the same period in 2024. However, the Post's interpretation of this decline puzzled many. “After years of confiscating rising amounts of fentanyl, the opioid that has fueled the most lethal drug epidemic in American history, U.S. officials are confronting a new and puzzling reality at the Mexican border. Fentanyl seizures are plummeting,” the article stated, referring to the trend as “something of a mystery.” The article speculated on several possible explanations, including internal cartel disruptions, alternative trafficking routes, raw material shortages, and even a potential dip in user demand. It also raised concerns that Trump’s budget cuts could jeopardize public health programs for addiction treatment and overdose reversal. The piece was met with derision from conservatives, who viewed the “mystery” framing as an unwillingness to credit the Trump administration. Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.) wrote on X, “The Washington Post is reporting a ‘mysterious drop’ in fentanyl seizures at the southern border. Mystery solved! The Trump effect is working.” Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk was more scathing, posting, “Four months into the Trump administration, The Washington Post is marveling at the ‘mysterious’ drop in fentanyl seizures on the Mexican border … Is the Post simply lying, or are their reporters as dumb as the people they’re writing propaganda for?” Even the Department of Homeland Security chimed in, replying via its official X account, “It’s no mystery. On day one, [President] Trump closed our borders to drug traffickers.” The department cited a 54% reduction in fentanyl trafficking at the southern border from March 2024 to March 2025, adding, “The world has heard the message loud and clear.” White House officials also responded with blunt remarks. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt labeled the Post “pathetic,” while Communications Director Steven Cheung remarked, “They can’t stand that President Trump’s strong border policies have led to a DECREASE in fentanyl coming into the U.S.” Abigail Jackson, another spokesperson, reinforced this stance during an interview with Fox News Digital. “The drop in fentanyl seizures at the border is only a mystery to Washington Post,” she said. “As of March, fentanyl traffic at the Southern Border had fallen by more than half from the same time last year – while Joe Biden’s open border was still terrorizing America. Everyone else knows the simple truth: President Trump closed our border to illegal drug traffickers and Americans are safer because of it.” As of now, The Washington Post has not responded to Fox News Digital’s request for comment. Adapted by ASEAN Now from NYP 2025-06-05
-
-
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