.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
138 Deaths in First Four Days of Songkran’s “Seven Dangerous Days”
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
-
Latest posts...
-
0
JD Vance Optimistic About Prospects for UK-US Trade Deal
JD Vance Optimistic About Prospects for UK-US Trade Deal U.S. Vice President JD Vance has expressed confidence that the United States and the United Kingdom are on track to finalize a significant trade agreement, providing a much-needed boost for British officials eager to strike a deal. In a recent interview with UnHerd, Vance emphasized the strong relationship between the two nations and suggested there is a “good chance” of reaching a “great” agreement that serves both countries' interests. “We’re certainly working very hard with Keir Starmer’s government on a trade deal,” Vance said. “The president really loves the United Kingdom. He loved the queen. He admires and loves the king. It is a very important relationship.” He went on to highlight President Donald Trump’s longstanding personal and business ties to Britain, adding, “He’s a businessman and has a number of important business relationships in [Britain]. But I think it’s much deeper than that. There’s a real cultural affinity. And of course, fundamentally America is an Anglo country.” Vance's remarks come amid renewed UK efforts to secure economic relief from tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. British officials are eager to lift a 25 percent duty on metals and automobiles, along with a 10 percent baseline tariff on all goods imported to the U.S. “With the United Kingdom, we have a much more reciprocal relationship than we have with, say, Germany,” Vance noted. “While we love the Germans, they are heavily dependent on exporting to the United States but are pretty tough on a lot of American businesses that would like to export into Germany.” U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has also weighed in, confirming that the U.K. and Australia are among the nations being prioritized for trade talks. While he acknowledged that Australia's internal politics make it slightly easier to navigate, he made clear that serious discussions are underway with multiple partners. Speaking in Buenos Aires, Bessent told Bloomberg that countries need to bring their “A-game” to negotiations. “It may not be the actual trade document, but we will have and be able to move forward from there,” he said, referencing the possibility of reaching “an agreement in principle” that could lead to tariff carve-outs. He also warned that while tariff reductions are a critical step, non-tariff barriers such as regulations and taxes present longer-term challenges. “Lowering tariffs is one thing, but non-tariff trade barriers like regulations and taxes are more insidious. And it's probably going to take a little longer to exorcise those demons,” Bessent said. For top-tier trading partners, he added, “the president's going to be involved.” Back in the UK, Industry Minister Sarah Jones welcomed the optimistic signals from Washington. Speaking to LBC on Tuesday, she said, “We know we’re in a good position. We are having good conversations. There is a deal there to be done, but as to when that will be done I wouldn’t be able to tell you, but it’s positive that the vice president is positive about our negotiations.” As the Trump administration continues its 90-day pause on some tariffs, both sides appear motivated to move forward. While the path to a formal agreement may still involve complex negotiations, recent statements suggest momentum is building toward a transatlantic trade breakthrough. Based on a report by Politico 2025-04-16 -
0
Palestinian Columbia Protester Detained by ICE During Citizenship Appointment
Palestinian Columbia Protester Detained by ICE During Citizenship Appointment Palestinian student and activist Mohsen Mahdawi, who had been living in the United States for a decade, was taken into custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents during what was supposed to be the final step in his journey toward American citizenship. The incident occurred Monday at a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office in Burlington, Vermont, and has since sparked outrage among civil rights advocates and lawmakers. According to The Intercept, Mahdawi, who originally came from the West Bank and had obtained a green card during his time in the U.S., was actively involved in pro-Palestinian demonstrations at Columbia University. He had served as a leader of Columbia’s Palestinian student union and was a visible presence at anti-Israel protests on the university’s Morningside Heights campus up until the spring. The arrest, captured on video and circulated on social media, shows Mahdawi handcuffed and being escorted by federal agents into an unmarked vehicle. Speaking to The Intercept, Mahdawi described his detention as a life-threatening consequence. “It’s kind of a death sentence,” he said. “Because my people are being killed unjustly in an indiscriminate way.” His lawyer, Luna Droubi, condemned the arrest as baseless and discriminatory. “He was unlawfully detained today for no reason other than his Palestinian identity,” Droubi said. “He came to this country hoping to be free to speak out about the atrocities he has witnessed, only to be punished for such speech.” Neither the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) nor the State Department responded to media requests for comment. Columbia University, citing Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) obligations, declined to speak on the matter. Mahdawi had reportedly gone into hiding prior to his arrest, fearing he might become a target of the Trump administration’s broader deportation efforts. During that time, he reached out to Columbia University requesting help with shelter, but, according to him, received no response. While in hiding, he received a notice that his citizenship interview had been rescheduled from a later date to an earlier one. Concerned that this might be a trap, Mahdawi still chose to attend — and was arrested upon arrival. Mahdawi also claimed that the FBI had visited him late last year but had taken no formal action at the time. Reflecting on his circumstances, he told The Intercept, “This is the outcome. I will be either living or imprisoned or killed by the apartheid system.” In a December 2023 appearance on 60 Minutes, Mahdawi criticized then-Columbia President Minouche Shafik’s response to the Hamas attack on Israel, arguing it failed to acknowledge Palestinian suffering. “That’s why they’re crushing universities now, it’s not only about Palestine,” he said. Despite everything, Mahdawi expressed belief in the American people: “People ask me why I would want to become a citizen of a country committing genocide. I have faith in the people living in this country. The government is not the people.” His arrest drew sharp criticism from lawmakers, including Vermont’s Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who issued a joint statement with Senator Peter Welch and Representative Becca Balint. “Mohsen Mahdawi of White River Junction, Vermont was illegally detained by ICE during what was supposed to be the final step in his citizenship process,” Sanders wrote on X. “Mr. Mahdawi, a legal resident of the US, must be afforded due process under the law and immediately released from detention.” Based on a report by NYP 2025-04-16 Related Topic: Democrats Face Backlash for Supporting Arrested Palestinian Activist Mahmoud Khalil -
0
Opinion Why the White House Must Double Down on DEI in Education
Unmasking the Hydra: Why the White House Must Double Down on DEI in Education As the White House intensifies its campaign against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in American institutions, it must recognize the evolving nature of the challenge. DEI, a movement that once wore its identity openly, is now adapting and hiding behind euphemisms and bureaucratic reshuffling. If this ideological agenda is to be dismantled, the effort must not only continue—it must become even more forceful. The case of Caltech illustrates just how deeply embedded DEI has become and how adept its proponents are at cloaking their intentions. Lindsey Malcom-Piqueux, the university’s former Chief Diversity Officer, has been given a new title and a convenient promotion. But critics argue that this move is little more than camouflage—designed to preserve the same divisive DEI framework under a different label. “That’s what DEI is, remember. A system of race- and gender-based patronage (or, if you happen to be male, white, Asian or Jewish, discrimination) contrary to everything good and just and right in America,” one commentator warned, characterizing the practice as fundamentally unjust and antithetical to the principles of meritocracy. And Caltech is hardly alone. At Columbia University, former interim president Katrina Armstrong was caught on tape admitting that the school’s supposed compliance with Trump-era DEI restrictions was a charade. “Everything was going to be business as usual,” she said. The revelation came about because, astonishingly, Armstrong and her colleagues failed to disable Zoom’s recording function during their internal discussions. “If that’s not a testament to why DEI hiring policies in the academy are bad, we don’t know what is,” critics quipped, highlighting what they see as incompetence enabled by ideologically driven hiring practices. The trend extends beyond academia. Major corporations like Edward Jones and Costco are allegedly engaging in similar efforts to conceal race- and gender-based programs. Costco, in particular, is facing scrutiny from multiple state attorneys general, with investigations underway into whether its practices may violate anti-discrimination laws. Yet while some organizations are masking their intentions, others are refusing to comply altogether. New York’s State Education Department, for instance, announced it would not enforce the Trump administration’s order on DEI policies in public schools. This blatant defiance underscores the need for a stronger federal response. To critics of DEI, the movement is not just misguided policy—it is a resilient and dangerous ideology. “Otherwise the hydra will just regrow its heads,” they warn. This metaphor reflects the belief that unless every manifestation of DEI is exposed and dismantled, it will persist in new forms, spreading further into education, government, and private enterprise. Supporters of the White House’s position argue that this is a moral imperative as much as a legal one. They believe the only way to restore fairness and protect the values of equality under the law is to confront DEI wherever it appears—especially when it hides behind clever titles and vague language. Without such vigilance, they claim, the system will continue to operate in shadow, undermining institutions and eroding public trust. For those who see DEI as a threat to meritocracy and individual rights, this is no time for compromise. It is a time to strike harder, more decisively, and with full awareness that the enemy is no longer in plain sight. Based on a report by NYP 2025-04-16 -
0
The Struggle for Supremacy: Can Trump Halt China’s Global Ascent?
Title: The Struggle for Supremacy: Can Trump Halt China’s Global Ascent? As tensions escalate between the United States and China, it has become increasingly clear that the Trump administration is facing an uphill battle to prevent Beijing from eclipsing America as the dominant global power. From economics to military strength and diplomatic influence, China is mounting a formidable challenge on every front. The past week has only underscored the scale and urgency of this confrontation, leaving many to wonder whether Trump's aggressive approach can truly reverse the tide. President Trump’s administration has zeroed in on America’s trade deficit with China, which topped $295 billion last year, as a symbol of declining U.S. dominance. However, efforts to address this imbalance have exposed the complexity of the broader geopolitical struggle. There was once a belief that China's internal economic pressures would restrain its hand in a full-blown trade war. That assumption has been decisively shattered. On Wednesday, the White House paused most of its tariffs for 90 days but simultaneously hiked duties on Chinese imports to 145 percent. China responded with its own 125 percent tariff on U.S. goods. The Chinese commerce ministry declared, “The blackmailing nature of the US… China will never accept this… China will fight to the end.” Despite the massive scale of exports to the U.S., those sales account for just 2 percent of China's GDP, giving Beijing room to maneuver. The economic front is only one battlefield. The U.S. debt market faced its worst day in four decades as investors from Japan and Europe offloaded American bonds. Though China wasn’t behind the sell-off, the event was a stark reminder of its leverage. With over $750 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds, China holds 2.6 percent of America’s staggering $36 trillion federal debt. George Saravelos of Deutsche Bank warned, “The next phase risks being an outright financial war involving Chinese ownership of US assets both on the official and private sector front… the loser will be the global economy.” Military developments are equally unsettling. Chinese naval exercises near Taiwan have become increasingly routine, suggesting the capacity for a swift blockade. Rear Admiral Mike Studeman, former head of the Pentagon’s office of naval intelligence, remarked, “The Chinese very well could prevail in any number of different contingencies” against the U.S. Navy. He noted, “They’re every bit a peer,” and criticized America's failure to recognize China’s systematic transformation of potential into power. Shipbuilding illustrates the disparity. In 2024, Chinese shipyards launched over 250 vessels, dwarfing the five produced in the U.S. That single year’s output from China surpassed the total American shipbuilding since 1945. China now fields more major warships and submarines than the U.S., having added 29 new vessels over the past decade. “May be the next step for China,” said Nick Childs of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, referring to a potential buildup of Chinese submarines. He added that collaboration with Russia could help China develop quieter, more advanced subs. “That’s a big concern.” Despite U.S. efforts, such as new partnerships with South Korean shipbuilders and executive orders aimed at revitalizing domestic production, real gains remain distant. Simultaneously, tariffs have strained ties with key Pacific allies like Japan and South Korea, leaving Washington vulnerable to diplomatic losses. “I think we’re blowing whatever advantages we had,” said Studeman, stressing the need for strategic unity. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned European leaders that Chinese goods taxed out of American markets would soon target Europe: “Guess where they’re going to land? On European shores.” Yet, the EU’s response has been cautious. Though it recently raised tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, it has resisted broader Trump-style measures and is now preparing for talks in Beijing to soften the blow of U.S. actions. While Trump officials insist their plan is on course, the situation remains fraught. New trade barriers threaten global commerce, and America's long-standing supremacy is under siege. The reality is that despite years of efforts by both Trump and Biden administrations, America's grip is loosening as China's momentum accelerates. Even if Beijing chooses to compromise on trade, the broader shift in power seems inevitable. The cost of stalling China’s rise may be global economic disruption — and the results, if they come, will take years to materialize. Based on a report by The Times 2025-04-16 -
0
Prince Harry Claims Police Protection Was Withdrawn to Trap Him in UK
Prince Harry Claims Police Protection Was Withdrawn to Trap Him in UK: “My Worst Fears Have Been Confirmed” Prince Harry has accused the British establishment of using the removal of his police protection as a tactic to trap him and Meghan Markle in the UK and prevent them from starting a new life abroad. Speaking candidly to The Telegraph following a two-day appeal hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, the Duke of Sussex revealed that secret evidence presented in court has confirmed his “worst fears.” The Duke claimed the decision to strip him and his family of taxpayer-funded security was “difficult to swallow,” describing it as a calculated move designed to make it impossible for him to live safely outside the royal fold. According to Harry, this action was not just administrative — it was punitive, meant to control and punish the couple for choosing independence over royal protocol. “We were trying to create this happy house,” he said, explaining how he and Meghan hoped that carving out a peaceful life outside the UK would ultimately help mend family ties. Instead, he believes the revocation of security was a deliberate ploy to force them back into a life they had chosen to leave behind. Though much of the hearing took place behind closed doors due to the sensitive nature of national security information, the Duke said what he learned behind those closed doors has left him devastated. “People would be shocked by what’s being held back,” he remarked, suggesting that hidden elements of the case point to deeper issues within the system. Legal Battle Rooted in Broken Trust Harry’s appeal seeks to overturn the Home Office’s decision, arguing that the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) — the body that determines security for royals and high-profile individuals — failed to follow its own procedures and gave him “unjustified and inferior treatment.” He emphasized that the threat to his safety did not vanish the moment he stepped back from royal duties. Ravec ultimately determined in February 2020 that since the Sussexes intended to live abroad as private citizens, full-time police protection would no longer be appropriate. Instead, a “bespoke” approach was created, requiring the couple to give 30 days’ notice of any visit to the UK, with protection granted only on a case-by-case basis — a system Harry argues is inadequate and “plainly irrelevant” to security needs. The Duke pointed to individuals like former prime ministers, who continue to receive taxpayer-funded protection, as evidence of inconsistencies in the policy. “Security is not a privilege,” he has insisted, but a necessity due to his royal status, his military service, and the high-profile nature of his and Meghan’s public lives. Rift with the Royal Family The decision to remove Harry’s protection has been a cornerstone of his strained relationship with his family — particularly with his father, King Charles III. Harry maintains that the King has the power to intervene, especially since his private secretary, Sir Clive Alderton, sits on Ravec. Palace insiders, however, firmly deny that the monarch can influence judicial or government decisions of this kind. The roots of Harry’s discontent stretch back years, with growing frustration over his family's handling of Meghan’s integration into royal life and broader issues of institutional control. He believes the committee’s structure is archaic and was fixated more on international threats than on the domestic risks facing his young family — concerns amplified by the fate of his mother, Princess Diana. Harry was “furious” when Ravec’s final decision was handed down, reportedly demanding to know who was willing to “put my family in danger.” For the Duke, the withdrawal of police protection was more than a policy shift — it was a betrayal. A Cause Greater Than Media Battles Although Harry’s battles with the British press have been long and public — including lawsuits over phone hacking — he has described this security case as even more important. “This one always mattered the most,” he told The Telegraph. It touches the very core of his identity: a man born into an institution that defined his life from childhood and continues to shape his future, whether he wants it to or not. Throughout his childhood, Harry was constantly surrounded by police protection officers. “It was simply a part of life,” he said. That protection did not disappear when he left the palace. His public profile, military service, and royal lineage continue to make him and his family targets, he argues — and that’s something the UK government, in his view, has failed to properly acknowledge. Looking Forward: Peace or More Fallout? Though the appeal decision will not force Ravec to rewrite its policies, a favorable ruling might lead to reassessment. For now, Harry appears more committed than ever to his cause, saying he is “driven by exposing injustice” and won’t let this rest — not for himself, and potentially not for others in similar positions. Friends say that should the security matter be resolved in his favor, he would consider the issue closed — “swords down,” as one source put it. But the outcome is not in his hands. Even if he wins, there’s no guarantee that the policy will change. Regardless, the Duke remains determined to return to the UK for charitable work, even if it means operating under limited or inconsistent protection. His recent unannounced visit to war victims in Ukraine, just hours after his appeal hearing, is evidence of his continued commitment to humanitarian causes — even amid his legal battles. In the background, his relationship with his family remains tense. He hasn’t seen or spoken to his father or brother, the Prince of Wales, in months. King Charles’s ongoing battle with cancer has added an emotional weight to the situation, yet the lack of trust remains a barrier to reconciliation. And as for what comes next? While Harry hasn’t ruled out going public with his experience — via interviews, another book, or even a podcast — he’s aware of the further damage that could cause. Still, he insists that if he uncovers injustice, he cannot simply walk away. He’s made it clear: he won’t stop fighting until he feels vindicated. A palace source, reflecting the institution’s reluctance to comment, said simply: “These are matters of security and government policy and, as usual, it would be inappropriate to comment or intervene on either.” Based on a report by The Telegraph 2025-04-16 -
0
Tensions Flare in London as Pro-Palestinian Protesters Pelted with Eggs During Road Blockade
Tensions Flare in London as Pro-Palestinian Protesters Pelted with Eggs During Road Blockade Chaos unfolded in central London as pro-Palestinian protesters affiliated with the activist group Youth Demand were pelted with eggs while blocking major roads in the city. Armed with orange flares and bold banners reading “Free Palestine” and “Stop Arming Israel,” demonstrators disrupted traffic at key locations including Moorgate, Farringdon Road, and Fenchurch Street. The protest, which was described by witnesses as highly disruptive, drew strong reactions from the public — including what Youth Demand called a “shower of eggs” hurled at activists on Farringdon Road. The group reported that a truck also attempted to drive through the crowd, highlighting the intensity of confrontations between the protesters and the public. Despite the disruption caused by the demonstration, which blocked roads for around 20 minutes at each location, Youth Demand stated that no arrests were made. The Metropolitan Police have yet to issue an official statement in response to the incident. Youth Demand has quickly gained notoriety in recent weeks and is being referred to as “Just Stop Oil 2.0,” a nod to its close alignment with the soon-to-be-defunct environmental group known for high-profile protests. The new organisation is composed of various pro-Palestinian and environmentalist factions that have come together to continue the momentum of civil disobedience tactics aimed at drawing attention to both international and environmental crises. This protest followed a separate, provocative action earlier in the week targeting Foreign Secretary David Lammy. On Tuesday, two female Youth Demand activists staged a demonstration outside Lammy’s home in north London, laying child-sized body bags on his doorstep and hanging a sign reading “Lammy Stop Arming Genocide” over his hedge. The message was clear: the group accuses the UK government of being complicit in what it terms genocide, citing the ongoing conflict in Gaza. Youth Demand’s mission appears to extend beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The group also demands reparations from what it calls “the super rich and fossil fuel elite,” whom they hold responsible for inflicting environmental harm on vulnerable communities through fossil fuel consumption. They frame their activism as a moral obligation in the face of global injustice. Mia Hinds, an 18-year-old activist from Exeter who participated in Friday’s protest, articulated the motivation behind her involvement. “I am taking action with Youth Demand because I cannot sit by and watch two genocides happen on livestream: the genocide of the Palestinians, and the global genocide of the climate crisis,” she said. “As a young person, I feel so much rage about government complicity and I feel a duty to take to the streets.” While Youth Demand’s actions are clearly designed to provoke public and governmental attention, they have also sparked controversy. The UK Government’s current stance is that Israel’s actions in Gaza are at a clear risk of breaching international humanitarian law. However, campaigners like those in Youth Demand argue that mere acknowledgment is not enough and that urgent action is required to end both military support to Israel and environmental policies that perpetuate inequality and destruction. Based on a report by The Telegraph 2025-04-16
-
-
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