-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
-
4
-
5
-
-
-
Latest posts...
-
0
UK Cambridge University Faces Backlash discriminating against white job seekers
The University of Cambridge is facing allegations of discriminatory hiring practices against white applicants following the resurfacing of internal guidance that promotes increased representation of underrepresented groups in recruitment. Critics argue that the framework, while intended to foster inclusion, may cross a line into unfair treatment of candidates based on race or gender. The controversy centers on the university’s “diverse recruitment framework,” a document that advises departments to “try to ensure” at least one candidate from an underrepresented group is invited to interview for each job vacancy. If the candidate longlist is deemed insufficiently diverse—such as being composed entirely of white or male applicants—departments are encouraged to consider re-advertising the position. The framework further states that interview panels should be “diverse both in gender and race” and made up of individuals who have completed training in equality, diversity, inclusion (EDI), and unconscious bias. This advice, in place since 2019, is echoed word for word in hiring instructions provided to academic staff. Critics have voiced concerns that the guidance may amount to discrimination against white or male applicants. Edward Skidelsky, a philosophy lecturer at the University of Exeter and director of the Committee for Academic Freedom, stated, “This is one of the worst cases we have come across of EDI interference in what should be a purely academic process. Favouritism towards women and non-whites demeans them, and encourages the very prejudices it is intended to overcome.” Documents obtained by The Telegraph suggest that the policy discourages panels composed entirely of “white males” or individuals with a “particular career track record.” It also instructs recruiters to reflect on their own biases and the university’s EDI commitments before and after interviews. A source familiar with the university’s EDI committee expressed serious concerns, stating, “I joined the committee, wanting to see what was actually going on and maybe prevent things from going off the rails. When I got there, I discovered it was already off the rails.” The same source added, “If you criticise it, you’re just seen as a bad person,” and claimed to have witnessed cases where white men were discouraged from applying due to their race or gender. The University of Cambridge has strongly denied these allegations. A spokesperson said, “Every candidate is recruited based on merit. We have no quotas for staff recruitment and strongly refute claims of discriminating against white and male job applicants. Our ‘diverse recruitment framework’ is a guidance document aimed at ensuring that all suitably qualified candidates are encouraged to apply for roles at Cambridge – not to dictate the outcome of recruitment. Use of this guidance, including training recommendations, is not mandated in our recruitment policy.” Despite this defense, concerns persist within the academic community. Professor David Abulafia, professor emeritus of Mediterranean history at Cambridge, called the guidance “arrant nonsense” and warned, “The sheer fanaticism of the bureaucracy at Cambridge and the craven submission of academics to their arrant nonsense spells the end of a once great university.” Professor John Marenbon, a philosopher and fellow of Trinity College, added, “Academic appointments should be made solely on the basis of academic merit. Academics who do otherwise betray their calling.” Cambridge’s EDI action plan sets goals to increase applications from ethnic minority candidates, aiming for at least 8 percent in academic and research roles, and 30 percent for professional services posts. Although recruitment is managed at the departmental level, it remains governed by a university-wide policy framework. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-06-16 -
0
UK The Vaccine Whisperer: How One Doctor Is Rebuilding Trust in Immunisation
The Vaccine Whisperer: How One Doctor Is Rebuilding Trust in Immunisation Several times a week, Professor Elizabeth Whittaker invites hesitant parents into her clinic and begins what she calls a gentle, open conversation about vaccinating their children. “Every vaccine’s a win,” she says, “The most important thing is to be kind and to listen. I will often say, ‘I hear your child’s not vaccinated. Do you want to tell me about it?’” As a leading paediatric infectious disease and immunology expert and the research director for West London Children’s Healthcare, Whittaker is at the forefront of the UK’s battle against declining childhood vaccination rates. The stakes are high. Coverage for critical childhood vaccines like the six-in-one jab has fallen from 89% in 2014 to 83%, while MMR uptake is down from 88% to 84%. Measles, she warns, is extraordinarily contagious: “It knocks Covid out of the water. If you put ten unvaccinated people in a room with one infected person, nine of them will get measles.” Reframing risk is key. “However bad any side-effects of the vaccine are, the side-effects of the disease are much worse. People will say they had the Covid vaccine and then caught Covid and I will say, ‘Yes but you didn’t end up in intensive care or die, so it worked.’” Whittaker sees parents often arrive defensive, feeling judged before the conversation even begins. “There’s a huge amount of uncertainty and anxiety that whatever they do, they’re wrong,” she explains. Online misinformation and community-specific fears make her job harder. She recalls parents whose children were hospitalised with measles or whooping cough yet still refused vaccination due to what they’d heard in their communities. “My sister still thinks that her child is autistic because they had the vaccine. And so I don’t want to risk that for my child,” one parent told her, referencing the widely debunked claims of Andrew Wakefield. Even families newly arrived in the UK are not immune. One Somali family, previously living in Norway where MMR uptake exceeds 95%, stopped vaccinating their children after moving to London and engaging with local community fears about autism. Others come to her well-prepared for a debate, citing questionable websites. Whittaker challenges them respectfully: “You don’t know the credentials of the people who’ve put this stuff on the internet. Can I show you evidence-based websites?” Concerns also include the number of early childhood vaccines. “Then I talk about the fact that the minute we are born we are exposed to gazillions of bugs everywhere. Our immune system is designed to look at them and manage them.” On Covid-19 vaccines, she notes: “Normally vaccine development takes 20 years, but all the normal stages of vaccine research were done, they just did them in parallel on an accelerated timeline.” In her clinic at St Mary’s Hospital in Westminster — where MMR coverage is just 64.3% — she sees the consequences of low vaccination rates. Measles cases that require intensive care, the return of meningococcal disease, and whooping cough in newborns. “In newborn babies, it’s awful. They get this massive white cell count, their lungs get clogged. They get clogging of the blood vessels in their brain and their hearts give up.” Whittaker, who has worked across continents, sees that low uptake is not limited to any one group. “Orthodox Jewish communities have really poor uptake. Romanian communities have really poor uptake, other black and ethnic minorities have poor uptake. And they all have different reasons.” She emphasises that mandatory vaccination isn’t the answer. “What works is education and communication.” She has seen the worst of these diseases. “We had two or three children a week with meningococcal disease. What kills them is the fact that they go into massive sepsis and they go purple and they lose limbs. So I have a whole cohort of children who I still follow up who lost fingers or thumbs.” Many younger doctors have never seen these cases. “That is vaccination. Vaccines have been the single most important thing we have done in health in the last 30 years.” Citing The Lancet, she notes over 154 million deaths have been prevented globally since 1974 through vaccination — including 146 million children. “They have worked really well here in the UK,” Whittaker says. “We don’t want to lose that advantage.” Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-06-16 -
0
USA Trump's Crypto Windfall: President Reports $57 Million in Earnings from Digital Token
Trump's Crypto Windfall: Former President Reports $57 Million in Earnings from Digital Token Sales Donald Trump earned an estimated $57 million in 2024 from the sale of digital tokens through his stake in the crypto firm World Liberty Financial, marking a lucrative early return from his expanding involvement in the digital asset space. This financial detail was included in the president's annual disclosure filed with the Office of Government Ethics, which also highlighted Trump’s extensive wealth and diversified revenue streams. A Wall Street Journal analysis of the disclosure revealed Trump’s assets to be worth approximately $1.7 billion, though this figure may be on the conservative side, as the Journal calculated totals using the low end of the valuation ranges provided in the report. Trump’s earnings came from a wide variety of sources including real estate, licensing deals, and technology investments. However, it’s his burgeoning crypto portfolio that is generating the most attention. World Liberty Financial, backed by the Trump family, launched in September and has quickly broadened its presence across the crypto landscape. In the early months of 2025, the company introduced a dollar-pegged stablecoin, designed to offer a 1:1 exchange with fiat currency, making it suitable for both digital transactions and crypto investments. The Trump family’s digital ventures didn’t stop there. In March, they unveiled American Bitcoin, a bitcoin-mining company that has since raised over $2 billion in capital. Additional initiatives include the launch of memecoins and a high-profile dinner hosted by Trump for the top 220 holders of the $TRUMP token, illustrating the president’s growing influence within the crypto community. Critics have raised concerns that Trump’s deepening business activities, particularly in crypto, could represent conflicts of interest, especially since he has simultaneously advocated for looser regulatory oversight of the sector. “President Trump, Vice President Vance, and senior White House staff have completed required ethics briefings and financial reporting obligations,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. “The Trump Administration is committed to transparency and accessibility for the American people.” Beyond his digital ventures, Trump also collected around $1.2 million in licensing fees from NFT INT LLC, the company responsible for marketing his line of digital trading cards. His more conventional business endeavors also performed strongly. Mar-a-Lago, his Florida resort, brought in about $50 million, while Trump Endeavor 12, a Miami-based golf and resort business, earned $110 million. He also gained $1.3 million in royalties from the sale of the “God Bless the USA Bible,” branded with his name and promoted by country singer Lee Greenwood. Other branded merchandise—including Trump-themed sneakers, fragrances, watches, and guitars—also added significantly to his income. Trump earned $2.5 million from footwear and colognes, $2.8 million from watch sales, and another $1 million from guitars. These products are not produced by the Trump Organization itself but through licensing arrangements with third-party manufacturers. In terms of traditional investments, Trump held stakes in high-profile firms such as Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Broadcom, and Exxon Mobil. His portfolio also included government securities such as U.S. Treasurys and municipal bonds. Vice President JD Vance, a vocal supporter of the crypto sector, also disclosed holdings between $250,001 and $500,000 in bitcoin and earned up to $100,000 in royalties from his best-selling memoir Hillbilly Elegy. The financial filings underline how Trump, now a central figure in American politics and finance, continues to shape markets and public policy through both his business acumen and his political influence. Adapted by ASEAN Now from WSJ 2025-06-16 -
0
USA Bribes and Betrayal: USAID Official at Center of $550M Corruption Scandal
Bribes and Betrayal: USAID Official at Center of $550M Corruption Scandal A senior official at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has pleaded guilty to accepting over $1 million in bribes in exchange for steering lucrative federal contracts, marking one of the largest bribery scandals in the agency’s history. The scheme, valued at $550 million, involved three businessmen and spanned nearly a decade, casting a dark shadow over an institution meant to serve as a beacon of international goodwill. Roderick Watson, 57, of Maryland, admitted to charges of bribery of a public official and now faces up to 15 years in prison. He is scheduled for sentencing in October. Watson exploited his trusted position at USAID to channel fourteen prime federal contracts to two consulting firms—Apprio and Vistant—in return for an array of personal benefits. According to the Department of Justice, Watson’s partners in the scheme included Walter Barnes, the owner of Vistant; Darryl Britt, the owner of Apprio; and Paul Young, the president of a subcontractor used by both firms. Young served as an intermediary to obscure the bribes being funneled to Watson. All three businessmen pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery of a public official, with Barnes also admitting to securities fraud. Each man faces up to five years in prison. The scheme began in 2013, when Watson agreed to help Britt’s company, Apprio, secure federal contracts through the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) program for disadvantaged businesses. When Apprio later graduated from the program, Watson pivoted and started steering contracts toward Vistant, which was then acting as a subcontractor to Apprio. Between 2018 and 2022, the fraudulent arrangement continued in full force. In exchange for his influence, Watson received cash payments, expensive electronics, luxury sports tickets, a lavish country club wedding, downpayments on two homes, jobs for family members, and even cell phones. To mask the illicit transactions, the conspirators used shell companies, fake invoices, and falsified payroll records. Matthew Galeotti, head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, condemned the fraud. “The defendants sought to enrich themselves at the expense of American taxpayers through bribery and fraud,” he said in a statement. “Their scheme violated the public trust by corrupting the federal government’s procurement process.” Galeotti added, “Anybody who cares about good and effective government should be concerned about the waste, fraud, and abuse in government agencies, including USAID.” The scandal also reignited political debate over the integrity of USAID. Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, who led the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), made dismantling the agency one of his key priorities. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump doubled down on that sentiment, declaring from the Oval Office, “USAID’s spending was mostly corrupt or ridiculous. The whole thing is a fraud.” Musk, never one to mince words, previously claimed the agency was being run like a “criminal organization” by a “viper’s nest of radical left Marxists who hate America.” Under DOGE’s leadership, the department eliminated over $8 billion in funding and terminated nearly all USAID employees and contractors in what it described as a sweeping anti-corruption initiative. While the full consequences of the scandal are still unfolding, the case has already intensified scrutiny of federal contracting processes and the oversight—or lack thereof—at USAID. As the justice system prepares to sentence those involved, the fallout serves as a stark warning of how deeply corruption can penetrate the very institutions meant to promote transparency and global development. Adapted by ASEAN Now from NYP 2025-06-16 -
0
Middle East Cracks Within: Iran’s Supreme Leader Faces Mounting Pressure Amid Crisis
Cracks Within: Iran’s Supreme Leader Faces Mounting Pressure Amid Crisis Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is confronting an unprecedented wave of criticism from within his own inner circle as the fallout from Israel’s recent military strikes exposes deep divisions in Tehran’s leadership. The attacks, which targeted key figures in Iran’s nuclear program and military hierarchy, have not only inflicted material damage but also shaken the foundations of Iran’s political elite. On Friday, Israel launched a series of airstrikes that eliminated top military commanders and nuclear scientists while inflicting serious damage on strategic facilities. Although Tehran retaliated with a barrage of missiles, most were intercepted, highlighting what many within Iran are calling a humiliating failure of its defense capabilities. In the aftermath, hardliners have dominated the public narrative, vowing revenge. Iran’s state-owned Fars News Agency, closely tied to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, quoted a senior military official declaring, “The war will spread to all parts of Israel and American bases in the region in the coming days, and the aggressors will be targeted with a decisive and widespread response.” To stifle public dissent, Iran’s judiciary issued a stern warning. Chief judge cleric Mohseni Ejeie announced that citizens who expressed support for Israel’s strikes on social media could face up to six years in prison. Still, cracks are beginning to show. Internal frustrations have begun to surface, some in the form of leaked private messages shared with The New York Times. One official texted, “Where is our air defence?” Another added, “How can Israel come and attack anything it wants, kill our top commanders, and we are incapable of stopping it?” Tehran last night, there was a party where regime opponents celebrated the Israeli attack. The people of Iran are perhaps the only people in the world who are happy about an attack on their country.. Hamid Hosseini, a senior figure in Iran’s Chamber of Commerce, echoed these concerns. “Israel’s attack completely caught the leadership by surprise, especially the killing of the top military figures and nuclear scientists,” he said. “It also exposed our lack of proper air defence and their ability to bombard our critical sites and military bases with no resistance.” Hosseini also questioned the extent of Israel’s infiltration into Iran’s security infrastructure, suggesting a troubling vulnerability within Tehran’s most secure institutions. Despite Supreme Leader Khamenei’s reported order to launch 1,000 missiles in retaliation, Iran managed to fire only about 200. This failure is particularly damning given reports that Tehran had been preparing a response for over a week. The disparity has only intensified scrutiny over the regime’s preparedness and effectiveness. The divide within Iran’s leadership is not new. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the struggle between moderates advocating engagement with the West and hardliners favoring confrontation has been a defining feature. While Khamenei remains the figurehead of the hardline establishment, recently elected President Masoud Pezeshkian represents a more conciliatory voice. Pezeshkian has taken a measured tone, calling for national unity and stating, “Today, more than ever, the Iranian nation needs togetherness, trust, empathy, unity and consensus.” Pezeshkian’s victory over hardliner Saeed Jalili was widely seen as a sign of public support for a less aggressive foreign policy and a desire to ease the economic sanctions crippling the country. Throughout his campaign, the 71-year-old heart surgeon and MP was openly critical of the morality police and called for an end to Iran’s isolation. He also supported reengaging in negotiations with the West over Iran’s nuclear program, seeking to exchange curbs on enrichment for economic relief. However, the President’s moderate stance faces fierce institutional resistance. The recent ousting of Mohammad Javad Zarif, former foreign minister and Pezeshkian ally, underscored the regime’s internal rift. Zarif was reportedly pushed out for opposing deeper ties with Russia, viewing that alignment as a hindrance to diplomacy with the West. As Israel continues its strikes with apparent impunity, the pressure on Iran’s hardliners to justify their failures will only intensify. While Tehran's leadership has so far managed to suppress open rebellion, the regime’s faltering grip on both its military strategy and public confidence could, in time, lead to a far greater unraveling. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-06-16 -
0
UK Wes Streeting’s NHS Gamble: Labour’s Make-or-Break Moment
Wes Streeting’s NHS Gamble: Labour’s Make-or-Break Moment As the weight of economic stagnation bears down on Britain, with average real-term wages projected to fall below even Tony Blair-era levels by the next election, the Labour government faces a daunting test. Amid growing public dissatisfaction and a swelling appetite for populist alternatives, Sir Keir Starmer’s promise of “change” rests precariously on the shoulders of one man: Health Secretary Wes Streeting. Streeting, in a week marked by mounting challenges, hinted at a truth too stark for most to admit. The UK faces not only a crisis in living standards but also a crisis in public services, particularly in the NHS — a system increasingly seen as bloated, inefficient and broken. In a speech this week, Streeting positioned himself as the reluctant surgeon, ready to perform radical surgery on the ailing institution. His forthcoming ten-year NHS strategy promises a dramatic departure from the status quo, echoing the market-driven reforms of the Blair years. Far from seeking to pour in more money — the health service already receives funding that surpasses the GDP of Portugal — Streeting is targeting the productivity crisis at its core. Despite a 17 per cent staffing increase since the pandemic, output is falling: fewer surgeries, appointments and emergency treatments are being delivered per doctor. As Streeting bluntly declared on day one in office, “the NHS is broken.” His vision is ambitious: transform the NHS into a “Neighbourhood Health Service” focused on prevention, early intervention and community-based care. High-street providers like Boots and Specsavers would be brought into the fold, easing the burden on GPs and hospitals. Patients would gain more choice, with the freedom to select private clinics for quicker treatment, while hospitals that deliver results could reinvest their surpluses into innovations like surgical robotics. Poorly performing hospital trusts could be merged, with failing managers shown the door. Ironically, this internal market model was dismantled by successive Tory governments, who punished well-run hospitals by confiscating profits while bailing out inefficient ones. Instead of rewarding innovation, the system became bogged down by regulators like NHS England and the Care Quality Commission. “Doctors worry more about regulators than patients,” Streeting has said, and unlike many would-be reformers, he has already acted on that concern. His most striking move so far has been the abolition of NHS England itself, a bureaucratic behemoth employing 15,000 people. Under the guidance of Jim Mackey — a figure some liken to Javier Milei in his zeal for slashing costs — trusts have been ordered to halve care board expenditures within six months. In Derbyshire, over 500 jobs are under review; in North West Anglia, a 10 per cent hospital cost cut is underway. Some hospital managers are resisting, warning of cuts to operations and mental health services, but Streeting is holding firm. And remarkably, there is little political opposition — not even from Labour’s usually vocal backbenchers. Yet Streeting’s position is far from secure. He holds a precarious 528-vote majority in Ilford North, and his boldness may well come from having little to lose. Still, the stakes are massive. Crumbling facilities like North Manchester General Hospital, where mould festers in maternity clinics and ceilings collapse in operating theatres, cry out for investment. Will that have to wait for cost efficiencies? Could co-financing, perhaps through employer tax breaks for staff wellness initiatives, be part of the answer? Streeting is betting that better management and smart financial incentives can produce visible results quickly. One key piece of that puzzle is the NHS App, which could soon allow patients to book GP appointments and elective surgeries as easily as a restaurant reservation. If successful, it would symbolise a shift from outdated bureaucracy to patient-centred choice. With Starmer’s broader agenda floundering amid grim economic forecasts, overstretched prisons and eroding school standards, Streeting’s NHS reforms may be Labour’s last shot at showing tangible progress. “£230 billion is enough for a superb NHS — if it’s properly organised,” Streeting insists. And that belief is now carrying the hopes not just of healthcare reform, but of the entire Labour project. If he succeeds, it may mark the revival of both. If he fails, it could be the end of the road — for the NHS model and for Starmer’s government. There is no middle path left. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-06-16
-
-
Popular in The Pub
Recommended Posts