.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
Vote For Your All Time Most Favorite Food !
What is your most favorite food?
71 members have voted
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
Announcements
-
Topics
-
-
Latest posts...
-
37
Loudest most Jarring ring-tone for Android?: What is the loudest ringtone one can select?
Carry the phone around as if you were trying to sneak it into prison as contraband. Then you dont need a ringtone just put it on vibrate. Maybe a little uncomfortable at first but I suspect you'll come to enjoy it. If you still don't get the gist Google "Richard Gere gerbil stuffing" -
0
Labour’s Broken Promises and Two-Tier Governance Are Dividing Britain
In a blistering critique of the Labour government’s first hundred days, former Conservative MP Ben Wallace argues that Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his team have already begun to diverge from their campaign promises, creating a divisive, two-tier society that favors the public sector over the private. Instead of unity, Labour has reportedly fostered an atmosphere of division and uncertainty across the United Kingdom, undermining the very promises on which it was elected. According to Wallace, Labour's actions reveal its true priorities, which are not in line with the needs of the many, but rather tailored to benefit a select few. One of the central criticisms Wallace raises is Labour’s handling of tax promises. During the campaign, Labour assured voters it would not raise taxes on “working people.” However, Wallace contends that what Labour really meant was that it would avoid tax increases only on public sector employees. In practice, he argues, those who rely on taxpayer money for salaries and benefits enjoy increased protections and “record pay rises,” all financed by taxpayers in the private sector. Wallace argues that Labour is driving a wedge between those who spend taxpayer money—mainly in the public sector—and those who generate it in the private sector, including small business owners, farmers, and self-employed individuals. The disparities Wallace outlines are significant, particularly in terms of pension contributions. He points out that while the average public sector worker benefits from an employer pension contribution of approximately 24 to 30 percent, along with guaranteed job security, private sector workers receive only 4 to 8 percent in employer contributions with far less security. Wallace also highlights the burden of the national debt—over £1.5 trillion—and the public sector pension liability of more than £2.5 trillion, questioning why Labour has focused so heavily on wages without addressing the “overall package” of benefits public sector workers receive. This approach, he believes, shifts the financial burden onto those in the private sector, who often lack similar job protections or retirement benefits. Wallace also raises concerns about Labour’s transparency and integrity, emphasizing that “there isn’t a week that goes by without another election pledge being exposed as false.” He accuses Starmer and his team of hypocrisy, citing specific examples, including Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ campaign commitment not to raise national insurance and her “iron-clad” pledge to maintain fiscal discipline. He criticizes Labour’s habit of blaming unfulfilled promises on the argument that “things were worse than we thought,” suggesting this refrain is added to every government statement to obscure Labour’s failure to act on its election promises. According to Wallace, Labour’s campaign language was strategically “slippery and nebulous,” particularly in references to “working people” in its manifesto. He questions whether Labour, during its 14 years in opposition, was too occupied with political theater to prepare for governance, noting the frequency with which election pledges are exposed as misleading or outright false. He also accuses the government of leveraging envy and divisiveness, alienating private sector workers and citizens outside the public sector. Reflecting on his own experiences in office, Wallace underscores the importance of cross-party cooperation, something he says he was criticized for, yet firmly believes is essential for effective governance. While he once admired former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair’s “live and let live” philosophy, he laments that Starmer’s Labour seems to lack this unifying approach. Instead, Wallace accuses Labour of a politics driven by “envy and division,” governing in a way that favors a select few at the expense of the many. For Wallace, Labour’s policies represent a betrayal of the unity it promised, revealing a government that, in his view, does not truly serve the majority. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-11-02 -
0
The Economist Endorses Kamala Harris to Prevent a Second Trump Presidency
The Economist announced its endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris on Thursday, citing concerns about the “unacceptable risk” that a second term for former President Donald Trump would pose to both America and the world. The influential U.K.-based publication, which has a history of supporting Democratic candidates in U.S. elections since endorsing John Kerry in 2004, highlighted Trump’s potential impact on critical issues, including economic stability, the rule of law, and global peace. The editorial team at The Economist acknowledged Harris' limitations, describing her as “underwhelming” but ultimately deeming her shortcomings as “ordinary” and not disqualifying. They argue that Harris, despite her perceived flaws, represents a far safer choice for America and its role on the global stage than her Republican opponent. The editors underscore the gravity of the choice facing American voters, stating, “By making Mr. Trump leader of the free world, Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace.” The publication’s endorsement comes amid mounting concern among international economists and leaders over Trump’s policy proposals and governance style. Recently, nearly two dozen Nobel Prize-winning economists publicly expressed their support for Harris’ economic plans, describing them as “vastly superior” to Trump’s. In their statement, The Economist editorial team underscored the dangers they see in Trump’s potential return to office. “We cannot quantify the chance that something will go badly wrong: nobody can,” they explain, further cautioning voters against underestimating the risks. “But we believe voters who minimize it are deluding themselves.” As Harris continues to campaign, endorsements like The Economist’s add a dimension of international perspective to the U.S. election, particularly from an established, respected voice known for its global outlook. The publication's assessment reflects not only concerns about domestic issues but also a broader apprehension over how American leadership influences global stability and economic progress. Based on a report by Daily Beast 2024-11-02 -
0
Controversy as IMF Praises Reeves’s Budget Amid Concerns Over Growth and Living Standards
The International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) recent endorsement of Rachel Reeves’s budget has stirred controversy in the UK, with critics calling it a blow to working people struggling under rising taxes and slow wage growth. In a statement, the IMF praised the budget, particularly its aim to reduce the deficit through sustainable revenue measures and a plan to increase public investment, which they believe will spur growth and address crucial public service needs. "We support the envisaged reduction in the deficit over the medium term, including by sustainably raising revenue,” an IMF spokesperson remarked. The budget’s strategic increases in public investment were also applauded as necessary steps toward addressing urgent issues in public services. However, Robert Jenrick, a potential leader within the Conservative Party, expressed frustration with the IMF’s stance, describing it as a “slap in the face” to working citizens already stretched by rising taxes. Jenrick criticized the IMF's support of the budget's tax measures, especially given that the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) projects these tax increases will slightly hinder economic growth over the next decade. The OBR warns that living standards, particularly as measured by disposable income adjusted for inflation, will experience slower growth due to higher employer National Insurance contributions. Jenrick’s criticism went further, calling the budget "gloom-and-bust," a reference to fears it may trigger higher inflation and escalating national debt. “This gloom-and-bust Budget is predicted by the OBR to lower growth, increase inflation, and cause debt to balloon. For working people being crippled by higher taxes, the IMF’s comments welcoming this Budget will feel like a slap in the face,” Jenrick stated. The IMF’s support has not been universally shared among economists, either. Douglas McWilliams, deputy chairman of the Centre for Economics and Business Research, was openly skeptical of the IMF’s assessment, questioning both the reliability of the Fund’s forecasts and its understanding of policy. McWilliams argued, “The IMF does not have a great track record of either forecasting or understanding policy. If you keep getting your forecasts wrong, it calls into doubt virtually everything else you do.” He further explained that slowing growth, as projected by the OBR, is likely to reduce tax revenues, which could mean higher borrowing down the line. “So the numbers on which the IMF is commenting on are almost certainly wrong,” he added. Rachel Reeves, the architect of the budget, has maintained that her plans are designed as a “once in a parliament Budget.” Still, she has conceded that further tax hikes may be necessary in the future. Despite her assertion, concerns linger that Britain’s tax burden is on course to reach a historic high, potentially hitting 38.2% by the end of the decade. This would be a significant rise, marking an increase of 5.1 percentage points compared to pre-pandemic levels. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-11-02 -
0
Chicago Man Faces Terrorism and Hate Crime Charges in Shooting of Jewish Worshipper
A Chicago man has been charged with terrorism and hate crimes following a violent attack on a Jewish man who was walking to his synagogue. Police have reported that the suspect, 22-year-old Sidi Mohamed Abdallahi, is accused of not only shooting at the Jewish man but also firing multiple times at police officers and paramedics who responded to the scene. Terrifying moment captured on camera: In addition to terrorism and hate crime charges, Abdallahi faces six counts of attempted first-degree murder, seven counts of aggravated discharge of a firearm, and one count of aggravated battery with a firearm. His next court appearance is scheduled for November 7. Superintendent Snelling emphasized the importance of a thorough investigation to ensure that the charges were properly founded, denying that the charges were influenced by public or media pressure. "There must be sufficient evidence to support hate crimes and terrorism charges, and it was important we took our time to thoroughly investigate and confirm that this was indeed a crime of that nature,” Snelling said. He added, “We will never go out in public, make statements, allegations, accusations or attempt to bring charges without any proof of what we’re attempting to charge someone for.” Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson condemned the attack, describing it as an assault on the city’s values and calling hate toward the Jewish community “hideous” and “wicked.” Johnson spoke out strongly against antisemitism, stating, “This is not just an attack against our beloved community of Jewish people; this was an attack against us as a city.” He affirmed that no one in Chicago should live in fear because of their beliefs, religion, or identity. Johnson assured the Jewish community that “we’re using every aspect of government to ensure that they are safe.” Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx remarked on the rarity of terrorism charges and highlighted the gravity of Abdallahi’s actions. “This charge sends a clear message: Any acts that seek to destabilize our communities through fear and hatred will face the fullest measure of accountability under the law,” Foxx stated. She added that the crime was not simply meant to intimidate but aimed to “inflict terror.” The Midwest branch of The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement on X (formerly Twitter) on Thursday, acknowledging that the charges appropriately reflect the severity of the crime. “We must all turn our attention to supporting the victim and the West Rogers Park Jewish community as they recover from this heinous act,” the statement read. Abdallahi, a Mauritanian national, was first encountered by US Border Patrol in San Ysidro, California, on March 31, 2023, according to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Following his recent arrest, ICE “lodged an immigration detainer with Cook County Jail” on Tuesday, spokesperson Erin Bultje confirmed in a statement. ICE has not provided further information about his immigration status. Meanwhile, the victim of the shooting was discharged from the hospital on Saturday afternoon. Chicago's 50th Ward Alderman Debra Silverstein shared relief at his condition, expressing gratitude that he did not suffer life-threatening injuries. Superintendent Snelling also reflected on the long-term impact this event might have on the survivor, stating, “Thankfully, this victim did not suffer life-threatening injuries. We know that this is something that he’s going to have to deal with the rest of his days.” Based on a report by CNN 2024-11-02 -
0
Trump Sues CBS for $10 Billion Over Alleged Editing in Kamala Harris Interview
Former President Donald Trump has launched a $10 billion lawsuit against CBS News, claiming that the network deceptively edited an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris to sway public opinion and unfairly bolster her image. Trump’s legal team contends that the alleged editing was intended to mislead voters by presenting Harris’ responses on the sensitive issue of the Israel-Hamas conflict in a favorable light for the Democrats. Trump’s attorneys argue that these selective edits, which were not made publicly available in their uncut form, are part of a broader CBS strategy “to tip the scales in favor of the Democratic Party” through news distortion that was “intended to confuse, deceive, and mislead the public.” The suit also references Trump’s prior public call for CBS to release the unedited transcript, which he claims would reveal bias and selective framing. CBS responded to the lawsuit, refuting the claims as “completely without merit.” A spokesperson for the network stated that “60 MINUTES fairly presented the Interview to inform the viewing audience, and not to mislead it,” affirming the network’s commitment to responsible and unbiased journalism. CBS had previously acknowledged trimming Harris’ response, maintaining that it was a necessary edit to include more content within the program’s allotted time. “When we edit any interview, whether a politician, an athlete, or movie star, we strive to be clear, accurate, and on point,” the network had said on October 20. The legal filing calls for a jury trial and substantial damages, alleging that CBS’s actions violate Texas laws prohibiting deceptive acts in business practices. Trump, who has previously declined interview requests from “60 Minutes,” has labeled the alleged editing as potentially “the Biggest Scandal in Broadcast History.” CBS has stated it intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims. Based on a report by NYP 2024-11-02 -
0
Over 400 Allegations Emerge Against Mohamed al Fayed, Triggering Public Outcry
Following the release of a documentary detailing alleged abuses by Mohamed al Fayed, the former Harrods and Fulham FC owner, over 400 individuals have come forward with testimonies, according to the Justice for Harrods Survivors group. These allegations span various accusations, including rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, and the abuse of minors. Many individuals who have spoken out had connections to Harrods, Fulham FC, and other locations linked to Fayed's business empire. Among those who have come forward is Bianca Gascoigne, daughter of former footballer Paul Gascoigne, who alleges that Fayed groomed and assaulted her when she worked as a teenager at Harrods. In addition, Ronnie Gibbons, a former Fulham Women captain, claims she was twice assaulted by Fayed. The allegations build on 21 previous claims made by women to the Metropolitan Police between 2005 and 2023, demonstrating a long-standing pattern of accusations. Harrods, the luxury department store formerly owned by Fayed from 1985 to 2010, has publicly distanced itself from the allegations. The company stated it is “utterly appalled” by the claims and emphasized that it is a “very different organization to the one owned and controlled by Fayed.” Based on a report by Sky News 2024-11-02 -
0
New Zealand Judge to Decide on Volcano Tragedy Conviction Appeal of Whakaari Island Owners
A New Zealand judge is set to determine whether the owners of Whakaari, the volcanic island where a tragic eruption in 2019 took the lives of 22 tourists and guides, were unjustly convicted. The three-day appeal hearing concluded Thursday, and Justice Simon Moore informed the High Court in Auckland that he would reach a decision by the end of the year. The owners’ company, Whakaari Management, controlled by three brothers, was previously convicted for not ensuring visitor safety on the island. This March, the company was ordered to pay substantial fines and restitution to the victims, most of whom were U.S. and Australian tourists who had traveled to the island by cruise ship. Following the conviction, Whakaari Management quickly appealed, with the case’s primary question being whether the company had a legal responsibility for visitor safety under New Zealand’s workplace health and safety laws. The case has spurred a debate on whether Whakaari Management should have been held accountable as an authority responsible for workplace safety on the island, as argued by New Zealand’s workplace regulator. Lawyers representing the regulator stated that Whakaari Management’s entire business model revolved around granting access to a naturally hazardous location, charging permit fees to tourists and scientific groups alike. As the prosecutor Kirsty McDonald argued in court, the company “had a duty to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that the workplace it was granting access to was without risks to the health and safety of any person.” Prosecutors contended that the company should have carried out risk assessments to determine whether it was even safe for tourists to be allowed on the island. However, attorneys for Whakaari Management have countered that the company acted only as a landlord, merely granting access to Whakaari, rather than managing or supervising the tours themselves. Rachael Reed, a lawyer representing the company, argued, “the company did not run, direct or supervise the tours,” maintaining that responsibility for visitor safety lay with the tour operators, not with Whakaari Management. The legal team further emphasized that the conviction, if upheld, could have significant implications on how other landowners allow public access to natural sites across New Zealand. They argued that a precedent set by this case could discourage landowners from allowing visitors to areas with natural hazards, impacting the nation’s adventure tourism industry. Before the 2019 eruption, Whakaari—also known as White Island—was a favored tourist destination, reachable by boat or helicopter from the Bay of Plenty on New Zealand’s North Island. On the fateful December day, 47 individuals, including tourists and tour guides, were present on the island when superheated steam erupted from the volcano. Some visitors were killed instantly, while others sustained severe burns. Survivors recounted in court that they had been unaware of the risks posed by the active volcano and were not provided with any protective equipment. Many were wearing clothing that worsened the impact of the burns they suffered. Judge Evangelos Thomas, who initially ruled on the case, noted in his judgment that Whakaari Management failed to undertake a necessary risk assessment, despite a prior eruption on the island three years earlier. He ruled that the company should have sought expert guidance to evaluate the dangers and, based on that advice, either restricted public access entirely or implemented rigorous safety controls. In 2023, New Zealand’s workplace safety regulator charged 13 entities and individuals, including Whakaari Management, for safety lapses related to the eruption. Among these were helicopter and boat tour operators, a scenic flight operator, and the scientific agency GNS Science. Several of the parties accepted their charges, while others, including Whakaari Management, contested them. Some charges were subsequently dropped. The appeal’s outcome is eagerly awaited, with Justice Moore reserving his decision, yet refraining from committing to a specific date. The result could have profound effects on the responsibilities of companies offering access to natural attractions, potentially reshaping the regulatory landscape for adventure tourism in New Zealand. Original Court case Conviction Based on a report by AP 2024-11-02
-
-
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