-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
-
-
Latest posts...
-
0
Crime Singer Murders Woman in Grocery Store in Frenzied Knife Attack
Picture courtesy of Workpoint. A 43-year-old woman was brutally stabbed to death in a small grocery store in Wang Thong district, Phitsanulok, after being attacked by a man she was reportedly in a relationship with. The victim suffered over 30 stab wounds and died at the scene. Police from Wang Thong Police Station responded to the emergency call near Phinphonrats School, where they found the lifeless body of Ms. Ratchada, 43, inside her store. The suspect, Mr. Wutthipong, 50, a singer at a well-known restaurant in central Phitsanulok, was arrested at the scene after also attempting to attack bystanders who had rushed to help. Initial investigations revealed that Mr. Wutthipong was in a romantic relationship with the victim. However, he claimed to have recently discovered that she was already married. He also stated that he had just learned he was suffering from both HIV and cancer, which caused him significant emotional distress and triggered the violent outburst. On the day of the murder, the suspect reportedly rode his motorcycle from his residence in Tha Takhian to the grocery store run by the victim. Upon arrival, he launched a vicious knife attack, stabbing her 31 times. A neighbour, Mr. Juti, 55, who lives next to the shop, said he heard loud shouting and rushed out to witness the horrifying scene. Police have charged Mr. Wutthipong with murder and are continuing their investigation, gathering additional witness statements and forensic evidence. Adapted by Asean Now from Workpoint 2025-06-11 -
0
Government U-turn on Winter Fuel Payments, Expands Eligibility for Pensioners
Government Reverses Course on Winter Fuel Payments, Expands Eligibility for Pensioners In a significant policy shift, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has announced that more than three-quarters of pensioners in England and Wales will now qualify for the winter fuel payment, following widespread criticism and political pressure. The reversal means that nine million pensioners earning £35,000 or less annually will be eligible for the payment, which is worth up to £300 and intended to help cover energy costs during the winter months. Previously, the payment was restricted to those receiving pension credit, a limitation that was widely blamed for Labour's disappointing performance in recent local elections. Acknowledging the public backlash, Reeves stated, "We have listened to people's concerns." The Chancellor emphasized that the government’s improved fiscal management made the expansion possible, saying, "Because of changes we've made and the stability we've brought back to the economy, we are able to increase that amount." Despite the government’s assertion that the new income threshold ensures "no lower or middle-income pensioners will miss out," critics have not held back. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch derided the move as a "humiliating U-turn," highlighting the political pressure that led to the change. The move comes just days before Reeves is set to unveil the government’s much-anticipated Spending Review on Wednesday. That review will set departmental budgets for the next three years and outline investment plans through to the end of the decade. Although the government signalled its intention last month to widen eligibility for the winter fuel payment, the absence of concrete details led to mounting speculation and criticism. This ambiguity threatened to overshadow the upcoming Spending Review, which Reeves has said will focus on fiscal discipline and targeted investment. During a recent speech in Manchester where Reeves promoted a £15.6 billion funding package for local transport infrastructure, she was repeatedly pressed for clarification on the winter fuel policy. Though she confirmed changes would be in place for this winter, no specifics were offered at the time. Even as recently as Sunday, Science Secretary Peter Kyle was unable to provide further details, telling Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips that the full eligibility criteria would be revealed "in the run up to the autumn." While charities have largely welcomed the change in policy, they argue it falls short of what's truly needed. Simon Francis, coordinator of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, praised Reeves for reversing the original decision, saying she had "seen sense." However, he also urged the government to "focus on how it supports all households in fuel poverty," not just pensioners. One major question remains unanswered: how will the expanded benefit be funded? The financial implications of the new eligibility threshold are expected to be addressed in the autumn budget. Until then, concerns about funding and the overall strategy to combat fuel poverty will likely persist. With the Spending Review looming, Whitehall insiders have warned that the budgeting process could become contentious. As one official reportedly put it, they expect the review to be "ugly." Nonetheless, the government hopes the revised winter fuel policy will ease financial pressures for millions of older Britons while shoring up its own political standing ahead of a challenging fiscal season. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-06-11 -
0
Greta Thunberg and the Cult of the Omnicause: When Activism Becomes Performance
Greta Thunberg and the Cult of the Omnicause: When Activism Becomes Performance Greta Thunberg’s recent foray into the Gaza crisis has raised eyebrows for what many see as a shallow, symbolic gesture rather than a meaningful act of humanitarian aid. Her high-profile sea journey to deliver assistance to Gaza was less a mission of substance and more a carefully orchestrated media performance. Critics argue that, like many of her peers in the activist community, Thunberg is more driven by optics than outcomes. Her latest move seems emblematic of a broader trend among younger activists who hop from cause to cause, capturing moments for social media while glossing over the complexity of the issues they claim to champion. Thunberg’s voyage into a war zone may have been ill-conceived from the start. Symbolism clearly trumped strategy. The stark irony, as noted by critics, is that Thunberg—known for her outspoken views, uncovered legs, and freedom to speak—would not be granted such liberties by Hamas, the very regime controlling Gaza. But such contradictions seem secondary to the goal of seizing the moral high ground. Activists like Thunberg seek to claim all of it, often with muddled logic. Sailing into an active war zone as a symbolic protest is not just naive—it borders on delusional. This mission, labeled by Thunberg and her team as an "aid boat," ultimately served more as a prop in a larger narrative. Detainment by Israeli forces, which she described as “kidnapping,” was seemingly anticipated. She even had a pre-recorded video ready in case of such an encounter. However, reality undercut her messaging: the viral image of Thunberg smiling while receiving a pastrami sandwich from an Israeli soldier stood in stark contrast to the devastating footage of real hostages being taken by Hamas on October 7—girls with bloodied clothing, injured bodies, terrified civilians. Reports suggest the Israeli Defense Forces intended to show Thunberg and her crew graphic footage from that day, underscoring the grim disparity between her symbolic activism and the brutal reality of the conflict. Reports are she and the other activists refused to watch it, their false equivalence of claiming to be kidnapped would not then be quite so appropriate. Thunberg’s journey from climate protester to political generalist reveals much about the evolution of youth activism in the digital age. Her early speeches in national parliaments and appearances at summits like Davos electrified audiences and gave her a powerful symbolic role. But over time, that symbolism has been stretched thin, applied to cause after cause in a seemingly random sequence. What once felt urgent and authentic now risks feeling performative. The Left, as observed by some, has morphed into a loose coalition of disparate movements—climate activism, trans rights, Palestinian solidarity—stitched together into what has been dubbed the "omnicause." The term emerged in 2023 to describe a form of activism that sacrifices focus for breadth. Whether it's campaigning for animal rights or prison abolition, the omnicause dilutes the individual weight of each issue. Specifics are lost in favor of easy-to-share, emotionally charged images that trend well but often lack nuance or context. Younger protest groups like Just Stop Oil—now rebranded as Youth Demand—have pivoted away from headline-grabbing tactics like soup-throwing to embrace broader causes like Gaza, all while remaining largely silent on other global crises such as the famine in Yemen or violence in Sudan. There may be valid links between climate instability and armed conflict, as some scholars suggest in the case of Syria, but the omnicause rarely accommodates such depth. Thunberg’s latest stunt felt particularly hollow when footage surfaced of her fellow protesters throwing their expensive smartphones into the sea as Israeli forces approached. So much for environmental stewardship. This is what happens when protest becomes performance: logic and consistency are sidelined in favor of dramatic imagery. The omnicause thrives not on clarity but on virality, closer to theatre than thoughtful activism. While this voyage may be over for Thunberg, there’s little doubt she’ll soon be aboard the next trending movement that comes her way. Related Topics: Greta Thunberg’s Gaza Aid Voyage Sparks Controversy After Senator’s Mocking Remark Undercover with Youth Demand: A New Era of Radical Protest and Political Ambitions Just Stop Oil Declares Victory and Ends Direct Action Campaign in London Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-06-11 -
0
Kennedy Ousts CDC Advisory Panel in Controversial Shakeup
Vaccine Policy in Turmoil: Kennedy Ousts CDC Advisory Panel in Controversial Shakeup In a move that has stunned the public health community, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced the removal of all 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) independent vaccine advisory committee. The decision, revealed Monday through an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, is being widely criticized as a politically motivated attempt to undermine scientific consensus and vaccine policy in the United States. Kennedy, a longtime figure in the anti-vaccine movement, claimed the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) was compromised. “The committee has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine,” he wrote. The ACIP, composed of leading medical and public health experts, advises the CDC on who should receive specific vaccines and helps determine immunization schedules. Members undergo rigorous vetting and are required to disclose any conflicts of interest, recusing themselves from decisions where appropriate. Kennedy’s sweeping dismissal of the committee has provoked sharp backlash from experts who see the move as an ideological purge rather than a reform. “This is manufactured chaos,” said Dr. Sean O’Leary of the American Academy of Pediatrics. He called Kennedy’s allegations “deeply insulting to the many scientists who contribute countless hours to the process,” insisting that the committee “is, in fact, a model for the rest of the world.” Dr. Mandy Cohen, former CDC director, warned that Kennedy’s unprecedented action “spreads confusion and casts doubt on transparent public health processes that protect Americans.” Echoing that sentiment, Dr. Richard Besser, former acting CDC director and president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said the decision “should erase any remaining doubt that he intends to impose his personal anti-vaccine agenda on the American people.” Besser cautioned that the dismantling of ACIP would “make it far more difficult for pediatricians and other providers to care for their patients,” who rely on ACIP’s guidance for vaccine recommendations. Kennedy has not disclosed who will replace the dismissed members or when the positions will be filled. A Health and Human Services release confirmed the committee's next meeting is scheduled for June 25 to 27, but offered no further details. In his editorial, Kennedy justified the timing by noting that many members were appointed to four-year terms and would have remained in place until 2028. “Without removing the current members, the current Trump administration would not have been able to appoint a majority of new members until 2028,” he wrote. Some Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, expressed concern over the abrupt overhaul. Cassidy noted that Kennedy had promised during confirmation hearings to maintain ACIP “without changes.” He stated Monday on X that he will “continue to talk with Kennedy to ensure ACIP is not filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion.” The policy shift comes amid a rise in vaccine-preventable illnesses across the country, including measles and whooping cough. Since last fall, 241 mostly unvaccinated children have died from flu-related complications — the highest number for a non-pandemic year since 2004. Experts fear the removal of ACIP may further erode public trust in vaccination guidance. “To claim that you are doing this to restore faith in CDC is a special form of gaslighting,” said one CDC employee, speaking anonymously for fear of retaliation. An ACIP member, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the decision could render the CDC irrelevant on vaccine policy. “The clear implication is that CDC will no longer be credible in the space of vaccination,” they said. “Insurers and other funding agencies will have to turn to the professional associations for recommendations about vaccines.” Public health scholars argue that Kennedy’s real aim is to replace experienced scientists with individuals more aligned with the Trump administration’s agenda. Matt Motta, a health policy professor at Boston University, said the firings represent “an unequivocally clear attempt to break the promise” Kennedy made not to restrict vaccine access. “What I think Kennedy is doing here is attempting to replace career civil servants with scientific expertise with those who may be more amenable to his and the Trump administration’s agenda,” he said. As vaccine confidence falters and infectious disease threats rise, Kennedy’s reshaping of national vaccine policy is drawing intense scrutiny — and raising profound questions about the future of public health governance in America. Adapted by ASEAN Now from NBC News 2025-06-11 -
0
Fragile Progress: US-China Trade Talks Enter Second Day in London
Fragile Progress: US-China Trade Talks Enter Second Day in London Trade negotiations between the United States and China extended into a second day as officials from both economic powerhouses convened in London, attempting to stabilize a fragile truce in their long-running trade conflict. The meetings, taking place at the historic Lancaster House under the auspices of the UK Foreign Office, followed a previous round of talks held in Geneva last month. Heading the Chinese delegation once again was Vice Premier He Lifeng, supported by Commerce Minister Wang Wentao and China International Trade Representative Li Chenggang. The United States was represented by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. “We are doing well with China. China's not easy,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday. “I'm only getting good reports.” US official Kevin Hassett echoed that optimism, hinting at the potential for a symbolic breakthrough during the talks. "Our expectation is that after the handshake," Hassett said, "any export controls from the US will be eased, and the rare earths will be released in volume." He added that such a gesture could pave the way for addressing “smaller matters” in subsequent negotiations. The background to these discussions is a deeply entrenched trade war that began after President Trump took office, marked by a series of tit-for-tat tariffs that brought the average duty levels on bilateral exports into triple-digit territory. The agreement reached in Geneva temporarily de-escalated tensions, cutting new US tariffs on Chinese goods from 145 percent to 30 percent, while Beijing’s retaliatory tariffs dropped from 125 percent to 10 percent. However, that truce has been anything but stable. Recently, Trump accused China of breaching the Geneva agreement. A particularly contentious issue is China's export of rare earth minerals — essential components for a wide range of high-tech products, including electric vehicle batteries. “Rare earth shipments from China to the US have slowed since President Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs in April,” noted Kathleen Brooks, research director at trading group XTB. The term “Liberation Day” refers to the sweeping 10 percent tariffs imposed by Trump on both allies and adversaries, with threats of steeper duties looming. According to Brooks, the US is now pressing China to resume those critical exports, while Beijing is lobbying Washington to ease various other restrictions. "The US wants these shipments to be reinstated, while China wants the US to rethink immigration curbs on students, restrictions on access to advanced technology including microchips, and to make it easier for Chinese tech providers to access US consumers," she explained. Hassett's remarks suggest the Trump administration might be open to relaxing some of the more stringent export controls, particularly those affecting technology. Whether that willingness will translate into concrete concessions remains to be seen, but the extension of talks into a second day indicates that neither side is ready to walk away just yet. Adapted by ASEAN Now from AP 2025-06-11 -
0
Power Struggles: Why the UK Is Paying Wind Farms to Switch Off
Power Struggles: Why the UK Is Paying Wind Farms to Switch Off In the early hours of June 3, fierce winds whipped across Scotland’s coastline — perfect conditions, you might think, for the giant turbines of the Moray East and West offshore wind farms. Located 13 miles off the country’s north-east coast, these installations are among the tallest in the UK and, on paper, capable of powering over a million homes. But that morning, instead of spinning at full throttle, their output was reduced. The reason? The national grid simply couldn't handle the power. Despite the growing dominance of renewable energy, Britain’s electricity grid still reflects an outdated design. It was originally built to deliver electricity from coal and gas plants near major cities, not to transport vast quantities of clean energy from remote, wind-swept regions like northern Scotland. So when production exceeds the capacity of the grid to distribute power, generators are told to shut down — and compensated for doing so. That morning, Ocean Winds, the company operating the Moray wind farms, was paid £72,000 to not produce power for just 30 minutes. Meanwhile, down in the south, the Grain gas-fired power station near London received £43,000 to generate more electricity. This isn’t a one-off. These so-called “balancing” payments are made almost daily. Seagreen, Scotland’s largest wind farm, was paid £65 million last year to reduce its output 71% of the time, according to Octopus Energy. In total, balancing the grid has already cost over £500 million this year — and could reach £8 billion annually by 2030, warns the National Electricity System Operator (NESO). This inefficiency is driving up energy bills and undermining the promise that net zero would lead to lower electricity costs. Now, the government is exploring a radical alternative: breaking the single national electricity market into several regional or “zonal” markets. The hope is that more localized pricing will reduce waste and deliver cheaper power — especially for consumers in areas rich in renewables. The proposal has provoked fierce debate. Some say it could drastically reduce costs in windy and sunny areas. On days like June 3, Scottish households might even get free electricity. Greg Jackson, CEO of Octopus Energy, claims zonal pricing could save £55 billion by 2050 and shave £50 to £100 off annual bills. “Zonal pricing would make the energy system as a whole dramatically more efficient, slashing this waste and cutting bills for every family and business in the country,” he argues. But critics warn the plan could backfire. In regions like London and the south, prices could rise. Some fear it would make the system unfair and destabilize investment in renewables. “I can’t go to my board and say let’s take a bet on billions of pounds of investment,” says Tom Glover of German energy giant RWE, voicing concern that changing the pricing structure could undermine existing contracts and introduce uncertainty. Economist Stephen Woodhouse of AFRY echoes the caution, noting that higher borrowing costs and rising material prices are already hurting green energy projects. “Those additional costs could quickly overwhelm any of the benefits of regional pricing,” he warns. The government is also investing £60 billion to modernize the grid, potentially reducing the need for such drastic market reforms. And while advocates of zonal pricing highlight Sweden’s successful switch in just 18 months, opponents argue the UK’s system is far more complex. As Energy Secretary Ed Miliband defends his net zero agenda from both political and public pressure, the future of Britain’s electricity market hangs in the balance. For now, the grid remains a paradox — one where clean energy is abundant, yet power bills keep rising, and wind farms are paid to sit idle in gale-force winds. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-06-11
-
-
Popular in The Pub
Recommended Posts