.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
-
Latest posts...
-
143
Teslas torched with Molotov cocktails and shot with gun
What a bizarre fantasy. Did you know this isn’t a dating site?! -
12
DTV Application in London - Financial Evidence?
I am grateful for your detailed response. Obviously. I am looking for the simplest route to providing 'evidence of funds'. You may wish to review your comment about no statements being available. How to get NS&I-branded statements online Firstly, you need to register for our adviser online service. This will give you easier and faster access to information on your clients’ NS&I holdings, so is worth doing anyway, but it’ll also give you access to NS&I-branded statements. https://www.nsandi-adviser.com/helping-us-help-you-nsi-branded-statement-requests -
0
Asylum Seeker Accused of Running £12 Million Migrant Smuggling Operation Days After Arriving
An Egyptian national who arrived in Britain on a small boat is accused of orchestrating a £12 million people-smuggling operation, transporting over 3,700 migrants from Africa to Europe. Ahmed Ebid allegedly arranged for dangerously overcrowded fishing boats to carry migrants across the Mediterranean, charging them an average of £3,700 per journey. Southwark Crown Court heard that Ebid reached the UK in October 2022 via a small boat crossing. Within days of his arrival, from a home provided to him in Isleworth, west London, he began arranging crossings from Libya to Italy. Over the next six months, he coordinated seven such journeys, underscoring the role UK-based smuggling networks play in facilitating illegal migration into Europe and eventually across the English Channel. The boats used were small, wooden fishing vessels described as “death traps,” each carrying hundreds of migrants. One of the boats reportedly held 700 people. Calls for emergency rescues were made to the Italian coastguard as these unsafe boats became stranded at sea. The National Crime Agency (NCA) placed a covert listening device in Ebid’s home, capturing conversations between him and his contacts in Libya. These recordings revealed how he managed the crossings, maintained contact with the boats, and dictated operational decisions. Prosecutor Frederick Hookway stated that Ebid’s Facebook profile referred to him as “Captain” and gang members addressed him as “boss” in their communications. In one recorded conversation, Ebid was heard warning: “The most dangerous trip to Europe is this trip, be aware.” In another, he issued strict instructions prohibiting mobile phones on the boats, saying: “Phones is not all allowed … [they] will be killed, thrown into the sea.” He also used coded language to discuss the boats, referring to them as “cars.” In one exchange, he said: “I buy a car and load it for my own benefit. There is nothing wrong with that, all my own capital.” Ebid allegedly sought the exact locations of the migrant boats before using a satellite phone to call the Italian coastguard to request rescue operations. The court heard that Ebid has admitted to conspiracy to assist unlawful immigration. He is accused of procuring boats and crews, providing technical guidance during crossings, and arranging accommodation for migrants before their journeys. However, he claims he was not a central figure in the operation, arguing that his involvement was motivated by the hope that his own family would be given passage on one of the boats. The trial is ongoing. An NCA spokesperson highlighted the dangers of such operations: “The type of boats organised crime groups use for these crossings are death traps, and sadly many people have died after incidents in the Mediterranean, demonstrating the danger.” In 2023, tens of thousands of migrants attempted to cross the Mediterranean, arriving on the islands of Lampedusa and Sicily, as well as mainland Italy. The International Organization for Migration recorded at least 3,155 deaths or disappearances of migrants making the journey that year. The surge in migration from North Africa has fueled political tensions in Italy. The issue was a central theme in the election of Giorgia Meloni as prime minister in October 2022, with her government prioritizing efforts to curb illegal migration. Based on a report by The Times 2025-03-20 -
0
Prince Harry’s U.S. Immigration Records Released with Heavy Redactions
Court documents related to Prince Harry’s immigration to the United States have been released, but they contain heavy redactions due to concerns about potential media harassment. The files, made public following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, were ordered for release by Judge Carl Nichols. The Heritage Foundation initially sought access to Prince Harry’s immigration records after he disclosed past drug use in his memoir, Spare, in which he admitted to taking cocaine, marijuana, and psychedelic mushrooms. The organization questioned whether he had received special treatment when he entered the U.S. in 2020, as admitting to past drug use can sometimes be a barrier to obtaining a visa. Judge Nichols ruled in September 2024 that there was not a strong enough public interest argument to justify the full disclosure of the Duke’s immigration records. Despite the Heritage Foundation’s attempts to challenge this decision, the judge maintained that releasing more details would not serve the public interest. The newly released documents reaffirmed this stance, stating: “To release his exact status could subject him to reasonably foreseeable harm in the form of harassment as well as unwanted contact by the media and others.” The documents further explained that there was a “potential of harm in the form of harassment if his exact [REDACTED] is revealed. Thus, there is significant privacy interests involved in the records.” They also dismissed the Heritage Foundation’s claim that the records should be released to maintain public confidence in the U.S. government, stating: “Plaintiffs have not established public interest, as defined by the FOIA, in disclosure of the records. Plaintiffs allege that the records should be disclosed as public confidence in the government would suffer or to establish whether the Duke was granted preferential treatment. This speculation by plaintiffs does not point to any evidence of government misconduct.” The Heritage Foundation has argued that the Duke may have concealed his past drug use when applying for his visa, which could have rendered him ineligible. They claimed that his answers regarding drug history should be made public to determine whether immigration laws were applied fairly. In February, former U.S. President Donald Trump weighed in on the controversy, telling the New York Post: “I’ll leave him alone.” He added, “He’s got enough problems with his wife [Meghan]. She’s terrible.” The Duchess of Sussex has previously criticized Mr. Trump, calling him “divisive” and a “misogynist.” Despite continued scrutiny, the latest court decision suggests that Prince Harry’s immigration status will remain largely private, with the redacted documents failing to provide the answers sought by the Heritage Foundation. Based on a report by The Telegraph 2025-03-20 -
0
Trump’s Power Move: Banning Masks to End Campus Chaos
President Trump is right: “NO MASKS!” That was his emphatic closing statement in a recent Truth Social post where he warned that colleges and universities permitting “illegal protests” could lose federal funding. His main concern? The wave of antisemitic demonstrations that have roiled campuses for nearly 18 months. Following the latest round of pro-Hamas protests, Columbia University alumni have urged the school to adopt an official mask ban. But Trump himself has the authority to put a stop to masked rioters on campuses through an executive order—just as various states once took action against the Ku Klux Klan’s hooded marches. The federal government already has the power to require colleges and universities to take steps that protect students’ physical safety and civil rights. And the case against masking is both strong and constitutional. While the First Amendment guarantees free speech, it does not protect individuals who join violent mobs, intimidate others, and create public disorder. Yet that is exactly what masked protesters have done at universities across the country, using their anonymity to evade identification by law enforcement and school officials while spreading hatred toward Israel and Jewish students. Since October 7, 2023, these masked demonstrators have committed numerous acts of vandalism and intimidation. At Barnard College in February, they defaced buildings, while last May, masked agitators caused $3 million in damage at City College. At Columbia University, they occupied buildings and even held university personnel hostage. Jewish students have been physically blocked from attending class at UCLA and outright attacked at DePaul University and other schools. The rise of masked protests coincides with an alarming surge in antisemitism, which increased nearly fourfold in the U.S. last year. These are not just student demonstrations; they are criminal acts. But there is a historical precedent that points to a solution. Like today’s masked agitators, members of the Ku Klux Klan hid their identities behind hoods to terrorize Black citizens, Catholics, and other minorities while avoiding consequences. They sought to spread fear without accountability. State governments responded by enacting anti-masking laws, stripping the KKK of its anonymity and making it easier to prosecute members. By the mid-1950s, the Klan had largely collapsed, unable to hide behind its disguises. This legal approach was so effective that states across the political spectrum—including Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia—have had anti-masking laws in place for decades. New York was the first to enact such a law in 1845, but it was repealed during the COVID pandemic. Now, a bill to reinstate it is under consideration. Over the past year, I have worked with multiple states to introduce or strengthen anti-masking laws to enhance public safety and protect students. But this must now be addressed on a national level. The president should issue an executive order directing his administration to act immediately. First, Education Secretary Linda McMahon should require all federally funded colleges and universities to adopt anti-masking policies to prevent harassment and intimidation. Clear guidelines should be set, referencing existing state laws to prevent universities from exploiting loopholes. Additionally, institutions should be required to address civil rights complaints stemming from masked protests that disrupt educational environments. Second, McMahon should issue an anti-masking regulation under the Clery Act, which mandates that schools participating in federal student loan programs disclose crime statistics. Universities are already required to submit policies encouraging the prompt and accurate reporting of crimes. But accurate reporting is impossible when masked mobs are destroying property and threatening students. The Clery Act can and should be used to prohibit masks on campus. Finally, Attorney General Pam Bondi should make federal grants under the STOP School Violence Act contingent on the adoption of anti-masking policies. The Justice Department should not be funding campus security forces if university administrators refuse to stand up against Klan-style intimidation tactics. These measures are fully within legal authority and are morally essential to curbing the rise of antisemitic violence on college campuses. The sooner President Trump enforces his call for “NO MASKS,” the better. Based on a report by NYP 2025-03-20 Related Topics: Democrats Face Backlash for Supporting Arrested Palestinian Activist Mahmoud Khalil Federal Education Department Investigates 60 Universities Over Antisemitism Allegations Trump’s Bold Stand Against Campus Antisemitism Sends a Clear Message Trump Border Czar: ICE Will ‘Absolutely’ Deport Legal Immigrants Trump Threatens to Cut Federal Funding Over Campus Protests U.S. State Dept to Use AI to Revoke Visas of Foreign Students with Alleged Ties to Hamas -
0
The Dangers of Special Protections: Why an Islamophobia Law Is Unnecessary
The Labour government, under Angela Rayner’s direction, is making yet another attempt to establish a working definition of "Islamophobia." To lead this initiative, Rayner has enlisted former Conservative Dominic Grieve, who claims that this effort will help define the term and promote "positive change" in Britain. But this commission, like its predecessors, is doomed to fail. The reality is that Britain already has robust laws protecting all citizens from abuse and criminal acts, regardless of their religion. Vandalizing a mosque is as illegal as vandalizing any other building. Harassing or harming someone is already a punishable offense. Moreover, the broad category of “non-crime hate incidents” has allowed law enforcement to investigate individuals simply for expressing controversial opinions online. Yet, those advocating for a definition of Islamophobia are not seeking equal protection under the law—they want special protection for one particular religion. Imagine if the government undertook a similar effort to define “Catholic-ophobia.” People would rightly question why a specific faith deserved unique legal safeguards. Such a move would create an atmosphere where politicians, journalists, and ordinary citizens would hesitate to criticize the Catholic Church or its followers. If someone were to joke about Catholic priests, they might fear legal consequences. This is the type of chilling effect that an Islamophobia law would create. Since the 1989 fatwa against Salman Rushdie, British writers have known that criticizing Islam comes with unique risks. Now, the government seeks to formalize this censorship. Would acknowledging that some British Muslims supported the attack on Rushdie be considered Islamophobic? What about discussing the fact that, in 2015, a survey showed that 27 percent of British Muslims had “some sympathy” for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo massacre? These are uncomfortable realities, but silencing discussion about them does not serve democracy. The issue extends beyond legislation. London has recently seen grand celebrations for Ramadan, with Mayor Sadiq Khan proudly stating that he never imagined the city would embrace Ramadan lights in the same way it celebrates Christmas. While some view this as progress, others may question whether such overt religious displays alter the cultural identity of the capital. Expressing such concerns could soon be labeled as Islamophobic. Similarly, football matches now pause so Muslim players can break their fast during Ramadan. If Catholic players insisted on stopping games for religious observance, would the public be expected to accept this as normal? The push for an Islamophobia definition is not about equality—it’s about granting special privileges to one group at the expense of free expression. Islam already enjoys protections through societal fear and unspoken rules. Muslims, like all citizens, are covered by existing anti-discrimination and hate crime laws. This commission will fail, as others have before, but the true danger lies in what its success would mean: a loss of free speech and the introduction of state-sanctioned religious privilege. Based on a report by The Times 2025-03-20
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
-
Recommended Posts