questions

Big change to four questions Brits now have to answer before entering EU

The Entry Exit System (EES) was introduced on Sunday, which involves people from third-party countries such as the UK having their fingerprints registered and photograph taken to enter the Schengen area, which consists of 29 European countries, mainly in the EU

A last-minute change has been made to the rules set up to track travellers entering the EU.

On Sunday, the long-awaited Entry/Exit System (EES) went live. It requires individuals from third-party countries such as the UK to register their fingerprints and have their photograph taken to enter the Schengen area, which is made up of 29 European countries, primarily within the EU. For most UK travellers, the EES process will be carried out at foreign airports.

However, when it comes to Eurostar services from St Pancras, border checks are carried out by French officials in the UK, rather than in Paris.

When the Mirror was shown how the system would work prior to its launch, uncertainty surrounded one part of it – the questions travellers are required to answer.

READ MORE: Direct trains to Europe from second UK station plannedREAD MORE: EasyJet launches new routes for autumn breaks with flights from £14.99

They are:

1. Do you have somewhere to stay?

2. Do you have a return ticket?

3. Do you have sufficient funds to support yourself during your stay?

4. Do you have medical insurance?

It remains unclear what the consequences are if passengers answer ‘no’ to any of those questions, or if they lie in their answers.

Now, it has been announced that passengers will not be asked those questions when travelling on the Eurostar from St Pancras.

A spokesperson for Eurostar told the Mirror: “Following constructive discussions with the French Ministry and our colleagues, we’re pleased to confirm that the questions will be technically removed from the kiosks during the initial six-month introduction phase of the new system.

“We welcome the pragmatic approach being taken by the French border authorities to help ensure a smoother experience for our customers during this transition period.”

This week Simon Lejeune, the chief safety and stations officer for the cross-Channel train operator, said that some passengers are being processed through the EES in as little as 50 seconds.

To facilitate the new demand, Eurostar has set up three areas at St Pancras, housing a total of 49 kiosks where pre-registration for EES can take place.

Mr Lejeune informed the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee that the process at the station is initially being handled solely by French border officers, and there have been “really good transaction times”.

He stated: “I was observing transaction times of 50 seconds. That’s for the full biometrics, as well as the passport check and the stamping for EES-eligible passengers.

“So quite encouraging, and that’s without the kiosks that do that pre-registration, which we’ll be introducing over the next few weeks.”

Source link

Badenoch demands PM address ‘unanswered’ China spy case questions

Joshua NevettPolitical reporter and

Harry FarleyPolitical correspondent

AFP/Getty Images Split picture showing the faces of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry.
AFP/Getty Images

Christopher Cash (left) and Christopher Berry (right) both deny the accusation of spying for China

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has written to the prime minister asking him to address “unanswered” questions about the collapsed case against two men accused of spying for China.

Charges against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry – who deny the allegations – were dropped in September, prompting criticism from MPs.

The director of public prosecutions (DPP) said the case collapsed because evidence could not be obtained from the government referring to China as a national security threat. On Sunday, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said ministers were “disappointed” it had not proceeded.

In her letter, Badenoch said the government’s account of the situation had “changed repeatedly”.

Sir Keir Starmer previously said ministers could only draw on the last government’s assessment of China – which dubbed it an “epoch-defining challenge” – and his government has maintained it is “frustrated” the trial collapsed.

Badenoch outlined “several key questions which remain unanswered” in her letter on Sunday, and asked that Starmer or a senior minister appear before MPs “to clear things up once and for all”.

She wrote: “This is a matter of the utmost importance, involving alleged spying on Members of Parliament. It seems that you and your ministers have been too weak to stand up to Beijing on a crucial matter of national security.”

The letter queried remarks made by Phillipson to the BBC earlier in the day, in which she said Starmer’s national security advisor Jonathan Powell had no role in the “substance or the evidence” of the case.

Phillipson also said ministers were “deeply disappointed that the case hasn’t proceeded”, and insisted the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was “best placed to explain why it was not able to bring forward a prosecution”.

The Conservatives had suggested Powell, who has sought closer relations with Beijing, failed to give the CPS the evidence it said it needed to secure convictions.

Badenoch questioned Phillipson’s comments: “What does this mean? If he was “not involved” in the decision over months not to give the CPS what they needed, then who was?”

Jonathan Powell, dressed in a suit and tie, speaking on the BBC's The Andrew Marr Show in 2008.

Jonathan Powell, one of Sir Keir’s most senior advisers and political allies, visited China earlier this year

The opposition leader also claimed the government – which had denied ministers were involved in the trial’s collapse before the DPP claimed the necessary material had not been obtained – had sought to “appease China”.

She disputed Starmer’s comments that ministers could only draw on the previous Conservative government’s position, writing: “As various leading lawyers have pointed out, this is not how the law works.”

Starmer had told reporters earlier this week: “You have to prosecute people on the basis of the circumstances at the time of the alleged offence”.

“So all the focus needs to be on the policy of the Tory government in place then.”

Badenoch asked that Starmer clarify whether any ministers knew about the government’s interactions with the CPS in which it “refused” to provide the material being sought.

She also asked if the matter had ever been raised with Starmer, including by Powell, and if an earlier denial of the government’s involvement had been “misleading”.

The Conservatives have submitted an urgent question in Parliament, asking ministers to address MPs on Monday to explain why the trial collapsed.

Shadow home secretary Chris Philp told the BBC ministers “must urgently explain why it chose not to disclose the reams of information it has demonstrating China was a threat to national security in the 2021-2023 period”.

He said: “It looks as if Jonathan Powell was behind this decision – and he should resign if he is.”

Meanwhile, several former Conservative ministers and advisers have told the BBC there was no official designation of whether a country amounts to a threat.

They claim there is a document with “hundreds” of examples of Chinese activity posing a threat to the UK at the time of the alleged offences, which could have been given as evidence.

Sources cited the hack on the Ministry of Defence, which ministers suspected China was behind, as one of many incidents.

“I don’t think there is a sane jury in the world that would look at that evidence and conclude China was not a threat,” a source in the last government said.

Former Conservative ministers also point to public statements, including from the former head of MI5 Ken McCallum, who in 2023 said there had been a “sustained campaign” of Chinese espionage on a “pretty epic scale”.

The Liberal Democrats said the government’s approach to China was “putting our national security at risk”.

The party urged the government to block the planning application for a new Chinese embassy in London.

“Giving the green light to the super embassy being built in the heart of the City of London and above critical data connections would enable Chinese espionage on an industrial scale,” Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Calum Miller said.

Mr Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Mr Berry, were charged under the Official Secrets Act in April 2024, when the Conservatives were in power.

They were accused of gathering and providing information prejudicial to the safety and interests of the state between December 2021 and February 2023.

Under the Official Secrets Act, anyone accused of spying can only be prosecuted if the information they passed on was useful to an enemy.

Last month, the DPP said “the case could no longer proceed to trial since the evidence no longer met the evidential test”.

Additional reporting by Maia Davies

Source link

How the arrest in the Palisades fire raises difficult questions for the Los Angeles Fire Department

Federal investigators have determined that the wildfire that leveled much of Pacific Palisades on Jan. 7 was a so-called “holdover” from a smaller fire that was set intentionally on New Year’s Day, about a week earlier.

After Los Angeles firefighters suppressed the Jan. 1 fire known as the Lachman fire, it continued to smolder and burn underground, “unbeknownst to anyone,” according to federal officials. They said heavy winds six days later caused the underground fire to surface and spread above ground in what became one of the costliest and most destructive disasters in city history.

The revelations — unveiled in a criminal complaint and attached affidavit Wednesday charging the alleged arsonist, Jonathan Rinderknecht — raise questions about what the Los Angeles Fire Department could have done to prevent the conflagration in the days leading up to the expected windstorm on Jan. 7 and the extraordinary fire risk that would come with it.

“This affidavit puts the responsibility on the fire department,” said Ed Nordskog, former head of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s arson unit. “There needs to be a commission examining why this rekindled fire was allowed to reignite.”

He added: “The arsonist set the first fire, but the Fire Department proactively has a duty to do certain things.”

A Times investigation found that LAFD officials did not pre-deploy any engines to the Palisades ahead of the Jan. 7 fire, despite warnings about extreme weather. In preparing for the winds, the department staffed up only five of more than 40 engines available to supplement the regular firefighting force.

Those engines could have been pre-positioned in the Palisades and elsewhere, as had been done in the past during similar weather.

Kenny Cooper, special agent in charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives who was involved in the investigation into the Palisades fire’s origin, said the blame for the fire’s re-ignition lies solely with the person who started it.

“That fire burned deep within the ground, in roots and in structure, and remained active for several days,” Cooper said. “No matter how good they are, they can’t see that, right?”

But, he said, wildland firefighters commonly patrol for days or weeks to prevent re-ignitions.

When he worked at a state forestry agency, he said, “we would have a lightning strike, and it would hit a tree, and it would burn for days, sometimes weeks, and then ignite into a forest fire. We would go suppress that, and then every day, for weeks on end, we would patrol those areas to make sure they didn’t reignite,” he said. “If we saw evidence of smoke or heat, then we would provide resources to that. So that, I know that’s a common practice, and it’s just, it’s a very difficult fire burning underground.”

The affidavit provides a window into the firefighting timeline on Jan. 1, when just after midnight, the Lachman fire was ignited near a small clearing near the Temescal Ridge Trail.

12:13 a.m.: An image taken from a UCSD camera, approximately two-tenths of a mile away, shows a bright spot in the upper left — the Lachman fire.

12:20 a.m.: Rinderknecht drives down Palisades Drive, passing fire engines heading up Palisades Drive, responding to the fire.

That night, the LAFD, with help from the Los Angeles County Fire Department, used water drops from aircraft and hose lines, as well as handlines dug by L.A. County crews, to attack the fire, according to the complaint. Firefighters continued suppression efforts during the day on Jan. 1, wetting down areas within the fire perimeter. When the suppression efforts were over, the affidavit said, the fire crews left fire hoses on site, in case they needed to be redeployed.

Jan. 2: LAFD personnel returned to the scene to collect the fire hoses. According to the affidavit, it appeared to them that the fire was fully extinguished.

But investigators determined that during the Lachman fire, a firebrand became seated within the dense vegetation, continuing to smolder and burn within the roots underground. Strong winds brought the embers to the surface, to grow into a deadly conflagration.

Source link

Five unanswered questions about Trump’s Gaza plan | Israel-Palestine conflict News

The United States president’s 20-point ceasefire proposal in Gaza includes many ambiguous provisions that could be decisive for the future of Palestine and the region.

When presenting it in the White House on Monday, alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Donald Trump hailed the plan as historic. But figuring out the details for some of its elements will likely be a major challenge to its implementation.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Here are five unresolved issues with the proposal:

How will Gaza be governed?

The proposal envisions a “temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee” that would oversee the territory’s affairs. But it does not detail how the panel will be formed or who will select its members.

Moreover, the plan says that Trump and Toni Blair, the United Kingdom’s former prime minister, would lead a “board of peace” that would supervise the governing committee. But the roadmap does not explain the nature of the relationship between this board and the Palestinian committee, or at what level the day-to-day decisions would be made.

Will the Palestinian Authority be involved?

Trump’s plan says that the transitional authorities would take control of Gaza until “such time as the Palestinian Authority (PA) has completed its reform” programme and “can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza”. Yet, it remains unclear who would certify that the PA is ready to take over Gaza or what benchmarks must be met for the PA to handle the governance of the territory.

There are no timetables, just a vague pronouncement.

The proposal’s language additionally treats Gaza as an independent entity, not one that is part of Palestine, that must be unified with the rest of occupied Palestinian territory.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, who said he agreed to the proposal, has all but ruled out a return of the PA to Gaza.

“Gaza will be administered neither by Hamas, nor by the Palestinian Authority,” the Israeli prime minister said, standing alongside Trump.

How will the international force be formed?

The plan says that Gaza would be secured by “a temporary International Stabilisation Force”, but where would it come from, and what would its mandate be?

It is not clear what countries are willing to send troops to Gaza, or which ones would be acceptable under the plan.

The proposal also does not spell out the responsibilities and rules of engagement of the would-be peacekeepers.

Would they act as an army, police force, or observer force? Would they be tasked with taking on Hamas? Would they be able to fight Israeli troops to protect Palestinians?

When will Israel withdraw?

The proposal says that Israel would withdraw from Gaza “based on standards, milestones, and timeframes linked to demilitarisation”.

Again, the provision does not set a schedule for the Israeli withdrawal or clear standards for how and when it would happen.

Moreover, it says that Israel would hold onto a “security perimeter” in Gaza until the territory “is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat”.

But there is no word on who would ultimately decide when these conditions are met.

Is Palestinian statehood on the cards?

During his news conference on Monday, Trump said that several allies had “foolishly recognised the Palestinian state… but they’re really, I think, doing that because they’re very tired of what’s going on”.

The proposal makes a reference to the prospect of Palestinian statehood behind a thick wall of cloudiness, conditions and qualifiers.

“While Gaza re-development advances and when the PA reform programme is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognise as the aspiration of the Palestinian people,” it says.

So, Gaza development and PA “reforms” are set as conditions. And even then, discussions for a Palestinian state “may” be in place. It is not guaranteed.

Moreover, the proposal does not recognise the right to Palestinian statehood. Rather, it acknowledges statehood as something that Palestinians are seeking.

Like the other provisions, this one is also shrouded in vagueness and ambiguity.

Source link

Reform faces questions over tech investor’s role in cost-cutting drive

Joshua NevettPolitical reporter

PA Media Head of policy Zia Yusuf speaking during a Reform UK press conference at the Royal Horseguards Hotel, London. Picture date: Monday September 22, 2025. PA Photo.PA Media

Policy chief Zia Yusuf has led Reform’s drive to find savings at councils

A tech start-up investor is taking a leading role in Reform UK’s efforts to access sensitive data in a bid to identify savings in one council controlled by the party, the BBC has learned.

Harriet Green, the founder of Basis Capital, is helping Reform UK’s Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) find ways to cut costs at West Northamptonshire Council.

She is an entrepreneur whose firm invests in businesses that provide services and work with, or compete against, local government.

Local councillors have raised concerns about whether it is appropriate for Green to access council data and questioned whether businesses backed by Basis would gain an unfair advantage over competitors.

Green declined to comment. Reform UK did not respond to requests for comment.

The BBC has been told Green is the only person Doge has put forward to access data at the council in Northamptonshire so far.

Senior council officers are vetting Green as they consider a proposal to allow her to analyse records of spending on items such as IT systems and hotels housing asylum seekers.

When Doge was launched after May’s local elections, Reform UK said a team of software engineers, data analysts and forensic auditors would “visit and analyse” spending at all of the councils controlled by the party to find “waste and inefficiencies”.

But the unit has been hampered by legal constraints and has not been able to access any council data so far.

Doge has only visited three of the councils controlled by Reform so far. It’s planning to visit a fourth, Lancashire County Council, in October.

Reform UK sources say they see the proposed data-sharing exercise and Green’s role in it in Northamptonshire as a potential model for gaining access to sensitive information at other councils.

Green’s company, Basis, launched last year and describes itself as an “early stage investor reimagining what governments can no longer deliver”.

Basis invests in companies such as Civic Marketplace, which is a public procurement platform designed to connect government agencies with service contractors.

In an interview with the Spectator this year, Green said Basis was a private fund set up to “invest in companies that are building where the state is failing”.

“A loftier way of putting that is we’re trying to outcompete the state,” said Green, a former intern at the Adam Smith Institute, a pro-free market think tank.

LinkedIn A screen grab from Harriet Green's Linkedin pageLinkedIn

Harriet Green is a founding partner of Basis, as shown here on her LinkedIn profile

Councillor Daniel Lister, who leads Conservative opposition at the council, said Green’s role raised questions about potential conflict of interest given Basis’s stated mission and investments.

Lister said: “When a party unit opens the door to council data, it creates an inside track where firms built to outcompete the state will thrive.”

Jonathan Harris, the Liberal Democrat group leader, questioned what experience Green had in data handling and identifying savings at local authorities.

“There are questions not only about skill-sets but also about whether being involved in a Doge-type activity could provide some form of competitive advantage and access to information which others would not have,” Harris said.

“This would not be allowed under procurement rules for public bodies.”

The councillor said Doge and Green must be vetted by the council’s scrutiny committee if approval was granted.

Legal barriers

Doge is led by Zia Yusuf, Reform UK’s head of policy and its former chairman, and was inspired by billionaire Elon Musk’s efforts to cut government costs in the US.

It was set up in June this year after Reform UK took control of 10 local authorities in May’s local elections.

“Our team will use cutting-edge technology and deliver real value for voters,” Yusuf said.

But progress has stalled over data access and instead, Reform UK councillors are trying to find savings without Doge.

In Kent, a cabinet member for local government efficiency has been created, and the county council’s Reform leader has claimed potential savings worth millions have been identified.

Lancashire is finding it tougher, with the Reform UK county council leader there telling the BBC cutting costs won’t be easy.

Councils across England face significant financial pressures after years of tight funding.

Yusuf’s Doge has come closest to accessing data in West Northamptonshire, where in July the cabinet “approved a mechanism to review information sharing arrangements that could lead to potential future opportunities for identifying savings and efficiencies at the authority”.

In a report, the council said its executive leadership team had met “Reform UK visitors” twice to discuss “potential opportunities to share data with third parties for the purpose of identifying efficiencies and potential savings”.

The report said by law, local authorities must not “promote or publish any material to affect public support for a political party”.

“As the Doge offer is from and associated with Reform UK, a political party, this prohibition and the public law principles alongside it are of particular impact,” the report said.

The council said it understood members of Yusuf’s Doge team were “not employed by Reform UK” and had offered their services at no charge.

Council sources say they are still working through the vetting process.

In the meantime, the party insists the unit’s work is ongoing, pointing to deputy leader Richard Tice’s recent announcement about local government pension schemes.

Yusuf has frequently complained about “waste” in local government and the way in which contracts for services are procured, alleging a lack of competition and corruption.

In her interview with the Spectator, Green was asked whether the political appetite for US President Donald Trump and Doge filled her with confidence.

Green said: “I think there’s a UK-way of doing things that we haven’t felt out yet.

“I don’t think it needs to be brash or kooky or partisan. Those things give you a litmus for something maybe being timely and it’s a good opportunity.”

She added: “I’m not convinced that anyone in the public sector is incentivised in a way that gets good outcomes for the work that they’re doing.”

Source link

The four questions Brits have to answer to go on holiday from October under new EU rules

The EU’s Entry/Exit system is finally set to begin next month, with the first passengers heading through UK stations such as St Pancras and arriving in EU airports having to submit their details

Brits hoping to head on holiday will have to answer four questions when a new European Union-wide border system comes into force.

The much-anticipated and repeatedly delayed border system, set to govern travel across the entire European Union, is finally ready to launch come October 12.

The EES will monitor the arrival and departure of “third-country nationals” entering and leaving the Schengen zone, eliminating the requirement for passport stamps. One of its primary objectives is to digitalise travel documentation to guarantee that the restriction on days (90 within a 180-day timeframe) non-EU passport holders can remain in member nations isn’t violated, whilst enhancing border protection.

Information will typically be kept on record for three years. Those who decline to supply information can be refused entry.

READ MORE: New exact date Ryanair ban that will impact all passengers kicks inREAD MORE: Tesco Mobile extends free roaming to 48 countries as other providers slap on Brexit charges

As well as giving biometric data and having your passport scanned, travellers will be asked to answer four questions – either by the kiosks or by a human guard. They are:

1. Do you have somewhere to stay?2. Do you have a return ticket?3. Do you have sufficient funds to support yourself during your stay?4. Do you have medical insurance?

It is currently not completely clear what the consequences are if passengers answer ‘no’ to any of those questions, or if they lie in their answers. Simon Lejeune, Eurostar’s chief safety, stations, and security officer, was present on Wednesday morning to reveal the kiosks that will begin gathering data from Brits next month.

He suggested that passengers would be directed to speak to a border officer if they answered ‘no’. They can then be refused entry to the country.

A government spokesperson told the Mirror: “From 12th October, passengers who register for EES at a kiosk may need to answer a series of questions. If a traveller answers ‘no’ to any of these questions, they will be directed to speak with a border guard for further discussion. This is a normal part of border procedures, which is designed to ensure smooth and secure travel.”

There are significant concerns that this new system could cause further congestion at ports, exacerbating the travel chaos that has become a staple of summer holidays since the Covid lockdowns. However, after getting an early glimpse of the EES at St Pancras, my prediction is that these fears may be unfounded.

Eurostar and St Pancras have invested heavily in tackling the issue, installing fast-track kiosks to handle the extended border process. If things do go pear-shaped, as they inevitably will, additional guards are ready to manually process passengers.

The roll-out of the EES is going to be staggered, both at St Pancras and other ports across Europe. Only Eurostar’s Premier and Carte Blanche customers will be asked to use the EES from October 12. A handful of regular ticket holders may be asked, but it’s likely very few will.

Initially, biometrics like fingerprints won’t be collected. This will only start in mid-December and not for all passengers using EES.

By January, all kiosks at Eurostar’s St Pancras and Gare du Nord terminals will be operational, and a broader passenger sign-up will commence. Fingerprints will be taken, and all eligible customers will be urged to pre-register before border control.

Once you’ve registered once, you won’t need to do it again for another three years. In theory, this should make border checks faster, as border officers only verify the data of those registered.

Mr Lejeune clarified that registration should take about two minutes per person, meaning the process of getting through border control would take slightly longer if you’ve not used EES before.

When we had the opportunity to see one of the 49 new kiosks installed at St Pancras in action, the process was considerably quicker. From beginning to end, it took just over a minute.

If something does go wrong, such as the machine failing to recognise a passport, then an expanded team of human border guards will be available to assist. The number of guard booths has been doubled from nine to 18.

Source link

Patel touts his record at hearing amid questions over probe into Kirk killing and FBI upheaval

FBI Director Kash Patel touted his leadership of the nation’s premier federal law enforcement agency at a congressional hearing likely to be dominated by questions about the investigation into Charlie Kirk’s killing and the recent firings of senior FBI officials who have accused Patel of illegal political retribution.

The appearance Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee represents the first oversight hearing of Patel’s young but tumultuous tenure and provides a high-stakes platform for him to try to reassure skeptical Democrats that he is the right person for the job at a time of internal upheaval and mounting concerns about political violence inside the United States.

Patel rattled off a series of what he said were accomplishments of his first months on the job, including his efforts to fight violent crime and protect children. Nodding to criticism from Democrats, he closed his remarks by saying: “If you want to criticize my 16 years of service, please bring it on.”

Patel returned to the committee for the first time since his confirmation hearing in January, when he asserted that he would not pursue retribution as director. He’ll face questions Tuesday about whether he did exactly that when the FBI last month fired five agents and senior officials in a purge that current and former officials say weakened morale and contributed to unease inside the nation’s premier federal law enforcement agency.

Three of those officials sued last week in a federal complaint that says Patel knew the firings were likely illegal but carried them out anyway to protect his job. One of the officials helped oversee investigations into the Jan. 6 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, and another clashed with Justice Department leadership while serving as acting director in the early days of President Donald Trump’s administration. The FBI has declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Republican lawmakers, who make up the majority in the committee, are expected to show solidarity for Patel, a close ally of Trump, and are likely to praise the director for his focus on violent crime and illegal immigration.

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the committee’s Republican chairman, signaled his support for Patel at the outset of the hearing, praising the director for having “begun the important work of returning the FBI to its law enforcement mission.”

“It’s well understood that your predecessor left you an FBI infected with politics,” Grassley stated.

The panel’s top Democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, described Patel as “arguably the most partisan FBI director ever.”

“Director Patel has already inflicted untold damage on the FBI, putting our national security and public safety at risk,” Durbin said.

Republicans are also likely to try to elicit from Patel fresh details about the investigation into Kirk’s assassination at a Utah college campus last week, which authorities have said was carried out by a 22-year-old man who had grown more political in recent years and had ascribed to a “leftist ideology.”

Patel drew scrutiny when, hours after Kirk’s killing, he posted on social media that “the subject” was in custody even though the shooting suspect remained on the loose and was not arrested until he turned himself in late the following night.

Patel has not explained that post but has pointed to his decision to authorize the release of photographs of the suspect, Tyler Robinson, while he was on the run as a key development that helped facilitate an arrest. A Fox News Channel journalist reported Saturday that Trump had told her that Patel and the FBI have “done a great job.”

Robinson is due to make his first court appearance in Utah. It’s unclear whether he has an attorney, and his family has declined to comment.

Another line of questioning for Patel may involve Democratic concerns that he is politicizing the FBI through politically charged investigations, including into longstanding Trump grievances. Agents and prosecutors, for instance, have been seeking interviews and information as they reexamine aspects of the years-old FBI investigation into potential coordination between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Patel has repeatedly said his predecessors at the FBI and Justice Department who investigated and prosecuted Trump were the ones who weaponized the institutions.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

USC vs. Purdue: 3 key questions Trojans face in Big Ten opener

p]:text-cms-story-body-color-text clearfix”>

The unfamiliar road through Big Ten country was not exactly welcoming to USC during its conference debut in 2024. The Trojans blew a fourth-quarter lead during all four of their Big Ten road trips outside of Los Angeles last season, each defeat seemingly more devastating than the one before it.

So as USC sets out on its second swing through the Big Ten, starting with a trip to West Lafayette, Ind., on Saturday, it has tried to address that problem in ways big and small — from replacing the strength and conditioning coach to changing the team’s sleeping and meal times.

Those changes will be put to the test this week when USC crosses two time zones. Part of that new approach includes taking a totally different plane to get there, one with a bit more space to stretch out during a long flight.

“[The players are] gonna like having more leg room,” coach Lincoln Riley said with a smile. “Who doesn’t like more leg room?”

Purdue should make things a bit more uncomfortable for USC than its previous two opponents. The Boilermakers are 2-0 to start under new coach Barry Odom, who brought in 54 transfers to rebuild a team that finished 1-11, dead last in the conference, last season.

Riley may not have much of a handle on Purdue’s personnel, but he should have a pretty good idea what the Boilermakers will prefer on offense. After all, Purdue’s offensive coordinator, Josh Henson, spent the previous two seasons as Riley’s offensive line coach and coordinator at USC.

“He’s going up against us, too,” Riley said. “So those things kind of go both ways. There’s obviously going to be some things that both sides are familiar with because of that. But it’s a players’ game at the end of the day.”

Here are three things to watch as USC takes on Purdue on Saturday at 12:30 p.m. PDT (CBS, Paramount+):

Source link

A military approach to drug busts upends U.S. efforts and raises legal questions

The U.S. Coast Guard detects and detains scores of drug-running vessels in the Caribbean every year in its role as the world’s drug police on the high seas.

Now, that anti-narcotics mission may look vastly different after a U.S. military strike on a vessel off Venezuela. Trump administration officials asserted last week that gang members were smuggling drugs bound for America.

The Trump administration has indicated more military strikes on drug targets could be coming, saying it is seeking to “wage war” on Latin American cartels it accuses of flooding the U.S. with cocaine, fentanyl and other drugs. It is facing mounting questions, however, about the legality of the strike and any such escalation, which upends decades of procedures for interdicting suspected drug vessels.

“This really throws a wrench in the huge investment the U.S. has been making for decades building up a robust legal infrastructure to arrest and prosecute suspected drug smugglers,” said Kendra McSweeney, an Ohio State University geographer who has spent years investigating the legal infrastructure of U.S. drug interdictions at sea.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio asserted while visiting Latin America last week that drug cartels “pose an immediate threat to the United States” and that President Trump “has a right, under exigent circumstances, to eliminate imminent threats to the United States.”

A U.S. official familiar with the reasoning also cited self-defense as legal justification for the strike that the administration says killed 11 members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang, which has been dubbed a foreign terrorist organization. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation.

The administration used a similar argument months prior to justify an intense bombing camping against Houthi rebels in Yemen. However, behind the scenes, the justification for strikes against the cartels appears to be far more complex.

The New York Times reported last month that Trump signed a directive to the Pentagon to start using military force against certain Latin American drug cartels. That reporting was related to the Venezuela strike, according to a U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss operational details.

Touting the strike, but no details on how it happened

Vice President JD Vance celebrated the strike over the weekend, suggesting that the use of force is necessary to protect American families from deadly drugs.

“Killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military,” Vance said on X.

Several Democrats and even some fellow Republicans criticized Vance’s comments. Congressional leaders also have pressed for more information on why the administration took the military action.

The Pentagon has been silent about any details on the strike. Military officials have not divulged what service carried it out, what weapons were used or how it was determined that the vessel was operated by Tren de Aragua or carrying drugs.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said last week that “foreign terrorist organizations have been designated, we have those authorities, and it’s about keeping the American people safe. There’s no reason for me to give the public or adversaries any more information than that.”

Pentagon officials did not respond to direct questions about the legal justification for the strike and whether the military considered itself at war with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s government.

Hegseth traveled Monday to Puerto Rico, where troops deployed for a training exercise and where the U.S. is sending 10 F-35 fighter jets for operations against drug cartels.

‘There’s no authority for this whatsoever’

Claire Finkelstein, a professor of national security law at the University of Pennsylvania, said “extrajudicial killing” would be a better term to describe the strike. She sees it as an outgrowth of the two-decade blurring of the lines between law enforcement and armed conflict.

Following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the U.S. started designating members of foreign terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaida and the Taliban, as unlawful combatants, making them vulnerable to U.S. attacks even when not directly engaged in warfare.

Trump has designated several Latin American cartels, including Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua, as foreign terrorist organizations. But that in itself does not make a U.S. strike against suspected members of the group legal, Finkelstein said. Congress has not authorized the use of force against Venezuela nor are there any U.N. resolutions that would justify the U.S. actions.

“There’s no authority for this whatsoever under international law,” she said. “It was not an act of self-defense. It was not in the middle of a war. There was no imminent threat to the United States.”

A pair of armed Venezuelan planes flew by a U.S. warship in the Caribbean days after the strike, and Trump warned Friday that any future flights would be met with gunfire.

The strike “quite arguably is an act of war against Venezuela and they would potentially be justified in responding with the use of force,” Finkelstein said. “Could you imagine what would happen if their navy was 12 miles off the coast of the U.S.?“

Turning to the seas during the drug war

The search and seizures by sea are a routine feature of America’s first “forever war” — the drug war, which President Richard Nixon declared in 1971.

In 1986, at the height of Pablo Escobar’s Medellin drug cartel, Congress passed the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, which defines drug smuggling in international waters as a crime against the United States and gives the U.S. unique arrest powers.

Usually, authorities stop and board boats, arrest the crew and seize any contraband. The efforts are led by the U.S. Coast Guard with support from the Pentagon, State Department, Drug Enforcement Administration and FBI as well as allies from the U.K., France, Netherlands and across Latin America.

Now, warning operations like the strike “will happen again,” Rubio said Trump “wants to wage war on these groups because they’ve been waging war on us for 30 years and no one has responded.”

Under the maritime drug enforcement law, 127 new prosecutions were brought in the first nine months of the current fiscal year, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which collects Justice Department data. That compares to 131 for all of 2024.

Since each case involves multiple defendants, the actual number of foreigners detained at sea is likely much higher.

The Coast Guard announced last month what it called its largest drug haul on record from multiple interdictions over two months. Some of those seizures were carried out by a Coast Guard law enforcement detachment aboard a Dutch naval vessel in the Caribbean.

“While no one is sympathetic to the plight of drug dealers, the reason we do this through a judicial process, in partnership with other nations, is so we can collect evidence that allows us to build bigger cases and go after the cartel bosses,” said James Story, who served as ambassador to Venezuela during the first Trump administration.

Story, who ran the State Department’s anti-narcotics bureau in Colombia and Latin America earlier in his career, said 20 nations have liaisons at a multiagency task force based in the Naval Air Station in Key West, Florida, where high seas boardings are coordinated.

“Anything that could potentially jeopardize those relationships would make us less effective in the long run,” he said.

Toropin and Goodman write for the Associated Press. Goodman reported from Miami.

Source link

USC’s offensive numbers impress, but some questions loom

I don’t care whom you’re playing.

Seven-hundred fifty-five yards are a lot of yards.

That’s how much USC gained during its 59-20 victory over Georgia Southern on Saturday.

One-hundred thirty-two points are a lot of points.

USC receiver Ja'Kobi Lane evades Georgia Southern defensive back Tracy Hill Jr. during the Trojans' win.

USC receiver Ja’Kobi Lane evades Georgia Southern defensive back Tracy Hill Jr. during the Trojans’ win Saturday at the Coliseum.

(Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times)

That’s how much USC has scored in its two games this season, including its blowout victory over Missouri State the week before.

If you want to believe the Trojans are better than they were in their previous two seasons, there are developments that could further convince you that you’re right. If you want to believe Lincoln Riley has elevated his team from mediocrity, there are statistics you could cite to support your observations.

There is also evidence to the contrary, of course.

The two games USC has played this season were more or less Rorschach tests.

The only indisputable truth to emerge was that Trojans receivers Makai Lemon and Ja’Kobi Lane would be serious problems for every one of their opponents.

Everything else remained up for debate.

When you watched the Trojans trample over former Clay Helton’s Eagles at the Coliseum, were you encouraged by how quarterback Jayden Maiava threw for 412 yards or concerned how badly he misfired on some of the handful of passes he didn’t complete?

Was your breath taken away by how Waymond Jordan changed direction in his 167-yard performance or did you gasp in horror when he fumbled on the opening drive?

Were you heartened by how USC scored every time it was in the red zone or alarmed by its three separate illegal-use-of-hands penalties on defense?

Did you see the 39-point margin of victory as an indication the Trojans are ready to take on the big boys or Georgia Southern’s four consecutive drives into their territory in the first half as a sign they will encounter trouble when the level of competition improves?

Riley was more measured in praising his team than he was a week ago.

“Definitely a lot of positives to take out of it,” Riley said.

However …

“Several things we have to clean up,” he said. “We had a couple of errors, I thought, especially with penalties where we have to be better as a football team, more disciplined as a football team.”

Riley warned his team of the consequences of failing to improve.

“It’s like I told the guys last night, there were plays we made last week that some weeks where if we’re not cleaner when we play more talented teams, the results are going to look like that,” he said. “And, so, we have to look at it through the lens of, ‘Did we do our best?’ We’re still a long ways off our best. That’s the No. 1 thing that showed up.”

Riley has sounded tone deaf at times during his three-plus years at USC, but this wasn’t one of them.

Mistakes could be punished by Michigan State, which will present the Trojans with their first real test on Sept. 20.

Mistakes could be punished by Illinois and Notre Dame and Oregon.

USC coach Lincoln Riley stands on the sideline alongside his players while talking into a headset during a game.

USC coach Lincoln Riley directs his team from the sideline during the Trojans’ win over Georgia Southern Saturday.

(Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times)

Mistakes probably won’t be punished by UCLA, which has been turned into a complete Dumpster fire by athletic director Martin Jarmond, but that’s another story for another day.

For what it’s worth, Georgia Southern’s coach offered an optimistic view of USC’s ceiling. Helton was the Trojans’ head coach for five-plus seasons and still follows the program.

“I’ll tell you what, it’s a better personnel team than last year, especially, I think, offensively,” Helton said.

He pointed specifically to receivers Lemon and Lane, and running backs Jordan and Eli Sanders.

“And the quarterback [Maiava] is playing really, really within himself. You can see reps and experience matter,” Helton continued. “I’ve always thought that, and the experience he had last year, you see his growth.

“They’ve got a good situation here. You can see the changes that have been made from last year’s personnel group to this year’s personnel group, and talking with Coach Riley, I know he’s happy. He’s getting the opportunity to coach a lot more, he said, and you can see it. You can see it on tape.”

Helton still considers himself a champion of USC, and what he saw the Trojans do against his team on Saturday night gave him hope for what they might be able to accomplish this season.

“I hope,” Helton said, “they go win it all.”

Source link

Questions over Kawhi Leonard payments put focus on NBA salary cap

At the heart of the uproar over allegations that Kawhi Leonard of the Los Angeles Clippers received millions in undisclosed payments from a tree-planting startup is a National Basketball Association rule that caps the the total annual payroll for teams.

According to a report by Pablo Torre of the Athletic, bankruptcy documents show that the tree-planting startup Aspiration Partners paid Leonard $21 million — and still owes him another $7 million — after agreeing to a $28 million contract for endorsement and marketing work at the company.

The report claims there is no evidence to show that Leonard did anything for Aspiration Partners, whose initial funding came in large part from Clippers owner Steve Ballmer. Torre alleges that the payment to Leonard was a way to skirt the NBA salary cap and pad his contract.

The Clippers have forcefully denied that they or Ballmer “circumvented the salary cap or engaged in any misconduct related to Aspiration.”

Still, the NBA said it was launching an investigation into the matter.

The salary cap is a dollar amount that limits what teams can spend on player payroll. The number is determined based on a percentage of projected income for the upcoming year. In 2024-25, the salary cap was $140.6 million.

The purpose of the cap is to ensure parity, preventing the wealthiest teams from outspending smaller markets to acquire the best players. Teams that exceed the cap must pay luxury tax penalties that grow increasingly severe. Revenues from the tax penalties are then distributed in part to smaller-market teams and in part to teams that do not exceed the salary cap.

The cap was implemented before the 1984-85 season at a mere $3.6 million. Ten years later, it was $15.9 million, and 10 years after that it had risen to $43.9 million. By the 2014-15 season it was $63.1 million.

The biggest spike came before the 2016-2017 season when it jumped to $94 million because of an influx of revenue from a new nine-year, $24 billion media rights deal with ESPN and TNT.

Salary cap rules negotiated between the NBA and the players’ union are spelled out in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Proven incidents of teams circumventing the cap are few, with a violation by the Minnesota Timberwolves in 2000 serving as the most egregious.

The Timberwolves made a secret agreement with free agent and former No. 1 overall draft pick Joe Smith, signing him to a succession of below-market one-year deals in order to enable the team to go over the cap with a huge contract ahead of the 2001-2002 season.

The NBA voided his contract, fined the Timberwolves $3.5 million, and stripped them of five first-round draft picks — two of which were later returned. Also, owner Glen Taylor and general manager Kevin McHale were suspended.

Then-NBA commissioner David Stern told the Minnesota Star-Tribune at the time: “What was done here was a fraud of major proportions. There were no fewer than five undisclosed contracts tightly tucked away, in the hope that they would never see the light of day. … The magnitude of this offense was shocking.”

Current commissioner Adam Silver is just as adamant as Stern when it comes to enforcing salary cap rules, although the current CBA limits punishment.

According to Article 13 of the CBA, if the Clippers were found to have circumvented the cap, it would be a first offense punishable by a $4.5 million fine, one first-round draft pick, and voiding of Leonard’s contract. However, the Clippers don’t have a first-round pick until 2027.

Leonard, one of the Clippers stars, is extremely well compensated. He will have been paid $375,772,011 by NBA teams through the upcoming season, according to industry expert spotrac.com.

A former Aspiration finance department employee whose voice was disguised on Torre’s podcast said that when they noticed the shockingly large fee paid to Leonard, they were told that, “If I had any questions about it, essentially don’t, because it was to circumvent the salary cap, LOL. There was lots of LOL when things were shared.”

Aspiration Partners was a digital bank that promoted socially responsible spending and investments that, at one point, brought in a star-filled roster of investors that included Drake, Robert Downey Jr., and Leonardo DiCaprio. Founded in 2013, it offered investments in “conscious coalition” companies and offered carbon credits to businesses. The company was valued it at $2.3 million at one point.

But in August, the company’s co-founder, Joseph Sanberg, agreed to plead guilty to charges that he defrauded investors and lenders. Federal prosecutors accused Sanberg of causing more than $248 million in losses, calling him a “fraudster.”

Prosecutors alleged that Sanberg and another member of the company’s board, Ibrahim AlHusseini, fraudulently obtained $145 million in loans by promising shares from Sanberg’s stock in the company. AlHusseini allegedly falsified records to inflate his assets to obtain the loans, and Sanberg concealed from investigators that he was the source for revenue that was recognized by the company.

Sanberg had also recruited companies and individuals to claim they would be paying tens of thousands of dollars to have trees planted, but instead Sanberg used legal entities under his control to hide that he was making these payments, not the customers.

Aspiration, which was partially funded by Ballmer with a $50 million investment, filed for bankruptcy in March.

The company was expected to pay more than $300 million over two decades as a sponsor for the Clippers’ Intuit Dome, which opened in August 2024. But before the new arena opened, the Clippers said Aspiration was no longer a sponsor, just as the Justice Department and Commodity Futures Trading Commission began looking into allegations that Aspiration had misled customers and investors.

During Aspiration’s bankruptcy proceedings, documents emerged citing KL2 Aspire as a creditor owed $7 million, one of four yearly payments of that amount agreed upon in a 2022 contract. KL2 is a limited liability company that names Leonard — whose jersey number is 2 — as its manager.

Aspiration was partially funded by a $50-million investment from Ballmer. It is not known whether Ballmer was aware of or played a role in facilitating the employment agreement between Aspiration and Leonard.

The Clippers issued a lengthy statement Thursday, attempting to explain why Leonard being paid by Aspiration was unrelated to his contract with the Clippers.

“There is nothing unusual or untoward about team sponsors doing endorsement deals with players on the same team,” the statement said in part. “Neither Steve nor the Clippers organization had any oversight of Kawhi’s independent endorsement agreement with Aspiration. To say otherwise is flat-out wrong.”

“The Clippers take NBA compliance extremely seriously, fully respect the league’s rules, and welcome its investigation related to Aspiration.”

In his reporting, Torre noted that Leonard’s contract with Aspiration included an unusual clause that said the company could terminate the endorsement agreement if Leonard was no longer a member of the Clippers.

Mark Cuban, part owner of the Dallas Mavericks, took to X.com to suggest that Torre’s reporting was faulty.

‘I’m on Team Ballmer,” Cuban wrote. “As much as I wish they circumvented the salary cap, First Steve isn’t that dumb. If he did try to feed KL money, knowing what was at stake for him personally, and his team, do you think he would let the company go bankrupt ? “

Torre responded by inviting Cuban on his podcast, “Pablo Torre Finds Out.”

Source link

Defiant RFK Jr. questions vaccine data, defends record under bipartisan Senate grilling

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation’s health secretary and a longtime vaccine skeptic, struck a defiant tone Thursday as he faced bipartisan criticism over changes he has made to reorganize federal health agencies and vaccine policies, telling senators that he is determined to “eliminate politics from science.”

In the testy appearance before the Senate Finance Committee, Kennedy repeatedly defended his record in heated exchanges with senators from both parties and questioned data that show the effectiveness of vaccines. In turn, senators accused him of taking actions that contradict his promise seven months earlier that he would do “nothing that makes it difficult or discourages people from taking vaccines.”

“Secretary Kennedy, in your confirmation hearing you promised to uphold the highest standard for vaccines. Since then, I’ve grown deeply concerned,” Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, a top-ranking Senate Republican and a physician, said during the hearing.

Kennedy forcefully denied that he has limited access to vaccines and defended his record in restoring trust in federal healthcare agencies under the umbrella of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

“They deserve the truth and that’s what we’re going to give them for the first time in the history of the agency,” Kennedy told senators.

From the outset, it was expected that Democrats would slam Kennedy’s record. Some of them called on him to resign and accused him of politicizing federal health policy decisions. But three other Republicans, including Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who was key in advancing Kennedy’s nomination, joined Democrats in criticizing Kennedy’s actions, mostly pertaining to vaccine policy changes.

Thursday’s session marked a peak of bipartisan frustration over a string of controversial decisions by Kennedy that have thrown his department into disarray. Kennedy dismissed an entire advisory panel responsible for vaccine recommendations and replaced its members with known vaccine skeptics. He withdrew $500 million in funding earmarked for developing vaccines against respiratory viruses. And, just last week, he ousted the newly appointed director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention following disagreements over vaccine policy.

In an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, Susan Monarez, the former CDC director, wrote that she was forced out after she declined to recommend people “who have publicly expressed antivaccine rhetoric” to an influential vaccine advisory panel.

At the hearing, Kennedy said Monarez was lying. Instead, he said he fired her because he asked her if she was trustworthy, and she told him, “no.”

He added that he fired all the members of the vaccine panel because it was “plagued with persistent conflicts of interest.”

“We depoliticized it and put great scientists on it from a very diverse group, very, very pro-vaccine,” he claimed.

In questioning, however, members of his own party questioned his support for vaccines. At one point, Cassidy, a physician, read an email from a physician friend who said patients 65 and older need a prescription to get a COVID-19 shot.

“I would say effectively we are denying people vaccines,” Cassidy said.

“You’re wrong,” Kennedy responded.

In that same exchange, Cassidy asked Kennedy if he believed President Trump deserved a Nobel Prize for his administration’s work on Operation Warp Speed, the initiative that sped the development of the COVID-19 vaccine and treatments.

“Absolutely,” Kennedy said.

Cassidy said he was surprised at his answer because he believes Kennedy is trying to restrict access to the COVID-19 vaccine. He also expressed dismay at Kennedy’s decision to cancel $500 million in contracts to develop vaccines using mRNA technology, which Cassidy said was key to the operation.

Kennedy’s position on vaccines have reverberated beyond Capitol Hill.

Ahead of the hearing, more than 1,000 employees at the health agency and national health organizations called on Kennedy to resign. Seemingly in support of Kennedy’s direction, Florida announced plans to become the first state to end all vaccines mandated, including for schoolchildren. And three Democratic-led states — California, Washington and Oregon — have created an alliance to counter turmoil within the federal public health agency.

The states said the focus of their health alliance will be on ensuring the public has access to credible information about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Almost as if in a parallel universe, Kennedy told senators on Thursday that his goal was to achieve the same thing, after facing hours of criticism on his vaccine policies.

“I am not going to sign on to something if I can’t make it with scientific certainty,” he said. “It doesn’t mean I am antivax, it just means I am pro-science.”

Source link

Sue Gray questions working class-only civil service internship

Sir Keir Starmer’s former chief of staff Baroness Sue Gray has challenged the government’s plan to limit a civil service internship scheme to working-class students.

The Labour peer questioned the “evidence base” behind last month’s decision to restrict a Whitehall internship to students from “lower socio-economic backgrounds”.

The government argued the change will bring in “more working-class young people” widening the talent pool for a civil service that will “truly reflect the country”.

But Baroness Gray told peers she was “from the most working class of backgrounds” but had “learned a lot from being around people from different walks of life”.

From October 2026, Whitehall’s main internship scheme designed to attract university students to the civil service will now only be available for students from “lower socio-economic backgrounds” – judged by what jobs their parents did when they were 14.

Those who are successful on the internship will then be prioritised for entry to the Fast Stream, the main graduate programme for entry to the civil service.

But Baroness Gray said: “As a former civil servant from the most working class of backgrounds, and I’m sure there are very good intentions here, I would have found it really difficult when I joined the civil service to not have a wider group that I actually was exposed to, and I learned so much from that.

“I would like to know what the evidence base is for actually reaching this conclusion, because I do think it’s good intentioned, but I think there are other ways that the civil service can be opened up as well.”

Labour minister Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent said this was one of the “rare” occasions she “disagreed” with Baroness Gray.

“This is not about stopping the civil service being a meritocracy. It is ensuring that the meritocracy is available to everyone, regardless of where you were born,” she said

Earlier, Tory shadow Cabinet Office minister Baroness Finn pointed out that the current rules made clear a person’s selection for work in the civil service “must be on merit on the basis of fair and open competition”.

She said: “The changes proposed by the government to the summer internship programme would allow the child of a mechanic, an electrician or even possibly a toolmaker to apply, but discriminate against the child of a roofer, a taxi driver or a nurse, who would be deemed ineligible.

“Quite apart from dramatically reducing the range of talent, does she really believe that this is still a fair and open and indeed a sensible process?”

Baroness Gray, the daughter of Irish immigrants in 1950s Tottenham, grew up with a salesman father and a barmaid mother.

She joined the civil service straight from school after her father died when she was a teenager.

She became a household name as the Partygate investigator, and her critical report into Downing Street lockdown gatherings contributed to Boris Johnson’s downfall in 2022.

She was poached from the civil service by Labour to lead Sir Keir Starmer’s office as the party prepared for government ahead of the 2024 election, but infighting forced her out within 100 days of victory.

Since joining the House of Lords she has used her speeches to warn about proposed cuts to the civil service, criticising those who call public servants “pen pushers”.

Making her maiden speech in the House of Lords, Baroness Gray said that the UK needs “public servants to succeed”.

Source link

Padilla sidesteps questions about a possible run for governor

U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) on Wednesday brushed aside questions about whether he might jump into California’s 2026 governor’s race, but declined to rule out the idea.

Padilla instead said he was wholly focused on promoting the special election in November when voters will be asked to redraw California’s congressional districts to counter efforts by President Trump and other GOP leaders to keep Republicans in control of Congress.

“I’m focused and I’d encourage everybody to focus on this Nov. 4 special election,” Padilla said during an interview at a political summit in Sacramento sponsored by Politico.

The 52-year-old added that the effort to redraw congressional districts, championed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in response to similar efforts in GOP-led states, is not solely about the arcane process known as redistricting.

“My Republican colleagues and especially the White House know how unpopular and damaging what they’re doing is, from gutting Medicare, nutrition assistance programs, really all these other areas of budget cuts to underwrite tax breaks for billionaires,” Padilla said. “So their only hope of staying in power beyond next November is to rig the system.”

In recent days, Padilla’s name has emerged as a possible candidate to replace Newsom, who cannot run for another term. The field is unsettled, with independent polling conducted after former Vice President Kamala Harris opted not to run for governor showing large numbers of voters are undecided and with no clear front-runner.

Padilla pointed to his more than quarter-century history of serving Californians at every level of government when asked what might be appealing about the job.

“I love California, right?” he said. “And I’ve had the privilege and the honor of serving in so many different capacities.”

In 1999, the then-26-year-old was elected to Los Angeles City Council. At the time, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology grad still lived with his parents — a Mexican-born housekeeper and a short-order cook — in Pacoima.

Padilla continued his steady climb through the state’s political ranks in the decades that followed, serving in the state Senate and as California secretary of state. Newsom appointed him to fill Harris’ Senate seat in 2020, making him the first Latino to represent California in the Senate, and Padilla was elected to fill a full term in 2022. His current Senate term doesn’t end until 2029, meaning he wouldn’t have to risk his seat to run for governor.

Source link

Nigel Farage has laid down the immigration gauntlet ferociously — but serious questions remain

Plans for Nigel

IN typically ferocious style, Nigel Farage yesterday laid down the gauntlet to Labour on immigration.

How the Government responds may well end up deciding whether it wins a second term.

Nigel Farage speaking at a podium.

1

De-facto leader of the opposition Nigel Farage yesterday laid down the gauntlet to Labour on immigrationCredit: Getty

Farage speaks ordinary Brits’ language and understands their “total despair”.

His cure for the crisis was plenty of harsh medicine:

1. Deportation flights starting immediately and ultimately booting out up to 600,000 illegals.

2. Bringing back Rwanda-style deals with third countries — the only proper deterrent to the small boats we ever had, and foolishly scrapped by Labour.

READ MORE FROM THE SUN SAYS

3. Ripping up European human rights laws and quitting the ECHR, which will also go down well with voters.

Labour will never do it and the Tories have dithered. But can Farage actually deliver it?

How will he achieve returns deals with rogue and failed states such as Iran and Afghanistan?

Many Brits will be wary of his idea of giving taxpayers’ cash to the vile Taliban regime.

The Tories tried for years to bring in a British Bill of Rights and failed.

Where does Northern Ireland and the complicated rules around the Good Friday Agreement fit in?

If he wants to be Prime Minister, Farage will have to provide some serious answers.

Reform party leader Nigel Farage discusses immigration at Westminster press conference

In dole-drums

A STAGGERING 6.5million people are now jobless and on benefits.

That’s up 500,000 in just a year since Labour took office.

Numbers of working-age adults on welfare payments have now risen by 79 per cent since 2018.

Unemployment — made worse by the “Jobs Tax Budget” is now on course to be its highest since the Covid pandemic.

Soaring welfare payments are not only totally unaffordable and a drag on growth, it is also morally wrong to demand working people bail out those who cannot or will not work.

Having ditched its modest welfare reforms — and with the Government now paying a “moron premium” on the UK’s debt mountain — what is the plan?

Unsafeguard

VICTIMS of domestic abuse are regularly failed by the system.

More than 100 women a year in England and Wales alone are murdered by current or former partners.

Many were let down by the DASH questionnaire used by police, social services and healthcare workers as an initial assessment of danger.

Minister Jess Phillips says it doesn’t work and is working out how to replace it.

That cannot come soon enough for those suffering now.

But it’s tragically too late for those who have already lost their lives needlessly.

Source link

Prabowo’s Welfare Push Raises Questions for Indonesia’s Infrastructure Sector

 Tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration on Southeast Asian nations—effective August 7, 2025—are likely to have a significant impact on the economies of the region. The second-quarter growth figures of Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam would have brought some relief for all these countries. For long, ASEAN countries have benefited immensely from globalization and reasonable global geopolitical stability—especially stable ties between China and the US—and in recent years even from the China+1 policy of several companies—especially western ones—which sought to reduce their dependence upon China.

In the current economic and geopolitical situation, however, the ASEAN region faces multiple challenges due to the global turbulence, and countries in the region are devising tools to deal with the economic uncertainty.

Apart from diversifying economic relations, countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam are all focusing heavily on domestic spending. While Vietnam is focusing on infrastructure, Indonesia, under the leadership of Prabowo Subianto, is focusing heavily on welfare schemes, which include an ambitious free nutritious meal program, setting up of rural cooperatives, free health check-ups, and the construction of three million homes. During his first state of the nation address, the Indonesian president said:

‘Our goal of independence is to be free from poverty, free from hunger, and free from suffering.’

For 2026, Indonesia is likely to raise public spending to $233.92 billion. The free meal program will receive $20.7 billion. Prabowo’s ambitious plan to develop 80,000 rural cooperatives is also likely to incur massive public expenditures.

Focus on welfare and the impact of infrastructure projects in Indonesia.

In the case of Indonesia, the spending on welfare schemes has also resulted in lesser allocation towards Nusantara—the new administrative capital proposed by Prabowo’s predecessor, Joko Widodo, referred to as Jokowi. The reason for setting up a new capital was infrastructural and logistical problems in the current Indonesian capital—Jakarta. Nusantara, located in the East Kalimantan region of Indonesia, was chosen due to its geographical location and the fact that it may help in addressing disparities between the eastern and western parts of the country. While Jokowi had committed over $5 billion for the development of Nusantara, between 2022 and 2024, his successor has committed a little more than half the amount for the period between 2025 and 2029.

Unlike Jokowi, who focused heavily on the infrastructure sector, Prabowo Subianto is focused more on welfare. This is a major departure in terms of economic policy. Lesser focus on Nusantara could have several implications. First, according to many observers, it could send the wrong message to investors. Second, it may have domestic political ramifications. The Nusantara project was a brainchild of Jokowi, and it remains to be seen how the former president views the slowing down of the project.

In conclusion, ASEAN countries are being forced to explore new economic approaches and focus more on spending. As mentioned earlier, some ASEAN countries like Vietnam are focusing heavily on infrastructure, while Indonesia is expanding welfare programs. While focusing on the same is important, it remains to be seen what approach the current dispensation adopts vis-à-vis the Nusantara project, which is very important in terms of messaging to investors. It also remains to be seen whether the slowing down of the project will have any impact on Indonesia’s domestic politics.

Source link

FPL 2025-26: 5 key questions for managers to consider this season

The key change this season is that outfield players can now earn two bonus points based on the number of defensive actions they make in one match.

FPL managers now also get double the amount of chips – two Free Hits, two Wildcards, two Bench Boosts and two Triple Captains.

And managers will have their free transfer pool boosted to five transfers before the Africa Cup of Nations in January.

Full details here.

Pras: A two-point return is almost as good as a three-point assist, so picking reliable players with good minutes, mainly centre-backs and defensive midfielders, has become much more viable.

We will also need to think about our bench players differently. Players are more likely to accumulate these two-pointers in tougher matches. So is Everton’s James Tarkowski (£5.5m) away to Chelsea as bad a fixture as before? Perhaps not.

Holly: Defensive contribution points give extra utility to centre-backs and we could see a rise in managers opting to play 4-4-2 or 4-3-3.

When it comes to midfielders, FPL managers should embrace the value provided by defensive midfielders such as Chelsea’s Moises Caicedo (£5.5m) and Brighton’s Carlos Baleba (£5m) for their fourth or fifth midfielder spots.

Statman: You’ve got to remember that these defensive contribution numbers are only there if you’ve picked that player every single game through the season.

For example, with Tarkowski, you’ve got to go through those games against Liverpool and Manchester City, those games where Everton are not favourites, to get those points – so you’re really going to have to balance it out in terms of opposition and whether you think they’re going to make defensive actions.

One team I’m really excited about for defensive contributions is Tottenham under Thomas Frank, because the numbers should shoot up for a number of their players and they’ve got a lot of £4.5m defenders.

In midfield, one player who really stands out is Bruno Fernandes. He would have got 22 extra points last season.

The start of the season is rubbish for Manchester United but he’s someone that does make a lot of ball recoveries, makes a lot of tackles for his position.

Heisenberg: The FPL rule changes shift gameplay significantly.

Two sets of chips is an interesting change. We’ll see greater variety in chip usage in the first half of the season, with no double gameweeks around.

Five free transfers for Afcon is a rule change I am not a fan of. Properly planning used to lead to an advantage, now everyone gets bailed out for free. However, I plan to maximise these free transfers by effectively having close to an extra wildcard and I won’t use it to simply firefight absences from my squad.

Source link