refused

Tension between Indiana University and its student newspaper flared last week with the elimination of the outlet’s print editions and the firing of a faculty advisor who refused an order to keep news stories out of a homecoming edition.

Administrators may have been hoping to minimize distractions during its homecoming weekend as the school prepared to celebrate a Hoosiers football team with its highest-ever national ranking. Instead, the controversy has entangled the school in questions about censorship and student journalists’ 1st Amendment rights.

Advocates for student media, Indiana Daily Student alumni and high-profile supporters including billionaire Mark Cuban have excoriated the university for stepping on the outlet’s independence.

The Daily Student is routinely honored among the best collegiate publications in the country. It receives about $250,000 annually in subsidies from the university’s Media School to help make up for dwindling ad revenue.

On Tuesday, the university fired the paper’s advisor, Jim Rodenbush, after he refused an order to force student editors to ensure that no news stories ran in the print edition tied to the homecoming celebrations.

“I had to make the decision that was going to allow me to live with myself,” Rodenbush said. “I don’t have any regrets whatsoever. In the current environment we’re in, somebody has to stand up.”

Student journalists still call the shots

A university spokesperson referred an Associated Press reporter to a statement issued Tuesday, which said the campus wants to shift resources from print media to digital platforms both for students’ educational experience and to address the paper’s financial problems.

Chancellor David Reingold issued a separate statement Wednesday saying the school is “firmly committed to the free expression and editorial independence of student media. The university has not and will not interfere with their editorial judgment.”

It was late last year when university officials announced they were scaling back the cash-strapped newspaper’s print edition from a weekly to seven special editions per semester, tied to campus events.

The paper published three print editions this fall, inserting special event sections, Rodenbush said. Last month, Media School officials started asking why the special editions still contained news, he said.

Rodenbush said IU Media School Dean David Tolchinsky told him this month that the expectation was print editions would contain no news. Tolchinsky argued that Rodenbush was essentially the paper’s publisher and could decide what to run, Rodenbush said. He told the dean that publishing decisions were the students’ alone, he said.

Tolchinsky fired him Tuesday, two days before the homecoming print edition was set to be published, and announced the end of all Indiana Daily Student print publications.

“Your lack of leadership and ability to work in alignment with the University’s direction for the Student Media Plan is unacceptable,” Tolchinsky wrote in Rodenbush’s termination letter.

The newspaper was allowed to continue publishing stories on its website.

Student journalists see a ‘scare tactic’

Andrew Miller, the Indiana Daily Student’s co-editor in chief, said in a statement that Rodenbush “did the right thing by refusing to censor our print edition” and called the termination a “deliberate scare tactic toward journalists and faculty.”

“IU has no legal right to dictate what we can and cannot print in our paper,” Miller said.

Mike Hiestand, senior legal counsel at the Student Press Law Center, said 1st Amendment case law going back 60 years shows student editors at public universities determine content. Advisors such as Rodenbush can’t interfere, Hiestand said.

“It’s open and shut, and it’s just so bizarre that this is coming out of Indiana University,” Hiestand said. “If this was coming out of a community college that doesn’t know any better, that would be one thing. But this is coming out of a place that absolutely should know better.”

Rodenbush said that he wasn’t aware of any single story the newspaper has published that may have provoked administrators. But he speculated the moves may be part of a “general progression” of administrators trying to protect the university from any negative publicity.

Blocked from publishing a print edition, the paper last week posted a number of sharp-edged stories online, including coverage of the opening of a new film critical of arrests of pro-Palestinian demonstrators last year, a tally of campus sexual assaults and an FBI raid on the home of a former professor suspected of stealing federal funds.

The paper also has covered allegations that IU President Pamela Whitten plagiarized parts of her dissertation, with the most recent story running in September.

Richmond writes for the Associated Press.

The National Television Awards were held at the O2 Arena last night and social commentator Narinder Kaur is said to have been refused entry to the red carpet at the event

Social commentator Narinder Kaur was refused entry to the red carpet of the National Television Awards last night. She was among the celebrities who had travelled to the O2 Arena in London for the televised awards ceremony.

Narinder, 53, who regularly appears on Jeremy Vine‘s panel show, is said to have been turned away from the red carpet after arriving at the venue in London. It’s claimed that it led to confusion among guests preparing to enter the event.

A spokesperson for Narinder told the Mirror that she was turned away from the red carpet, despite previously been told that she would be given access. They told us today: “She was refused entry onto the red carpet by one of the organisers, despite a network executive for the show confirming that she was allowed entry onto the red carpet.”

They continued: “Several celebrities came over to Narinder’s aid and also said the organiser’s behaviour was weird and asked why Narinder was the only person being asked [to show her tickets].” They added: “Narinder has previously won an NTA, back in 2002, which adds insult to injury.” A representative for the NTAs declined to comment when approached.

READ MORE: Molly-Mae Hague fans jump to her defence after her NTAs win sparks furious backlashREAD MORE: Ant and Dec break silence after losing out to Gary Lineker at NTAs after 23-year reign

Narinder, who is said to have taken a boat down the Thames amid tube strikes to make it to the O2 Arena, had shared content on Instagram ahead of arriving. The broadcaster suggested in a post that she was running late, writing: “[My agent is] trying to calm me down at HOW LATE we are”.

She’s since issued a video message on X, in which she addressed the idea of having been “banned” from the NTAs. She said: “I wasn’t banned. I had an invite but when I got there they decided it wasn’t the right invite, security, and I had to wait. And it was like so one and half, two hours later, and then finally [they] were like ‘oh my god’ we’ve made a huge mistake. Of course come in’. It was too late. I was ready to go home.”

Narinder, who said that she hopes it was a “genuine mistake,” found it “humiliating” and “embarrassing,” adding: “I was really upset.” She also hit out at the prospect of it being due to her opinions on certain topics, saying that some people had suggested that to her. Dismissing the prospect, she said: “That doesn’t make sense. […] Then why would I be invited? What, then they decided when I got to the door that I’m too opinionated?”

Her opinions have included criticism of the BBC recently following the news that former the Apprentice star Thomas Skinner, 34, will compete on Strictly Come Dancing this year. She said last month that she wanted to take part in the show but had been deemed “too controversial”.

As reported at the time, she said in the caption of a video about his casting on X: “Apparently I was deemed too controversial for @bbcstrictly because they only hire quiet brown and black women that fit in a box. But you can be a white man AND be controversial and you’ll be hired on the spot! Hello Thomas Skinner!! #BBCStrictly your unconscious bias and prejudicial views against British brown women is disgraceful.”

The BBC’s director-general Tim Davie said at a Culture, Media and Sport Committee earlier this week that he had “never heard that” when asked about claims that Narinder was rejected for the show, whilst defending the controversial casting of Thomas. Tim said: “I’m not involved directly, that’s not disowning it, it’s just day to day.

“It’s for BBC Studios to propose to the commissioner of entertainment who they think they can get … one is who will take part, because it’s quite a commitment, three months in full training. And the second is, who are people that they think would make a good balance in terms of the cast, and my goodness, they’ve done a good job in terms of creating a phenomenal show.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

READ MORE: Sian Welby stuns in £46 satin dress from M&S that’s perfect for party season

No compensation

A woman has been left fuming after her partner did something ‘inexcusable’ while they were waiting to board a plane – and thousands of people said she should’ve left him to fly alone

Many find the airport experience nerve-wracking, with a several potential mishaps standing between them and their much-anticipated getaway. From the horror of a travel companion forgetting to pack their passport to the frustration of endless flight delays, the journey to your holiday can be fraught with tension.

However, amid the chaos and stress, there’s an unspoken rule that insists on keeping your travel party together, unless you’ve agreed otherwise beforehand. Sticking together not only ensures everyone is accounted for in case of issues like boarding denials but also makes the long and often tedious wait at the airport more enjoyable for everyone involved.

So, when Elizabeth Anne Schon discovered her partner had abandoned her in the boarding queue to scramble onto the plane first, her irritation was palpable.

“Men constantly walking five steps ahead is bad… but this made me not want to even board the plane,” she expressed in her TikTok video, which has now racked up over 7.9 million views.

Elizabeth captured the moment her other half darted off towards the gate, leaving her to navigate the snaking queue alone, in the viral clip.

“I almost turned around,” she added in the video’s caption.

In a follow-up video, Elizabeth recalled how her partner had pushed to join the boarding queue before their zone was called, despite her objections.

She then went on use the bathroom before their flight, only to find her partner no where to be seen when she returned.

Upon returning to the gate, she discovered her partner had joined the queue despite what she said, leaving her to face the long line alone as she watched him get the okay to board their flight ahead of her.

The video quickly amassed thousands of comments, with many siding with Elizabeth, confessing they would have been tempted to leave the airport altogether if faced with the same situation.

“I bet he wouldn’t do that to any of his friends,” commented one viewer, while another remarked: “I would have let him get on and went home… what kind of vacation would it be with him anyways.”

Someone else recommended: “Ask if you can upgrade that ticket. Wave to him from first class and tell him the stewardess upgraded you because she felt bad you were traveling alone.

“Hey so flying somewhere with your partner is meant to be exciting and full of inside jokes and talking about what food you’re gonna eat,” pointed out another. “Him being 30 people ahead on purpose you need to book separate accommodation and file for divorce before you waste even more of your time.”

Yet, there was also a voice of dissent, with one person suggesting: “I’d like to hear both sides of the story. Zero context and roasting online? Red flag.”

Christina Finn and her family were flying back to Dublin from London Stansted with Ryanair on Sunday evening when they were refused boarding on their flight

A family from Ireland has spoken out after they claimed Ryanair refused to let them board a flight from London to Dublin, erroneously informing them they needed a visa to travel from the UK to Ireland. Christina Finn and her husband, Cameron, were forced to miss their return trip to Dublin following a CBeebies event in London with their infant son when they were turned away by the budget carrier at Stansted Airport.

The pair had travelled trouble-free to London from Belfast on Friday but encountered issues when attempting to return home.

Christian said: “We had flown to London on Friday morning from Belfast for a meeting with the BBC, and we were to fly home from London to Dublin and then get the bus up to Belfast as that was the cheapest option, and it is something we would do all the time.”

The couple’s journey hit a hitch when they struggled to check-in online due to technical issues which Christina initially thought were caused by her mobile phone, reports the Irish Mirror.

Stranded with their ill five-month-old baby who requires regular medication, Christina emphasised the urgency of their need to return home.

Christina said: “When we went to check in on the app, it wouldn’t let me click through to our booking at all and I thought the issue was with my phone so when we got to the airport, we had to check in at the desk where we then had to pay a fine for not checking in online.”

Following the unexpected check-in fee at the airport, Christina explained that the Ryanair representative asked to see their passports, despite having used their driving licences for the outbound easyJet flight, and offered their slightly expired passports as identification.

“My husband has an Irish passport and I have a British one, which have both recently expired. With the baby due, we were waiting until he was born to renew them so that we could just do it at the same time.

“We informed the staff that we had flown over on our driving licences so he took them away and came back with a man who told us that because my husband has an expired Irish passport, he would be allowed on the flight to Dublin but as my passport was a British one they couldn’t let me on the plane.

“The staff informed me that as a UK citizen I would need a visa to travel to Ireland as it is in the EU and I tried to explain to them that that wouldn’t apply due to the Common Travel Area.

“I told him that we lived in Northern Ireland and he then questioned how I had a British passport and couldn’t seem to understand that it was a pretty common thing for people to fly to Dublin then travel on to Belfast. He also said that we would need to have evidence that we had booked onward travel from Dublin to Belfast.

“As I questioned it, he said that he was speaking to someone on the phone who told him that if they let us on the plane and if we arrived in Dublin we would be stopped at passport control and the airline would be fined between £500 and £1000 for allowing me on the plane without a valid passport.”

Christina revealed that the staff member advised the only solution to their problem would be to book a new direct flight to Belfast, which would cost them €580 (£554).

In a frustrating situation, Christina had to turn to her mother for help with the flight costs. While sorting things out, her mother checked the official government website and found something that surprised them both.

“We had to borrow the money from my mum for the flights and while I was on the phone to her she looked up the Government website which stated that you did not need a passport or visa to travel between the UK and Ireland.

“She sent me a screenshot of this which I showed to the man and he said he would look into it then he walked away.”

Determined to get to the bottom of the issue, Christina phoned the British embassy in Dublin who referred her to their Irish counterparts in London.

She said: “I decided to ring the British embassy in Dublin who directed me to call the Irish embassy in London and the woman on the phone was horrified.

“She said that there was no requirement for people to have a passport for travelling between the UK and Ireland and that there was also no need for a visa.”

However, to her dismay, she discovered that Ryanair’s own rules played a significant role in her travel woes. “However, she explained that Ryanair could have its own policy requiring travellers to have a passport.”

Feeling mistreated, Christina recounted how the incident left her feeling less than respected. A Ryanair spokesperson defended the airline’s position, emphasising their policy and the customers’ agreement to it.

“In accordance with Ryanair’s TandC’s, which these passengers agreed to at the time of booking, these passengers failed to check-in online before arriving at London Stansted Airport (5 June).

“Therefore, these passengers were correctly asked to pay the required airport check-in fee (£55 per passenger), however refused to do so, and became aggressive towards the agents at the check in desk at London Stansted Airport.”

They further reiterated the importance of abiding by their procedures. “All passengers travelling with Ryanair agree to check-in online before arriving at their departure airport and all passengers are sent an email reminding them to do so 24hrs before departure.

“These passengers were subsequently correctly denied boarding to this flight from London Stansted to Dublin (5 June) as these passengers’ passports did not meet the requirements for travel as both passports had expired in 2024.

“It is each passenger’s responsibility to ensure that their passport is valid for travel in line with the relevant State requirements at the time of travel. These requirements are clearly set out on Ryanair.com, and passengers are reminded with pop-up messages during booking.

“Passengers travelling between Ireland and the UK are required to carry a valid passport for travel. Therefore, as these passengers did not present a valid passport for this flight from London Stansted to Dublin Airport, they were correctly denied boarding.”

New Delhi, India — India has distanced itself from the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation’s (SCO) condemnation of Israel’s ongoing attacks on Iran, signalling a potential rift in the influential Eurasian political bloc over the conflict.

World leaders have repeatedly called for de-escalation amid Israel’s unprecedented attacks on its regional rival, Iran, which threaten to destabilise the region. Last Friday, the latest round of fighting began after Israel launched attacks on Iran’s military and nuclear sites.

This follows two rounds of direct military conflict between Iran and Israel in 2024, which were triggered by Israeli strikes on Iranian targets and subsequent Iranian retaliation.

Iranian authorities say Israeli attacks since Friday have targeted residential and military areas in Tehran as well as many cities across the country, killing at least 80 people, including civilians. Several Iranian nuclear scientists and university professors were killed along with several top-ranking commanders of the Iranian armed forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Israeli attacks on Saturday hit refineries, power stations and oil reserves across Iran. Tehran has retaliated by launching hundreds of missiles and drones at the Israeli cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa, killing at least 13 people and injuring dozens. Meanwhile, Tehran has also paused nuclear negotiations with the United States.

So, why did India refuse to take part in the discussions or endorse the SCO’s position on Israel’s attacks? Is India backing Israel? And what is at stake for these countries?

What did the SCO say?

The SCO, a political and security bloc founded in 2001, includes China, Belarus, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Iran is the most recent entrant, having joined the SCO under India’s chairmanship in 2023.

On Saturday, the SCO, currently chaired by China, said its member states “express serious concern” over the escalating Iran-Israel tensions and “strongly condemn the military strikes carried out by Israel” on the territory of Iran.

The SCO statement further noted that Israel’s “aggressive actions against civilian targets, including energy and transport infrastructure, which have resulted in civilian casualties, are a gross violation of international law and the United Nations Charter”.

“[Israeli attacks] constitute an infringement on Iran’s sovereignty, cause damage to regional and international security, and pose serious risks to global peace and stability,” the statement added, extending condolences to Iran’s government and people.

“The SCO member states firmly advocate for the resolution of the situation surrounding Iran’s nuclear program exclusively through peaceful, political, and diplomatic means,” the statement noted.

India’s ‘delicate balancing act’

After Israel’s initial strikes on Tehran, Indian Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar held a phone conversation with his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, in which he “conveyed the deep concern of the international community at the turn of events”.

Jaishankar “urged avoidance of any escalatory steps and an early return to diplomacy,” according to India’s Ministry of External Affairs. The ministry also underlined its concerns in a separate statement on Friday.

“We are closely monitoring the evolving situation, including reports related to attacks on nuclear sites,” the Indian Foreign Ministry said, urging both sides to use existing channels of dialogue and diplomacy to “work towards a de-escalation of the situation”.

“India enjoys close and friendly relations with both the countries and stands ready to extend all possible support,” the statement noted.

Shanthie D’Souza, a senior research fellow at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, told Al Jazeera, “Unlike other SCO nations, India is in a unique position given that it has to maintain defence ties with Israel and its economic ties with Iran.”

India is Israel’s largest weapons buyer, and in 2024, Indian weapons firms also sold Israel rockets and explosives amid the war in Gaza, an Al Jazeera investigation revealed. At the same time, India has been developing Iran’s Chabahar Port as a gateway for its exports to Central Asia and Afghanistan.

“India has maintained a delicate balancing act [in the latest round of fighting between Israel and Iran],” D’Souza said.

After the SCO statement condemning the Israeli strikes on Iran, New Delhi said it did not participate in discussions about the statement.

“The overall position of India as stated above was communicated to other SCO members,” the Foreign Ministry said, referring to its earlier statement for India’s official position.

Is India backing Israel?

Not explicitly. But by distancing itself from the bloc’s stance, New Delhi has weakened the force of the SCO’s condemnation of Israel’s attacks on Iran.

A day before distancing itself from the SCO statement, India abstained from voting in the United Nations General Assembly on a draft resolution that demanded an “immediate, unconditional and permanent” ceasefire in Gaza.

To Kabir Taneja, the deputy director of the strategic studies programme at the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation, India’s abstention at the UN was perplexing. He suggested that it may have been influenced by India’s desire to maintain good relations with the US, noting how India is close to a trade agreement with Washington – a deal it is trying to clinch before US President Donald Trump’s threatened 27 percent tariff on Indian goods is lifted in early July.

National interests aside, Taneja noted that New Delhi’s distancing from the SCO on the Israel-Iran tensions also “reflects on the construct of the SCO, where India is sort of an outlier inside”.

While China and Russia are close to Iran, Taneja said, given India’s relationships with the US and Israel, “it would have been very difficult [for India] to subscribe to SCO’s particular wording and statement”.

Is US pressure on Iran threatening India’s regional ambitions?

Before Trump imposed sanctions following the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in 2017, Iran was India’s third-largest oil supplier.

In February, after Trump returned for a second term in office, he doubled down on economic pressure tactics to corner Iran by suspending sanction waivers “that provide Iran any degree of economic or financial relief, including those related to Iran’s Chabahar port project”.

The port would allow India to bypass its rival, Pakistan, by trading with landlocked Afghanistan and Central Asia via Iran. India had secured a sanctions waiver from the US during the first Trump administration for work related to Chabahar.

Now, Trump’s sanctions put New Delhi’s multimillion-dollar investment in the strategically located maritime facility at risk.

But India’s interest in maintaining strong ties with Iran goes beyond just the port project. Taneja noted that India values Iran’s geographic position because it provides it with access to Afghanistan and Central Asia – regions important for India’s trade, security, and influence.

US president makes claim after Mexican leader says her country’s sovereignty ‘not for sale.’

United States President Donald Trump has claimed that Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum refused an offer to send US troops to the Latin American country due to her fear of drug cartels.

Trump on Sunday confirmed that he had suggested sending US troops to Mexico to combat drug trafficking, a day after Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said her country’s sovereignty was “not for sale”.

“If Mexico wanted help with the cartels, we would be honoured to go in and do it. I told her that,” Trump told reporters onboard Air Force One.

“I would be honoured to go in and do it. The cartels are trying to destroy our country.”

Asked if he was disappointed over Sheinbaum’s decision, Trump claimed that she had refused the offer because she is “so afraid of the cartels, she can’t walk”.

“I think she’s a lovely woman. The president of Mexico is a lovely woman, but she is so afraid of the cartels that she can’t even think straight,” Trump said without offering evidence to support his claim.

On Saturday, Sheinbaum told a public event that she had told the US president that Mexico would never accept the presence of US troops on its territory.

“I told him, No, President Trump, our territory is inviolable, our sovereignty is inviolable, our sovereignty is not for sale,’” she said.

Sheinbaum made her comments after The Wall Street Journal, citing unnamed sources, reported that the Trump administration was pressuring her government to allow “deeper US military involvement” in the fight against Mexican drug cartels.

Trump has often accused Mexico of not doing enough to halt the flow of fentanyl and other illicit drugs across the US southern border.

In one of the first salvoes of his wide-ranging trade war, Trump in February announced that he would impose across-the-board 25 percent tariffs on Mexico and Canada over what he said was their failure to crack down on the influx of drugs and undocumented migrants.

Trump subsequently announced that he would suspend the tariffs on goods falling under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the three-way free trade deal that his first administration negotiated to succeed the North American Free Trade Agreement.