title
stringlengths 28
112
| published_date
stringlengths 10
10
| authors
stringclasses 6
values | description
stringlengths 0
239
| section
stringclasses 95
values | content
stringlengths 178
42.3k
| link
stringlengths 34
77
| top_image
stringlengths 53
143
| news_id
stringlengths 13
55
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court says Texas can arrest and jail migrants - BBC News
|
2024-03-20
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
But a Mexican official says it will not accept migrants deported by Texas under the new law.
|
US & Canada
|
SB4 gives police officers in Texas broad powers to arrest migrants.
The Supreme Court has allowed Texas to enforce one of the toughest immigration laws enacted by any US state in recent memory.
The measure allows police to arrest and prosecute those suspected of illegally crossing the US-Mexican border.
The Biden administration has challenged the law, calling it unconstitutional.
Crossing the US border illegally is already a federal crime, but violations are usually handled as civil cases by the immigration court system.
One reason the Texas law, SB4, is so controversial is because courts have previously ruled that only the federal government can enforce the country's immigration laws, not individual US states.
SB4 gives local and state police officers the ability to stop and arrest anyone suspected of having crossed the border illegally, except in schools, healthcare facilities and places of worship.
Punishments would range from misdemeanours to felonies and potential imprisonment, or fines of up to $2,000 (£1,570).
Penalties for those who illegally re-enter Texas after having been deported could go up to 20 years in prison, depending on a person's immigration and criminal history.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court said the measure can take effect while a lower federal appeals court weighs its legality. A day earlier the nation's highest court placed a temporary pause on SB4.
"SB4 will not only make communities in Texas less safe, it will also burden law enforcement, and sow chaos and confusion at our southern border," White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement.
But Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton hailed the Supreme Court decision as a "huge win" against the Biden administration and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has also challenged the law in court.
"As always, it's my honor to defend Texas and its sovereignty, and to lead us to victory in court," he wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter.
The ACLU vowed that it "won't back down until this extreme anti-immigrant law is struck down for good".
Top Mexico diplomat Roberto Velasco Álvarez posted on X that Mexico will not accept migrants being sent back across the border by the state of Texas.
"The dialogue on immigration matters will continue between the federal governments" of Mexico and the US, he wrote in Spanish.
The court's three liberal justices - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson - disagreed with the majority ruling.
"The court gives a green-light that will upend the longstanding federal-state balance of power and sow chaos," Justice Sotomayor wrote in the dissenting opinion.
She also wrote that the law could "disrupt sensitive foreign relations, frustrate the protection of individuals fleeing persecution, hamper active federal enforcement efforts" and keep migrants from reporting abuse or trafficking.
As well as arguing that SB4 infringes on the federal government's authority to secure the US border, the justice department has warned it could harm relations with Mexico, which has condemned the law as "anti-immigrant".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: A look at the US border as immigration debate heats up
Historically, the federal government has created laws and regulations on immigration, even though the US Constitution does not explicitly grant it those powers.
It is also the federal government which negotiates treaties and agreements with other countries.
SB4 was signed into law in December and was initially due to come into effect on 5 March.
The case will now head back to a three-judge panel from the New Orleans-based US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Following the Supreme Court decision, the appeals court said it would hear arguments on Wednesday.
Whoever loses there would have the option of taking the case back to the Supreme Court.
The implementation of SB4 comes amid rising public concern over the US-Mexico border.
A Gallup poll released in February showed that nearly one-third of Americans believe immigration is the single greatest problem the country faces, ahead of the government, the economy and inflation.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68609930
|
news_world-us-canada-68609930
|
|
Deliveroo rider bites off Aldershot customer's thumb - BBC News
|
2024-03-20
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Jenniffer Rocha, who was delivering a pizza, attacked the customer near his home in Aldershot.
|
Hampshire & Isle of Wight
|
Jenniffer Rocha was delivering a pizza when she severed Stephen Jenkinson's thumb
A food delivery driver who bit off a customer's thumb has pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm.
Jenniffer Rocha, 35, attacked the customer in December 2022 near his home in Aldershot in Hampshire.
She was not employed by Deliveroo, but had been working as a "substitute" rider using someone else's account.
The judge at Winchester Crown Court described it as a "serious offence", which could result in a prison sentence.
Deliveroo said it was an "awful incident", adding it had ended the rider's account.
Rocha is due to be sentenced on 3 May.
Warning: This story contains a graphic image and details that some readers may find upsetting
A plumber by trade, Mr Jenkinson is unable to work because of his injury
Stephen Jenkinson, 36, had ordered a pizza from the food delivery app on 14 December 2022.
But Rocha arrived at the wrong location, down the street from Mr Jenkinson's house.
When he went to get his food, he forgot his phone and a brief argument ensued about the delivery code number he needed to provide.
Mr Jenkinson said he was then attacked.
He raised his hand to Rocha's motorcycle helmet and she bit his thumb.
"All I remember, I was shaking her helmet trying to get her off," he told the BBC.
She eventually let go, at which point Mr Jenkinson lifted up his arm and "sprayed her with blood".
Mr Jenkinson's thumb was severed just above the knuckle.
"The force with which she must have been biting, she'd clean taken it off," he said, adding it was as if he had "gone through a chainsaw".
Mr Jenkinson's thumb is severed just above the knuckle
He said the case raised questions about Deliveroo's responsibility for scrutinising its delivery drivers.
It comes as new figures released to BBC News indicate that, across the UK, three vehicles used for food delivery are seized every week by police because they are uninsured for business use.
Deliveroo, like many food delivery apps, does not employ any drivers or riders directly.
They are classed as independent contractors and can appoint "substitutes" to deliver on their behalf.
It is the responsibility of the main account holder to check that the substitute is legally allowed to work.
Rocha was in the UK legally and had the right to work here.
Deliveroo said its riders were covered by the company's own free insurance.
But because Rocha was working as a substitute for another driver, Deliveroo cannot be held legally responsible.
Solicitors representing Mr Jenkinson said her insurance policy did not cover injury caused by a criminal act.
"At the moment, I'm getting nothing from Deliveroo," said Mr Jenkinson.
A plumber by training, Mr Jenkinson said he had been unable to work since the attack.
After months of reconstructive surgery, part of his big toe was grafted onto the stump of his missing thumb.
He has had to relearn basic tasks such as doing up buttons or tying shoelaces - and said he still had no sensation in it.
"Financially, I'm ruined. I'm unemployed. I'm in a massive amount of debt and I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel," he said.
His relationship with his girlfriend, the mother of their newborn daughter, also broke down following the incident.
"I have to live with this for the rest of my life," Mr Jenkinson said.
"I want to use this story to help others, to say 'this has to change'," he added.
Mr Jenkinson's lawyer, Alex Barley from Slater Heelis, said: "Companies operating in the gig economy should be held to account for the actions of the people they rely on for their significant profits.
"The practice of substitution should be stopped and the companies should be required to carry out necessary checks on all people working for them".
In a statement Deliveroo said its riders were self employed - a fact which had been "confirmed by UK courts on multiple occasions".
"Substitution is and always has been a common feature of self employment - it is not specific to Deliveroo, nor our sector," it added.
Follow BBC South on Facebook, X, or Instagram. Send your story ideas to south.newsonline@bbc.co.uk or via WhatsApp on 0808 100 2240.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68558464
|
news_uk-68558464
|
|
Llanelli: Man murdered with fishing knife outside home - BBC News
|
2024-03-20
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
A jury finds James Allan Smith, 36, guilty of murdering Ashley Sarsero by stabbing him at his home.
|
Wales
|
Ashley Sarsero died outside his home after being stabbed by James Smith in September 2023
A man who stabbed his victim in the neck with a fishing knife has been found guilty of murder.
James Allan Smith, 36, of Nelson Road, Llanelli, Carmarthenshire, had denied murdering Ashley Sarsero, 26, in the Maestir area of Felinfoel last September.
He stood trial for two weeks at Swansea Crown Court.
The jury returned a majority verdict of guilty for Smith.
Steven George Morgan, also 36 from Station Road, Llanelli, has denied a charge of assisting an offender, on which jury deliberations continue.
The court previously heard how Smith stabbed Mr Sarsero in the neck outside his home, "deliberately and without any justification".
Michael Jones KC, prosecuting, said the pair argued in the early hours of 10 September, before the three men went outside and Smith produced a knife.
He stabbed Mr Sarsero in the neck, before fleeing the scene. Mr Morgan told Smith to "run, now" before calling an ambulance, the jury was told.
Mr Morgan was arrested at the scene, and Smith turned himself in at the police station the following day.
Smith admitted to having cocaine, diazepam and prescription anxiety drug Pregablin in his system when he met Mr Morgan at Penyfan quarry on the evening of 9 September.
The pair smoked cannabis and drank alcohol together before encountering Mr Sarsero's mother, Clare Richards, who had asked them to walk her back to her house as it was late and she was "alone and drunk".
The jury was told Mr Sarsero returned home, and asked who the two men were, before telling them to leave.
An argument broke out between him and Smith which spilled out in front of the property and Smith brandished the blade from his bag.
He claimed he "feared for his life" and didn't realise the weapon had hit Mr Sarsero.
After stabbing him in the neck, he fled from the scene.
Smith had bought a knife matching the description the day before the stabbing, the court heard.
In a tribute paid to Mr Sarsero shortly after his death, his family described him as a "beautiful, precious boy who would light up a room".
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68607035
|
news_uk-wales-68607035
|
|
Llanelli: Man guilty of assisting Ashley Sarsero murderer - BBC News
|
2024-03-21
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Steven Morgan told murderer James Allan Smith to "run, now" before calling an ambulance.
|
Wales
|
Ashley Sarsero died after being stabbed in the neck by a stranger outside his home
A man has been found guilty of helping a murderer who stabbed someone to death outside their own home.
Steven Morgan, 36, of Station Road, Llanelli, denied assisting an offender but a jury at Swansea Crown Court found him guilty on Thursday.
James Smith, 36, of Nelson Road, Llanelli, has already been found guilty of murdering Ashley Sarsero.
He stabbed Mr Sarsero in the neck with a fishing knife outside his home in the Maestir area of Felinfoel in September.
Smith and Morgan will both be sentenced on Friday.
The trial heard heard how Smith attacked Mr Sarsero "deliberately and without any justification".
Michael Jones KC, prosecuting, said the pair argued in the early hours of 10 September before all three men went outside and Smith produced a knife.
He stabbed Mr Sarsero before fleeing the scene and Morgan told Smith to "run, now" before calling an ambulance.
Morgan was arrested at the scene and Smith turned himself in at the police station the following day.
Smith met Morgan at Penyfan quarry on the evening of 9 September and the pair smoked cannabis and drank alcohol together.
They then encountered Mr Sarsero's mother, Clare Richards, who asked them to walk her home as it was late and she was "alone and drunk".
The jury was told Ms Richards invited them in, but when Mr Sarsero returned home he asked who the two men were, before telling them to leave.
An argument broke out between him and Smith, which spilled outside where Smith brandished the blade from his bag.
He had bought a knife matching the description the day before the stabbing, the court heard.
In a tribute paid to Mr Sarsero shortly after his death, his family described him as a "beautiful, precious boy who would light up a room".
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68607036
|
news_uk-wales-68607036
|
|
Llanelli: Man who stabbed victim in neck jailed for 28 years - BBC News
|
2024-03-22
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
James Smith stabbed Ashley Sarsero in the neck before taunting him as he lay bleeding.
|
Wales
|
Ashley Sarsero would "light up a room", his family said
A murderer who killed his victim by stabbing him in the neck with a fishing knife has been jailed.
James Smith, 36, of Nelson Road, Llanelli, murdered Ashley Sarsero, 26, in Llanelli in September.
At Swansea Crown Court, Smith was handed a life sentence and told he would serve a minimum of 28 years in jail before being eligible for parole.
Steven Morgan, also 36, was sentenced to four-and-a-half years for helping Smith flee the scene.
The jury in the three-week trial heard Smith and Morgan had been invited into Mr Sarsero's home in the Maestir area of Felinfoel by his mother, Claire Richards.
She had met both men earlier that night outside a local garage and they had accompanied her back to her property because she was "alone and drunk".
While all three were at the address, Mr Sarsero returned from attending a gig in Swansea and a heated argument ensued which spilled out into the front garden.
It resulted in Smith taking a lock knife from his "bum bag" and stabbing Mr Sarsero in the neck "up to the hilt", a move he claimed had been in self-defence.
He then proceeded to taunt his victim, saying "cry to your mammy" before running away, having been prompted to do so by Morgan who was later arrested at the scene.
James Smith stabbed Ashley Sarsero in the neck before taunting him as he lay bleeding to death
Smith, who admitted to having cocaine and various other drugs in his system at the time, turned himself in to the police the following day.
Prior to doing so he attempted to cover his tracks by washing and disposing of clothing and items that might link him to the incident.
Speaking to the court via video link, Mr Sarsero's mother Claire Richards said her "life is no longer the same without her precious, stunning son in it".
"I was the first to look into his eyes when he was born and the last to do so when he died," she added.
Ms Richards said she had been "broken in two" by the loss of her son and admitted to having since spent "days and nights at his graveside" in "sheer agony".
She also condemned Smith for showing no remorse or accepting any responsibility for what he had done.
Appearing in court, Mr Sarsero's partner Jade Jones said her "world had been changed forever" by his death and that she had been left suffering nightmares and panic attacks as a result.
"Ashley will always be the love of my life," she added.
The court also heard that, at the time of Mr Sarsero's murder, Smith had been on bail for brandishing a knife in a Llanelli pub in June 2022.
The murder happened outside the victim's home in Maestir, Llanelli
He had also claimed to have been in possession of a gun and bullets and had threatened to "slit someone's throat".
Sentencing Smith, Judge Daniel Williams said he had to take this separate incident into consideration.
He also said Smith had dozens of other previous offences which ranged from theft and assault to attempted robbery with a machete.
Calling it a "tragedy beyond words" that Smith and Ms Richards' paths had crossed that night, he said the person she had mistaken for a "good Samaritan" was actually "a violent coward with a knife and a short temper".
Sentencing Smith, Judge Williams said unless his release was ordered by the parole board, he would see out the rest of his days in prison.
Steven Morgan was sentenced to four-and-a-half years for helping Smith flee the scene
Judge Williams told Morgan that instead of aiding Smith's escape, he should have concentrated on helping Mr Sarsero as he lay injured.
He added that half of Morgan's time would be served in custody and the rest on licence in the community.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68636577
|
news_uk-wales-68636577
|
|
Netherlands 4-0 Scotland: Lawrence Shankland's flaws become strengths in role reversal - BBC Sport
|
2024-03-23
|
None
|
Lawrence Shankland proved he can fill the role of Scotland's sole striker, but missed his golden chance to make inarguable case.
| null |
Just after the hour mark, before the Dutch deluge washed Scotland away, Lawrence Shankland was finally presented with an opportunity to show his undeniable strengths.
The Hearts captain had spent his night doing the very things that some thought were potential weaknesses - working the channels, holding the line, bringing others into the game.
Then the Dutch got themselves into a desperate muddle at the back. Scott McTominay ransacked them in their own penalty area and, suddenly, Shankland was one-on-one with Mark Flekken.
In that moment you'd have bet the house on the most prolific finisher in the Scottish Premiership to execute.
He stood up Flekken and picked his spot, which happened to be the face of the crossbar. You almost did a double take. Shankland scores in his sleep from that position.
All season you could have blindfolded him, spun him around three times and still he would have put away that chance. Different stage, though. Different planet.
• None Scotland 'can't keep doing this' after more misery
That was a black mark against his name for sure. He had to score. Just had to. And it was a shame because he'd worked efficiently to that point, a surprise selection to start the game but one who was fitting in.
His one-touch lay-offs to team-mates were precisely the kind of thing that Che Adams does. His presence up top was not as physically powerful as Lyndon Dykes but he was performing the nuts and bolts in his own quiet way.
This was a different type of night for him, a night of subtleties, a night of being part of a team rather than being the focal point, the main man, the goal machine.
Shankland had to show his manager that this team can still function as his manager wants it to with him at the heart of the attack. And he did that.
Scotland created a truckload of moments while he was on the field. A Ryan Christie attempt tipped on to the crossbar, a John McGinn shot saved, a Christie header wide. All excellent moments.
Shankland was involved in teeing up Billy Gilmour, who pushed it wide. He was involved again when playing in Andy Robertson, but the Scotland captain was indecisive.
And then it came. The chance he would have dreamed about in bed on Thursday, the very kind he's gobbled up all season.
Twenty league goals in 30 games or, to put it another way, 51% of Hearts' league goals. Many of them were a whole lot harder than his golden chance against the Dutch. This was almost routine by comparison.
Steve Clarke had said, somewhat enigmatically, that he was going to try something different in this game. The something, as it turned out, was starting Shankland ahead of his two more chosen ones, Adams and Dykes.
And so, having gone up against Jack Baldwin of Ross County and Jack Baird of Greenock Morton in his last two games for his club, Shankland was now facing the great Virgil van Dijk for his country.
Van Dijk with his Champions League and his Premier League and his European Super Cup and his World Club Cup. A former player of the year in Europe, a veteran of more than eight years at Liverpool with a 70% win return.
One of the finest, if not the finest, centre-back in the world. Go do your stuff against this guy, Lawrence.
Had he put away that chance instead of hitting the woodwork, you'd be talking about him now usurping Adams and Dykes.
Maybe that's still a valid argument but the miss was a catastrophic blow to a team that only trailed 1-0 at the time - and a touch unluckily at that.
The floodgates opened soon after and it was ugly. Having wasted chances they were schooled by a team who were good enough to take advantage. Softness defined the endgame. It was a concerning surrender.
Scotland came into this having shipped 14 goals in their previous five, winless, matches. Then it was 15 and 16. They grew ever more spooked and it became 17 and 18.
A drubbing. The way the lights went out was surreal. The Netherlands are a fine side but you couldn't say that they were at their very best on Friday.
Having now drawn two and lost four of their last six games, Clarke has work to do. Reality hit in Amsterdam. Right between the eyes.
Much more of these concentration lapses and the Euros could go up in a puff of smoke.
They're in a group where, at their very, very best, they're capable of winning every game. They're also in a group where their own deficiencies could see them lose every game, perhaps badly.
Clarke needs to reset. He's got three more friendlies to come against Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and Finland and the team needs wins, solidity and a return of momentum.
The big show in Germany is not far away. Scotland have picked a terrible time to look tender.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68643514
|
rt_football_68643514
|
|
Rehanne Skinner: West Ham boss says she's 'sick' of incorrect decisions after Chelsea defeat - BBC Sport
|
2024-03-24
|
None
|
West Ham boss Rehanne Skinner says she is "getting a bit sick" of incorrect decisions after having a goal ruled out against Chelsea on Sunday.
| null |
West Ham boss Rehanne Skinner says she is "getting a bit sick" of incorrect decisions after having a goal ruled out against Chelsea on Sunday.
The Hammers lost 2-0 to Emma Hayes' side in the Women's Super League, with Honoka Hayashi flagged offside despite replays showing the contrary.
The Hammers boss believes bringing a video assistant referee (VAR) into the women's game is something to consider.
"The goal was more than a metre onside," Skinner told Sky Sports.
• None WSL title-race run-in: Will Chelsea, Manchester City or Arsenal come out on top?
Chelsea went ahead early on through Aggie Beever-Jones, but Hayashi's goal was ruled offside just 12 minutes later and could have changed the complexion of the game if it had stood.
Replays suggested the goal should have been allowed, showing the Japan midfielder was behind the last defender as she ran on to a flicked header. But without VAR there was no opportunity to overturn the decision.
"Last week [against Liverpool] there were two goals scored against us, neither of which should have stood," she added.
"Tottenham game, we get another apology after the game for a goal that should never have stood for offside. I'm getting a bit sick of it to be honest."
West Ham created plenty of opportunities which they failed to take and Skinner acknowledged this while calling for improvements in the game.
The Hammers didn't have a shot on target in the match, the first time since 2 April 2023 against Liverpool that they have failed to do so in a WSL match.
"We have had chances today and need to make sure we take those chances, but the way that the game goes on, we cannot keep having those type of mistakes in games because it completely ruins the game," she continued.
"The bottom line is, if that's how I operated in my job, I wouldn't be in my job.
"I'm just at the point now where it's near enough every week. Apologies after the game doesn't change the outcome.
Manchester United manager Marc Skinner was also vocal on the need for VAR in the women's game after Jess Park's first goal for Manchester City on Saturday was allowed to stand despite an offside in the build-up.
"If that's the argument we need to start getting results right, then that's what we need to start doing," the Hammers boss said.
"Ultimately the referees still aren't professional in this game so they aren't actually in a situation where they are solely focusing on these games. That's got to change.
"The game has still got so much growing up to do, we are still not right across the board in the game," she added.
"I lost my job at Tottenham after we lost 2-1 to Liverpool and we got an apology the next day to say the goal shouldn't have stood. It has got to be better."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68652064
|
rt_football_68652064
|
|
Trump wins last-minute reprieve as judge cuts fraud bond to $175m - BBC News
|
2024-03-25
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The former president had said he was unable to secure a bond from a private company for the full $464m sum.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Donald Trump: 'I don't need to borrow money' to pay bond
Donald Trump was handed a last-minute reprieve in court on Monday, when a New York court allowed him to post a reduced bond of $175m to delay enforcement of a $464m fraud penalty.
The former president's lawyers had argued it would be "impossible" to secure a bond for the full amount.
The appeals court gave Mr Trump 10 days to find the $175m bond.
If he posts the bond within that time, his assets will be protected while he continues his appeal.
"I greatly respect the decision," Mr Trump said on Monday. "We will abide by the decision... and post either a bond, equivalent securities, or cash."
Mr Trump was found liable earlier this year for repeatedly inflating the value of his assets, in what was a landmark fraud case against a former president and the presumptive Republican nominee for November's election.
The decision on Monday marked a victory for Mr Trump, and came as a deadline to post the full $464m bond expired.
If that deadline had passed without Mr Trump posting a bond and without any intervention from the appeals court, it would have paved the way for New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the fraud case, to begin freezing his bank accounts and seizing his properties.
Ms James said on Monday that Mr Trump was "still facing accountability for his staggering fraud".
"The $464m judgement - plus interest - against Donald Trump and the other defendants still stands," she said in a statement.
The appeals court also agreed to delay the enforcement of other penalties that were part of the original judgement, such as barring the former president and his elder sons from running businesses in New York.
But it left in place a monitor that is overseeing Mr Trump's businesses and can sound alarms if they find any misconduct.
Mr Trump testified last year that he had as much as $400m in cash. Forbes gave a similar estimate in September 2023 - around $423m in cash and liquid assets.
Last week his lawyers said he had been unable to cover the $464m penalty despite approaching 30 financial companies to provide a bond.
The appellate court's decision on Monday is a victory for Mr Trump, said Will Thomas, a professor at the University of Michigan Ross Business School, who noted that the former president is being allowed to appeal without paying the cost of a full appeal bond.
Mitchell Epner, a lawyer who handles commercial litigation, said he was surprised by the court's decision to grant Mr Trump a stay.
Just last week, Mr Trump said on social media that he had $500m in cash, an amount that would nearly cover collateral for a bond in the full amount. That comment undercut his argument he could not secure a $464m bond, Mr Epner and other experts told the BBC.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68659100
|
news_world-us-canada-68659100
|
|
A guide to Donald Trump's four criminal cases - BBC News
|
2024-03-25
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The former president is juggling potentially explosive legal battles with campaigning for the White House.
|
US & Canada
|
Donald Trump is heading towards a likely election rematch with Joe Biden in November, but this time around he's juggling campaigning with some potentially explosive legal battles.
The 77-year-old, who is the first former president in US history to be criminally charged, now faces 91 charges across four separate cases.
And his legal troubles don't end there, as Mr Trump is also facing several civil cases relating to, among other things, the business empire that made his name. There are crucial legal appeals that are yet to be settled too, including one on whether he is immune from prosecution.
Here, we'll focus on the four criminal cases Mr Trump is facing and explain what they're about, what could happen next and, crucially, what's at stake as he seeks to return to the White House.
A payment made to the adult film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election.
Ms Daniels says she was paid $130,000 (£103,000) to stay quiet after having sex with Mr Trump, who denies they ever had an affair.
It's worth noting, though, that providing so-called hush money is not in fact illegal.
Instead, this case is more technical and centres on how Mr Trump's former lawyer, who paid Ms Daniels, had his reimbursement recorded in Mr Trump's accounts.
The former president is accused of falsifying his business records by saying the payment was for legal fees. He's facing 34 counts of fraud under campaign finance laws, and has pleaded not guilty to all of them.
Mr Trump has said the case is politically motivated. "This is just a way of hurting me in the election," he told reporters. "This is not a crime."
It is scheduled for 15 April.
Jury selection was originally meant to begin on 25 March, but a judge granted a brief delay to allow time for new evidence to be reviewed.
It could still be the first criminal trial of a US president.
What could the punishment be?
Each of the charges carries a maximum of four years in prison, although a judge could sentence Mr Trump to probation if he is convicted.
Legal experts told the BBC they think it is unlikely Mr Trump will be jailed if convicted in this case and that a fine is the more likely outcome.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, is using a rarely used strategy to bring felony charges rather than less serious misdemeanours.
Whether Mr Trump illegally conspired to overturn his 2020 election defeat to Joe Biden.
Federal prosecutors allege he pressured officials to reverse the results, knowingly spread lies about election fraud and sought to exploit the Capitol riot on 6 January 2021 to delay the certification of Mr Biden's victory and stay in power.
He's been charged with four criminal counts, including conspiracy to defraud the US and conspiracy against the rights of citizens.
Some had speculated he would be charged with insurrection, or aiding insurrection, but that is not one of the charges.
He has denied wrongdoing and made an unsubstantiated accusation that the Biden administration is behind the prosecution.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch the moment Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol building
It has been postponed indefinitely while an appeal from Mr Trump plays out.
The Supreme Court will rule on Mr Trump's argument that a former president cannot be prosecuted like any other citizen.
Justices will hear the case on 25 April and decide by June.
The challenge increases the chances that this trial may not happen before November's election.
And if Mr Trump were to win the vote, he could in theory pardon himself or order the charges to be dismissed.
What could the punishment be?
But there are logistical, security and political questions around whether Mr Trump would actually serve time in jail even if convicted.
A conviction at trial would take the US into uncharted territory.
Mr Trump and some 18 other defendants are accused of criminally conspiring to overturn his very narrow defeat in the state of Georgia in the 2020 election.
The huge racketeering investigation, led by Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis, was sparked in part by a leaked phone call in which the former president asked the state's top election official to "find 11,780 votes".
Mr Trump was hit with 13 criminal counts, including an alleged violation of Georgia's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Rico). A judge has dismissed three of those charges.
The former president has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in the case and has entered a plea of not guilty.
Prosecutors want the case to begin in August, but a date has not been set.
The timeline was complicated by a failed effort to disqualify Ms Willis because of her romantic relationship with a man she hired to work on the case.
What could the punishment be?
Georgia prosecutors would need to prove that there was a pattern of corruption from Mr Trump and his co-defendants aimed at overturning the election result in order to bring a conviction.
As for making false statements, that carries a penalty of between one to five years in prison or a fine.
Whether Mr Trump mishandled classified documents by taking them from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago residence after he left office.
It's also about whether he obstructed the FBI's efforts to retrieve the files, as well as the criminal investigation into his handling of them.
The majority of the counts are for the wilful retention of national defence information, which falls under the Espionage Act.
There are then eight individual counts, which include conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record and making false statements. Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty on all counts.
Prosecutors want it to start in July.
Mr Trump and his lawyers want it put off until after the November presidential election.
What could the punishment be?
These charges could, in theory, lead to substantial prison time if Mr Trump is convicted.
Looking at the letter of the law, the counts under the Espionage Act each carry a maximum sentence of 10 years. Other counts, related to conspiracy and withholding or concealing documents, each carry maximum sentences of 20 years.
But the logistics of jailing a former president mean a conventional prison sentence is seen as unlikely by many experts.
If you're in the UK, sign up here.
And if you're anywhere else, sign up here.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61084161
|
news_world-us-canada-61084161
|
|
Donald Trump's hush-money trial to begin 15 April - BBC News
|
2024-03-25
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Donald Trump's first criminal trial to begin next month as the race for the White House gets underway.
|
US & Canada
|
Donald Trump will face the first ever criminal trial of a former US president on 15 April over alleged hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
Justice Juan Merchan denied the defence's request to delay the case.
Mr Trump faces four criminal cases, but this may be the only one to make it to a courtroom before November's election.
He has pleaded not guilty to all 34 felony charges, arguing the claims do not constitute "a crime".
After spending much of Monday morning sitting next to his attorneys inside the courtroom, Mr Trump told reporters that the case should be considered "election interference".
"It's a disgrace, and we will obviously be appealing," he said. "But this is a pure case of voter intimidation and election interference, and it shouldn't be allowed to happen."
During his bid to retake the White House, the former president and his legal team have sought to delay as many of his trials as possible.
The trial was originally set to begin with jury selection on Monday, but it was delayed after thousands of documents were released last week from the 2018 federal investigation into the payments to Ms Daniels.
Judge Merchan held a hearing on Monday centred on whether there had been any wrongdoing in the sudden release last week of more than 200,000 pages of documents related to the federal prosecutors' case.
Mr Trump's legal team claimed the Manhattan district attorney's office had engaged in misconduct by not doing enough to get the federal prosecutors to hand over the documents in a timely manner. They alleged prosecutors were attempting to "suppress" evidence.
The document release followed a request by Mr Trump's attorneys in January for records from the federal case. Justice Merchan questioned why the defence had not discussed the long wait with him earlier.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office had agreed to a delay of 30 days for the documents to be reviewed, but prosecutors said at the hearing that they believed only 300 new documents needed to be considered.
Mr Trump's legal team demanded more time to review the documents, and pushed for a 90-day delay.
On Monday, Justice Merchan grilled Mr Trump's lawyer to specify how many of the "thousands" of documents they would consider relevant and requiring review for this case.
Mr Trump's attorney, Todd Blanche, painted a broad picture of what was in the new batch, which he said included records from the Robert Mueller investigation - the federal inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Though Justice Merchan pressed him to narrow his focus to the case at hand, Mr Blanche maintained that the relevant records numbered in the thousands.
"We got the material a week ago,"he said. "We're still going through them."
The judge, however, appeared impatient and unpersuaded by the attorney's arguments, including the claim that prosecutors had acted unethically.
During a tense exchange, Mr Blanche could not give a satisfactory argument that Mr Bragg's team had violated a statute concerning how prosecutors must share evidence.
"That you don't have a case right now is really disconcerting," Justice Merchan told Mr Blanche.
The judge said that the defence appeared keen on accusing prosecutors of misconduct "and trying to make me complicit in it", without providing a compelling legal argument.
"It's odd that we're even here and that we've taken this time," he said.
Justice Merchan ultimately ruled that the district attorney's office was "not at fault" for the late production of evidence from federal prosecutors, and made "diligent efforts" to produce the relevant documents.
As he gaveled the hearing to a close, Justice Merchan told Mr Trump and the dozens of assembled lawyers and press: "See you all on the 15th."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68621613
|
news_world-us-canada-68621613
|
|
Julian Assange extradition appeal: UK seeks assurances from the US. - BBC News
|
2024-03-26
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The High Court rules the US must give assurances that Wikileaks founder will not face the death penalty,
|
UK
|
Julian Assange faces a further wait to see whether he can appeal against his extradition to the United States on 18 charges relating to the publication of sensitive intelligence.
Two judges at the High Court in London said they would give the United States government three weeks to provide assurances that Assange could rely on the First Amendment to the US constitution (which protects free speech) and that he would not be prejudiced at trial or sentence by reason of his Australian nationality; nor would he be sentenced to death if convicted.
"If those assurances are not given, then leave to appeal will be given and there will then be an appeal hearing," a summary of the judgment said.
The judges however dismissed some grounds of the application to appeal, including Assange’s arguments that he was prosecuted because of his political opinions.
Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson ordered that another hearing on May 20 would decide whether the USA had satisfied the conditions they had requested.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-68663344
|
news_live_uk-68663344
|
|
A guide to Donald Trump's four criminal cases - BBC News
|
2024-03-26
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The former president is juggling potentially explosive legal battles with campaigning for the White House.
|
US & Canada
|
Donald Trump is heading towards a likely election rematch with Joe Biden in November, but this time around he's juggling campaigning with some potentially explosive legal battles.
The 77-year-old, who is the first former president in US history to be criminally charged, now faces 91 charges across four separate cases.
And his legal troubles don't end there, as Mr Trump is also facing several civil cases relating to, among other things, the business empire that made his name. There are crucial legal appeals that are yet to be settled too, including one on whether he is immune from prosecution.
Here, we'll focus on the four criminal cases Mr Trump is facing and explain what they're about, what could happen next and, crucially, what's at stake as he seeks to return to the White House.
A payment made to the adult film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election.
Ms Daniels says she was paid $130,000 (£103,000) to stay quiet after having sex with Mr Trump, who denies they ever had an affair.
It's worth noting, though, that providing so-called hush money is not in fact illegal.
Instead, this case is more technical and centres on how Mr Trump's former lawyer, who paid Ms Daniels, had his reimbursement recorded in Mr Trump's accounts.
The former president is accused of falsifying his business records by saying the payment was for legal fees. He's facing 34 counts of fraud under campaign finance laws, and has pleaded not guilty to all of them.
Mr Trump has said the case is politically motivated. "This is just a way of hurting me in the election," he told reporters. "This is not a crime."
It is scheduled for 15 April.
Jury selection was originally meant to begin on 25 March, but a judge granted a brief delay to allow time for new evidence to be reviewed.
It could still be the first criminal trial of a US president.
What could the punishment be?
Each of the charges carries a maximum of four years in prison, although a judge could sentence Mr Trump to probation if he is convicted.
Legal experts told the BBC they think it is unlikely Mr Trump will be jailed if convicted in this case and that a fine is the more likely outcome.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, is using a rarely used strategy to bring felony charges rather than less serious misdemeanours.
Whether Mr Trump illegally conspired to overturn his 2020 election defeat to Joe Biden.
Federal prosecutors allege he pressured officials to reverse the results, knowingly spread lies about election fraud and sought to exploit the Capitol riot on 6 January 2021 to delay the certification of Mr Biden's victory and stay in power.
He's been charged with four criminal counts, including conspiracy to defraud the US and conspiracy against the rights of citizens.
Some had speculated he would be charged with insurrection, or aiding insurrection, but that is not one of the charges.
He has denied wrongdoing and made an unsubstantiated accusation that the Biden administration is behind the prosecution.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch the moment Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol building
It has been postponed indefinitely while an appeal from Mr Trump plays out.
The Supreme Court will rule on Mr Trump's argument that a former president cannot be prosecuted like any other citizen.
Justices will hear the case on 25 April and decide by June.
The challenge increases the chances that this trial may not happen before November's election.
And if Mr Trump were to win the vote, he could in theory pardon himself or order the charges to be dismissed.
What could the punishment be?
But there are logistical, security and political questions around whether Mr Trump would actually serve time in jail even if convicted.
A conviction at trial would take the US into uncharted territory.
Mr Trump and some 18 other defendants are accused of criminally conspiring to overturn his very narrow defeat in the state of Georgia in the 2020 election.
The huge racketeering investigation, led by Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis, was sparked in part by a leaked phone call in which the former president asked the state's top election official to "find 11,780 votes".
Mr Trump was hit with 13 criminal counts, including an alleged violation of Georgia's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Rico). A judge has dismissed three of those charges.
The former president has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in the case and has entered a plea of not guilty.
Prosecutors want the case to begin in August, but a date has not been set.
The timeline was complicated by a failed effort to disqualify Ms Willis because of her romantic relationship with a man she hired to work on the case.
What could the punishment be?
Georgia prosecutors would need to prove that there was a pattern of corruption from Mr Trump and his co-defendants aimed at overturning the election result in order to bring a conviction.
As for making false statements, that carries a penalty of between one to five years in prison or a fine.
Whether Mr Trump mishandled classified documents by taking them from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago residence after he left office.
It's also about whether he obstructed the FBI's efforts to retrieve the files, as well as the criminal investigation into his handling of them.
The majority of the counts are for the wilful retention of national defence information, which falls under the Espionage Act.
There are then eight individual counts, which include conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record and making false statements. Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty on all counts.
Prosecutors want it to start in July.
Mr Trump and his lawyers want it put off until after the November presidential election.
What could the punishment be?
These charges could, in theory, lead to substantial prison time if Mr Trump is convicted.
Looking at the letter of the law, the counts under the Espionage Act each carry a maximum sentence of 10 years. Other counts, related to conspiracy and withholding or concealing documents, each carry maximum sentences of 20 years.
But the logistics of jailing a former president mean a conventional prison sentence is seen as unlikely by many experts.
If you're in the UK, sign up here.
And if you're anywhere else, sign up here.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61084161
|
news_world-us-canada-61084161
|
|
England: Euros provide golden opportunity for Gareth Southgate's side to shed nearly-men tag - BBC Sport
|
2024-03-26
|
None
|
The Euros provide a golden chance for England's masters of the missed opportunity to win their first major trophy since 1966
| null |
Gareth Southgate's England have become the masters of the missed opportunity and they enter Euro 2024 knowing history will not be so kind should the same fate befall them in Germany.
England's clear progress under Southgate can be measured in major tournaments. The trick now is to actually try to win one this summer or risk being forever labelled as the nearly men.
The days of humiliation under Roy Hodgson when England could not even get out of their group at the 2014 World Cup in Brazil and were then embarrassed by minnows Iceland at the Euros two years later have been replaced by regular runs to the latter stages of the big events.
England may have lost to Brazil and drawn with Belgium in their two Wembley friendlies but they were essentially fact-finding missions designed to crystallise Southgate's thoughts as he moves towards naming his 23-man squad for Germany.
Southgate still has his critics but the strong counter argument is that he has the best record of any England manager since 1966 World Cup winner Sir Alf Ramsey.
England reached a first World Cup semi-final for 28 years in Russia, the final at Euro 2020 and then lost to holders France in the World Cup quarter-final in Qatar in 2022.
So far so good - until the brutal reality kicks in that the common denominator in all was defeat.
It still leaves a sense England could not quite cope with the pressure cooker atmosphere of the big occasion.
England are regarded as favourites for Euro 2024, sharing that status with France at the very least, as Southgate presides over a squad groaning under the weight of natural talent, which will be replicated by the burden of expectation when they kick off against Serbia in Gelsenkirchen on 16 June.
All the logic says England can win. All the talent says England can win. All the history shows they have still to prove they can win.
If Southgate's England fall short again it will be deemed as a deep disappointment in many quarters and outright failure in others. The time for hard luck stories and excuses has gone.
England's record against major countries feeds into the narrative that they have everything to prove in Germany. England have played 24 games against teams ranked in the world's top 10 since September 2016. The record is seven wins, 10 losses and seven draws.
Not hugely impressive but most things are in place for that to change in Germany.
They are third in the Fifa rankings behind Argentina and France. Hosts Germany are in transition and it remains to be seen if coach Robert Martinez can get the best out of Portugal's talented squad. Spain may also be a threat further down the line.
England have a relatively favourable group alongside Serbia, Denmark and Slovenia. They will not cross paths with France until the semi-final, all being well.
This is a golden chance for England to win the major men's trophy that has eluded them since 1966. It is certainly their best since the painful "what might have been" of Euro 2004 when a side packed with world-class talent lost on penalties to hosts Portugal in the last eight.
Where there is France's Kylian Mbappe there is always danger, which is why all bets are off to an extent, but this England have most things going for them to win Euro 2024 - and it would be no surprise to me if they did.
An examination of the talent at Southgate's disposal makes it easy to understand why many would regard an inability to do so this time as failure. If England do not win, the court of public opinion will deliver a more unflattering, unforgiving, verdict than on previous near misses.
England are blessed with a reliable goalkeeper in Everton's Jordan Pickford. They have two defenders of the highest class who are at home in elite company in Manchester City pair John Stones and Kyle Walker.
Declan Rice is a truly outstanding holding midfield player, who has looked worth every penny of the £105m Arsenal paid to West Ham United last summer, while team-mate Bukayo Saka is, along with Manchester City's Phil Foden, a rare creative talent.
Manchester United's 18-year-old Kobbie Mainoo looks a timely arrival, ready made for this England side despite his tender years and after only making one start. He could be the answer to Southgate's questions around the make-up of his midfield.
And then we come to the two jewels in England's crown - two players who have taken foreign soil by storm at club level this season.
Jude Bellingham is already one of the best players in the world in his position, which can be an orthodox midfield player or more often a number 10 capable of anything.
Harry Kane is England's leader, an irreplaceable talisman who is the all-time record goalscorer for his country as well as former club Tottenham.
In Bellingham and Kane, Southgate has two stellar individuals who will be the envy of every other country at Euro 2024.
What could possibly go wrong?
Injuries for a start. We have already seen how blunt England look without Kane and, while not an absentee on the same scale, goalkeeping resources are thin behind Pickford.
There are concerns over central defence, where Harry Maguire has looked vulnerable as well as lacking game time at Manchester United. No-one can doubt his character - Southgate never does - in the manner in which he has battled through being marginalised by Erik ten Hag at Old Trafford but will he be targeted by top-class attacks?
Luke Shaw has developed into an outstanding left-back but is unlikely to play again this season, thus putting a question mark over his participation in Euro 2024. This would be a big blow.
Chelsea's Ben Chilwell struggled against Brazil while other options are switching Kieran Trippier, 33 and currently injured, from right-back to left-back or perhaps Liverpool's Joe Gomez.
If Southgate can get everyone fit, find a partner in midfield for Rice and solve the conundrum of how to get Foden more involved if he has to play off the flank, then England will take some beating.
This may be Southgate's farewell as England manager. Win or lose, very few international managers get a fifth tournament without winning any of the previous four. And if England are triumphant Southgate may even feel his work is done.
What is certain, given the talent England have and the experience of major tournaments boasted by so many of the squad, is that coming up short once more cannot be painted as anything other than desperate disappointment - and arguably failure.
Euro 2024 is now the time for England to deliver. And, in Germany, they can.
• None Our coverage of your Premier League club is bigger and better than ever before - follow your team and sign up for notifications in the BBC Sport app to make sure you never miss a moment
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68668152
|
rt_football_68668152
|
|
Donald Trump's hush-money trial to begin 15 April - BBC News
|
2024-03-26
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Donald Trump's first criminal trial to begin next month as the race for the White House gets underway.
|
US & Canada
|
Donald Trump will face the first ever criminal trial of a former US president on 15 April over alleged hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
Justice Juan Merchan denied the defence's request to delay the case.
Mr Trump faces four criminal cases, but this may be the only one to make it to a courtroom before November's election.
He has pleaded not guilty to all 34 felony charges, arguing the claims do not constitute "a crime".
After spending much of Monday morning sitting next to his attorneys inside the courtroom, Mr Trump told reporters that the case should be considered "election interference".
"It's a disgrace, and we will obviously be appealing," he said. "But this is a pure case of voter intimidation and election interference, and it shouldn't be allowed to happen."
During his bid to retake the White House, the former president and his legal team have sought to delay as many of his trials as possible.
The trial was originally set to begin with jury selection on Monday, but it was delayed after thousands of documents were released last week from the 2018 federal investigation into the payments to Ms Daniels.
Judge Merchan held a hearing on Monday centred on whether there had been any wrongdoing in the sudden release last week of more than 200,000 pages of documents related to the federal prosecutors' case.
Mr Trump's legal team claimed the Manhattan district attorney's office had engaged in misconduct by not doing enough to get the federal prosecutors to hand over the documents in a timely manner. They alleged prosecutors were attempting to "suppress" evidence.
The document release followed a request by Mr Trump's attorneys in January for records from the federal case. Justice Merchan questioned why the defence had not discussed the long wait with him earlier.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office had agreed to a delay of 30 days for the documents to be reviewed, but prosecutors said at the hearing that they believed only 300 new documents needed to be considered.
Mr Trump's legal team demanded more time to review the documents, and pushed for a 90-day delay.
On Monday, Justice Merchan grilled Mr Trump's lawyer to specify how many of the "thousands" of documents they would consider relevant and requiring review for this case.
Mr Trump's attorney, Todd Blanche, painted a broad picture of what was in the new batch, which he said included records from the Robert Mueller investigation - the federal inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Though Justice Merchan pressed him to narrow his focus to the case at hand, Mr Blanche maintained that the relevant records numbered in the thousands.
"We got the material a week ago,"he said. "We're still going through them."
The judge, however, appeared impatient and unpersuaded by the attorney's arguments, including the claim that prosecutors had acted unethically.
During a tense exchange, Mr Blanche could not give a satisfactory argument that Mr Bragg's team had violated a statute concerning how prosecutors must share evidence.
"That you don't have a case right now is really disconcerting," Justice Merchan told Mr Blanche.
The judge said that the defence appeared keen on accusing prosecutors of misconduct "and trying to make me complicit in it", without providing a compelling legal argument.
"It's odd that we're even here and that we've taken this time," he said.
Justice Merchan ultimately ruled that the district attorney's office was "not at fault" for the late production of evidence from federal prosecutors, and made "diligent efforts" to produce the relevant documents.
As he gaveled the hearing to a close, Justice Merchan told Mr Trump and the dozens of assembled lawyers and press: "See you all on the 15th."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68621613
|
news_world-us-canada-68621613
|
|
Court papers show how killer parents won back their baby - BBC News
|
2024-03-27
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Documents which led to Finley Boden being returned to his parents, who then murdered him, obtained by BBC.
|
UK
|
Finley Boden was 10 months old when he was murdered on Christmas Day in 2020
Key documents which led to a court agreeing to return a 10-month-old boy to his parents, who then murdered him, have been obtained by the BBC.
Finley Boden was killed on Christmas Day 2020, 39 days after he was returned to their care. He had 130 injuries.
The papers from the family court hearing, conducted by phone during the Covid pandemic, were released after a media application to the High Court.
Shannon Marsden and Stephen Boden are due to be sentenced on Friday.
The documents are significant as they informed the crucial hearing about Finley's future - led by two family magistrates.
The papers were released to the BBC, the PA Media news agency and the Daily Telegraph after a request following the couple's conviction.
The submissions help establish what happened between Finley being removed from his parents a few days after his birth on 15 February, to the decision to return him to their full-time care by 23 November.
After the boy was born, social workers from Derbyshire County Council had decided to remove him from his parents who were living in Chesterfield. The authority believed he was likely to suffer "significant harm" at home - the legal threshold in care cases.
They said Shannon Marsden and Stephen Boden were living in squalor - their home was filthy and smelled of cannabis. They described the terraced house as "very unclean" and "at times hazardous, with faeces on the floor".
The social workers also said there was a risk of domestic violence, because in the past police had been called during an argument and Stephen Boden had a previous conviction for domestic violence against an ex-partner. Both parents smoked "between medium and high" levels of cannabis.
But over the next six months, the couple persuaded social workers they had made positive changes - aided by Covid restrictions, which limited physical interactions with others.
During the 2020 spring lockdown, social workers were not routinely going into homes. In Finley's case, photos were instead sent by his mother which showed her terraced home looking clean and tidy.
A photo of Finley's clean and tidy bedroom, submitted to social workers by Shannon Marsden, before he was returned
By the summer, some Covid restrictions had eased and the parents could meet Finley in person again. Some sessions were overseen by social worker Lynn Williams, who assessed them as she tried to help them become better parents.
The report she submitted to the court for the 1 October hearing is among the documents disclosed to us.
In it, she noted that on one occasion, when the weather was warm, "Shannon Marsden ensured Finley was in the shade". The social worker also noted the mother had held his hand when he was in the pushchair - which she described as "a natural response from a caring parent".
She said Stephen Boden had interacted with his son "by talking to him and making him smile".
In August, Ms Williams said she had visited the couple at home, noting that the fridge was well-stocked and the bathroom clean. On a follow-up visit that same month, she observed the house was still relatively tidy and the parents seemed keen to keep it so.
But Ms Williams' generally positive report was undermined by drug tests taken by both parents as directed by children's services. Marsden told social workers she had given up cannabis in October 2019, but tests of her hair indicated that was not the case between February and August 2020. Tests found Boden had used cannabis too.
A police photograph of Finley's bedroom after his death showing "filthy conditions", including a baby milk bottle covered in mould
In the papers presented to the court for the 1 October hearing, the local authority said Finley should return gradually to his parents' care through a "transition plan" over about four months. It proposed that at first, Finley would stay with his carers and only see his parents during the day - initially for an hour and a half, building up to five hours. Then he would be able to stay on a Saturday night.
The amount of time he could spend with his parents would then increase further - so that by mid-January 2021 he would be in their full-time care. This gradual process was to ensure his time with his parents could be monitored - to make sure he was safe.
But Marsden and Boden wanted Finley back more quickly. In his statement submitted to the October hearing, Boden said: "Shannon and I have worked really hard to make changes." Marsden admitted she had been using cannabis but said she had been "given the incentive to quit completely".
In care cases like Finley's, the child's guardian can be one of the most influential voices. They are employed by Cafcass, the independent Children and Families Court Advisory Service, and their role is to represent the child's best interests.
Finley's guardian, Amanda O'Rourke, had only been able to see him once, via a WhatsApp video call, while he was with his carers. He was a "smiler", she wrote in her report for the court, who liked to "blow raspberry's" (sic).
She acknowledged the squalor, drug use and domestic violence in the parents' past. Her report said she agreed in principle with a transition plan, but said it should take place much faster, given the parents had "clearly made and sustained positive changes".
Ms O'Rourke's report to the magistrates said he should go back to their full-time care "within a six to eight week period," half the time requested by the local authority.
A statement from Cafcass said: "It is not possible to say whether a longer transition plan would have prevented Finley's death. What led to his death was the ability of his parents to deceive everyone involved about their love for him and their desire to care for him."
Stephen Boden and Shannon Marsden were convicted of murder in April - they will be sentenced on Friday
The 1 October hearing took place in the period between Covid lockdowns - in England at the time, gatherings were restricted to six people and many courts were working remotely.
In cases like Finley's, parents would normally be in court but, because of the pandemic, everyone was on the phone. Marsden and Boden did not speak at all.
The final decision was made by two magistrates, Kathy Gallimore and Susan Burns, assisted by a legal adviser. That is because magistrates are not legal experts.
The barrister for the local authority argued the Cafcass guardian's plan would send Finley back home "too soon". He said Covid had disrupted the baby's regular contact with his parents and this needed to be rebuilt. He also said the parents should be tested for drugs as they had been "dishonest" about their cannabis use.
But the barrister for Finley's Cafcass guardian said it was not in the boy's interests for the "rehabilitation plan" to be drawn out for such a long period. She said she was "neutral" on the question of drug testing.
The court's legal adviser said drug testing could be ordered if it was "necessary, imperative and vital to the running of the case".
In their judgement that afternoon, Mrs Burns and Mrs Gallimore supported the Cafcass guardian's view - that an eight-week transition was "a reasonable and proportionate" length of time which would protect Finley's welfare. They did not order further drug tests of his parents.
There is no suggestion that the magistrates made a mistake in law.
And later - when the High Court agreed to release these documents - Justice Nathalie Lieven described the family court as having made a "reasonable decision".
"Having read the papers here, I have every sympathy with the decision the magistrates made," she said.
A child safeguarding review into the circumstances surrounding Finley's death is currently ongoing
Chesterfield MP, Labour's Toby Perkins, is now calling for a further inquiry into Derbyshire's children's services. He also says it is "deeply significant" that this case was heard by magistrates.
"It is legitimate to question that entire process, whether the care required for Finley Boden's safety was preserved by that process," he told the BBC.
Since these documents were given to the BBC, Derbyshire County Council has said the author of the independent safeguarding review commissioned by the Derby and Derbyshire Safeguarding Children Partnership into Finley's death would consider the information in the paperwork "to help form the partnership's learning findings and recommendations".
It added in a statement: "We remain fully engaged with the statutory legal review process which looks in depth at the role of all agencies following the death of a child."
The new timetable for Finley's return - decided on 1 October 2020 - meant he would stay overnight with his parents during the first week of transition. But by 23 November, he was living with them full-time.
Four days later, social worker Emiley Hollindale was the last professional to see Finley alive. But, when she visited Boden and Marsden's home, no-one responded to her knocks. Peering through the window she could see Finley alone, asleep on the sofa.
Just over a month later, the little boy was dead, in a once-more squalid house, reeking of cannabis.
• None Parents murdered baby placed back into their care
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65634100
|
news_uk-65634100
|
|
Texas star Sharleen Spiteri finds magic in Muscle Shoals - BBC News
|
2024-03-27
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The Texas singer recorded in the historic Fame Studios, but had to stop for tourists every afternoon.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
Muscle Shoals, Alabama. The small town that made the big hits.
Thirty miles south of Tennessee, and two hours east of Memphis, it originally formed part of the historic Cherokee hunting grounds, but became an unlikely staging post for rock and R&B royalty in the 1960s and 70s.
Acts like Otis Redding, Wilson Pickett, Etta James and Paul Simon all made the pilgrimage to this backwater town, where the nicest hotel was a Holiday Inn and the restaurants served local specialties like fried catfish and turnip greens.
What drew them there was The Swampers - a crack team of studio musicians, whose rich, funky Southern grooves infused classics like Aretha Franklin's Respect, The Rolling Stones' Brown Sugar and The Staples Singers' I'll Take You There.
Part of the attraction was the town's disregard for the segregation that divided the South. The local radio station, WLAY, was unusual for playing music by both white and black artists; and the colour-blind approach was duplicated in the local recording studios.
"It was a dangerous time, but the studio was a safe haven where blacks and whites could work together in musical harmony," said Rick Hall, who owned and operated the FAME Studios from the 1950s until his death in 2018.
That gave this small, backwater town its distinctive sound: An intoxicating amalgam of gritty R&B, gospel and country, that soundtracked more than 500 singles, including 75 gold and platinum hits.
According to former curator of Alabama's Music Hall of Fame, George Lair, the Muscle Shoals sound was a product of geography.
"You can draw a triangle from Nashville to Memphis to Muscle Shoals, and while Nashville is the country centre, Memphis is generally known as the blues centre," he told NPR in 2023. "Muscle Shoals, being between those two places, has been able to combine those two styles into a real Southern rhythm and blues that was very appealing."
At their peak, the Muscle Shoals' players were largely anonymous but music obsessives - the sort of people who pored over the liner notes of their vinyl albums - knew all about them: Keyboardist Barry Beckett, drummer Roger Hawkins, guitarist Jimmy Johnson, bassist David Hood and pianist Spooner Oldham.
Among those obsessives, all the way over in Balloch, Scotland, was Sharleen Spiteri, the future singer of rock band Texas.
"We all knew the story of when Aretha went to Muscle Shoals and she thought she was going to record with these old blues guys; then she turned up and it was this group of geeky white blokes," she tells the BBC.
"But when they played, she was like, 'This is what I've been looking for', and she overruled everybody and put them on her record."
So when she got the opportunity to record at FAME studios with Oldham - who'd helped Aretha shape the sound of I Never Loved A Man (The Way That I Love You) - her answer was an emphatic "yes".
"It's pretty damn special," she says. "I don't think anything's changed in the studio over the years. Inspiration is soaked into the wooden panels on the walls."
Some musicians might have been apprehensive about living up to the studio's legacy - but not her.
"I don't really get intimidated by stuff like that," she laughs.
"I'm like a peacock. My tail feather starts wagging, like, 'Oh my God, we're gonna be part of history'."
Spooner Oldham and Sharleen Spiteri recorded the bulk of the album live in the studio, in the summer of 2022
The results are gorgeous. Classic Texas songs like Halo, Say What You Want and I Don't Want A Lover are purified in the swampy waters of the Tennessee River, and reborn with a spacious, soulful clarity.
Spiteri says the tracks were laid down almost spontaneously in the summer of 2022.
"It was me sitting on the piano stool next to Spooner, tapping out the timing on his leg.
"A lot of the songs were first take, which is quite extraordinary because we didn't rehearse it.
"He'd start playing and find a certain rhythm that's not on the original [track] and suddenly we'd be dancing around each other, making new versions of a song that I thought I knew really well."
The new arrangements emphasise the sumptuous timbre of Spiteri's contralto, adding fresh intimacy to familiar melodies.
The opening track, Halo, is stripped of its pop sheen and presented as a gospel devotional, with Oldham at the organ and the backing vocalists summoning a ghostly spirituality.
"When we hit record, I was literally like, 'Holy cow'," says Spiteri. "It's so emotional, and I think you can really feel the joy in the little exchanges between us."
But before she got too carried away, reality intruded.
"The thing is, even when we were making a record at Muscle Shoals we had to stop every day at one o'clock because they had a guided tour," laughs Spiteri. "That's how they make ends meet."
Spooner Oldham has added piano and organ to recordings by Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Jackson Browne and Cat Power
It's a harsh reality of modern music. Bands rarely record live to tape any more, with most albums pieced together on laptops.
As a result, storied recording studios like Muscle Shoals and FAME are either closing or finding new ways to survive.
"It's so tight now," says Spiteri.
"You can't go to your record company and say, 'Okay, we're going to hire a 72-piece orchestra'. That's not happening unless you're Beyoncé... And this is coming from someone who actually sells records.
"Those budgets don't exist, yet record companies insist on giving all our music to streaming companies for next to nothing."
Texas were fortunate, in that they made their names during the CD era, selling almost two million copies of their 1997 album White On Blonde in the UK alone.
Still selling out arenas, they left the major label ecosystem almost two decades ago, and now release music in partnership with the more artist-friendly independent label, Pias.
Even so, Spiteri is worried about the future for songwriters.
"I personally felt the music industry should have gone out on strike with the film industry," she says, referring to last year's writers' strike, which secured increases in royalty payments for streaming content, and protections against the use of artificial intelligence in scripts.
Spiteri makes a similar argument to the screed Raye delivered at the Brit Awards earlier this month: Royalty rates are too low; and songwriters should get paid when their music is streamed (at the moment, they are not automatically entitled to anything).
Texas will play a greatest hits tour across the UK this September
"The problem is that unless the really big artists withhold their music from streaming services, nothing will change," she says.
"If the whole music industry stood together and said, 'Screw you all, none of you can have the music,' it would be very interesting to see what happens.
"It's shameful that record companies don't make a stance and protect us... But you did'nae join a band because you want to be rich and famous," she muses.
"Well, some people do, but you can sniff out the real deals."
If anyone can claim to be the real deal, it's Spiteri. No-nonsense, music-first, and utterly in command of the stage, she's been a rock star ever since she gave up hairdressing to form Texas almost 40 years ago.
Their latest album may revisit old ground, courtesy of a pilgrimage to hallowed turf - but it sounds like a band revitalised, and Spiteri can't wait to get back on stage.
"You have to go on full tilt, every night," she says. "People want to be entertained, they want a right old sing-along.
"So you can't be thinking, 'Hey, let me see how I'm feeling tonight'. That's not how it works.
"You have to put on your big boy pants and pull it off."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68579098
|
news_entertainment-arts-68579098
|
|
England: Euros provide golden opportunity for Gareth Southgate's side to shed nearly-men tag - BBC Sport
|
2024-03-27
|
None
|
The Euros provide a golden chance for England's masters of the missed opportunity to win their first major trophy since 1966
| null |
Gareth Southgate's England have become the masters of the missed opportunity and they enter Euro 2024 knowing history will not be so kind should the same fate befall them in Germany.
England's clear progress under Southgate can be measured in major tournaments. The trick now is to actually try to win one this summer or risk being forever labelled as the nearly men.
The days of humiliation under Roy Hodgson when England could not even get out of their group at the 2014 World Cup in Brazil and were then embarrassed by minnows Iceland at the Euros two years later have been replaced by regular runs to the latter stages of the big events.
England may have lost to Brazil and drawn with Belgium in their two Wembley friendlies but they were essentially fact-finding missions designed to crystallise Southgate's thoughts as he moves towards naming his 23-man squad for Germany.
Southgate still has his critics but the strong counter argument is that he has the best record of any England manager since 1966 World Cup winner Sir Alf Ramsey.
England reached a first World Cup semi-final for 28 years in Russia, the final at Euro 2020 and then lost to holders France in the World Cup quarter-final in Qatar in 2022.
So far so good - until the brutal reality kicks in that the common denominator in all was defeat.
It still leaves a sense England could not quite cope with the pressure cooker atmosphere of the big occasion.
England are regarded as favourites for Euro 2024, sharing that status with France at the very least, as Southgate presides over a squad groaning under the weight of natural talent, which will be replicated by the burden of expectation when they kick off against Serbia in Gelsenkirchen on 16 June.
All the logic says England can win. All the talent says England can win. All the history shows they have still to prove they can win.
If Southgate's England fall short again it will be deemed as a deep disappointment in many quarters and outright failure in others. The time for hard luck stories and excuses has gone.
England's record against major countries feeds into the narrative that they have everything to prove in Germany. England have played 24 games against teams ranked in the world's top 10 since September 2016. The record is seven wins, 10 losses and seven draws.
Not hugely impressive but most things are in place for that to change in Germany.
They are third in the Fifa rankings behind Argentina and France. Hosts Germany are in transition and it remains to be seen if coach Robert Martinez can get the best out of Portugal's talented squad. Spain may also be a threat further down the line.
England have a relatively favourable group alongside Serbia, Denmark and Slovenia. They will not cross paths with France until the semi-final, all being well.
This is a golden chance for England to win the major men's trophy that has eluded them since 1966. It is certainly their best since the painful "what might have been" of Euro 2004 when a side packed with world-class talent lost on penalties to hosts Portugal in the last eight.
Where there is France's Kylian Mbappe there is always danger, which is why all bets are off to an extent, but this England have most things going for them to win Euro 2024 - and it would be no surprise to me if they did.
An examination of the talent at Southgate's disposal makes it easy to understand why many would regard an inability to do so this time as failure. If England do not win, the court of public opinion will deliver a more unflattering, unforgiving, verdict than on previous near misses.
England are blessed with a reliable goalkeeper in Everton's Jordan Pickford. They have two defenders of the highest class who are at home in elite company in Manchester City pair John Stones and Kyle Walker.
Declan Rice is a truly outstanding holding midfield player, who has looked worth every penny of the £105m Arsenal paid to West Ham United last summer, while team-mate Bukayo Saka is, along with Manchester City's Phil Foden, a rare creative talent.
Manchester United's 18-year-old Kobbie Mainoo looks a timely arrival, ready made for this England side despite his tender years and after only making one start. He could be the answer to Southgate's questions around the make-up of his midfield.
And then we come to the two jewels in England's crown - two players who have taken foreign soil by storm at club level this season.
Jude Bellingham is already one of the best players in the world in his position, which can be an orthodox midfield player or more often a number 10 capable of anything.
Harry Kane is England's leader, an irreplaceable talisman who is the all-time record goalscorer for his country as well as former club Tottenham.
In Bellingham and Kane, Southgate has two stellar individuals who will be the envy of every other country at Euro 2024.
What could possibly go wrong?
Injuries for a start. We have already seen how blunt England look without Kane and, while not an absentee on the same scale, goalkeeping resources are thin behind Pickford.
There are concerns over central defence, where Harry Maguire has looked vulnerable as well as lacking game time at Manchester United. No-one can doubt his character - Southgate never does - in the manner in which he has battled through being marginalised by Erik ten Hag at Old Trafford but will he be targeted by top-class attacks?
Luke Shaw has developed into an outstanding left-back but is unlikely to play again this season, thus putting a question mark over his participation in Euro 2024. This would be a big blow.
Chelsea's Ben Chilwell struggled against Brazil while other options are switching Kieran Trippier, 33 and currently injured, from right-back to left-back or perhaps Liverpool's Joe Gomez.
If Southgate can get everyone fit, find a partner in midfield for Rice and solve the conundrum of how to get Foden more involved if he has to play off the flank, then England will take some beating.
This may be Southgate's farewell as England manager. Win or lose, very few international managers get a fifth tournament without winning any of the previous four. And if England are triumphant Southgate may even feel his work is done.
What is certain, given the talent England have and the experience of major tournaments boasted by so many of the squad, is that coming up short once more cannot be painted as anything other than desperate disappointment - and arguably failure.
Euro 2024 is now the time for England to deliver. And, in Germany, they can.
• None Our coverage of your Premier League club is bigger and better than ever before - follow your team and sign up for notifications in the BBC Sport app to make sure you never miss a moment
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68668152
|
rt_football_68668152
|
|
Stay! Germany denies reports of sausage dog ban - BBC News
|
2024-03-28
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The government moves to reassure dachshund fans after a petition was launched against a draft law.
|
Europe
|
Reports that Germany could ban dachshunds led to hand-wringing from lovers of the breed (file picture)
"Sausage Dogs to be banned in Germany," screamed headlines in the UK this week.
Germany's biggest-selling newspaper Bild went full circle, fascinated by the panic: "Brits Fear for the German Sausage Dog."
The story arose from the German Kennels Association (VDH), which has launched a petition against a draft law that aims to clamp down on breeding that leads animals to suffer.
Will the dachshund or any other breed be banned? The short answer is no.
Under the proposed Animal Protection Act, certain traits would be defined in dogs that can cause "pain, suffering or damage".
The VDH fears this could lead to a ban on breeding sausage dogs, because their short legs and elongated spine can lead to knee, hip and back problems. Other breeds, such as bulldogs or pugs, which can have breathing problems, could also be targeted, says the association.
"No dog breeds will be banned," a spokesman for the Green-led agriculture ministry told me bluntly. "We want to prevent breeders from deforming dogs so much, that they suffer."
The government's argument is that dog breeds are continually developing and at risk of having increasingly extreme characteristics.
So breeding dogs with specific traits, such as skeletal abnormalities, that lead to suffering, poor health or a short life expectancy, would no longer be allowed. "Just because people find something new or aesthetically pleasing, animals shouldn't be tormented," said the ministry's spokesman.
So-called "torture breeding" has been illegal in Germany for three decades. But until now the law has been vague and open to interpretation.
This new draft would give precise scientific criteria about what sort of breeding can lead to an animal suffering. Existing animals would be able to be kept but would not be allowed to breed or exhibit in shows.
"Torture breeding" is not in the interests of the dog, the owner or the breeder, argues the government, given that everyone wants these animals to live normal, healthy lives.
"There will always be sausage dogs," the spokesman said. "We will just never see any with legs one centimetre long."
Dachshunds, which can be translated as "badger dogs", were bred in Germany for hunting. Their short legs and long body helped them burrow into holes.
Michael Lazaris of Vets on the Common, in London, says many as one in five Dachshunds suffer from intervertebral disc disease because of their elongated spines. Dachshunds can also suffer from chronic hip and knee problems due to their short legs.
Dr Lazaris advises buying puppies from responsible breeders and says that many genetic diseases can be bred out "by not using dogs with those specific health problems". This is essentially the aim of the new German draft law.
Meanwhile the German branch of animal rights organisation Peta is indeed calling for a ban on 17 breeds, including sausage dogs, pugs and French bull dogs. English bull dogs are also on Peta's list. An online petition calling for the draft law to include these breeds has almost 70,000 signatures so far.
Later this year the draft version of the Animal Protection Law will be put to the German cabinet and then to the Bundestag, Germany's parliament.
With key regional elections across eastern Germany in September, there are bound to be more stories about bossy Greens supposedly banning well-loved German traditions. This story has legs.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68689823
|
news_world-europe-68689823
|
|
Samuel Paty: Beheading of teacher deepens divisions over France's secular identity - BBC News
|
2024-03-28
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Mass rallies over the murder of a teacher mask growing dissent over the country's secular identity.
|
Europe
|
Thousands rallied following the murder of a teacher who showed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in class
There was something hidden by the crowds that gathered across France over the weekend.
The dramatic show of national unity - after the decapitation of teacher Samuel Paty outside Paris - hid growing dissent in some parts of the country over the nation's view of secularism and freedom of speech.
"Last year, a student told me that it was completely legitimate to kill someone who failed to show respect to the Prophet [Muhammad]," Fathia Agad-Boudjhalat, a history teacher, told French radio. "It comes from what they hear in their families."
Fathia has used cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad for years, along with cartoons of Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron, to teach about freedom of speech.
But many in her profession report worrying trends among a minority of students who seem at odds with French laws and values.
State secularism - or laïcité - is central to France's national identity. It's as important as the concepts of "liberty, equality, fraternity" that make up its post-Revolutionary motto.
Laïcité decrees that the public space - whether classrooms, workplaces or ministries - should be free of religion. Curbing freedom of expression to protect the feelings of one particular community, the state says, undermines the country's unity.
But there is evidence that a growing number of people in France are uncomfortable with this argument and want the boundaries around secularism and free speech to change.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Rallies in Paris, Toulouse, Lyon and other French cities in support of Samuel Paty
According to Michaël Prazan, a former teacher, this dissent began to grow in the early 2000s when the government banned religious symbols in schools.
Back then, he was teaching in a suburb of Paris with a high Muslim population. He believes teachers have failed to react to a growing chasm between them and some of their students.
"We need to be more responsive as soon as there is a student who poses a problem in class, such as rejoicing in a terrorist act," he told me. "We need to deal with it quickly before it spills over onto the internet and a death threat for the teacher."
Teachers say they noticed a change after 2015, when Islamist gunmen attacked the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo after it published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
"They deserved it," some students told philosophy teacher Alexandra Girat, "because the cartoons were too much - they shouldn't represent the Prophet [Muhammad] that way."
A mural in tribute to those killed in the Charlie Hebdo attack was erected on the Rue Nicolas-Appert
Polls suggest wider public opinion in France has hardened since the attacks, with a majority of people now supporting the magazine's decision to publish the cartoons. Previously, most said it was an "unnecessary provocation".
Meanwhile, almost 70% of Muslim respondents believe publishing the images was wrong.
But both sample groups strongly condemned the attacks themselves.
The roots of deepening divisions over religious identity and freedom of speech are complex. They include the influence of conflicts overseas and the racism and social marginalisation experienced by many descendants of Muslim immigrants here.
France's national values are hard to defend, some say, if they don't appear to apply to you.
So where does all that leave teachers like Samuel Paty, who are tasked with teaching students about freedom of speech?
One woman at Sunday's rally said France's leaders needed to act.
"We can't leave teachers alone to face these complicated religious, moral and philosophical questions," she told us. "They need direction."
We've been sounding the alarm for years," Iannis Roder, a historian and teacher, told French radio. "I hope this is a turning point in recognising the reality of what happens on the ground."
President Macron has reportedly asked the government to come up with "concrete action" and to strengthen security in schools, promising that "fear will change sides".
More than 80 people who posted online messages of support for Mr Paty's killer will be investigated by police, and associations with radical links are under fresh scrutiny too.
The government is under pressure, with one senior opposition figure criticising Mr Macron's approach and calling for "armes et non des larmes" - weapons not tears.
But after so many attacks here over the past five years, the divisions - and the disillusion - seem to grow a little more each time.
How pupils will react to the killing of Mr Paty won't be clear until early November, when schools return after a two week break leading up to the Christian holiday of Toussaint.
After the attacks in 2015, some children refused to take part in a minute's silence that was held across the nation to remember those who died.
A similar national moment is planned for Mr Paty when schools return next month. Once again, teachers will be watching to see what the response of their pupils will be.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54602171
|
news_world-europe-54602171
|
|
Why Macron hopes abortion rights are a political winner - BBC News
|
2024-03-03
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
French president is to enshrine right to abortion in the constitution. Critics question his motives.
|
Europe
|
Protesters outside the Senate in February with placards reading "my body my choice" (L) and "abortion in the constitution"
France is preparing to become the first country in the world to put the right to abortion in its constitution.
On Monday, parliamentarians from the upper and lower chambers will meet in special session in the Palace of Versailles, summoned by President Emmanuel Macron.
If, as expected, they vote for the government's motion by a three-fifths majority, then the country's 1958 constitution will be revised to enshrine women's "guaranteed freedom" to abort.
It will be the 25th amendment to the Fifth Republic's founding document, and the first since 2008.
Spurred by the end of federal protection of abortion rights in the US two years ago, supporters are exuberant over the revision - which they see as insurance against any similar backpedalling in France.
Polls show around 85% of the French public support the reform. Resistance from right-wingers in parliament has failed to materialize.
On 1 February French protestors voiced their support for abortion rights from a balcony during a debate on a draft law on the constitutionalisation of the right to abortion at the Senate in Paris
Opposition, instead, has largely focused on the politics of the move: President Macron is accused of debasing the constitution for electoral ends.
Critics say the revision is not necessarily wrong in itself, but unnecessary - and they see a weakened president trying to use the cause to boost his left-wing credentials and to flush out opposition to abortion.
President Macron lacks a majority in the National Assembly and faces an uphill task getting any reforms into law.
His January reshuffle of his government meanwhile slanted it to the right.
Following controversial laws last year on pension reform and immigration, this has given the jitters to left-leaning components of his Renaissance party - for whom the abortion revision is now a welcome re-balancing.
"It is a big relief to be able to proclaim our unity again on an issue over which the whole of the party can agree. There have been a lot of tensions inside Renaissance, but now we can remind ourselves of the values we share," said one left-wing member of the party who asked not to be identified.
The proposal, approved earlier by the lower house, the National Assembly, was backed by 267 votes to 50 on Wednesday
But, in taking up what had originally been a left-wing parliamentary initiative, Mr Macron was doing more than just shoring up his left-wing support. He was also setting a trap.
With European elections approaching in June, the president hoped the constitutional revision on abortion might open a clear fault line between his party and its main opponents, Marine Le Pen's far-right.
If enough parliamentarians from the right and far-right objected to the reform, then they could easily be cast as reactionaries.
Unfortunately for him, neither the Le Pen's National Rally (RN) nor the conservative Republicans (KLR) took the bait.
Given a free vote in Assembly and Senate debates which preceded Monday's special congress, most right-wing parliamentarians voted for the bill.
Which is not to say many of them did not have misgivings about the constitutional reform. They just decided it was not worth fighting.
In fact the main argument against the revision has nothing to do with the matter of abortion. The argument is over whether abortion is a matter for the constitution.
In France, the right to abortion has been enshrined in law - not, as it was in the US, by a single supreme court ruling - since 1975.
Since then the law has been updated nine times - and on each occasion with the aim of extending access.
France's constitutional council - the body that decides on the constitutionality of laws - has never raised a query.
On 28 February, people held a banner which read "Abortion is a fundamental right" during a demonstration organised by the collective "Abortion Europe, women decide"
In a 2001 ruling, the council based its approval of abortion on the notion of liberty enshrined in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man, which is technically part of the constitution.
So, according to many jurists, abortion is already a constitutional right.
"Beyond being a symbol," says Anne Levade, a law professor at Paris-Sorbonne University, "the revision will change absolutely nothing."
She and other experts worry the purpose of the constitution - to set out a sparse set of immutable rules inside which law and politics can function - risks being undermined if it becomes a repository for a succession of "rights".
What if in the future elected representatives become convinced having a child is also a right? Will surrogate motherhood be put in the constitution? Or what about gay marriage? Or the attainment of carbon reduction targets?
"There is a French particularity which leads politicians - in an almost Pavlovian way - to look for a constitutional change each time they want to signal the importance they attach to an issue," Levade laments.
French professor of public law Anne Levade is in favour of abortion
Supporters of the reform however say it must happen to guard against a new wave of "reactionary" social change in Europe that could bring to power those who are minded to restrict the right to abortion.
They point to countries like Malta, Hungary and Poland where limits are already in place or the subject of much debate.
"In women's rights, symbols count," feminist lawyer Rachel-Flore Pardo said of the constitutional change.
"Tomorrow they become our battlements. To wait until abortion was actually under threat would be to wait too long."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68456231
|
news_world-europe-68456231
|
|
The 'banned' Star Trek episode that promised a united Ireland - BBC News
|
2024-03-03
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
A scene discussing Ireland's "2024 unification" stopped the episode from being shown in the UK.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
Android character Data describes the "Irish unification of 2024" as a successful example of violence used to achieve political aims
When sci-fi writer Melinda M Snodgrass sat down to write Star Trek episode The High Ground, she had little idea of the unexpected ripples of controversy it would still be making more than three decades later.
"We became aware of it later... and there isn't much you can do about it," she says, speaking to the BBC from her home in New Mexico. "Writing for television is like laying track for a train that's about 300 feet behind you. You really don't have time to stop."
While the series has legions of followers steeped in its lore, that one particular episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation has lived long and prospered in infamy.
It comes down to a scene in which the android character Data, played by actor Brent Spiner, talks about the "Irish unification of 2024" as an example of violence successfully achieving a political aim.
Originally shown in the US in 1990, there was so much concern over the exchange that the episode was not broadcast on the BBC or Irish public broadcaster RTÉ.
At the time, US TV shows often debuted internationally several years after their original broadcast.
Satellite broadcaster Sky reportedly aired an edited version in 1992, cutting the crucial scene. But The High Ground was not shown by the BBC until 02:39 GMT, 29 September 2007 - and BBC Archives says it is confident this is its only transmission.
The decision not to air the episode reflects a time when a bloody conflict continued to rage in Northern Ireland, with the Provisional IRA - a paramilitary group with the stated aim of ending British rule in Northern Ireland - one of its main protagonists.
Now it is 2024 - and Sinn Féin, which emerged as the political wing of the IRA, is the largest party in the devolved Stormont assembly.
The party's leader in Northern Ireland, Michelle O'Neill, became first minister last month and has predicted a referendum on Irish unity within a decade.
She strikes a very different tone to Sir Keir Starmer, favourite to be the UK's next prime minister, who has said such a poll is "not even on the horizon".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Michelle O'Neill became Northern Ireland's first minister last month, the first time a Irish nationalist politician has held that role
On social media, people have been sharing screenshots of Data's prediction and drawing links to Sinn Féin's electoral success.
Back when Ms Snodgrass was writing the script, she did not think it would cause any problems. "Science fiction is incredibly important because it allows people to discuss difficult topics - but at arm's length," she says.
In the episode, Data's line does not come out of the blue.
The High Ground is based on the theme of terrorism, after the Starship Enterprise's chief medical officer Dr Beverly Crusher is abducted by the separatist Ansata group, who use murder and violence to pursue their aim of independence.
"I've been reviewing the history of armed rebellion, and it appears that terrorism is an effective way to promote political change," says Data.
"Yes it can be," responds Captain Jean-Luc Picard, played by Patrick Stewart, "but I have never subscribed to the theory that political power flows from the barrel of a gun."
"Yet there are numerous examples of when it was successful," Data says. "The independence of the Mexican state from Spain, the Irish unification of 2024, and the Kenzie rebellion."
Star Trek: The Next Generation featured Sir Patrick Stewart as Captain Jean-Luc Picard, in what has become one of his most iconic roles
"I'm aware of them," says Picard, to which Data asks: "Would it then be accurate to say that terrorism is acceptable when all options for peaceful settlement have been foreclosed?"
"Data, these are questions that mankind has been struggling with throughout history. Your confusion is only human."
The story has parallels with the situation in Northern Ireland at the time - something Ms Snodgrass says was deliberate.
"I was a history major before I went to law school and I wanted to get into that; discuss the fact that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist," she says.
"I mean, these are complicated issues. And when do people feel like their back is so much against the wall that they have no choice but to turn to violence? And is that actually ever justified?
"I think what I wanted to say was: if we're talking and not shooting, we're in a better place."
Melinda M Snodgrass says science fiction provides a way of examining current issues through a different lens
In 1992, when the episode was due to air in the UK, the IRA ceasefire of 1994 and 1998 Good Friday Agreement were still years away.
In April of that year, the Baltic Exchange bombing carried out by the IRA in the heart of London's financial centre killed three people, and injured more than 90.
Such was the atmosphere from 1988 to 1994, a ban was enforced on broadcasting the voices of members of certain groups from Northern Ireland on television and radio. Restrictions were seen as specifically targeting Sinn Féin.
It resulted in the bizarre situation where prominent politicians including Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams had their voices dubbed by actors (Mr Adams, famously, was voiced at times by Oscar-nominated actor Stephen Rea).
Reflecting on the Star Trek episode, Prof Robert Savage of Boston College says: "It was amazing it was censored."
His latest book - Northern Ireland, the BBC, and Censorship in Thatcher's Britain - covers the period when the episode was pulled.
"The argument I think the robot [Data] asks you is basically just: does terrorism work? If there are no alternatives, if you've tried every other avenue to try to affect change, is it acceptable? To use terrorism?
"And it's a very human question. But [Jean-Luc Picard] doesn't answer the question! That would have unsettled somebody like Thatcher," Prof Savage adds.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. The roots of Northern Ireland’s Troubles lie deep in Irish history
There is some murkiness about how a decision was reached not to broadcast the programme at the time.
BBC Archives confirmed the 2007 broadcast of the episode and was "satisfied" any other screening would have been listed.
The BBC's press office said it had spoken to "a number of people" about why a ban may have been implemented, but was unable to get this information "as it dates quite far back".
A spokesman for Sky said he had looked into it, but could not confirm it had broadcast an edited version of the episode in 1992 - or what its reasoning might have been for doing so.
RTÉ noted that TV guides from the time show it had broadcast Star Trek: The Next Generation, but did not have further information in its acquisitions system, and could not find anyone from the time to speak to.
"I think this would probably have stirred a memory if I had been made aware of this at the time, but I am afraid it rings no bells at all," said Lord John Birt, who was director general of the BBC from 1992 to 2000, and before this served as deputy director general.
If the episode had been removed, it would probably have been a decision made at operational level in Network Television, he said.
More than three decades on, the picture in Northern Ireland has changed.
Ms Snodgrass says she was "thrilled" when the Good Friday Agreement was signed, adding it had allowed Northern Ireland to prosper.
She notes Games of Thrones, a television series based on books by George RR Martin (who she knows well and has co-authored work with) was filmed in the region in recent years - something which has given a big boost to the economy.
"[At the time] 2024 seemed a long way away. I probably should have made it, you know, 2224! I just pulled that number and it didn't occur to me that suddenly we would be here."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68342135
|
news_entertainment-arts-68342135
|
|
Trump wins as Supreme Court sidesteps political landmines - BBC News
|
2024-03-04
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The Republican celebrates the ruling, which does not give a view on whether he engaged in insurrection at the US Capitol.
|
US & Canada
|
The US Supreme Court has slammed the door on Colorado's effort to remove Donald Trump from its presidential primary ballot - and on every other state that has made, or is considering, efforts to disqualify him.
The top court ruled that only Congress has the power to strike the former president from the ballot under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
The unsigned, unanimous ruling is a significant win for Mr Trump, whose presidential campaign can now proceed without roadblocks erected by individual state courts or election officials.
In issuing its opinion, the nine Supreme Court justices sidestepped some of the biggest political landmines in this case.
They did not opine on whether Mr Trump had, in fact, engaged in insurrection on 6 January 2021. They didn't discuss whether the attack on the US Capitol by the former president's supporters constituted an insurrection at all (or was a riot, as characterised by one of Mr Trump's lawyers).
The court also didn't delve into whether presidents are specifically exempt from the 14th Amendment's insurrection language, another of Mr Trump's legal arguments in challenging the Colorado decision.
Instead, the court focused solely on which authorities have the power to enforce the insurrection provision. Only Congress, not individuals states, has that power, it held - a view that avoids the "patchwork" scenario in which a candidate could be eligible in some states and disqualified in others.
In the real world, with a closely divided Senate and a Republican-controlled House of Representatives, that means the chances of Mr Trump being ruled ineligible under the 14th Amendment are essentially zero.
This is where the court's 6-3 ideological divide reared its head once again. The three liberal justices on the court, while agreeing that Colorado went too far, wanted to leave the door open for possible national efforts to determine whether Mr Trump is eligible to run.
The court's decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, severely limits action by the federal government - whether in the courts or by other federal authorities - to remove insurrectionist candidates from the ballot or from office once elected.
One obvious, but unmentioned scenario would have been if special counsel Jack Smith changed his mind and decided to charge Mr Trump with insurrection then, upon conviction, sought to have a federal court disqualify him from office.
That possibility is now foreclosed.
One conservative justice, Amy Coney Barrett, agreed with the liberals that the court issued too sweeping a decision, but in her own short concurring opinion she said they should have held their tongues.
"In my judgement, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency," she wrote. "The court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up."
With the court set to decide more highly charged political cases - on Mr Trump's immunity from prosecution, as well as on abortion, gun control and social media regulation - a drop in the national temperature seems unlikely.
If you're in the UK, sign up here.
And if you're anywhere else, sign up here.
• None Top court says states can't ban Trump from ballots
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68395816
|
news_world-us-canada-68395816
|
|
Why Macron hopes abortion rights are a political winner - BBC News
|
2024-03-04
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
French president is to enshrine right to abortion in the constitution. Critics question his motives.
|
Europe
|
Protesters outside the Senate in February with placards reading "my body my choice" (L) and "abortion in the constitution"
France is preparing to become the first country in the world to put the right to abortion in its constitution.
On Monday, parliamentarians from the upper and lower chambers will meet in special session in the Palace of Versailles, summoned by President Emmanuel Macron.
If, as expected, they vote for the government's motion by a three-fifths majority, then the country's 1958 constitution will be revised to enshrine women's "guaranteed freedom" to abort.
It will be the 25th amendment to the Fifth Republic's founding document, and the first since 2008.
Spurred by the end of federal protection of abortion rights in the US two years ago, supporters are exuberant over the revision - which they see as insurance against any similar backpedalling in France.
Polls show around 85% of the French public support the reform. Resistance from right-wingers in parliament has failed to materialize.
On 1 February French protestors voiced their support for abortion rights from a balcony during a debate on a draft law on the constitutionalisation of the right to abortion at the Senate in Paris
Opposition, instead, has largely focused on the politics of the move: President Macron is accused of debasing the constitution for electoral ends.
Critics say the revision is not necessarily wrong in itself, but unnecessary - and they see a weakened president trying to use the cause to boost his left-wing credentials and to flush out opposition to abortion.
President Macron lacks a majority in the National Assembly and faces an uphill task getting any reforms into law.
His January reshuffle of his government meanwhile slanted it to the right.
Following controversial laws last year on pension reform and immigration, this has given the jitters to left-leaning components of his Renaissance party - for whom the abortion revision is now a welcome re-balancing.
"It is a big relief to be able to proclaim our unity again on an issue over which the whole of the party can agree. There have been a lot of tensions inside Renaissance, but now we can remind ourselves of the values we share," said one left-wing member of the party who asked not to be identified.
The proposal, approved earlier by the lower house, the National Assembly, was backed by 267 votes to 50 on Wednesday
But, in taking up what had originally been a left-wing parliamentary initiative, Mr Macron was doing more than just shoring up his left-wing support. He was also setting a trap.
With European elections approaching in June, the president hoped the constitutional revision on abortion might open a clear fault line between his party and its main opponents, Marine Le Pen's far-right.
If enough parliamentarians from the right and far-right objected to the reform, then they could easily be cast as reactionaries.
Unfortunately for him, neither the Le Pen's National Rally (RN) nor the conservative Republicans (KLR) took the bait.
Given a free vote in Assembly and Senate debates which preceded Monday's special congress, most right-wing parliamentarians voted for the bill.
Which is not to say many of them did not have misgivings about the constitutional reform. They just decided it was not worth fighting.
In fact the main argument against the revision has nothing to do with the matter of abortion. The argument is over whether abortion is a matter for the constitution.
In France, the right to abortion has been enshrined in law - not, as it was in the US, by a single supreme court ruling - since 1975.
Since then the law has been updated nine times - and on each occasion with the aim of extending access.
France's constitutional council - the body that decides on the constitutionality of laws - has never raised a query.
On 28 February, people held a banner which read "Abortion is a fundamental right" during a demonstration organised by the collective "Abortion Europe, women decide"
In a 2001 ruling, the council based its approval of abortion on the notion of liberty enshrined in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man, which is technically part of the constitution.
So, according to many jurists, abortion is already a constitutional right.
"Beyond being a symbol," says Anne Levade, a law professor at Paris-Sorbonne University, "the revision will change absolutely nothing."
She and other experts worry the purpose of the constitution - to set out a sparse set of immutable rules inside which law and politics can function - risks being undermined if it becomes a repository for a succession of "rights".
What if in the future elected representatives become convinced having a child is also a right? Will surrogate motherhood be put in the constitution? Or what about gay marriage? Or the attainment of carbon reduction targets?
"There is a French particularity which leads politicians - in an almost Pavlovian way - to look for a constitutional change each time they want to signal the importance they attach to an issue," Levade laments.
French professor of public law Anne Levade is in favour of abortion
Supporters of the reform however say it must happen to guard against a new wave of "reactionary" social change in Europe that could bring to power those who are minded to restrict the right to abortion.
They point to countries like Malta, Hungary and Poland where limits are already in place or the subject of much debate.
"In women's rights, symbols count," feminist lawyer Rachel-Flore Pardo said of the constitutional change.
"Tomorrow they become our battlements. To wait until abortion was actually under threat would be to wait too long."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68456231
|
news_world-europe-68456231
|
|
Ezra Mam: Australian rugby league star accuses rival of using racist slur - BBC News
|
2024-03-04
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Ezra Mam's allegation overshadows a push for US audiences by Australia's National Rugby League.
|
Australia
|
An Indigenous Australian rugby league star has accused a rival player of using a racial slur against him during a hotly anticipated game in Las Vegas.
When asked about the complaint after the match, the Sydney Roosters prop said "nothing" had happened and "it's all just fun and games on the field".
Australian sports have been battling a wave of racist abuse from crowds, but incidents between players are uncommon.
National Rugby League (NRL) officials are investigating the claim, which has overshadowed the start of the season.
The two teams were facing off at Allegiant Stadium on Saturday local time - the same venue as last month's Super Bowl - as part of a marquee round aimed at enticing a US audience to Australia's top-tier competition.
During the game, which the Broncos lost 20-10, Mam can be heard telling the referee of the alleged slur, with another teammate repeating the accusation.
The referee said he did not hear the language, but made a formal complaint at Mam's request.
Leniu - a Samoa Test representative - has been charged with breaking the NRL's behaviour code and will face a judiciary panel, which will hear evidence and can impose penalties including fines and match bans.
After the game, Broncos coach Kevin Walters said Mam was "adamant" the slur had been used and was "pretty upset".
"In this day and age, you wouldn't think this is still out there," team captain Adam Reynolds added.
"We certainly don't stand for racism and we'll support Ezra and get around him, make sure he's all right."
The coach of the Roosters, Trent Robinson, said he hadn't spoken to Leniu about the allegation.
"[Mam] obviously made the complaint, but that doesn't mean that it's right. It'll go through the formal process, as it should," he said.
Local media have also reported that Mam's teammates later had a verbal argument with Leniu over the incident, in a corridor at the hotel where both sides were staying.
In recent years, the NRL has struggled to address racist abuse directed at players by spectators.
Players including South Sydney Rabbitohs star Latrell Mitchell have regularly reported vitriol, both online and during games.
Mitchell - who is also the Indigenous All Stars captain - posted to Instagram on Sunday supporting Mam and demanding action from league officials.
"I stand with you," he said.
NRL leaders have vowed to eradicate racism from the sport, and say that anyone who racially abuses or threatens players will be reported to police.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-68464908
|
news_world-australia-68464908
|
|
The 'banned' Star Trek episode that promised a united Ireland - BBC News
|
2024-03-04
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
A scene discussing Ireland's "2024 unification" stopped the episode from being shown in the UK.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
Android character Data describes the "Irish unification of 2024" as a successful example of violence used to achieve political aims
When sci-fi writer Melinda M Snodgrass sat down to write Star Trek episode The High Ground, she had little idea of the unexpected ripples of controversy it would still be making more than three decades later.
"We became aware of it later... and there isn't much you can do about it," she says, speaking to the BBC from her home in New Mexico. "Writing for television is like laying track for a train that's about 300 feet behind you. You really don't have time to stop."
While the series has legions of followers steeped in its lore, that one particular episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation has lived long and prospered in infamy.
It comes down to a scene in which the android character Data, played by actor Brent Spiner, talks about the "Irish unification of 2024" as an example of violence successfully achieving a political aim.
Originally shown in the US in 1990, there was so much concern over the exchange that the episode was not broadcast on the BBC or Irish public broadcaster RTÉ.
At the time, US TV shows often debuted internationally several years after their original broadcast.
Satellite broadcaster Sky reportedly aired an edited version in 1992, cutting the crucial scene. But The High Ground was not shown by the BBC until 02:39 GMT, 29 September 2007 - and BBC Archives says it is confident this is its only transmission.
The decision not to air the episode reflects a time when a bloody conflict continued to rage in Northern Ireland, with the Provisional IRA - a paramilitary group with the stated aim of ending British rule in Northern Ireland - one of its main protagonists.
Now it is 2024 - and Sinn Féin, which emerged as the political wing of the IRA, is the largest party in the devolved Stormont assembly.
The party's leader in Northern Ireland, Michelle O'Neill, became first minister last month and has predicted a referendum on Irish unity within a decade.
She strikes a very different tone to Sir Keir Starmer, favourite to be the UK's next prime minister, who has said such a poll is "not even on the horizon".
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Michelle O'Neill became Northern Ireland's first minister last month, the first time a Irish nationalist politician has held that role
On social media, people have been sharing screenshots of Data's prediction and drawing links to Sinn Féin's electoral success.
Back when Ms Snodgrass was writing the script, she did not think it would cause any problems. "Science fiction is incredibly important because it allows people to discuss difficult topics - but at arm's length," she says.
In the episode, Data's line does not come out of the blue.
The High Ground is based on the theme of terrorism, after the Starship Enterprise's chief medical officer Dr Beverly Crusher is abducted by the separatist Ansata group, who use murder and violence to pursue their aim of independence.
"I've been reviewing the history of armed rebellion, and it appears that terrorism is an effective way to promote political change," says Data.
"Yes it can be," responds Captain Jean-Luc Picard, played by Patrick Stewart, "but I have never subscribed to the theory that political power flows from the barrel of a gun."
"Yet there are numerous examples of when it was successful," Data says. "The independence of the Mexican state from Spain, the Irish unification of 2024, and the Kenzie rebellion."
Star Trek: The Next Generation featured Sir Patrick Stewart as Captain Jean-Luc Picard, in what has become one of his most iconic roles
"I'm aware of them," says Picard, to which Data asks: "Would it then be accurate to say that terrorism is acceptable when all options for peaceful settlement have been foreclosed?"
"Data, these are questions that mankind has been struggling with throughout history. Your confusion is only human."
The story has parallels with the situation in Northern Ireland at the time - something Ms Snodgrass says was deliberate.
"I was a history major before I went to law school and I wanted to get into that; discuss the fact that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist," she says.
"I mean, these are complicated issues. And when do people feel like their back is so much against the wall that they have no choice but to turn to violence? And is that actually ever justified?
"I think what I wanted to say was: if we're talking and not shooting, we're in a better place."
Melinda M Snodgrass says science fiction provides a way of examining current issues through a different lens
In 1992, when the episode was due to air in the UK, the IRA ceasefire of 1994 and 1998 Good Friday Agreement were still years away.
In April of that year, the Baltic Exchange bombing carried out by the IRA in the heart of London's financial centre killed three people, and injured more than 90.
Such was the atmosphere from 1988 to 1994, a ban was enforced on broadcasting the voices of members of certain groups from Northern Ireland on television and radio. Restrictions were seen as specifically targeting Sinn Féin.
It resulted in the bizarre situation where prominent politicians including Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams had their voices dubbed by actors (Mr Adams, famously, was voiced at times by Oscar-nominated actor Stephen Rea).
Reflecting on the Star Trek episode, Prof Robert Savage of Boston College says: "It was amazing it was censored."
His latest book - Northern Ireland, the BBC, and Censorship in Thatcher's Britain - covers the period when the episode was pulled.
"The argument I think the robot [Data] asks you is basically just: does terrorism work? If there are no alternatives, if you've tried every other avenue to try to affect change, is it acceptable? To use terrorism?
"And it's a very human question. But [Jean-Luc Picard] doesn't answer the question! That would have unsettled somebody like Thatcher," Prof Savage adds.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. The roots of Northern Ireland’s Troubles lie deep in Irish history
There is some murkiness about how a decision was reached not to broadcast the programme at the time.
BBC Archives confirmed the 2007 broadcast of the episode and was "satisfied" any other screening would have been listed.
The BBC's press office said it had spoken to "a number of people" about why a ban may have been implemented, but was unable to get this information "as it dates quite far back".
A spokesman for Sky said he had looked into it, but could not confirm it had broadcast an edited version of the episode in 1992 - or what its reasoning might have been for doing so.
RTÉ noted that TV guides from the time show it had broadcast Star Trek: The Next Generation, but did not have further information in its acquisitions system, and could not find anyone from the time to speak to.
"I think this would probably have stirred a memory if I had been made aware of this at the time, but I am afraid it rings no bells at all," said Lord John Birt, who was director general of the BBC from 1992 to 2000, and before this served as deputy director general.
If the episode had been removed, it would probably have been a decision made at operational level in Network Television, he said.
More than three decades on, the picture in Northern Ireland has changed.
Ms Snodgrass says she was "thrilled" when the Good Friday Agreement was signed, adding it had allowed Northern Ireland to prosper.
She notes Games of Thrones, a television series based on books by George RR Martin (who she knows well and has co-authored work with) was filmed in the region in recent years - something which has given a big boost to the economy.
"[At the time] 2024 seemed a long way away. I probably should have made it, you know, 2224! I just pulled that number and it didn't occur to me that suddenly we would be here."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68342135
|
news_entertainment-arts-68342135
|
|
Celebrity Big Brother 2024: Princess of Wales' uncle Gary Goldsmith joins line-up - BBC News
|
2024-03-04
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Gary Goldsmith, the Princess of Wales' uncle, says the show won't "bring any stress to" the family.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
Gary Goldsmith introduced himself as the "uncle to the future queen of our country"
Gary Goldsmith, an uncle of Catherine, Princess of Wales, has entered the UK's Celebrity Big Brother house.
The 58-year-old businessman is the younger brother of the princess's mother, Carole.
Charity Women's Aid criticised ITV for hiring Goldsmith despite his previous conviction for punching his wife.
In an interview with the Sun, he said "the last thing" he wanted his appearance on the reality TV show to do was "bring any stress to" the family.
The princess is still recovering from abdominal surgery and has not made public appearances since Christmas Day.
Goldsmith introduced himself on the show as the "uncle to the future queen of our country", and said his niece was "simply perfect".
He added that he would also like to "put the record straight" on his "bad boy reputation".
In 2017, he was fined £5,000 and handed a community order after he admitted punching his wife in the face during an argument.
A spokesperson for Women's Aid told BBC News: "The decision to include a man who has been charged, and pleaded guilty to, assaulting his wife, in the Celebrity Big Brother house demonstrates the lack of awareness that the production team has when it comes to survivors of domestic abuse."
The charity said ITV should consider how Goldsmith's appearance "will impact women who had survived domestic abuse", adding that his inclusion was "a sign that these crimes are not taken seriously".
The Telegraph's arts and entertainment editor Anita Singh said ITV "should be ashamed" of themselves for "having him as a 'fun' character" on the show.
In response, a Big Brother spokesperson said: "All housemates undertake training in language and behaviour before entering the Big Brother house. All behaviour in the house is strictly monitored at all times."
They also pointed to a previous apology by Goldsmith, in which he said he was "not perfect and I made a mistake", which he had "worked endlessly for seven years to put right", and that his conviction was "long since spent however my regret continues".
In his pre-filmed introduction video, he said Big Brother was the one show he had previously said he would "never do".
Goldsmith auditioned for I'm A Celebrity 2023 but was reportedly rejected over fears he could embarrass the royal family.
In his interview with the Sun about the princess, Goldsmith said: "She's beautiful on the outside, but more beautiful on the inside and really is a doting mum... so the way the monarchy is moving, it's family-centric."
Goldsmith added: "I've spoken to Carole just to send my love and we talked about Kate given what's going on.
"There's lots going on in the family at the moment. So she's spinning a lot of plates right now, it's quite stressful. So the last thing I'm going to do is bring any stress to them."
AJ Odudu and Will Best return to hosting duties for Celebrity Big Brother
The new series - which follows a six-year Celebrity Big Brother hiatus - has also reunited The X Factor's Sharon Osbourne and Louis Walsh.
In Monday's launch episode, Walsh and Osbourne were tasked with watching their fellow contestants and rating them from a secret lair.
The pair nominated three housemates to be "in danger" of facing a public vote, based on first impressions.
They chose Goldsmith, David Potts and Zeze Millz - and when asked for their reasoning, Louis replied: "We didn't like them".
Strictly's Nikita Kuzmin and Love Island's Ekin-Su Cülcüloğlu are also among this year's contestants.
The series started on Monday and is hosted by AJ Odudu and Will Best.
Here are the other contestants who are in the house with Goldsmith:
Fern Britton is best known for being one of the former hosts of ITV's daytime show, This Morning.
She presented the show for six years alongside Philip Schofield, before being replaced by Holly Willoughby in 2009.
In her introduction interview, she said she has no "game plan" and is just looking to have fun.
A judge on The X-Factor for more than a decade, Louis Walsh has joined the house and reunited with fellow judge Sharon Osbourne.
The Irish panellist worked as a mentor for JLS in 2008 and was also the manager of boyband Westlife.
He walked into the Big Brother house and said: "Oh God, what have I done?"
Known for his role in the coming-of-age LGBTQ+ Netflix series Heartstopper, actor Bradley Riches has joined the line-up.
The 24-year-old is close friends with Jordan and Henry from last year's series of Big Brother - and said the advice he was given was to be himself.
He is autistic, and said he wants to "inspire people" and make them realise being different is "very cool."
Another young actor entering the Big Brother house is Colson Smith, who is best known for his role in Coronation Street as policeman Craig Tinker.
Colson has previously dabbled in reality TV and in May 2022 appeared as a contestant on sporting series The Games.
He is a long-time fan of the show and said going into the house feels "mental".
Love Island favourite and winner of the 2022 show, Ekin-Su Cülcüloğlu is joining the house following a split from former on-screen partner Davide Sanclimenti.
The TV personality has the most social media followers with 3.5m on Instagram. She also recently appeared on the US version of The Traitors.
She entered the house to chants from the live audience, and teased what may be to come as she said drama follows her "everywhere".
An original member of the Real Housewives of Cheshire, Lauren Simon is another reality star to enter the Big Brother house.
She said she "doesn't answer to anybody" - and that she might end up flirting with Big Brother.
Levi Roots is one of Dragons' Den biggest success stories.
The Jamaican businessman appeared on the show in 2007 and was looking for an investment in his Reggae Reggae Sauce brand.
He has since become a regular on cooking shows, and according to the Sunday Times Rich List, is worth an estimated £30m.
Saying he was very excited to be on the show, he called Big Brother a "brother from another mother".
Marisha is a US actress who is best known for roles in Aladdin and Dreamgirls on Broadway.
She has also appeared in the West End in Hairspray and Waitress.
In 2022, she received an Olivier Award nomination for best actress as Ado Annie in Oklahoma!
The actress and singer said she would be the "jukebox" of this year's show.
Strictly Come Dancing's favourite Nikita will be hanging up his dancing shoes for a while as he enters the Big Brother house.
The 26-year-old Ukrainian dancer has been on the show since 2021 and his dance partners have included Layton Williams and Tilly Ramsay.
He said he was just a "kid from Ukraine" looking to accomplish his dreams.
Social media celebrity Zeze Millz rose to fame with her YouTube show, The Zeze Millz Show.
She has interviewed the likes of Akon, N-Dubz and Fireboy DML.
Zeze has appeared on a number of British TV shows, including Good Morning Britain, E4's Celebrity Cooking School and The Victoria Derbyshire Show.
She called herself a "polarising character", but said people would be surprised to see her "softer" side.
TV personality David Potts is no stranger to reality TV having risen to fame on ITV2's reality series, Ibiza Weekender.
He also appeared on a celebrity episode of Dinner Date and the sixth series of the E4's Celebs Go Dating.
He described himself as a natural-born leader, "like Mufasa in The Lion King" - and said the audience would be in for a treat.
Another X Factor judge, Sharon Osbourne has joined the show, but not for the full duration of it.
According to The Sun, Osbourne's fee was too high to have her on the show for the whole time.
The wife of rock artist Ozzy Osbourne has been brought in as Big Brother's "celebrity lodger".
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68469116
|
news_entertainment-arts-68469116
|
|
Trump wins as Supreme Court sidesteps political landmines - BBC News
|
2024-03-05
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The Republican celebrates the ruling, which does not give a view on whether he engaged in insurrection at the US Capitol.
|
US & Canada
|
The US Supreme Court has slammed the door on Colorado's effort to remove Donald Trump from its presidential primary ballot - and on every other state that has made, or is considering, efforts to disqualify him.
The top court ruled that only Congress has the power to strike the former president from the ballot under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
The unsigned, unanimous ruling is a significant win for Mr Trump, whose presidential campaign can now proceed without roadblocks erected by individual state courts or election officials.
In issuing its opinion, the nine Supreme Court justices sidestepped some of the biggest political landmines in this case.
They did not opine on whether Mr Trump had, in fact, engaged in insurrection on 6 January 2021. They didn't discuss whether the attack on the US Capitol by the former president's supporters constituted an insurrection at all (or was a riot, as characterised by one of Mr Trump's lawyers).
The court also didn't delve into whether presidents are specifically exempt from the 14th Amendment's insurrection language, another of Mr Trump's legal arguments in challenging the Colorado decision.
Instead, the court focused solely on which authorities have the power to enforce the insurrection provision. Only Congress, not individuals states, has that power, it held - a view that avoids the "patchwork" scenario in which a candidate could be eligible in some states and disqualified in others.
In the real world, with a closely divided Senate and a Republican-controlled House of Representatives, that means the chances of Mr Trump being ruled ineligible under the 14th Amendment are essentially zero.
This is where the court's 6-3 ideological divide reared its head once again. The three liberal justices on the court, while agreeing that Colorado went too far, wanted to leave the door open for possible national efforts to determine whether Mr Trump is eligible to run.
The court's decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, severely limits action by the federal government - whether in the courts or by other federal authorities - to remove insurrectionist candidates from the ballot or from office once elected.
One obvious, but unmentioned scenario would have been if special counsel Jack Smith changed his mind and decided to charge Mr Trump with insurrection then, upon conviction, sought to have a federal court disqualify him from office.
That possibility is now foreclosed.
One conservative justice, Amy Coney Barrett, agreed with the liberals that the court issued too sweeping a decision, but in her own short concurring opinion she said they should have held their tongues.
"In my judgement, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency," she wrote. "The court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up."
With the court set to decide more highly charged political cases - on Mr Trump's immunity from prosecution, as well as on abortion, gun control and social media regulation - a drop in the national temperature seems unlikely.
If you're in the UK, sign up here.
And if you're anywhere else, sign up here.
• None Top court says states can't ban Trump from ballots
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68395816
|
news_world-us-canada-68395816
|
|
Celebrity Big Brother 2024: Princess of Wales' uncle Gary Goldsmith joins line-up - BBC News
|
2024-03-05
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Gary Goldsmith, the Princess of Wales' uncle, says the show won't "bring any stress to" the family.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
Gary Goldsmith introduced himself as the "uncle to the future queen of our country"
Gary Goldsmith, an uncle of Catherine, Princess of Wales, has entered the UK's Celebrity Big Brother house.
The 58-year-old businessman is the younger brother of the princess's mother, Carole.
Charity Women's Aid criticised ITV for hiring Goldsmith despite his previous conviction for punching his wife.
In an interview with the Sun, he said "the last thing" he wanted his appearance on the reality TV show to do was "bring any stress to" the family.
The princess is still recovering from abdominal surgery and has not made public appearances since Christmas Day.
Goldsmith introduced himself on the show as the "uncle to the future queen of our country", and said his niece was "simply perfect".
He added that he would also like to "put the record straight" on his "bad boy reputation".
In 2017, he was fined £5,000 and handed a community order after he admitted punching his wife in the face during an argument.
A spokesperson for Women's Aid told BBC News: "The decision to include a man who has been charged, and pleaded guilty to, assaulting his wife, in the Celebrity Big Brother house demonstrates the lack of awareness that the production team has when it comes to survivors of domestic abuse."
The charity said ITV should consider how Goldsmith's appearance "will impact women who had survived domestic abuse", adding that his inclusion was "a sign that these crimes are not taken seriously".
The Telegraph's arts and entertainment editor Anita Singh said ITV "should be ashamed" of themselves for "having him as a 'fun' character" on the show.
In response, a Big Brother spokesperson said: "All housemates undertake training in language and behaviour before entering the Big Brother house. All behaviour in the house is strictly monitored at all times."
They also pointed to a previous apology by Goldsmith, in which he said he was "not perfect and I made a mistake", which he had "worked endlessly for seven years to put right", and that his conviction was "long since spent however my regret continues".
In his pre-filmed introduction video, he said Big Brother was the one show he had previously said he would "never do".
Goldsmith auditioned for I'm A Celebrity 2023 but was reportedly rejected over fears he could embarrass the royal family.
In his interview with the Sun about the princess, Goldsmith said: "She's beautiful on the outside, but more beautiful on the inside and really is a doting mum... so the way the monarchy is moving, it's family-centric."
Goldsmith added: "I've spoken to Carole just to send my love and we talked about Kate given what's going on.
"There's lots going on in the family at the moment. So she's spinning a lot of plates right now, it's quite stressful. So the last thing I'm going to do is bring any stress to them."
AJ Odudu and Will Best return to hosting duties for Celebrity Big Brother
The new series - which follows a six-year Celebrity Big Brother hiatus - has also reunited The X Factor's Sharon Osbourne and Louis Walsh.
In Monday's launch episode, Walsh and Osbourne were tasked with watching their fellow contestants and rating them from a secret lair.
The pair nominated three housemates to be "in danger" of facing a public vote, based on first impressions.
They chose Goldsmith, David Potts and Zeze Millz - and when asked for their reasoning, Louis replied: "We didn't like them".
Strictly's Nikita Kuzmin and Love Island's Ekin-Su Cülcüloğlu are also among this year's contestants.
The series started on Monday and is hosted by AJ Odudu and Will Best.
Here are the other contestants who are in the house with Goldsmith:
Fern Britton is best known for being one of the former hosts of ITV's daytime show, This Morning.
She presented the show for six years alongside Philip Schofield, before being replaced by Holly Willoughby in 2009.
In her introduction interview, she said she has no "game plan" and is just looking to have fun.
A judge on The X-Factor for more than a decade, Louis Walsh has joined the house and reunited with fellow judge Sharon Osbourne.
The Irish panellist worked as a mentor for JLS in 2008 and was also the manager of boyband Westlife.
He walked into the Big Brother house and said: "Oh God, what have I done?"
Known for his role in the coming-of-age LGBTQ+ Netflix series Heartstopper, actor Bradley Riches has joined the line-up.
The 24-year-old is close friends with Jordan and Henry from last year's series of Big Brother - and said the advice he was given was to be himself.
He is autistic, and said he wants to "inspire people" and make them realise being different is "very cool."
Another young actor entering the Big Brother house is Colson Smith, who is best known for his role in Coronation Street as policeman Craig Tinker.
Colson has previously dabbled in reality TV and in May 2022 appeared as a contestant on sporting series The Games.
He is a long-time fan of the show and said going into the house feels "mental".
Love Island favourite and winner of the 2022 show, Ekin-Su Cülcüloğlu is joining the house following a split from former on-screen partner Davide Sanclimenti.
The TV personality has the most social media followers with 3.5m on Instagram. She also recently appeared on the US version of The Traitors.
She entered the house to chants from the live audience, and teased what may be to come as she said drama follows her "everywhere".
An original member of the Real Housewives of Cheshire, Lauren Simon is another reality star to enter the Big Brother house.
She said she "doesn't answer to anybody" - and that she might end up flirting with Big Brother.
Levi Roots is one of Dragons' Den biggest success stories.
The Jamaican businessman appeared on the show in 2007 and was looking for an investment in his Reggae Reggae Sauce brand.
He has since become a regular on cooking shows, and according to the Sunday Times Rich List, is worth an estimated £30m.
Saying he was very excited to be on the show, he called Big Brother a "brother from another mother".
Marisha is a US actress who is best known for roles in Aladdin and Dreamgirls on Broadway.
She has also appeared in the West End in Hairspray and Waitress.
In 2022, she received an Olivier Award nomination for best actress as Ado Annie in Oklahoma!
The actress and singer said she would be the "jukebox" of this year's show.
Strictly Come Dancing's favourite Nikita will be hanging up his dancing shoes for a while as he enters the Big Brother house.
The 26-year-old Ukrainian dancer has been on the show since 2021 and his dance partners have included Layton Williams and Tilly Ramsay.
He said he was just a "kid from Ukraine" looking to accomplish his dreams.
Social media celebrity Zeze Millz rose to fame with her YouTube show, The Zeze Millz Show.
She has interviewed the likes of Akon, N-Dubz and Fireboy DML.
Zeze has appeared on a number of British TV shows, including Good Morning Britain, E4's Celebrity Cooking School and The Victoria Derbyshire Show.
She called herself a "polarising character", but said people would be surprised to see her "softer" side.
TV personality David Potts is no stranger to reality TV having risen to fame on ITV2's reality series, Ibiza Weekender.
He also appeared on a celebrity episode of Dinner Date and the sixth series of the E4's Celebs Go Dating.
He described himself as a natural-born leader, "like Mufasa in The Lion King" - and said the audience would be in for a treat.
Another X Factor judge, Sharon Osbourne has joined the show, but not for the full duration of it.
According to The Sun, Osbourne's fee was too high to have her on the show for the whole time.
The wife of rock artist Ozzy Osbourne has been brought in as Big Brother's "celebrity lodger".
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68469116
|
news_entertainment-arts-68469116
|
|
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed: Rust armourer guilty of Halyna Hutchins' death - BBC News
|
2024-03-06
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
But Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was found not guilty of evidence tampering after the 2021 on-set shooting.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
A movie set weapons handler who loaded a gun for actor Alec Baldwin before it fired and killed a cinematographer has been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was found not guilty of a second charge - tampering with evidence over the 2021 shooting of Halyna Hutchins on the set of Rust.
The 26-year-old faces up to 18 months in jail. She will be sentenced later.
Ms Hutchins, 42, was killed after a gun Mr Baldwin used in a rehearsal fired a live round on the set of the Western in New Mexico.
Mr Baldwin could not have foreseen that there was a live round on set because the "safety, maintenance and care of the firearm and the ammunition" was the responsibility of the armourer, Misty Marris told CNN.
Jurors deliberated for three hours before returning Wednesday's verdict.
Gutierrez-Reed remained expressionless as she learned her fate.
As she was led away by two officers she told her weeping mother, "It'll be OK," according to Reuters.
Ms Hutchins' parents and her sister said they were "satisfied" with the verdict.
Halyna Hutchins was killed while on set in 2021
Their statement added: "We look forward to the justice system continuing to make sure that everyone else who is responsible for Halyna's death is required to face the legal consequences for their actions."
"It means that someone has been held legally criminally culpable for the death of Halyna Hutchins," Misty Marris told CNN.
She said Mr Baldwin would argue that "it was not foreseeable that there was a real bullet in that gun".
Prosecutors said Gutierrez-Reed had failed to ensure the weapon was only loaded with dummy rounds - fake bullets used to look and sound like real ones.
"This case is about constant, never-ending safety failures that resulted in the death of a human being," prosecutor Kari T Morrissey said during closing arguments on Wednesday.
Gutierrez-Reed was "negligent", "careless" and "thoughtless" when she failed to notice that live bullets had mixed with dummy rounds in a box of ammunition on set, Ms Morrissey told the jurors.
One of those bullets was in the firearm that was used by Mr Baldwin, prosecutors said.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Prosecutors also presented evidence that Gutierrez-Reed had brought a box of live bullets to the New Mexico film set from her California home. They said these live rounds slowly spread throughout the set over the course of 12 days.
Ms Morrissey said she believed the armourer did not intend to bring live rounds to the set, but rather that Ms Hutchins' death was a case of tragic negligence.
The prosecutor added that Gutierrez-Reed was more "worried about her career" and less about the victims in the aftermath of the shooting.
Gutierrez-Reed did not testify in the two-week trial, but her lawyer said in closing arguments that prosecutors had failed to prove his client was the sole person responsible for the fatal shooting.
"The [ammunition] boxes don't matter, because we don't know what was in them three or four days before," her lawyer, Jason Bowles told the jury, arguing his client did not know that there were real bullets on set.
Mr Bowles also blamed Mr Baldwin, arguing that he had "gone off-script" when he pointed the gun at film crew.
"It was not in the script for Mr Baldwin to point the weapon," he said. "She didn't know that Mr Baldwin was going to do what he did."
He vowed to file an appeal.
Trial witnesses included the film's director, Joel Souza, who was also shot in the incident but survived.
Mr Souza said he remembered looking up at Gutierrez-Reed after he was shot, and hearing her repeatedly say: "I'm sorry, Joel."
The jury was also shown emotional and distressing footage of the aftermath of the shooting, when the Colt .45 revolver held by Mr Baldwin went off.
It included a video that appeared to show Ms Hutchins' final moments, with paramedics frantically trying to save her life.
Gutierrez-Reed was also found not guilty of evidence tampering stemming from accusations that she attempted to dispose of a small bag of narcotics after the shooting.
Last year, the movie's cast and crew finished filming in tribute to Ms Hutchins, with her husband serving as an executive producer.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68486069
|
news_world-us-canada-68486069
|
|
Bangladesh teacher suspended after allegedly shooting student in exam - BBC News
|
2024-03-06
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Students in Bangladesh organised a protest calling for the teacher's suspension after the alleged incident.
|
Asia
|
The teacher, Raihan Sharif, was known to bring firearms to his lessons, according to police
A lecturer in a medical school in Bangladesh has been suspended, two days after allegedly shooting and injuring a student in a classroom.
Raihan Sharif was arrested shortly afterwards but was only suspended on Wednesday following a protest by students from the medical college where the incident took place.
The injured student has undergone surgery and remains in hospital.
Dr Sharif has been taken into police custody.
The BBC is unable to reach him for comment until he is assigned a lawyer.
Local media report that Arafat Amin Tomal, a 23-year-old student at a medical college in Sirajganj, north-western Bangladesh, got into an argument with Dr Sharif while undertaking an oral exam on Monday.
During the exam, Dr Sharif allegedly brought out a gun and pointed it at the student, shooting him in the right knee, reports say.
The bullet reportedly hit Mr Amin's mobile phone, in the pocket of his trousers, which spared him life-threatening injuries, according to Bangladeshi newspaper the Daily Star, quoting the police.
According to the Dhaka Tribune, there were 45 students in the class when the alleged incident happened. They rushed to help, locked the teacher in a room, and called the police.
Dr Sharif was then arrested and taken into custody. In a statement, police said Dr Sharif "shot the student with an illegal pistol".
Police said they seized his gun as well as a second pistol, 81 rounds of bullets, four magazines, two knives, and 10 daggers which they reportedly found in his bag.
It added that Dr Sharif was allegedly known for carrying weapons to the school, which he would display during lectures.
The incident has shocked Bangladesh and sparked widespread condemnation that the teacher was only suspended from his position two days after the alleged incident happened, despite his arrest by police.
His suspension was prompted by a protest held by the students at the medical school, who demanded his immediate dismissal and severe punishment. The police said a special committee had been formed to investigate the circumstances surrounding the incident.
Such incidents are rare in Bangladesh, where gun ownership and use are strictly regulated by the government.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68490662
|
news_world-asia-68490662
|
|
MP says depiction of Milton Keynes in EastEnders is 'out of order' - BBC News
|
2024-03-06
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
One viewer says the programme portrays the city as a "slum".
|
Beds, Herts & Bucks
|
EastEnders, usually filmed at Elstree Studios in Hertfordshire, has upset some viewers
An MP has said that the way Milton Keynes has been portrayed in EastEnders was "out of order".
On Monday the character of Bianca Jackson, played by Patsy Palmer, returned to screens in scenes set in her home in Milton Keynes.
One viewer, who has lived in Milton Keynes since the 1970s, said: "They've chosen my city, my home, as a place to depict as being a slum."
In one scene a child character living in Milton Keynes was described as not being in school and instead "roaming the estate, carting drugs around, eating out of bins".
Shortly afterwards an argument began and a brick was thrown through a window by Bianca.
Ben Everitt, MP for Milton Keynes North, said he was unhappy at the show's portrayal of the city
Ben Everitt, the MP for Milton Keynes North, said he was unhappy with the portrayal.
The Conservative MP said he would be contacting producers of the programme to suggest writing another storyline about "some of the brilliant parts of Milton Keynes".
He said the programme's characters could be shown to walk around Willen Lake. He added: "I am quite positive about Milton Keynes and I want them to show the good side as well."
He added: "Like every city we got parts that aren't as good as the others, but the characterisation is completely out of order."
The scenes for the episode were filmed in Barnet, London, and saw characters Whitney Dean (Shona McGarty) and her partner Zack Hudson (James Farrar) visit Bianca who has not been seen on the programme since 2019.
Characters in the EastEnders version of Milton Keynes were depicted as eating out of bins
A caller to the JVS show on BBC Three Counties Radio said he had to switch off BBC1 when he watched the programme.
Arthur, who has lived in Milton Keynes since the 1970s, told Three Counties Radio: "They've chosen my city, my home, as a place to depict as being a slum.
"If [the city] was a business the producers would have lawyers sitting on their doorstep looking to sue them."
The city's tourism service said Milton Keynes is a "thriving, multi-cultural community"
Destination Milton Keynes, the city's official tourism service, said: "We'll leave it up to a fictional soap opera to choose how they want to depict Milton Keynes.
"But we know it to be a thriving, multi-cultural community with more than 6,000 acres of free green spaces for residents and visitors to enjoy and with a booming visitor economy worth over £230m a year.
"[The city] regularly features as one of the fastest-growing and most prosperous cities in the UK."
Mr Everitt said that although the depiction was not a major political issue, it was important to him that the city be represented fairly.
He said: "It's fiction, it's a soap opera, it's just the telly... I'm just not happy it's Milton Keynes."
Follow East of England news on Facebook, Instagram and X. Got a story? Email eastofenglandnews@bbc.co.uk or WhatsApp 0800 169 1830
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-68483686
|
news_uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-68483686
|
|
Max Verstappen says father Jos is 'not a liar' after Christian Horner controversy - BBC Sport
|
2024-03-06
|
https://www.facebook.com/BBCSport/
|
Max Verstappen says his father is "not a liar" in the wake of his claim that the controversy around Christian Horner is "driving people apart".
|
Formula 1
|
Max and Jos Verstappen at last weekend's season-opening Bahrain Grand Prix
Max Verstappen says his father is "not a liar" in the wake of his claim that the controversy around Christian Horner is "driving people apart". Jos Verstappen said last weekend in Bahrain that the situation at Red Bull "is not good for the team". Three-time world champion Verstappen said: "[Jos] is always very outspoken. He is not a liar, that's for sure." The Dutchman added he could "understand" if people thought his father was representing his views. "My dad and I are very close," Verstappen said. "We call every day even if he is not around. "But I am not a guy who likes to speak a lot about certain stuff and I just want to focus on the driving and if there are issues we try to resolve it within the team. "That is what I can say about things. For the team, it is very important we can talk about the performance of our great car."
Red Bull team boss Horner was at the centre of accusations of inappropriate behaviour towards a female colleague. After an internal investigation, Red Bull's board dismissed the complaint last week. An anonymous email, including messages purporting to involve Horner, was leaked the following day. Horner has refused to say if the messages are genuine and Jos Verstappen denied that he was the source of the leaks. Jos Verstappen, who drove in Formula 1 between 1994 and 2003, told BBC Sport he had made the comments after a falling out with Horner in Bahrain. He is not attending this weekend's Saudi Arabian Grand Prix as he is competing in a rally. Max said he had spent the days between the two races with his father and said Jos and their manager Raymond Vermeulen would always be with him as long as he was in F1. "I don't see myself in F1 without them by my side." Verstappen said. Asked whether he expected Horner and his father to put their differences aside, Max said: "Everyone in general, even if you have arguments or not, there are always things that can be worked out. Everyone is man enough and respectful enough anyway. "I have not always agreed with everything that happens in F1. That's why sometimes it is good to have a discussion about things and then you might agree to disagree sometimes. That's what happens in a relationship. That's how it goes." Verstappen refused to be drawn on the fact that FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem asked him in Bahrain to offer his public support to Horner. "I am not going to say yes or no," Verstappen said. "He came to me in private." Mercedes driver Lewis Hamilton said the situations surrounding Horner and Ben Sulayem - who is the subject of allegations that he interfered in the result of last year's Saudi Grand Prix, and ordered officials not to certify the Las Vegas F1 circuit - were not good for the image of F1. "Disappointing to see what's going on right now, it doesn't look good from the outside looking in and it doesn't look good looking in," he said. "It is a really important time, to stick to our values and hold ourselves accountable for our actions. It is a really pivotal moment in terms of what we project to the world and how it's handled and it's not been handled very well up to this point. Transparency is really key. It highlights some of the issues we have within the sport. Making people feel comfortable in this environment is key and it is clearly not the case." Verstappen dismissed claims in the media that he could be tempted to leave Red Bull for Mercedes in the wake of the Horner controversy. Asked whether he would stay to the end of his contract in 2028, Verstappen said: "That has always been the intention of signing. That is why we signed (for) so long, to be here, and of course it is about the performance of the car and from 2026 onwards. "It's a bit of question marks with new regulations but I knew that when I signed my contract. "But I also know what they have done for me in my career. The intention is absolutely to stay with this team because I really enjoy it and I am happy within the team. As long as we perform, there is no reason to leave." Mercedes driver George Russell said every team on the grid would be interested in signing Verstappen if he was available. Russell said: "Any team wants to have the best driver line-up possible. And right now, Max is the best driver on the grid. So if any team had a chance to sign Max, they would 100% be taking it. "The question is more on the other side, on his side and Red Bull's side. Obviously so much going on there. We don't know what truly is going on behind closed doors and ultimately it's none of our business right now."
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/68496582
|
rt_formula1_68496582
|
|
Jude Bellingham ban: Real Madrid midfielder suspended for two games - BBC Sport
|
2024-03-06
|
None
|
Real Madrid midfielder Jude Bellingham is banned for two La Liga matches for his red card after the controversial draw at Valencia.
| null |
Last updated on .From the section European Football
Real Madrid midfielder Jude Bellingham has been banned for two La Liga games for his red card after the 2-2 draw at Valencia.
Bellingham, 20, thought he had scored the winner six minutes into stoppage time at the Mestalla on Saturday.
But referee Gil Manzano had blown the full-time whistle as the cross was delivered.
England's Bellingham will be able to play in Real's Champions League last-16 tie against RB Leipzig on Wednesday.
The Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) said Bellingham showed "contempt or disregard" towards Manzano when Real players and staff surrounded him.
Bellingham, who was making his return after three weeks out with an ankle injury, was fined 600 euros (£513) and Real 700 euros (£598).
Real appealed against Bellingham's red card but the RFEF disciplinary committee dismissed their argument that the referee had made an "error".
Manager Carlo Ancelotti said after the incident: "We were annoyed by Bellingham's red card because he didn't say anything insulting. It was frustration."
Real's leading scorer this season with 16 league goals, Bellingham will miss the games against Celta Vigo on Sunday and Osasuna on 16 March.
He will be available to return at Athletic Bilbao on 31 March following the international break.
England play friendlies against Brazil on 23 March and Belgium on 26 March.
Real are seven points clear at the top of La Liga and hold a 1-0 advantage over Leipzig going into the second leg at the Bernabeu.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68489144
|
rt_football_68489144
|
|
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed: Rust armourer guilty of Halyna Hutchins' death - BBC News
|
2024-03-07
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
But Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was found not guilty of evidence tampering after the 2021 on-set shooting.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
A movie set weapons handler who loaded a gun for actor Alec Baldwin before it fired and killed a cinematographer has been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was found not guilty of a second charge - tampering with evidence over the 2021 shooting of Halyna Hutchins on the set of Rust.
The 26-year-old faces up to 18 months in jail. She will be sentenced later.
Ms Hutchins, 42, was killed after a gun Mr Baldwin used in a rehearsal fired a live round on the set of the Western in New Mexico.
Mr Baldwin could not have foreseen that there was a live round on set because the "safety, maintenance and care of the firearm and the ammunition" was the responsibility of the armourer, Misty Marris told CNN.
Jurors deliberated for three hours before returning Wednesday's verdict.
Gutierrez-Reed remained expressionless as she learned her fate.
As she was led away by two officers she told her weeping mother, "It'll be OK," according to Reuters.
Ms Hutchins' parents and her sister said they were "satisfied" with the verdict.
Halyna Hutchins was killed while on set in 2021
Their statement added: "We look forward to the justice system continuing to make sure that everyone else who is responsible for Halyna's death is required to face the legal consequences for their actions."
"It means that someone has been held legally criminally culpable for the death of Halyna Hutchins," Misty Marris told CNN.
She said Mr Baldwin would argue that "it was not foreseeable that there was a real bullet in that gun".
Prosecutors said Gutierrez-Reed had failed to ensure the weapon was only loaded with dummy rounds - fake bullets used to look and sound like real ones.
"This case is about constant, never-ending safety failures that resulted in the death of a human being," prosecutor Kari T Morrissey said during closing arguments on Wednesday.
Gutierrez-Reed was "negligent", "careless" and "thoughtless" when she failed to notice that live bullets had mixed with dummy rounds in a box of ammunition on set, Ms Morrissey told the jurors.
One of those bullets was in the firearm that was used by Mr Baldwin, prosecutors said.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Prosecutors also presented evidence that Gutierrez-Reed had brought a box of live bullets to the New Mexico film set from her California home. They said these live rounds slowly spread throughout the set over the course of 12 days.
Ms Morrissey said she believed the armourer did not intend to bring live rounds to the set, but rather that Ms Hutchins' death was a case of tragic negligence.
The prosecutor added that Gutierrez-Reed was more "worried about her career" and less about the victims in the aftermath of the shooting.
Gutierrez-Reed did not testify in the two-week trial, but her lawyer said in closing arguments that prosecutors had failed to prove his client was the sole person responsible for the fatal shooting.
"The [ammunition] boxes don't matter, because we don't know what was in them three or four days before," her lawyer, Jason Bowles told the jury, arguing his client did not know that there were real bullets on set.
Mr Bowles also blamed Mr Baldwin, arguing that he had "gone off-script" when he pointed the gun at film crew.
"It was not in the script for Mr Baldwin to point the weapon," he said. "She didn't know that Mr Baldwin was going to do what he did."
He vowed to file an appeal.
Trial witnesses included the film's director, Joel Souza, who was also shot in the incident but survived.
Mr Souza said he remembered looking up at Gutierrez-Reed after he was shot, and hearing her repeatedly say: "I'm sorry, Joel."
The jury was also shown emotional and distressing footage of the aftermath of the shooting, when the Colt .45 revolver held by Mr Baldwin went off.
It included a video that appeared to show Ms Hutchins' final moments, with paramedics frantically trying to save her life.
Gutierrez-Reed was also found not guilty of evidence tampering stemming from accusations that she attempted to dispose of a small bag of narcotics after the shooting.
Last year, the movie's cast and crew finished filming in tribute to Ms Hutchins, with her husband serving as an executive producer.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68486069
|
news_world-us-canada-68486069
|
|
Bangladesh teacher suspended after allegedly shooting student in exam - BBC News
|
2024-03-07
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Students in Bangladesh organised a protest calling for the teacher's suspension after the alleged incident.
|
Asia
|
The teacher, Raihan Sharif, was known to bring firearms to his lessons, according to police
A lecturer in a medical school in Bangladesh has been suspended, two days after allegedly shooting and injuring a student in a classroom.
Raihan Sharif was arrested shortly afterwards but was only suspended on Wednesday following a protest by students from the medical college where the incident took place.
The injured student has undergone surgery and remains in hospital.
Dr Sharif has been taken into police custody.
The BBC is unable to reach him for comment until he is assigned a lawyer.
Local media report that Arafat Amin Tomal, a 23-year-old student at a medical college in Sirajganj, north-western Bangladesh, got into an argument with Dr Sharif while undertaking an oral exam on Monday.
During the exam, Dr Sharif allegedly brought out a gun and pointed it at the student, shooting him in the right knee, reports say.
The bullet reportedly hit Mr Amin's mobile phone, in the pocket of his trousers, which spared him life-threatening injuries, according to Bangladeshi newspaper the Daily Star, quoting the police.
According to the Dhaka Tribune, there were 45 students in the class when the alleged incident happened. They rushed to help, locked the teacher in a room, and called the police.
Dr Sharif was then arrested and taken into custody. In a statement, police said Dr Sharif "shot the student with an illegal pistol".
Police said they seized his gun as well as a second pistol, 81 rounds of bullets, four magazines, two knives, and 10 daggers which they reportedly found in his bag.
It added that Dr Sharif was allegedly known for carrying weapons to the school, which he would display during lectures.
The incident has shocked Bangladesh and sparked widespread condemnation that the teacher was only suspended from his position two days after the alleged incident happened, despite his arrest by police.
His suspension was prompted by a protest held by the students at the medical school, who demanded his immediate dismissal and severe punishment. The police said a special committee had been formed to investigate the circumstances surrounding the incident.
Such incidents are rare in Bangladesh, where gun ownership and use are strictly regulated by the government.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68490662
|
news_world-asia-68490662
|
|
Tax cuts allow a cautious chancellor to create some headaches for Labour - BBC News
|
2024-03-07
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The Budget gives a glimpse of what will be the big tussles come the election, says our political editor.
|
UK Politics
|
We have had a glimpse into the most important tussle of the general election campaign.
This was a Budget where the chancellor attempted to portray himself as a careful, cautious custodian of the economy.
The National Insurance fall, alongside the same cut a few months back, amounts to a big tax cut.
But there was nothing wildly surprising in what Jeremy Hunt had to say, no fireworks that are likely to instantly transform the Conservatives' prospects.
Mr Hunt is instead attempting to make an argument that slowly but surely the economy is recovering.
In my interview with him, for instance, he pointed out that average earners will be better off when you compare the National Insurance cuts with those frozen tax thresholds that have amounted to huge tax rises for many people.
But the big economic argument to come is wider than that. It takes in inflation, mortgage costs, rent and income per head.
As the statistics are traded in the coming days, there is something beneath them that matters more: sentiment. Do people feel better off, do they feel they have more disposable income and do they feel economically confident about the future?
It is those three questions that frame the political argument between the Conservatives, Labour and others over the economy.
Labour feel they have scraped their way back to being taken seriously by many on the economy again, and there is opinion poll evidence to support this.
What is often an Achilles' heel for Labour they now hope is a strength, not least because they think many, many people feel worse off under the Conservatives.
Conversely for the Tories, what is so often a strength for them is now a vulnerability, the economy, given they have presided over the turbulence of recent years.
Most of that turbulence, many would accept, was entirely beyond their control: the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, both of which prompted vast public spending to support families and businesses, for which many were very grateful.
The consequences of that spending can be seen now in tax rates and the national debt, among other things.
But Labour are keen, too, to pin some of the blame squarely on the Tories. "Where's Liz? Where's Kwasi?" shouted Labour MPs during the Budget address.
Pantomime-esque questions with political bite: Labour want to remind people the previous prime minister and the previous chancellor caused an economic calamity with real consequences.
Jeremy Hunt, beyond what he has announced, is trying to set a direction of travel: he told me he would like to scrap National Insurance altogether.
Now that might be like you or me saying we'd like to win the lottery: what we'd like to do and what is likely to happen are not the same thing. Scrapping it would cost a fortune.
But it is an indicator of aspiration, and an attempt to frame points of difference between the Conservatives and Labour.
Can he do enough to start tempting people to think again about switching to Labour?
The opinion polls suggest he has one heck of a job on his hands.
Labour, meanwhile, conscious they lose far more elections than they win, are attempting to appear reassuring to floating voters.
And so a lot of what this government announces, whether in the Budget or over the last six months, they have gone along with, including much of what was in the Budget.
Which now leaves them with a headache - how they pay for some of their promises, having accepted the chancellor's tax cuts.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68497593
|
news_uk-politics-68497593
|
|
Eurovision 2024: Israel allowed to compete after lyric change - BBC News
|
2024-03-07
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Israel has changed lyrics to its Eurovision song after it was thought to reference the 7 October attacks.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
Israel will be represented by Eden Golan at this year's contest
Israel will be allowed to compete at the Eurovision Song Contest 2024 after changing the lyrics to its song, organisers have confirmed.
Eden Golan will represent the country at the contest in Sweden this May.
Her original song, October Rain, was thought to reference the Hamas attacks of 7 October and had been barred for breaking rules on political neutrality.
Israel's public broadcaster agreed to amend the song, now titled Hurricane, and will unveil it this weekend.
In a statement, The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) - which organises the contest - said earlier: "The EBU can confirm that the official submission from its Israeli Member Kan has been deemed eligible to compete in the Eurovision Song Contest in May.
"The Contest's Reference Group, its governing board, made the decision to accept the song 'Hurricane' for the upcoming competition after careful scrutiny of the lyrics.
"It was agreed that 'Hurricane' met the necessary criteria for participation in accordance with the rules of the competition."
Israeli broadcaster Kan had previously pledged not to alter the lyrics, but the country's President Isaac Herzog later called for "necessary adjustments" to ensure Israel can take part in the contest.
The original lyrics of October Rain - written in English - were published on Kan's website last month.
They included the lines "They were all good children, every one of them" and "Who told you boys don't cry/ Hours and hours/ And flowers/ Life is not a game for the cowards."
On Wednesday, Belgium's French-speaking Culture Minister Benedicte Linard called for Israel to be banned from Eurovision as long as the war in Gaza continues.
"Just like Russia has been excluded from competitions and Eurovision following its invasion of Ukraine, Israel should be excluded until it puts an end to its flagrant violations of international law, which are causing thousands of victims, especially children," she wrote on X.
Israel insists that its ground offensive against Hamas in Gaza is being carried out in line with international law. Its military has repeatedly said that it goes out of its way to try to avoid harming civilians.
Ms Linard also told parliament on Wednesday that she would ask public broadcaster RTBF, which is organising Belgium's entry to Eurovision, to voice the concerns to the EBU.
Her Flemish counterpart, Benjamin Dalle, said an Israeli suspension would be appropriate while so many Palestinian civilians were suffering, according to a report by Flemish broadcaster VRT.
Musicians in several countries have called for Israel to be suspended from the contest.
In December, Iceland's Association of Composers and Lyricists published a statement saying Israel's military action in Gaza made its participation incompatible with an event "characterised by joy and optimism".
In Finland, a petition signed by more than 1,400 music industry professionals accused their national broadcaster Yle of double standards, saying it was among the first to demand the ban on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
The EBU soon after banned Russia from participating.
Before he was selected to represent the UK, Olly Alexander also endorsed a statement accusing Israel of genocide.
An Israeli official later told the UK's Daily Telegraph newspaper the arguments were "absurd" and accused Alexander and his fellow signatories of "anti-Israel bias".
Israel has won the Eurovision Song Contest four times before.
Its military launched an air and ground campaign in Gaza after Hamas's attacks on Israel on 7 October, in which around 1,200 people were killed and 253 others were taken hostage.
More than 30,800 people have been killed in Gaza since then, the territory's Hamas-run health ministry says.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68505050
|
news_entertainment-arts-68505050
|
|
Max Verstappen says father Jos is 'not a liar' after Christian Horner controversy - BBC Sport
|
2024-03-07
|
https://www.facebook.com/BBCSport/
|
Max Verstappen says his father is "not a liar" in the wake of his claim that the controversy around Christian Horner is "driving people apart".
|
Formula 1
|
Max and Jos Verstappen at last weekend's season-opening Bahrain Grand Prix
Max Verstappen says his father is "not a liar" in the wake of his claim that the controversy around Christian Horner is "driving people apart". Jos Verstappen said last weekend in Bahrain that the situation at Red Bull "is not good for the team". Three-time world champion Verstappen said: "[Jos] is always very outspoken. He is not a liar, that's for sure." The Dutchman added he could "understand" if people thought his father was representing his views. "My dad and I are very close," Verstappen said. "We call every day even if he is not around. "But I am not a guy who likes to speak a lot about certain stuff and I just want to focus on the driving and if there are issues we try to resolve it within the team. "That is what I can say about things. For the team, it is very important we can talk about the performance of our great car."
Red Bull team boss Horner was at the centre of accusations of inappropriate behaviour towards a female colleague. After an internal investigation, Red Bull's board dismissed the complaint last week. An anonymous email, including messages purporting to involve Horner, was leaked the following day. Horner has refused to say if the messages are genuine and Jos Verstappen denied that he was the source of the leaks. Jos Verstappen, who drove in Formula 1 between 1994 and 2003, told BBC Sport he had made the comments after a falling out with Horner in Bahrain. He is not attending this weekend's Saudi Arabian Grand Prix as he is competing in a rally. Max said he had spent the days between the two races with his father and said Jos and their manager Raymond Vermeulen would always be with him as long as he was in F1. "I don't see myself in F1 without them by my side." Verstappen said. Asked whether he expected Horner and his father to put their differences aside, Max said: "Everyone in general, even if you have arguments or not, there are always things that can be worked out. Everyone is man enough and respectful enough anyway. "I have not always agreed with everything that happens in F1. That's why sometimes it is good to have a discussion about things and then you might agree to disagree sometimes. That's what happens in a relationship. That's how it goes." Verstappen refused to be drawn on the fact that FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem asked him in Bahrain to offer his public support to Horner. "I am not going to say yes or no," Verstappen said. "He came to me in private." Mercedes driver Lewis Hamilton said the situations surrounding Horner and Ben Sulayem - who is the subject of allegations that he interfered in the result of last year's Saudi Grand Prix, and ordered officials not to certify the Las Vegas F1 circuit - were not good for the image of F1. "Disappointing to see what's going on right now, it doesn't look good from the outside looking in and it doesn't look good looking in," he said. "It is a really important time, to stick to our values and hold ourselves accountable for our actions. It is a really pivotal moment in terms of what we project to the world and how it's handled and it's not been handled very well up to this point. Transparency is really key. It highlights some of the issues we have within the sport. Making people feel comfortable in this environment is key and it is clearly not the case." Verstappen dismissed claims in the media that he could be tempted to leave Red Bull for Mercedes in the wake of the Horner controversy. Asked whether he would stay to the end of his contract in 2028, Verstappen said: "That has always been the intention of signing. That is why we signed (for) so long, to be here, and of course it is about the performance of the car and from 2026 onwards. "It's a bit of question marks with new regulations but I knew that when I signed my contract. "But I also know what they have done for me in my career. The intention is absolutely to stay with this team because I really enjoy it and I am happy within the team. As long as we perform, there is no reason to leave." Mercedes driver George Russell said every team on the grid would be interested in signing Verstappen if he was available. Russell said: "Any team wants to have the best driver line-up possible. And right now, Max is the best driver on the grid. So if any team had a chance to sign Max, they would 100% be taking it. "The question is more on the other side, on his side and Red Bull's side. Obviously so much going on there. We don't know what truly is going on behind closed doors and ultimately it's none of our business right now."
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/68496582
|
rt_formula1_68496582
|
|
Eurovision 2024: Israel allowed to compete after lyric change - BBC News
|
2024-03-08
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Israel has changed lyrics to its Eurovision song after it was thought to reference the 7 October attacks.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
Israel will be represented by Eden Golan at this year's contest
Israel will be allowed to compete at the Eurovision Song Contest 2024 after changing the lyrics to its song, organisers have confirmed.
Eden Golan will represent the country at the contest in Sweden this May.
Her original song, October Rain, was thought to reference the Hamas attacks of 7 October and had been barred for breaking rules on political neutrality.
Israel's public broadcaster agreed to amend the song, now titled Hurricane, and will unveil it this weekend.
In a statement, The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) - which organises the contest - said earlier: "The EBU can confirm that the official submission from its Israeli Member Kan has been deemed eligible to compete in the Eurovision Song Contest in May.
"The Contest's Reference Group, its governing board, made the decision to accept the song 'Hurricane' for the upcoming competition after careful scrutiny of the lyrics.
"It was agreed that 'Hurricane' met the necessary criteria for participation in accordance with the rules of the competition."
Israeli broadcaster Kan had previously pledged not to alter the lyrics, but the country's President Isaac Herzog later called for "necessary adjustments" to ensure Israel can take part in the contest.
The original lyrics of October Rain - written in English - were published on Kan's website last month.
They included the lines "They were all good children, every one of them" and "Who told you boys don't cry/ Hours and hours/ And flowers/ Life is not a game for the cowards."
On Wednesday, Belgium's French-speaking Culture Minister Benedicte Linard called for Israel to be banned from Eurovision as long as the war in Gaza continues.
"Just like Russia has been excluded from competitions and Eurovision following its invasion of Ukraine, Israel should be excluded until it puts an end to its flagrant violations of international law, which are causing thousands of victims, especially children," she wrote on X.
Israel insists that its ground offensive against Hamas in Gaza is being carried out in line with international law. Its military has repeatedly said that it goes out of its way to try to avoid harming civilians.
Ms Linard also told parliament on Wednesday that she would ask public broadcaster RTBF, which is organising Belgium's entry to Eurovision, to voice the concerns to the EBU.
Her Flemish counterpart, Benjamin Dalle, said an Israeli suspension would be appropriate while so many Palestinian civilians were suffering, according to a report by Flemish broadcaster VRT.
Musicians in several countries have called for Israel to be suspended from the contest.
In December, Iceland's Association of Composers and Lyricists published a statement saying Israel's military action in Gaza made its participation incompatible with an event "characterised by joy and optimism".
In Finland, a petition signed by more than 1,400 music industry professionals accused their national broadcaster Yle of double standards, saying it was among the first to demand the ban on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
The EBU soon after banned Russia from participating.
Before he was selected to represent the UK, Olly Alexander also endorsed a statement accusing Israel of genocide.
An Israeli official later told the UK's Daily Telegraph newspaper the arguments were "absurd" and accused Alexander and his fellow signatories of "anti-Israel bias".
Israel has won the Eurovision Song Contest four times before.
Its military launched an air and ground campaign in Gaza after Hamas's attacks on Israel on 7 October, in which around 1,200 people were killed and 253 others were taken hostage.
More than 30,800 people have been killed in Gaza since then, the territory's Hamas-run health ministry says.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68505050
|
news_entertainment-arts-68505050
|
|
Pep Guardiola and Jurgen Klopp: Last episode of rivalry that has dominated English football? - BBC Sport
|
2024-03-08
|
None
|
BBC Sport looks at the rivalry between Manchester City's Pep Guardiola and Liverpool's Jurgen Klopp as they go head to head for potentially the final time.
| null |
Last updated on .From the section Premier League
Jurgen Klopp and Pep Guardiola's rivalry has both dominated and changed English football.
The Liverpool manager and his Manchester City counterpart have fought out epic title battles - and their Premier League rivalry could be set for a fitting final chapter on Sunday.
That's when leaders Liverpool host Manchester City, with the victors set to be top with 10 games to go, while a draw could open the door for third-placed Arsenal instead.
But a lot of the headlines around the game will rightly focus on what could be the last act of a respectful contest for supremacy that started 11 years ago in Germany.
Guardiola may not be planning on going anywhere soon - but Klopp stunned the football world when he announced in January he is leaving Liverpool at the end of the season.
The two managers have differing, defined, hugely successful styles - Guardiola's City pass teams to death while Klopp's Liverpool prefer a high-energy pressing game.
BBC Sport has a look at the pair's rivalry.
Klopp's Liverpool are all that have stood in the way of City securing an unprecedented six consecutive English titles - winning the 2019-20 Premier League.
Klopp arrived at Anfield in October 2015, replacing the sacked Brendan Rodgers, and declared "if I sit here in four years, I am pretty confident we will have one title".
It may have taken him four and a half years - but it ended a 30-year wait for Liverpool and cemented his legendary place at Anfield.
Nine months after Klopp's English move, about 35 miles down the road, Guardiola popped up at Etihad Stadium.
They finished third in the first year but won five of the next six titles.
But it is not just the fact they have won all those titles between them, it is the manner of the title races.
In 2018-19, Liverpool picked up the fourth highest amount of points in English top-flight history (factoring olden days tables into three points for a win)... and did not win the league.
City picked up 98 points to Liverpool's 97. The pair pushed each other to new heights, knowing neither team could afford to slip up, with their rivals unlikely to do so.
Liverpool ended the season on a nine-game winning run, but City ended with 14 in a row. The lead changed hands 32 times that season.
And 2021-22 produced the second most thrilling final-day in Premier League title history (only behind Sergio Aguero's injury-time winner to give City the title ahead of Manchester United).
Liverpool scored twice in the final six minutes to beat Wolves 3-1 and champions City bagged three after the 75th minute to beat Aston Villa 3-2.
Had City dropped points, Liverpool would have won the title - but as it happened, Liverpool's quadruple dreams were over.
Both bosses have won every trophy up for grabs - the Premier League, FA Cup, Carabao Cup, Community Shield, Champions League, Uefa Super Cup and Fifa Club World Cup.
Whatever happens on Sunday, Klopp will leave England with the direct head-to-head advantage - winning eight of their 21 meetings to Guardiola's six.
City managed more goals in those games though - 38-33 - thanks to a couple of big wins.
For such an enduring rivalry it has been a friendly one - with few of the refused handshakes or touchline bust-up antics that came with Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger, or Wenger and Jose Mourinho, or Mourinho and Antonio Conte.
Including their time in Germany, the pair have lost against the other more than against any other manager (10 wins for Guardiola, 11 wins for Klopp).
In fact, after their last league meeting, a 1-1 draw at the Etihad in November, Klopp pulled his striker Darwin Nunez away from Guardiola as the Spanish-speaking pair were having an argument.
"I love them both and so I tried to calm the situation down," said Klopp. "I was absolutely not involved, surprisingly.
"I didn't understand a word. It was emotion. Pep wants to win, we want to win. Both didn't win so obviously nobody was really happy and these things can happen."
The pair frequently praise each other in news conferences and interviews.
Countless times over the years, Klopp has referred to Guardiola as the best manager in the world.
"Pep and I are not best friends because we don't know each other but I respect him a lot and I know he respects what we are doing as well. For a rivalry, we don't need to be disrespectful," the German said.
Guardiola, meanwhile, said in 2021 "his teams helped me to become a better manager".
"He put me at another level, to think about it and to prove myself to be a better manager, to try to beat them," the Catalan said.
"That is the reason why I am still in this business. Some managers - and Jurgen is one of them - challenge you to make a step forward."
Guardiola, when he was Barcelona boss, was engaged in a bitter rivalry with Real Madrid boss Mourinho for some years.
But he said: "Jurgen, as a manager, has been the biggest rival I've ever had in my career.
"The point is not a jibe to Jose. He is an exciting manager and I was his rival but I've played many more times against Liverpool."
A rivalry which began in Germany... but where could it end?
The pair also had two seasons together in Germany - managing Der Klassiker arch-rivals Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund.
While Guardiola was still at Barcelona, Klopp was in charge of Dortmund and led them to the Bundesliga title in 2010-11 and 2011-12.
Remarkably they remain the last two seasons that Bayern have not won the league - although that run is set to end this season with Bayern 10 points behind Bayer Leverkusen, who are managed funnily enough by Xabi Alonso - the favourite to replace Klopp as Liverpool boss.
Guardiola's first game as Bayern boss in July 2013 was against Klopp in the German Super Cup, with Borussia Dortmund winning 4-2.
However, Bayern would go on to run away with the Bundesliga title and beat Dortmund in the German Cup final. A year later Klopp stepped down after a seventh-placed finish.
So where could their next meeting be?
Well, with both sides still in the FA Cup at the quarter-final stage, they could face off again at Wembley. Manchester City host Newcastle and Liverpool are at Manchester United in the last eight.
After that, though, and it is anyone's guess.
Klopp has already said he will never manage in England again - and that he intends to have a year off in 2024-25.
The bookmakers reckon his most likely next job will be as Germany manager.
Guardiola has another season left on his City contract at the end of this one and has hinted he will stay on beyond that.
The former Spain midfielder has said he would like to manage an international team one day, with Brazil and England among the nations he has been linked to.
So could their next meeting be at the 2026 World Cup in North America or Euro 2028 in the UK and Ireland?
Classic meetings between the two
Manchester City's hopes of an unbeaten Premier League season were ended in game 23 by their rivals.
Three goals in the space of nine second-half minutes put Liverpool 4-1 up and in total control before a late City comeback fell just short.
It was 1-1 at the break with Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain putting the Reds ahead before Leroy Sane's leveller.
But Liverpool's fab three up front - Roberto Firmino, Sadio Mane and Mohamed Salah - all netted between the 59th and 68th minute.
Bernardo Silva struck with 84 minutes on the clock and Ilkay Gundogan's injury-time goal set up a nervy finale - but City could not find an equaliser.
Liverpool got the better of City again, this time in the Champions League quarter-final first leg.
In a vintage Klopp performance, the Reds blew City away in the opening 31 minutes - through goals by Salah, Oxlade-Chamberlain and Mane.
The tie was almost over at that stage and the Reds made sure with a 2-1 win in the second leg.
Sergio Aguero gave City the lead and Firmino levelled with a header - but eight minutes later Leroy Sane struck a 72nd-minute winner.
It was a what-if game for Liverpool, who hit the post through Mane and were 1.12cm from scoring when John Stones cleared off the line.
For Liverpool, who would have gone 10 points clear with a win, it was their only loss of the entire Premier League season. The win galvanised City, who would only drop three points in the rest of the campaign.
Not for the first time, this was a meeting of the runaway top two teams in England.
Liverpool would have gone top with six games left if they had won but twice had to come from behind to salvage a point.
Kevin de Bruyne and Diogo Jota swapped early goals and Gabriel Jesus put City ahead after a dominant first half before Mane levelled seconds after the restart.
The second classic meeting of these two in the space of a week, Liverpool came out on top this time to win the FA Cup semi-final tie at Wembley.
The Reds, still chasing a quadruple, led 3-0 at half-time thanks to Ibrahima Konate's early goal and Mane's double.
But Jack Grealish pulled one back and Bernardo Silva netted in injury time as City fell just short at Wembley.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68440317
|
rt_football_68440317
|
|
India v England: Ben Stokes' bowling a faint silver lining to tourists' day in the dirt - BBC Sport
|
2024-03-08
|
None
|
England endured one of the toughest days on their tour of India, but Ben Stokes' return to bowling was the faintest of silver linings, says Stephan Shemilt.
| null |
The captain promised Ben Davies he would not bowl on the tour of India. Stokes' idea of making amends for breaking that promise was to get the drinks in. Now he has to come through.
To criticise Stokes' scriptwriter for coming up with something fanciful would be wildly unfair. Stokes being Stokes, the events of the second day of the fifth Test against India in Dharamsala were entirely predictable. You could easily write it. You could see it coming a mile away.
Some 251 days after he last bowled in a match, following 28 consecutive wickets falling to spin in the series, in which time 248.2 overs had been delivered, Stokes needed just one ball to show England what they had been missing.`
With his opposite number Rohit Sharma on 103, Stokes grabbed the ball for the second over after lunch. The inwardly arcing run-up was just the same, and after eight months between spells Stokes did not need a loosener. A perfect delivery angled in, nipped past Rohit's outside edge and kissed the off stump.
Zak Crawley covered his mouth in disbelief. Brendon McCullum shook his head. The bemused Rohit dragged himself back to the pavilion.
But Stokes couldn't celebrate. Even by Stokesian levels of comebacks, the game was already gone. England were experiencing their first truly hopeless day in a country that often provides touring teams with plenty of them.
• None Dominant India build lead on day two - as it happened
The visitors were being made to pay for only mustering 218 with the bat, India more than doubling that in reaching 473-8 by the end of the second day. Mark Wood went at six an over and James Anderson's hunt for a 700th Test wicket is starting to feel like the search for Atlantis.
Young spinners Shoaib Bashir and Tom Hartley did well to halt India late on, but by then Bashir had tied the record number of sixes - eight - an England spinner has been hit for in a Test innings, while Hartley's boundary fielding had the solidity of wet toilet paper.
All of India's top five passed 50. Rohit and Shubman Gill made centuries. Either side of Stokes bowling Rohit, India scored at 4.3 runs per over in the morning session, then 4.7 in the afternoon.
England are not the first team to wilt at the end of a tour of India. It is the hardest challenge in cricket, possibly in all of sport.
India tests the technique, plays with the mind and examines the soul. England started by winning the first Test, the so-called Heist of Hyderabad, but are ending with a drubbing in Dharamsala. India slowly marinated the tourists over wins in Visakhapatnam, Rajkot and Ranchi. On Friday they finally put them on the barbecue.
If there is the faintest silver lining to a Test played among the clouds, Stokes' bowling is it. His left knee is the most important body part in British sport since David Beckham's metatarsal. It couldn't get through the Ashes and Stokes didn't even try to push it at the World Cup.
When he finally opted for surgery in November, he described it as a "clearout". In reality, it was bone spurs removed and stitches put in the meniscus. A clearout Kim and Aggie would be proud of.
Rehab started even before the operation. Stokes slimmed down to lower the pressure on his knee and aid the recovery process. Even then, it wasn't just about getting his knee in good shape, but also reconditioning his body to perform an incredibly unnatural manoeuvre.
He said before the second Test that any bowling in training was only the first step on the road to being an all-rounder again by the home summer.
Stokes was adamant about his "pinky promise" to Davies when he spoke before the third Test, only to not rule out competitive bowling by the time the match ended. He bowled at full tilt in the nets before the fourth Test in Ranchi and declared his knee to be pain free for the first time in years, only to not take the ball on the field for tactical reasons.
Even before the final Test, Stokes tried to bluff us by saying England's team was picked on the assumption he wouldn't be bowling. But, here he was, on a sun-kissed afternoon in the Himalayas, warming up at lunch because the match situation demanded his presence.
There were some high-knees and swings of the arms as he fielded at mid-off in the first over after the break, and then Stokes was bowling for the first time since the second Ashes Test at Lord's in July.
Some 38 years after another great England all-rounder, Ian Botham, took a wicket with his first delivery back - in Botham's case after a drugs ban - Stokes matched the instant impact.
It was sporting theatre. Anderson, ineffective before lunch, was suddenly rejuvenated and bowled Gill - his 699th Test scalp. An England fightback seemed possible just because Stokes was involved. The scoreboard said India were ahead, but that mattered little in the compelling hour in which Stokes sent down five overs.
His pace was good, around 85mph. Stokes dropped a return catch off Sarfaraz Khan from what turned out to be a no-ball. The skipper had not bowled himself until the 62nd over of the innings. One wondered what might have happened had he been on 30 overs sooner.
Only when Stokes came off did the scoring carnage resume. He did not bowl again for the rest of the day. Even Stokes, the mad dog that he is, is sensible enough to know he is feeling his way back, and marathon spells of 10, 15 or even more overs are beyond him just yet.
For now, the joy is in the sight of what once might never have been seen again. Stokes moved to 198 wickets, only two away from joining bona fide greats Jacques Kallis and Sir Garfield Sobers in doing the Test double of 200 wickets and 6,000 runs.
As captain, Stokes is adamant that England have made progress on this tour. It is a harder argument to make if and probably when they are beaten 4-1.
What is inarguable is the return of Stokes the bowler makes England a stronger team, giving options and balance that have been lacking for what feels like an age.
Bowling makes Stokes whole as a cricketer once more. Perhaps it will rejuvenate the batting of a man who has made only one half-century in his past 11 innings. Like giving Superman his cape back.
England's day in the Dharamsala dirt was as hard as anything they have endured on this tour of India and will almost certainly lead to a final chastening defeat.
But it will be remembered for the return of some Stokes magic, hinting at a possible brighter future to come.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/68513262
|
rt_cricket_68513262
|
|
Laura Kuenssberg: Rachel Reeves could be our next chancellor - but what's she really like? - BBC News
|
2024-03-09
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Laura Kuenssberg speaks to Reeves' friends, colleagues, and opponents to explore the kind of politician she is.
|
UK Politics
|
Rachel Reeves often spent school holidays with her grandparents in the Northamptonshire town of Kettering.
She'd be taken to do the rounds of other relatives, who would press the odd 20p piece into her and her sister Ellie's palms for holiday treats. At the end of their week, they were taken to the local toy shop to choose their goodies, her sister Ellie tells me.
Like most of us as kids, Ellie would spend all of her cash. But the young Rachel would only allow herself something small - and save most of the money.
Decades later, Rachel Reeves, now Labour's shadow chancellor (Ellie is also a Labour MP), wants you to believe that kind of restraint defines her.
An MP since 2010, she has been talked about as a possible chancellor for years in Westminster's gossip factory. And while the election is miles away, and a lot could still change, right now she appears on track to become the most powerful woman in the country as chancellor.
Yet pollsters report the public doesn't know much about her. People rarely mention her spontaneously in focus groups - and one recent snapshot from the polling group More in Common suggests only 10% of the public really know what she stands for.
So I've spoken to 20 different sources - her friends, colleagues, and opponents - to explore the kind of politician she is, and how she would handle the difficulties and dilemmas she might face both now and in the coming years.
The universal verdict on Reeves is that she could not be any more serious about power, or any more determined to win.
Growing up in south London, her mum showed her how to manage the family's finances sitting at the kitchen table - Reeves has said that "we weren't poor but we didn't have money to spare".
Motivated by her own experience of public services - huge classes and not enough text books at school - she started banging on doors for Labour as a teenager in the run-up to the 1997 election and caught the politics bug, working for a decade as an economist before being elected in 2010 as the MP for Leeds West.
Colleagues describe her brain power and hunger for work - she "messages at all times of day and night", says one.
Another says Reeves "is normally the cleverest person in the room", and that she does not blag.
Sign up for the Off Air with Laura K newsletter to get Laura Kuenssberg's expert insight and insider stories every week, emailed directly to you.
One fellow shadow minister says she "chews through calls and briefings", adding: "I have never, ever, ever, seen her unprepared."
Her public persona does not reveal her humour and human side, her colleagues say. She laughs loudly in Westminster's corridors and loves a glass of wine, they say. She belts out show tunes during campaign trips and listens to Beyonce when she runs.
She also fiercely protects time for her young family, they say - like many working parents, she crammed in making a costume for World Book Day last weekend, which she joked with colleagues about later.
But one of her friends says politically she is "hard as nails". Another member of the Labour front bench told me: "She is a normal, likeable, relatable person but you wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of her politically because she would probably eat you for breakfast."
Insiders say Sir Keir Starmer, left, and Rachel Reeves, right, have developed a good friendship
Reeves and Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer didn't know each other particularly well before he hired her as shadow chancellor after the party's defeat in the 2021 Hartlepool by-election. But insiders say they have developed a good working relationship and friendship - "he thinks like a lawyer, she thinks like an economist" but "they are both good at cutting out the crap", another source says.
Starmer respects her views but "it is very clear who is the boss", another colleague says. And while Reeves might be very controlled in public, those who know her well say sometimes she might give away a little frustration.
"The Rachel Reeves eye roll is legendary," says one person, referring back to this moment years ago as evidence.
Reeves certainly faces serious dilemmas both now and if Labour wins.
In the aftermath of the Budget she has a big question to answer about where Labour will find the extra cash it wants to spend.
Conservatives have adopted some of Labour's tax raising plans - cracking down on non-doms and extending the windfall tax on gas and oil companies. Labour concedes there is a £2bn "hole" in their plans. The Conservatives contest it's double that.
And longer term, if Labour wins, she has said herself that the party will inherit the worst economic situation since the aftermath of World War Two.
One union leader said: "She is staring into the most difficult job imaginable."
There is massive pressure both from inside and outside Labour over how she should approach that.
She has resolved to accept the same ground rules as the Conservatives: that the government should not borrow any more cash to pay for everyday spending on schools and hospitals, and to show that the government is chipping away at the country's debt within five years of winning power.
After the economic disasters of the pandemic and the effect of the war in Ukraine, public money is very, very tight.
Reeves wants to stick to strict spending plans, not spending money that, in the words of one colleague, "doesn't exist". It's not a surprise - she has a proper pedigree in economics and her first boss was Andrew Bailey, now the governor of the Bank of England.
Her approach won't please everyone in the party, as one observer explains.
Her tight grip on the books means it's hard to make big, expensive promises that might go down well with some voters - or at the very least, show that they're different to the Conservatives.
Voters are often unconvinced that there is much that separates the parties, as we heard a few weeks ago. Some in the party are anxious about this and accuse Reeves and other shadow ministers of sounding "robotic", like "automatons".
It's her economic judgement, but it's also a political judgement - she is all too aware the Conservatives want to run a campaign claiming Labour will raise taxes and raise spending. "She knows the Tories are desperate for an election fight about income taxes," says one shadow minister. "She won't give them that."
Another senior figure says the political logic is crystal clear - to give the Tories as "small a target as possible".
Right on cue, one of her Conservative opponents tells me: "I think she is uninspiring but she is doing exactly what she should be doing to win an election, which is being dishonest with the public about what they will do if they win - which is spend more and tax more."
Whether you buy her arguments or not, she has wrenched back economic credibility for Labour, which is polling ahead of the government on the economy. This is no mean feat, as one of her friends says. "Our position is unrecognisable - I don't think she gets enough credit."
But both Labour and the government have also been criticised for a "conspiracy of silence" about how tightly they might squeeze spending if they win the election. Reeves has put huge efforts into wooing the City - but there is more work to do to convince people that Labour has a clear, credible economic plan.
"She makes all the right noises and clearly knows what she is talking about," says one City insider, but there is a desire to hear more, to know more, about what kind of economy she really wants to create, and question marks over whether Labour is really ready.
One of the party's own business supporters tells me that Labour needs "more resource and heft for thinking."
They hope for more boldness, referencing New Labour's plan to give the Bank of England independence in 1997, cooked up by Ed Balls and Gordon Brown. "Where's the 2024 equivalent of Ed Balls?" they ask.
But given Labour has been ahead in the polls for such a long time, perhaps there is not much political incentive for the party to change its approach. We'll see tomorrow if Reeves is willing to be more forthcoming in our studio.
Despite the difficulties and dilemmas, her friends and colleagues agree she is not someone who budges easily. She is not in politics for the grandstanding, but to get things done according to her beliefs.
Those beliefs are "hard to pin down to one faction or tribe", a fellow front bencher says. During the Corbyn years she focused on her committee work. She neither became public critic number one nor sat alongside Jeremy Corbyn on the front bench, as Keir Starmer did.
One friend says: "She is not remotely interested in the posings of opposition, the clicks and likes, and people who want to display their credentials and display their politics."
But she is, of course, a politician. One colleague notes that she "understands 'small p' politics very well, always dropping little texts, knowing what matters to different colleagues". Unusually in this world, she doesn't seem to have enemies - at least not yet.
In December, Reeves spoke at the funeral of Alistair Darling, the former chancellor who took her under his wing when she became an MP. She spoke fondly of having lasagne and red wine with him and his wife, and of his counsel - he found himself in charge during a massive crisis when families and the country were having a hard time making ends meet.
The Budget last week was the first occasion as shadow chancellor when she wasn't able to seek his advice. But in her eulogy, she quoted his previous words to her: "Make the sums add up, don't fall into any political traps, but remember to offer hope."
It is abundantly clear how Labour and Rachel Reeves are trying to follow the first two mantras - less clear so far on what "hope" actually means to them.
A colleague of Reeves told me that when she and her team attend one of their many "business breakfasts" there are always lavish pastries left over. Rather than abandon them, Reeves gets her team to take the leftovers back to the office - having asked permission of their hosts first, of course.
She may not be saving her holiday money at the toy shop any longer - but for Rachel Reeves, perhaps restraint really does come first.
What questions would you like to ask Labour's shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves and Health Secretary Victoria Atkins this Sunday?
In some cases your question will be published, displaying your name, age and location as you provide it, unless you state otherwise. Your contact details will never be published. Please ensure you have read our terms & conditions and privacy policy.
Use this form to ask your question:
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or send them via email to YourQuestions@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any question you send in.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68521722
|
news_uk-politics-68521722
|
|
India v England: Ben Stokes' bowling a faint silver lining to tourists' day in the dirt - BBC Sport
|
2024-03-09
|
None
|
England endured one of the toughest days on their tour of India, but Ben Stokes' return to bowling was the faintest of silver linings, says Stephan Shemilt.
| null |
The captain promised Ben Davies he would not bowl on the tour of India. Stokes' idea of making amends for breaking that promise was to get the drinks in. Now he has to come through.
To criticise Stokes' scriptwriter for coming up with something fanciful would be wildly unfair. Stokes being Stokes, the events of the second day of the fifth Test against India in Dharamsala were entirely predictable. You could easily write it. You could see it coming a mile away.
Some 251 days after he last bowled in a match, following 28 consecutive wickets falling to spin in the series, in which time 248.2 overs had been delivered, Stokes needed just one ball to show England what they had been missing.`
With his opposite number Rohit Sharma on 103, Stokes grabbed the ball for the second over after lunch. The inwardly arcing run-up was just the same, and after eight months between spells Stokes did not need a loosener. A perfect delivery angled in, nipped past Rohit's outside edge and kissed the off stump.
Zak Crawley covered his mouth in disbelief. Brendon McCullum shook his head. The bemused Rohit dragged himself back to the pavilion.
But Stokes couldn't celebrate. Even by Stokesian levels of comebacks, the game was already gone. England were experiencing their first truly hopeless day in a country that often provides touring teams with plenty of them.
• None Dominant India build lead on day two - as it happened
The visitors were being made to pay for only mustering 218 with the bat, India more than doubling that in reaching 473-8 by the end of the second day. Mark Wood went at six an over and James Anderson's hunt for a 700th Test wicket is starting to feel like the search for Atlantis.
Young spinners Shoaib Bashir and Tom Hartley did well to halt India late on, but by then Bashir had tied the record number of sixes - eight - an England spinner has been hit for in a Test innings, while Hartley's boundary fielding had the solidity of wet toilet paper.
All of India's top five passed 50. Rohit and Shubman Gill made centuries. Either side of Stokes bowling Rohit, India scored at 4.3 runs per over in the morning session, then 4.7 in the afternoon.
England are not the first team to wilt at the end of a tour of India. It is the hardest challenge in cricket, possibly in all of sport.
India tests the technique, plays with the mind and examines the soul. England started by winning the first Test, the so-called Heist of Hyderabad, but are ending with a drubbing in Dharamsala. India slowly marinated the tourists over wins in Visakhapatnam, Rajkot and Ranchi. On Friday they finally put them on the barbecue.
If there is the faintest silver lining to a Test played among the clouds, Stokes' bowling is it. His left knee is the most important body part in British sport since David Beckham's metatarsal. It couldn't get through the Ashes and Stokes didn't even try to push it at the World Cup.
When he finally opted for surgery in November, he described it as a "clearout". In reality, it was bone spurs removed and stitches put in the meniscus. A clearout Kim and Aggie would be proud of.
Rehab started even before the operation. Stokes slimmed down to lower the pressure on his knee and aid the recovery process. Even then, it wasn't just about getting his knee in good shape, but also reconditioning his body to perform an incredibly unnatural manoeuvre.
He said before the second Test that any bowling in training was only the first step on the road to being an all-rounder again by the home summer.
Stokes was adamant about his "pinky promise" to Davies when he spoke before the third Test, only to not rule out competitive bowling by the time the match ended. He bowled at full tilt in the nets before the fourth Test in Ranchi and declared his knee to be pain free for the first time in years, only to not take the ball on the field for tactical reasons.
Even before the final Test, Stokes tried to bluff us by saying England's team was picked on the assumption he wouldn't be bowling. But, here he was, on a sun-kissed afternoon in the Himalayas, warming up at lunch because the match situation demanded his presence.
There were some high-knees and swings of the arms as he fielded at mid-off in the first over after the break, and then Stokes was bowling for the first time since the second Ashes Test at Lord's in July.
Some 38 years after another great England all-rounder, Ian Botham, took a wicket with his first delivery back - in Botham's case after a drugs ban - Stokes matched the instant impact.
It was sporting theatre. Anderson, ineffective before lunch, was suddenly rejuvenated and bowled Gill - his 699th Test scalp. An England fightback seemed possible just because Stokes was involved. The scoreboard said India were ahead, but that mattered little in the compelling hour in which Stokes sent down five overs.
His pace was good, around 85mph. Stokes dropped a return catch off Sarfaraz Khan from what turned out to be a no-ball. The skipper had not bowled himself until the 62nd over of the innings. One wondered what might have happened had he been on 30 overs sooner.
Only when Stokes came off did the scoring carnage resume. He did not bowl again for the rest of the day. Even Stokes, the mad dog that he is, is sensible enough to know he is feeling his way back, and marathon spells of 10, 15 or even more overs are beyond him just yet.
For now, the joy is in the sight of what once might never have been seen again. Stokes moved to 198 wickets, only two away from joining bona fide greats Jacques Kallis and Sir Garfield Sobers in doing the Test double of 200 wickets and 6,000 runs.
As captain, Stokes is adamant that England have made progress on this tour. It is a harder argument to make if and probably when they are beaten 4-1.
What is inarguable is the return of Stokes the bowler makes England a stronger team, giving options and balance that have been lacking for what feels like an age.
Bowling makes Stokes whole as a cricketer once more. Perhaps it will rejuvenate the batting of a man who has made only one half-century in his past 11 innings. Like giving Superman his cape back.
England's day in the Dharamsala dirt was as hard as anything they have endured on this tour of India and will almost certainly lead to a final chastening defeat.
But it will be remembered for the return of some Stokes magic, hinting at a possible brighter future to come.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/68513262
|
rt_cricket_68513262
|
|
Jeremy Hunt's Budget was more radical than it looked - BBC News
|
2024-03-09
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
It lacked pre-election fireworks, but there was a radical thread that could have long-term consequences.
|
Business
|
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (L) and Chancellor Jeremy Hunt (R) have tea and biscuits on their post-Budget visit
Rishi Sunak started the week giving a speech on a construction site in Swindon, with diggers and cranes in the background.
So far, so typical for a prime minister in Budget week - all that was missing was for Mr Sunak to pop on a hard hat.
The diggers were knocking down the town's Honda factory, 35 years after Margaret Thatcher lured the Japanese car giant to the UK. There are hopes that the redevelopment of the site will lead to thousands of new jobs, but it is still unclear what they might be.
There are parallels with this week's Budget. Is this the start of a period of more economic growth and confident renewal? Or have several years of acute uncertainty left the economic picture permanently diminished?
The chancellor is relying on voters seeing their glasses as half-full, rather than half-empty.
Will workers celebrate paying less tax than they thought they were going to six months ago? Or decry the fact they are paying more than they were told five years ago?
While the Budget lacked pre-election fireworks, there was a quietly radical thread that could have long-term consequences.
By 2027, because of cuts to National Insurance (NI) and the decision to freeze income tax thresholds, for every £1 NI cut, £1.90 will be raised in taxes.
This "fiscal drag" will mean over three million more higher-rate taxpayers, and nearly four million more low earners paying tax. On current trends, a recipient of the full basic state pension alone is also on course to have to pay tax, and perhaps fill out a tax return in 2026/27.
The government is shifting the tax burden away from workers towards all forms of income including savings and pensions.
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has cast this as a strategy that could lead to the abolition of National Insurance. Mr Sunak is selling this as a simplification of the tax system, and the end of the "double taxation" of work.
Presumably, this forms the cornerstone of a manifesto promise to "end the jobs tax", and would be paid for from further extensions of the freeze on income tax thresholds.
The thinking is that these incentivise work. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which monitors the government's spending plans and performance, said levels of inactivity were back at post-pandemic levels and were holding back growth.
This is another example of the government appearing to prioritise policies that "score" with the OBR. Its chair Richard Hughes protested this week when I asked him whether he was in fact running the country. "Our only power is to forecast," he said.
According to the OBR's calculations this week's 2% NI cut and last November's 2% cut in the Autumn Statement do not offset the extra income tax being paid as a result of the tax thresholds being frozen.
But the fact that taxes on income overall are being raised means pensioners will see higher tax bills as their income increases. There is a backlash against this, but it is due to their income rising, with the state pension set to increase by 8.5% from April.
Overall this is not a tax cut, with fiscal drag equating to the biggest single tax rise in 45 years and since Mrs Thatcher's Chancellor Geoffrey Howe nearly doubled the rate of VAT in 1979.
"U-turn" does not capture the galactic extent of the Conservative change in direction
Here is what is very curious. The Conservative strategy on tax has completely turned on its head.
Not far from the old Honda factory in Swindon, David Cameron launched his 2015 election manifesto with a commitment to raise income tax thresholds above inflation to take people out of the income tax system, and to prevent many upper-middle earners paying higher-rate tax.
It was the absolute cornerstone of Conservative tax strategy in 2017, too.
What we see now is pretty much the entire reversal of that. "U-turn" does not really capture the galactic extent of this change in direction. In 2010, there were three million higher taxpayers, by 2029 there will be 7.3 million.
Then there is another reversal - on how to fund rising public service costs. It was only three years ago that Mr Sunak was making the argument for raising spending on the NHS and social care by increasing National Insurance to 13.25%. The policy now is to decrease National Insurance to 8% and the adult social care plan is officially on ice.
Clearly, this is after a pandemic and energy crisis, and probably partly reflects the wild political ride - including four chancellors and three prime ministers in the same period of time.
Details are sparse on the precise trade-offs for unprotected areas such as councils, courts, prisons and social care. The chancellor said this was because plans are undecided and reliant on a government spending review which he has now said will not be done until after the general election.
Labour and the Tories have been accused of a "conspiracy of silence" over tough post election choices
Labour are also as yet unwilling to go into much detail, but leader Keir Starmer was in a hard hat meeting apprentices on a different building site in London this week, vowing to "build more houses".
An influential think tank, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, points to what it calls a "conspiracy of silence" about the tough decisions required after the election.
At the moment, Labour's promise is to fund services from higher growth, but the central plank of its growth plan, spending an extra £28bn per year on green investment, has been parked.
So the Budget may or may not herald a turnaround in the economy. But it was the confirmation of a considerable turn in economic policy, especially on who pays taxes in times of need.
From now until the election there will not be a building site in a swing seat not visited by the main party leaders dressed up in hard hats and protective goggles, as they seek to persuade the public they can rebuild the economy out of recession. But both are yet to finish construction of their long term plans to return Britain's economy to sustained growth.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68516710
|
news_business-68516710
|
|
Israel Gaza: Australia hints it could recognise Palestinian state - BBC News
|
2024-04-10
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Foreign Minister Penny Wong says the global community is frustrated by a lack of progress on peace.
|
Australia
|
Australia's foreign minister has suggested the country could recognise Palestinian statehood, to increase momentum towards peace.
However, Hamas could have no role in its governance, Penny Wong said.
Both Australia's opposition and the Zionist Federation of Australia say such a move would be premature.
Canberra has long said that recognition of a Palestinian nation could only come as part of a two-state solution brokered with Israel.
But Ms Wong's comments echo a speech by UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron earlier this year, in which he hinted the UK too could recognise Palestinian statehood without the support of Israel.
And on Wednesday, Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez confirmed his government was already working towards recognition, arguing it was "in the geopolitical interest of Europe".
"The international community will not be able to help the Palestinian State if it does not recognise its existence," he told lawmakers.
The Australian government has in recent months increasingly voiced concerns about the war against Hamas in Gaza - including after an Australian aid worker was killed alongside six others in an Israeli air strike. The aid workers were travelling in a convoy after picking up supplies when the IDF says they were wrongly identified as Hamas operatives and targeted.
In a speech on Tuesday night, Ms Wong said a two-state solution - where Israelis and Palestinians lived side by side in separate countries - was "the only hope to break the endless cycle of violence".
"The failures of this approach by all parties over decades - as well as the Netanyahu government's refusal to even engage on the question of a Palestinian state - have caused widespread frustration," she said.
"So the international community is now considering the question of Palestinian statehood as a way of building momentum towards a two-state solution."
The opposition's foreign affairs spokesman, Simon Birmingham, said it did not support such a move and that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government was threatening to "break decades of bipartisan Australian foreign policy".
"The Albanese government's argument to pre-emptively recognise a Palestinian state puts statehood before security, and will be seen as a win by the terrorists who initiated the current horrific conflict," he said in a statement.
Zionist Federation of Australia president Jeremy Leibler said any talk of recognition of Palestinian statehood was "entirely premature".
"Before any talk of statehood is credible, Hamas must be removed and a new generation of Palestinian leadership must emerge, which isn't corrupt, don't condone violence and recognises Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state," he said.
However, Ms Wong said claims that recognition of a Palestinian state would be "rewarding the enemy" were "wrong". Israel's security depends on a two-state solution, she said, and recognition of statehood would help undermine and marginalise Hamas.
About 140 countries recognise Palestinian statehood, but many including the US, the UK, Germany and Australia do not.
The United Nations is this week set to consider granting Palestine - which is currently an "observer state" - full membership of the international body.
The war in Gaza, Israel's response to a Hamas-led attack on 7 October that killed about 1,200 people and saw more than 250 taken hostage, has killed more than 33,000 Palestinians, according to the Hamas-run health ministry. Large parts of the territory are destroyed and many other Palestinians have been left on the brink of famine.
Weeks of talks have failed to produce an agreement but international pressure is growing.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-68758678
|
news_world-australia-68758678
|
|
Arizona Supreme Court reinstates near-total abortion ban from 1864 - BBC News
|
2024-04-10
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Arizona's top court ruled that a strict 160-year-old ban on abortion may be enforced.
|
US & Canada
|
The decision may shutter all abortion clinics in Arizona
The Arizona Supreme court has ruled that the state can enforce a 160-year-old near-total abortion ban.
The 1864 law - which precedes Arizona becoming a state - makes abortion punishable by two to five years in prison, except when the mother's life is at risk.
The ruling could shutter all clinics in the state, and affect both women's healthcare and the coming election.
Arizona voters may be able to undo the ruling in a November referendum.
The decision follows months of legal wrangling about whether the pre-statehood law could be enforced after years of dormancy. Many argued it had been effectively nullified by decades of state legislation, including a 2022 law that allows abortions until 15 weeks of pregnancy.
Arizona's top court agreed to review the case in August 2023 after a right-wing legal advocacy group, Alliance Defending Freedom, appealed against a lower court ruling that said the more recent law should stand.
In a 4-2 ruling on Tuesday, the state supreme court overturned that decision. It said the 1864 law was "now enforceable" because there were no federal or state protections for the procedure.
The Alliance Defending Freedom joined anti-abortion activists in celebrating the decision, saying the "significant" ruling would "protect the lives of countless, innocent unborn children".
Arizona's Supreme Court delayed enforcement of the law for 14 days, and the justices sent the case back to a lower court to hear further arguments.
But it remains unclear how the law will be enforced.
Governor Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, issued an executive order last year that placed the matter of enforcing abortion law in the hands of state attorney general Kris Mayes - a fellow Democrat who has promised that Arizonans will not be prosecuted for getting or performing an abortion.
Ms Mayes reiterated that promise on Tuesday, calling the law "draconian".
"Today's decision to reimpose a law from when Arizona wasn't a state, the Civil War was raging, and women couldn't even vote will go down in history as a stain on our state," she said, criticism that was soon echoed by the White House and other leading Democrats.
Some Arizona Republicans also expressed concerns about the ruling.
Kari Lake, a close ally of Donald Trump and a Republican candidate for the state's seat in the US Senate, said she opposed the decision.
She called on Governor Hobbs and the state legislature to find a "common sense solution".
Ruben Gallego, Ms Lake's Democratic opponent, noted Ms Lake had previously supported the ban, pointing to a 2022 interview where she called the 1864 law "great".
"Today's ruling is devastating for Arizona women and their families," Mr Gallego added.
The owner of one abortion clinic in Phoenix said the state was "stepping back in time". Gabrielle Goodwick, of Camelback Family Planning, told the BBC that the move would affect "marginalised populations" the most.
Abortion access is supported by the majority of American voters
Abortion access - which is broadly supported among the American public - has helped Democrats overperform in local and state elections since the US Supreme Court overturned a landmark legal decision that protected reproductive rights nationwide.
The issue is now expected to influence election results again in November, with Democrats hoping the issue gives them a boost in battleground states like Arizona.
Tuesday's ruling will certainly raise the stakes for a state ballot initiative that aims to protect abortion rights until 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Activists in the state say they have already met the signature threshold required to put the question to voters this autumn.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, the head of anti-abortion group Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America, indicated she would work to defeat the referendum, and hailed an "enormous victory" following the state supreme court's decision.
In the almost two years since Roe was overturned, activists who support widening abortion access have won all seven ballot initiatives related to the issue, even in Republican-controlled states.
Last week, Florida's Supreme Court gave the green light to another abortion referendum. If approved, Florida voters would overturn the state's six-week ban and enshrine broad abortion access in the state's constitution.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68774959
|
news_world-us-canada-68774959
|
|
Arizona abortion: Chants of 'shame' as lawmakers spar over 1864 law - BBC News
|
2024-04-10
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Democrats chant 'shame!' as rivals block debate on an 1864 law that bans almost all abortion rights.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Shouts of "shame" as Arizona lawmakers spar over abortion ban
Arizona's legislature descended into cries of "shame!" as senior Republicans blocked attempts to repeal the state's 1864 law banning abortion.
Republican majority leaders on Wednesday cut off two attempts to discuss a repeal and adjourned for the week, prompting chants from Democrats.
One Republican described it as "extremist, insurrectionist" behaviour.
The state's top court on Tuesday ruled the law was enforceable, but put the ruling on hold for at least 14 days.
The disagreements among state lawmakers follow a wave of protests about the Arizona supreme court's decision, which has potentially sweeping implications for women's healthcare and election-year politics in a battleground state.
The ruling was criticised by both Donald Trump and the White House. Governor Katie Hobbs called for a repeal and Attorney General Kris Mayes, a fellow Democrat, has said she would not prosecute those performing or obtaining abortions.
However, Republicans in the legislature on Wednesday said there was no reason to rush the debate. The party's chief whip, Teresa Martinez, said the House was "navigating an extremely complex, emotional and important area of law and policy".
She accused Democrats of "screaming at us and engaging in extremist and insurrectionist behaviour on the House floor", and said "pregnancy... should be celebrated. It is an abortion that terminates life."
The 1864 law criminalises abortion except to save a mother's life. There is no provision for victims of rape or incest. A 14-day moratorium on the court's ruling is in place while a lower court considers added arguments about the law's constitutionality.
Hobbs called the inaction unconscionable. "Radical legislators protected a Civil War-era total abortion ban that jails doctors, strips women of our bodily autonomy and puts our lives at risk," she said.
The row in the legislature came hours after Mr Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, said Arizona's supreme court ruling had gone too far but he believed it would quickly be "straightened out".
In the video statement posted on his social media platform Truth Social, Mr Trump also took credit for the US Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that overturned Roe v Wade, the landmark decision that protected abortion access across the US for nearly 50 years.
An Arizona clinic told CBS, the BBC's partner in the US, that it intended to stay open until the last moment before the court ruling is confirmed.
Donald Trump has sent mixed signals on his abortion stance so far
Ashleigh Feiring, a registered nurse at Camelback Family Planning in Phoenix, said abortion services were still available and that staff hopes emergency legislation would stop the law's enforcement.
Dr Gabrielle Goodrick, Camelback's founder, told the BBC the possible ban was "draconian". "My reaction has been shock, dismay, disgust," she said. "This law is going back in time when people didn't have bodily autonomy."
Anti-abortion groups including SBA Pro-Life America meanwhile urged Arizona residents to oppose a proposed ballot initiative aimed at placing abortion rights in Arizona's state constitution.
"They would wipe away all pro-life laws put in place by the Legislature, reflective of the will of the people," SBA President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement.
She said the 1964 law was an "enormous victory for unborn children and their mothers".
If it is enforced, Arizona residents seeking an abortion would have to travel to a neighbouring state where the procedure is still legal, such as California, New Mexico or Nevada.
Abortion is expected to shape the upcoming 2024 election
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68783408
|
news_world-us-canada-68783408
|
|
Arizona abortion: Chants of 'shame' as lawmakers spar over 1864 law - BBC News
|
2024-04-11
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Democrats chant 'shame!' as rivals block debate on an 1864 law that bans almost all abortion rights.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Shouts of "shame" as Arizona lawmakers spar over abortion ban
Arizona's legislature descended into cries of "shame!" as senior Republicans blocked attempts to repeal the state's 1864 law banning abortion.
Republican majority leaders on Wednesday cut off two attempts to discuss a repeal and adjourned for the week, prompting chants from Democrats.
One Republican described it as "extremist, insurrectionist" behaviour.
The state's top court on Tuesday ruled the law was enforceable, but put the ruling on hold for at least 14 days.
The disagreements among state lawmakers follow a wave of protests about the Arizona supreme court's decision, which has potentially sweeping implications for women's healthcare and election-year politics in a battleground state.
The ruling was criticised by both Donald Trump and the White House. Governor Katie Hobbs called for a repeal and Attorney General Kris Mayes, a fellow Democrat, has said she would not prosecute those performing or obtaining abortions.
However, Republicans in the legislature on Wednesday said there was no reason to rush the debate. The party's chief whip, Teresa Martinez, said the House was "navigating an extremely complex, emotional and important area of law and policy".
She accused Democrats of "screaming at us and engaging in extremist and insurrectionist behaviour on the House floor", and said "pregnancy... should be celebrated. It is an abortion that terminates life."
The 1864 law criminalises abortion except to save a mother's life. There is no provision for victims of rape or incest. A 14-day moratorium on the court's ruling is in place while a lower court considers added arguments about the law's constitutionality.
Hobbs called the inaction unconscionable. "Radical legislators protected a Civil War-era total abortion ban that jails doctors, strips women of our bodily autonomy and puts our lives at risk," she said.
The row in the legislature came hours after Mr Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, said Arizona's supreme court ruling had gone too far but he believed it would quickly be "straightened out".
In the video statement posted on his social media platform Truth Social, Mr Trump also took credit for the US Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that overturned Roe v Wade, the landmark decision that protected abortion access across the US for nearly 50 years.
An Arizona clinic told CBS, the BBC's partner in the US, that it intended to stay open until the last moment before the court ruling is confirmed.
Donald Trump has sent mixed signals on his abortion stance so far
Ashleigh Feiring, a registered nurse at Camelback Family Planning in Phoenix, said abortion services were still available and that staff hopes emergency legislation would stop the law's enforcement.
Dr Gabrielle Goodrick, Camelback's founder, told the BBC the possible ban was "draconian". "My reaction has been shock, dismay, disgust," she said. "This law is going back in time when people didn't have bodily autonomy."
Anti-abortion groups including SBA Pro-Life America meanwhile urged Arizona residents to oppose a proposed ballot initiative aimed at placing abortion rights in Arizona's state constitution.
"They would wipe away all pro-life laws put in place by the Legislature, reflective of the will of the people," SBA President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement.
She said the 1964 law was an "enormous victory for unborn children and their mothers".
If it is enforced, Arizona residents seeking an abortion would have to travel to a neighbouring state where the procedure is still legal, such as California, New Mexico or Nevada.
Abortion is expected to shape the upcoming 2024 election
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68783408
|
news_world-us-canada-68783408
|
|
Sub-postmistress jailed while pregnant rejects ex-Post Office boss' apology - BBC News
|
2024-04-11
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Seema Misra was pregnant when she was wrongly jailed after being prosecuted by the Post Office.
|
Business
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Seema Misra was pregnant when she was jailed
A former sub-postmistress who was wrongly jailed while she was pregnant has rejected an apology by a former Post Office boss who congratulated the team behind her conviction.
"Brilliant news. Well done," wrote then managing director David Smith in an email to colleagues in 2010.
Seema Misra was eight weeks pregnant with her second child when she was sentenced to 15 months in prison.
Mr Smith apologised to Mrs Misra at the inquiry into the Post Office scandal.
He said that in hindsight, his email following her conviction was "poorly thought through".
But following Thursday's evidence, Mrs Misra told the BBC: "How can I accept the apology? They need to apologise to my 10 year old, they took his mum away on his birthday.
"I was eight weeks pregnant - they need to apologise to my youngest son. It was terrible. I haven't accepted the apologies."
Mrs Misra was sent to Bronzefield prison on the day of her eldest son's 10th birthday after being wrongly convicted of stealing £70,000 from her Post Office branch in the village of West Byfleet in Surrey.
She served four-and-a-half months and gave birth to her second son wearing an electronic tag.
She told the BBC that she had seen Mr Smith's email before. "Seeing it again makes me more and more angry," she added.
Mrs Misra was one of more than 700 sub-postmasters and postmistresses prosecuted between 1999 and 2015 for theft and false accounting after a faulty computer system called Horizon made it look like money was missing from their branches.
Some, like Mrs Misra, were convicted and sent to prison. Many others were left financially ruined and lost their jobs, businesses and homes. Some died while waiting for justice.
Hundreds of people wrongly convicted are set to have their names cleared under new legislation expected to come into force in July, but when it comes to financial redress, just 37 people have received full and final compensation settlements to date.
Mr Smith was managing director of the Post Office from April to October 2010. His brief stint in charge was prior to Paula Vennells - who was heavily depicted in the ITV drama which thrust the scandal back into the spotlight - taking up the role as chief executive from 2012 to 2019.
In his witness statement to the public inquiry, Mr Smith said his email following Mrs Misra's conviction was "intended to be a congratulatory" to the legal team.
"Brilliant news. Well done. Please pass on my thanks to the team," said Mr Smith's 2010 email.
Asked by Sam Stevens, counsel to the inquiry, on Thursday why Mrs Misra's conviction was "brilliant news", Mr Smith replied: "I would just like to place on record an apology to Seema Misra and family because of the way this has been perceived and portrayed subsequently.
"Looking at it through their eyes rather than through mine you can see that it may have caused substantial upset and I really do apologise for that."
Mr Smith said his email to the legal team was "thank you for all your hard work. It's terrific that you got the result you got and I'm really happy that we have progressed".
"It's nothing more or less than that," he added, but admitted: "In the benefit of hindsight and looking through the 2024 lens and not the 2010 lens, at best, from Seema's perspective, you can see this is really poorly thought through."
The former managing director said Mrs Misra's conviction, which has since been overturned, was seen as a "test" of the Horizon system, which the organisation believed was "tamper proof".
Mr Smith denied having knowledge of a Horizon bug before the trial of the subpostmistress in 2010, and said he was "shocked and frankly appalled" at claims the Post Office knew of faults in the IT system while prosecuting Mrs Misra.
Mr Smith also rejected claims that an investigation commissioned - known as the Ismay report - into the computer system's integrity was a cover up.
The essence of the report, produced by Rod Ismay who worked in finance at the Post Office in 2010, was that there were no fundamental problems with Horizon.
In May last year, Mr Ismay told the inquiry he agreed with the suggestion he was asked to "present one side of the coin", rather than carry out a full investigation.
Mr Smith denied the report was intended as a "counter-argument" to allegations against Horizon, but accepted in his witness statement that in hindsight he should have commissioned a full, independent probe.
"At the time we were repeatedly given reassurance that the system was robust," said Mr Smith.
Former Post Office chairman Sir Michael Hodgkinson also apologised to sub-postmasters on Thursday.
Sir Michael, who was chairman from 2003 to 2007 admitted to the inquiry he "didn't do anything" to check if the business was prosecuting its own people properly.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68787990
|
news_business-68787990
|
|
OJ Simpson, NFL star acquitted in ‘trial of the century’, dies aged 76 - BBC News
|
2024-04-11
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The ex-American football star was controversially acquitted of the murder of his wife and a friend in 1995.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. OJ Simpson: His life and the trial that defined it
OJ Simpson, the former American football star turned actor who was controversially cleared of double murder, has died aged 76.
San Francisco-born Orenthal James Simpson rose to fame in college before playing in the NFL.
In 1995, he was acquitted of the murder of his former wife Nicole Brown and her friend in a trial that gripped America.
In 2008, he was sentenced to 33 years' jail on unrelated charges of armed robbery. He was released in 2017.
The Pro Football Hall of Fame said in a statement that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and had been receiving chemotherapy treatment. Simpson never disclosed his condition.
His family said he suffered a form of cancer and died "surrounded by his children and grandchildren".
His early-life sporting achievements will forever be overshadowed by the double murder of ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ron Goldman in 1994. The pair were found stabbed to death outside Ms Brown's home in Los Angeles. Simpson became an immediate person of interest in the case.
On the day he was due to turn himself in, he fled in a white Ford Bronco with a former teammate, and led the police on a slow-speed chase through the Los Angeles area before being arrested.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
That chase engrossed audiences in the US and abroad as it was broadcast live on "rolling" 24-hour news channels still in their relative infancy.
In the ensuing court case, dubbed the "trial of the century" by US media, prosecutors argued Simpson had killed Ms Brown in a jealous fury. Evidence included blood, hair and fibre tests linking Simpson to the murders.
The defence argued Simpson had been framed by police motivated by racism.
In one of the trial's most memorable moments, prosecutors asked Simpson to put on a pair of blood-stained gloves allegedly found at the scene of the murder, but Simpson struggled to fit his hands into them. It led to one of Simpson's lawyers, Johnnie Cochran, telling the jury in his closing arguments: "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."
During the trial, OJ Simpson tried on a leather glove allegedly used in the murders
The jury ultimately sided with Simpson, who had declared he was "absolutely 100% not guilty". The acquittal proved hugely controversial.
The families of Ms Brown and Mr Goldman did not give up - they pursued a civil case against Simpson in 1997 and a jury found Simpson liable for the two deaths. He was ordered to pay $33.5m (£25.8m) in damages to their families.
In 2006, Simpson sold a book manuscript, titled If I Did It, and a prospective TV interview, giving a "hypothetical" account of the murders he had always strenuously denied.
Public objections ended both projects, but Mr Goldman's family secured the book rights, added material imputing guilt to Simpson and had it published.
Simpson's final disgrace came in 2008, when he was convicted of armed robbery for breaking into a Las Vegas hotel room with four accomplices, holding two sports memorabilia dealers at gunpoint and stealing items related to his NFL career.
He was sentenced to 33 years in jail, but was granted parole after serving the minimum of nine years.
In his prime, Simpson was a star athlete, actor and the face of several major companies.
He was a college football star at University of Southern California before signing with the Buffalo Bills in 1969, where he played until 1977.
He became one of the greatest ball carriers in NFL history. In 1973, he was the first NFL player to "rush" - running to advance the ball for his team - more than 2,000 yards in a season.
He retired in 1979. His film credits include roles in the Towering Inferno, Capricorn One and the Naked Gun series.
Broadcaster Bob Costas, who worked with Simpson on NBC's American football coverage, said that while he was not the first African American star, "he was the first to do it in a big way, an African American who broke through".
The Heisman Trophy organisation, which names college football's player of the season, said in a tweet that it mourned the 1968 winner and extended sympathies to his family.
In its statement, the Pro Football Hall of Fame listed Simpson's achievements and said records of those contributions would be preserved in its archive.
Fred Goldman, Ronald's father, however described Simpson's death as "no great loss".
"The only thing I have to say is it's just further reminder of Ron being gone all these years," he told NBC News. "It's no great loss to the world. It's a further reminder of Ron's being gone."
David J Cook, an attorney for Mr Goldman told the BBC that Simpson had "died without penance" and that the family might explore new ways to get money from the estate.
Gloria Allred, a lawyer who represented Nicole Brown Simpson's family during the murder trial, said that Simpson's death served as a reminder that the justice system failed abused women and allowed "celebrity men to avoid true justice", according to a statement obtained by CNN.
Caitlyn Jenner, an athlete turned TV reality star once part of Simpson's social circle, echoed Fred Goldman, posting two words on Twitter/X: "Good riddance."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68792486
|
news_world-us-canada-68792486
|
|
Arizona abortion ban: Kamala Harris blames Trump - BBC News
|
2024-04-12
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Donald Trump has distanced himself from a revived 1864 law that would ban most abortions.
|
US & Canada
|
Democrats are working to tie strict abortion bans to Donald Trump
Vice-President Kamala Harris lambasted Donald Trump over abortion restrictions as she held a campaign rally in Tucson, Arizona on Friday.
The state was pushed to the front of the US abortion battle this week after the state's Supreme Court upheld a 1864 law banning almost all abortions.
"Donald Trump did this," Ms Harris said.
Her remarks added to recent attacks from the Biden campaign tying Mr Trump to abortion bans nationwide.
Mr Trump campaigned in 2016 on appointing justices who would overturn Roe v Wade. He put three conservatives on the court, all of whom voted to overturn Roe in June 2022 and rescinded the nationwide right to abortion.
An estimated 18 million women of reproductive age now do not have access to the procedure in their state of residence, according to the pro-choice research group the Guttmacher Institute.
"We all must understand who is to blame," Ms Harris said on Friday. "Donald Trump is the architect of this healthcare crisis."
She claimed that "a second Trump term would be even worse... he will sign a national abortion ban."
A spokesman for the Trump campaign denied supporting a national ban, saying he "could not have been more clear. These are decisions for people of each state to make".
Arizona's 160-year-old law has given Ms Harris and her fellow Democrats another chance to focus their 2024 election efforts on abortion, a strategy that has proven effective in local and state races.
Mr Trump has sought to distance himself from Arizona's ban, calling on state politicians to repeal the law.
Speaking from his West Palm Beach residence on Friday afternoon, Mr Trump said the 1864 law was "going to be changed by the government".
But he also took credit for "breaking" Roe. "We did something that nobody thought was possible, we gave it back to the states, and the states are working very brilliantly," he said.
"It's working the way it's supposed to," he said.
Kari Lake, the presumptive Republican nominee for an open Arizona Senate seat and a close ally of Mr Trump, has also publicly renounced the law, and on Thursday called the ban "out of line" with state voters.
It is still unclear when and how the 1864 ban will be enforced.
The Arizona Supreme Court put the ruling on hold for at least 14 days while a lower court considered added arguments about the law's constitutionality.
The state's Democrat attorney general, Kris Mayes, has said she would not prosecute anyone performing or obtaining abortions. Initial attempts by Democrats to repeal the law in the state legislature were thwarted by senior Republicans.
Arizona's voters may also have a chance to reverse the law themselves with a likely ballot initiative that, if passed in November, would protect abortion rights until 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Pro-choice activists in the state say they have already met the signature threshold required to put the question to voters this autumn.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Hear from Arizonans on both sides of the abortion debate
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68803640
|
news_world-us-canada-68803640
|
|
Sub-postmistress jailed while pregnant rejects ex-Post Office boss' apology - BBC News
|
2024-04-12
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Seema Misra was pregnant when she was wrongly jailed after being prosecuted by the Post Office.
|
Business
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Seema Misra was pregnant when she was jailed
A former sub-postmistress who was wrongly jailed while she was pregnant has rejected an apology by a former Post Office boss who congratulated the team behind her conviction.
"Brilliant news. Well done," wrote then managing director David Smith in an email to colleagues in 2010.
Seema Misra was eight weeks pregnant with her second child when she was sentenced to 15 months in prison.
Mr Smith apologised to Mrs Misra at the inquiry into the Post Office scandal.
He said that in hindsight, his email following her conviction was "poorly thought through".
But following Thursday's evidence, Mrs Misra told the BBC: "How can I accept the apology? They need to apologise to my 10 year old, they took his mum away on his birthday.
"I was eight weeks pregnant - they need to apologise to my youngest son. It was terrible. I haven't accepted the apologies."
Mrs Misra was sent to Bronzefield prison on the day of her eldest son's 10th birthday after being wrongly convicted of stealing £70,000 from her Post Office branch in the village of West Byfleet in Surrey.
She served four-and-a-half months and gave birth to her second son wearing an electronic tag.
She told the BBC that she had seen Mr Smith's email before. "Seeing it again makes me more and more angry," she added.
Mrs Misra was one of more than 700 sub-postmasters and postmistresses prosecuted between 1999 and 2015 for theft and false accounting after a faulty computer system called Horizon made it look like money was missing from their branches.
Some, like Mrs Misra, were convicted and sent to prison. Many others were left financially ruined and lost their jobs, businesses and homes. Some died while waiting for justice.
Hundreds of people wrongly convicted are set to have their names cleared under new legislation expected to come into force in July, but when it comes to financial redress, just 37 people have received full and final compensation settlements to date.
Mr Smith was managing director of the Post Office from April to October 2010. His brief stint in charge was prior to Paula Vennells - who was heavily depicted in the ITV drama which thrust the scandal back into the spotlight - taking up the role as chief executive from 2012 to 2019.
In his witness statement to the public inquiry, Mr Smith said his email following Mrs Misra's conviction was "intended to be a congratulatory" to the legal team.
"Brilliant news. Well done. Please pass on my thanks to the team," said Mr Smith's 2010 email.
Asked by Sam Stevens, counsel to the inquiry, on Thursday why Mrs Misra's conviction was "brilliant news", Mr Smith replied: "I would just like to place on record an apology to Seema Misra and family because of the way this has been perceived and portrayed subsequently.
"Looking at it through their eyes rather than through mine you can see that it may have caused substantial upset and I really do apologise for that."
Mr Smith said his email to the legal team was "thank you for all your hard work. It's terrific that you got the result you got and I'm really happy that we have progressed".
"It's nothing more or less than that," he added, but admitted: "In the benefit of hindsight and looking through the 2024 lens and not the 2010 lens, at best, from Seema's perspective, you can see this is really poorly thought through."
The former managing director said Mrs Misra's conviction, which has since been overturned, was seen as a "test" of the Horizon system, which the organisation believed was "tamper proof".
Mr Smith denied having knowledge of a Horizon bug before the trial of the subpostmistress in 2010, and said he was "shocked and frankly appalled" at claims the Post Office knew of faults in the IT system while prosecuting Mrs Misra.
Mr Smith also rejected claims that an investigation commissioned - known as the Ismay report - into the computer system's integrity was a cover up.
The essence of the report, produced by Rod Ismay who worked in finance at the Post Office in 2010, was that there were no fundamental problems with Horizon.
In May last year, Mr Ismay told the inquiry he agreed with the suggestion he was asked to "present one side of the coin", rather than carry out a full investigation.
Mr Smith denied the report was intended as a "counter-argument" to allegations against Horizon, but accepted in his witness statement that in hindsight he should have commissioned a full, independent probe.
"At the time we were repeatedly given reassurance that the system was robust," said Mr Smith.
Former Post Office chairman Sir Michael Hodgkinson also apologised to sub-postmasters on Thursday.
Sir Michael, who was chairman from 2003 to 2007 admitted to the inquiry he "didn't do anything" to check if the business was prosecuting its own people properly.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68787990
|
news_business-68787990
|
|
OJ Simpson, NFL star acquitted in ‘trial of the century’, dies aged 76 - BBC News
|
2024-04-12
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The ex-American football star was controversially acquitted of the murder of his wife and a friend in 1995.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. OJ Simpson: His life and the trial that defined it
OJ Simpson, the former American football star turned actor who was controversially cleared of double murder, has died aged 76.
San Francisco-born Orenthal James Simpson rose to fame in college before playing in the NFL.
In 1995, he was acquitted of the murder of his former wife Nicole Brown and her friend in a trial that gripped America.
In 2008, he was sentenced to 33 years' jail on unrelated charges of armed robbery. He was released in 2017.
The Pro Football Hall of Fame said in a statement that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and had been receiving chemotherapy treatment. Simpson never disclosed his condition.
His family said he suffered a form of cancer and died "surrounded by his children and grandchildren".
His early-life sporting achievements will forever be overshadowed by the double murder of ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ron Goldman in 1994. The pair were found stabbed to death outside Ms Brown's home in Los Angeles. Simpson became an immediate person of interest in the case.
On the day he was due to turn himself in, he fled in a white Ford Bronco with a former teammate, and led the police on a slow-speed chase through the Los Angeles area before being arrested.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
That chase engrossed audiences in the US and abroad as it was broadcast live on "rolling" 24-hour news channels still in their relative infancy.
In the ensuing court case, dubbed the "trial of the century" by US media, prosecutors argued Simpson had killed Ms Brown in a jealous fury. Evidence included blood, hair and fibre tests linking Simpson to the murders.
The defence argued Simpson had been framed by police motivated by racism.
In one of the trial's most memorable moments, prosecutors asked Simpson to put on a pair of blood-stained gloves allegedly found at the scene of the murder, but Simpson struggled to fit his hands into them. It led to one of Simpson's lawyers, Johnnie Cochran, telling the jury in his closing arguments: "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."
During the trial, OJ Simpson tried on a leather glove allegedly used in the murders
The jury ultimately sided with Simpson, who had declared he was "absolutely 100% not guilty". The acquittal proved hugely controversial.
The families of Ms Brown and Mr Goldman did not give up - they pursued a civil case against Simpson in 1997 and a jury found Simpson liable for the two deaths. He was ordered to pay $33.5m (£25.8m) in damages to their families.
In 2006, Simpson sold a book manuscript, titled If I Did It, and a prospective TV interview, giving a "hypothetical" account of the murders he had always strenuously denied.
Public objections ended both projects, but Mr Goldman's family secured the book rights, added material imputing guilt to Simpson and had it published.
Simpson's final disgrace came in 2008, when he was convicted of armed robbery for breaking into a Las Vegas hotel room with four accomplices, holding two sports memorabilia dealers at gunpoint and stealing items related to his NFL career.
He was sentenced to 33 years in jail, but was granted parole after serving the minimum of nine years.
In his prime, Simpson was a star athlete, actor and the face of several major companies.
He was a college football star at University of Southern California before signing with the Buffalo Bills in 1969, where he played until 1977.
He became one of the greatest ball carriers in NFL history. In 1973, he was the first NFL player to "rush" - running to advance the ball for his team - more than 2,000 yards in a season.
He retired in 1979. His film credits include roles in the Towering Inferno, Capricorn One and the Naked Gun series.
Broadcaster Bob Costas, who worked with Simpson on NBC's American football coverage, said that while he was not the first African American star, "he was the first to do it in a big way, an African American who broke through".
The Heisman Trophy organisation, which names college football's player of the season, said in a tweet that it mourned the 1968 winner and extended sympathies to his family.
In its statement, the Pro Football Hall of Fame listed Simpson's achievements and said records of those contributions would be preserved in its archive.
Fred Goldman, Ronald's father, however described Simpson's death as "no great loss".
"The only thing I have to say is it's just further reminder of Ron being gone all these years," he told NBC News. "It's no great loss to the world. It's a further reminder of Ron's being gone."
David J Cook, an attorney for Mr Goldman told the BBC that Simpson had "died without penance" and that the family might explore new ways to get money from the estate.
Gloria Allred, a lawyer who represented Nicole Brown Simpson's family during the murder trial, said that Simpson's death served as a reminder that the justice system failed abused women and allowed "celebrity men to avoid true justice", according to a statement obtained by CNN.
Caitlyn Jenner, an athlete turned TV reality star once part of Simpson's social circle, echoed Fred Goldman, posting two words on Twitter/X: "Good riddance."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68792486
|
news_world-us-canada-68792486
|
|
Arizona abortion ban: Kamala Harris blames Trump - BBC News
|
2024-04-13
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Donald Trump has distanced himself from a revived 1864 law that would ban most abortions.
|
US & Canada
|
Democrats are working to tie strict abortion bans to Donald Trump
Vice-President Kamala Harris lambasted Donald Trump over abortion restrictions as she held a campaign rally in Tucson, Arizona on Friday.
The state was pushed to the front of the US abortion battle this week after the state's Supreme Court upheld a 1864 law banning almost all abortions.
"Donald Trump did this," Ms Harris said.
Her remarks added to recent attacks from the Biden campaign tying Mr Trump to abortion bans nationwide.
Mr Trump campaigned in 2016 on appointing justices who would overturn Roe v Wade. He put three conservatives on the court, all of whom voted to overturn Roe in June 2022 and rescinded the nationwide right to abortion.
An estimated 18 million women of reproductive age now do not have access to the procedure in their state of residence, according to the pro-choice research group the Guttmacher Institute.
"We all must understand who is to blame," Ms Harris said on Friday. "Donald Trump is the architect of this healthcare crisis."
She claimed that "a second Trump term would be even worse... he will sign a national abortion ban."
A spokesman for the Trump campaign denied supporting a national ban, saying he "could not have been more clear. These are decisions for people of each state to make".
Arizona's 160-year-old law has given Ms Harris and her fellow Democrats another chance to focus their 2024 election efforts on abortion, a strategy that has proven effective in local and state races.
Mr Trump has sought to distance himself from Arizona's ban, calling on state politicians to repeal the law.
Speaking from his West Palm Beach residence on Friday afternoon, Mr Trump said the 1864 law was "going to be changed by the government".
But he also took credit for "breaking" Roe. "We did something that nobody thought was possible, we gave it back to the states, and the states are working very brilliantly," he said.
"It's working the way it's supposed to," he said.
Kari Lake, the presumptive Republican nominee for an open Arizona Senate seat and a close ally of Mr Trump, has also publicly renounced the law, and on Thursday called the ban "out of line" with state voters.
It is still unclear when and how the 1864 ban will be enforced.
The Arizona Supreme Court put the ruling on hold for at least 14 days while a lower court considered added arguments about the law's constitutionality.
The state's Democrat attorney general, Kris Mayes, has said she would not prosecute anyone performing or obtaining abortions. Initial attempts by Democrats to repeal the law in the state legislature were thwarted by senior Republicans.
Arizona's voters may also have a chance to reverse the law themselves with a likely ballot initiative that, if passed in November, would protect abortion rights until 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Pro-choice activists in the state say they have already met the signature threshold required to put the question to voters this autumn.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Hear from Arizonans on both sides of the abortion debate
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68803640
|
news_world-us-canada-68803640
|
|
A guide to Donald Trump's four criminal cases - BBC News
|
2024-04-13
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The former president is juggling potentially explosive legal battles with campaigning for the White House.
|
US & Canada
|
Donald Trump is heading towards a likely election rematch with Joe Biden in November, but this time around he's juggling campaigning with some potentially explosive legal battles.
The 77-year-old, who is the first former president in US history to be criminally charged, now faces dozens of charges across four separate cases.
And his legal troubles don't end there, as Mr Trump is also facing several civil cases relating to, among other things, the business empire that made his name. There are crucial legal appeals that are yet to be settled too, including one on whether he is immune from prosecution.
Here, we'll focus on the four criminal cases Mr Trump is facing and explain what they're about, what could happen next and, crucially, what's at stake as he seeks to return to the White House.
A payment made to the adult film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election.
Ms Daniels says she was paid $130,000 (£103,000) to stay quiet after having sex with Mr Trump, who denies they ever had an affair.
It's worth noting, though, that providing so-called hush-money is not in fact illegal.
Instead, this case is more technical and centres on how Mr Trump's former lawyer, who paid Ms Daniels, had his reimbursement recorded in Mr Trump's accounts.
The former president is accused of falsifying his business records by saying the payment was for legal fees. He's facing 34 counts of fraud under campaign finance laws, and has pleaded not guilty to all of them.
Mr Trump has said the case is politically motivated. "This is just a way of hurting me in the election," he told reporters. "This is not a crime."
Jury selection begins on 15 April, with the trial proper expected to start a week or two after that.
It was delayed by a month when a judge granted a request to allow time for new evidence to be reviewed.
It will be the first criminal trial of a US president.
Could Mr Trump go to prison?
Each of the charges carries a maximum of four years in prison, although a judge could sentence Mr Trump to probation if he is convicted.
Legal experts told the BBC they think it is unlikely Mr Trump will be jailed if convicted in this case and that a fine is the more likely outcome.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, is using a rarely used strategy to bring felony charges rather than less serious misdemeanours.
Whether Mr Trump illegally conspired to overturn his 2020 election defeat to Joe Biden.
Federal prosecutors allege he pressured officials to reverse the results, knowingly spread lies about election fraud and sought to exploit the Capitol riot on 6 January 2021 to delay the certification of Mr Biden's victory and stay in power.
He's been charged with four criminal counts, including conspiracy to defraud the US and conspiracy against the rights of citizens.
Some had speculated he would be charged with insurrection, or aiding insurrection, but that is not one of the charges.
He has denied wrongdoing and made an unsubstantiated accusation that the Biden administration is behind the prosecution.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch the moment Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol building
It has been postponed indefinitely while an appeal from Mr Trump plays out.
The Supreme Court will rule on Mr Trump's argument that a former president cannot be prosecuted like any other citizen.
Justices will hear the case on 25 April and decide by June.
The challenge increases the chances that this trial may not happen before November's election.
And if Mr Trump were to win the vote, he could in theory pardon himself or order the charges to be dismissed.
Could Mr Trump go to prison?
But there are logistical, security and political questions around whether Mr Trump would actually serve time in jail even if convicted.
A conviction at trial would take the US into uncharted territory.
Mr Trump and some 18 other defendants are accused of criminally conspiring to overturn his very narrow defeat in the state of Georgia in the 2020 election.
The huge racketeering investigation, led by Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis, was sparked in part by a leaked phone call in which the former president asked the state's top election official to "find 11,780 votes".
Mr Trump was hit 13 criminal counts, subsequently reduced to 10. They include one alleged violation of Georgia's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Rico).
The former president has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in the case and has entered a plea of not guilty.
Prosecutors want the case to begin in August, but a date has not been set.
The timeline was complicated by a failed effort to disqualify Ms Willis because of her romantic relationship with a man she hired to work on the case.
Could Mr Trump go to prison?
Georgia prosecutors would need to prove that there was a pattern of corruption from Mr Trump and his co-defendants aimed at overturning the election result in order to bring a conviction.
As for making false statements, that carries a penalty of between one to five years in prison or a fine.
Whether Mr Trump mishandled classified documents by taking them from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago residence after he left office.
It's also about whether he obstructed the FBI's efforts to retrieve the files, as well as the criminal investigation into his handling of them.
The majority of the counts are for the wilful retention of national defence information, which falls under the Espionage Act.
There are then eight individual counts, which include conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record and making false statements. Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty on all counts.
Prosecutors want it to start in July.
Mr Trump and his lawyers want it put off until after the November presidential election.
Could Mr Trump go to prison?
These charges could, in theory, lead to substantial prison time if Mr Trump is convicted.
Looking at the letter of the law, the counts under the Espionage Act each carry a maximum sentence of 10 years. Other counts, related to conspiracy and withholding or concealing documents, each carry maximum sentences of 20 years.
But the logistics of jailing a former president mean a conventional prison sentence is seen as unlikely by many experts.
If you're in the UK, sign up here.
And if you're anywhere else, sign up here.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61084161
|
news_world-us-canada-61084161
|
|
Premier League title race: 'Arsenal and Liverpool stumble as momentum shifts in Man City's favour' - BBC Sport
|
2024-04-14
|
None
|
Can Arsenal and Liverpool hit back from savage blows in the Premier League title race or has momentum shifted decisively to Manchester City?
| null |
Last updated on .From the section Premier League
Arsenal revelled in a scene of high anticipation when they walked out to face Aston Villa but were left looking at a sea of empty red seats 90 minutes later as the Premier League title race took a potentially pivotal twist.
Liverpool stumbled first in a shock home defeat by Crystal Palace before Arsenal's supporters, well at least those of them left, departed Emirates Stadium as stunned as their Anfield counterparts after Mikel Arteta's side slumped to a 2-0 loss.
The title pursuit is nowhere near over with only two points separating the top three, but there is an ominously familiar feel to Manchester City's presence at the top of the table when the pressure valve is tightened.
What will be so frustrating for Arsenal and Liverpool is they were both architects of their own downfalls with desperately poor performances just when they needed victory most.
When the heat was on they were both found wanting.
• None 'You can hear panic set in' - Shearer on how pressure is affecting the title race
The big question now is can Arsenal and Liverpool hit back from such savage blows or has the title momentum shifted decisively in Manchester City's favour?
It was all so different before Sunday's late kick-off, with the Gunners having been handed a huge opportunity to re-assert their authority at the top.
Arsenal's supporters trooped in to the Emirates buoyed by the favour Palace had bestowed on them by completing a dismal week for Liverpool after the draw at Manchester United and heavy Europa League quarter-final beating by Atalanta at Anfield.
Liverpool looked leggy and stripped of their usual intensity in the 1-0 defeat by Palace, showing all the signs of running out of gas after energy expended in a chase - for a time at least - of four trophies.
However, the hope engendered by Liverpool's loss actually seemed counter-productive for Arsenal, with nerves sweeping around the Emirates in double-quick time when an early breakthrough did not materialise.
The noise at times smacked of desperation, of fear that old failings might come back for a side who were chased down so ruthlessly by City last season.
City are the experts at applying pressure, as we have seen in previous campaigns, but even they could not have expected both their rivals to struggle in home games on the same day.
Pep Guardiola and his City players will have enjoyed the ideal Sunday as they sat back with their feet up - having beaten Luton 5-1 a day earlier - before watching Arsenal and Liverpool implode on their own turf.
Liverpool finally paid the price for standing on the precipice too often this season.
• None My players like pressure - Guardiola on title race
Eberechi Eze's goal was the 14th time they have conceded first in the Premier League this season, including four occasions in their past five league matches at home.
They were pushing their luck to think they could come back every time. Eventually they would not get away with it and this proved to be the day.
It means the Kop's dream of a title-winning farewell for Jurgen Klopp has receded - although there is still time for another twist in the tale - in what has been a dreadful week for Liverpool.
The added worry for Klopp is a team counting potency among its greatest threats has suddenly looked blunt at the worst possible time, with just two goals scored in their past three matches.
Can Klopp galvanise and inspire one last time for a glorious flourish? It is a mighty challenge in his final days at Anfield.
Arsenal's performance carried all the hallmarks of a team weighed down by the pressure on them to deliver, as they fell to their first league defeat since being beaten 2-1 by Fulham on New Year's Eve.
The usual sharpness was lacking and defensive vulnerability displayed in the Champions League quarter-final against Bayern Munich was on show again - with Gabriel particularly uncertain.
It is a long time since the Gunners showed nerves such as this and looked so shaky for so long. The only surprise was it took Villa until the last 10 minutes of normal time to score the goals their play deserved.
Was it nerves? Was it pressure? It certainly looked like it.
Villa manager Unai Emery fashioned a victory that will be sweet after he was sacked by Arsenal in November 2019, only 18 months into his reign.
The wider significance for him is this result increases Villa's chances of finishing in the top four and securing Champions League football next season. Emery has done an outstanding job.
When Ollie Watkins added a second to Leon Bailey's opener, all hope was lost among Arsenal's supporters, with thousands heading for the exits and clearly having no belief in a comeback.
Arsenal's players looked leggy and jaded for most of the second half and exhausted by the end.
Arteta talked up a passable first-half display beyond what it actually was - decent but nowhere near as good as he claimed - but there are no arguments about the second period.
The Gunners looked tight and tense as they saw their hopes of victory edging away and were unable to secure even the consolation of a point as Villa, led by the superb John McGinn and Diego Carlos, deservedly claimed all three.
Will we look back on this as the day when the Premier League title tide turned? The moment when City's relentlessness finally took its toll on Arsenal and Liverpool?
Time will tell but Arsenal and Liverpool will have to find fresh energy and perform several levels above this if the Premier League season, so tight for so long, is not to come to a familiar conclusion.
• None Our coverage of your Premier League club is bigger and better than ever before - follow your team and sign up for notifications in the BBC Sport app to make sure you never miss a moment
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68814043
|
rt_football_68814043
|
|
Bowen: As Israel debates Iran attack response, can US and allies stop slide into all-out war? - BBC News
|
2024-04-14
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
World leaders are scrambling to prevent the Middle East entering a damaging wider conflict.
|
Middle East
|
The Americans helped Israel greatly in defending against Iran's missile attacks, and in return want restraint
Israel's war cabinet has used a tried-and-trusted phrase to describe its next moves against Iran. Israel would respond "in the manner and at the time of our choosing".
Benny Gantz, the opposition leader who joined the war cabinet after the Hamas attacks of 7 October, emphasised the cohesion of Israel and its western allies.
"Israel against Iran, the world against Iran. This is the result. That is a strategic achievement which we must leverage for Israel's security."
The words Mr Gantz used did not rule out another attack on an Iranian target, or a first overt Israeli strike inside Iran (Israel has hit Iran's nuclear programme repeatedly, with cyber-attacks and the assassination of officials and scientists). But there might be time for the diplomatic response President Joe Biden wants from the meeting he has called of the G7, the richest western countries.
This most recent escalation of the war that has spread across the Middle East since Hamas attacked Israel began two weeks ago, when Israel attacked Iran's embassy compound in Damascus. The air strike, on 1 April, killed a senior general, his number two and other aides.
The decision to attack was not coordinated with the Americans. Israel must have assessed the opportunity to kill senior commanders of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) as a risk worth taking.
Publicly Israel offers an unconvincing argument that the presence of senior military officers on diplomatic premises made the building a legitimate target. More importantly is the fact that Iran chose to interpret the airstrike as an attack on its own ground.
Very quickly, it was clear that Iran would respond. Iran's message was not transmitted with nudges and winks, but in unequivocal statements from its supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Israel, the US and their allies had plenty of warning. Mr Biden had time to get back to the White House from a weekend trip to his home state of Delaware. Iran chose to open the attack not with supersonic ballistic missiles, but with slow drones, that were on radar screens for two hours as they approached their targets.
It was a bigger attack than many analysts expected from Israel's most bitter enemy; plenty of reasons for many Israelis to expect a response from their own side. For the first time Iran launched weapons - around 300 drones, cruise and ballistic missiles - from its own territory at Israel's. Almost all of them were stopped by formidable air defences; Israel's own considerable capabilities, bolstered by the US, UK and Jordan.
Their allies, especially the US, helped them out enormously over the course of the night. President Joe Biden reiterated his promise: "ironclad" security for Israel, essentially saying 'we've got your back'.
In return, the Americans want restraint from Israel. President Biden sent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a clear message. Iran's attack has been thwarted, Israel has a victory, so do not escalate this any further by responding with military strikes on Iranian soil. A senior western diplomat told me that it was now vital to draw a line, to stop further escalation.
Drawing a line seems to be Iran's hope too. It has signalled that Israel's attack in Damascus has been answered; it will only escalate further if it is attacked again. The Iranians seem to want to cool the two weeks of crisis and threats that started with the Israeli strike on their diplomatic compound in Damascus.
Perhaps Iran was hoping to do more damage than it did. Or it may have been open about its plans to give Israel less reason to hit back.
Iran wanted to restore the sense of deterrence it lost when Israel attacked the compound in Damascus. That might be harder after Israel and its allies stopped almost all the projectiles launched their way.
Israel and allies shot down the vast majority of more than 300 drones and missiles fired by Iran, Israel said
It was not a full-scale attack on Israel. Iran has been building up its rocket and missile forces for years. It could have fired many more weapons. Hezbollah in Lebanon would have joined in with an all-out offensive, and it did not. The Lebanese militia and political movement is Iran's strongest ally, with an arsenal of rockets and missiles.
Prime Minister Netanyahu might draw some satisfaction with the way that the Iran attack removed Gaza from the headlines. It gives him a respite from the humanitarian catastrophe, and Israel's failure to achieve its war aims of freeing the hostages and crushing Hamas.
A few days ago, international focus was on the rift between Mr Biden and Mr Netanyahu over the famine created by Israel's blockade of Gaza. Now they talk about unity. Mr Netanyahu can also present himself as a resolute and reasonable leader, the protector of his people even though his many enemies in Israel want him out of office. They say his rash, unsafe policies before 7 October led Hamas to believe Israel was vulnerable.
What has not changed is that the Americans want to find a way to stop the slide to an all-out Middle East war. Red lines have been crossed - Israel's attack on a diplomatic site, and Iran's direct attack on Israel. Immediately, some Israeli right-wingers demanded a response. Those calls will not stop.
The job of the diplomats at the G7 will be to prevent the region entering a damaging wider conflict. The slide has been slow, but also steady and in one direction, towards disaster, in the six months since Hamas attacked Israel.
If Israel takes President Biden's advice not to hit back, the Middle East might be able to take a breath. It is by no means certain that this is the end of this dangerous episode.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68812884
|
news_world-middle-east-68812884
|
|
Trump New York hush-money trial is far from a slam dunk - BBC News
|
2024-04-14
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Experts are split over the strength of NY prosecutor Alvin Bragg's case, which relies on a novel legal strategy.
|
US & Canada
|
An adult film star. Alleged secret payments. A turncoat lawyer. And a candidate for president of the United States.
Donald Trump's very first criminal trial - and the first of a former US president - involves charges of white-collar crime, but it features some of the most eye-catching details in any of the four criminal cases against him.
The case revolves around a $130,000 (£104,000) hush-money payment from Mr Trump's lawyer to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels, who claims she had an affair with Trump in 2006.
But that payment was not actually illegal. Instead, the blockbuster case bringing 34 felony charges is based on allegations the former president falsified business records to cover up the payment - made just before the 2016 election - to avoid an embarrassing sex scandal which he denies.
The trial, which began in New York on 15 April, has legal experts divided on the strength of the case. Some debate whether Manhattan's District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, should have even brought the case and whether it is strong enough.
Ambrosio Rodriguez, a former prosecutor who says he is no fan of the former president, believes the case legitimises Mr Trump's ongoing argument that he is being prosecuted unfairly because of who he is.
Mr Rodriguez argues that the case relies on old allegations, noting that federal prosecutors had investigated and declined to bring charges.
"This is a waste of time and a bad idea, and not good for the country," he told the BBC. "This seems just a political need and want to get Trump no matter what the costs are."
Others disagree. Nick Akerman, who worked on the Watergate prosecution, says it's a serious case.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Our New York correspondent sets out what's at stake in Trump's unprecedented trial?
"This is about an effort to defraud the American voters in 2016 to keep them from learning material information that would have affected their vote," he told the BBC, referring to Mr Trump's alleged efforts to hide payments reimbursing his then lawyer, Michael Cohen.
The case also has come under scrutiny because it's seemingly built on an untested legal theory.
Mr Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. New York prosecutors say Mr Cohen paid off Ms Daniels, and accuse Mr Trump of trying to disguise the money he paid him back as legal fees.
Ordinarily, falsifying business records is considered a misdemeanour - or low-level offence - in New York. But when it is done to conceal a crime, it can be elevated to a more serious felony charge.
It is not unusual for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office to do that, but Mr Bragg's approach is a particularly novel one.
He says Trump Organization records were falsified to conceal or aid criminal activity. But even though the trial begins on Monday, he has not specified the exact crime allegedly hidden.
He has however given clues. In court filings and interviews, Mr Bragg has said Mr Trump violated both state and federal election laws, and state tax laws.
"The District Attorney's office is not precluded from presenting to the jury a variety of alternative theories on sort of why the records were falsified," says Shane T. Stansbury, a former assistant United States Attorney in New York's southern district.
But he adds that it is unclear if a state prosecutor can invoke a federal election crime, as it appears Mr Bragg intends to do.
"We could have appellate courts and even the US Supreme Court weighing in on some of the federal questions that are part of this theory, so I think we're a long way from having resolution on this case," he says.
A former prosecutor in the New York federal office, Mark Pomerantz, said federal prosecutors went back and forth on charging Mr Trump so often that the investigation was nicknamed "the zombie case".
But due to the seriousness of charging a former president, some legal experts say that Mr Bragg had to bring the strongest possible case against Mr Trump, which is why he went for felony charges.
"Given who the defendant is in this case," said Anna Cominsky, a professor at the New York Law School, "Just a misdemeanour may not rise to the level of criminality that perhaps one would expect someone in Trump's position to be charged with."
One of the biggest wildcards in this case is the prosecution's star witness: Michael Cohen.
Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal campaign violations as part of the alleged cover-up, which he said was directed by Mr Trump.
Since his release, he has become one of Mr Trump's harshest critics, consistently attacking him in the press and on his podcast. He has also admitted in the past to lying to Congress under oath. That history makes him a "compromised witness," said Mr Stansbury.
But as the man at the centre of the alleged scheme, he is almost guaranteed to testify against his former boss.
"His credibility is a huge issue for the prosecution, and definitely something the defence is going to attack," said Ms Cominsky.
Mr Bragg will try to bolster Mr Cohen's testimony by presenting proof of the payments to the jury.
The former president is sticking with a strategy that amounts to attack-and-delay. He frequently calls the case a "hoax" and a "witch-hunt."
He has slammed Judge Merchan and District Attorney Bragg and attacked their family members on social media - to the extent that a partial gag order has now been imposed that prevents him from attacking court staff and their families.
Mr Trump speaks to the press after a 25 March hearing in his New York criminal case
His lawyers have tried to argue that the payments were made to keep the embarrassing information from Mr Trump's family, rather than to hide anything from voters.
Mr Akerman believes that argument, if used by the former president's lawyers in court, would fall flat with the 12-person jury ultimately deciding Mr Trump's fate.
"First of all, all of this was done right before the election, it had nothing to do with his family," he told the BBC.
Should a jury vote to convict him, Mr Trump would enter the final stretch before November's presidential election as a convicted felon.
But his legal team only needs to persuade one juror that he is not guilty of the crimes alleged for him to walk free.
"To me, the only defence that they have is to try and pick a jury and try and identify somebody who might actually hang the jury," Mr Akerman said. "Try and find someone who is a little bit eccentric, somebody who might be more sympathetic to Donald Trump."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68737723
|
news_world-us-canada-68737723
|
|
Premier League title race: 'Arsenal and Liverpool stumble as momentum shifts in Man City's favour' - BBC Sport
|
2024-04-15
|
None
|
Can Arsenal and Liverpool hit back from savage blows in the Premier League title race or has momentum shifted decisively to Manchester City?
| null |
Last updated on .From the section Premier League
Arsenal revelled in a scene of high anticipation when they walked out to face Aston Villa but were left looking at a sea of empty red seats 90 minutes later as the Premier League title race took a potentially pivotal twist.
Liverpool stumbled first in a shock home defeat by Crystal Palace before Arsenal's supporters, well at least those of them left, departed Emirates Stadium as stunned as their Anfield counterparts after Mikel Arteta's side slumped to a 2-0 loss.
The title pursuit is nowhere near over with only two points separating the top three, but there is an ominously familiar feel to Manchester City's presence at the top of the table when the pressure valve is tightened.
What will be so frustrating for Arsenal and Liverpool is they were both architects of their own downfalls with desperately poor performances just when they needed victory most.
When the heat was on they were both found wanting.
• None 'You can hear panic set in' - Shearer on how pressure is affecting the title race
The big question now is can Arsenal and Liverpool hit back from such savage blows or has the title momentum shifted decisively in Manchester City's favour?
It was all so different before Sunday's late kick-off, with the Gunners having been handed a huge opportunity to re-assert their authority at the top.
Arsenal's supporters trooped in to the Emirates buoyed by the favour Palace had bestowed on them by completing a dismal week for Liverpool after the draw at Manchester United and heavy Europa League quarter-final beating by Atalanta at Anfield.
Liverpool looked leggy and stripped of their usual intensity in the 1-0 defeat by Palace, showing all the signs of running out of gas after energy expended in a chase - for a time at least - of four trophies.
However, the hope engendered by Liverpool's loss actually seemed counter-productive for Arsenal, with nerves sweeping around the Emirates in double-quick time when an early breakthrough did not materialise.
The noise at times smacked of desperation, of fear that old failings might come back for a side who were chased down so ruthlessly by City last season.
City are the experts at applying pressure, as we have seen in previous campaigns, but even they could not have expected both their rivals to struggle in home games on the same day.
Pep Guardiola and his City players will have enjoyed the ideal Sunday as they sat back with their feet up - having beaten Luton 5-1 a day earlier - before watching Arsenal and Liverpool implode on their own turf.
Liverpool finally paid the price for standing on the precipice too often this season.
• None My players like pressure - Guardiola on title race
Eberechi Eze's goal was the 14th time they have conceded first in the Premier League this season, including four occasions in their past five league matches at home.
They were pushing their luck to think they could come back every time. Eventually they would not get away with it and this proved to be the day.
It means the Kop's dream of a title-winning farewell for Jurgen Klopp has receded - although there is still time for another twist in the tale - in what has been a dreadful week for Liverpool.
The added worry for Klopp is a team counting potency among its greatest threats has suddenly looked blunt at the worst possible time, with just two goals scored in their past three matches.
Can Klopp galvanise and inspire one last time for a glorious flourish? It is a mighty challenge in his final days at Anfield.
Arsenal's performance carried all the hallmarks of a team weighed down by the pressure on them to deliver, as they fell to their first league defeat since being beaten 2-1 by Fulham on New Year's Eve.
The usual sharpness was lacking and defensive vulnerability displayed in the Champions League quarter-final against Bayern Munich was on show again - with Gabriel particularly uncertain.
It is a long time since the Gunners showed nerves such as this and looked so shaky for so long. The only surprise was it took Villa until the last 10 minutes of normal time to score the goals their play deserved.
Was it nerves? Was it pressure? It certainly looked like it.
Villa manager Unai Emery fashioned a victory that will be sweet after he was sacked by Arsenal in November 2019, only 18 months into his reign.
The wider significance for him is this result increases Villa's chances of finishing in the top four and securing Champions League football next season. Emery has done an outstanding job.
When Ollie Watkins added a second to Leon Bailey's opener, all hope was lost among Arsenal's supporters, with thousands heading for the exits and clearly having no belief in a comeback.
Arsenal's players looked leggy and jaded for most of the second half and exhausted by the end.
Arteta talked up a passable first-half display beyond what it actually was - decent but nowhere near as good as he claimed - but there are no arguments about the second period.
The Gunners looked tight and tense as they saw their hopes of victory edging away and were unable to secure even the consolation of a point as Villa, led by the superb John McGinn and Diego Carlos, deservedly claimed all three.
Will we look back on this as the day when the Premier League title tide turned? The moment when City's relentlessness finally took its toll on Arsenal and Liverpool?
Time will tell but Arsenal and Liverpool will have to find fresh energy and perform several levels above this if the Premier League season, so tight for so long, is not to come to a familiar conclusion.
• None Our coverage of your Premier League club is bigger and better than ever before - follow your team and sign up for notifications in the BBC Sport app to make sure you never miss a moment
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68814043
|
rt_football_68814043
|
|
Chelsea 6-0 Everton: Cole Palmer scores four including 16-minute hat-trick - BBC Sport
|
2024-04-15
|
None
|
Chelsea midfielder Cole Palmer scores four goals, which includes a hat-trick inside the first 29 minutes, as his side thrash sorry Everton.
| null |
Last updated on .From the section Premier League
Chelsea midfielder Cole Palmer scored four goals, which included a hat-trick inside the first 29 minutes, as his side thrashed sorry Everton at Stamford Bridge in the Premier League.
Palmer opened the scoring in the 13th minute by curling a beautiful strike into the bottom corner after nutmegging Everton defender Jarrad Branthwaite and playing a one-two with teammate Nicolas Jackson.
He doubled the lead five minutes later, heading in a rebound after a Jackson shot had been saved by Everton keeper Jordan Pickford.
And the 21-year-old completed his hat-trick midway through the first half in style after he intercepted a poor pass from Pickford before lobbing the England goalkeeper from 40 yards out.
Jackson then inflicted more doom on Everton just before the break by volleying in Marc Cucurella's cut-back, before Palmer added his fourth from the penalty spot in the 63rd minute.
And Chelsea scored a sixth in the 90th minute when substitute Alfie Gilchrist netted his first goal for the club from a tight angle.
Chelsea stretched their Premier League unbeaten run to eight matches and are three points off seventh-placed Manchester United, who currently sit in the Premier League's last European spot, having played one game fewer.
As for Everton, they were playing in their first match since receiving a two-point deduction for a second breach of Premier League financial rules. They stayed 16th, two points above the relegation zone.
• None 'Amazing' Palmer produces again but can he really win Golden Boot?
• None How did you rate Chelsea's performance? Have your say here
• None What did you make of Everton's display? Send us your views here
• None Fight for Premier League survival - who will go down?
Palmer is having a phenomenal season and once again boosted his England Euro 2024 selection hopes with his second consecutive hat-trick at Stamford Bridge.
He has scored 20 Premier League goals this season, putting him level with Erling Haaland at the top of the golden boot race. Incredibly, before his move to Chelsea from Manchester City this summer Palmer had never scored a league goal.
Now the 21-year-old is a lynchpin for Mauricio Pochettino's side. He has scored the most league goals in a season for the Blues since Diego Costa also hit 20 in 2016-17.
He took his first three goals superbly, with his left foot, his head and his right foot, to score the fastest Premier League 'perfect' hat-trick since Gracenote started recording that data in 2008-09.
He also won Chelsea's penalty in the second half after being fouled by Abdoulaye Doucoure and despatched the spot-kick despite arguments with team-mates Jackson and Noni Madueke over who would take the penalty.
Palmer was simply sensational and had two further chances to score either side of the break but overran a Madueke cross and was later denied by the legs of Pickford.
Having scored 11 goals across his past six games in all competitions, Palmer will be after more in Chelsea's next match against his former club Manchester City in their FA Cup semi-final on Saturday.
Everton defender James Tarkowski said it was "the most embarrassed I have felt as an individual" after the game.
The Blues, who were really poor defensively, allowed Chelsea to take the lead with their first attack and never recovered thereafter.
"It shows where we are at today, we can only apologise to the fans who supported us," said Tarkowski. "It is on the players. It is not on the manager and the staff.
"No excuses on our behalf - we need to brush ourselves down as we have a big few weeks coming up. We conceded six goals and you should feel embarrassed."
The Toffees had gone close themselves when it was still goalless but Beto, in for the injured Dominic Calvert-Lewin, could not divert Seamus Coleman's low cross on target when just a few yards out.
Beto also had a headed goal disallowed for offside with his side 3-0 down in the first half.
Everton's loss will sting fans even more when coupled with their latest two-point deduction which was announced on Monday, 8 April.
Hours before kick-off the Premier League said the club's appeal will be heard "urgently".
Defeat leaves Sean Dyche's side in a precarious position especially with games against Liverpool and Arsenal to come before the end of the season.
They host Nottingham Forest in their next league match on Sunday.
• None Attempt saved. Beto (Everton) right footed shot from the centre of the box is saved in the centre of the goal. Assisted by Ashley Young.
• None Delay over. They are ready to continue.
• None Substitution, Everton. Ben Godfrey replaces Nathan Patterson because of an injury.
• None Delay in match because of an injury Nathan Patterson (Everton).
• None Goal! Chelsea 6, Everton 0. Alfie Gilchrist (Chelsea) right footed shot from the centre of the box to the bottom right corner.
• None Attempt saved. Ben Chilwell (Chelsea) left footed shot from the left side of the box is saved in the centre of the goal. Assisted by Conor Gallagher.
• None Jack Harrison (Everton) wins a free kick on the right wing. Navigate to the next page Navigate to the last page
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68758438
|
rt_football_68758438
|
|
Wrong couple divorced after computer error by law firm Vardag's - BBC News
|
2024-04-15
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
A judge says the order cannot be overturned but the law firm says this verdict is a "bad decision".
|
UK
|
A couple were divorced by mistake after a computer error at a family law firm.
A staff member at Vardag's accidentally opened the file of a couple referred to in court papers as Mr and Mrs Williams, when trying to apply for a final divorce order for a different client.
Vardag's applied three days later to rescind the order but judge Sir Andrew McFarlane dismissed the application.
The firm's head Ayesha Vardag said the judge's decision effectively meant "the computer says no, you're divorced".
Court papers say that Mrs Williams applied for divorce in January 2023 following 21 years of marriage.
The mistake was made by solicitors acting for Mrs Williams on 3 October last year on an online divorce portal operated by HM Courts and Tribunals Service.
In his summary, Judge McFarlane noted that "with its now customary speed", the system granted the order just 21 minutes later.
Vardag's did not discover the error until 5 October, thinking the order had been made for another client, but then promptly applied for it to be rescinded.
The husband became aware of the situation only on 11 October, the same day Vardag's wrote to his solicitors to explain the situation, court papers say.
In the summary, Judge McFarlane, president of the High Court's Family Division, said the issue arose against the background of "ongoing contested financial remedy proceedings".
Ms Vardag has been nicknamed the "diva of divorce", with her firm based in London, as well as offices in Cambridge and Manchester.
The firm describes itself on its website as specialising in "high net worth and ultra high net worth family cases".
Ayesha Vardag has been nicknamed the "diva of divorce"
Lawyers for Mrs Williams argued that as the order had been made by mistake it should simply be "set aside", describing the error as someone at the firm simply "clicking the wrong button".
Mr Williams' legal representatives argued a final order of divorce is a "once-and-for-all" order, which cannot be set aside by the consent of the parties and may only be rescinded by the court if found to be either void or voidable.
Judge McFarlane rejected the wife's arguments that the order should be set aside, finding it was not "rendered voidable" by her lack of consent as her solicitors were "generally authorised to act for her and the court was entitled to accept the application for the final order made by them as being validly made on her behalf".
He went on to say that even if the order was voidable, there was "a strong public policy interest in respecting the certainty and finality that flows from a final divorce order and maintaining the status quo that it has established".
Ms Vardag said Sir Andrew's verdict was a "bad decision" and that the state "should not be divorcing people on the basis of a clerical error", adding there has to be "intention" on the part of the person divorcing.
"When a mistake is brought to a court's attention, and everyone accepts that a mistake has been made, it obviously has to be undone," she said.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68821406
|
news_uk-68821406
|
|
Bowen: As Israel debates Iran attack response, can US and allies stop slide into all-out war? - BBC News
|
2024-04-15
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
World leaders are scrambling to prevent the Middle East entering a damaging wider conflict.
|
Middle East
|
The Americans helped Israel greatly in defending against Iran's missile attacks, and in return want restraint
Israel's war cabinet has used a tried-and-trusted phrase to describe its next moves against Iran. Israel would respond "in the manner and at the time of our choosing".
Benny Gantz, the opposition leader who joined the war cabinet after the Hamas attacks of 7 October, emphasised the cohesion of Israel and its western allies.
"Israel against Iran, the world against Iran. This is the result. That is a strategic achievement which we must leverage for Israel's security."
The words Mr Gantz used did not rule out another attack on an Iranian target, or a first overt Israeli strike inside Iran (Israel has hit Iran's nuclear programme repeatedly, with cyber-attacks and the assassination of officials and scientists). But there might be time for the diplomatic response President Joe Biden wants from the meeting he has called of the G7, the richest western countries.
This most recent escalation of the war that has spread across the Middle East since Hamas attacked Israel began two weeks ago, when Israel attacked Iran's embassy compound in Damascus. The air strike, on 1 April, killed a senior general, his number two and other aides.
The decision to attack was not coordinated with the Americans. Israel must have assessed the opportunity to kill senior commanders of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) as a risk worth taking.
Publicly Israel offers an unconvincing argument that the presence of senior military officers on diplomatic premises made the building a legitimate target. More importantly is the fact that Iran chose to interpret the airstrike as an attack on its own ground.
Very quickly, it was clear that Iran would respond. Iran's message was not transmitted with nudges and winks, but in unequivocal statements from its supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Israel, the US and their allies had plenty of warning. Mr Biden had time to get back to the White House from a weekend trip to his home state of Delaware. Iran chose to open the attack not with supersonic ballistic missiles, but with slow drones, that were on radar screens for two hours as they approached their targets.
It was a bigger attack than many analysts expected from Israel's most bitter enemy; plenty of reasons for many Israelis to expect a response from their own side. For the first time Iran launched weapons - around 300 drones, cruise and ballistic missiles - from its own territory at Israel's. Almost all of them were stopped by formidable air defences; Israel's own considerable capabilities, bolstered by the US, UK and Jordan.
Their allies, especially the US, helped them out enormously over the course of the night. President Joe Biden reiterated his promise: "ironclad" security for Israel, essentially saying 'we've got your back'.
In return, the Americans want restraint from Israel. President Biden sent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a clear message. Iran's attack has been thwarted, Israel has a victory, so do not escalate this any further by responding with military strikes on Iranian soil. A senior western diplomat told me that it was now vital to draw a line, to stop further escalation.
Drawing a line seems to be Iran's hope too. It has signalled that Israel's attack in Damascus has been answered; it will only escalate further if it is attacked again. The Iranians seem to want to cool the two weeks of crisis and threats that started with the Israeli strike on their diplomatic compound in Damascus.
Perhaps Iran was hoping to do more damage than it did. Or it may have been open about its plans to give Israel less reason to hit back.
Iran wanted to restore the sense of deterrence it lost when Israel attacked the compound in Damascus. That might be harder after Israel and its allies stopped almost all the projectiles launched their way.
Israel and allies shot down the vast majority of more than 300 drones and missiles fired by Iran, Israel said
It was not a full-scale attack on Israel. Iran has been building up its rocket and missile forces for years. It could have fired many more weapons. Hezbollah in Lebanon would have joined in with an all-out offensive, and it did not. The Lebanese militia and political movement is Iran's strongest ally, with an arsenal of rockets and missiles.
Prime Minister Netanyahu might draw some satisfaction with the way that the Iran attack removed Gaza from the headlines. It gives him a respite from the humanitarian catastrophe, and Israel's failure to achieve its war aims of freeing the hostages and crushing Hamas.
A few days ago, international focus was on the rift between Mr Biden and Mr Netanyahu over the famine created by Israel's blockade of Gaza. Now they talk about unity. Mr Netanyahu can also present himself as a resolute and reasonable leader, the protector of his people even though his many enemies in Israel want him out of office. They say his rash, unsafe policies before 7 October led Hamas to believe Israel was vulnerable.
What has not changed is that the Americans want to find a way to stop the slide to an all-out Middle East war. Red lines have been crossed - Israel's attack on a diplomatic site, and Iran's direct attack on Israel. Immediately, some Israeli right-wingers demanded a response. Those calls will not stop.
The job of the diplomats at the G7 will be to prevent the region entering a damaging wider conflict. The slide has been slow, but also steady and in one direction, towards disaster, in the six months since Hamas attacked Israel.
If Israel takes President Biden's advice not to hit back, the Middle East might be able to take a breath. It is by no means certain that this is the end of this dangerous episode.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68812884
|
news_world-middle-east-68812884
|
|
Trump trial: Dozens of jurors rejected as they say they cannot be impartial - BBC News
|
2024-04-15
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The selection process continues on Tuesday - with dozens of potential jurors already dismissed on grounds of bias.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: A view from inside the courthouse for Trump's historic trial
Dozens of potential jurors have been ruled out of Donald Trump's unprecedented criminal trial in New York on impartiality grounds.
Mr Trump denies falsifying business records to conceal a hush-money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels just ahead of the 2016 election, which he won.
Sixty of 96 potential jurors were quick to say they could not be impartial after proceedings began on Monday.
Jury selection continues on Tuesday, and could take up to two weeks.
The dismissals on day one were an indication of how challenging it could be to find a group of 12 impartial jurors for such a unique case. It concerns a high-profile sex scandal that involves a former president who is running once again for the White House.
"I just couldn't do it," one prospective juror was heard saying as she left court.
The Manhattan District Attorney's Office alleges that Mr Trump directed his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to pay Ms Daniels $130,000 (£104,000) in exchange for her silence about an alleged sexual encounter that the former president denies took place.
Prosecutors say he did so to "unlawfully influence" the 2016 election. Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty.
Jury selection began in the afternoon. The judge started by dismissing jurors who raised their hand to say they could not be impartial, leaving about 34 people.
Those left were then grilled on 42 questions in the jury questionnaire, including on their news-reading habits, whether they had attended any Trump rallies or read any of the former president's books.
Eighteen were placed at random in the jury box, and they answered the questionnaire one by one.
One man from Midtown Manhattan said that he read the Wall Street Journal. Another from the Upper West Side said his radio habits included listening to whatever was on when he was in the shower. He later clarified he meant NPR.
A woman was asked: "Do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about former president Donald Trump, or the fact that he is a current candidate for president, that would interfere with your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?"
She simply replied "yes" and was dismissed, although Mr Trump's team initially objected to excusing her for reasons they did not explain.
All jurors will remain anonymous due to the high-profile nature of the case, although Mr Trump's legal team and prosecutors will know their identities.
The accused stayed quiet during the day, speaking to his lawyers in a hushed tone while maintaining a stern expression.
His team later denied suggestions the former president had been struggling to keep his eyes open or had even fallen asleep during the proceedings, telling the Independent: "This is 100% fake news coming from 'journalists' who weren't even in the court room."
Mr Trump said three words in the entirety of Monday morning to the judge, New York Justice Juan Merchan - all "yes", when asked about what conduct was required in court.
But outside the court, Mr Trump said the trial was "nonsense" and an "assault on America".
Mr Trump's public remarks about the case were the subject of several minutes of debate during the morning in court.
Prosecutors argued some of Mr Trump's posts on his social media site, Truth Social, violated a gag order Justice Merchan imposed on him. The order bars Mr Trump from making public comments about people related to the case, including potential witnesses.
The order was expanded to relatives of those involved after Mr Trump attacked Justice Merchan's daughter on social media.
The Manhattan District Attorney's Office asked Justice Merchan to fine Mr Trump $3,000 (£2,400) in total for three posts. That includes a post on Saturday when he called his former attorney - and future trial witness - Michael Cohen a "disgraced attorney and felon".
The judge set a hearing date of 24 April to make a decision.
The judge used the morning to resolve what evidence would be permissible in court.
The defence and prosecution sparred over leaked audio of Mr Trump that came out just before the 2016 election. In the clip, taken from a recording of NBC show Access Hollywood, Mr Trump talks about grabbing women by their genitals.
Prosecutors asked to include an email chain between Trump campaign officials and the Washington Post reporter who broke the Access Hollywood story, which included a transcript of the tape.
The judge refused to allow the audio to be played for jurors, but said prosecutors could refer to what Mr Trump said on the tape.
A woman holds a banner in front of New York criminal court
Throughout the day, Mr Trump was cheered on by dozens of people who rallied peacefully but loudly outside court.
They included a man playing The Star-Spangled Banner on the flute for hours and a Trump impersonator wearing a blond wig and red tie.
There were others decidedly less enthusiastic about the former president. One held a banner that stated: "Convict Trump already."
The hush-money trial is just one of four criminal cases the former president is facing. But it could be the only one to go to trial before the 2024 presidential election, a rematch between Mr Trump, a Republican, and the incumbent, Joe Biden, a Democrat.
If convicted, Mr Trump would be the first major-party nominee to run for president as a convicted felon. No law prevents him from doing so.
Justice Merchan also rejected a defence request that Mr Trump be excused from the trial next Thursday so that he can attend Supreme Court arguments on the immunity claims he raised in another of his criminal cases.
"Arguing before the Supreme Court is a big deal," Justice Merchan said, before adding: "A trial in New York Supreme Court… is also a big deal. I will see him here next week."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68671733
|
news_world-us-canada-68671733
|
|
Trump New York hush-money trial is far from a slam dunk - BBC News
|
2024-04-15
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Experts are split over the strength of NY prosecutor Alvin Bragg's case, which relies on a novel legal strategy.
|
US & Canada
|
An adult film star. Alleged secret payments. A turncoat lawyer. And a candidate for president of the United States.
Donald Trump's very first criminal trial - and the first of a former US president - involves charges of white-collar crime, but it features some of the most eye-catching details in any of the four criminal cases against him.
The case revolves around a $130,000 (£104,000) hush-money payment from Mr Trump's lawyer to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels, who claims she had an affair with Trump in 2006.
But that payment was not actually illegal. Instead, the blockbuster case bringing 34 felony charges is based on allegations the former president falsified business records to cover up the payment - made just before the 2016 election - to avoid an embarrassing sex scandal which he denies.
The trial, which began in New York on 15 April, has legal experts divided on the strength of the case. Some debate whether Manhattan's District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, should have even brought the case and whether it is strong enough.
Ambrosio Rodriguez, a former prosecutor who says he is no fan of the former president, believes the case legitimises Mr Trump's ongoing argument that he is being prosecuted unfairly because of who he is.
Mr Rodriguez argues that the case relies on old allegations, noting that federal prosecutors had investigated and declined to bring charges.
"This is a waste of time and a bad idea, and not good for the country," he told the BBC. "This seems just a political need and want to get Trump no matter what the costs are."
Others disagree. Nick Akerman, who worked on the Watergate prosecution, says it's a serious case.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Our New York correspondent sets out what's at stake in Trump's unprecedented trial?
"This is about an effort to defraud the American voters in 2016 to keep them from learning material information that would have affected their vote," he told the BBC, referring to Mr Trump's alleged efforts to hide payments reimbursing his then lawyer, Michael Cohen.
The case also has come under scrutiny because it's seemingly built on an untested legal theory.
Mr Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. New York prosecutors say Mr Cohen paid off Ms Daniels, and accuse Mr Trump of trying to disguise the money he paid him back as legal fees.
Ordinarily, falsifying business records is considered a misdemeanour - or low-level offence - in New York. But when it is done to conceal a crime, it can be elevated to a more serious felony charge.
It is not unusual for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office to do that, but Mr Bragg's approach is a particularly novel one.
He says Trump Organization records were falsified to conceal or aid criminal activity. But even though the trial begins on Monday, he has not specified the exact crime allegedly hidden.
He has however given clues. In court filings and interviews, Mr Bragg has said Mr Trump violated both state and federal election laws, and state tax laws.
"The District Attorney's office is not precluded from presenting to the jury a variety of alternative theories on sort of why the records were falsified," says Shane T. Stansbury, a former assistant United States Attorney in New York's southern district.
But he adds that it is unclear if a state prosecutor can invoke a federal election crime, as it appears Mr Bragg intends to do.
"We could have appellate courts and even the US Supreme Court weighing in on some of the federal questions that are part of this theory, so I think we're a long way from having resolution on this case," he says.
A former prosecutor in the New York federal office, Mark Pomerantz, said federal prosecutors went back and forth on charging Mr Trump so often that the investigation was nicknamed "the zombie case".
But due to the seriousness of charging a former president, some legal experts say that Mr Bragg had to bring the strongest possible case against Mr Trump, which is why he went for felony charges.
"Given who the defendant is in this case," said Anna Cominsky, a professor at the New York Law School, "Just a misdemeanour may not rise to the level of criminality that perhaps one would expect someone in Trump's position to be charged with."
One of the biggest wildcards in this case is the prosecution's star witness: Michael Cohen.
Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal campaign violations as part of the alleged cover-up, which he said was directed by Mr Trump.
Since his release, he has become one of Mr Trump's harshest critics, consistently attacking him in the press and on his podcast. He has also admitted in the past to lying to Congress under oath. That history makes him a "compromised witness," said Mr Stansbury.
But as the man at the centre of the alleged scheme, he is almost guaranteed to testify against his former boss.
"His credibility is a huge issue for the prosecution, and definitely something the defence is going to attack," said Ms Cominsky.
Mr Bragg will try to bolster Mr Cohen's testimony by presenting proof of the payments to the jury.
The former president is sticking with a strategy that amounts to attack-and-delay. He frequently calls the case a "hoax" and a "witch-hunt."
He has slammed Judge Merchan and District Attorney Bragg and attacked their family members on social media - to the extent that a partial gag order has now been imposed that prevents him from attacking court staff and their families.
Mr Trump speaks to the press after a 25 March hearing in his New York criminal case
His lawyers have tried to argue that the payments were made to keep the embarrassing information from Mr Trump's family, rather than to hide anything from voters.
Mr Akerman believes that argument, if used by the former president's lawyers in court, would fall flat with the 12-person jury ultimately deciding Mr Trump's fate.
"First of all, all of this was done right before the election, it had nothing to do with his family," he told the BBC.
Should a jury vote to convict him, Mr Trump would enter the final stretch before November's presidential election as a convicted felon.
But his legal team only needs to persuade one juror that he is not guilty of the crimes alleged for him to walk free.
"To me, the only defence that they have is to try and pick a jury and try and identify somebody who might actually hang the jury," Mr Akerman said. "Try and find someone who is a little bit eccentric, somebody who might be more sympathetic to Donald Trump."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68737723
|
news_world-us-canada-68737723
|
|
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed: Rust armourer sentenced to 18 months for Halyna Hutchins' death - BBC News
|
2024-04-15
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
A judge sentenced Hannah Gutierrez-Reed to prison after the 2021 on-set shooting.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the movie set weapons handler who loaded a gun for actor Alec Baldwin before it fired and killed a cinematographer has been sentenced to 18 months in prison.
The armourer, 26, was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in March.
She was found not guilty of a second charge - tampering with evidence - over the 2021 shooting of Halyna Hutchins on the set of Rust.
The sentence Gutierrez-Reed received is the maximum possible.
Mr Baldwin, 65, also faces a manslaughter trial in July. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer, who handed down the sentence on Monday in a New Mexico court, said Gutierrez-Reed's actions constitute a serious, violent offence, committed in a physically violent manner.
"You alone turned a safe weapon into a lethal weapon," Judge Sommer said, addressing the armourer. "But for you, Ms Hutchins would be alive. A husband would have his partner and a little boy would have his mother."
Ms Hutchins, 42, was killed after a gun Mr Baldwin used in a rehearsal fired a live round on the set of the Western in New Mexico.
Prosecutors said Gutierrez-Reed had failed to ensure the weapon was only loaded with dummy rounds - fake bullets used to look and sound like real ones.
"This case is about constant, never-ending safety failures that resulted in the death of a human being," prosecutor Kari T Morrissey said during closing arguments in the trial.
Gutierrez-Reed was "negligent", "careless" and "thoughtless" when she failed to notice that live bullets had mixed with dummy rounds in a box of ammunition on set, Ms Morrissey told the jurors.
One of those bullets was in the firearm that was used by Mr Baldwin, prosecutors said.
Jurors deliberated for three hours before returning their verdict in March. Ms Hutchins' parents and her sister said they were "satisfied" with the verdict.
Their statement added: "We look forward to the justice system continuing to make sure that everyone else who is responsible for Halyna's death is required to face the legal consequences for their actions."
Halyna Hutchins was killed while on set in 2021
Before she was sentenced, Gutierrez Reed addressed the court, saying that her heart aches for the Hutchins family and friends.
"The jury found me guilty; that does not make me a monster. That makes me human," she said through tears.
But Judge Sommer said she felt the armourer did not take responsibility for her actions. "I did not hear you take accountability," the judge said.
Ms Hutchins' mother and sister also spoke in recorded videos from their native Kyiv, Ukraine. The mother, Olga Solovey, said in a translated video that no one involved in her daughter's death ever reached out to express sympathy.
"It's very important to me that there is justice," she said.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
During the trial, prosecutors presented evidence that Gutierrez-Reed had brought a box of live bullets to the New Mexico film set from her California home. They said these live rounds slowly spread throughout the set over the course of 12 days.
Ms Morrissey said she believed the armourer did not intend to bring live rounds to the set, but rather that Ms Hutchins' death was a case of tragic negligence.
The prosecutor added that Gutierrez-Reed was more "worried about her career" and less about the victims in the aftermath of the shooting.
Gutierrez-Reed did not testify in the two-week trial, but her lawyer said in closing arguments that prosecutors had failed to prove his client was the sole person responsible for the fatal shooting.
"The [ammunition] boxes don't matter, because we don't know what was in them three or four days before," her lawyer, Jason Bowles told the jury, arguing his client did not know that there were real bullets on set.
Mr Bowles also blamed Mr Baldwin, arguing that he had "gone off-script" when he pointed the gun at film crew. "It was not in the script for Mr Baldwin to point the weapon," he said. "She didn't know that Mr Baldwin was going to do what he did."
Bowles had vowed to appeal the guilty verdict.
Gutierrez-Reed was found not guilty of evidence tampering stemming from accusations that she attempted to dispose of a small bag of narcotics after the shooting.
Last year, the movie's cast and crew finished filming in tribute to Ms Hutchins, with her husband serving as an executive producer.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68819796
|
news_entertainment-arts-68819796
|
|
A guide to Donald Trump's four criminal cases - BBC News
|
2024-04-15
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The former president is juggling potentially explosive legal battles with campaigning for the White House.
|
US & Canada
|
Donald Trump is heading towards a likely election rematch with Joe Biden in November, but this time around he's juggling campaigning with some potentially explosive legal battles.
The 77-year-old, who is the first former president in US history to be criminally charged, now faces dozens of charges across four separate cases.
And his legal troubles don't end there, as Mr Trump is also facing several civil cases relating to, among other things, the business empire that made his name. There are crucial legal appeals that are yet to be settled too, including one on whether he is immune from prosecution.
Here, we'll focus on the four criminal cases Mr Trump is facing and explain what they're about, what could happen next and, crucially, what's at stake as he seeks to return to the White House.
A payment made to the adult film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election.
Ms Daniels says she was paid $130,000 (£103,000) to stay quiet after having sex with Mr Trump, who denies they ever had an affair.
It's worth noting, though, that providing so-called hush-money is not in fact illegal.
Instead, this case is more technical and centres on how Mr Trump's former lawyer, who paid Ms Daniels, had his reimbursement recorded in Mr Trump's accounts.
The former president is accused of falsifying his business records by saying the payment was for legal fees. He's facing 34 counts of fraud under campaign finance laws, and has pleaded not guilty to all of them.
Mr Trump has said the case is politically motivated. "This is just a way of hurting me in the election," he told reporters. "This is not a crime."
Jury selection begins on 15 April, with the trial proper expected to start a week or two after that.
It was delayed by a month when a judge granted a request to allow time for new evidence to be reviewed.
It will be the first criminal trial of a US president.
Could Mr Trump go to prison?
Each of the charges carries a maximum of four years in prison, although a judge could sentence Mr Trump to probation if he is convicted.
Legal experts told the BBC they think it is unlikely Mr Trump will be jailed if convicted in this case and that a fine is the more likely outcome.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, is using a rarely used strategy to bring felony charges rather than less serious misdemeanours.
Whether Mr Trump illegally conspired to overturn his 2020 election defeat to Joe Biden.
Federal prosecutors allege he pressured officials to reverse the results, knowingly spread lies about election fraud and sought to exploit the Capitol riot on 6 January 2021 to delay the certification of Mr Biden's victory and stay in power.
He's been charged with four criminal counts, including conspiracy to defraud the US and conspiracy against the rights of citizens.
Some had speculated he would be charged with insurrection, or aiding insurrection, but that is not one of the charges.
He has denied wrongdoing and made an unsubstantiated accusation that the Biden administration is behind the prosecution.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch the moment Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol building
It has been postponed indefinitely while an appeal from Mr Trump plays out.
The Supreme Court will rule on Mr Trump's argument that a former president cannot be prosecuted like any other citizen.
Justices will hear the case on 25 April and decide by June.
The challenge increases the chances that this trial may not happen before November's election.
And if Mr Trump were to win the vote, he could in theory pardon himself or order the charges to be dismissed.
Could Mr Trump go to prison?
But there are logistical, security and political questions around whether Mr Trump would actually serve time in jail even if convicted.
A conviction at trial would take the US into uncharted territory.
Mr Trump and some 18 other defendants are accused of criminally conspiring to overturn his very narrow defeat in the state of Georgia in the 2020 election.
The huge racketeering investigation, led by Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis, was sparked in part by a leaked phone call in which the former president asked the state's top election official to "find 11,780 votes".
Mr Trump was hit 13 criminal counts, subsequently reduced to 10. They include one alleged violation of Georgia's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Rico).
The former president has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in the case and has entered a plea of not guilty.
Prosecutors want the case to begin in August, but a date has not been set.
The timeline was complicated by a failed effort to disqualify Ms Willis because of her romantic relationship with a man she hired to work on the case.
Could Mr Trump go to prison?
Georgia prosecutors would need to prove that there was a pattern of corruption from Mr Trump and his co-defendants aimed at overturning the election result in order to bring a conviction.
As for making false statements, that carries a penalty of between one to five years in prison or a fine.
Whether Mr Trump mishandled classified documents by taking them from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago residence after he left office.
It's also about whether he obstructed the FBI's efforts to retrieve the files, as well as the criminal investigation into his handling of them.
The majority of the counts are for the wilful retention of national defence information, which falls under the Espionage Act.
There are then eight individual counts, which include conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record and making false statements. Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty on all counts.
Prosecutors want it to start in July.
Mr Trump and his lawyers want it put off until after the November presidential election.
Could Mr Trump go to prison?
These charges could, in theory, lead to substantial prison time if Mr Trump is convicted.
Looking at the letter of the law, the counts under the Espionage Act each carry a maximum sentence of 10 years. Other counts, related to conspiracy and withholding or concealing documents, each carry maximum sentences of 20 years.
But the logistics of jailing a former president mean a conventional prison sentence is seen as unlikely by many experts.
If you're in the UK, sign up here.
And if you're anywhere else, sign up here.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61084161
|
news_world-us-canada-61084161
|
|
Wrong couple divorced after computer error by law firm Vardag's - BBC News
|
2024-04-16
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
A judge says the order cannot be overturned but the law firm says this verdict is a "bad decision".
|
UK
|
A couple were divorced by mistake after a computer error at a family law firm.
A staff member at Vardag's accidentally opened the file of a couple referred to in court papers as Mr and Mrs Williams, when trying to apply for a final divorce order for a different client.
Vardag's applied three days later to rescind the order but judge Sir Andrew McFarlane dismissed the application.
The firm's head Ayesha Vardag said the judge's decision effectively meant "the computer says no, you're divorced".
Court papers say that Mrs Williams applied for divorce in January 2023 following 21 years of marriage.
The mistake was made by solicitors acting for Mrs Williams on 3 October last year on an online divorce portal operated by HM Courts and Tribunals Service.
In his summary, Judge McFarlane noted that "with its now customary speed", the system granted the order just 21 minutes later.
Vardag's did not discover the error until 5 October, thinking the order had been made for another client, but then promptly applied for it to be rescinded.
The husband became aware of the situation only on 11 October, the same day Vardag's wrote to his solicitors to explain the situation, court papers say.
In the summary, Judge McFarlane, president of the High Court's Family Division, said the issue arose against the background of "ongoing contested financial remedy proceedings".
Ms Vardag has been nicknamed the "diva of divorce", with her firm based in London, as well as offices in Cambridge and Manchester.
The firm describes itself on its website as specialising in "high net worth and ultra high net worth family cases".
Ayesha Vardag has been nicknamed the "diva of divorce"
Lawyers for Mrs Williams argued that as the order had been made by mistake it should simply be "set aside", describing the error as someone at the firm simply "clicking the wrong button".
Mr Williams' legal representatives argued a final order of divorce is a "once-and-for-all" order, which cannot be set aside by the consent of the parties and may only be rescinded by the court if found to be either void or voidable.
Judge McFarlane rejected the wife's arguments that the order should be set aside, finding it was not "rendered voidable" by her lack of consent as her solicitors were "generally authorised to act for her and the court was entitled to accept the application for the final order made by them as being validly made on her behalf".
He went on to say that even if the order was voidable, there was "a strong public policy interest in respecting the certainty and finality that flows from a final divorce order and maintaining the status quo that it has established".
Ms Vardag said Sir Andrew's verdict was a "bad decision" and that the state "should not be divorcing people on the basis of a clerical error", adding there has to be "intention" on the part of the person divorcing.
"When a mistake is brought to a court's attention, and everyone accepts that a mistake has been made, it obviously has to be undone," she said.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68821406
|
news_uk-68821406
|
|
Bowen: As Israel debates Iran attack response, can US and allies stop slide into all-out war? - BBC News
|
2024-04-16
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
World leaders are scrambling to prevent the Middle East entering a damaging wider conflict.
|
Middle East
|
The Americans helped Israel greatly in defending against Iran's missile attacks, and in return want restraint
Israel's war cabinet has used a tried-and-trusted phrase to describe its next moves against Iran. Israel would respond "in the manner and at the time of our choosing".
Benny Gantz, the opposition leader who joined the war cabinet after the Hamas attacks of 7 October, emphasised the cohesion of Israel and its western allies.
"Israel against Iran, the world against Iran. This is the result. That is a strategic achievement which we must leverage for Israel's security."
The words Mr Gantz used did not rule out another attack on an Iranian target, or a first overt Israeli strike inside Iran (Israel has hit Iran's nuclear programme repeatedly, with cyber-attacks and the assassination of officials and scientists). But there might be time for the diplomatic response President Joe Biden wants from the meeting he has called of the G7, the richest western countries.
This most recent escalation of the war that has spread across the Middle East since Hamas attacked Israel began two weeks ago, when Israel attacked Iran's embassy compound in Damascus. The air strike, on 1 April, killed a senior general, his number two and other aides.
The decision to attack was not coordinated with the Americans. Israel must have assessed the opportunity to kill senior commanders of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) as a risk worth taking.
Publicly Israel offers an unconvincing argument that the presence of senior military officers on diplomatic premises made the building a legitimate target. More importantly is the fact that Iran chose to interpret the airstrike as an attack on its own ground.
Very quickly, it was clear that Iran would respond. Iran's message was not transmitted with nudges and winks, but in unequivocal statements from its supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Israel, the US and their allies had plenty of warning. Mr Biden had time to get back to the White House from a weekend trip to his home state of Delaware. Iran chose to open the attack not with supersonic ballistic missiles, but with slow drones, that were on radar screens for two hours as they approached their targets.
It was a bigger attack than many analysts expected from Israel's most bitter enemy; plenty of reasons for many Israelis to expect a response from their own side. For the first time Iran launched weapons - around 300 drones, cruise and ballistic missiles - from its own territory at Israel's. Almost all of them were stopped by formidable air defences; Israel's own considerable capabilities, bolstered by the US, UK and Jordan.
Their allies, especially the US, helped them out enormously over the course of the night. President Joe Biden reiterated his promise: "ironclad" security for Israel, essentially saying 'we've got your back'.
In return, the Americans want restraint from Israel. President Biden sent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a clear message. Iran's attack has been thwarted, Israel has a victory, so do not escalate this any further by responding with military strikes on Iranian soil. A senior western diplomat told me that it was now vital to draw a line, to stop further escalation.
Drawing a line seems to be Iran's hope too. It has signalled that Israel's attack in Damascus has been answered; it will only escalate further if it is attacked again. The Iranians seem to want to cool the two weeks of crisis and threats that started with the Israeli strike on their diplomatic compound in Damascus.
Perhaps Iran was hoping to do more damage than it did. Or it may have been open about its plans to give Israel less reason to hit back.
Iran wanted to restore the sense of deterrence it lost when Israel attacked the compound in Damascus. That might be harder after Israel and its allies stopped almost all the projectiles launched their way.
Israel and allies shot down the vast majority of more than 300 drones and missiles fired by Iran, Israel said
It was not a full-scale attack on Israel. Iran has been building up its rocket and missile forces for years. It could have fired many more weapons. Hezbollah in Lebanon would have joined in with an all-out offensive, and it did not. The Lebanese militia and political movement is Iran's strongest ally, with an arsenal of rockets and missiles.
Prime Minister Netanyahu might draw some satisfaction with the way that the Iran attack removed Gaza from the headlines. It gives him a respite from the humanitarian catastrophe, and Israel's failure to achieve its war aims of freeing the hostages and crushing Hamas.
A few days ago, international focus was on the rift between Mr Biden and Mr Netanyahu over the famine created by Israel's blockade of Gaza. Now they talk about unity. Mr Netanyahu can also present himself as a resolute and reasonable leader, the protector of his people even though his many enemies in Israel want him out of office. They say his rash, unsafe policies before 7 October led Hamas to believe Israel was vulnerable.
What has not changed is that the Americans want to find a way to stop the slide to an all-out Middle East war. Red lines have been crossed - Israel's attack on a diplomatic site, and Iran's direct attack on Israel. Immediately, some Israeli right-wingers demanded a response. Those calls will not stop.
The job of the diplomats at the G7 will be to prevent the region entering a damaging wider conflict. The slide has been slow, but also steady and in one direction, towards disaster, in the six months since Hamas attacked Israel.
If Israel takes President Biden's advice not to hit back, the Middle East might be able to take a breath. It is by no means certain that this is the end of this dangerous episode.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68812884
|
news_world-middle-east-68812884
|
|
Trump trial: Dozens of jurors rejected as they say they cannot be impartial - BBC News
|
2024-04-16
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The selection process continues on Tuesday - with dozens of potential jurors already dismissed on grounds of bias.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: A view from inside the courthouse for Trump's historic trial
Dozens of potential jurors have been ruled out of Donald Trump's unprecedented criminal trial in New York on impartiality grounds.
Mr Trump denies falsifying business records to conceal a hush-money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels just ahead of the 2016 election, which he won.
Sixty of 96 potential jurors were quick to say they could not be impartial after proceedings began on Monday.
Jury selection continues on Tuesday, and could take up to two weeks.
The dismissals on day one were an indication of how challenging it could be to find a group of 12 impartial jurors for such a unique case. It concerns a high-profile sex scandal that involves a former president who is running once again for the White House.
"I just couldn't do it," one prospective juror was heard saying as she left court.
The Manhattan District Attorney's Office alleges that Mr Trump directed his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to pay Ms Daniels $130,000 (£104,000) in exchange for her silence about an alleged sexual encounter that the former president denies took place.
Prosecutors say he did so to "unlawfully influence" the 2016 election. Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty.
Jury selection began in the afternoon. The judge started by dismissing jurors who raised their hand to say they could not be impartial, leaving about 34 people.
Those left were then grilled on 42 questions in the jury questionnaire, including on their news-reading habits, whether they had attended any Trump rallies or read any of the former president's books.
Eighteen were placed at random in the jury box, and they answered the questionnaire one by one.
One man from Midtown Manhattan said that he read the Wall Street Journal. Another from the Upper West Side said his radio habits included listening to whatever was on when he was in the shower. He later clarified he meant NPR.
A woman was asked: "Do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about former president Donald Trump, or the fact that he is a current candidate for president, that would interfere with your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?"
She simply replied "yes" and was dismissed, although Mr Trump's team initially objected to excusing her for reasons they did not explain.
All jurors will remain anonymous due to the high-profile nature of the case, although Mr Trump's legal team and prosecutors will know their identities.
The accused stayed quiet during the day, speaking to his lawyers in a hushed tone while maintaining a stern expression.
His team later denied suggestions the former president had been struggling to keep his eyes open or had even fallen asleep during the proceedings, telling the Independent: "This is 100% fake news coming from 'journalists' who weren't even in the court room."
Mr Trump said three words in the entirety of Monday morning to the judge, New York Justice Juan Merchan - all "yes", when asked about what conduct was required in court.
But outside the court, Mr Trump said the trial was "nonsense" and an "assault on America".
Mr Trump's public remarks about the case were the subject of several minutes of debate during the morning in court.
Prosecutors argued some of Mr Trump's posts on his social media site, Truth Social, violated a gag order Justice Merchan imposed on him. The order bars Mr Trump from making public comments about people related to the case, including potential witnesses.
The order was expanded to relatives of those involved after Mr Trump attacked Justice Merchan's daughter on social media.
The Manhattan District Attorney's Office asked Justice Merchan to fine Mr Trump $3,000 (£2,400) in total for three posts. That includes a post on Saturday when he called his former attorney - and future trial witness - Michael Cohen a "disgraced attorney and felon".
The judge set a hearing date of 24 April to make a decision.
The judge used the morning to resolve what evidence would be permissible in court.
The defence and prosecution sparred over leaked audio of Mr Trump that came out just before the 2016 election. In the clip, taken from a recording of NBC show Access Hollywood, Mr Trump talks about grabbing women by their genitals.
Prosecutors asked to include an email chain between Trump campaign officials and the Washington Post reporter who broke the Access Hollywood story, which included a transcript of the tape.
The judge refused to allow the audio to be played for jurors, but said prosecutors could refer to what Mr Trump said on the tape.
A woman holds a banner in front of New York criminal court
Throughout the day, Mr Trump was cheered on by dozens of people who rallied peacefully but loudly outside court.
They included a man playing The Star-Spangled Banner on the flute for hours and a Trump impersonator wearing a blond wig and red tie.
There were others decidedly less enthusiastic about the former president. One held a banner that stated: "Convict Trump already."
The hush-money trial is just one of four criminal cases the former president is facing. But it could be the only one to go to trial before the 2024 presidential election, a rematch between Mr Trump, a Republican, and the incumbent, Joe Biden, a Democrat.
If convicted, Mr Trump would be the first major-party nominee to run for president as a convicted felon. No law prevents him from doing so.
Justice Merchan also rejected a defence request that Mr Trump be excused from the trial next Thursday so that he can attend Supreme Court arguments on the immunity claims he raised in another of his criminal cases.
"Arguing before the Supreme Court is a big deal," Justice Merchan said, before adding: "A trial in New York Supreme Court… is also a big deal. I will see him here next week."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68671733
|
news_world-us-canada-68671733
|
|
Trump New York hush-money trial is far from a slam dunk - BBC News
|
2024-04-16
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Experts are split over the strength of NY prosecutor Alvin Bragg's case, which relies on a novel legal strategy.
|
US & Canada
|
An adult film star. Alleged secret payments. A turncoat lawyer. And a candidate for president of the United States.
Donald Trump's very first criminal trial - and the first of a former US president - involves charges of white-collar crime, but it features some of the most eye-catching details in any of the four criminal cases against him.
The case revolves around a $130,000 (£104,000) hush-money payment from Mr Trump's lawyer to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels, who claims she had an affair with Trump in 2006.
But that payment was not actually illegal. Instead, the blockbuster case bringing 34 felony charges is based on allegations the former president falsified business records to cover up the payment - made just before the 2016 election - to avoid an embarrassing sex scandal which he denies.
The trial, which began in New York on 15 April, has legal experts divided on the strength of the case. Some debate whether Manhattan's District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, should have even brought the case and whether it is strong enough.
Ambrosio Rodriguez, a former prosecutor who says he is no fan of the former president, believes the case legitimises Mr Trump's ongoing argument that he is being prosecuted unfairly because of who he is.
Mr Rodriguez argues that the case relies on old allegations, noting that federal prosecutors had investigated and declined to bring charges.
"This is a waste of time and a bad idea, and not good for the country," he told the BBC. "This seems just a political need and want to get Trump no matter what the costs are."
Others disagree. Nick Akerman, who worked on the Watergate prosecution, says it's a serious case.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Our New York correspondent sets out what's at stake in Trump's unprecedented trial?
"This is about an effort to defraud the American voters in 2016 to keep them from learning material information that would have affected their vote," he told the BBC, referring to Mr Trump's alleged efforts to hide payments reimbursing his then lawyer, Michael Cohen.
The case also has come under scrutiny because it's seemingly built on an untested legal theory.
Mr Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. New York prosecutors say Mr Cohen paid off Ms Daniels, and accuse Mr Trump of trying to disguise the money he paid him back as legal fees.
Ordinarily, falsifying business records is considered a misdemeanour - or low-level offence - in New York. But when it is done to conceal a crime, it can be elevated to a more serious felony charge.
It is not unusual for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office to do that, but Mr Bragg's approach is a particularly novel one.
He says Trump Organization records were falsified to conceal or aid criminal activity. But even though the trial begins on Monday, he has not specified the exact crime allegedly hidden.
He has however given clues. In court filings and interviews, Mr Bragg has said Mr Trump violated both state and federal election laws, and state tax laws.
"The District Attorney's office is not precluded from presenting to the jury a variety of alternative theories on sort of why the records were falsified," says Shane T. Stansbury, a former assistant United States Attorney in New York's southern district.
But he adds that it is unclear if a state prosecutor can invoke a federal election crime, as it appears Mr Bragg intends to do.
"We could have appellate courts and even the US Supreme Court weighing in on some of the federal questions that are part of this theory, so I think we're a long way from having resolution on this case," he says.
A former prosecutor in the New York federal office, Mark Pomerantz, said federal prosecutors went back and forth on charging Mr Trump so often that the investigation was nicknamed "the zombie case".
But due to the seriousness of charging a former president, some legal experts say that Mr Bragg had to bring the strongest possible case against Mr Trump, which is why he went for felony charges.
"Given who the defendant is in this case," said Anna Cominsky, a professor at the New York Law School, "Just a misdemeanour may not rise to the level of criminality that perhaps one would expect someone in Trump's position to be charged with."
One of the biggest wildcards in this case is the prosecution's star witness: Michael Cohen.
Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal campaign violations as part of the alleged cover-up, which he said was directed by Mr Trump.
Since his release, he has become one of Mr Trump's harshest critics, consistently attacking him in the press and on his podcast. He has also admitted in the past to lying to Congress under oath. That history makes him a "compromised witness," said Mr Stansbury.
But as the man at the centre of the alleged scheme, he is almost guaranteed to testify against his former boss.
"His credibility is a huge issue for the prosecution, and definitely something the defence is going to attack," said Ms Cominsky.
Mr Bragg will try to bolster Mr Cohen's testimony by presenting proof of the payments to the jury.
The former president is sticking with a strategy that amounts to attack-and-delay. He frequently calls the case a "hoax" and a "witch-hunt."
He has slammed Judge Merchan and District Attorney Bragg and attacked their family members on social media - to the extent that a partial gag order has now been imposed that prevents him from attacking court staff and their families.
Mr Trump speaks to the press after a 25 March hearing in his New York criminal case
His lawyers have tried to argue that the payments were made to keep the embarrassing information from Mr Trump's family, rather than to hide anything from voters.
Mr Akerman believes that argument, if used by the former president's lawyers in court, would fall flat with the 12-person jury ultimately deciding Mr Trump's fate.
"First of all, all of this was done right before the election, it had nothing to do with his family," he told the BBC.
Should a jury vote to convict him, Mr Trump would enter the final stretch before November's presidential election as a convicted felon.
But his legal team only needs to persuade one juror that he is not guilty of the crimes alleged for him to walk free.
"To me, the only defence that they have is to try and pick a jury and try and identify somebody who might actually hang the jury," Mr Akerman said. "Try and find someone who is a little bit eccentric, somebody who might be more sympathetic to Donald Trump."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68737723
|
news_world-us-canada-68737723
|
|
Michaela School made being Muslim seem toxic, former pupil says - BBC News
|
2024-04-16
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Michaela School, in Brent, is the subject of a court challenge over rules banning "prayer rituals".
|
London
|
Michaela School is being challenged in the High Court over rules stopping "prayer rituals"
The "prayer ban" by a school facing a court challenge made being Muslim "seem toxic" and "evil", former pupils claim.
The school, led by former government social mobility tsar Katharine Birbalsingh, is being challenged in the High Court over the policy.
It did not respond for comment but Ms Birbalsingh previously said the school was a "happy and respectful" place.
She added that Muslim students have had "positive experiences" at the school.
The 11-18 mixed secondary school and sixth form is known for its "tiger teaching" approach, where pupils are expected to adhere to strict rules including focusing on teachers extensively during lessons and remaining silent in corridors, as well as restrictions on uniform and slouching.
It has received praise for producing excellent results and has an outstanding Ofsted rating.
The High Court previously heard about half the school's roughly 700 pupils are Muslim, and that its stance on prayer was first introduced in March last year by founder and headteacher Ms Birbalsingh - later being "remade" by its governing body in May.
The court hearing has now concluded and Mr Justice Linden is due to make his ruling at a later date.
Two former pupils at the school, Selena and Sarah (not their real names), have spoken exclusively to BBC London anonymously, claiming the rules at the school disproportionately affected Muslim students.
Sarah said day-to-day life at the school was stressful and detentions for "silly mistakes" were common, adding any obedience from pupils came "from fear rather than the children actually wanting to learn".
Both Selena and Sarah joined the school before the rules prohibiting prayer rituals were implemented, but were still pupils when it came into force.
"Once I did find out about the prayer ban, I felt like the school had stripped me and other students of my Islamic identity," Selena said.
"I felt belittled and that I had to somewhat change who I was in order to fit in because it's like they made it seem that being overtly Muslim was non-British or toxic. So I could never really be true to myself."
She added: "I talked to my mum about it; she didn't know she was sending me off to a school where I wasn't allowed to pray.
"School is stressful and prayer was the only time I got to just connect to God and just find peace and connect to myself again, and it helped me with my learning - the fact that I couldn't pray any more, it honestly did more bad than good," Sarah said.
"That absolutely just made me just dread going to school."
Selena recalled how at one point before the current rules came into place some pupils learnt they were allowed to pray outside, but when they did so "they were tapped by another teacher" in the yard who told them to stop.
"One of them in particular got very argumentative, telling her, 'Why you stopping me from praying?'
"And the teacher responded saying, 'Well, you're in a school.' She said that she's not allowed to bring her prayer mat and that if she was to bring her prayer mat again, that it would be confiscated," she said.
Sarah said she disliked having to pray outside "on the hard concrete" as pupils could "get hit by a basketball, and the noise is just so loud"
Selena believes the restrictions on prayer are a sign of a wider issue at the school - that of "a culture amongst all the teachers to not respect our hijab and respect our religion".
The two girls said they were also expected to tuck their hijab into the collar of their school shirt.
"I remember my teacher telling me twice to fix the way my hijab looked, because they didn't like the fact that it was like hanging out, but that's how hijab looks," Selena explained.
"Once I was walking in the corridor and a teacher said to this other Muslim student that her hijab looked like a cape."
Sarah said she too received insensitive comments from staff when she chose to start wearing a hijab during her time at the school.
"I do remember a teacher asking me if I was forced to wear it and it just shocked me so much," she said.
She explained it made her feel staff believe that "Muslim kids wearing a hijab or practising their faith cannot come out of pure will; they're doing it because they're oppressed or pressured".
Katharine Birbalsingh set up Michaela School with the help of then-education secretary Michael Gove
One relative of a current pupil showed BBC London their complaints to authorities about the school previously, but said nothing was done.
The relative, who wished to remain anonymous, said they emailed Brent Council but were told "because Michaela is a [free school] they can't enforce anything".
The individual then complained to the Department for Education (DfE), which told them "I have to go through the complaints procedure at the school".
When they then complained to the schools inspectorate Ofsted it told them "the resolution of individual issues falls to the school's senior leadership team and/or the local authority or multi-academy trust", suggesting they raise concerns formally "through the school's own complaint process".
The relative said they did not go through the internal complaints process as they felt it wouldn't be dealt with.
Sarah said her family also complained to Ofsted, but were told "there's nothing they can do about it".
Michaela School did not respond when asked about the pupils' comments.
However, in a post on X, formerly Twitter, after the court hearings began, Ms Birbalsingh said the governing body stopped what she called "prayer rituals" - including Muslim prayers which are spoken out loud - and "we are in court to defend the culture and ethos of Michaela".
"Ours is a happy and respectful secular school where every race, faith and group understands self-sacrifice for the betterment of the whole," she said.
She said existing Muslim students have had "positive experiences" and these "have helped grow the number of Muslim pupils at the school by 50%".
"Multiculturalism can only succeed when we understand that every group must make sacrifices for the sake of the whole. We allow our children freedoms of all sorts, as long as those freedoms do not threaten the happiness and success of the whole school community," she added.
Court reporting restrictions currently prevent the identification of any current Michaela School pupil or staff except the headteacher.
BBC London approached the school asking to speak to any Muslim pupils or parents who were happy with the school's policy on prayer under anonymity, but did not receive a response.
Selena said she feels Ms Birbalsingh is making excuses for the prayer rules.
"It seemed like she was trying to insinuate that once you take religion out of the picture, that's when you can be successful - that's when, you know, good things can happen to you. I feel like that's a very toxic narrative to try and spread," she said.
Sarah told the BBC she felt that Ms Birbalsingh was "trying to villainise us, she's trying to make us seem evil for wanting to have our own rights [to pray at school]".
Ofsted said it did not comment on "individual complaints".
The DfE responded to the BBC's request for comment with guidance stating: "It is for academies to handle complaints made against them and they are responsible for resolving them.
"Before complaining to the DfE, complainants need to complete the school's complaints procedure unless a child is not getting an education, a child has been exposed to harm or the school is stopping the complainant from following its complaints procedure."
A Brent Council spokesperson said: "The claim relates to Michaela Community School, which is an academy free school and, therefore, not within the control of the local authority.
"Any complaints relating to schools should be directed at that school's complaints process."
Listen to the best of BBC Radio London on Sounds and follow BBC London on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to hello.bbclondon@bbc.co.uk
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68170336
|
news_uk-england-london-68170336
|
|
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed: Rust armourer sentenced to 18 months for Halyna Hutchins' death - BBC News
|
2024-04-16
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
A judge sentenced Hannah Gutierrez-Reed to prison after the 2021 on-set shooting.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the movie set weapons handler who loaded a gun for actor Alec Baldwin before it fired and killed a cinematographer has been sentenced to 18 months in prison.
The armourer, 26, was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in March.
She was found not guilty of a second charge - tampering with evidence - over the 2021 shooting of Halyna Hutchins on the set of Rust.
The sentence Gutierrez-Reed received is the maximum possible.
Mr Baldwin, 65, also faces a manslaughter trial in July. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer, who handed down the sentence on Monday in a New Mexico court, said Gutierrez-Reed's actions constitute a serious, violent offence, committed in a physically violent manner.
"You alone turned a safe weapon into a lethal weapon," Judge Sommer said, addressing the armourer. "But for you, Ms Hutchins would be alive. A husband would have his partner and a little boy would have his mother."
Ms Hutchins, 42, was killed after a gun Mr Baldwin used in a rehearsal fired a live round on the set of the Western in New Mexico.
Prosecutors said Gutierrez-Reed had failed to ensure the weapon was only loaded with dummy rounds - fake bullets used to look and sound like real ones.
"This case is about constant, never-ending safety failures that resulted in the death of a human being," prosecutor Kari T Morrissey said during closing arguments in the trial.
Gutierrez-Reed was "negligent", "careless" and "thoughtless" when she failed to notice that live bullets had mixed with dummy rounds in a box of ammunition on set, Ms Morrissey told the jurors.
One of those bullets was in the firearm that was used by Mr Baldwin, prosecutors said.
Jurors deliberated for three hours before returning their verdict in March. Ms Hutchins' parents and her sister said they were "satisfied" with the verdict.
Their statement added: "We look forward to the justice system continuing to make sure that everyone else who is responsible for Halyna's death is required to face the legal consequences for their actions."
Halyna Hutchins was killed while on set in 2021
Before she was sentenced, Gutierrez Reed addressed the court, saying that her heart aches for the Hutchins family and friends.
"The jury found me guilty; that does not make me a monster. That makes me human," she said through tears.
But Judge Sommer said she felt the armourer did not take responsibility for her actions. "I did not hear you take accountability," the judge said.
Ms Hutchins' mother and sister also spoke in recorded videos from their native Kyiv, Ukraine. The mother, Olga Solovey, said in a translated video that no one involved in her daughter's death ever reached out to express sympathy.
"It's very important to me that there is justice," she said.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
During the trial, prosecutors presented evidence that Gutierrez-Reed had brought a box of live bullets to the New Mexico film set from her California home. They said these live rounds slowly spread throughout the set over the course of 12 days.
Ms Morrissey said she believed the armourer did not intend to bring live rounds to the set, but rather that Ms Hutchins' death was a case of tragic negligence.
The prosecutor added that Gutierrez-Reed was more "worried about her career" and less about the victims in the aftermath of the shooting.
Gutierrez-Reed did not testify in the two-week trial, but her lawyer said in closing arguments that prosecutors had failed to prove his client was the sole person responsible for the fatal shooting.
"The [ammunition] boxes don't matter, because we don't know what was in them three or four days before," her lawyer, Jason Bowles told the jury, arguing his client did not know that there were real bullets on set.
Mr Bowles also blamed Mr Baldwin, arguing that he had "gone off-script" when he pointed the gun at film crew. "It was not in the script for Mr Baldwin to point the weapon," he said. "She didn't know that Mr Baldwin was going to do what he did."
Bowles had vowed to appeal the guilty verdict.
Gutierrez-Reed was found not guilty of evidence tampering stemming from accusations that she attempted to dispose of a small bag of narcotics after the shooting.
Last year, the movie's cast and crew finished filming in tribute to Ms Hutchins, with her husband serving as an executive producer.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68819796
|
news_entertainment-arts-68819796
|
|
Rust trial: How events unfolded after fatal shooting on Alec Baldwin film set - BBC News
|
2024-04-16
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
A look at the events after the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of Rust in 2021.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
Alec Baldwin has pleaded not guilty in court to involuntary manslaughter
Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins died on the set of Western film Rust in New Mexico in 2021, after a gun held by Hollywood actor Alec Baldwin fired a live round while he was rehearsing a scene.
He has denied pulling the trigger and has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter. He is expected to go on trial in July.
The film's armourer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who was responsible for the weapons on the set, has been jailed after being found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
Here is a summary of the events so far.
Hutchins was a "wonderful mother, first and foremost", a former colleague told the BBC
Halyna Hutchins dies and director Joel Souza is injured after Alec Baldwin fires a prop gun on a film set for 19th Century western Rust in New Mexico.
Ukrainian-born Hutchins was shot while working as the film's director of photography. The 42-year-old was flown to hospital by helicopter, but died of her injuries. Souza was taken by ambulance from the scene at Bonanza Creek Ranch.
Baldwin, who is also a co-producer of Rust, plays the film's lead and namesake - an outlaw whose 13-year-old grandson is convicted of manslaughter. The actor, 64, is best-known as Jack Donaghy on the NBC sitcom 30 Rock, and for his portrayal of Donald Trump on sketch show Saturday Night Live.
Speaking at the time, he said: "My heart is broken for her husband, their son, and all who knew and loved Halyna." He said he was "fully co-operating with the police investigation".
Joel Souza thanked "hundreds of strangers who reached out" at the time of the shooting
In his first statement since the on-set shooting, injured director Souza says he is "gutted by the loss of my friend and colleague" Hutchins.
Hutchins was fatally shot in the chest. Souza, who had been standing behind her, was treated in hospital for a wound to the shoulder, and later discharged.
Court submissions show assistant director David Halls did not know the gun contained live ammunition, and indicated it was unloaded by shouting "cold gun!"
A vigil takes place in New Mexico to mourn Hutchins, with industry professionals among those lighting candles in her memory.
Legal documents reveal Alec Baldwin was drawing a revolver across his body and pointing it at a camera during the on-set rehearsal when the gun fired.
The shooting occurred on the film set of the western Rust
It is revealed Rust's assistant director, David Halls, had been sacked from a previous production, war drama Freedom's Path, over gun safety violations in 2019.
A statement from the producers of that film told news agency AFP that Halls was dismissed after a crew member "incurred a minor and temporary injury when a gun was unexpectedly discharged".
Halls could not be reached for comment. There is no suggestion that he was at fault for the Rust incident.
Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza said police had recovered evidence, including 500 rounds of ammunition
Criminal charges may still be filed over the shooting on the set of Rust, police say, a week after the tragedy.
Investigators said a "lead projectile" had been removed from director Souza's shoulder, and that it appeared to be part of a live round.
Sante Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza said police had recovered 600 pieces of evidence so far - including three firearms and 500 rounds of ammunition.
Alec Baldwin described the team on the set of Rust as a "well-oiled crew"
Baldwin speaks publicly for the first time since the shooting, calling Hutchins "my friend".
"The day I arrived in Santa Fe and started shooting I took her [Hutchins] to dinner with Joel," he said. "We were a very, very well-oiled crew shooting a film together, and then this horrible event happened."
He said police had ordered him not to discuss the ongoing investigation, but described the accident as a "one-in-a-trillion episode".
He tells reporters he would be in favour of limiting the future use of firearms on film productions to protect people's safety.
Mamie Mitchell (left) and her lawyer, Gloria Allred, spoke to the media
A legal action against Alec Baldwin alleges that the film script did not require him to fire a gun when he fatally shot cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.
Script supervisor Mamie Mitchell - who called police after the shooting on the New Mexico film set - filed the case.
Her lawyer, Gloria Allred, accused the actor of "playing Russian roulette" when he fired the gun without checking it first.
Police obtain a further warrant to search the premises of an arms supplier.
An affidavit - a written statement of evidence - with the warrant says police were told ammunition for the film had come from several sources, including PDQ Arm & Prop.
The affidavit said the ammunition supplier's owner, Seth Kenney, had told investigators the live round may have been from some "reloaded ammunition".
He said the ammunition he supplied for the film consisted of dummy rounds and blanks, according to the affidavit.
Lead actor Baldwin described the shooting as a "one-in-a-trillion event"
Baldwin admits his acting career may be over, telling George Stephanopoulos of ABC News: "It could be", adding that he did not care.
He also says he "didn't pull the trigger" of the gun during the incident, and adds: "Someone put a live bullet in a gun. I know it's not me."
Baldwin said that, while he didn't feel guilty, the incident had left him emotionally scarred.
According to court records, Halls was given the gun by Gutierrez-Reed. Her lawyers have said she did not know where "the live rounds came from". That question lies at the centre of the police investigation.
Police obtain a search warrant for Baldwin's phone, issued by a Sante Fe court. The warrant claims "there may be evidence on the phone" that could be "material and relevant to this investigation".
Investigators move to confiscate Baldwin's iPhone to look at text messages, emails, web browser history and other information.
Investigators, led by District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies, believe Baldwin's phone may contain evidence relevant to their investigation
Despite obtaining a search warrant more than three weeks earlier, in December, officials say they have been unable to obtain Baldwin's phone.
The actor hits back at suggestions he is not complying with the investigation.
In a long video message posted to his Instagram page, the actor says "any suggestion" he had been deliberately evasive with investigators was a "lie".
"They can't just go through your phone and take your photos, or your love letters to your wife, or what have you," Mr Baldwin said. "That is a process that takes time. But of course we are going to comply 1000% with all that."
Gutierrez-Reed sues the prop supplier, alleging his company distributed "a mix of dummy and live ammunition" on set.
She filed her legal claim in New Mexico state court, and is seeking unspecified damages from Seth Kenney and PDQ Arm and Prop LLC. Kenney has not yet commented.
Her claim states: "The ammunition was misrepresented as only dummy ammunition when it contained both dummy and live ammunition."
But in December, Kenney had told Good Morning America: "It's not possible that they [the live rounds] came from PDQ or myself personally."
Court documents state Gutierrez-Reed said police discovered seven bullets suspected of being live ammunition after the shooting, according to AFP news agency.
The documents said the bullets were distributed among a box of cartridges with other ammunition and cartridge belts, intended for the actors to use as accessories.
Baldwin turns over his mobile phone to police investigating the fatal shooting.
It alleges Baldwin "recklessly shot and killed" cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of Rust in October 2021.
Lawyers for the Hutchins' family say she would still be alive if crew members had not cut corners.
The case was filed in the First Judicial District Court of New Mexico on behalf of the cinematographer's husband, Matthew, and son Andros, and seeks unspecified damages.
Hutchins' husband says it is "absurd" that Baldwin is not taking responsibility for her death.
Matthew Hutchins tells NBC's Today: "I was angry to see him talk about her death so publicly in such a detailed way, and then to not accept responsibility after having just described killing her."
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post by TODAY This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
A photo of Halyna Hutchins at a vigil following her death in October
The producers of Rust are fined and strongly criticised by authorities for failing to follow safety guidelines.
The makers of the film showed "plain indifference to recognised hazards associated with use of firearms on set", according to the New Mexico Environment Department.
The agency issues the maximum $136,793 (£105,000) fine to Rust Movie Productions.
In new footage, Baldwin is seen rehearsing with a gun on set moments before Halyna Hutchins' fatal injury
Police release footage from the set of Rust, including of the aftermath of the fatal shooting.
Santa Fe Sheriff Adan Mendoza also releases crime scene photos and witness interviews with people including Baldwin.
Alec Baldwin said he said he did not pull the trigger but the revolver fired after he cocked it
The producers of Rust dispute an official report saying they were indifferent to gun safety before the on-set shooting tragedy.
Rust Movie Productions says it "enforced all applicable safety protocols".
In legal documents filed to contest the official findings, the firm also said it "did not 'wilfully' violate any safety protocol".
Filming of Rust will continue in January 2023, with her widower Matthew on board as the movie's executive producer.
All parties believe Hutchins' death was an accident, her husband said.
The exact terms of the settlement, which is subject to court approval, are not disclosed.
Heather Brewer, spokesperson for the office of the first judicial district attorney for New Mexico, said the proposed settlement "will have no impact on District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altweis' ongoing investigation, or her ultimate decision whether to file criminal charges in the case".
Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed will each will be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter over the shooting of Halyna Hutchins, District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies announces.
Lawyers for both say they intend to fight the charges in court.
Both face up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 (£4,040) fine if convicted. They will be tried by a jury, prosecutors say.
Assistant director David Halls entered a guilty plea to a misdemeanour charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon, prosecutors said. He will spend six months serving probation.
Baldwin is photographed in New York in January
Baldwin was on the phone during firearms training for Rust, prosecutors say, as they charge him with involuntary manslaughter.
Santa Fe's District Attorney's Office accuse the actor of "many instances of extremely reckless acts".
"If Mr Baldwin had performed mandatory safety checks with armourer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed and not pointed the gun at Hutchins, the "tragedy would not have occurred", wrote Robert Shilling. He is a special investigator for the district attorney's office, and wrote this in a statement of probable cause filed with the manslaughter charges.
Baldwin has previously denied responsibility for the shooting and a representative declined to comment to the BBC.
A lawyer for Gutierrez-Reed says she "will fight these charges" and blamed Halls for not letting her know that a real gun was to be used in the moment when the fatal shooting occurred.
Hutchins' family files a new civil suit against Alec Baldwin and producers involved in Rust.
Their lawyer, Gloria Allred, says they were "devastated by the shocking killing" and "feel strongly that anyone who is responsible for her loss must be held accountable".
The case alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence, and is being brought in Los Angeles County Superior Court by Hutchins' mother, father and sister, who are living in Ukraine.
Filming on Rust is to resume this spring, according to US reports, with Baldwin remaining in the the starring role. It is shifting location to Montana.
A mix of new and old crew members will work on the film, with Bianca Cline taking over as cinematographer.
Meanwhile Hutchins' widower Matthew has also approved a documentary about his late wife, producers said.
The documentary, made "at [executive producer, Mr] Hutchins' behest, and with his blessing and support" will explore Ms Hutchins' life and "final work, including the completion of the film", a statement said.
Rust Movie productions, which Baldwin is part of, have said that the scene which was being rehearsed when Ms Hutchins was shot has now been rewritten, and that the "any use of working weapons and any form of ammunition" had been barred from the set.
Prosecutors in New Mexico drop firearm enhancement charges against Baldwin, in a move which reduces possible prison time for the actor, as the charges carry a mandatory five-year prison sentence.
He still faces up to 18 months in prison under involuntary manslaughter charges.
Heather Brewer, Santa Fe county district attorney spokesperson, said the prosecution dropped the firearm enhancement charge to "avoid further litigious distractions by Mr Baldwin and his attorneys".
According to CBS News, the BBC's US partner, prosecutors also dropped the firearm enhancement charge for Gutierrez-Reed.
Lawyers for Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed had been arguing against the firearm enhancement charge, saying prosecutors were applying a version of the law passed after the October 2021 shooting accident.
Baldwin pleads not guilty to involuntary manslaughter for the fatal shooting of Halyna Hutchins on the set of Rust.
He entered his plea online and also waived his right to an upcoming virtual court hearing.
Gutierrez-Reed is also accused of involuntary manslaughter; prosecutors say she failed to ensure that dummy bullets were loaded into the gun that killed Hutchins.
Criminal charges are dropped against Alec Baldwin over the fatal on-set shooting.
A statement, released by New Mexico special prosecutors Kari Morrissey and Jason Lewis, said that "over the last few days... new facts were revealed" in the case, requiring further investigation.
"This decision does not absolve Mr Baldwin of criminal culpability and charges may be refiled," the statement continued, adding: "Our follow-up investigation will remain active and ongoing."
A lawyer for Mr Baldwin praised the move by prosecutors, saying: "We are pleased with the decision to dismiss the case against Alec Baldwin and we encourage a proper investigation into the facts and circumstances of this tragic accident."
The film's armourer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, is still facing two counts of involuntary manslaughter, and there will be a preliminary hearing on 3 May.
On the same day, filming and principal photography for Rust resumed in Montana.
The family of Halyna Hutchins said they will sue Alec Baldwin despite his criminal charges being dropped.
A lawyer for Ms Hutchins' parents and sister said that the actor "cannot escape responsibility" for her death.
Mr Baldwin had already reached a deal with her widower and 10-year-old son.
A judge approved a settlement agreement for the family of Halyna Hutchins.
Lawyers representing Ms Hutchins' husband Matthew and their son Andros sued Baldwin and the film's other producers for wrongful death in 2022.
An undisclosed settlement was agreed later the same year.
On Thursday, US judge Bryan Biedscheid approved that agreement, which will see youngster Andros receive "periodic payments" when he reaches the ages of 18 and 22.
The order stated that the settlement was "fair, appropriate, and in the best interests of Andros Hutchins, a minor, protected person".
Matthew Hutchins, as part of the settlement, will also become an executive producer on Rust - the western film which recently resumed filming in Montana.
The fatal incident happened in Bonanaza Creek Ranch, New Mexico
A weapons supervisor on the set of Alec Baldwin's film Rust was likely hungover on the day a cinematographer was fatally shot, prosecutors alleged.
They accused Hannah Gutierrez-Reed of drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana in the evenings during filming.
In response, her lawyer said prosecutors had mishandled the case and resorted to "character assassination".
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armourer and weapons supervisor on Rust pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter and evidence tampering charges.
Prosecutors say Ms Gutierrez-Reed acted recklessly when loading the gun.
They said she failed to ensure that dummy bullets were loaded into the weapon that killed Ms Hutchins, and that the armourer handed the gun to Baldwin, having not checked that all the bullets were dummies.
A new report appeared to cast doubt over Mr Baldwin's accounts of events.
He repeatedly denied pulling the trigger of the prop gun which went off, killing Ms Hutchins.
But weapons experts said the trigger would have "had to be pulled".
A grand jury in New Mexico charged Alec Baldwin with a fresh count of involuntary manslaughter over the shooting.
Local prosecutors shared "additional facts" from forensic tests on the weapon used in the shooting.
The actor's lawyers told the BBC: "We look forward to our day in court."
He has maintained he did not pull the trigger of the Colt .45 pistol and only drew back its hammer.
Ms Gutierrez-Reed went on trial, pleading not guilty to charges of involuntary manslaughter and tampering with evidence.
Ms Gutierrez-Reed was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter but not guilty of evidence tampering.
In closing arguments, prosecutors told jurors that she had failed to ensure the weapon was only loaded with dummy rounds - fake bullets used to look and sound like real ones.
Ms Gutierrez-Reed did not testify, but her lawyer said prosecutors had failed to prove his client was the sole person responsible for the fatal shooting.
Ms Gutierrez-Reed was given the maximum sentence of 18 months in prison.
Before being sentenced, she tearfully addressed the court, saying that her heart ached for the Hutchins family and friends. "The jury found me guilty; that does not make me a monster. That makes me human," she said.
But the judge told her: "You alone turned a safe weapon into a lethal weapon. But for you, Ms Hutchins would be alive."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64824526
|
news_entertainment-arts-64824526
|
|
A guide to Donald Trump's four criminal cases - BBC News
|
2024-04-16
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The former president is juggling potentially explosive legal battles with campaigning for the White House.
|
US & Canada
|
Donald Trump is heading towards a likely election rematch with Joe Biden in November, but this time around he's juggling campaigning with some potentially explosive legal battles.
The 77-year-old, who is the first former president in US history to be criminally charged, now faces dozens of charges across four separate cases.
And his legal troubles don't end there, as Mr Trump is also facing several civil cases relating to, among other things, the business empire that made his name. There are crucial legal appeals that are yet to be settled too, including one on whether he is immune from prosecution.
Here, we'll focus on the four criminal cases Mr Trump is facing and explain what they're about, what could happen next and, crucially, what's at stake as he seeks to return to the White House.
A payment made to the adult film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election.
Ms Daniels says she was paid $130,000 (£103,000) to stay quiet after having sex with Mr Trump, who denies they ever had an affair.
It's worth noting, though, that providing so-called hush-money is not in fact illegal.
Instead, this case is more technical and centres on how Mr Trump's former lawyer, who paid Ms Daniels, had his reimbursement recorded in Mr Trump's accounts.
The former president is accused of falsifying his business records by saying the payment was for legal fees. He's facing 34 counts of fraud under campaign finance laws, and has pleaded not guilty to all of them.
Mr Trump has said the case is politically motivated. "This is just a way of hurting me in the election," he told reporters. "This is not a crime."
Jury selection begins on 15 April, with the trial proper expected to start a week or two after that.
It was delayed by a month when a judge granted a request to allow time for new evidence to be reviewed.
It will be the first criminal trial of a US president.
Could Mr Trump go to prison?
Each of the charges carries a maximum of four years in prison, although a judge could sentence Mr Trump to probation if he is convicted.
Legal experts told the BBC they think it is unlikely Mr Trump will be jailed if convicted in this case and that a fine is the more likely outcome.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, is using a rarely used strategy to bring felony charges rather than less serious misdemeanours.
Whether Mr Trump illegally conspired to overturn his 2020 election defeat to Joe Biden.
Federal prosecutors allege he pressured officials to reverse the results, knowingly spread lies about election fraud and sought to exploit the Capitol riot on 6 January 2021 to delay the certification of Mr Biden's victory and stay in power.
He's been charged with four criminal counts, including conspiracy to defraud the US and conspiracy against the rights of citizens.
Some had speculated he would be charged with insurrection, or aiding insurrection, but that is not one of the charges.
He has denied wrongdoing and made an unsubstantiated accusation that the Biden administration is behind the prosecution.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch the moment Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol building
It has been postponed indefinitely while an appeal from Mr Trump plays out.
The Supreme Court will rule on Mr Trump's argument that a former president cannot be prosecuted like any other citizen.
Justices will hear the case on 25 April and decide by June.
The challenge increases the chances that this trial may not happen before November's election.
And if Mr Trump were to win the vote, he could in theory pardon himself or order the charges to be dismissed.
Could Mr Trump go to prison?
But there are logistical, security and political questions around whether Mr Trump would actually serve time in jail even if convicted.
A conviction at trial would take the US into uncharted territory.
Mr Trump and some 18 other defendants are accused of criminally conspiring to overturn his very narrow defeat in the state of Georgia in the 2020 election.
The huge racketeering investigation, led by Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis, was sparked in part by a leaked phone call in which the former president asked the state's top election official to "find 11,780 votes".
Mr Trump was hit 13 criminal counts, subsequently reduced to 10. They include one alleged violation of Georgia's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Rico).
The former president has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in the case and has entered a plea of not guilty.
Prosecutors want the case to begin in August, but a date has not been set.
The timeline was complicated by a failed effort to disqualify Ms Willis because of her romantic relationship with a man she hired to work on the case.
Could Mr Trump go to prison?
Georgia prosecutors would need to prove that there was a pattern of corruption from Mr Trump and his co-defendants aimed at overturning the election result in order to bring a conviction.
As for making false statements, that carries a penalty of between one to five years in prison or a fine.
Whether Mr Trump mishandled classified documents by taking them from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago residence after he left office.
It's also about whether he obstructed the FBI's efforts to retrieve the files, as well as the criminal investigation into his handling of them.
The majority of the counts are for the wilful retention of national defence information, which falls under the Espionage Act.
There are then eight individual counts, which include conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record and making false statements. Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty on all counts.
Prosecutors want it to start in July.
Mr Trump and his lawyers want it put off until after the November presidential election.
Could Mr Trump go to prison?
These charges could, in theory, lead to substantial prison time if Mr Trump is convicted.
Looking at the letter of the law, the counts under the Espionage Act each carry a maximum sentence of 10 years. Other counts, related to conspiracy and withholding or concealing documents, each carry maximum sentences of 20 years.
But the logistics of jailing a former president mean a conventional prison sentence is seen as unlikely by many experts.
If you're in the UK, sign up here.
And if you're anywhere else, sign up here.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61084161
|
news_world-us-canada-61084161
|
|
Sub-postmistress jailed while pregnant rejects ex-Post Office boss' apology - BBC News
|
2024-04-17
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Seema Misra was pregnant when she was wrongly jailed after being prosecuted by the Post Office.
|
Business
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Seema Misra was pregnant when she was jailed
A former sub-postmistress who was wrongly jailed while she was pregnant has rejected an apology by a former Post Office boss who congratulated the team behind her conviction.
"Brilliant news. Well done," wrote then managing director David Smith in an email to colleagues in 2010.
Seema Misra was eight weeks pregnant with her second child when she was sentenced to 15 months in prison.
Mr Smith apologised to Mrs Misra at the inquiry into the Post Office scandal.
He said that in hindsight, his email following her conviction was "poorly thought through".
But following Thursday's evidence, Mrs Misra told the BBC: "How can I accept the apology? They need to apologise to my 10 year old, they took his mum away on his birthday.
"I was eight weeks pregnant - they need to apologise to my youngest son. It was terrible. I haven't accepted the apologies."
Mrs Misra was sent to Bronzefield prison on the day of her eldest son's 10th birthday after being wrongly convicted of stealing £70,000 from her Post Office branch in the village of West Byfleet in Surrey.
She served four-and-a-half months and gave birth to her second son wearing an electronic tag.
She told the BBC that she had seen Mr Smith's email before. "Seeing it again makes me more and more angry," she added.
Mrs Misra was one of more than 700 sub-postmasters and postmistresses prosecuted between 1999 and 2015 for theft and false accounting after a faulty computer system called Horizon made it look like money was missing from their branches.
Some, like Mrs Misra, were convicted and sent to prison. Many others were left financially ruined and lost their jobs, businesses and homes. Some died while waiting for justice.
Hundreds of people wrongly convicted are set to have their names cleared under new legislation expected to come into force in July, but when it comes to financial redress, just 37 people have received full and final compensation settlements to date.
Mr Smith was managing director of the Post Office from April to October 2010. His brief stint in charge was prior to Paula Vennells - who was heavily depicted in the ITV drama which thrust the scandal back into the spotlight - taking up the role as chief executive from 2012 to 2019.
In his witness statement to the public inquiry, Mr Smith said his email following Mrs Misra's conviction was "intended to be a congratulatory" to the legal team.
"Brilliant news. Well done. Please pass on my thanks to the team," said Mr Smith's 2010 email.
Asked by Sam Stevens, counsel to the inquiry, on Thursday why Mrs Misra's conviction was "brilliant news", Mr Smith replied: "I would just like to place on record an apology to Seema Misra and family because of the way this has been perceived and portrayed subsequently.
"Looking at it through their eyes rather than through mine you can see that it may have caused substantial upset and I really do apologise for that."
Mr Smith said his email to the legal team was "thank you for all your hard work. It's terrific that you got the result you got and I'm really happy that we have progressed".
"It's nothing more or less than that," he added, but admitted: "In the benefit of hindsight and looking through the 2024 lens and not the 2010 lens, at best, from Seema's perspective, you can see this is really poorly thought through."
The former managing director said Mrs Misra's conviction, which has since been overturned, was seen as a "test" of the Horizon system, which the organisation believed was "tamper proof".
Mr Smith denied having knowledge of a Horizon bug before the trial of the subpostmistress in 2010, and said he was "shocked and frankly appalled" at claims the Post Office knew of faults in the IT system while prosecuting Mrs Misra.
Mr Smith also rejected claims that an investigation commissioned - known as the Ismay report - into the computer system's integrity was a cover up.
The essence of the report, produced by Rod Ismay who worked in finance at the Post Office in 2010, was that there were no fundamental problems with Horizon.
In May last year, Mr Ismay told the inquiry he agreed with the suggestion he was asked to "present one side of the coin", rather than carry out a full investigation.
Mr Smith denied the report was intended as a "counter-argument" to allegations against Horizon, but accepted in his witness statement that in hindsight he should have commissioned a full, independent probe.
"At the time we were repeatedly given reassurance that the system was robust," said Mr Smith.
Former Post Office chairman Sir Michael Hodgkinson also apologised to sub-postmasters on Thursday.
Sir Michael, who was chairman from 2003 to 2007 admitted to the inquiry he "didn't do anything" to check if the business was prosecuting its own people properly.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68787990
|
news_business-68787990
|
|
Rust trial: How events unfolded after fatal shooting on Alec Baldwin film set - BBC News
|
2024-04-17
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
A look at the events after the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of Rust in 2021.
|
Entertainment & Arts
|
Alec Baldwin has pleaded not guilty in court to involuntary manslaughter
Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins died on the set of Western film Rust in New Mexico in 2021, after a gun held by Hollywood actor Alec Baldwin fired a live round while he was rehearsing a scene.
He has denied pulling the trigger and has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter. He is expected to go on trial in July.
The film's armourer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who was responsible for the weapons on the set, has been jailed after being found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
Here is a summary of the events so far.
Hutchins was a "wonderful mother, first and foremost", a former colleague told the BBC
Halyna Hutchins dies and director Joel Souza is injured after Alec Baldwin fires a prop gun on a film set for 19th Century western Rust in New Mexico.
Ukrainian-born Hutchins was shot while working as the film's director of photography. The 42-year-old was flown to hospital by helicopter, but died of her injuries. Souza was taken by ambulance from the scene at Bonanza Creek Ranch.
Baldwin, who is also a co-producer of Rust, plays the film's lead and namesake - an outlaw whose 13-year-old grandson is convicted of manslaughter. The actor, 64, is best-known as Jack Donaghy on the NBC sitcom 30 Rock, and for his portrayal of Donald Trump on sketch show Saturday Night Live.
Speaking at the time, he said: "My heart is broken for her husband, their son, and all who knew and loved Halyna." He said he was "fully co-operating with the police investigation".
Joel Souza thanked "hundreds of strangers who reached out" at the time of the shooting
In his first statement since the on-set shooting, injured director Souza says he is "gutted by the loss of my friend and colleague" Hutchins.
Hutchins was fatally shot in the chest. Souza, who had been standing behind her, was treated in hospital for a wound to the shoulder, and later discharged.
Court submissions show assistant director David Halls did not know the gun contained live ammunition, and indicated it was unloaded by shouting "cold gun!"
A vigil takes place in New Mexico to mourn Hutchins, with industry professionals among those lighting candles in her memory.
Legal documents reveal Alec Baldwin was drawing a revolver across his body and pointing it at a camera during the on-set rehearsal when the gun fired.
The shooting occurred on the film set of the western Rust
It is revealed Rust's assistant director, David Halls, had been sacked from a previous production, war drama Freedom's Path, over gun safety violations in 2019.
A statement from the producers of that film told news agency AFP that Halls was dismissed after a crew member "incurred a minor and temporary injury when a gun was unexpectedly discharged".
Halls could not be reached for comment. There is no suggestion that he was at fault for the Rust incident.
Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza said police had recovered evidence, including 500 rounds of ammunition
Criminal charges may still be filed over the shooting on the set of Rust, police say, a week after the tragedy.
Investigators said a "lead projectile" had been removed from director Souza's shoulder, and that it appeared to be part of a live round.
Sante Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza said police had recovered 600 pieces of evidence so far - including three firearms and 500 rounds of ammunition.
Alec Baldwin described the team on the set of Rust as a "well-oiled crew"
Baldwin speaks publicly for the first time since the shooting, calling Hutchins "my friend".
"The day I arrived in Santa Fe and started shooting I took her [Hutchins] to dinner with Joel," he said. "We were a very, very well-oiled crew shooting a film together, and then this horrible event happened."
He said police had ordered him not to discuss the ongoing investigation, but described the accident as a "one-in-a-trillion episode".
He tells reporters he would be in favour of limiting the future use of firearms on film productions to protect people's safety.
Mamie Mitchell (left) and her lawyer, Gloria Allred, spoke to the media
A legal action against Alec Baldwin alleges that the film script did not require him to fire a gun when he fatally shot cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.
Script supervisor Mamie Mitchell - who called police after the shooting on the New Mexico film set - filed the case.
Her lawyer, Gloria Allred, accused the actor of "playing Russian roulette" when he fired the gun without checking it first.
Police obtain a further warrant to search the premises of an arms supplier.
An affidavit - a written statement of evidence - with the warrant says police were told ammunition for the film had come from several sources, including PDQ Arm & Prop.
The affidavit said the ammunition supplier's owner, Seth Kenney, had told investigators the live round may have been from some "reloaded ammunition".
He said the ammunition he supplied for the film consisted of dummy rounds and blanks, according to the affidavit.
Lead actor Baldwin described the shooting as a "one-in-a-trillion event"
Baldwin admits his acting career may be over, telling George Stephanopoulos of ABC News: "It could be", adding that he did not care.
He also says he "didn't pull the trigger" of the gun during the incident, and adds: "Someone put a live bullet in a gun. I know it's not me."
Baldwin said that, while he didn't feel guilty, the incident had left him emotionally scarred.
According to court records, Halls was given the gun by Gutierrez-Reed. Her lawyers have said she did not know where "the live rounds came from". That question lies at the centre of the police investigation.
Police obtain a search warrant for Baldwin's phone, issued by a Sante Fe court. The warrant claims "there may be evidence on the phone" that could be "material and relevant to this investigation".
Investigators move to confiscate Baldwin's iPhone to look at text messages, emails, web browser history and other information.
Investigators, led by District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies, believe Baldwin's phone may contain evidence relevant to their investigation
Despite obtaining a search warrant more than three weeks earlier, in December, officials say they have been unable to obtain Baldwin's phone.
The actor hits back at suggestions he is not complying with the investigation.
In a long video message posted to his Instagram page, the actor says "any suggestion" he had been deliberately evasive with investigators was a "lie".
"They can't just go through your phone and take your photos, or your love letters to your wife, or what have you," Mr Baldwin said. "That is a process that takes time. But of course we are going to comply 1000% with all that."
Gutierrez-Reed sues the prop supplier, alleging his company distributed "a mix of dummy and live ammunition" on set.
She filed her legal claim in New Mexico state court, and is seeking unspecified damages from Seth Kenney and PDQ Arm and Prop LLC. Kenney has not yet commented.
Her claim states: "The ammunition was misrepresented as only dummy ammunition when it contained both dummy and live ammunition."
But in December, Kenney had told Good Morning America: "It's not possible that they [the live rounds] came from PDQ or myself personally."
Court documents state Gutierrez-Reed said police discovered seven bullets suspected of being live ammunition after the shooting, according to AFP news agency.
The documents said the bullets were distributed among a box of cartridges with other ammunition and cartridge belts, intended for the actors to use as accessories.
Baldwin turns over his mobile phone to police investigating the fatal shooting.
It alleges Baldwin "recklessly shot and killed" cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of Rust in October 2021.
Lawyers for the Hutchins' family say she would still be alive if crew members had not cut corners.
The case was filed in the First Judicial District Court of New Mexico on behalf of the cinematographer's husband, Matthew, and son Andros, and seeks unspecified damages.
Hutchins' husband says it is "absurd" that Baldwin is not taking responsibility for her death.
Matthew Hutchins tells NBC's Today: "I was angry to see him talk about her death so publicly in such a detailed way, and then to not accept responsibility after having just described killing her."
This Twitter post cannot be displayed in your browser. Please enable Javascript or try a different browser. View original content on Twitter The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Skip twitter post by TODAY This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter’s cookie policy, external and privacy policy, external before accepting. To view this content choose ‘accept and continue’. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
A photo of Halyna Hutchins at a vigil following her death in October
The producers of Rust are fined and strongly criticised by authorities for failing to follow safety guidelines.
The makers of the film showed "plain indifference to recognised hazards associated with use of firearms on set", according to the New Mexico Environment Department.
The agency issues the maximum $136,793 (£105,000) fine to Rust Movie Productions.
In new footage, Baldwin is seen rehearsing with a gun on set moments before Halyna Hutchins' fatal injury
Police release footage from the set of Rust, including of the aftermath of the fatal shooting.
Santa Fe Sheriff Adan Mendoza also releases crime scene photos and witness interviews with people including Baldwin.
Alec Baldwin said he said he did not pull the trigger but the revolver fired after he cocked it
The producers of Rust dispute an official report saying they were indifferent to gun safety before the on-set shooting tragedy.
Rust Movie Productions says it "enforced all applicable safety protocols".
In legal documents filed to contest the official findings, the firm also said it "did not 'wilfully' violate any safety protocol".
Filming of Rust will continue in January 2023, with her widower Matthew on board as the movie's executive producer.
All parties believe Hutchins' death was an accident, her husband said.
The exact terms of the settlement, which is subject to court approval, are not disclosed.
Heather Brewer, spokesperson for the office of the first judicial district attorney for New Mexico, said the proposed settlement "will have no impact on District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altweis' ongoing investigation, or her ultimate decision whether to file criminal charges in the case".
Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed will each will be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter over the shooting of Halyna Hutchins, District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies announces.
Lawyers for both say they intend to fight the charges in court.
Both face up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 (£4,040) fine if convicted. They will be tried by a jury, prosecutors say.
Assistant director David Halls entered a guilty plea to a misdemeanour charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon, prosecutors said. He will spend six months serving probation.
Baldwin is photographed in New York in January
Baldwin was on the phone during firearms training for Rust, prosecutors say, as they charge him with involuntary manslaughter.
Santa Fe's District Attorney's Office accuse the actor of "many instances of extremely reckless acts".
"If Mr Baldwin had performed mandatory safety checks with armourer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed and not pointed the gun at Hutchins, the "tragedy would not have occurred", wrote Robert Shilling. He is a special investigator for the district attorney's office, and wrote this in a statement of probable cause filed with the manslaughter charges.
Baldwin has previously denied responsibility for the shooting and a representative declined to comment to the BBC.
A lawyer for Gutierrez-Reed says she "will fight these charges" and blamed Halls for not letting her know that a real gun was to be used in the moment when the fatal shooting occurred.
Hutchins' family files a new civil suit against Alec Baldwin and producers involved in Rust.
Their lawyer, Gloria Allred, says they were "devastated by the shocking killing" and "feel strongly that anyone who is responsible for her loss must be held accountable".
The case alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence, and is being brought in Los Angeles County Superior Court by Hutchins' mother, father and sister, who are living in Ukraine.
Filming on Rust is to resume this spring, according to US reports, with Baldwin remaining in the the starring role. It is shifting location to Montana.
A mix of new and old crew members will work on the film, with Bianca Cline taking over as cinematographer.
Meanwhile Hutchins' widower Matthew has also approved a documentary about his late wife, producers said.
The documentary, made "at [executive producer, Mr] Hutchins' behest, and with his blessing and support" will explore Ms Hutchins' life and "final work, including the completion of the film", a statement said.
Rust Movie productions, which Baldwin is part of, have said that the scene which was being rehearsed when Ms Hutchins was shot has now been rewritten, and that the "any use of working weapons and any form of ammunition" had been barred from the set.
Prosecutors in New Mexico drop firearm enhancement charges against Baldwin, in a move which reduces possible prison time for the actor, as the charges carry a mandatory five-year prison sentence.
He still faces up to 18 months in prison under involuntary manslaughter charges.
Heather Brewer, Santa Fe county district attorney spokesperson, said the prosecution dropped the firearm enhancement charge to "avoid further litigious distractions by Mr Baldwin and his attorneys".
According to CBS News, the BBC's US partner, prosecutors also dropped the firearm enhancement charge for Gutierrez-Reed.
Lawyers for Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed had been arguing against the firearm enhancement charge, saying prosecutors were applying a version of the law passed after the October 2021 shooting accident.
Baldwin pleads not guilty to involuntary manslaughter for the fatal shooting of Halyna Hutchins on the set of Rust.
He entered his plea online and also waived his right to an upcoming virtual court hearing.
Gutierrez-Reed is also accused of involuntary manslaughter; prosecutors say she failed to ensure that dummy bullets were loaded into the gun that killed Hutchins.
Criminal charges are dropped against Alec Baldwin over the fatal on-set shooting.
A statement, released by New Mexico special prosecutors Kari Morrissey and Jason Lewis, said that "over the last few days... new facts were revealed" in the case, requiring further investigation.
"This decision does not absolve Mr Baldwin of criminal culpability and charges may be refiled," the statement continued, adding: "Our follow-up investigation will remain active and ongoing."
A lawyer for Mr Baldwin praised the move by prosecutors, saying: "We are pleased with the decision to dismiss the case against Alec Baldwin and we encourage a proper investigation into the facts and circumstances of this tragic accident."
The film's armourer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, is still facing two counts of involuntary manslaughter, and there will be a preliminary hearing on 3 May.
On the same day, filming and principal photography for Rust resumed in Montana.
The family of Halyna Hutchins said they will sue Alec Baldwin despite his criminal charges being dropped.
A lawyer for Ms Hutchins' parents and sister said that the actor "cannot escape responsibility" for her death.
Mr Baldwin had already reached a deal with her widower and 10-year-old son.
A judge approved a settlement agreement for the family of Halyna Hutchins.
Lawyers representing Ms Hutchins' husband Matthew and their son Andros sued Baldwin and the film's other producers for wrongful death in 2022.
An undisclosed settlement was agreed later the same year.
On Thursday, US judge Bryan Biedscheid approved that agreement, which will see youngster Andros receive "periodic payments" when he reaches the ages of 18 and 22.
The order stated that the settlement was "fair, appropriate, and in the best interests of Andros Hutchins, a minor, protected person".
Matthew Hutchins, as part of the settlement, will also become an executive producer on Rust - the western film which recently resumed filming in Montana.
The fatal incident happened in Bonanaza Creek Ranch, New Mexico
A weapons supervisor on the set of Alec Baldwin's film Rust was likely hungover on the day a cinematographer was fatally shot, prosecutors alleged.
They accused Hannah Gutierrez-Reed of drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana in the evenings during filming.
In response, her lawyer said prosecutors had mishandled the case and resorted to "character assassination".
Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armourer and weapons supervisor on Rust pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter and evidence tampering charges.
Prosecutors say Ms Gutierrez-Reed acted recklessly when loading the gun.
They said she failed to ensure that dummy bullets were loaded into the weapon that killed Ms Hutchins, and that the armourer handed the gun to Baldwin, having not checked that all the bullets were dummies.
A new report appeared to cast doubt over Mr Baldwin's accounts of events.
He repeatedly denied pulling the trigger of the prop gun which went off, killing Ms Hutchins.
But weapons experts said the trigger would have "had to be pulled".
A grand jury in New Mexico charged Alec Baldwin with a fresh count of involuntary manslaughter over the shooting.
Local prosecutors shared "additional facts" from forensic tests on the weapon used in the shooting.
The actor's lawyers told the BBC: "We look forward to our day in court."
He has maintained he did not pull the trigger of the Colt .45 pistol and only drew back its hammer.
Ms Gutierrez-Reed went on trial, pleading not guilty to charges of involuntary manslaughter and tampering with evidence.
Ms Gutierrez-Reed was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter but not guilty of evidence tampering.
In closing arguments, prosecutors told jurors that she had failed to ensure the weapon was only loaded with dummy rounds - fake bullets used to look and sound like real ones.
Ms Gutierrez-Reed did not testify, but her lawyer said prosecutors had failed to prove his client was the sole person responsible for the fatal shooting.
Ms Gutierrez-Reed was given the maximum sentence of 18 months in prison.
Before being sentenced, she tearfully addressed the court, saying that her heart ached for the Hutchins family and friends. "The jury found me guilty; that does not make me a monster. That makes me human," she said.
But the judge told her: "You alone turned a safe weapon into a lethal weapon. But for you, Ms Hutchins would be alive."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64824526
|
news_entertainment-arts-64824526
|
|
How mayors became the fashionable new thing in England - BBC News
|
2024-04-19
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Ahead of elections in May, political editor Chris Mason looks at England's mayoral model.
|
UK Politics
|
Andy Street is emphasising his own brand rather than the Conservative one
They are the novel innovation in how increasing swathes of England are now governed.
And there is one heck of a contest going on in the West Midlands.
Conservative Andy Street, twice a victor here, has long worn his party affiliation lightly - and perhaps no more than now.
"I actually call it brand Andy. It's that first name. Who is going to lead this region? We're not choosing a party to run the region. We're choosing an individual," he tells me.
"My number one promise: place before party," it says in his manifesto.
His Labour rival is Richard Parker. One look at the national opinion polls, suggesting the Conservatives are miles behind, and little wonder many expect Mr Parker to win.
Yes, one poll the other day suggested Labour were well ahead. But another more recent one suggested the opposite.
"We know mayoral elections are very close, they are different to national elections," Mr Street tells me
Richard Parker hopes he has a distinctive pitch in wanting to bring the buses here under his control.
"There are stories of people being unable to get to the doctors, to the high street, to college or to places where their jobs are. I don't think we can rebuild this region unless we overhaul the transport system," he says.
But he has to face questions about Labour-run Birmingham City Council, which has cranked up council tax big time, while cutting services.
"Let's be clear, Birmingham has had many issues, mistakes have been made," he says.
But, he claims, government cuts to its budget have also "done a lot of damage."
Also chasing votes here, Sunny Virk of the Liberal Democrats, Reform UK's Elaine Williams, Green Siobhan Harper-Nunes and independent Akhmed Yakoob.
It is a regional contest that will prompt national headlines. And that is sort of the point.
It was back in 2000 that London introduced the idea of a directly elected mayor.
At the beginning of May, contests will happen to elect ten of them around England.
North Yorkshire, much of the north east of England and the East Midlands are electing mayors for the first time - and elsewhere it is still fairly new.
It will mean that around half the population of England will have an elected mayor.
There are no directly elected mayors in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland. Although the Labour leader in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, has floated the idea of them.
"The role of mayors within England has been growing over the last decade. That's what is really exciting about the elections," Millie Mitchell from the Institute for Government tells me.
"These are increasingly powerful figures, with power over transport, skills, the local economy, the environment. Collectively they control £25bn of public spending, which is really quite substantial," she adds.
You can read more about this from the Institute for Government here.
The idea is mayors are much more visible than council leaders and represent much bigger patches than MPs.
And, so the argument goes, they are much better known - and visibility brings accountability. And means a collection of regional figures have a national platform.
But the mayoral model around England remains a patchwork. There are mayors in some places, not in others.
While some may baulk at the idea of more politicians, they are currently fashionable. The Conservatives and Labour like the idea.
And that means if you haven't got one yet, that may change before long.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68851794
|
news_uk-politics-68851794
|
|
FA Cup & Premier League predictions: Chris Sutton v singer and Arsenal fan Sam Tompkins - BBC Sport
|
2024-04-19
|
None
|
BBC Sport football expert Chris Sutton takes on singer and Arsenal fan Sam Tompkins to make predictions for this weekend's FA Cup semi-final ties and Premier League games.
| null |
Cole Palmer has been Chelsea's standout performer this season - can he lift them again to sink former club Manchester City in Saturday's FA Cup semi-final?
"Pep Guardiola and City have not made many errors in the transfer market, but there's one," said BBC Sport's football expert Chris Sutton.
"It's not just his goals, it's the way he moves and takes the ball and makes things happen. Chelsea's plan a lot of the time is basically 'get the ball to Palmer'. When it goes to him, you think 'here we go', and it will be the same at Wembley.
"Whatever happens in this game, I think Pep will regret selling him last summer.
"He may not have thought Palmer was going to develop like he has done, but he is one hell of a player and I am sure he would have benefited City this season - including moments like Wednesday, when they needed a game-changer against Real Madrid."
As well as the FA Cup, Sutton is making predictions for every Premier League game this season against a variety of guests.
For all of this weekend's games in both competitions, he takes on singer-songwriter and Arsenal fan Sam Tompkins.
Tompkins new single Numb was released this week. His debut album Hi My Name Is Insecure is out on 24 May.
Sam grew up in Eastbourne but is a lifelong Arsenal fan.
"I can't really put my finger on the moment I started supporting them, because it's more that it was always around me," he told BBC Sport.
"My grandad and my uncle on my mum's side were huge Arsenal fans and one of my earliest memories is of being sat on my grandad's knee, watching a game.
"That is how it started, then my first season of watching football fully as a human being on this planet was the Invincibles season, and my first hero on earth was Thierry Henry.
"So, you can imagine how much that locked me in - but under false pretences of what was to come for Arsenal!
"It was impossible to live up to that, and it gave me such an unrealistic idea of what the Premier League is like - but I would not trade my fan journey with anyone.
"I have seen us go through so many bad times, so to see us doing this well again is amazing, especially with Bukayo Saka, who has come through the academy to become our star player, at the centre of it all too. That is important, and refreshing.
"At the start of this year I actually got to present Martin Odegaard with his player of the month award, which was nuts because they hadn't told me I was doing it. They just surprised me as I was getting in the lift down to pitchside to do an interview.
"Also, I had a recent tragedy in my family and I got a letter signed from Mikel Arteta himself, which was a super nice touch, and meant an awful lot.
"So, I really feel like after all these years, I support the right club."
Sam is enjoying watching the Gunners challenging for the top honours again after a few lean years, and feels there is more to come from Arteta's side, whether they win the Premier League this season or not.
"When I look back at the Invincibles side, I loved so many of the players but there is something about our team now where I feel, if I was a kid now, it would give me the same feeling," he explained.
"The biggest thing I love about us now is our drive. There was that moment a few games ago where we were 3-0 up against Brighton and Gabriel blocked a shot in stoppage time, then the whole team celebrated with him like he had scored.
"That's the kind of elite mentality we have not had for years, and it is what you need to win things.
"We are a young team too. Declan Rice has transformed us in the middle of the park and the way the ball is fed through. He makes you feel so confident as a fan, and he is going to be so important for us for the next few years.
"And I have such a soft spot in my heart for Ben White, who has been fantastic for us, especially in this calendar year.
"I performed at Ben's wedding last summer and since then we've become quite good mates, so to see him playing so well is amazing."
Chris Sutton and Sam Tompkins were speaking to BBC Sport's Chris Bevan.
There are no replays. AET = After extra-time.
A correct result (picking a win, draw or defeat) is worth 10 points. The exact score earns 40 points.
• None Visit your Premier League club's page with all the latest news, analysis and fan views, and sign up for notifications
I am at this game for 5 Live, and it will be my first time at Kenilworth Road all season.
There is an argument that had you had offered Luton this situation before the campaign started, and told them that with five games to go, they would have a chance of staying up, then they would have taken it.
However, I cannot help thinking there have been a few missed opportunities for the Hatters in recent weeks, and they should be in a much stronger position.
This is a huge game for Luton because it is a chance for them to climb out of the bottom three and also drag Brentford back into the relegation fight, or at least make life uncomfortable for them.
The Bees are not safe yet but after beating Sheffield United last week, they probably only need one more win.
I don't see them getting it here, though. Both teams have got a goal in them, but also I don't see either of them keeping a clean sheet.
Sam's prediction: They will both throw the kitchen sink at each other, but it will end up in a draw. 2-2
Oops you can't see this activity! To enjoy Newsround at its best you will need to have JavaScript turned on.
Both of these teams have had a very similar habit in recent weeks of shooting themselves in the foot.
I felt for Clarets boss Vincent Kompany after Arijanet Muric's latest mistake gifted Brighton an equaliser last week. Kompany took James Trafford out of the team because of his form, or lack of it, but whoever he picks in goal, they keep costing Burnley points.
I actually think Burnley will get the job done this time, though. They beat Sheffield United 5-0 at Turf Moor earlier in the season and I am expecting them to come out on top again.
The Blades will give everything but Burnley will have a bit too much quality for them, and I'm afraid that's been the story of Sheffield United's season.
Sam's prediction: This is probably Sheffield United's biggest game of the season. I don't think they are getting out of the bottom three, but a win here would give them a bit of confidence. 1-0
Oops you can't see this activity! To enjoy Newsround at its best you will need to have JavaScript turned on.
Watch live on BBC One and the BBC website from 16:45. Live commentary on Radio 5 Live.
Manchester City did not deserve to go out of the Champions League on Wednesday. On the balance of play against Real Madrid, they can count themselves a bit unlucky to lose the tie.
It is important that they bounce back quickly, though, starting here.
City's main focus now will be their attempt to become the first side in the 136-year history of English league football to be crowned champions four times in a row. That would be a huge achievement, and going out of Europe will aid that.
Pep is greedy for trophies, though, and of course he will want to lift the FA Cup again too.
Chelsea have drawn with City twice this season and they will be dangerous with Palmer in their team.
But the kerfuffle over who would take their penalty against Everton on Monday, when Noni Madueke and Nicolas Jackson argued before Palmer took the ball and scored his fourth goal, sums up the whole situation at the club.
I would not mind seeing that happen if Palmer had missed a few penalties on the trot, because then it is someone else's turn.
But it appears that they have an odd dressing room at the moment, with a lot of inflated egos in there, and if Chelsea manager Mauricio Pochettino cannot create harmony, you wonder who will.
On the pitch, Chelsea have shown a bit more consistency in the second half of the season with an eight-game unbeaten run in the league that has put them in the race for sixth place.
Pochettino will want a trophy to underline their improvement, but I think it will be City who progress. I am backing the holders to flex their muscles again, go again... and win this tie quite comfortably.
Sam's prediction: It's going to be tighter than people might think because a win like the one Chelsea got the other day really puts you in your stride - plus Palmer is playing so well. 2-1 after extra time
Oops you can't see this activity! To enjoy Newsround at its best you will need to have JavaScript turned on.
This is a massive game for Arsenal but it definitely helps them that Wolves are on a pretty terrible run, without a win in four games.
The talk this week about the Gunners has been whether the wheels are coming off, but I don't think that's the case.
They maybe lacked a bit of composure in their defeat by Aston Villa. But Villa have got some very good players, as do Bayern Munich, who beat them in Germany on Wednesday.
I'd put Arsenal's Champions League defeat down to their failure to win the first leg at Emirates Stadium, and it would have been a different story if Bukayo Saka hadn't dived when he was through on goal late on in that game.
I'm still probably basing this prediction more on Wolves' form than on Arsenal's but I do think the Gunners will find a way to win at Molineux.
I hope they do too, because I don't want Manchester City to have it all their own way in the run-in.
Sam's prediction: This is a make or break game for us and I think the players will respond to that. 0-3
Sam on the title race: I honestly think it is still wide open. I don't believe Liverpool will win it, it's between us and City. They have got the easier run-in but there are still games where I can see them having trouble.
Oops you can't see this activity! To enjoy Newsround at its best you will need to have JavaScript turned on.
This game could be dubbed 'the deduction derby' and it's hard to know what to expect from either team.
I had Everton down to get a draw at Chelsea last time out, so I was only six goals out.
The questions here are whether Sean Dyche's side are going to respond to that heavy defeat, and also whether Toffees striker Dominic Calvert-Lewin is going to be fit?
Without him, Everton do lack a bit of bite. Beto missed a chance from three yards out on Monday that reminded me of me, in the days when I played for Chelsea and was even missing when I was stood inside the goal.
Nottingham Forest are hardly in great form either, with one win in nine games, so the safest thing here would be to go for a draw.
I am not going to do that, though. It's a big game at the bottom and I think there will be a winner... and I am going for Everton to sneak it, on the basis that they will show some anger after losing 6-0.
Sam's prediction: This weekend is like one big relegation scrap. There is something about Forest that makes me think they will win this - Morgan Gibbs-White is playing well. 1-3
Oops you can't see this activity! To enjoy Newsround at its best you will need to have JavaScript turned on.
Aston Villa's battle with Tottenham for fourth place is one to keep an eye on and Unai Emery's side could take another big step towards Champions League qualification here.
Bournemouth drew 2-2 with Villa earlier in the season and I am expecting another close game this time but, after what they did to Arsenal last week, I cannot back against Villa.
Confidence must be through the roof for Unai Emery's side, and they have home advantage too. Bournemouth are a good team who have proved me wrong this season, but Villa will create enough chances to win.
Sam's prediction: Dominic Solanke is class for Bournemouth - what a striker he is - but Villa are winning this and I can see them getting a top-four finish too. 3-0
Oops you can't see this activity! To enjoy Newsround at its best you will need to have JavaScript turned on.
Who saw Crystal Palace beating Liverpool? Not me.
It is going to take until next season for Eagles boss Oliver Glasner to really make his mark, but a result like that is a good start.
I don't think it is a huge coincidence that the Eagles put in that performance when they had Eberechi Eze and Michael Olise in the team together. They carry much more of a threat with both of them fit, and it changes my whole way of thinking when I am predicting Palace games.
Palace have a classy player in midfield too in Adam Wharton - I saw enough of him at my old club Blackburn to be impressed and I love the way he knits things together so effortlessly.
Wharton is not the fastest but the first three yards are in his head and he just sees things quicker than most people. He can still improve some aspects of his game but he has only just turned 20 and looks like a shrewd piece of business by the Eagles.
As for West Ham, well they have got an uphill struggle to stay in the Europa League on Thursday, and they have got a fight on their hands to qualify for Europe again next season.
There is the danger the Hammers' season could fizzle out, although I don't think it will.
Sam's prediction: I've got to back Palace here. My girlfriend's mum is a huge Palace supporter and if I don't say they will win, I will never be allowed back in the family home. They have also just beaten Liverpool so their morale should quite high. 2-1
Oops you can't see this activity! To enjoy Newsround at its best you will need to have JavaScript turned on.
Who did they beat?
Coventry are not in the greatest form in the Championship, with three defeats in their past four games, but I am a romantic at heart and I believe in fairytales too.
It is written in the stars that Sky Blues boss Mark Robins wins this tie, against his former club.
My old Norwich team-mate famously scored an FA Cup third-round winner for Manchester United in 1990 that saved Sir Alex Ferguson's job, but now I think he will push Erik ten Hag closer to the exit door.
Some United fans get very angry on social media whenever I predict they will lose, like last week when I thought Bournemouth would beat them.
But, while I did not get the result right on that occasion, another weak United performance in their 2-2 draw validated everything I said about them.
United should be beating Coventry comfortably but they have lacked consistency all season and I don't have faith in them to suddenly find it now.
So, let me dream a little here. I've got great memories of the 1987 final, when Keith Houchen's diving header helped Coventry upset Tottenham and lift the FA Cup, and what a day it would be for them if they win.
Sam's prediction: I would love to see Coventry in the final but I have got a United fan right next to me as I make this prediction, so I should probably be nice... he's telling me to say 6-0 and that's not going to happen, but I do think they will win. 1-3
Oops you can't see this activity! To enjoy Newsround at its best you will need to have JavaScript turned on.
Live commentary of first half on Radio 5 Sports Extra and second half on Radio 5 Live.
All three games between these teams this season have been close, and I am expecting more of the same on Sunday.
Liverpool won a thriller 4-3 at Anfield in the league, followed by a 2-1 home win in the first leg of their Carabao Cup semi-final. I was at Craven Cottage for the second leg, which ended up a 1-1 draw.
This is a must-win for Jurgen Klopp's side to keep their title hopes alive, because their season has started to unravel.
We will have to wait and see whether Liverpool can turn their Europa League tie around with Atalanta on Thursday, or if Klopp picks a team to even try to rescue their 3-0 deficit.
What happens there will tell us a lot about where Liverpool are at, but if they show any weaknesses at the weekend, Fulham are good enough to punish them.
Sam's prediction: This is my rogue prediction of the weekend. I'm maybe a bit biased because I want Liverpool to drop more points so we can say 'see you later, your title hopes are over' but Fulham are a good team. They have taken five points off us this season so they can do some damage here too. 1-1
Oops you can't see this activity! To enjoy Newsround at its best you will need to have JavaScript turned on.
How did Sutton do last time?
Sutton got four correct results, including two exact scores from the 10 games in week 33, giving him 100 points.
He beat Franklin star Daniel Mays, who got six correct results, but with only one exact score, for a total of 90 points.
Dave from The Zutons, Tommy Fury, Joe from Nothing But Thieves, Sam from Twin Atlantic Gabe of Jamie Johnson FC, Ed Leigh, Tash from The Football Academy, Matthew Vaughn, Rick Witter
How did you get on?
Crystal Palace's win at Anfield and Aston Villa's victory at Emirates Stadium caught Chris and Daniel out, and most of you too - only 8% of you went for a Palace success and just 11% backed Villa.
Your vote for the outcome of Newcastle versus Tottenham was a lot closer, but ultimately you got that wrong too. While 34% of you correctly went for a Magpies win, 35% of you thought Spurs would take the three points.
*Win, draw, loss prediction based on highest % of vote for each match.
• None Our coverage of your Premier League club is bigger and better than ever before - follow your team and sign up for notifications in the BBC Sport app to make sure you never miss a moment
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68812585
|
rt_football_68812585
|
|
Leighton James: Former Wales, Burnley, Swansea and Derby winger dies aged 71 - BBC Sport
|
2024-04-19
|
None
|
Leighton James, the former Burnley Swansea, Derby County and Wales winger, dies at the age of 71.
| null |
Last updated on .From the section Wales
Leighton James, the former Wales winger who played more than 600 games in the Football League, has died at the age of 71.
Capped 54 times by Wales, James played 399 games for Burnley in three spells and spent two years at Derby County.
James also represented Swansea City, Sunderland, Bury and Newport County in a 19-year playing career before turning to management with several clubs.
Burnley and Swansea said they were "saddened" at James' passing.
Clarets chairman Alan Pace said: "We are sorry to hear the news of Leighton's passing.
"He left an indelible mark on this football club and stories of his playing skills still echo around Turf Moor.
"Our thoughts are with his family at this sad time."
Swansea said James was "widely-regarded as one of the Swans' finest players".
The Welsh club added James "was a key figure in the side that secured a first-ever promotion to the top-flight in 1981, scoring a stunning goal in the victory over Preston North End at Deepdale to complete the club's rise.
"He went on to star the following campaign as John Toshack's side took the fight to the elite of English football, eventually finishing sixth in the First Division."
Following the end of his playing career, James continued to be involved in football as a media pundit and was renowned for offering robust opinions.
James was born on 16 February, 1953 in Loughor in Swansea and began his professional career with Burnley, making his league debut in November 1970 against Nottingham Forest.
After five years, 180 appearances for the Clarets and 45 goals, First Division champions Derby County paid a club record fee of £300,000 to take James to the Baseball Ground.
James moved on to Queens Park Rangers before returning to Burnley, but he was forced to seek fresh pastures again when the Clarets were relegated to the third division.
A move home appealed and James joined his local club Swansea City, helping them from the third division to the first in a period where James played some of his best football as part of the meteoric rise under manager John Toshack.
Swansea swept from the bottom division to the top division in barely three years and enjoyed landmark wins over Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur.
James ended his club career with spells at Sunderland, Bury and Newport County before returning in 1986 to Burnley for a third spell, finally retiring in 1989.
Before Ryan Giggs and Gareth Bale, James was the left winger who would get club and international fans pulses racing.
Less than a year after making his Burnley bow and still a teenager, his first senior cap for Wales came in their 1-0 defeat away to Czechoslovakia.
James never played in a major tournament for Wales, but he did play his part in some famous victories.
His penalty secured a famous win over England at Wembley in the British Home Championships, but arguably his best international display came when he scored and generally dazzled in Wales' 4-1 victory over England at Wrexham in 1980.
James scored 10 times for Wales, making his last appearance in 1983.
After his playing career James went on to manage a number of non-league clubs in England and Wales, the most high-profile being Accrington Stanley in 1997-1998.
In Wales he has managed Llanelli, Aberaman and Haverfordwest County.
James also became well known in Wales after his playing days for some of his forthright views expressed as a radio pundit and newspaper columnist.
That was best illustrated in 2006 when James had an explosive on-air argument with Robbie Savage over Savage's decision to retire from international football.
James also worked as a lollipop man at Penyrheol Primary School in Swansea, but suffered a stroke in 2014.
Swansea's players will wear black armbands as they pay respects to James at Huddersfield on Saturday, 20 April, as will their under-21s as they host Bristol City on the same day.
Likewise Burnley's players will do so in the Premier League at Sheffield United.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51960881
|
rt_football_51960881
|
|
Trump New York hush-money trial is far from a slam dunk - BBC News
|
2024-04-19
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Experts are split over the strength of NY prosecutor Alvin Bragg's case, which relies on a novel legal strategy.
|
US & Canada
|
An adult film star. Alleged secret payments. A turncoat lawyer. And a candidate for president of the United States.
Donald Trump's very first criminal trial - and the first of a former US president - involves charges of white-collar crime, but it features some of the most eye-catching details in any of the four criminal cases against him.
The case revolves around a $130,000 (£104,000) hush-money payment from Mr Trump's lawyer to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels, who claims she had an affair with Trump in 2006.
But that payment was not actually illegal. Instead, the blockbuster case bringing 34 felony charges is based on allegations the former president falsified business records to cover up the payment - made just before the 2016 election - to avoid an embarrassing sex scandal which he denies.
The trial, which began in New York on 15 April, has legal experts divided on the strength of the case. Some debate whether Manhattan's District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, should have even brought the case and whether it is strong enough.
Ambrosio Rodriguez, a former prosecutor who says he is no fan of the former president, believes the case legitimises Mr Trump's ongoing argument that he is being prosecuted unfairly because of who he is.
Mr Rodriguez argues that the case relies on old allegations, noting that federal prosecutors had investigated and declined to bring charges.
"This is a waste of time and a bad idea, and not good for the country," he told the BBC. "This seems just a political need and want to get Trump no matter what the costs are."
Others disagree. Nick Akerman, who worked on the Watergate prosecution, says it's a serious case.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Our New York correspondent sets out what's at stake in Trump's unprecedented trial?
"This is about an effort to defraud the American voters in 2016 to keep them from learning material information that would have affected their vote," he told the BBC, referring to Mr Trump's alleged efforts to hide payments reimbursing his then lawyer, Michael Cohen.
The case also has come under scrutiny because it's seemingly built on an untested legal theory.
Mr Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. New York prosecutors say Mr Cohen paid off Ms Daniels, and accuse Mr Trump of trying to disguise the money he paid him back as legal fees.
Ordinarily, falsifying business records is considered a misdemeanour - or low-level offence - in New York. But when it is done to conceal a crime, it can be elevated to a more serious felony charge.
It is not unusual for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office to do that, but Mr Bragg's approach is a particularly novel one.
He says Trump Organization records were falsified to conceal or aid criminal activity. But even though the trial begins on Monday, he has not specified the exact crime allegedly hidden.
He has however given clues. In court filings and interviews, Mr Bragg has said Mr Trump violated both state and federal election laws, and state tax laws.
"The District Attorney's office is not precluded from presenting to the jury a variety of alternative theories on sort of why the records were falsified," says Shane T. Stansbury, a former assistant United States Attorney in New York's southern district.
But he adds that it is unclear if a state prosecutor can invoke a federal election crime, as it appears Mr Bragg intends to do.
"We could have appellate courts and even the US Supreme Court weighing in on some of the federal questions that are part of this theory, so I think we're a long way from having resolution on this case," he says.
A former prosecutor in the New York federal office, Mark Pomerantz, said federal prosecutors went back and forth on charging Mr Trump so often that the investigation was nicknamed "the zombie case".
But due to the seriousness of charging a former president, some legal experts say that Mr Bragg had to bring the strongest possible case against Mr Trump, which is why he went for felony charges.
"Given who the defendant is in this case," said Anna Cominsky, a professor at the New York Law School, "Just a misdemeanour may not rise to the level of criminality that perhaps one would expect someone in Trump's position to be charged with."
One of the biggest wildcards in this case is the prosecution's star witness: Michael Cohen.
Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal campaign violations as part of the alleged cover-up, which he said was directed by Mr Trump.
Since his release, he has become one of Mr Trump's harshest critics, consistently attacking him in the press and on his podcast. He has also admitted in the past to lying to Congress under oath. That history makes him a "compromised witness," said Mr Stansbury.
But as the man at the centre of the alleged scheme, he is almost guaranteed to testify against his former boss.
"His credibility is a huge issue for the prosecution, and definitely something the defence is going to attack," said Ms Cominsky.
Mr Bragg will try to bolster Mr Cohen's testimony by presenting proof of the payments to the jury.
The former president is sticking with a strategy that amounts to attack-and-delay. He frequently calls the case a "hoax" and a "witch-hunt."
He has slammed Judge Merchan and District Attorney Bragg and attacked their family members on social media - to the extent that a partial gag order has now been imposed that prevents him from attacking court staff and their families.
Mr Trump speaks to the press after a 25 March hearing in his New York criminal case
His lawyers have tried to argue that the payments were made to keep the embarrassing information from Mr Trump's family, rather than to hide anything from voters.
Mr Akerman believes that argument, if used by the former president's lawyers in court, would fall flat with the 12-person jury ultimately deciding Mr Trump's fate.
"First of all, all of this was done right before the election, it had nothing to do with his family," he told the BBC.
Should a jury vote to convict him, Mr Trump would enter the final stretch before November's presidential election as a convicted felon.
But his legal team only needs to persuade one juror that he is not guilty of the crimes alleged for him to walk free.
"To me, the only defence that they have is to try and pick a jury and try and identify somebody who might actually hang the jury," Mr Akerman said. "Try and find someone who is a little bit eccentric, somebody who might be more sympathetic to Donald Trump."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68737723
|
news_world-us-canada-68737723
|
|
Trump posts $175m bond in New York fraud case - BBC News
|
2024-04-02
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
An appeals court gave him a reprieve after he could not secure a bond for the full $464m penalty
|
US & Canada
|
Former US President Donald Trump has posted a $175m (£140m) bond in his New York civil fraud case, staving off asset seizures by the state.
He was found in February to have fraudulently inflated property values, and was ordered to pay a $464m penalty.
Posting bond means New York's attorney general cannot enforce the penalty, by freezing bank accounts or taking property, until his appeals are heard.
The Republican denies wrongdoing and says the case is a political hit job.
Mr Trump was originally ordered to post bond amounting to the full penalty but it was reduced to $175m last week after his lawyers said it was "impossible" to secure a bond of that size.
If the three judges on the appeal panel rule against him, he will have to come up with the full $464m or risk the dismantling of his fabled property empire.
For now at least, Mr Trump is spared the humiliation of seeing his real estate assets such as Trump Tower in Manhattan and his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida taken away from him.
In a statement, his lawyer Alina Habba said: "As promised, President Trump has posted bond. He looks forward to vindicating his rights on appeal and overturning this unjust verdict."
A court filing says Mr Trump secured a bond with the Los Angeles-based company Knight Insurance Group.
The filing did not specify what collateral Mr Trump used for the bond.
The BBC has contacted the insurance group for comment. Its chairman, Don Hankey, told Forbes the former president put up a combination of cash and investment-grade bonds to secure the loan.
Mr Hankey told the outlet he reached out to Mr Trump when he heard he needed a bond and they put together the deal within a few days.
"I'd never met Donald Trump. I'd never talked to him on the phone. I heard that he needed a loan or a bond, and this is what we do," he said.
The fraud case against Mr Trump was filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, in 2022.
Justice Arthur Engoron, also a Democrat, broadly sided with Ms James' argument that Mr Trump should pay a steep price for fraudulently misrepresenting his assets in order to get more favourable loans and interest rates over the course of years.
Mr Trump argued the case had no victims because the banks got repaid with interest and no financial institution sued him for the exaggerated estimates of his net worth.
Justice Engoron also barred Mr Trump from running a New York business for three years.
He was also prohibited from getting loans from New York financial institutions over the same period.
The ruling placed Mr Trump, who has said in depositions and on social media that he has $400m or $500m in cash on hand, under a serious financial crunch.
Forbes Magazine currently estimates his net worth at $5.7bn - it soared after the parent company of his social media platform Truth Social went public last week.
Around the same time he lost the fraud case, Mr Trump had to secure a $91m bond after losing an unrelated defamation lawsuit brought by the writer E Jean Carroll.
It could take months, or longer, for the business fraud case to be decided, raising the possibility the decision could come in the midst of his presidential campaign.
In the meantime, Mr Trump's first criminal trial - over his alleged attempt to fraudulently conceal hush-money payments to an adult film star ahead of the 2016 election - is scheduled to begin on 15 April in Manhattan.
He has also been charged in two additional cases with trying to overturn his 2020 election loss against President Joe Biden and over his handling of classified documents after leaving office.
Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty in all of those cases.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68709895
|
news_world-us-canada-68709895
|
|
Study aims to break link between brain injury and depression - BBC News
|
2024-04-02
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Half of those admitted to hospital with a brain injury report depression in the following year, research suggests.
|
Health
|
Shannon Brazier, 24, spent three weeks in a coma after being hit by a excavator on a building site in east London
For many people who have a serious blow to the brain, physical recovery is just the first of their problems. Depression and other mental disorders are far more likely to develop following head trauma.
The results of a small US study suggest taking a widely used antidepressant in the weeks after the injury could actually help prevent severe depression.
And now a much larger trial is being held across England, looking into whether those findings can be replicated in a wider group of patients.
"I was told I was airlifted to the Royal London [Hospital] and put in a coma for three weeks," Shannon says. "They had to call my family down to say their goodbyes."
Shannon, 24, was hit on the side of her head by a digger while working on a building site in east London, in 2020. She needed operations to reconstruct parts of her face, using muscle from her legs. Pins and wires now hold her jaw together.
But, as with so many people who have lived through a traumatic brain injury, the visible, physical damage to her body was just part of the problem.
"It has had a real impact on my mental health and I have felt very low," Shannon says. "I wasn't going out, I wasn't taking care of myself and I put on weight.
"It has been a fight just to get out of bed and wash my face. It has been very difficult, almost unbearable at points."
In the immediate aftermath of such an accident, the focus has tended to be been on surgery, rehab and treating physical symptoms. But longer-term effects - such as depression and mood swings - can have a severe impact for many.
Shannon says it took "maybe a year" after leaving hospital to get the right support and medication in place and start to "pull out of it".
Research suggests about half the people admitted to hospital after a head injury report major depression in the year after the accident, a rate 10 times higher than the general population.
The 18-month UK trial will examine the early use of common antidepressants following brain trauma. It will measure depression, quality of life and cognitive functioning among 500 patients, with results expected in 2027.
"Up until now, most of the research has been on the treatment of depression once it's set in, which we know can be difficult," says lead researcher Khalida Ismail, professor of psychiatry and medicine at King's College London.
"This is the first large-scale study in the world that is actually trying to prevent it from happening in the first place."
The trial is being held across nine major trauma centres in England and is being funded by a £2.2m grant from the National Institute for Health and Care Research.
A certain level of emotional trauma and stress might be expected after a catastrophic experience, with the knock-on effects on employment, education and relationships.
But doctors believe a serious blow to the head can also disrupt the neural pathways in the brain that control memory, thinking skills and emotions.
Sean Carty, 47, says he felt like he'd "landed on a new planet" after experiencing severe head trauma and depression.
He was knocked off his motorbike on a dual carriageway in London five years ago, leaving him in hospital for three weeks, with a bleed to the frontal lobe of his brain.
Sean Carty volunteers at the charity Headway East London, supporting others with traumatic brain injuries
"After I was discharged, I was trying to get back to work, trying to do the things that I did before, but I was really struggling," Sean says. He found his mind worked differently. His sense of smell and taste had changed and he struggled to keep up with friends' conversations.
Like many others, there was also an impact on his behaviour. He had a shorter temper and was argumentative with family members in a way he never had been before the crash.
"You don't realise how blunt you can be with a brain injury," Sean says. "But it's hard when your nervous system is not functioning properly. You feel like you're an alien and everything is new to you."
Consultant neuropsychiatrist Dr Mike Dilley, from King's College Hospital, says the patients who see him about their brain injury "are far more concerned about anxiety, mood and memory problems than about physical difficulties, which they might have adjusted to already".
Prof Khalida Ismail, from King's College London, is the lead researcher on the trial, across nine trauma centres in England
Exactly how the antidepressants in the trial - selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) - work is unknown.
Comprehensive research, from the University of Oxford, suggests they reduce serious depression in some people in the short term. But there is also evidence linking severe depression to brain inflammation after an accident.
And one theory, although far from proven, is SSRIs might trigger an anti-inflammatory response and protect the patient from longer-term harm.
Doctors say tackling the wider problem could benefit the NHS and the wider economy, with the cost of brain injury estimated at more than £15bn each year.
"Depression is not just something in the mind," Prof Ismail says. "It can have an effect on relationships, on jobs, on education and on rehabilitation. And all of these are consequences after a traumatic brain injury."
Follow Jim on X, formerly known as Twitter.
Are you affected by the issues raised in this story? Share your experiences by emailing haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also get in touch in the following ways:
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or comment or you can email us at HaveYourSay@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any submission.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68557769
|
news_health-68557769
|
|
Drive-through worker draws gun on 'missing curly fries' customer - BBC News
|
2024-04-02
|
None
|
CCTV of a fast food drive-through shows a worker pull a gun during a row with a customer.
| null |
CCTV footage of a fast food restaurant drive-through shows the moment a worker pulled a gun on a customer after an argument over missing fries.
The incident took place in March 2021 in Houston, Texas.
The driver’s family has since filed a lawsuit against Jack-in-the-Box and its employee, Alonniea Ford-Theriot.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66933961
|
news_world-us-canada-66933961
|
|
A guide to Donald Trump's four criminal cases - BBC News
|
2024-04-02
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The former president is juggling potentially explosive legal battles with campaigning for the White House.
|
US & Canada
|
Donald Trump is heading towards a likely election rematch with Joe Biden in November, but this time around he's juggling campaigning with some potentially explosive legal battles.
The 77-year-old, who is the first former president in US history to be criminally charged, now faces dozens of charges across four separate cases.
And his legal troubles don't end there, as Mr Trump is also facing several civil cases relating to, among other things, the business empire that made his name. There are crucial legal appeals that are yet to be settled too, including one on whether he is immune from prosecution.
Here, we'll focus on the four criminal cases Mr Trump is facing and explain what they're about, what could happen next and, crucially, what's at stake as he seeks to return to the White House.
A payment made to the adult film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election.
Ms Daniels says she was paid $130,000 (£103,000) to stay quiet after having sex with Mr Trump, who denies they ever had an affair.
It's worth noting, though, that providing so-called hush-money is not in fact illegal.
Instead, this case is more technical and centres on how Mr Trump's former lawyer, who paid Ms Daniels, had his reimbursement recorded in Mr Trump's accounts.
The former president is accused of falsifying his business records by saying the payment was for legal fees. He's facing 34 counts of fraud under campaign finance laws, and has pleaded not guilty to all of them.
Mr Trump has said the case is politically motivated. "This is just a way of hurting me in the election," he told reporters. "This is not a crime."
Jury selection begins on 15 April, with the trial proper expected to start a week or two after that.
It was delayed by a month when a judge granted a request to allow time for new evidence to be reviewed.
It will be the first criminal trial of a US president.
Could Mr Trump go to prison?
Each of the charges carries a maximum of four years in prison, although a judge could sentence Mr Trump to probation if he is convicted.
Legal experts told the BBC they think it is unlikely Mr Trump will be jailed if convicted in this case and that a fine is the more likely outcome.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, is using a rarely used strategy to bring felony charges rather than less serious misdemeanours.
Whether Mr Trump illegally conspired to overturn his 2020 election defeat to Joe Biden.
Federal prosecutors allege he pressured officials to reverse the results, knowingly spread lies about election fraud and sought to exploit the Capitol riot on 6 January 2021 to delay the certification of Mr Biden's victory and stay in power.
He's been charged with four criminal counts, including conspiracy to defraud the US and conspiracy against the rights of citizens.
Some had speculated he would be charged with insurrection, or aiding insurrection, but that is not one of the charges.
He has denied wrongdoing and made an unsubstantiated accusation that the Biden administration is behind the prosecution.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch the moment Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol building
It has been postponed indefinitely while an appeal from Mr Trump plays out.
The Supreme Court will rule on Mr Trump's argument that a former president cannot be prosecuted like any other citizen.
Justices will hear the case on 25 April and decide by June.
The challenge increases the chances that this trial may not happen before November's election.
And if Mr Trump were to win the vote, he could in theory pardon himself or order the charges to be dismissed.
Could Mr Trump go to prison?
But there are logistical, security and political questions around whether Mr Trump would actually serve time in jail even if convicted.
A conviction at trial would take the US into uncharted territory.
Mr Trump and some 18 other defendants are accused of criminally conspiring to overturn his very narrow defeat in the state of Georgia in the 2020 election.
The huge racketeering investigation, led by Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis, was sparked in part by a leaked phone call in which the former president asked the state's top election official to "find 11,780 votes".
Mr Trump was hit 13 criminal counts, subsequently reduced to 10. They include one alleged violation of Georgia's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Rico).
The former president has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in the case and has entered a plea of not guilty.
Prosecutors want the case to begin in August, but a date has not been set.
The timeline was complicated by a failed effort to disqualify Ms Willis because of her romantic relationship with a man she hired to work on the case.
Could Mr Trump go to prison?
Georgia prosecutors would need to prove that there was a pattern of corruption from Mr Trump and his co-defendants aimed at overturning the election result in order to bring a conviction.
As for making false statements, that carries a penalty of between one to five years in prison or a fine.
Whether Mr Trump mishandled classified documents by taking them from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago residence after he left office.
It's also about whether he obstructed the FBI's efforts to retrieve the files, as well as the criminal investigation into his handling of them.
The majority of the counts are for the wilful retention of national defence information, which falls under the Espionage Act.
There are then eight individual counts, which include conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record and making false statements. Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty on all counts.
Prosecutors want it to start in July.
Mr Trump and his lawyers want it put off until after the November presidential election.
Could Mr Trump go to prison?
These charges could, in theory, lead to substantial prison time if Mr Trump is convicted.
Looking at the letter of the law, the counts under the Espionage Act each carry a maximum sentence of 10 years. Other counts, related to conspiracy and withholding or concealing documents, each carry maximum sentences of 20 years.
But the logistics of jailing a former president mean a conventional prison sentence is seen as unlikely by many experts.
If you're in the UK, sign up here.
And if you're anywhere else, sign up here.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61084161
|
news_world-us-canada-61084161
|
|
Leighton James: Former Wales, Burnley, Swansea and Derby winger dies aged 71 - BBC Sport
|
2024-04-20
|
None
|
Leighton James, the former Burnley Swansea, Derby County and Wales winger, dies at the age of 71.
| null |
Last updated on .From the section Wales
Leighton James, the former Wales winger who played more than 600 games in the Football League, has died at the age of 71.
Capped 54 times by Wales, James played 399 games for Burnley in three spells and spent two years at Derby County.
James also represented Swansea City, Sunderland, Bury and Newport County in a 19-year playing career before turning to management with several clubs.
Burnley and Swansea said they were "saddened" at James' passing.
Clarets chairman Alan Pace said: "We are sorry to hear the news of Leighton's passing.
"He left an indelible mark on this football club and stories of his playing skills still echo around Turf Moor.
"Our thoughts are with his family at this sad time."
Swansea said James was "widely-regarded as one of the Swans' finest players".
The Welsh club added James "was a key figure in the side that secured a first-ever promotion to the top-flight in 1981, scoring a stunning goal in the victory over Preston North End at Deepdale to complete the club's rise.
"He went on to star the following campaign as John Toshack's side took the fight to the elite of English football, eventually finishing sixth in the First Division."
Following the end of his playing career, James continued to be involved in football as a media pundit and was renowned for offering robust opinions.
James was born on 16 February, 1953 in Loughor in Swansea and began his professional career with Burnley, making his league debut in November 1970 against Nottingham Forest.
After five years, 180 appearances for the Clarets and 45 goals, First Division champions Derby County paid a club record fee of £300,000 to take James to the Baseball Ground.
James moved on to Queens Park Rangers before returning to Burnley, but he was forced to seek fresh pastures again when the Clarets were relegated to the third division.
A move home appealed and James joined his local club Swansea City, helping them from the third division to the first in a period where James played some of his best football as part of the meteoric rise under manager John Toshack.
Swansea swept from the bottom division to the top division in barely three years and enjoyed landmark wins over Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur.
James ended his club career with spells at Sunderland, Bury and Newport County before returning in 1986 to Burnley for a third spell, finally retiring in 1989.
Before Ryan Giggs and Gareth Bale, James was the left winger who would get club and international fans pulses racing.
Less than a year after making his Burnley bow and still a teenager, his first senior cap for Wales came in their 1-0 defeat away to Czechoslovakia.
James never played in a major tournament for Wales, but he did play his part in some famous victories.
His penalty secured a famous win over England at Wembley in the British Home Championships, but arguably his best international display came when he scored and generally dazzled in Wales' 4-1 victory over England at Wrexham in 1980.
James scored 10 times for Wales, making his last appearance in 1983.
After his playing career James went on to manage a number of non-league clubs in England and Wales, the most high-profile being Accrington Stanley in 1997-1998.
In Wales he has managed Llanelli, Aberaman and Haverfordwest County.
James also became well known in Wales after his playing days for some of his forthright views expressed as a radio pundit and newspaper columnist.
That was best illustrated in 2006 when James had an explosive on-air argument with Robbie Savage over Savage's decision to retire from international football.
James also worked as a lollipop man at Penyrheol Primary School in Swansea, but suffered a stroke in 2014.
Swansea's players will wear black armbands as they pay respects to James at Huddersfield on Saturday, 20 April, as will their under-21s as they host Bristol City on the same day.
Likewise Burnley's players will do so in the Premier League at Sheffield United.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51960881
|
rt_football_51960881
|
|
Man City 1-0 Chelsea: Pep Guardiola hits out at schedule after FA Cup semi-final win - BBC Sport
|
2024-04-20
|
None
|
Manchester City boss Pep Guardiola says it is "unacceptable" his side had to play an FA Cup semi-final so soon after a Champions League quarter-final.
| null |
Last updated on .From the section Man City
Manchester City boss Pep Guardiola says it is "unacceptable" that his side had to play an FA Cup semi-final so soon after a Champions League quarter-final.
City overcame Chelsea 1-0 to reach a second successive final but Guardiola criticised their schedule after the penalty shootout defeat by Real Madrid.
Guardiola said Coventry and Manchester United - who play on Sunday at Wembley - should have played on Saturday.
"I don't understand how we survived," added the City boss.
City lost on penalties to Real Madrid on Wednesday after the teams were locked 4-4 on aggregate after extra time.
Guardiola's argument is that the other FA Cup semi-final between Manchester United and Coventry, who are not in European competition, should have been switched to Saturday to allow his players an extra day to recover.
"It's unacceptable to let us play today," he told BBC Sport. "It's impossible, for the health of the players. It's not normal.
"One hundred and twenty minutes, the emotions of Madrid, the way we lose, honestly. I know this country is special [with the FA Cup] but it's for the health of the players."
Guardiola was animated after full-time on Saturday, hugging his players on the pitch and waving his arms in the air towards City's supporters.
Later, in his news conference, Guardiola continued with his criticism - describing the domestic and international calendar as "unsustainable".
City's next match is on Thursday, when they play at Brighton in the Premier League (20:00 BST).
"I just want to protect my players. It's common sense. I'm not asking for something special or privilege," Guardiola said.
Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta, whose team beat Wolves in the Premier League on Saturday after losing to Bayern Munich in the Champions League on Wednesday, agreed with Guardiola's comments.
"It's not about us, Pep or myself. It's about the wellbeing of the players," said Arteta, who was Guardiola's assistant at City before joining Arsenal in 2019.
"When you compete in European competition, every team has to compete in the same way.
"You cannot have a team that hasn't played for seven days, or three days before and has more recovery time, and then you have to play in the Premier League and the FA Cup. It is not right."
There are still set to be clashes between domestic competitions and Uefa matches when the 2024-25 fixture calendar is confirmed next month, despite FA Cup replays being scrapped.
The Premier League, Football Association and English Football League feel they have been left in an impossible situation, due to Uefa's decision to expand its three club competitions and the introduction of the new Fifa Club World Cup at the end of next season.
• None Discover the scandalous true story of Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos
• None Michael Mosley talks to the experts to unearth the unexpected benefits of HIIT training
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68866853
|
rt_football_68866853
|
|
Man City 1-0 Chelsea: Pep Guardiola hits out at schedule after FA Cup semi-final win - BBC Sport
|
2024-04-21
|
None
|
Manchester City boss Pep Guardiola says it is "unacceptable" his side had to play an FA Cup semi-final so soon after a Champions League quarter-final.
| null |
Last updated on .From the section Man City
Manchester City boss Pep Guardiola says it is "unacceptable" that his side had to play an FA Cup semi-final so soon after a Champions League quarter-final.
City overcame Chelsea 1-0 to reach a second successive final but Guardiola criticised their schedule after the penalty shootout defeat by Real Madrid.
Guardiola said Coventry and Manchester United - who play on Sunday at Wembley - should have played on Saturday.
"I don't understand how we survived," added the City boss.
City lost on penalties to Real Madrid on Wednesday after the teams were locked 4-4 on aggregate after extra time.
Guardiola's argument is that the other FA Cup semi-final between Manchester United and Coventry, who are not in European competition, should have been switched to Saturday to allow his players an extra day to recover.
"It's unacceptable to let us play today," he told BBC Sport. "It's impossible, for the health of the players. It's not normal.
"One hundred and twenty minutes, the emotions of Madrid, the way we lose, honestly. I know this country is special [with the FA Cup] but it's for the health of the players."
Guardiola was animated after full-time on Saturday, hugging his players on the pitch and waving his arms in the air towards City's supporters.
Later, in his news conference, Guardiola continued with his criticism - describing the domestic and international calendar as "unsustainable".
City's next match is on Thursday, when they play at Brighton in the Premier League (20:00 BST).
"I just want to protect my players. It's common sense. I'm not asking for something special or privilege," Guardiola said.
Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta, whose team beat Wolves in the Premier League on Saturday after losing to Bayern Munich in the Champions League on Wednesday, agreed with Guardiola's comments.
"It's not about us, Pep or myself. It's about the wellbeing of the players," said Arteta, who was Guardiola's assistant at City before joining Arsenal in 2019.
"When you compete in European competition, every team has to compete in the same way.
"You cannot have a team that hasn't played for seven days, or three days before and has more recovery time, and then you have to play in the Premier League and the FA Cup. It is not right."
There are still set to be clashes between domestic competitions and Uefa matches when the 2024-25 fixture calendar is confirmed next month, despite FA Cup replays being scrapped.
The Premier League, Football Association and English Football League feel they have been left in an impossible situation, due to Uefa's decision to expand its three club competitions and the introduction of the new Fifa Club World Cup at the end of next season.
• None Discover the scandalous true story of Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos
• None Michael Mosley talks to the experts to unearth the unexpected benefits of HIIT training
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68866853
|
rt_football_68866853
|
|
Trump trial: Prosecution say hush money was 'pure election fraud' - BBC News
|
2024-04-22
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
But the defence says the former president committed no crimes and calls star witness an admitted liar.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Is Trump part of a 'conspiracy' or 'cloaked in innocence'?
The prosecution in Donald Trump's hush-money trial accused the former president of a criminal conspiracy and cover-up to hide a sex scandal ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
"It was election fraud, pure and simple," a lawyer told the jury during opening statements on Monday at the historic trial in New York.
Setting out the case for the defence, Mr Trump's lawyer said his client had committed no crimes and that it was not illegal to try to influence an election.
"He is cloaked in innocence," he added.
Mr Trump is accused of trying to cover up a $130,000 (£104,500) payment to porn star Stormy Daniels before he won the race for the White House back in 2016.
He has pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records and also denies having an alleged sexual encounter with Ms Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.
At the start of the second week of the criminal trial in Manhattan - the first ever of a former US president - each side set out the case they will present to the jury. The first witness, tabloid publisher David Pecker, also took the stand briefly and will continue his testimony on Tuesday.
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo told the court that Michael Cohen, Mr Trump's former lawyer and confidant, worked with the Trump Organization's chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, to "cook the books" at Mr Trump's direction.
Prosecutors alleged that the scheme to disguise how Cohen was reimbursed for the payment to Ms Daniels involved falsifying three forms of records - invoices, ledger entries and cheques.
Mr Trump said in his business records that those payments were "for legal services pursuant to a retainer agreement" with Mr Cohen, Mr Colangelo told the jury.
"Those were lies," the prosecutor said.
Critically for this case, he said that Mr Trump was motivated to provide the payoff so voters did not learn of the alleged encounter with Ms Daniels.
Prosecutors said that this cover-up should be considered election interference, which constituted a second crime. That elevated the charge of falsifying business records from a lower-level misdemeanour into a more serious felony.
They claimed the infamous Access Hollywood tape, which surfaced weeks before the 2016 election and showed Mr Trump bragging about being able to have sex with anyone because he is famous, had panicked his campaign.
"The defendant and his campaign staff were deeply concerned that it would irreparably damage his standing with female voters in particular," Mr Colangelo told the court.
But when Ms Daniels came forward a day later alleging a sexual encounter with Mr Trump, it compounded the problem created by the tape, Mr Colangelo alleged.
The public disclosure "would have been devastating to his campaign, so at Trump's direction Cohen negotiated a deal", Mr Colangelo told the jurors. The prosecution alleges Mr Pecker - the former boss at American Media Inc, which owns the National Enquirer - and Mr Cohen discussed how to keep it quiet.
The defence's rebuttal was fairly simple in comparison.
Mr Blanche appeared intent on casting prosecutors' star witness - Cohen - as an untrustworthy former employee with an axe to grind against the former president.
"He's a convicted felon and a convicted perjurer - he's an admitted liar," Mr Blanche said of Cohen.
He also zeroed in on Ms Daniels, who he said had earned "hundreds of thousands" of dollars with her claims. The defence lawyer told the jury to discount her as a witness.
He went on to dismiss the examples of allegedly false records as "34 pieces of paper" that did not involve his client.
As for the case prosecutors made for election interference, Mr Blanche denied that his client had done anything illegal even if he had attempted to sway voters.
"There's nothing wrong with trying to influence an election," Mr Blanche said. "It's called democracy."
The trial is expected to last about another six weeks, but legal experts say opening statements are particularly important as an opportunity to shape jurors' views on the case.
"You need to start out strong in a case like this," former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told the BBC.
Mr Rahmani noted that the prosecution's efforts to elevate this to an election interference case may be tough with a jury that includes two lawyers.
"It's clear the records were false business records, but to take that next step to prove they were in furtherance of, or to cover up, a campaign finance contribution, is a more difficult legal argument and they're going to need to do a lot more than that in my opinion.
"This is going to come down to Michael Cohen," he concluded, and whether his testimony backs up what he has said in the past and whether he has documents to prove it.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68877610
|
news_world-us-canada-68877610
|
|
Ecuador voters back tougher security to fight gang violence - BBC News
|
2024-04-22
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
In a referendum, Ecuadoreans voted in favour of allowing the military to patrol the country's streets.
|
Latin America & Caribbean
|
A state of emergency was declared in the country back in January
Ecuadoreans have voted in favour of allowing the military to patrol their streets as part of a referendum on bolstering security in the country.
The poll was called after Ecuador went from being relatively peaceful to having the highest recorded murder rate in Latin America.
But human rights groups have raised concerns that the measures could lead to abuses.
President Daniel Noboa called the referendum following a spate of high-profile murders, including the assassination of a presidential candidate last year and several mayors in recent months.
In 2023, police recorded about 8,000 violent deaths and in January the country was rocked by a wave of violence which saw a top gang leader escape from jail, prison riots and staff at a TV station being held hostage by armed gang members while they were live on air.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
President Noboa subsequently declared a state of emergency and brought in the military to fight criminal gangs and control the prisons - but the result of the referendum will allow him to expand the powers of the military and the police on a longer-term basis.
At the polls, many of those voting "yes" to the raft of security measures said they had felt safer on the streets since the military presence had increased.
Carmen Elena Simbaña, whose youngest brother Darwin was killed two years ago, however, was not one of them.
Despite losing her brother to gang violence, Ms Simbaña does not support the new measures
Darwin was just 19 when he was stabbed to death by a gang member wanting money. Ms Simbaña said the murder happened "in the midst of police officers, who were around and did not come to help".
But despite her personal experience, she voted against the new measures, saying "militarising the country is not the solution".
Her son witnessed the murder of her brother, and people have come to her house threatening to kill him should the gang member responsible ever end up in jail.
"The root of all crime is abandonment," Ms Simbaña told BBC News, adding that she wanted to see investment in youth, such as "spaces for children to occupy themselves with sport, music, art", rather than more money for the military.
A cocaine dealer known as "El Gato" (The Cat) is perhaps one example for Ms Simbaña's argument. The 29-year-old blamed his descent into crime on his family's financial problems, which forced his mother to work late.
"I was alone in the house, crying and screaming for her," he said, describing how he fell in with "bad friends", including members of some of Ecuador's most violent gangs, who introduced him to drugs.
"El Gato" started using and dealing drugs when he was just 14 years old and is still addicted 15 years later.
He can make $100 (£80) from just one drug sale, some of which he said is used to fund his own addiction.
He tried to kick the habit but has found it hard: "Obviously, I want to leave this, right? But it is such a strong addiction. I have gone to rehabilitation centres, I have locked myself in my family's house."
Despite his own involvement in the drugs trade, "El Gato" urged people to vote in favour of the tougher security measures, arguing that being surrounded by crime and drugs had made it harder for him to give up drugs.
"When I go and you have it out around the corner, that is the problem," he said.
His friend, David Rodríguez, agreed, saying "El Gato" was a "kid who should have been playing ball in the park".
"Instead he is selling drugs for people like him, to get them into the habit, recruit them, and make a profit from it."
Like "El Gato", he also backed the new security measures. Mr Rodríguez has been the victim of six "express kidnappings", during which he was drugged, taken to a cash point and forced to withdraw money to hand over to his assailants.
"We need a break and a change," he said, adding that he believed that "the military does give that relief to citizens".
Violent crimes like those experienced by Carmen Elena Simbaña and David Rodríguez have become commonplace in Ecuador.
The country is wedged between the world's two biggest cocaine producers - Colombia and Peru - and its ports provide convenient routes to ship the drug to the US and Europe, where demand is growing.
Ecuador's economic slump during the Covid-19 pandemic pushed many young people into gangs and its relaxed visa system led to many international gangs moving in.
The referendum also asked people to back the legalisation of hourly work contracts, which the government said would help get young people into work and away from crime. Critics argued it would roll back workers' rights and it did not pass.
But the main focus has been on the new security measures.
President Noboa has welcomed their approval in the referendum, saying "now we will have more tools to fight crime and restore peace to Ecuadoran families".
However, some human rights groups argue they could lead to human rights abuses, including mass arrests and arbitrary detentions, such as that of Carlos Méndez.
Mr Méndez was leaving work when police on motorcycles, carrying out a raid nearby, stopped him and started violently beating him.
His father, also called Carlos, said the incident still haunted the family: "It was a trauma. We have that fear this could happen again."
Rosa Bolaños, of human rights group INREDH, warned that the new measures could lead to more incidents like this.
Ms Bolaños says buyers of cocaine in wealthy countries hold some blame
She instead wants money to be invested in getting the 5,000 children in the region who are out of school back into education.
But she also laid blame on cocaine users in wealthier nations. "The cost of a good party, of fun, of even being a workaholic - is the kid who is murdered every day in the streets," Ms Bolaños said.
"It's the blood of a whole country. Because cocaine is not just drug lords and gangs. It involves the people that live in poverty, on $1 a day."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-68871756
|
news_world-latin-america-68871756
|
|
Trump trial: Publisher says he suppressed negative news - BBC News
|
2024-04-23
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker testified on Tuesday about his relationship with Trump.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Our reporter at court explains the big moments from a difficult day for Trump’s team
The underbelly of New York City's tabloid media industry was laid bare in a Manhattan courtroom on Tuesday.
A famous publisher outlined a secret plan he had with Donald Trump and his personal lawyer Michael Cohen, calling it an "agreement among friends".
Prosecutors questioned former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker for nearly three hours.
He testified that the three worked to suppress negative stories about the candidate during his 2016 campaign.
"'This could be a very big story, so I believe that it should be removed from the market'," Mr Pecker said he would advise the former president about killing certain articles.
Mr Pecker's testimony could prove critical for prosecutors as they seek to prove that Mr Trump tried to influence the election by quelling a story of an alleged affair.
Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records.
Prosecutors allege he tried to cover up a $130,000 (£104,500) payment to porn star Stormy Daniels before he won the race for the White House back in 2016.
Continuing his testimony from Monday as the trial's first witness, Mr Pecker said he met Mr Trump in the late 1980s and eventually became good friends with the former president.
The two had a mutually "beneficial" relationship, in which Mr Trump would share exclusive information with him, such as news about the contestants on his reality TV show, The Apprentice. This helped boost viewership for the show and the National Enquirer, Mr Pecker said.
Shortly after Mr Trump launched his first presidential bid, Mr Pecker said he met with Cohen and Mr Trump in August 2015. There, Mr Pecker said he agreed to suppress negative articles about the former president and promote positive stories about him, a plan Mr Pecker argued should be kept "as quiet as possible".
The tabloid publisher said he also agreed to notify Mr Trump about stories concerning his romantic affairs, as he was "an eligible bachelor" who "dated the most beautiful women", according to Mr Pecker.
Mr Pecker detailed two stories that the three men worked to kill.
One was from Dino Sajudin, a former Trump Tower doorman, who Mr Pecker said tried to sell an article in 2015 about an unsubstantiated rumour that Mr Trump once fathered a child out of wedlock.
After investigating, Mr Pecker said, he found the claim to be "1,000% untrue".
But he agreed with Cohen to pay Mr Sajudin $30,000 for perpetual rights to the story, because it would have been "very embarrassing for the campaign" if it got out, Mr Pecker said.
Just before the end of the day in court, prosecutors also delved into a hush-money agreement made to Playboy model Karen McDougal. She claims she and Mr Trump had a long-term affair, though Mr Trump denies this.
Mr Pecker said he advised the former president to buy Ms McDougal's story, but Mr Trump was unsure.
"'Anytime you do anything like this, it always gets out'," Mr Pecker claimed Mr Trump told him.
His company eventually purchased the story for $150,000.
Though prosecutors did not bring charges over either of these payments, the testimony from Tuesday could help paint a picture of the context leading up to Ms Daniels' payment.
Putting the tabloid publisher up on the stand first in the trial was a smart move, according to former Brooklyn prosecutor Julie Rendelman.
"He provides the backdrop for how the whole 'catch and kill' scheme came to be, the players involved, and the timing as it related to Trump's campaign," she said.
Mr Pecker's testimony came after the second day of the hush-money trial got off to a rocky start for the former president's legal team.
The day began with a hearing on whether comments Mr Trump made about those involved in the case violated a gag order.
Sparks quickly flew between his lead lawyer, Todd Blanche, and Justice Juan Merchan.
After prosecutors alleged 10 of his social media posts violated the order, Mr Blanche argued his client had a right to address "political attacks".
Judge Merchan was not buying it.
"You're losing all credibility with the court," he told Mr Blanche, after trying to get him to hurry up his arguments.
Trump is accused by the prosecution of routinely breaking a restriction imposed by the judge that prevents him from publicly attacking witnesses, prosecutors and relatives of court staff.
"He knows about the order, he knows what he's not allowed to do, but he does it anyway," prosecutor Christopher Conroy told the court.
At stake for Mr Trump is a $10,000 fine and a warning that future violations of the order could lead to his imprisonment.
The judge said he would reserve making a ruling about the violations for now.
But former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani said the judge's reproach was a worrying sign for Mr Trump's team.
"They can't control their client, but when the judge tells a lawyer they are losing all their credibility, that's bad," Mr Rahmani said.
In the break that followed the hearing, Mr Trump took to his social media site Truth Social to criticise Judge Merchan and claim that he was being unfairly blocked from defending himself against attacks.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68880206
|
news_world-us-canada-68880206
|
|
Trump trial: Prosecution say hush money was 'pure election fraud' - BBC News
|
2024-04-23
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
But the defence says the former president committed no crimes and calls star witness an admitted liar.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Is Trump part of a 'conspiracy' or 'cloaked in innocence'?
The prosecution in Donald Trump's hush-money trial accused the former president of a criminal conspiracy and cover-up to hide a sex scandal ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
"It was election fraud, pure and simple," a lawyer told the jury during opening statements on Monday at the historic trial in New York.
Setting out the case for the defence, Mr Trump's lawyer said his client had committed no crimes and that it was not illegal to try to influence an election.
"He is cloaked in innocence," he added.
Mr Trump is accused of trying to cover up a $130,000 (£104,500) payment to porn star Stormy Daniels before he won the race for the White House back in 2016.
He has pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records and also denies having an alleged sexual encounter with Ms Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.
At the start of the second week of the criminal trial in Manhattan - the first ever of a former US president - each side set out the case they will present to the jury. The first witness, tabloid publisher David Pecker, also took the stand briefly and will continue his testimony on Tuesday.
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo told the court that Michael Cohen, Mr Trump's former lawyer and confidant, worked with the Trump Organization's chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, to "cook the books" at Mr Trump's direction.
Prosecutors alleged that the scheme to disguise how Cohen was reimbursed for the payment to Ms Daniels involved falsifying three forms of records - invoices, ledger entries and cheques.
Mr Trump said in his business records that those payments were "for legal services pursuant to a retainer agreement" with Mr Cohen, Mr Colangelo told the jury.
"Those were lies," the prosecutor said.
Critically for this case, he said that Mr Trump was motivated to provide the payoff so voters did not learn of the alleged encounter with Ms Daniels.
Prosecutors said that this cover-up should be considered election interference, which constituted a second crime. That elevated the charge of falsifying business records from a lower-level misdemeanour into a more serious felony.
They claimed the infamous Access Hollywood tape, which surfaced weeks before the 2016 election and showed Mr Trump bragging about being able to have sex with anyone because he is famous, had panicked his campaign.
"The defendant and his campaign staff were deeply concerned that it would irreparably damage his standing with female voters in particular," Mr Colangelo told the court.
But when Ms Daniels came forward a day later alleging a sexual encounter with Mr Trump, it compounded the problem created by the tape, Mr Colangelo alleged.
The public disclosure "would have been devastating to his campaign, so at Trump's direction Cohen negotiated a deal", Mr Colangelo told the jurors. The prosecution alleges Mr Pecker - the former boss at American Media Inc, which owns the National Enquirer - and Mr Cohen discussed how to keep it quiet.
The defence's rebuttal was fairly simple in comparison.
Mr Blanche appeared intent on casting prosecutors' star witness - Cohen - as an untrustworthy former employee with an axe to grind against the former president.
"He's a convicted felon and a convicted perjurer - he's an admitted liar," Mr Blanche said of Cohen.
He also zeroed in on Ms Daniels, who he said had earned "hundreds of thousands" of dollars with her claims. The defence lawyer told the jury to discount her as a witness.
He went on to dismiss the examples of allegedly false records as "34 pieces of paper" that did not involve his client.
As for the case prosecutors made for election interference, Mr Blanche denied that his client had done anything illegal even if he had attempted to sway voters.
"There's nothing wrong with trying to influence an election," Mr Blanche said. "It's called democracy."
The trial is expected to last about another six weeks, but legal experts say opening statements are particularly important as an opportunity to shape jurors' views on the case.
"You need to start out strong in a case like this," former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told the BBC.
Mr Rahmani noted that the prosecution's efforts to elevate this to an election interference case may be tough with a jury that includes two lawyers.
"It's clear the records were false business records, but to take that next step to prove they were in furtherance of, or to cover up, a campaign finance contribution, is a more difficult legal argument and they're going to need to do a lot more than that in my opinion.
"This is going to come down to Michael Cohen," he concluded, and whether his testimony backs up what he has said in the past and whether he has documents to prove it.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68877610
|
news_world-us-canada-68877610
|
|
Trump trial: Publisher says he suppressed negative news - BBC News
|
2024-04-24
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker testified on Tuesday about his relationship with Trump.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Our reporter at court explains the big moments from a difficult day for Trump’s team
The underbelly of New York City's tabloid media industry was laid bare in a Manhattan courtroom on Tuesday.
A famous publisher outlined a secret plan he had with Donald Trump and his personal lawyer Michael Cohen, calling it an "agreement among friends".
Prosecutors questioned former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker for nearly three hours.
He testified that the three worked to suppress negative stories about the candidate during his 2016 campaign.
"'This could be a very big story, so I believe that it should be removed from the market'," Mr Pecker said he would advise the former president about killing certain articles.
Mr Pecker's testimony could prove critical for prosecutors as they seek to prove that Mr Trump tried to influence the election by quelling a story of an alleged affair.
Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records.
Prosecutors allege he tried to cover up a $130,000 (£104,500) payment to porn star Stormy Daniels before he won the race for the White House back in 2016.
Continuing his testimony from Monday as the trial's first witness, Mr Pecker said he met Mr Trump in the late 1980s and eventually became good friends with the former president.
The two had a mutually "beneficial" relationship, in which Mr Trump would share exclusive information with him, such as news about the contestants on his reality TV show, The Apprentice. This helped boost viewership for the show and the National Enquirer, Mr Pecker said.
Shortly after Mr Trump launched his first presidential bid, Mr Pecker said he met with Cohen and Mr Trump in August 2015. There, Mr Pecker said he agreed to suppress negative articles about the former president and promote positive stories about him, a plan Mr Pecker argued should be kept "as quiet as possible".
The tabloid publisher said he also agreed to notify Mr Trump about stories concerning his romantic affairs, as he was "an eligible bachelor" who "dated the most beautiful women", according to Mr Pecker.
Mr Pecker detailed two stories that the three men worked to kill.
One was from Dino Sajudin, a former Trump Tower doorman, who Mr Pecker said tried to sell an article in 2015 about an unsubstantiated rumour that Mr Trump once fathered a child out of wedlock.
After investigating, Mr Pecker said, he found the claim to be "1,000% untrue".
But he agreed with Cohen to pay Mr Sajudin $30,000 for perpetual rights to the story, because it would have been "very embarrassing for the campaign" if it got out, Mr Pecker said.
Just before the end of the day in court, prosecutors also delved into a hush-money agreement made to Playboy model Karen McDougal. She claims she and Mr Trump had a long-term affair, though Mr Trump denies this.
Mr Pecker said he advised the former president to buy Ms McDougal's story, but Mr Trump was unsure.
"'Anytime you do anything like this, it always gets out'," Mr Pecker claimed Mr Trump told him.
His company eventually purchased the story for $150,000.
Though prosecutors did not bring charges over either of these payments, the testimony from Tuesday could help paint a picture of the context leading up to Ms Daniels' payment.
Putting the tabloid publisher up on the stand first in the trial was a smart move, according to former Brooklyn prosecutor Julie Rendelman.
"He provides the backdrop for how the whole 'catch and kill' scheme came to be, the players involved, and the timing as it related to Trump's campaign," she said.
Mr Pecker's testimony came after the second day of the hush-money trial got off to a rocky start for the former president's legal team.
The day began with a hearing on whether comments Mr Trump made about those involved in the case violated a gag order.
Sparks quickly flew between his lead lawyer, Todd Blanche, and Justice Juan Merchan.
After prosecutors alleged 10 of his social media posts violated the order, Mr Blanche argued his client had a right to address "political attacks".
Judge Merchan was not buying it.
"You're losing all credibility with the court," he told Mr Blanche, after trying to get him to hurry up his arguments.
Trump is accused by the prosecution of routinely breaking a restriction imposed by the judge that prevents him from publicly attacking witnesses, prosecutors and relatives of court staff.
"He knows about the order, he knows what he's not allowed to do, but he does it anyway," prosecutor Christopher Conroy told the court.
At stake for Mr Trump is a $10,000 fine and a warning that future violations of the order could lead to his imprisonment.
The judge said he would reserve making a ruling about the violations for now.
But former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani said the judge's reproach was a worrying sign for Mr Trump's team.
"They can't control their client, but when the judge tells a lawyer they are losing all their credibility, that's bad," Mr Rahmani said.
In the break that followed the hearing, Mr Trump took to his social media site Truth Social to criticise Judge Merchan and claim that he was being unfairly blocked from defending himself against attacks.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68880206
|
news_world-us-canada-68880206
|
|
Trump trial: Prosecution say hush money was 'pure election fraud' - BBC News
|
2024-04-24
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
But the defence says the former president committed no crimes and calls star witness an admitted liar.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Is Trump part of a 'conspiracy' or 'cloaked in innocence'?
The prosecution in Donald Trump's hush-money trial accused the former president of a criminal conspiracy and cover-up to hide a sex scandal ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
"It was election fraud, pure and simple," a lawyer told the jury during opening statements on Monday at the historic trial in New York.
Setting out the case for the defence, Mr Trump's lawyer said his client had committed no crimes and that it was not illegal to try to influence an election.
"He is cloaked in innocence," he added.
Mr Trump is accused of trying to cover up a $130,000 (£104,500) payment to porn star Stormy Daniels before he won the race for the White House back in 2016.
He has pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records and also denies having an alleged sexual encounter with Ms Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.
At the start of the second week of the criminal trial in Manhattan - the first ever of a former US president - each side set out the case they will present to the jury. The first witness, tabloid publisher David Pecker, also took the stand briefly and will continue his testimony on Tuesday.
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo told the court that Michael Cohen, Mr Trump's former lawyer and confidant, worked with the Trump Organization's chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, to "cook the books" at Mr Trump's direction.
Prosecutors alleged that the scheme to disguise how Cohen was reimbursed for the payment to Ms Daniels involved falsifying three forms of records - invoices, ledger entries and cheques.
Mr Trump said in his business records that those payments were "for legal services pursuant to a retainer agreement" with Mr Cohen, Mr Colangelo told the jury.
"Those were lies," the prosecutor said.
Critically for this case, he said that Mr Trump was motivated to provide the payoff so voters did not learn of the alleged encounter with Ms Daniels.
Prosecutors said that this cover-up should be considered election interference, which constituted a second crime. That elevated the charge of falsifying business records from a lower-level misdemeanour into a more serious felony.
They claimed the infamous Access Hollywood tape, which surfaced weeks before the 2016 election and showed Mr Trump bragging about being able to have sex with anyone because he is famous, had panicked his campaign.
"The defendant and his campaign staff were deeply concerned that it would irreparably damage his standing with female voters in particular," Mr Colangelo told the court.
But when Ms Daniels came forward a day later alleging a sexual encounter with Mr Trump, it compounded the problem created by the tape, Mr Colangelo alleged.
The public disclosure "would have been devastating to his campaign, so at Trump's direction Cohen negotiated a deal", Mr Colangelo told the jurors. The prosecution alleges Mr Pecker - the former boss at American Media Inc, which owns the National Enquirer - and Mr Cohen discussed how to keep it quiet.
The defence's rebuttal was fairly simple in comparison.
Mr Blanche appeared intent on casting prosecutors' star witness - Cohen - as an untrustworthy former employee with an axe to grind against the former president.
"He's a convicted felon and a convicted perjurer - he's an admitted liar," Mr Blanche said of Cohen.
He also zeroed in on Ms Daniels, who he said had earned "hundreds of thousands" of dollars with her claims. The defence lawyer told the jury to discount her as a witness.
He went on to dismiss the examples of allegedly false records as "34 pieces of paper" that did not involve his client.
As for the case prosecutors made for election interference, Mr Blanche denied that his client had done anything illegal even if he had attempted to sway voters.
"There's nothing wrong with trying to influence an election," Mr Blanche said. "It's called democracy."
The trial is expected to last about another six weeks, but legal experts say opening statements are particularly important as an opportunity to shape jurors' views on the case.
"You need to start out strong in a case like this," former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told the BBC.
Mr Rahmani noted that the prosecution's efforts to elevate this to an election interference case may be tough with a jury that includes two lawyers.
"It's clear the records were false business records, but to take that next step to prove they were in furtherance of, or to cover up, a campaign finance contribution, is a more difficult legal argument and they're going to need to do a lot more than that in my opinion.
"This is going to come down to Michael Cohen," he concluded, and whether his testimony backs up what he has said in the past and whether he has documents to prove it.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68877610
|
news_world-us-canada-68877610
|
|
Chris Mason: Parties squabble over policy pledges as elections loom - BBC News
|
2024-04-25
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Political leaders fight for headlines ahead of local elections, leading to rumours of a general election.
|
UK Politics
|
It has felt like a week where politics has notched up a gear. Again.
The local, mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales are a week away.
And the general election is imminent too.
Quite how imminent? Texts zip around seeking the latest morsels of gossip.
Opposition parties twitch in excitable anticipation that the election could be this summer.
Some Conservatives ponder that that option might be better than clinging on, as critics may see it.
Other senior figures in government leave me with the impression that they revere the privilege of governing and getting things done that they want to get done.
And by that logic, you would put off the election until later in the year.
The prime minister held news conferences three days in a row, in three different countries.
I was at each of them, the first in London, the second in Warsaw and the third in Berlin.
For a leader who does not seek the public spotlight for its own sake that is notable.
As was how long he was willing to take questions for from us reporters.
It is the sort of thing politicians with people to persuade do.
And the opinion polls suggest Rishi Sunak has plenty of folk to persuade.
The Conservative promise to spend 2.5% of national income on defence by 2030 has been proudly and repeatedly trumpeted, advisers texting repeatedly to point out endorsements from the US and elsewhere.
Labour are scathing about the Tories' numbers.
While this was the government making an announcement about planned levels of defence spending, what it really was - this close to an election - was a Conservative campaign pledge.
Meanwhile, talking of pledges, Labour publish what amounts to a manifesto for train travel - 26 pages on glossy paper, after months of work.
Nationalisation is the controlling thought, although that word itself never actually appears.
I hear every single sentence had been given the once over by senior party figures, with a last minute edit to remove a single word. Alas I do not know what that one word was.
Whatever it was, it is an insight into Labour's caution. Worrying about every word, taking nothing for granted.
It is a policy distinct from the Conservatives, on a topic that matters to millions of people. And Sir Keir Starmer invited us along to its launch at the Hitachi train factory in Newton Aycliffe in County Durham.
The carcasses of half-built carriages hover above the factory floor, propped up on stilts, the veins of their wiring dangling loose.
Incidentally, there are some nuggets in "Labour's plan to fix Britain's railways" worth reflecting on.
"Labour will set targets for modal shift to lower emissions from the transport sector," the document spells out rather dryly, on page 16.
A senior Conservative texts me to leap on what they see as a Labour instinct to be anti-car.
And what exactly are these targets? I ask Sir Keir repeatedly, and do not get a direct answer.
He says it is about making trains sufficiently attractive that we choose them over driving.
Four days, four places, a blizzard of questions.
The parties squabbling, almost hourly, over the small print of each other's announcements.
The election(s) near. The arguments sharpen. The scrutiny notches up.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68902473
|
news_uk-politics-68902473
|
|
US Supreme Court divided on whether Trump can be prosecuted - BBC News
|
2024-04-25
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The justices discussed immunity, coups, pardons, Operation Mongoose - and the future of democracy.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
For nearly three hours on Thursday, the Supreme Court weighed whether former presidents are immune from prosecution and what exactly it means if they are.
Its answer will determine whether former President Donald Trump can be tried on charges of trying to subvert the 2020 election.
Whatever the decision, each justice indicated that it would shape US democracy for years to come.
"We're writing a rule for the ages," Justice Neil Gorsuch said.
The case, heard in a special session one day after the court's last scheduled argument of this term, hinges on Mr Trump's claim that he is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal charges for actions committed while in office.
According to Mr Trump, this immunity shields him from criminal charges brought by US Special Counsel Jack Smith that he allegedly attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
That trial will remain on hold until the court issues its decision, expected in June.
The justices' pointed questions, levelled at both sides, indicated division within the bench, and suggested a split decision may be likely. That division could also lead to a more complicated decision that would significantly delay any restart of the trial.
Their questions, along with tense exchanges and high-stakes hypothetical scenarios, also showed that both the conservative majority and liberal minority are making the decision with an eye to history. Would total immunity mean a future president was free to use the US military to kill his or her rivals? Or, without it, would presidents leaving office be subject to the whims of individual prosecutors and thrown in jail as part of political vendettas?
They also brought up the pardoning of another former president, Richard Nixon, for his involvement in the Watergate coverup, and Operation Mongoose from the 1960s - where then-President John F. Kennedy had the Central Intelligence Agency carry out covert operations against Fidel Castro.
The justices will now weigh whether Mr Trump is entitled to protection from criminal prosecution
While the conservative side seemed open to the idea that all former US presidents should have some degree of immunity, all the justices sounded sceptical of arguments made by Mr Trump's lawyer, Dean John Sauer, that a former president has near-total protection from prosecution.
Answering questions first, Mr Sauer was grilled by the nine justices on the breadth of that protection.
"How about if the president orders the military to stage a coup?" asked Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's three liberal justices.
Mr Sauer appeared hesitant to respond before saying it would "depend on the circumstances".
Later, following this same thread, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, also a liberal justice, expressed concern that if past presidents were shielded entirely from criminal prosecution, they would be untethered from the law.
"I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminality," she said.
A demonstrator prays outside the Supreme Court during arguments on Thursday
The conservative justices, too, pressed Mr Sauer on the distinction between "official acts" - those done as part of presidential duties - and private acts.
"My question is whether the very robust form of immunity you're advocating is necessary," asked Samuel Alito, one of the court's most conservative justices.
But Michael Dreeben, representing the US government, faced the same sharp interrogation as the justices walked through the consequences of leaving US presidents without some level of criminal protection.
What if a president directed a violent attack on foreign soil, Justice Clarence Thomas asked, could that president later be prosecuted?
Mr Dreeben responded that there are "layers of protection" already in place to protect presidents from criminal liability for doing their job, including actions taken overseas.
Justice Alito in particular sounded concerned about another possible consequence: that presidents may be subject to partisan attacks, perhaps by their successors, once they leave office.
"This could destroy the presidency as we know it," said Justice Alito, who dominated the second half of the hearing.
But the conservative justices did not present a united front.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by Mr Trump, seemed dubious of the notion that presidents deserve blanket immunity.
When Mr Dreeben said there was "no perfect system" for handling a president's culpability, but that the current system would not be improved by Mr Trump's "radical proposal" Justice Barrett replied: "I agree."
A fractured ruling - one that does not side entirely with either Mr Trump's lawyer or the special counsel - may instead send the question or a part of it to lower courts to decide. This would surely add further delay and be subject to appeal, meaning this legal battle will continue for months, if not years, to come. .
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68901817
|
news_world-us-canada-68901817
|
|
Chris Mason: Parties squabble over policy pledges as elections loom - BBC News
|
2024-04-26
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Political leaders fight for headlines ahead of local elections, leading to rumours of a general election.
|
UK Politics
|
It has felt like a week where politics has notched up a gear. Again.
The local, mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales are a week away.
And the general election is imminent too.
Quite how imminent? Texts zip around seeking the latest morsels of gossip.
Opposition parties twitch in excitable anticipation that the election could be this summer.
Some Conservatives ponder that that option might be better than clinging on, as critics may see it.
Other senior figures in government leave me with the impression that they revere the privilege of governing and getting things done that they want to get done.
And by that logic, you would put off the election until later in the year.
The prime minister held news conferences three days in a row, in three different countries.
I was at each of them, the first in London, the second in Warsaw and the third in Berlin.
For a leader who does not seek the public spotlight for its own sake that is notable.
As was how long he was willing to take questions for from us reporters.
It is the sort of thing politicians with people to persuade do.
And the opinion polls suggest Rishi Sunak has plenty of folk to persuade.
The Conservative promise to spend 2.5% of national income on defence by 2030 has been proudly and repeatedly trumpeted, advisers texting repeatedly to point out endorsements from the US and elsewhere.
Labour are scathing about the Tories' numbers.
While this was the government making an announcement about planned levels of defence spending, what it really was - this close to an election - was a Conservative campaign pledge.
Meanwhile, talking of pledges, Labour publish what amounts to a manifesto for train travel - 26 pages on glossy paper, after months of work.
Nationalisation is the controlling thought, although that word itself never actually appears.
I hear every single sentence had been given the once over by senior party figures, with a last minute edit to remove a single word. Alas I do not know what that one word was.
Whatever it was, it is an insight into Labour's caution. Worrying about every word, taking nothing for granted.
It is a policy distinct from the Conservatives, on a topic that matters to millions of people. And Sir Keir Starmer invited us along to its launch at the Hitachi train factory in Newton Aycliffe in County Durham.
The carcasses of half-built carriages hover above the factory floor, propped up on stilts, the veins of their wiring dangling loose.
Incidentally, there are some nuggets in "Labour's plan to fix Britain's railways" worth reflecting on.
"Labour will set targets for modal shift to lower emissions from the transport sector," the document spells out rather dryly, on page 16.
A senior Conservative texts me to leap on what they see as a Labour instinct to be anti-car.
And what exactly are these targets? I ask Sir Keir repeatedly, and do not get a direct answer.
He says it is about making trains sufficiently attractive that we choose them over driving.
Four days, four places, a blizzard of questions.
The parties squabbling, almost hourly, over the small print of each other's announcements.
The election(s) near. The arguments sharpen. The scrutiny notches up.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68902473
|
news_uk-politics-68902473
|
|
US Supreme Court divided on whether Trump can be prosecuted - BBC News
|
2024-04-26
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The justices discussed immunity, coups, pardons, Operation Mongoose - and the future of democracy.
|
US & Canada
|
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
For nearly three hours on Thursday, the Supreme Court weighed whether former presidents are immune from prosecution and what exactly it means if they are.
Its answer will determine whether former President Donald Trump can be tried on charges of trying to subvert the 2020 election.
Whatever the decision, each justice indicated that it would shape US democracy for years to come.
"We're writing a rule for the ages," Justice Neil Gorsuch said.
The case, heard in a special session one day after the court's last scheduled argument of this term, hinges on Mr Trump's claim that he is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal charges for actions committed while in office.
According to Mr Trump, this immunity shields him from criminal charges brought by US Special Counsel Jack Smith that he allegedly attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
That trial will remain on hold until the court issues its decision, expected in June.
The justices' pointed questions, levelled at both sides, indicated division within the bench, and suggested a split decision may be likely. That division could also lead to a more complicated decision that would significantly delay any restart of the trial.
Their questions, along with tense exchanges and high-stakes hypothetical scenarios, also showed that both the conservative majority and liberal minority are making the decision with an eye to history. Would total immunity mean a future president was free to use the US military to kill his or her rivals? Or, without it, would presidents leaving office be subject to the whims of individual prosecutors and thrown in jail as part of political vendettas?
They also brought up the pardoning of another former president, Richard Nixon, for his involvement in the Watergate coverup, and Operation Mongoose from the 1960s - where then-President John F. Kennedy had the Central Intelligence Agency carry out covert operations against Fidel Castro.
The justices will now weigh whether Mr Trump is entitled to protection from criminal prosecution
While the conservative side seemed open to the idea that all former US presidents should have some degree of immunity, all the justices sounded sceptical of arguments made by Mr Trump's lawyer, Dean John Sauer, that a former president has near-total protection from prosecution.
Answering questions first, Mr Sauer was grilled by the nine justices on the breadth of that protection.
"How about if the president orders the military to stage a coup?" asked Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's three liberal justices.
Mr Sauer appeared hesitant to respond before saying it would "depend on the circumstances".
Later, following this same thread, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, also a liberal justice, expressed concern that if past presidents were shielded entirely from criminal prosecution, they would be untethered from the law.
"I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminality," she said.
A demonstrator prays outside the Supreme Court during arguments on Thursday
The conservative justices, too, pressed Mr Sauer on the distinction between "official acts" - those done as part of presidential duties - and private acts.
"My question is whether the very robust form of immunity you're advocating is necessary," asked Samuel Alito, one of the court's most conservative justices.
But Michael Dreeben, representing the US government, faced the same sharp interrogation as the justices walked through the consequences of leaving US presidents without some level of criminal protection.
What if a president directed a violent attack on foreign soil, Justice Clarence Thomas asked, could that president later be prosecuted?
Mr Dreeben responded that there are "layers of protection" already in place to protect presidents from criminal liability for doing their job, including actions taken overseas.
Justice Alito in particular sounded concerned about another possible consequence: that presidents may be subject to partisan attacks, perhaps by their successors, once they leave office.
"This could destroy the presidency as we know it," said Justice Alito, who dominated the second half of the hearing.
But the conservative justices did not present a united front.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by Mr Trump, seemed dubious of the notion that presidents deserve blanket immunity.
When Mr Dreeben said there was "no perfect system" for handling a president's culpability, but that the current system would not be improved by Mr Trump's "radical proposal" Justice Barrett replied: "I agree."
A fractured ruling - one that does not side entirely with either Mr Trump's lawyer or the special counsel - may instead send the question or a part of it to lower courts to decide. This would surely add further delay and be subject to appeal, meaning this legal battle will continue for months, if not years, to come. .
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68901817
|
news_world-us-canada-68901817
|
|
Trump New York hush-money trial is far from a slam dunk - BBC News
|
2024-04-26
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
Experts are split over the strength of NY prosecutor Alvin Bragg's case, which relies on a novel legal strategy.
|
US & Canada
|
An adult film star. Alleged secret payments. A turncoat lawyer. And a candidate for president of the United States.
Donald Trump's very first criminal trial - and the first of a former US president - involves charges of white-collar crime, but it features some of the most eye-catching details in any of the four criminal cases against him.
The case revolves around a $130,000 (£104,000) hush-money payment from Mr Trump's lawyer to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels, who claims she had an affair with Trump in 2006.
But that payment was not actually illegal. Instead, the blockbuster case bringing 34 felony charges is based on allegations the former president falsified business records to cover up the payment - made just before the 2016 election - to avoid an embarrassing sex scandal which he denies.
The trial, which began in New York on 15 April, has legal experts divided on the strength of the case. Some debate whether Manhattan's District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, should have even brought the case and whether it is strong enough.
Ambrosio Rodriguez, a former prosecutor who says he is no fan of the former president, believes the case legitimises Mr Trump's ongoing argument that he is being prosecuted unfairly because of who he is.
Mr Rodriguez argues that the case relies on old allegations, noting that federal prosecutors had investigated and declined to bring charges.
"This is a waste of time and a bad idea, and not good for the country," he told the BBC. "This seems just a political need and want to get Trump no matter what the costs are."
Others disagree. Nick Akerman, who worked on the Watergate prosecution, says it's a serious case.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch: Our New York correspondent sets out what's at stake in Trump's unprecedented trial?
"This is about an effort to defraud the American voters in 2016 to keep them from learning material information that would have affected their vote," he told the BBC, referring to Mr Trump's alleged efforts to hide payments reimbursing his then lawyer, Michael Cohen.
The case also has come under scrutiny because it's seemingly built on an untested legal theory.
Mr Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. New York prosecutors say Mr Cohen paid off Ms Daniels, and accuse Mr Trump of trying to disguise the money he paid him back as legal fees.
Ordinarily, falsifying business records is considered a misdemeanour - or low-level offence - in New York. But when it is done to conceal a crime, it can be elevated to a more serious felony charge.
It is not unusual for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office to do that, but Mr Bragg's approach is a particularly novel one.
He says Trump Organization records were falsified to conceal or aid criminal activity. But even though the trial begins on Monday, he has not specified the exact crime allegedly hidden.
He has however given clues. In court filings and interviews, Mr Bragg has said Mr Trump violated both state and federal election laws, and state tax laws.
"The District Attorney's office is not precluded from presenting to the jury a variety of alternative theories on sort of why the records were falsified," says Shane T. Stansbury, a former assistant United States Attorney in New York's southern district.
But he adds that it is unclear if a state prosecutor can invoke a federal election crime, as it appears Mr Bragg intends to do.
"We could have appellate courts and even the US Supreme Court weighing in on some of the federal questions that are part of this theory, so I think we're a long way from having resolution on this case," he says.
A former prosecutor in the New York federal office, Mark Pomerantz, said federal prosecutors went back and forth on charging Mr Trump so often that the investigation was nicknamed "the zombie case".
But due to the seriousness of charging a former president, some legal experts say that Mr Bragg had to bring the strongest possible case against Mr Trump, which is why he went for felony charges.
"Given who the defendant is in this case," said Anna Cominsky, a professor at the New York Law School, "Just a misdemeanour may not rise to the level of criminality that perhaps one would expect someone in Trump's position to be charged with."
One of the biggest wildcards in this case is the prosecution's star witness: Michael Cohen.
Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal campaign violations as part of the alleged cover-up, which he said was directed by Mr Trump.
Since his release, he has become one of Mr Trump's harshest critics, consistently attacking him in the press and on his podcast. He has also admitted in the past to lying to Congress under oath. That history makes him a "compromised witness," said Mr Stansbury.
But as the man at the centre of the alleged scheme, he is almost guaranteed to testify against his former boss.
"His credibility is a huge issue for the prosecution, and definitely something the defence is going to attack," said Ms Cominsky.
Mr Bragg will try to bolster Mr Cohen's testimony by presenting proof of the payments to the jury.
The former president is sticking with a strategy that amounts to attack-and-delay. He frequently calls the case a "hoax" and a "witch-hunt."
He has slammed Judge Merchan and District Attorney Bragg and attacked their family members on social media - to the extent that a partial gag order has now been imposed that prevents him from attacking court staff and their families.
Mr Trump speaks to the press after a 25 March hearing in his New York criminal case
His lawyers have tried to argue that the payments were made to keep the embarrassing information from Mr Trump's family, rather than to hide anything from voters.
Mr Akerman believes that argument, if used by the former president's lawyers in court, would fall flat with the 12-person jury ultimately deciding Mr Trump's fate.
"First of all, all of this was done right before the election, it had nothing to do with his family," he told the BBC.
Should a jury vote to convict him, Mr Trump would enter the final stretch before November's presidential election as a convicted felon.
But his legal team only needs to persuade one juror that he is not guilty of the crimes alleged for him to walk free.
"To me, the only defence that they have is to try and pick a jury and try and identify somebody who might actually hang the jury," Mr Akerman said. "Try and find someone who is a little bit eccentric, somebody who might be more sympathetic to Donald Trump."
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68737723
|
news_world-us-canada-68737723
|
|
A guide to Donald Trump's four criminal cases - BBC News
|
2024-04-26
|
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews
|
The former president is juggling potentially explosive legal battles with campaigning for the White House.
|
US & Canada
|
Donald Trump is heading towards a likely election rematch with Joe Biden in November, but this time around he's juggling campaigning with some potentially explosive legal battles.
The 77-year-old, who is the first former president in US history to be criminally charged, now faces dozens of charges across four separate cases.
And his legal troubles don't end there, as Mr Trump is also facing several civil cases relating to, among other things, the business empire that made his name. There are crucial legal appeals that are yet to be settled too, including one on whether he is immune from prosecution.
Here, we'll focus on the four criminal cases Mr Trump is facing and explain what they're about, what could happen next and, crucially, what's at stake as he seeks to return to the White House.
A payment made to the adult film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election.
Ms Daniels says she was paid $130,000 (£103,000) to stay quiet after having sex with Mr Trump, who denies they ever had an affair.
It's worth noting, though, that providing so-called hush-money is not in fact illegal.
Instead, this case is more technical and centres on how Mr Trump's former lawyer, who paid Ms Daniels, had his reimbursement recorded in Mr Trump's accounts.
The former president is accused of falsifying his business records by saying the payment was for legal fees. He's facing 34 counts of fraud under campaign finance laws, and has pleaded not guilty to all of them.
Mr Trump has said the case is politically motivated. "This is just a way of hurting me in the election," he told reporters. "This is not a crime."
Jury selection begins on 15 April, with the trial proper expected to start a week or two after that.
It was delayed by a month when a judge granted a request to allow time for new evidence to be reviewed.
It will be the first criminal trial of a US president.
Could Mr Trump go to prison?
Each of the charges carries a maximum of four years in prison, although a judge could sentence Mr Trump to probation if he is convicted.
Legal experts told the BBC they think it is unlikely Mr Trump will be jailed if convicted in this case and that a fine is the more likely outcome.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, is using a rarely used strategy to bring felony charges rather than less serious misdemeanours.
Whether Mr Trump illegally conspired to overturn his 2020 election defeat to Joe Biden.
Federal prosecutors allege he pressured officials to reverse the results, knowingly spread lies about election fraud and sought to exploit the Capitol riot on 6 January 2021 to delay the certification of Mr Biden's victory and stay in power.
He's been charged with four criminal counts, including conspiracy to defraud the US and conspiracy against the rights of citizens.
Some had speculated he would be charged with insurrection, or aiding insurrection, but that is not one of the charges.
He has denied wrongdoing and made an unsubstantiated accusation that the Biden administration is behind the prosecution.
This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Watch the moment Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol building
It has been postponed indefinitely while an appeal from Mr Trump plays out.
The Supreme Court will rule on Mr Trump's argument that a former president cannot be prosecuted like any other citizen.
Justices will hear the case on 25 April and decide by June.
The challenge increases the chances that this trial may not happen before November's election.
And if Mr Trump were to win the vote, he could in theory pardon himself or order the charges to be dismissed.
Could Mr Trump go to prison?
But there are logistical, security and political questions around whether Mr Trump would actually serve time in jail even if convicted.
A conviction at trial would take the US into uncharted territory.
Mr Trump and some 18 other defendants are accused of criminally conspiring to overturn his very narrow defeat in the state of Georgia in the 2020 election.
The huge racketeering investigation, led by Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis, was sparked in part by a leaked phone call in which the former president asked the state's top election official to "find 11,780 votes".
Mr Trump was hit 13 criminal counts, subsequently reduced to 10. They include one alleged violation of Georgia's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Rico).
The former president has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in the case and has entered a plea of not guilty.
Prosecutors want the case to begin in August, but a date has not been set.
The timeline was complicated by a failed effort to disqualify Ms Willis because of her romantic relationship with a man she hired to work on the case.
Could Mr Trump go to prison?
Georgia prosecutors would need to prove that there was a pattern of corruption from Mr Trump and his co-defendants aimed at overturning the election result in order to bring a conviction.
As for making false statements, that carries a penalty of between one to five years in prison or a fine.
Whether Mr Trump mishandled classified documents by taking them from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago residence after he left office.
It's also about whether he obstructed the FBI's efforts to retrieve the files, as well as the criminal investigation into his handling of them.
The majority of the counts are for the wilful retention of national defence information, which falls under the Espionage Act.
There are then eight individual counts, which include conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record and making false statements. Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty on all counts.
Prosecutors want it to start in July.
Mr Trump and his lawyers want it put off until after the November presidential election.
Could Mr Trump go to prison?
These charges could, in theory, lead to substantial prison time if Mr Trump is convicted.
Looking at the letter of the law, the counts under the Espionage Act each carry a maximum sentence of 10 years. Other counts, related to conspiracy and withholding or concealing documents, each carry maximum sentences of 20 years.
But the logistics of jailing a former president mean a conventional prison sentence is seen as unlikely by many experts.
If you're in the UK, sign up here.
And if you're anywhere else, sign up here.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61084161
|
news_world-us-canada-61084161
|
|
West Ham 2-2 Liverpool: Michail Antonio equaliser dents Reds' title hopes - BBC Sport
|
2024-04-27
|
None
|
Liverpool's slim Premier League title hopes take another hit as Michail Antonio rescues a point for West Ham at London Stadium.
| null |
Last updated on .From the section Premier League
Liverpool's Premier League title hopes seem all but over after Michail Antonio scored to rescue a point for West Ham at London Stadium.
Jarrod Bowen opened the scoring just before the break when he rose highest to meet Mohammed Kudus' cross as Liverpool showed little evidence that their Merseyside derby loss in midweek had done much in the way of spurring them on.
But the visitors were much improved in the second half and Andy Robertson equalised when he scored from Luis Diaz's low pass into the penalty area.
The Reds were then further rewarded for their pressure when Cody Gakpo's effort from a corner ricocheted off Angelo Ogbonna, Tomas Soucek and Alphonse Areola before finding the back of the net.
Antonio's thumping header put the Hammers back on level terms two minutes before Liverpool brought on Mohamed Salah, who exchanged words with manager Jurgen Klopp as the stood on the touchline.
Liverpool sit third in the table with three games remaining, two points behind leaders Arsenal, who face Tottenham on Sunday, while Manchester City are second but have two games in hand.
Liverpool's title hopes appear to be all but over, with the Reds relying on both of their title rivals to slip up to get back in the race.
With Dutchman Arne Slot poised to replace Jurgen Klopp this summer after Liverpool agreed a £9.4m compensation deal with his current club Feyenoord, Klopp suggested his successor would be helped by the Reds' season "not finishing on a high".
Having won the Carabao Cup in February, the Reds looked on track to fight for a European trophy and stake a strong claim for the Premier League title in Klopp's last season.
But in the space of about three weeks those hopes have almost completely unravelled and this latest result surely denies Klopp the fairytale ending.
Liverpool were not at their best in the first half, despite captain Virgil van Dijk's scathing review of his team-mates' desire following the loss to Everton.
But they emerged from the break more like the Klopp side that fans have come to be familiar with, playing with more intensity and hunger.
After Robertson quickly got his side on level terms, Ryan Gravenberch saw his effort drop agonisingly wide and Trent Alexander-Arnold's long-range effort was well saved by Areola.
A scramble in the West Ham penalty area gave Liverpool the lead, and they could have been out of sight with Diaz and Alexis Mac Allister going close before Vladimir Coufal denied Darwin Nunez a simple tap-in.
But, for all their chances, Liverpool were once again left disappointed as the reign of Klopp risks coming to an end with a whimper.
Salah failed to make an impact from the bench after being dropped from the starting line-up and appeared to clash with Klopp on the touchline before coming on.
• None 'If I speak there will be fire' - Salah on Klopp argument
West Ham have won only one of their past nine home league games and suffered a heavy defeat by Crystal Palace last time out, their second consecutive loss.
But the return of Bowen, who missed last week's match with a back injury, proved crucial, with the winger heading home from the middle of a crowded area before setting up Antonio's equaliser.
His 16 top-flight goals this season will surely have increased his hopes of going to the Euro 2024, with England manager Gareth Southgate watching on in London.
West Ham now sit eighth in the table, with a fourth consecutive season in Europe in their reach.
Despite that success under David Moyes, speculation around the Hammers boss has once again emerged this week, with Sporting Lisbon boss Ruben Amorim reportedly in London to discuss replacing the Scot, although the Portuguese said on Saturday the talks were "a mistake".
• None Attempt blocked. Michail Antonio (West Ham United) right footed shot from the right side of the box is blocked. Assisted by James Ward-Prowse.
• None Alexis Mac Allister (Liverpool) is shown the yellow card for a bad foul.
• None Attempt missed. Virgil van Dijk (Liverpool) header from the centre of the box is close, but misses to the right. Assisted by Andy Robertson with a cross following a corner.
• None Harvey Elliott (Liverpool) hits the bar with a left footed shot from outside the box. Assisted by Darwin Núñez following a fast break.
• None Delay over. They are ready to continue.
• None Delay in match because of an injury Alphonse Areola (West Ham United).
• None Attempt blocked. Ryan Gravenberch (Liverpool) right footed shot from the centre of the box is blocked.
• None Attempt blocked. Cody Gakpo (Liverpool) header from the centre of the box is blocked. Assisted by Andy Robertson with a cross. Navigate to the next page Navigate to the last page
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68862599
|
rt_football_68862599
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.