TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @SkyNews
@SkyNews - Sky News
"Your big priority is supposed to be growth. You're actually killing growth." @TrevorPTweets challenges Rachel Reeves on the stealth taxes, which the HRA has warned will "push up the cost of hiring". #TrevorPhillips trib.al/GMH8aBc 📺 Sky 501 https://t.co/m0pG1YgDfw
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 argues that the budget embodies stealth taxes: rise in national insurance, massive hikes in business rates, and the CRHRO warning that the stealth taxes and the freezing of the threshold have pushed up the cost of hiring because more goes to HMRC. They claim these measures will raise overheads by tens of thousands and that, with growth as a priority, these policies are actually killing growth. They note they chair a medium-sized business and expect the Chief Financial Officer to report higher costs, while also anticipating negative effects on hiring.
Speaker 1 clarifies that the freeze in thresholds is announced to extend to 2028, with no changes before that point, contrasting with the previous government which froze thresholds for seven years. They say they indicated in November that people would have to contribute more, though they did not raise the tax rate or change anything in April next year. From 2028, they state, there will be changes due to the threshold freeze.
Speaker 0 adds that bosses are already saying they will slow hiring.
Speaker 1 responds by pointing to post-budget announcements: the Coop supermarket group has said they will put a billion pounds into cutting or freezing prices of 2,700 items in their shops; JPMorgan has announced the investment of a new office in London employing 12,000 people; Goldman Sachs is doubling the number of people they are going to employ in Birmingham. They conclude by urging to look at the announcements since the budget, noting more hiring, more jobs, and lower prices.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Came out as a budget. Of course, the big thing was the stealth taxes. Now, I chair a medium sized business myself. We've done pretty well. We wanna expand.
I know what's gonna happen this week. Chief financial officer is gonna say rise in national insurance, massive highs at hike in business rates. They've already added tens of thousands to our overheads. The CRHRO is going to warn that the stealth taxes, the freezing of the threshold, have just pushed up the cost of hiring because candidates know that they're gonna get less out of their pay package because more is going to HMRC. Your big priority is supposed to be growth.
You're actually killing growth.
Speaker 1: The freeze in the thresholds that I announced coming in 2028, so there would be no change before that point. Of course, the previous government froze thresholds for for for seven years.
Speaker 0: We didn't know that gonna extend them for another three years.
Speaker 1: Well, I did say in that speech at the November that we would have to ask people to contribute more. Now we didn't put up the tax rate, and we didn't do anything in April, next year. But, yes, from 2028, we have thrown
Speaker 0: But bosses are already saying that they're going to slow hiring.
Speaker 1: Well, if you look at, some of
Speaker 0: the announcements
Speaker 1: well, Trevor, if you look at some of the announcements that's come since, I made the the budget, the coop, the supermarket group, have said they're gonna put a billion pounds into cutting or freezing prices of 2,700 items in their shops. JPMorgan have announced the investment of a new office in London employing 12,000 people. Goldman Sachs are doubling the number of people that they are going to employ in Birmingham. So look at the announcements that we've had since that budget, more hiring, more jobs, lower prices.
@SkyNews - Sky News
Donald Trump has threatened to sue the BBC for $1bn over an editing error in a speech. Our US partner NBC News has obtained the letter sent from the US president's lawyers to the BBC. @Stone_SkyNews reacts. https://trib.al/A80iDtj
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the BBC Panorama documentary situation and the Trump camp’s reaction. It recalls that last week The Telegraph in the UK published the leaked Prescott memo, revealing that Panorama had spliced together two clips from a January 2021 Trump speech in a misleading way. After a brief period of silence from the White House, the Telegraph secured an interview with Caroline Levitt, Donald Trump’s press secretary, who described the BBC coverage as “100%, fake news.” The segment suggests the White House was aware of the documentary and the leaked memo, and that the issue was on Trump’s desk over the weekend. Nigel Farage, Reform UK leader and GB News presenter, claimed he spoke with Trump on Friday and that Trump was so angry he couldn’t broadcast a reaction.
A copy of a four-page letter from Donald Trump’s lawyers, Britco PLLC of Coral Gables, Florida, to BBC general counsel Sarah Jones is discussed. The letter sets a November 14, 2025, 5 PM deadline and threatens “to enforce his legal and equitable rights, all of which are expressly reserved and are not waived,” including filing “legal action for no less, than $1,000,000,000, in damages” if the BBC does not retract what was said in the Panorama documentary. The BBC is explicitly said to be “on notice.” The BBC’s annual budget is noted as just over £5,000,000,000, underscoring the magnitude of the claimed damages.
It’s noted that Panorama was produced by an outside company, October Productions, and not directly by the BBC. Some BBC journalists are reportedly angry about the splicing and the alteration of a sentence, and they wish to distance themselves from the outside production. Nevertheless, the piece emphasizes that BBC management likely should have caught the issue.
The report also mentions the broader BBC context and signals that the Washington focus is on what Trump might say when he speaks to the media, anticipated alongside comments with the Syrian president in the coming days.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Weren't entirely it wasn't entirely clear to us the extent to which the president was was across this story, certainly last week. Remember, last week was when The Telegraph in The UK, published the leaked memo in which that the so called Prescott memo, in which it was revealed that the Panorama documentary of last year, it's pub doc broadcasters for the election last year had spliced together two clips from a Trump speech from two from January 2021, in a very misleading way. That broke midweek last week, and there was no comment for for a couple of days from the White House. But on Friday, the Telegraph did manage to get an interview, with Caroline Levitt, who is the press secretary to Donald Trump, where she was, incredibly damning of the BBC. She she said, that it was a 100%, fake news.
It was clear then, that certainly the White House was well aware of this of this documentary of the leaked the the leaked memo. And over the course of the weekend, it it it clearly was on the desk of president Trump. Although Nigel Farage, reform leader and, of course, a a presenter on GB News. He claims he spoke to Donald Trump on Friday and that he couldn't broadcast Donald Trump's reaction because Trump was was so angry. So that's the background.
Now we have got a a copy of the letter that has been sent by Donald Trump's lawyers to the BBC. It's from a, a legal firm, Britco pl l c, based, in Coral Gables, Florida. It's a four page, letter, and it is, sent to the the general counsel, the the senior lawyer at the BBC, Sarah Jones. And, I mean, I'm gonna read it all to you, but but the key bit at the very end, if the BBC does not the cock not comply with the above from November 14 by 11/14/2025 at 5PM. President Trump will be left with no no alternative, but enforced to enforce his legal and equitable rights, all of which are express expressly reserved and are not waived, including, here's the kicker, by filing legal action for no less, than $1,000,000,000, in damages.
The BBC, is on notice. Now the BBC's annual, budget, is just over £5,000,000,000, so this is a whopping amount of money that Donald Trump is saying he will demand from the BBC through legal action if they do not retract the what what was said in that BBC documentary in the Panorama show. It's worth stressing too that the Panorama documentary was put together by an outside production company, October Productions. It is not directly part of the BBC, and I can tell you, Jane, I know many BBC journalists here and around the world who are as as angry as anyone is that of the splicing together, of the clip in that panorama documentary, and they clearly wish to disassociate themselves, with what they see as a job by an outside production company. Nevertheless, it is also the case that BBC management surely should have seen this.
I mean, we all know, you and I both work in news, have done for many years. We know exactly how it works, how you edit a film, how you edit a report, and you never ever splice together two pieces to change what someone has said. And not only did they splice it together, they flipped one one part of a sentence around. So Donald Trump's words were flipped. He said one bit after the other bit, they changed that.
So an extraordinary thing that the BBC did in that. But it's kind of part of a much, much wider story about the BBC. The focus here in Washington, Jane, is what Donald Trump might say, when he, speaks to the media, which we think he'll do, alongside the Syrian president, in the next few
SocialFlow
trib.al
reSee.it AI Summary
I report on Sky's James Matthew Sky analyzing Trump's threat to sue the BBC for $1bn, alleging defamation and that the BBC intentionally and deceitfully edited his speech before the 2021 Capitol riots.
@SkyNews - Sky News
"He wields power over the media in a way that no president has in the past" Sky's @jamesmatthewsky analyses Donald Trump's threat to sue the BBC for $1bn over allegations it defamed him. Trump's lawyers allege the BBC defamed him by 'intentionally and deceitfully' editing his speech before the 2021 Capitol riots. 🔗 https://trib.al/qHd2yFg
Video Transcript AI Summary
The BBC is facing a critical moment financially, legally, and reputationally. A BBC documentary has been accused of defaming Donald Trump by allegedly editing the piece in a way that was intentional and deceitful to influence the presidential election. A legal source close to Trump’s team told the reporter that the BBC defamed Trump, and that if the BBC does not meet the president’s demands, Trump will pursue accountability; the dispute centers on potential damages—one source mentions a figure at a billion dollars—posing a major concern for the BBC and for license fee payers.
The accusation touches the core of Trump’s presidency and his demonstrated willingness to wield influence over media. Trump has threatened legal action against major American networks for years and has been successful in some cases; the source suggests he intends to extend that power to a foreign media company, the BBC, which many view as a benchmark of integrity and accuracy. That perception is echoed by audiences on this side of the Atlantic, where some people prefer foreign media like Sky News and the BBC because American outlets are seen as polarized.
The potential impact is significant for the BBC’s international reputation. Beyond the immediate legal and financial stakes, the incident could influence how American viewers perceive coverage of Trump. Trump routinely denigrates negative coverage, and he is expected to point to this episode as evidence that the media are intent on stitching him up. If so, that framing could undermine trust in journalism and complicate efforts to report on the Trump presidency with perceived authority and accuracy. In sum, the episode represents a convergence of high-stakes legal risk, financial exposure, and questions about media credibility and the quality of political coverage during a contentious presidency.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Singer would be the word. Yeah. It hardly gets more serious for the BBC in terms of the finances, the legal action, and the BBC's credibility. Frankly, we've spoken to a legal source close to Donald Trump's team. They're telling us that BBC defamed president Trump by intentionally and deceitfully editing his documentary in order to try to interfere in the presidential election.
The accusation could hardly be, more serious. President Trump, the source, is telling us will continue to hold accountable those who traffic in lies, deception, and fake news. So that's what they're saying. That's what they would propose to say in court should the BBC not meet the president's demands. And as you have just articulated, we're talking about a billion dollars, which has to be a concern to the BBC, a concern to the license pair as well.
And it goes to the heart of Donald Trump's presidency and his authority as exercised over the media in recent months, Jane. I mean, this is an individual who has threatened legal action, on a regular basis and has successfully done so against some of the big American networks. He wields power over the media in a way that no president has in the past, and this clearly is an intention to extend that to a foreign media company, the BBC, which, you know, for many people is seen as a a touchstone of integrity and accuracy. And that's a view certainly shared on this side of the Atlantic. You get that from many people who tell us that they watch foreign media.
They watch Sky News. They watch the BBC because all they get in The United States is polarized media. So very serious indeed in terms of the BBC's reputation internationally. But more than that, important in terms of how this Trump presidency is covered for a mistake to have been made, on this. It does place in the minds of the American viewer, a percentage doubt, I think, about coverage that they read.
Bear in mind that Donald Trump will routinely, denigrate and disparage coverage that is negative about him. There will be other negative coverage of Donald Trump in future, and he will point to this episode as an example of how the media, are intent on stitching him up. So that perhaps actually, is the biggest crime against journalism in all of this, that it undermines the efforts to report accurately the Trump presidency and to report on it with authority.
SocialFlow
trib.al
@SkyNews - Sky News
"I don't think (Trump) has a strong case. I think he has a weak case" Former BBC presenter @dimbleby_jd tells @jonathansamuels the BBC should apologise "more swiftly" when it's wrong, but do more to defend itself when it's being "unfairly treated" 📱 https://trib.al/Ldqpoo4
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 argues that the BBC should not offer more than the apology already indicated by Samir Shah, who apologized for the error of joining two separate parts of an interview to look like one. He notes Donald Trump called the BBC corrupt and dishonest, which he finds outrageous. He believes Trump has a weak case and that the BBC’s error was editorial, similar to how written journalism uses ellipses; the program balance was not complained about at the time. He says the BBC should have corrected and apologized earlier, and that the BBC’s thoroughness can slow public relations.
Speaker 1 asks whether Trump has a strong case. Speaker 0 responds that Trump does not; it was an editorial error, and the BBC should have used a visual cue to indicate the quote’s continuation. He suggests the error was serious and should have been corrected earlier, though he acknowledges the BBC makes errors as do all broadcasters.
Speaker 1 asks if the two high-profile resignations were due to pressure from the American administration. Speaker 0 says no, expressing shock at Tim Davie’s resignation, praising Davie as the best person to navigate the BBC through charter renewal and public broadcasting challenges, and emphasizing the BBC’s commitment to impartiality. He contrasts this with populist right voices that interpret impartiality as broadcasting their views, noting the BBC makes errors but remains committed to impartiality. He maintains that the BBC is not institutionally biased and disputes the idea that the BBC is metropolitan, citing its Salford base and national reach.
Speaker 1 asks if there is a BBC board coup or significant political interference. Speaker 0 is cautious about calling it a coup, citing examples of powerful figures like Robbie Gibb but avoiding naming individuals. He notes that non-executive directors were appointed under previous administrations and mentions involvement by a former Conservative Party leader who denounced the BBC and supported Robbie Gibb. He doubts that the intent is to destroy the BBC, but suspects some people want the BBC weakened and may hold strong views on license fees and the charter. He does not label it a coup.
Speaker 1 asks how the BBC should move on, aside from Trump’s potential lawsuit. Speaker 0 says the BBC must apologize more promptly and publicly when wrong, especially in a fractured society where impartiality is crucial. He suggests the BBC should be on the front foot with apologies and even-handed treatment when treated unfairly. He questions who could lead the BBC in the coming months and stresses the need for balance and restored impartiality in judgment about the BBC’s performance and future.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, I don't think that the BBC should immediately give him any more than they've already indicated, which is an apology. And that Samir Shah, the chair, has already said, apologizes for the error, the the joining together of two separate parts in the interview to make them look at one, and that was a mistake. If if he wants that apology repeated in spades, I expect it can be said a number of times. But, you know, Donald Trump's got it's it's always interesting to me that Donald Trump, whose proximity to the truth is, to put it mildly, often challenged, should regard the BBC. He used the word corrupt and dishonest.
That that's what he said, I think, and that is really it seems to me to be outrageous.
Speaker 1: And I suppose the other issue is, do you think Donald Trump actually has a a strong case?
Speaker 0: I don't think he has a strong case. I think he has a weak case. I think that, that it was an error, an editorial error. You know in written journalism, you take a bit of a quote and you put dot dot dot, and then you put the rest of the quote. They should have put in the a visual equivalent of that, whether that is a fading to black, going to white, or making a link.
I think it was done to stimulate interest in the program, which a lot of people watched, and they were virtually, as far as I know at the time, no complaints at all about the balance of the program. So I think it was a serious error. It should have been picked up, and it should have been once it was identified, corrected and apologized earlier than it was. But the BBC in these matters, because they want to be so thorough, tends to go more slowly than would be desirable in terms of relations with the public.
Speaker 1: Do you think then these two high profile resignations are bowing to pressure put on them by the American administration?
Speaker 0: No. I don't actually think that. I think that, I I I should say that I I I know, Tim Davy pretty well, and I have a very high regard for him. And when I heard the news, I was shocked and dismayed because I think he is by far the best person, in a very difficult position to guide and take the BBC through to the very rough waters of what is going to be the charter renewal process. It is exceptionally important for for public broadcasting.
I think that he represents the best in the BBC, which is impartiality. And, you know, there are people on the populist right of the spectrum, which is growing in size, who, in my view, interpret impartiality as expressing the views that they have as powerfully as possible. There there there is no concept of impartiality in some of what they say that I can recognize. And I've, you know, worked in the BBC for a very long time, and I know it is committed to that. And it does make errors in the huge number of programs that it puts out in news, current affairs, documentaries.
It makes errors. All broadcasters do.
Speaker 1: Do you think that, there might not be institutional bias then? It's clear that you don't think that that exists, as Deborah Turness said today. But do you think the BBC is perhaps guilty of of groupthink, maybe even subconsciously, with a left leaning, liberal, metropolitan viewpoint that sort of seeps in, maybe unintentionally?
Speaker 0: I I don't take that view. If you listen to the BBC, which I do a a a lot, it is not metropolitan. It's an it's an out of date assumption that it's metropolitan. It's got bases everywhere across the country in Salford, which is hardly metropolitan London. It has people who know that territory, who know their audiences.
So I don't think it is, institutionally biased. And I think that was one of the reasons, I suspect, why there was such a long time, very unfortunately, before the letter finally went to the to the committee from from Samir Shah, to the cots committee. So I don't think that.
Speaker 1: Do you think that the the word coup is wrong then? David Yelland, who used to edit The Sun, said on the BBC this morning, he felt that there was some sort of coup from the BBC board, that the Observer newspaper as well, saying that political interference has led to these resignations. Would you go that far? People who want to see the end of the BBC have been working in some sort of Machiavellian way to cause this upset.
Speaker 0: I'm cautious about the word coup. I mean, I've reported from cases where there were coups, and I know what that means of military action using guns seizing buildings. I I think that there is there has I mean, we everyone cites the name of Robbie Gibb for being a very powerful figure, but I think that I I don't want to identify individual I think that there is a definite urge, and don't forget that the the non executive members of the board appointed from outside are some of them were appointed under previous administrations. And in the case of, you know, we we we know that, one of the former leaders of the Conservative Party has has been denouncing the BBC all over the place, and he he actually put Robbie Gibb in the post. But that said, I don't doubt that Robbie Gibb believes what he says.
You know? I don't think he's just trying to, know, destroy the BBC. I don't think that. I do think that people like him like the idea of the BBC being weakened. That's the problem.
They won't see the BBC weakened, not strengthened. They probably have strong views about how the license fee or whether there should be a license fee. They probably have very strong views about how the charter should should change the the the constitutional role of the BBC. I don't know that, but I am suspicious. But a coup is not a word I'd use.
Speaker 1: No. We should probably explain. Robbie Gibby is a non executive director on the board of the BBC. He used to be Theresa Mays, the director of communications. No.
That's absolutely fine. So how does the BBC move on from all of this then, putting the the Donald Trump possibly suing to one side? It has to own up to its mistake sooner, would you say? And also perhaps has to instill in the workforce the importance of impartiality.
Speaker 0: I think I think that that has to be hammered again and again and again, particularly as we now live in such fractured, divided society where people's views are picked up from all sources, social media and elsewhere, and sometimes aren't thought through very carefully. It's a rather toxic environment, a polarized environment, makes impartiality even more important. As to the future for the BBC, I've always thought, actually, that the BBC, in what it says publicly, because of its wanting to do do due diligence to everyone involved, don't forget it. It has to apologize publicly far more than any other organization that I know of, a public organization. It it it it it should move more swiftly towards making apologies when they're wrong, more on the front foot, and more on the front foot when they are absolutely convinced that they're being unfairly treated.
The big problem is going to be, what happens in the next several months. How many months before someone can be found of anything like the caliber of Tim Davy, for instance, to lead the BBC in these extremely troubled times? So, yes, it is very serious for the BBC, and I just hope that, we will a bit of balance will be restored, rather more impartiality in the judgment that is taken about how the BBC is doing, how it's performing, and what it has to do.
SocialFlow
trib.al
@SkyNews - Sky News
BREAKING: Digital ID to be made law for all adults in the UK. The proposals are the government's latest attempt to tackle illegal immigration, with the ID serving as a form of proof of the right to live and work in the UK. @MhariAurora reports. https://trib.al/ccTgxuY
Video Transcript AI Summary
Breaking news: Digital ID will be made law for all adults in an effort to tackle small boats. Downing Street believes a mandatory ID card system will help stop illegal immigrants working. Political correspondent Mari Arora notes this has been discussed for years; Tony Blair has advocated it. Sky News understands there will be announcement from the prime minister on mandatory ID cards, the Brit card. It will be mandatory for all adults in the UK and can be used via a smartphone app to verify status for work or renting. The plan is all about immigration. This is all about trying to tackle small boats crossings. France has an ID card system, and Kirst Ammer has been persuaded of the benefits of a digital ID card system. The question remains how much impact it will have on small boats crossings; if it reduces pull factors, Labour will be disappointed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Breaking news now. Digital ID will be made law for all adults in an effort to tackle small boats. Downing Street believes that a mandatory ID card system will help stop illegal immigrants working. Let's bring in our political correspondent, Mari Arora. Mari, what what more do we know about this?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, Gareth, this is interesting because this is something that has been spoken about a lot. Tony Blair, for instance, has been talking about this for years and years as what he always believed was one of the best ways to try and reduce illegal immigration and the ability for people to work illegally here in The UK. But Sky News understands that we will have an announcement, could be as soon as tomorrow, from the prime minister on these mandatory ID cards, an ID card system, the Brit card. And, essentially, what this will mean, it will be mandatory for all adults here in The UK.
It will make it easier for employers and for landlords to make sure that those they are employing or or renting or, to actually have the right legal immigration status here in The UK, they can do it using a smartphone app. It's also, according to the government, gonna make it easier for people here in The UK to essentially prove their status or their ability to kind of qualify to be able to work here in The UK. And, essentially, this is all about immigration. This is all about trying to tackle small boats crossings. We've had a lot of conversation about small boats and about other European countries, especially the French, who have been concerned with the kind of pull factors here in The UK in terms of being able to work in the black market, being able to work illegally here in The UK.
We already know that France has an ID card system. They've had it for many, many years, And it's something that The UK has always resisted partly because of questions around civil liberties and freedoms, but also because many governments in previous times said that they didn't think it was the best approach. Now clearly, Kirst Ammer has been persuaded of the benefits of a digital ID card system and has been persuaded that this might have a significant impact on small boats crossings. The question really, and this is always going to be the million dollar question, is once this comes into play and once it is enforced, how much of an impact could it have on small boats crossings? And if it has a really significant impact on small boats crossings and it really kind of starts to eradicate that pull factor for illegal migrants coming to The UK because I think they can essentially make money on the side illegally as opposed to somewhere like that in France.
How much of an impact does that have? And if it doesn't have a huge impact, then, of course, there'll be a size of disappointment, I think, from within the Labour Party.
SocialFlow
trib.al
@SkyNews - Sky News
🔴 BREAKING: Footage has emerged of the moment 15 aid workers were killed in Gaza last month - showing their ambulances and fire insignia were clearly visible when Israeli troops are believed to have opened fire on them Read more 🔗 https://news.sky.com/story/video-emerges-of-aid-workers-being-fired-on-in-gaza-contradicting-israeli-account-of-deadly-attack-13342194
Video emerges of aid workers being fired on in Gaza - contradicting Israeli account of deadly attack
The bodies of 15 aid workers were found in a "mass grave" after the incident.
news.sky.com
@SkyNews - Sky News
'In Britain and across Europe free speech, I fear, is in retreat' US Vice President JD Vance spoke at the Munich security conference and took a swipe at Brussels, Germany, Sweden and the UK. https://trib.al/xWlxDwz 📺 Sky 501, Virgin 602, Freeview 233 and YouTube
Video Transcript AI Summary
Looking at Europe today, I'm concerned about the erosion of freedoms. In Brussels, there's talk of shutting down social media during civil unrest to combat hateful content. In another country, police have raided homes over anti-feminist comments. Sweden convicted a Christian activist for Quran burnings after his friend's murder, with a judge stating free expression doesn't allow offending any group's beliefs.
Most concerning is the UK, where conscience rights are threatened. Adam Smith Connor was charged for silently praying near an abortion clinic. He was found guilty under a new law criminalizing silent prayer within 200 meters of such facilities. Recently, the Scottish government warned citizens that even private prayer at home could be illegal, urging them to report suspected thought crimes. Free speech is in retreat across Europe.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And unfortunately, when I look at Europe today, it's sometimes not so clear what happened to some of the Cold War's winners. I look to Brussels where EU commissars warn citizens that they intend to shut down social media during times of civil unrest the moment they spot what they've judged to be quote hateful content. Or to this very country where police have carried out raids against citizens suspected of posting anti feminist comments online as part of, quote, combating misogyny on the Internet, a day of action. I look to Sweden where two weeks ago the government convicted a Christian activist for participating in Quran burnings that resulted in his friend's murder. And as the judge in his case chillingly noted, Sweden's laws to supposedly protect free expression do not in fact grant, and I'm quoting, a free pass to do or say anything without risking offending the group that holds that belief.
And perhaps most concerningly, I look to our very dear friends, The United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons in particular in the crosshairs. A little over two years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith Connor, a 51 year old physiotherapist and an army veteran, with the heinous crime of standing 50 meters from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes. Not obstructing anyone, not interacting with anyone, just silently praying on his own. After British law enforcement spotted him and demanded to know what he was praying for, Adam replied simply it was on behalf of the unborn son he and his former girlfriend had aborted years before. Now the officers were not moved.
Adam was found guilty of breaking the government's new buffer zones law, which criminalizes silent prayer and other actions that could influence a person's decision within 200 meters of an abortion facility. He was sentenced to pay thousands of pounds in legal costs to the prosecution. Now I wish I could say that this was a fluke, a one off crazy example of a badly written law being enacted against a single person. But no, this last October, just a few months ago, the Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so called safe access zones, warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law. Naturally, the government urged readers to report any fellow citizens suspected guilty of thought crime.
In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat.
SocialFlow
trib.al
@SkyNews - Sky News
'We are going to have Gaza, we don't have to buy it. There is nothing to buy. It's a war-torn area, we are going to take it' says US President Donald Trump. He adds his redevelopment plan will bring 'peace and stability to the Middle East'. https://trib.al/dte2E5L 📺 Sky 501
Video Transcript AI Summary
We will take Gaza. There’s no need to buy it; it's a war-torn area that needs development. It will become a tremendous asset for the Middle East, creating many jobs and bringing peace. It fronts the sea, offering great economic potential. This is something that should have been done long ago, but the October 7th catastrophe made it a necessary action. While development will take time, it will ultimately bring stability and jobs to the region. This will benefit people across the Middle East. We will be discussing our plans with Arab representatives from the United States. My real estate background has prepared me for this endeavor, but my focus is on doing good for people as president.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You said before that The US would buy Gaza, and today you just said we're not going to buy Gaza.
Speaker 1: We're not gonna have to buy. We're gonna we're gonna have Gaza. We don't have to buy. There's nothing to buy. We will have Gaza.
What is that? No reason to buy. There is nothing to buy. It's Gaza. It's it's a war torn area.
We're gonna take it. We're gonna hold it. We're gonna cherish it. We're going to get it going eventually where a lot of jobs are gonna be created for the people in the Middle East. It's it's gonna be for the people in the Middle East, but I think it could be a diamond.
It could be an absolute, tremendous asset for the Middle East, and you're gonna have peace. It's gonna bring peace in The Middle East. Gaza the way it is right now, every ten years, you're gonna have the same thing happening. I've watched it so long, all the death and destruction of Gaza. The civilization's been wiped out in Gaza.
Now it's gonna be a a tremendous thing. It's, it's fronting on the sea. It's gonna be a great economic development job. It's gonna put people to work, a lot of people to work, and those people are all gonna be from The Middle East.
Speaker 2: And just to follow-up
Speaker 0: with one on that for King Abdullah. Can you clarify again, sir, how do you feel about The U. S. Taking Gaza, as the President said?
Speaker 2: Well, again, this is something that we, as Arabs, will be coming to The United States with something that we're going to talk about later, to discuss, all these options.
Speaker 0: And, Mr. Brennan, take it under what authority? It is sovereign territory.
Speaker 1: Under The US authority.
Speaker 2: And, Mr. President, where do you seek to personally develop property in Gaza after this happens?
Speaker 1: No. I've had a great career in real estate.
Speaker 2: Mister mister president, what
Speaker 0: are your team?
Speaker 1: You know, when you've done what I've done in the last, number of years, including the four years that, we should have been doing something else, frankly, because people see that now for sure. But, when you've done what I've done, you can just do more good for people when you're president. When you're president, we can do things. This is all things that should have been done, but actually things that shouldn't have had to be done. Gaza absolutely would have been it would have been so great if the Biden administration would have started this.
But actually, in all fairness to them, it was, they should have never let it happen. It did happen. And because of the fact that they let this happen, this catastrophe of October 7, something like this becomes practical and very real, meaning the development and and all of the things that I've talked about with respect to the Gaza Strip. If you didn't have the October 7 catastrophe and it was a horrible catastrophe, then probably you wouldn't be talking about that. But the the only thing I can say is, this is gonna bring stability and peace to the Middle East.
And, ultimately, when it's developed, which will be in quite a while from now, because we wanna let things calm down. But when it's developed, it's gonna bring tremendous numbers of jobs to The Middle East, and including the people of your country.
SocialFlow
trib.al
@SkyNews - Sky News
'Do you owe citizens an apology for being absent whilst their homes were burning? Do you regret cutting the fire department's budget? @skydavidblevins questions the mayor of LA, Karen Bass, as she faces backlash regarding the California wildfires. https://trib.al/unMkvcv
Video Transcript AI Summary
Do you owe citizens an apology for your absence while their homes burned? Do you regret cutting the fire department's budget by a million dollars? Elon Musk has criticized your competence. Have you nothing to say to the citizens affected by this disaster?
Fire chiefs admit they lack personnel to combat the fires, facing challenges like water shortages and fire hydrant failures. Firefighting aircraft have been grounded due to heavy smoke.
Currently, 80,000 people have been evacuated, with thousands more on standby. Tragically, two lives have been lost in the Eton fire. The city's iconic landscape is obscured by smoke, and officials are hoping for a change in wind direction to help control the blaze.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do you owe citizens an apology for being absent while their homes were burning? Do you regret cutting the fire department budget by 1,000,000 of dollars, madam mayor? Have you nothing to say today? Back up. Yeah.
Appreciate it. Have you absolutely nothing to say to the citizens today? Elon Musk says that you're utterly incompetent. Are you considering your position? Madam mayor, have you absolutely nothing to say to the citizens today who are dealing with this disaster?
No apology for them? Do you think you should have been visiting Ghana while this was unfolding back home? Madam mayor, let me ask you just again. Have you anything to say to the citizens today as you return? They're gonna they're gonna cut it.
Ma'am, hold on one second. Madam mayor, just a few words for the citizens today as you return to deal with the catastrophe. Deal with the stone.
Speaker 1: David, as you say, she wasn't very keen, to answer any of your questions there, and and fire chiefs are also admitting that they just don't have enough personnel to to take out the fires.
Speaker 0: Yeah. They're fighting all sorts of challenges. They're talking about a water shortage. There are reports of fire hydrant failures. They've been unable to use firefighting aircraft for much of the day due to the smoke that is billowing ominously from the hills where the wild fires are raging.
And I suppose despite that political storm, this is, of course, at its heart, a human story because we've now 80,000 people evacuated. Tens of 1,000 of others are on standby to be evacuated. 2 lives have been lost in the Eton fire, which is what's causing the consequence behind us. The city's iconic landscape almost shrouded completely, by the smoke, and they're really just taking it one step at a time, hoping at some stage the wind's going to change direction or to die down and that they're going to be able to get this fire under control.
SocialFlow
trib.al
@SkyNews - Sky News
BREAKING: The FBI has released a statement providing more details on the suspect in the New Orleans attack. It identifies him as Shamsud-Din Jabbar and says he is a US citizen from Texas and adds that an ISIS flag was located in the vehicle trib.al/Z5rhSvq https://t.co/Euuhu9Ql3Q
Video Transcript AI Summary
The suspect, 42-year-old Shamsuddin Jabbar, a US citizen from Texas, has been identified. He was driving a rented Ford pickup truck that contained an ISIS flag, weapons, and a potential improvised explosive device (IED). The FBI is investigating how he acquired the vehicle and is examining his possible connections to terrorist organizations. Additional potential IEDs were found in the French Quarter. FBI special agents and bomb technicians are collaborating with local law enforcement to assess the viability of these devices and ensure they are rendered safe. The FBI is leading the investigation as an act of terrorism and is actively pursuing all leads related to the suspect's associations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So the FBI say the suspect has been identified as 42 year old Shamsuddin Jabbar, a US citizen from Texas. He was driving a Ford pickup truck, which appears to have been rented, and we are working to confirm how the subject came into possession of the vehicle. An ISIS flag was located in the vehicle, and the FBI is working to determine the suspect's potential associations and affiliations with terrorist organizations. They go on to say that weapons and a potential IED, improvised explosive device, were located in the subject's vehicle. Other potential IEDs were also located in the French Quarter.
The FBI's special agent and bomb technicians are working with our law enforcement partners to determine if any of these devices are viable, and they will work to render those devices safe. They they conclude to say the FBI is the lead investigative agency, and we are working with our partners to investigate this as an act of terrorism. We are aggressively running down all leads to identify any possible associations of the subject.
@SkyNews - Sky News
Violence in Amsterdam: What we know so far Police in Amsterdam arrested 62 people following violence in the city on Thursday night. The city’s mayor, police force, UK foreign secretary David Lammy and others condemned antisemitic violence. https://t.co/d6icOYMZvA
Video Transcript AI Summary
Violence in Amsterdam resulted in at least five injuries and numerous arrests. Supporters of Israeli football club Maccabee Tel Aviv arrived for a match against Ajax, leading to incidents of anti-Semitic violence. Videos show Maccabee fans tearing down Palestinian flags and chanting racist songs. A pro-Palestine demonstration occurred nearby, despite a ban on its location. During the match, Israeli supporters disrupted a moment of silence for victims of a flood. Authorities emphasized that the violence was criminal, not a protest. Palestinian flag bearers reported being attacked, and 62 arrests were made, with prosecutors investigating anti-Semitic motives. Dutch and Israeli leaders condemned the events, labeling them as anti-Semitic and likening them to a pogrom.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Violence in Amsterdam left at least 5 people injured and dozens have been arrested. But what happened?
Speaker 1: Everything should be done to track down and prosecute the perpetrators. This is simply anti Semitic violence against Israelis that actually defies description.
Speaker 0: Supporters of Israeli football club, Maccabee Tel Aviv, arrived in Amsterdam ahead of their UEFA Europa League match against Amsterdam club, Ajax. On Wednesday, social media videos verified by Sky News show 3 men tearing down Palestinian flags from outside of homes. A second Palestinian flag was pulled down from a building in a clip verified by Sky News. Another video uploaded to social media shows a man being chased through the street with a caption that reads, watch and enjoy 6 Zionists chased away free Palestine. On Thursday, just before the game, crowds of Maccabee fans were filmed singing racist and anti Arab songs.
On that same evening, a pro Palestine demonstration took place at the Anton Du Compline Square after authorities banned organizers from holding it outside the arena. Later that evening during the match, Israeli support is appeared to disrupt the minute silence poor Valencia flood victims with chants, whistles, and fireworks. A video posted on social media shows a large group of hooded men dressed in black running down the street and striking people at random.
Speaker 2: But I want to make clear, we are used, in Amsterdam, that there can be tensions. There are many demonstrations and protests, and we are always prepared for them. And, of course, they are related to the situation in the Middle East and the ongoing war in Israel and palace Palestine. But what happened last night is not a protest. It has nothing to do with protest or demonstration.
It was crime.
Speaker 0: People with Palestinian flags were seen marching on the streets. Maccabi supporters say they were beaten and attacked on the streets of the Dutch capital.
Speaker 2: It's the same feeling that I felt in the 7th in the morning of 7th October.
Speaker 0: Sky News could not independently verify all of the footage shown. 62 people have been arrested, and prosecutors are considering anti semitic motives. 5 people were also taken to hospital, but have since been discharged. Dutch and Israeli leaders denounced the attacks as anti semitic and even referred to it as a pogrom.
@SkyNews - Sky News
'We do have dedicated police officers who are scouring social media to look for this material, and then follow up with arrests.' The director of public prosecutions of England and Wales warns that sharing online material of riots could be an offence https://trib.al/TaCldCs
Video Transcript AI Summary
Sharing material that incites racial hatred, like retweeting, can lead to legal consequences as it is considered offensive. Police actively monitor social media to identify and arrest individuals involved in such activities. It is crucial to understand the seriousness of these actions, even if one may not perceive them as harmful.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The in the offensive incitement to racial hatred involves, publishing or distributing material, which is, insulting or abusive, which is intended to or likely to start racial hatred. So if you retweet that, then you'll republishing that, and then potentially you're committing that offense. And we do have dedicated police officers who are scouring social media. Their job is to look for this material, and then follow-up with identification arrests and so forth. So it's really, really serious.
People might think they're not doing anything harmful. They are, and the consequences will be visited upon them.
SocialFlow
trib.al
@SkyNews - Sky News
'I grew up within heavy political censorship in China. Today in the West, you're doing exactly the same.' Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei says, "You cannot talk about the truth" nowadays. #TrevorPhillips https://trib.al/wkmumC6 📺 Sky 501, Freeview 233 and YouTube
Video Transcript AI Summary
In the video, the speaker expresses concern about the West's increasing restrictions on freedom of expression for artists, writers, and intellectuals. They draw a parallel to their own experience growing up under heavy political censorship. The speaker highlights instances where even private opinions shared by NYU professors led to their dismissal, likening it to a cultural revolution aimed at silencing anyone with differing attitudes. They lament this trend occurring proudly in universities, media, and various sectors, where discussing the truth is no longer allowed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Are you worried that the West itself, is starting to clamp down on the freedom of expression of artists, writers, intellectuals?
Speaker 1: Yes. I have been, under this condition also in my father's generation as as a writer. He was exiled, and I grew up in this, heavy political censorship. But I realize now today in the West, You are doing exactly the same, sometimes even more ridiculous. You know, if, I just heard, say, 2, NYU professors, they just give some opinions.
You know, it's kinda like private talk. Then they have to be fired. And, this is really like a culture revolution, which is really Trying to destroy anybody who have a different attitude, even not even clearly opinion. So I think that this is, such a pity happening in the west so proudly In in universities, in media, in in the, you know, in every, location. Universities or political sector everywhere, you cannot talk about the truth.
SocialFlow
trib.al
@SkyNews - Sky News
The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates claimed that Israel was "targeting Palestinian civilians with missiles". However, open-source researchers and military experts suggest the explosion may not have been caused by a missile. https://trib.al/hw5DSSs
Israel-Gaza latest: Thousands at risk as hospital power running out 'within 24 hours' - as US warns Israel against Gaza 'mistake'
Joe Biden has warned Israel it would be a "big mistake" to occupy Gaza. Meanwhile, foreign nationals and aid are expected to be allowed through the Rafah crossing from Gaza into Egypt this morning. Hospitals in parts of Gaza are running out of fuel, according to the UN.
news.sky.com
@SkyNews - Sky News
'We shouldn't be bullied into believing people can be any sex they want to be, they can't. A man is a man and a woman is a woman', says Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. https://trib.al/YKanzN3 Sky 501, Virgin 602, Freeview 233 and YouTube
Video Transcript AI Summary
Parents should be aware of what their children are taught about relationships in school. It is important for patients to know how hospitals discuss gender. We should not be pressured into accepting the idea that anyone can be any sex they want. Common sense tells us that a man is a man and a woman is a woman.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And it also should be controversial for parents to know what their children are being taught in school about relationships. Patients should know when hospitals are talking about men or women and we shouldn't get bullied. And we shouldn't get bullied into believing that people can be any sex they want to be, they can't. A man is a man and a woman is a woman that's just common sense.
Tory conference latest: Former Conservative PM turns on Sunak amid HS2 backlash - but mayor won't resign after 'concession'
All the reaction and fallout to Rishi Sunak's address on the final day of the Conservative Party conference in Manchester.
news.sky.com