Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Politics

Weaponised Empathy 9 Warning Signs To Watch For

Published

on

Empathy is a positive human quality, but it can be used against you.

Empathy can be one of our best qualities ― a force that deepens relationships, builds trust and helps us show up for others. But in some dynamics, that positive instinct can be turned against you.

“Weaponised empathy is a pattern of using empathy, compassion or guilt to influence another person’s behaviour, often at the expense of personal boundaries and preferences,” Caitlyn Oscarson, a licensed marriage and family therapist, told HuffPost.

You might have made important plans one night, but then your partner says something like, “I had a bad day and really need you tonight, I don’t know what I’ll do without you.” So you cancel out of fear of letting your partner down.

“Your empathy influences you to stay home and set aside other commitments, believing that your partner will be in distress without you,” Oscarson said. “It can feel like you don’t have a choice and that setting boundaries or prioritising your own needs will cause harm to your partner.”

Advertisement

Weaponised empathy is a common tactic among people with narcissistic personality disorder, particularly “covert narcissists” who show extreme sensitivity to criticism. If you try to talk about something they did that hurt your feelings, they quickly get distressed, say they’re “too overwhelmed” and shift the conversation such that you end up comforting them.

“The perpetrator chooses a victim who has demonstrated high empathy, as they plan to use that empathy as a way to get away with harming that person repeatedly,” said licensed marriage and family therapist Natalie Moore. “The narcissist over time establishes themselves as a victim of a painful past to garner sympathy. They then use that victim framing as a way to justify hurtful behaviour. They expect the person being targeted to ignore, understand, explain away, justify and make excuses for why they might be behaving that way.”

Although weaponised empathy can occur in romantic relationships, that’s not the only context.

“It is common in parent-child relationships (‘I get so lonely when you go out with your friends’), the workplace (‘We are all overwhelmed, I need you to step up and work late until this is done’) and friendships (‘You are the only person who really listens and understands ― I have no one else to talk to’),” Oscarson said.

Advertisement

She added that it also appears online with messages like “If you cared about this issue, you would speak out/donate immediately.”

It’s a potent manipulation strategy, but not always super obvious in the moment. Below, Moore and Oscarson break down common signs of weaponised empathy to watch for.

1. They test your boundaries early and often.

“An individual utilising weaponised empathy needs to know how far they can push you, and so they set up small tests to see what level of boundary-violation you’ll tolerate,” Moore said.

Advertisement

Probing for your limits can start with something that seems small or reasonable, but over time, it escalates.

“They’ll see if they can get you to do something you previously said ‘no’ to or if they can extract more time or attention from you than you have to give,” Moore explained. “This gives them data as to how much they can manipulate you.”

2. You feel guilty for setting totally reasonable limits.

A nagging sense of guilt over things that don’t warrant it can be a red flag for weaponised empathy.

Advertisement

“You feel like you are doing something wrong even when your boundaries feel reasonable,” Oscarson said.

She recommended being clear and concise when you set boundaries ― for example, “I’m sorry, I’m not able to stay home tonight.” Avoid over-explaining or giving reasons, and try not to take responses too personally.

Empathy is a positive human quality, but it can be used against you.

FG Trade Latin via Getty Images

Empathy is a positive human quality, but it can be used against you.

“Get comfortable tolerating some guilt,” Oscarson said. “It’s natural to feel compassion and wish you could do more. Guilt is not always a sign you are doing something wrong.”

3. There’s constant pressure to respond immediately.

Advertisement

“You notice a pattern of urgency around requests and increases in intensity when you push back,” Oscarson said.

This pressure to drop everything in the moment and respond immediately to non-urgent matters is a bad sign. That’s why it’s best to take a beat in these situations.

“Pause before agreeing to anything ― especially if you are used to having your boundaries pushed,” Oscarson advised.

4. The relationship feels one-sided.

Advertisement

If support only flows in one direction, that’s worth paying attention to.

“There’s a lack of reciprocity in the relationship,” Oscarson said. “You are always the one providing support.”

Over time, you may realise you’re always the one giving ― emotionally, logistically, etc. Meanwhile, your needs, stress or struggles rarely receive the same care or attention.

5. You feel responsible for their emotions.

Advertisement

“Another sign is feeling responsible for another person’s emotional state or stress level,” Oscarson said. “You don’t set the boundaries you normally would because you are concerned about the other person’s reaction.”

She emphasised the importance of differentiating empathy from responsibility.

“You can be compassionate without being responsible for fixing the problem,” Oscarson said.

6. You’re constantly second-guessing yourself.

Advertisement

Weaponised empathy can make you doubt your own instincts.

Oscarson recommended paying attention if you find yourself “constantly second-guessing yourself and worrying that you are being selfish.”

That internal uncertainty is often a byproduct of subtle manipulation, not a reflection of your character.

7. They compliment your empathy — and use it against you.

Advertisement

“If someone is engaging in weaponised empathy, they will explicitly point out and praise your empathy and compassion,” Moore said. “They may say that you’re the only person who understands them or is ‘in their corner.’”

Be mindful of this kind of flattery, which can create pressure to live up to the role in unreasonable circumstances.

“You may enjoy the feeling as you would with a genuine compliment, but this will be used to their favour so that you look the other way when they hurt you,” Moore said.

8. They share intense personal information very early on.

Advertisement

Moore noted that some people who engage in this unhealthy behaviour may share deeply personal information early on in their relationship. It’s not necessarily a case of genuine vulnerability.

“When someone is using weaponised empathy as a manipulation tactic, it often begins with sharing a deeply personal story about past trauma that creates a narrative that they are a victim,” Moore said. “Their ‘I’m the victim’ framing sets them up to not have to take accountability for any future harm they cause you.”

Thus, they can establish themselves as someone who deserves extra leniency and understanding. Be mindful of people who dive in deep super quickly and “sweep you off your feet.”

“It’s much easier to lose yourself and your sense of clarity if you are overtaken by intense emotions, affection, gifts and time with that individual,” Moore said. “Allowing a relationship and trust to form slowly over time through shared experiences is a much healthier way to establish a relationship, while also maintaining your connection with yourself.”

Advertisement

9. They consistently position themselves as the victim.

“The person using weaponised empathy will continue to reinforce their role as the victim in their relationships, life and circumstances,” Moore said. “They will frame everything as ‘I’m so unlucky,’ ‘my boss doesn’t appreciate me’ or ‘no one understands how hard this is for me’ to try to extract more empathy from you.”

While everyone faces challenges, the pattern here is persistent and one-sided. This ongoing victim framing can be a way to manipulate your behavior while avoiding accountability.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Politics

Royal Fleet Auxiliary seafarers go ahead with strike action

Published

on

Royal Fleet Auxiliary seafarers to strike in March

Maritime union RMT has congratulated members in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA). Seafarers are taking strike action after overwhelmingly rejecting the latest pay offer.

The union has tried hard to reach a settlement through negotiation. But despite this, RFA managers have continued to table proposals that fall short of members’ expectations.

The sticking point has been how seafarers’ shift patterns stack up against minimum wage legislation.

Strike action is taking place today, Tuesday 7 April, with a further day of action happening on Thursday 16 April.

Advertisement

During strike action, members will continue to ensure the safety of vessels at all times. This includes the management of moorings and gangways.

Seafarers can routinely work up to 12 hours a day. But there remains no clear or transparent formula setting out how pay is calculated against those hours.

RMT general secretary Eddie Dempsey said:

Our members in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary are taking a principled stand today and I congratulate them.

They have made their position clear. They will not accept substandard pay offers and are prepared to take further strike action if necessary to get the pay rise they deserve.

Advertisement

Our members play a vital role in supporting the Navy, often in some of the most demanding and dangerous working conditions.

But they have faced years of below par pay and unresolved concerns about conditions.

The MOD and the employer now need to come forward with a serious, long-term commitment to improving pay and conditions, including ensuring they comply with National Minimum Wage legislation, if they are serious about retaining staff.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

China is sitting back and letting Trump destroy Brand America

Published

on

China is sitting back and letting Trump destroy Brand America

China beat the United States in global approval ratings in 2025, with a median of 36% approving of China’s leadership, compared with 31% for the U.S., according to the latest Gallup polling released last week.

China is letting Trump damage Brand USA

For the last 20 years, Gallup has asked people worldwide to rate the leadership of the U.S., China, Russia, and Germany.

Reactions from X showed many celebrating the US’s fall from grace, especially under Trump.

Advertisement

Arnaud Bertrand joked, sharing the news that Trump is nicknamed “Chuān Jiàn Guó” in China, which means “Trump builds China.”

Even the pro-American Economist published a cover of Chinese President Xi overshadowing Trump that read – “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

Advertisement

British ruling class still licking Trump’s arse

Meanwhile, in the American vassal state of the UK, Labour was busy licking Trump’s arse and whitewashing their heinous crimes.

On Tuesday morning, when asked if Trump’s attacks on Iran’s civilian energy facilities would be a war crime, Health Secretary Wes Streeting answered:

Starmer is busy instructing the police to stop brave activists outside US bases in the UK who are trying to stop a nuclear genocide that Trump has ranted about.

Trump is threatening to repeat the attacks on power plants and bridges, which the US has already subjected Iran to. As attacking civilian infrastructure is a war crime, this means Trump is openly threatening to commit war crimes. And, as the Economist pointed out, why would China intervene when Trump is rampaging through whatever little remaining geopolitical good will there may be for the US?

In fact, Zarah Sultana’s Easter message was on point – comparing Starmer as a caricature of a bunny following Trump’s orders.

Starmer and Labour once again haven’t read the room: the world hates Trump! It is beyond time to oppose the US’ belligerence. So, you can trust that Labour will still be hopping eagerly in search of the long-lost ‘special relationship.’

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Putin Torn Apart For Ignoring Ukraine’s Easter Ceasefire Offer

Published

on

Putin Torn Apart For Ignoring Ukraine's Easter Ceasefire Offer

Vladimir Putin has been slammed for ignoring Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s offer of a ceasefire over the Easter weekend.

An overnight attack on the Ukrainian Black Sea port of Odesa killed three people on Monday and injured at least 16 others.

Ukrainian president Zelenskyy hit out at Russia for continuing its attacks over the Christian occasion, saying: “We have repeatedly proposed to Russia a ceasefire at least for Easter. But for them, all times are the same. Nothing is sacred.”

Zelenskyy said last Wednesday he had spoken to US negotiators about a pause in fighting but Russia had sent more than 700 drones in a rare daytime attack in retaliation.

Advertisement

“Russia is responding with Shahed drones and continues its terrorist operations against our energy sector, against our infrastructure,” the Ukrainian leader said.

“A silence over Easter could be exactly the signal that tells everyone that diplomacy can be successful.”

However, Russia’s foreign ministry rejected the idea as a “PR stunt”.

Despite his frustrations, Zelenskyy extended his offer of a mutual ceasefire on strikes against infrastructure after the weekend.

Advertisement

The Ukrainian president said: “If Russia is willing to stop attacking our energy sector, we will refrain from similar attacks.”

There has been some confusion over recent strikes on Russian oil facilities.

The Russian defence ministry claims Ukrainian drones attacked a major oil shipping terminal in southern Russia early on Monday, though Kyiv said it attacked a different terminal.

Meanwhile, the former chief of the CIA told CBS News that Russia “no longer has the upper hand” in the war.

Advertisement

Retired US Army general David Petraeus said: “Over the last two months, the Ukrainians have actually made greater incremental gains than have the Russians.”

He said while Russia has advantages in manpower, firepower and economic scale, Ukraine has offset those with its innovative drone systems.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Israel media claim Hezbollah struck UK warship

Published

on

Israel media claim Hezbollah struck UK warship

Media in Israel have claimed that a warship struck by a Hezbollah missile 68 nautical miles (nm) off the Lebanese coast was British, not Israeli. The Lebanese group had announced it struck an Israeli Occupation Force (IOF) ship with a “naval cruise missile” after several hours of monitoring it preparing to attack Lebanon. There appear to be no disputes that a warship was struck, only about whose navy it belonged to.

The UK Ministry of Defence has denied a British warship was hit. The distance at which the ship was hit means the vessel was very likely within Lebanon’s maritime ‘Exclusive Economic Zone‘ or ‘maritime continental margin’, which extends 200nm from its 120nm-long shoreline, though limited by the presence of Cyprus some 93nm away. It also puts the ship many miles from the RAF’s Akrotiri base, which UK and US warplanes are using to defend Israel and/or attack Iran – and half-way or more toward Lebanon.

Israel claims complicate tense situation

Some news outlets have reported that Hezbollah “mistakenly” targeted the vessel, implying it was operating alongside Israeli vessels in the area – particularly as the group claimed it had observed it for hours making offensive manoeuvres and preparations.

Whether an IOF or UK ship was hit, either scenario poses thorny questions for a Starmer government that has claimed it is only carrying out ‘defensive operations’. Either an IOF warship was hit and Israel has thrown the UK under a bus to deflect for propaganda purposes. Or a UK ship was hit, meaning it was very likely operating offensively alongside Israeli warships.

Advertisement

Foul play from a supposed UK ‘ally’ – or the exposure of more lies from ‘Zionist without qualification‘ Starmer and the UK helping aid heinous attacks on Lebanon, just as it aided Israel’s genocide in Gaza?

Featured image via the Canary

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Lisa Kudrow Changes Her Mind About Controversial Friends Storyline

Published

on

Jennifer Aniston and David Schwimmer as Rachel and Ross in Friends

You can judge the cultural impact of a TV series by how much it crosses the threshold into everyday life.

In the case of Friends, the show came to define everything from haircuts (“The Rachel”) to romantic idealism (finding “your lobster”) at the peak of its popularity.

And, of course, it also inspired one of the longest-running TV debates – whether or not Ross and Rachel really were “on a break”.

One of the key plot points of the iconic 90s sitcom was an argument about whether or not David Schwimmer and Jennifer Aniston’s on-off characters were “on a break” when Ross slept with another woman (Chloe – “the hot girl from the Xerox place”), leading to an explosive row.

Advertisement

The incident was the tipping point in a storyline that saw Ross grow increasingly jealous of Rachel’s work colleague Mark, as she clocked in hours trying to climb the ladder in her dream fashion job.

In recent years, thanks in part to Friends finding a home on streaming platforms Netflix and, more recently, HBO Max, younger generations have found Friends and fallen in love with it just as millennials did the first time round.

However, some elements of the show, in particular Ross’s “problematic” behaviour have come under the microscope for not having aged as well.

Jennifer Aniston and David Schwimmer as Rachel and Ross in Friends
Jennifer Aniston and David Schwimmer as Rachel and Ross in Friends

NBCUniversal via Getty Images

One person who’s also had a rethink when it comes to Ross and Rachel’s rocky patch is cast member Lisa Kudrow, who famously played Phoebe Buffay on the show for its run between 1994 and 2004.

Advertisement

In an interview with Irish radio station Beat 102 103, Lisa revealed that she’s changed her opinion on the couple’s relationship, admitting that it reflected attitudes at the time when it came to women.

“I just saw it recently and I hadn’t seen that episode,” she explained, talking about the infamous season three instalment The One Where Ross And Rachel Take A Break.

She continued: “I watched Rachel having a crisis at work so she was working late – not forever – for a limited amount of time.

“Ross just wasn’t having it as if it wasn’t allowed and guess what? Back then it kind of wasn’t allowed. He was a paleontologist, his career was more important and we all bought into that. Not fair.”

Advertisement

Jennifer Aniston has also admitted that some episodes of Friends haven’t aged too well, either.

“There’s a whole generation of people, kids, who are now going back to episodes of Friends and find them offensive,” she said in a 2023 interview.

She continued: “There were things that were never intentional and others… well, we should have thought it through, but I don’t think there was a sensitivity like there is now.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Resident doctors’ strike begins with disruption expected

Published

on

Labour continues to play chicken with resident doctors

NHS England has warned of disruption to its services as resident doctors begin six days of strike action on 7 April.

The government had previously threatened to withdraw an offer of thousands of new training posts for resident doctors, unless the British Medical Association (BMA) called off its strike within 48 hours.

On 2 April, after the deadline passed without any movement from the BMA or resident doctors, the government cancelled the training positions. The strike is now going ahead as planned.

NHS bosses ‘disappointed’

On 6 April, the night before the strike began, NHS England released a statement warning of disruption, which also criticised the BMA:

Advertisement

Disappointingly, the BMA resident doctors committee (RDC) has announced industrial action from 7am on Tuesday 7 April to 6.59am on Monday 13 April 2026.

The announcement of industrial action follows months of intensive talks between the BMA and Government. This culminated with the BMA’s RDC both rejecting the deal their leadership had worked on with us and refusing to put the deal to their membership.

The statement follows on from NHS England’s previous disregard for striking workers. Last year, the Canary reported that NHS boss James Mackey “is known for having a track record for telling hospitals to disregard union-recommended staff safety levels.”

In light of this most recent industrial action, the advice from NHS England remains the same:

Resident doctors can be redeployed during industrial action if this is necessary to ensure patient safety and no other staff are available to cover.

Wes Streeting criticises strike

Secretary of state for health and social care, Wes Streeting, also remains “eager to paint the resident doctors as the villains in the story and turn the public against them.”

Advertisement

Speaking to the Guardian about the cancelled training posts on the first day of the strike, he said:

We rushed through emergency legislation to prioritise UK graduates for training places, reducing competition from four to one to less than two to one. This deal would have gone further by introducing up to 4,500 additional specialty training posts over three years, including 1,000 this April, alongside support such as reimbursing mandatory exam fees that can cost thousands.

Instead of accepting this offer, the BMA rejected it outright and announced immediate strike action. Not only does this torpedo the pay rises and training posts available to resident doctors, but it also puts at risk the recovery of the NHS.

As ever, Streeting places all the blame on doctors themselves, ignoring his own responsibility for worsening working conditions. As the Canary‘s Skwarkbox argued last year:

Streeting and his boss Keir Starmer are not just scaremongering – like any Tories, they are actively and intentionally pushing the NHS further into collapse.

The latest round of strike action will continue for one week, ending on 13 April.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

The House | The extraordinary story of boxing’s racist ‘colour line’ and the fighters who broke it

Published

on

The extraordinary story of boxing’s racist ‘colour line’ and the fighters who broke it
The extraordinary story of boxing’s racist ‘colour line’ and the fighters who broke it


4 min read

Thankfully the ‘colour line’ is not a phrase often heard today, but the history behind boxing’s racist exclusion of black fighters should not be forgotten.

From the 1870s until the late 1930s, black boxers were forbidden from competing for world titles in a conspiracy maintained by white fighters, administrators and promoters.

Advertisement

This excluded black athletes from a what was one of the great pinnacles of world sport at the time – heavyweight boxing.

There is a long list who should have been given title shots and were not.

Some of them, almost certainly, would have been champions. The most egregious example was Harry Wills, who time and again was prevented from fighting for a world title.

Advertisement

Wills was an exceptional boxer and an unusual character. In an era when boxers, regardless of ethnicity, had a marked tendency to live very fast and die young, Wills lived a very sober life. He invested shrewdly, becoming a successful businessman after his career in the ring was over. He also experimented with diet and different methods of training.

Other black fighters held back by the white establishment included Joe Jeanette, Sam McVey and Sam Langford. Langford in particular was a truly formidable opponent; small for a heavyweight yet often listed among the biggest hitters in boxing history.

The ‘colour line’ effectively broke when Joe Louis became world champion just before the outbreak of the Second World War. But before Louis, another man had overcome the bigotry. Jack Johnson, a black man from Texas, had faced acute racism from birth. He developed into an immensely powerful and skilled fighter who white fighters were keen to avoid.

Advertisement

In 1908, the world heavyweight champion was a Canadian called Tommy Burns. Burns revelled in racism, deploying all the usual vile epithets in his abuse of black fighters. He also clearly underestimated Johnson, who was not a man to be intimidated. Johnson took to following Burns everywhere he went, accusing him of cowardice. He even followed Burns to Australia and turned up every time Burns appeared in public.

This finally got under Burns’ skin. He said he would fight Johnson for the unheard-of fee of £30,000, clearly believing that no promoter would pay such a colossal sum, which just goes to show how wrong you can be. A colourful Australian entrepreneur, Hugh D “Huge Deal” McIntosh, came up with the sum and the fight went ahead. Johnson battered Burns to a standstill over 14 rounds.

The white establishment immediately rounded on Johnson. Distinguished writers such as Jack London and Henry Lawson abused him in the most viscerally racist terms and former champion Jim Jeffries was persuaded to come out of retirement to put the upstart in his place. Fairly predictably, Jeffries also lost.

Back in the US, Johnson was then framed by police officers and the legal establishment and was facing a long prison sentence when he fled to Europe. He was then offered a deal: lose a title fight to white challenger Jess Willard and he would not face prison. Johnson took the deal and Willard became champion. White fighters continued their uninterrupted dominance until the arrival of Louis, who became one of the greatest boxers and athletes of all time.

Advertisement

Jack Johnson was not perhaps an ideal role model. As soon as he had defeated Burns, he made it very clear that he would not face black opponents because boxing white men paid better. Nevertheless, as Ken Burns put it in his great documentary Unforgivable Blackness, “When whites ran everything, Jack Johnson took orders from no one.” That sheer determination and bloody mindedness is at least deserving of respect.

Lord Cryer is a Labour peer, served on the British Boxing Board of Control and is a patron on the East London Boxing Academy

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Zia Yusuf Criticizes Kanye West’s Critics Over Anti Semitism

Published

on

Reform UK Criticised Over ICE Style Deportation Plan

Zia Yusuf has accused Kanye West’s critics of jumping on a “bandwagon” amid mounting anger at the decision to book him to headline the Wireless festival this summer.

Keir Starmer, Wes Streeting and Sadiq Khan are among those who have condemned the move, while home secretary Shabana Mahmood is considering calls for him to be banned from entering the UK.

The Grammy-winning rapper has sparked anger in the past over his anti-semitic remarks, including releasing a song called ‘Heil Hitler’.

Wireless organisers have defended the booking, while West – who now calls himself Ye – has apologised for his previous comments and said he wants to “present a show of change, bringing unity, peace, and love through my music”.

Advertisement

In a statement on Tuesday morning, he said: “I would be grateful for the opportunity to meet with members of the Jewish community in the UK in person, to listen. I know words aren’t enough – I’ll have to show change through my actions. If you’re open, I’m here.”

Asked about the row on Sky News, Yusuf, who is Reform UK’s home affairs spokesman, said: “I think it’s fascinating that you’ve got Tory shadow ministers and the home secretary and the prime minister all weighing in on this particular individual.

“Obviously, he’s got songs that are openly anti-semitic, praising Hitler. It is deeply troubling that those songs would be played at a big auditorium in Britain.

“But what about this Bob Vylan character, who shouts extremely anti-semitic things at concert after concert and broadcast live on the BBC in many cases. Where is the condemnation of that?”

Advertisement

Presenter Kamali Melbourne pointed out to Yusuf that there was widespread condemnation of Bob Vylan following their appearance at Glastonbury last year, and then asked him again if West should be banned rom entering the UK.

He replied: “My view as home secretary would be that would been to have carefully considered in consultation with stakeholders, including the Jewish community.

“But I stand by the argument that it is absolutely a bandwagon that’s being jumped on.”

Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

‘Vile on every level’: Tucker Carlson rips Donald Trump over Easter Sunday ‘f-word’ post

Published

on

‘Vile on every level’: Tucker Carlson rips Donald Trump over Easter Sunday ‘f-word’ post

Conservative pundit Tucker Carlson tore into Donald Trump on Monday night, calling an Easter Sunday social media post from the U.S. president “vile on every level” and accusing him of threatening to commit a war crime.

“How dare you speak that way on Easter morning to the country?” Carlson said in a monologue on his podcast. “Who do you think you are? You’re tweeting out the f-word on Easter morning.”

On Sunday, a major Christian holiday, Trump posted a profane message on Truth Social, threatening Iran’s civilian infrastructure.

“Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah,” the president wrote on his social media platform.

Advertisement

Carlson’s scathing monologue underscores a widening split inside Trump’s MAGA coalition, pitting foreign policy hawks against isolationists over the Middle East.

Trump returned to power on a promise to put “America first” and pledged an end to endless foreign wars, but his attack on Iran — now into its sixth week — has unsettled some of his previous supporters.

Trump’s post “begins with a promise to use the U.S. military — our military — to destroy civilian infrastructure in another country, which is to say, to commit a war crime, a moral crime, against the people of the country whose welfare, by the way, was one of the reasons we supposedly went into this war in the first place,” Carlson said.

The conservative pundit, a former Fox News host and occasional visitor to the White House who has ramped up his criticism of Trump in recent weeks, also slammed the president for his mention of “Allah.”

Advertisement

“So obviously you’re mocking the religion of Iran,” he said. “OK, if you seek a religious war, that’s a good idea. But by the way, no decent person mocks other people’s religions. You may have a problem with the theology — presumably you do if it’s not your religion — and you can explain what that is. But to mock other people’s faith is to mock the idea of faith itself.”

Carlson wasn’t alone among arch-conservatives in rebuking Trump over the Easter missive.

“Everyone in his administration that claims to be a Christian needs to fall on their knees and beg forgiveness from God and stop worshipping the President and intervene in Trump’s madness,” ex-congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a former Trump acolyte, said Sunday.

“This is not making America great again, this is evil,” she added.

Advertisement

Milena Wälde contributed to this report.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Home Article | From service to safety: a new pathway for veterans

Published

on

From service to safety: a new pathway for veterans
From service to safety: a new pathway for veterans

A new British Safety Council initiative is helping unemployed veterans move into civilian careers in occupational health and safety, turning military experience into a force for safer workplaces across the UK.

It’s easy to understand why moving from military service into civilian employment can feel like a difficult and uncertain step. Many veterans leave the armed forces with valuable professional experience, but translating those skills into a completely different working environment isn’t always straightforward.

Advertisement

Recognising these challenges and the opportunity to make better use of this talent, British Safety Council has launched From Service to Safety, a new charitable initiative designed to support unemployed veterans across the UK. From Service to Safety provides a clear and structured route into the occupational health and safety sector, which matches free training and pastoral support with eligible candidates to bolster the occupational safety and health (OSH) sector, an area experiencing a shortage of skilled workers and one that remains vital to the wellbeing of UK PLC as a whole.

It is entirely fitting and proper to support those who have given so much to their nation and dedicated a large part of their lives to the service of others. This initiative seeks to do good today and have a compounding effect for generations to come, leading to safer and healthier workplaces where workers can thrive.

At the heart of the initiative is a commitment from British Safety Council to support and develop the next generation of health and safety professionals. Throughout 2026, 100 veterans will have the opportunity to complete the NEBOSH National General Certificate in Occupational Health and Safety, free of charge. This qualification gives learners a strong, practical understanding of how to keep people safe at work, including how to identify risks and prevent accidents.

Advertisement

With no cost to eligible applicants, the programme removes financial barriers and opens the door to those who might not otherwise be able to access this training. Delivered through live online sessions by British Safety Council’s industry-leading trainers, the course is accessible to veterans nationwide and will be paired alongside pastoral support from veterans already working for and with British Safety Council.  

The initiative is delivered in partnership with NEBOSH, which is supporting the programme by funding examination fees and resits, and eligible candidates are being referred by the Career Transition Partnership (CTP). The CTP is the official provider of resettlement for the Armed Forces and has supported 340,000 service leavers over more than 27 years.

Beyond the direct benefits to those taking part, From Service to Safety seeks to foster the next generation of health and safety leaders, who will work to create the safer workplaces of the future. It also seeks to increase the number of experienced professionals entering the sector, which has long suffered from declining numbers and poor retention. To keep the workers of the future safer, we need bold and experienced professionals who understand risk awareness and risk aversion, and who can communicate this to those they work with.

From Service to Safety builds on the history of British Safety Council, which was founded in 1957 by James Tye. Tye was inspired to dedicate his life to safety following national service during the Second World War and became one of the UK’s leading safety voices. This golden thread between Tye’s own service and the service of others is something that British Safety Council is proud to honour as we approach our 70th anniversary in 2027.  

Advertisement

As From Service to Safety moves forward, it represents more than a pathway into employment; it is a commitment to an ideal that safe workplaces and thriving workers are not only possible but deliverable. By investing in those who have already demonstrated commitment, discipline and resilience, we are not only supporting veterans in their next chapter but strengthening the future of workplace safety across the UK. In doing so, British Safety Council continues a long-standing tradition: turning service into lasting impact and ensuring that the experience of the past helps to protect the people of tomorrow.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025