Politics
Trans violence is out of control
Jolyon Maugham’s Good Law Project has lodged a complaint with the Information Commissioner about the gender-critical organisation, Protect and Teach, accusing it of failing to disclose ‘who they are or how they’re handling people’s data’. ‘If a group won’t say who they are’, the Good Law Project asserts, ‘it raises a vital question: what are they trying to hide? If your views are so toxic you won’t put your name to them, then maybe you shouldn’t be saying them at all.’
True or not, these pettifogging legal gripes entirely miss the point. The fact is that campaigners are concealing their identities not because of the supposed ‘toxicity’ of their beliefs, but because they are concerned about their safety and that of their families. For gender-critical feminists, speaking in public has become a very dangerous business.
The first hints of the current wave of violence began last year. Following the landmark judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd vs The Scottish Ministers, in which the Supreme Court confirmed that ‘sex’ in the Equality Act refers to biological sex, the women behind the campaign reported being inundated with death threats and misogynistic abuse. They also described the damage their views had caused to their employment and business interests.
Trans activists soon turned their attention to officials. The then chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Baroness Falkner, told parliament’s Women and Equalities Committee that she had been forced to cancel a meeting after police warned of a ‘serious risk’ of violence. Trans activists had made it harder for her staff to come to work in safety, she told MPs, adding: ‘The level of agitation that they can cause in terms of personal attacks, libellous attacks, defamation, where our family members are affected – our intimate family members have to think about how they’re going about to their place of work – has got to stop.’
You don’t even have to be a gender-critical feminist to risk the wrath of activists. Sally Dunsmore, the director of the Oxford Literary Festival, last year dared to programme a discussion between gender-critical writers Julie Bindel and Helen Joyce. Several guests, including an Oxford lecturer in English, pulled out, while other activists threatened Dunsmore directly, telling her she would be ‘put in a box and burnt’.
Now, those threats are taking on a more explicitly criminal and violent form. A militant trans-activist group known as Bash Back has issued a ‘direct action’ guide urging members to identify ‘transphobic’ targets – including MPs – and ensure they are ‘hit repeatedly until they desist’ from their ‘transphobic’ activities. The guide admits Bash Back’s campaigning would be ‘rarely legal’, and warns participants that they could face charges including criminal damage, possession of an offensive weapon and aggravated trespass. An equipment section lists items such as a hammer and advises activists to clean tools with alcohol or dispose of them after use in ‘unsurveilled residential bins’.
They’re not mucking around. Bash Back has already claimed responsibility for attacks on the constituency office of health secretary Wes Streeting, and for hacking the website of the Free Speech Union. It also targeted the offices of the EHRC last year, smashing windows and spraying the building with pink paint.
Despite Maugham’s supposed opposition to ‘toxic’ attitudes, his own response to Bash Back’s activities was favourable. He described this campaign of violence and intimidation as ‘the inevitable, and I would say legitimate’ response to a society whose ‘politics and media systematically dehumanise trans people’.
Maugham’s hypocrisy highlights what has become a familiar defence of trans activism. Allowing a gender-critical feminist to speak is cast as an act of both real and symbolic violence, where every dissenting utterance becomes an attack on vulnerable gender-confused children. Like Maugham, they claim that the clock’s already struck midnight, and there’s no time for the weary conventions of civility, tolerance or open debate.
On campus, where the sort of people Bash Back is now urging activists to target are very often to be found, the implications of this rhetoric have already been severe. At the Committee for Academic Freedom, we regularly deal with cases involving gender-critical academics who are reluctant to take their concerns public for fear of reprisals.
This is reinforced by the government-commissioned review of data, statistics and research on sex and gender, led by Professor Alice Sullivan and published in 2024. It recorded not merely isolated complaints, but also a broader chilling effect: gender-critical academics describe moderating how they frame arguments, avoiding open discussion, narrowing what they were prepared to teach or research, and hesitating to pursue work touching on biological sex for fear of complaints, ostracism, managerial disapproval or damage to their careers.
If direct threats of violence are now being added to this already hostile climate, the reluctance to attach one’s name to advocacy concerning the importance of biological sex – or to pursue research on that topic, organise conferences, supervise PhDs or teach on it at all – begins to look less like evasion and more like self-defence.
The Good Law Project is free to campaign as it wishes, but it should at least be honest about where the ‘toxic’ climate it bemoans is actually coming from.
Freddie Attenborough is director of research for the Committee for Academic Freedom.
Greater Manchester Police offered cafe-owner Shams Sadiq cash — and carte blanche to commit ‘certain’ crimes — if he would inform on anti-genocide group Palestine Action (PA) and his fellow Muslims. Sadiq, from Didsbury, was approached when he went to collect devices the police had confiscated after a 2025 raid connected to the group. The Starmer regime unlawfully banned PA as a terror group in 2025 at the behest of the Israeli government and lobby groups.
The government is still trying to overturn the High Court’s ruling that the ban breached human and free speech rights. Police continue to arrest people for protesting against the ban.
During Sadiq’s visit, the police told him he was “fully involved” with PA, but that they were not going to charge him — because they wanted him to grass the group up and inform on other Muslims:
They said to me: ‘We need your help. Look, there’s benefits in helping us.’ I’m like: ‘What kind of benefits? Financial benefits? Are you going to pay my taxes?’ They said: ‘Oh, we can help with things like that.’
Sadiq says he was also offered immunity for “certain” crimes:
The other guy said to me: ‘Oh, there’s other benefits, too.’ They said: ‘We’re not saying you can go out and commit a serious crime but we can turn a blind eye to certain things. [For example] We don’t care about speeding. …
…they said I am involved and maybe be an informer. They also said I’m quite respected in my community, so maybe they think I would help them find Muslims in the mosque with extreme views.
Greater Manchester Police — Softening-up
He added that he had also been questioned, four days before the police offer, under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act as he returned from a holiday in Morocco. The questioning covered Palestine Action and his finances. Under the unfit and draconian Act, if someone is detained at an airport they do not have the right to have a lawyer present and refusing to answer any questions or provide device passwords is a criminal offence. The Starmer regime has frequently used this against opponents of genocide and especially journalists who expose Israel’s crimes.
The detention was plainly an attempt to soften Sadiq up in preparation for the police approach. He was ordered to meet the same two police operatives at a cafe in Manchester Airport three days later, where they turned ‘good cop’ and apologised for his ordeal before returning devices that had again been confiscated.
Sadiq says he has gone public to ensure his safety after rejecting the offer:
I feel like I need protection from the police rather than anything else. It’s scary that I’ve got this marker on my passport for doing nothing. If they’ve got something on me, then charge me.
Greater Manchester Police did not respond to requests for comment. Sadiq has brought in lawyers.
Featured image via Carl Recine/Getty Images
By Skwawkbox
Buckingham Palace had emails six years ago showing the queen’s second son, Andrew, was abusing his position as UK trade envoy. It was a position the late queen had pressured the government into giving the Epstein pal formerly known as Prince Andrew.
Court documents have revealed that the family had an archive of information since 2020 concerning Mountbatten-Windsor’s sharing of information with banking scion Jonathan Rowland. Andrew had told his serial child-rapist friend Jeffrey Epstein that Rowland’s “shady” banker father David was his “main money man”. Emails released in the US Justice Department’s Epstein files show Andrew, as trade envoy, trying to promote the Rowlands’ businesses to Epstein.
Andrew — The bus isn’t big enough
The palace is again trying to distance itself from Andrew’s dodgy dealings, claiming that it could not comment because he is the subject of a police investigation. Thames Valley Police has appealed for people to provide it with information after Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest for suspected misconduct in public office.
The king has already shown a readiness to throw his brother under a bus to protect the monarchy. However, Charles is known to have forked out huge amounts of money to fund Andrew’s legal battles over Epstein. Rowland, for his part, has confirmed that emails relevant to Andrew’s disclosure of sensitive information were among the archive provided to the Palace as part of disclosure in a 2020 legal case.
The case did not directly involve the royals but they received the emails because many mentioned, or were sent to/by Mountbatten-Windsor. He is not the only Epstein-linked figure known to have passed sensitive — and highly lucrative — information obtained in a government role to contacts. Other Epstein files show Peter Mandelson, at the time an adviser to the Brown government, repeatedly passing insider-trading information to Epstein himself. Mandelson was later appointed as UK ambassador to the US by Keir Starmer, despite the Starmer regime’s knowledge of Mandelson’s actions and links to Epstein.
Featured image via Chris Jackson/Getty Images
By Skwawkbox
Andy Burnham is running to become the MP for Makerfield, Wigan. As everyone knows, if Burnham wins, he’ll challenge Keir Starmer for the Labour leadership, becoming the PM if he succeeds. Given that Labour has a huge majority and the party doesn’t have to call an election until 2029, most assume he won’t go to the polls early. If rumours are to be believed, however, he might be eyeing one up:
EXCL: Andy Burnham is considering holding a snap general election if he becomes PM.https://t.co/4vTIQ2oH5Y
— Kate Ferguson (@kateferguson4) May 30, 2026
Wargaming
The latest rumours comes from the Sun, and as such have to be taken with a pinch of salt. At the same time, Labour politicians love talking to the Sun despite its long and rancid history, so the source doesn’t necessarily discount the veracity.
According to the Murdoch rag, a senior Labour source said:
Andy considering an early general election. They are wargaming it.
But Labour MPs would absolutely hate it. They are worried about losing their seats.
If Andy becomes PM I expect he will have to promise the PLP (Parliamentary Labour Party) that he will not call a snap election.
They will want him to sign the pledge in blood.
Regardless of the finer details, this anonymous quote allowed the Sun to run a story claiming Burnham wants an early election. This is convenient for Burnham’s opponents, because they’re claiming Burnham’s dastardly plan is to — you guessed it — call an early election:
We are staring at a nightmare scenario: Burnham wins, an early General Election follows, Labour takes power, and Britain faces five more years of socialism.
Only Reform can stop it. — Rael Braverman (@raelbrav) May 29, 2026
https://t.co/zKYQpdjChN
So Reform have gone from demanding an early election to desperately trying to stop one because they think they’ll lose. And they admit Andy Burnham really is so popular nationally he’ll be able to reverse Reform’s surge and win for Labour. https://t.co/hnhvOFmGgN
— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) May 25, 2026
For the past year, Reform’s war cry has been ‘Starmer out now’. This has proven popular with the public — a public which understands the quickest way to get Starmer out is to get Burnham in. The problem for Reform politicians is that Burnham would likely be a tougher opponent, so now they have to work to keep Starmer in without admitting that’s what they’re doing.
Given this, it’s entirely possible one of Starmer’s allies briefed these rumours to hurt Burnham’s chances. Burnham himself, meanwhile, seems to have dismissed the rumours:
I know you know this but don’t believe everything you read in the papers. — Andy Burnham (@AndyBurnhamGM) May 30, 2026
At the same time, it’s not entirely out of the realms of possibility that Burnham might actually want an early election. Also, it wouldn’t be the first time Burnham went back on his word:
Ah! Did you not promise to serve a full term as mayor of Manchester? https://t.co/VPiBM2Wq08
— Count Binface (@CountBinface) May 30, 2026
Why would Burnham want to?
Over the past decade, we’ve had two early elections:
- Theresa May: Despite having a majority, May called an election in 2017 hoping to take advantage of Jeremy Corbyn’s unpopularity. In the end, Corbyn’s Labour realised the largest vote share increase since 1945, with May demoted to a minority government as a result.
- Boris Johnson: Johnson inherited May’s minority government, which meant he couldn’t do much of anything. In 2017, Brexit wasn’t an issue, because both parties committed to following through on it. By 2019, however, Keir Starmer had maneuvered Labour into backing a second referendum, which meant the 2019 election itself became a second referendum itself. This nuked Labour’s chances, and produced a large majority for Boris Johnson (although not as large as the one won by Starmer in 2024).
Clearly, calling an early election would be a risky move; especially when current polling looks like this:
– Seats – Poll: @YouGov, 25-26 May (+/- vs 18 May) pic.twitter.com/L5hyZ359lB — Stats for Lefties
POLL | Reform lead by 5pts
Ref: 24% (-1)
Con: 19% (+1)
Lab: 17% (-)
Grn: 16% (+1)
Lib: 14% (-)
Ref: 258Con: 104Lib: 85Grn: 82
SNP: 46Lab: 38
Plaid: 11
(@LeftieStats) May 27, 2026
Although Burnham would get a boost in the polls when compared to Starmer, it’s far from a guarantee that he’d win:
Saturday's front page: Burnham would face battle to beat Farage in a general election, polling reveals
Read the full story: https://t.co/0hQigxFlUi#TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/wGkSePMn2b — The i Paper (@theipaper) May 29, 2026
There is some reason to suspect Burnham might want to go to the polls early, however.
Rudderless
When it comes to big policies like proportional representation, Burnham has said Labour needs put them in a general manifesto before enacting them. The King in the North also doesn’t seem to have a concrete plan for office, as we’ve reported:
- Burnham ‘to support’ Mahmood’s racist immigration changes.
- Burnham is silent on wealth taxes – not a promising sign from potential PM.
- Andy Burnham’s role with Iain Duncan Smith’s think tank just shows he’s more of the same.
- Burnham WON’T back proportional representation this parliament.
- Shapeshifting Burnham ditches trans rights to panic-grab Reform votes.
- Burnham slammed for saying he won’t renationalise Thames Water.
If Labour call a general election, the party will have to produce a manifesto. As the Manchester Mill reported, Burnham is a lot happier being the face of the operation than the ideological engine — i.e. he’d no doubt love for the wonks to go off and draft a plan for him. The question is which side of Labour would be in charge of this manifesto — the rotten side or the really fucking rotten side.
Burnham movement
As Stats for Lefties and Philip Proudfoot note, the direction of travel for Burnham right now is rightwards:
The road to Wigan Keir https://t.co/iZUFH3pjG7
— Philip Proudfoot (@PhilipProudfoot) May 30, 2026
Whether Burnham calls an election or not, we need to make it very clear this country will not tolerate more of the same. And if he runs an election with a manifesto that’s Starmerism 2.0, we will fight against it tooth and nail.
Featured image via Christopher Furlong (Getty Images) / Christopher Furlong (Getty Images)
By Willem Moore
Nearly two years on from Art of Palestine: from the river to the sea, Rasha Eleyan is back at London’s P21 with her own solo exhibition: Revolution Is Female. The Palestinian artist explores the vital role women play in the Palestinian liberation movement.
Pop-inflected style
Eleyan’s style is very distinctive. The daughter of Palestinian artist Nasr Abdelaziz, Rasha had access to a well-stocked library of books on animation she would copy from: Abdelaziz had studied animation in London in the 1970s. But where his style is figurative, focusing on traditional life in Palestine, Rasha’s paintings have a distinct pop art influence. She also credits her first job at Disney Television in Singapore. She tells The Canary:
I’m often identified as a pop artist, but I was also obsessively inspired by films that combined animation with live action, especially Who Framed Roger Rabbit. That’s where I started merging pop-inspired visual elements with more classical realistic painting techniques.
She also credits her father for the way she chooses to focus on and portray women. His paintings depict Palestinian women — including her mother — with dignity and quiet strength:
The women in his paintings are my inspiration: beautiful women in Palestinian thobe[s], with long dark hair, engaged in daily rural life, carrying a serenity that feels suspended in time — but also a quiet mourning.
Portrait of Rasha Eleyan — Image courtesy of the artist
Growing up in the Gulf, Rasha was all too aware of her family’s (and her people’s) history of displacement. Her parents were keen to retain their identity as Palestinians and foster a strong sense of belonging.
We all had Palestinian thobes that my mother would dress us in for special occasions. We grew up with songs of resistance that emerged from the catastrophic situation our people were placed in. Our heritage was simply us being ourselves — but blended with frustration, loss, and also steadfastness.
That connection to her roots is what inspires the subject of her work. Recurring patterns and colours are drawn from elements that are ubiquitous in Palestinian culture: cactus, watermelon, red, green. Another motif is the Zaghrouta, a ululation with both celebratory and political connotations.
Can You Hear Me, 2025, acrylic on canvas, 123 x 94 cm — Image courtesy of the artist
Revolution is Female
The exhibition at P21 is Rasha’s first solo show in the UK. She moved to the UK a few years ago, and took part in group exhibitions. But this is Rasha’s opportunity to showcase a larger body of her work and its evolution over more than a decade. Co-curated by Zeina Saleh, the exhibition focuses on the role of revolutionary women — through resistance, but also through domestic space, symbolism, celebration, and political presence.
I find myself highly inspired by the Arabic saying “Revolution is Female”, a phrase deeply embedded within our culture and collective consciousness.
Indeed, the phrase reflects the way that women have been the backbone of the liberation movement in the region for decades. In the 1970s and 1980s, films such as Leila and the Wolves and Mai Masri’s Wildflowers: Women of South Lebanon were already celebrating them.
Watermelon Love Affair, 2026, acrylic on canvas, 70 x 80 cm — Image courtesy of the artist
A thriving scene despite censorship
In spite of Israel’s ongoing efforts to erase Palestinian life and culture, Palestinian artists are as prolific as ever. Just this past month, the Palestine Film Institute showcased at the Cannes Film Festival new initiatives and partnerships to structure their film scene, the Venice Biennale exhibited the Gaza Genocide Tapestry… The ubiquity of Palestinian art has of course been met with increased attempts at censorship.
There is undeniably more interest in Palestinian artists, and that is a natural reaction to the atrocities we have been living through over the last two and a half years — though of course our reality stretches far beyond that. As for censorship — yes, we experience it. […] Conversations around resistance, in particular, can feel constrained in digital spaces.
Eleyan believes art is a privileged medium for raising awareness and fostering empathy. Certainly, the popularity of recent exhibitions (Thread Memory…), music events (Sada, Together for Palestine…), and films (Palestine 36…) attest to this.
Revolution Is Female runs from 11 to 19 June at P21 in London. The opening reception is on 10 June. Booking and info here.
Featured image via the artist
We live in profoundly risk-averse times. And this has had a tremendous impact on individual freedom. Every aspect is increasingly overshadowed by a concern over the seemingly adverse consequences of our actions. Every potential decision, right down to what we choose to eat or drink, is increasingly regulated by officialdom.
In this context, how do we start to re-make the case for individual freedom? The answer lies not in denying but in embracing the risks and the responsibilities that come with freedom.
There’s certainly a straightforward way to argue for the freedom to take risks, especially risks that don’t directly affect anyone else, and that is to see risk as a form of harm to the risk-taker. If smoking, or drinking excessively, or eating too many pies, harms me by increasing my long-term health risks, that’s my own business. If I bet my rent on a spin of the roulette wheel, and end up eating cold baked beans for a month, how does that harm anyone else? If I take up mountaineering, or motorcycle racing, or lion taming, and suffer life-changing injuries, I am the one who suffers harm, and therefore I should be free to do what I think best.
I have a great deal of sympathy for this argument taken from classic liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill’s ‘harm principle’, especially in this puritanical age. It’s important to defend our freedom to make choices about our own lives, small as well as large, even when others think they’re bad choices and not in our own interests.
Yet the negative impacts of an individual’s actions or even just their bad luck do extend beyond that individual. Financially, practically or emotionally, it’s almost impossible to think of a risk that doesn’t resonate somehow along the social bonds tying us together. To live as if each of us is, in John Donne’s words, ‘an island’ is neither possible nor, I would suggest, desirable. We are human by virtue of growing up in human society – our lives interwoven with other humans.
To argue that the authorities should keep their noses out of our riskier actions is not to deny this inescapable web of human connection. The question is not whether our actions have effects on others, but who should have the authority to criticise or constrain those actions. Is it those who are involved with us – practically, or emotionally – or public bodies with a blueprint for desirable lifestyles that we’re all urged to follow?
Governments and campaign groups may claim to have our best interests at heart, but they don’t in the way our family and friends do. People who know us understand that there is more to life than being healthy, safe and solvent. They can see positive, as well as negative, aspects of risk-taking – the potential rewards as well as the possible harms.
Public bodies, by contrast, tend to have population-level targets for us, the public, that don’t take into account harder-to-measure values such as pleasure, altruism, curiosity or autonomy. Preserving bodily health, financial stability and safety in general are almost moral imperatives in themselves today. The scope of Bessie Smith’s ‘Tain’t Nobody’s Bizness if I Do’ has shrunk so far that we can’t even be trusted to choose what we look at online, let alone what we do in the real world.
Putting oneself at risk is framed as an invitation to harm: at best, reckless and feckless; at worst, wantonly self-destructive. To take a risk is seen as irresponsible. I want to turn this argument around. Far from being irresponsible, taking risks is the only way to be a truly responsible adult. To live a life devoted to constraining uncertainty, minimising bad possibilities and maximising predictability, is to live as a child. It’s not only permissible to take risks – in fact, it’s intrinsic to being a moral agent.
There is a school of moral philosophy that is focussed entirely on the consequences of one’s actions: consequentialism, particularly utilitarianism. To decide what to do, a good utilitarian tries to predict the outcomes of different courses of action, choosing the one that will probably lead to the best state of affairs for the greatest number of people affected.
I say ‘probably’, because it’s impossible to predict exactly how things will turn out. This leads to arguments about whether it’s better to minimise the worst harm that can happen, maximise the best possible outcome or calculate the ‘expected’ (average) outcome and follow the numbers. Then comes the question of what we mean by the ‘best’ state of affairs. Who gets to decide the measure of ‘best’? Utilitarianism, while neat in theory, is very tricky in practice.
Another school of moral philosophy, intentionalism, avoids these tricky questions by judging the intentions of the person who acts. If the intentions are good, but the action turns out to result in a bad state of affairs, the agent is still a good person. The German 18th-century philosophy Immanuel Kant is often credited with formalising this approach, by asserting that what matters most is a ‘good will’. Kant distinguished the moral universe from the cause-and-effect physical universe of our everyday experience. In the physical world, we are governed by physical laws, but in the moral universe individuals are capable of governing themselves, by choosing to act according to moral laws.
This idea of ‘pure’ agency – that we should be judged only by our intentions, not the outcomes of our actions – doesn’t quite match our everyday moral instincts. We can sympathise with the well-meaning person whose well-intentioned actions go wrong, but we don’t necessarily think that their ‘good will’ lets them off the hook.
Suppose you borrow my car to drive somebody to hospital. Unfortunately for you – and for me – when you bring it back you hit the gatepost. Who should be responsible for getting the car (and possibly the gatepost) repaired? Surely it’s you, because you were driving. Not only that, when you decided to take the car, you took on responsibility for its safe return.
Real life is full of examples like this: we take on projects, large and small, with varying degrees of uncertainty about how they will turn out. By initiating something new, we take on responsibility for seeing it through. This may involve unforeseen challenges. It may mean learning new skills we didn’t expect to need. It may bring new obligations that we didn’t anticipate.
I took a show about risk to the Edinburgh Fringe Festival in 2019. Early in the show, I would ask a random audience member, ‘What’s the biggest risk you’ve ever taken?’. Several people answered, ‘getting married’. This always got a laugh (especially as that person was usually sitting with their spouse and sometimes children) followed by reflective silence.
Is getting married the same as a spin of the roulette wheel? That’s a cheeky thing to say about your life partner. Did you get lucky? Or have you tied yourself to a lifetime of snoring and being talked over at dinner? But marriage is not a spin of the roulette wheel. It’s not a single decision after which there is nothing to be done but sit back and wait for fate to take its course.
Marriage is an open-ended commitment to another person, ‘for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health’, without knowing what challenges the future will bring. You may acquire new obligations to children. You may have to find new strengths you didn’t know were in you, to cope with what life throws at you. Hopefully, you will also find new possibilities open to you, new opportunities that you could not have foreseen when you first said, ‘I do’.
Marriage is, in short, the kind of risk that responsible adults take, because we recognise that responsibility extends beyond our intentions, beyond what we can predict and beyond what we explicitly agree to take on.
Having children is another example. So is starting a business, setting in motion a political campaign, leading an expedition – anything new which needs others to make it happen is not a single risk, but an unfolding, branching series of risks that cascade from the first decision, committing you to a path that can’t be retraced if you regret choosing it. More decisions, more risks, more actions will be required of you along the way, each one causing outcomes you couldn’t predict but now can’t rewind.
Hannah Arendt, writing in The Human Condition (1958), calls this ‘the burden of irreversibility and unpredictability’, which is an inescapable part of human action. It’s inevitable that ‘he who acts never quite knows what he is doing… he always becomes “guilty” of consequences he never intended or even foresaw… no matter how disastrous and unexpected the consequences of his deed, he can never undo it’.
Philosophical discussion of moral responsibility often includes the ‘control condition’ – the idea that one’s responsibility extends only as far as one’s control. Philosophers Bernard Williams and Thomas Nagel introduced the idea of ‘moral luck’ to challenge this idea. Luck can, and does, affect our moral judgment of individuals and actions. A ‘good will’ is not enough: we judge people differently if their actions turn out to have better or worse consequences due to things beyond their control. The drunk driver who kills is condemned more harshly than the equally drunk driver who is lucky enough to encounter no pedestrian on the way home.
But, as Arendt points out, every worthwhile human enterprise involves factors beyond an individual’s control. Not only the vagaries of nature and the unknowability of the complex physical world, but the fundamental unpredictability of other people. ‘The fact that man is capable of the unexpected means that the unexpected can be expected from him, that he is able to perform what is infinitely improbable.’ Not even the most sophisticated computer imaginable could predict the future of the human world, because humans are free to transcend the deterministic laws of nature. We have a unique capacity to defy statistical probability with unprecedented actions that set new things in motion.
Because every significant project – from a marriage to a political campaign – needs more than one person to make it happen, it can never be under the control of a single individual, not even the person who set it in motion. This means that to act in any significant way, to set in motion anything that could influence the world, is to take a risk.
Freedom is not liberation from responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions, but freedom to act in full acceptance of that responsibility. Freedom to act, that is, without being able to know for what, exactly, one will turn out to be responsible.
This is what philosopher Margaret Urban Walker calls ‘impure’ agency. We are human agents, ‘agents of, rather than outside, the world of space, time, and causality’, and our responsibilities outrun our capacity to control the world around us. If ‘pure agents’ really existed, says Urban Walker, and insisted that their responsibilities – moral and practical – ended at the limit of their control, they would be able to walk away from all unforeseen, unplanned or uncontrolled outcomes of their actions. ‘Relationships, situations and encounters in which emerge uncontrolled and uninvited needs, demands and opportunities to enable or harm’ would be no grounds for moral claims upon such ‘pure agents’.
We could not live together, trusting each other to assume the burdens of our web of human commitments, if everyone insisted on thus limiting their obligations to others. Dependability may not seem to be an especially glorious virtue, but, without it, society rapidly falls apart. Moral luck, far from being a curious paradox of interest only to philosophers, is ‘a fact of our moral situation and our human kind of agency’, Urban Walker writes. Recognising the reality of this situation is itself part of being a moral agent.
To children who act without understanding we say, ‘it wasn’t your fault, you didn’t know’, even when their actions have terrible consequences. Adults are expected to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, no matter how unforeseen. In our current, risk-averse society, our knowledge of this fact turns out to be a constraint on our willingness to act, to start new things, and to take on open-ended responsibilities.
All sorts of things that previous generations regarded as normal parts of life – relationships, children, starting a business or a voluntary community group – are now understood less as exciting opportunities but more as risky Pandora’s boxes of potential harm. Uncertainty about how things will turn out is regarded as a reason not to do them, in case they turn out badly.
When we do begin new things, we’re encouraged to do them in ways that minimise that uncertainty. Dating apps, for example, feel more controllable than just talking to strangers in a bar; potential partners are viewed through a screen and communication can be carefully crafted before sending. In person, spontaneous looks and words might betray our feelings and leave us emotionally vulnerable to another person’s actions.
There is a deep pessimism in this tendency to think about risk mainly in terms of harm, rather than opportunity. Embarking on a risky project is generally something we do because we hope for good outcomes, not bad. Underlying this pessimism is a lack of faith in our human ability to cope with uncertainty, to follow through with our responsibilities in unforeseen situations. This is consistent with the general trend to see adults more and more like children: too emotionally fragile to act rationally in upsetting situations; too immature to be relied upon when the going gets tough; vulnerable, not dependable.
No wonder we’re inclined to discuss risk as a state of impending harm from which we should all be protected, and not as a way of understanding action, as an integral part of human life.
What, then, should an adult who values freedom do about risk? It’s not a question of taking risks for the sake of danger. If you feel that doing more risky things will build your habit of courage, fine, but suddenly taking up mountaineering will do little to shift the infantilising, risk-averse mood in our society.
Instead, we need to take on the inherent risk that any worthwhile human enterprise entails, wholeheartedly, and with full acceptance of the moral responsibility that brings. As much as one can – and should – prepare for any project, plan ahead for potential problems and anticipate the unexpected, there will always be unforeseen challenges.
These are, what Urban Walker calls, ‘the decisive moral tests one did not invite… the faulty or horrifying results that one invited but did not control and that one is expected to find resources to address or redress without taking refuge in denial, demoralisation, or paralysis’.
It is our willingness to live up to our responsibilities at such times that is the real test of our integrity as moral agents. But that willingness to commit to a project in full knowledge of the risks involved, and live up to our responsibilities when the going gets tough, is also what constitutes real freedom to act in, and on, the world.
Timandra Harkness is a writer, performer and broadcaster. She is the author most recently of Technology is Not the Problem, published by HQ.
This is an edited version of a Letters on Liberty pamphlet, Risk and Responsibility, which can be purchased in full here. Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for this and more.
Rupert Lowe launched his party Restore Britain earlier this year (Alamy)
5 min read
The University of York’s Restore Britain society is the first to be ratified at a Russell Group institution. PoliticsHome speaks to its president about how society hopes to help Rupert Lowe and why billionaire Elon Musk’s support for the party could be a “double-edged sword”.
When former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe launched his own party, Restore Britain, in February after falling out with Nigel Farage, there was scepticism that it could have a meaningful electoral impact. There was a belief that there was limited space for a right-wing, fringe party to have an impact as long as Nigel Farage’s Reform continues to lead the polls.
However, at this month’s local elections, there were signs that Restore Britain could prove to be a headache for Farage. Lowe’s party, which has hard-right policies like the mass deportation of all illegal immigrants and shutting down universities that “brainwash students into hating their own culture”, helped deny Reform a majority on Norfolk County Council by winning all 10 seats they contested in Great Yarmouth.
Looking ahead to next month’s crucial by-election in Makerfield, Labour activists in the northwest told The House magazine this weekend that Reform would be on course to defeat Andy Burnham were it not for Restore Britain’s participation. A Survation poll this week put Labour candidate Burnham in the lead on 43 per cent, with Reform’s Robert Kenyon close behind on 40 per cent. Restore Britain candidate Rebecca Shepherd was on 7 per cent.
Lowe, who has cultivated large followings on social media, is now seemingly building support at campus level.
Jared Allman, a second-year philosophy student at the University of York (UoY), is president of the university’s newly ratified Restore Britain society. The society was originally set up by Nye Gollings, who was previously president of UoY’s Reform UK society.
Allman, 22, whose favourite historical figure is French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte (“he is the best military commander of all time”), told PoliticsHome that his support for Restore Britain comes from the belief that British people must “come back together and reaffirm their national identity”.
Other members of the society name Henry VIII’s executed chancellor Thomas More, Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, William the Conqueror and ancient copper merchant Ea-nāṣir as their favourite historical figures.
When asked whether it would not be more appropriate for his favourite historical figure to be British, Allman said: “That does make absolute sense, but if there were one that I thought was better than him, then I would have put him down.”
Currently, the society has about 25-30 members, the majority of whom, Allman admitted, are men, apart from “two or three female members”. In terms of the ethnicity of the group, Allman reckoned about five or six are “ethnic members”.
On the lack of women, Allman said: “That end of politics probably has a bad rap to it, and I feel like people perhaps just are intimidated…especially a woman, but I would absolutely love to get more female members, and that could be really beneficial to the society.”
York’s Student Union (SU) anticipated that the ratification, which gives a group training and funding opportunities, access to resources, and support from student union staff, would be so contentious that it published a full explainer on why the decision had been made, insisting it was “not an endorsement” and the organisation was “legally bound” to do so.
Unlike his predecessor, Gollings, Allman is not a former Reform UK member. He described Reform leader Farage as a “chameleon” who has done “nothing whatsoever” for his parliamentary constituency of Clacton since he was elected almost two years ago.
“I just like how Rupert Lowe’s not afraid to say it, and there really aren’t a lot of people that have a backbone and stand firm with what they say,” he told PoliticsHome.
“On the whole, the greatest issue facing our country is the cultural decline of England and its native people,” Allman told PoliticsHome, but insists he does not have a problem with international students on campus, as they have come to the country through legal routes.
York St John University, on the other side of the city, also has a ratified Restore Britain society. While other societies exist at universities across the country in Warwick, Durham, Bristol and London, they are not yet ratified. Allman said the society leaders keep in touch via a group chat.
Following the ratification, the SU received backlash from other university societies, culminating in a protest outside the SU building against the decision on 22 May. “I expected there to be more people,” Allman said, but described the atmosphere as “hostile”.
“I just find it ridiculous, not only the fact that they think they can suppress a view they disagree with, but also that they think the best way to go about that is to mob up and basically use intimidation tactics, lots of screaming through a megaphone, like lots of loud, sharp noise.”
Going forward, Allman told PoliticsHome he wants to take the society towards putting on “more intellectually-based activities” and bringing speakers and guests to the university. The group also has plans to travel to Makerfield to campaign for their candidate, Shepherd.
Musk, the controversial billionaire owner of X, has indicated support for Restore Britain in his inflammatory online commentary on British politics. Allman admitted that Musk’s support is a bit of a “double-edged sword”, telling PoliticsHome: “He’s got quite a bad reputation”.
“It’s good that he’s endorsing Restore, because he has got a large following, and he is the richest man on the planet, but he also has been accused of meddling with foreign affairs and foreign politics,” he said.
Portugal’s national team coach, Roberto Martínez, affirmed that Cristiano Ronaldo could be present at the 2030 World Cup, stressing that “no one should doubt” the team captain’s ability to appear in the next edition of the tournament.
Martínez’s remarks came during an interview with the Spanish radio station “Cadena SER“, where he explained that Ronaldo is currently preparing for the 2026 World Cup. This will be his sixth appearance in the history of the World Cup, a record he shares with Argentina’s Lionel Messi.
No one should doubt that. He deserves this,” Martínez said in his statement, referring to the possibility of the Portuguese star continuing until the 2030 edition, which will be co-hosted by Morocco, Spain, and Portugal.
On the international stage, the Portuguese captain has scored over 130 goals for his national team, cementing his status as the all-time top scorer in national team history, an unprecedented record.
The Portugal coach added that Ronaldo serves as an inspiring role model for young players, confirming that the technical staff sees him as an example of professional mentality and longevity, not just physical fitness.
Martínez continued, stating that Ronaldo is defined not by the titles he achieves or his daily routine, but by his constant “hunger” for development, noting that despite his great accomplishments, he maintains the same drive and desire to compete.
The legend of Ronaldo
Ronaldo holds a historic position in the World Cup, as he is the player with the most appearances in the tournament’s history, and he is the only player to have scored in five different editions of the World Cup, which further strengthens his exceptional international record.
Debate continues regarding the Portuguese star’s future with the national team, given that he is turning 41. However, Martínez’s statements reopen the door to the possibility of his career extending until the 2030 World Cup, by which time he will be 45 years old.
Cristiano Ronaldo has played 22 matches in his World Cup history, scoring 8 goals. The Portuguese star is looking to continue his career in the tournament to boost his tally of international appearances and pursue the record held by Argentina’s Lionel Messi, who tops the list of most World Cup appearances with 26 matches, in addition to scoring 13 goals across five editions of the tournament.
Featured image via Charles McQuillan/Getty Images
By Alaa Shamali
The 2026 World Cup will not just be another milestone in the history of the game; it could become the final chapter for some of the greatest stars who have left their mark on global football over the last two decades. While all eyes will be on the race for the title in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, the tournament will also be an exceptional occasion to bid farewell to an entire generation of legends who built glory for their national teams and cemented their names in the history books.
The average age of these stars is about 37, and most have already participated in more than one World Cup, giving the upcoming tournament an exceptional character as a final opportunity to add a new achievement to their international careers. This sentiment was addressed by FIFA in an official report titled “The Last Dance”.
Messi and Ronaldo: Chasing the historic World Cup record
Leading the list of stars who might make their final World Cup appearance are Argentina’s Lionel Messi (aged 39) and Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo (aged 41). Both have participated in five previous editions: 2006, 2010, 2014, 2018, and 2022.
Should the duo participate in the 2026 World Cup, they will reach their sixth tournament appearance, a nearly unprecedented historical record in the competition. This same milestone could also be achieved by Mexican goalkeeper Guillermo Ochoa (aged 41), who has five previous appearances with his national team.
Close behind them is Croatia’s Luka Modrić (aged 40), who is preparing for his fifth participation after featuring in the 2006, 2014, 2018, and 2022 editions. Similarly, Germany’s Manuel Neuer (aged 40) will enter the tournament for the fifth time, having been one of the key stars in Germany’s 2014 title victory.
While Messi successfully completed his journey to global glory by winning the World Cup in Qatar 2022, Ronaldo is still searching for a major World Cup achievement to add to his exceptional career, which lends an extra historical dimension to their potential participation.
A golden generation closes its final chapter
The 2026 World Cup holds special significance for several stars from Europe and South America who have formed the backbone of their national teams in recent years.
Prominent on this list is Belgium’s Kevin De Bruyne (aged 35), who has played in three previous World Cup editions, and the Netherlands’ Virgil van Dijk (aged 35), who appeared in the 2022 edition and is preparing for his second participation.
Brazil’s Neymar (aged 34) will also enter the tournament after three previous appearances, and he is his national team’s all-time top scorer. Meanwhile, his compatriots Casemiro (aged 34) and Alisson Becker (aged 34) are preparing for their third participation, having featured in the 2018 and 2022 editions.
The list also includes Switzerland’s Granit Xhaka (aged 34) and South Korea’s Son Heung-min (aged 34), both of whom have participated in three previous editions. In addition, Colombia’s James Rodríguez (aged 35), the top scorer of the 2014 World Cup, is preparing for his third career appearance.
As for Bosnia’s Edin Džeko (aged 40), his national team’s all-time top scorer, he stands before a rare opportunity to appear in the World Cup again after his sole participation in 2014, marking one of the final major stops in his international career.
Salah and Mané: The last appearance for two African icons
On the African side, the upcoming tournament appears to be the last chance for two of the continent’s most prominent modern-era stars: Egypt’s Mohamed Salah (aged 34) and Senegal’s Sadio Mané (aged 34).
Salah is preparing for his second World Cup appearance after his debut in Russia 2018, having become one of the most prominent Arab and African football stars on the global stage in recent years.
Mané, conversely, enters the tournament after two previous appearances with the Senegalese national team. He was one of the key members of the generation that led the “Lions of Teranga” to win the Africa Cup of Nations title for the first time in the country’s history.
The participation of the duo lends a special dimension to the tournament, representing the continuation of an era that saw the rise of African football to the global forefront thanks to their achievements with their national teams and clubs.
With three players chasing a historic sixth appearance, two preparing for their fifth, and a large number of captains and top scorers who are past their mid-thirties or have reached forty, the 2026 edition is poised to be more than just a fight for the Golden Trophy. It is a tournament that may witness the curtain closing on the careers of an entire generation of stars who shaped the memory of modern football and left a legacy that will endure for many years.
Featured image via Luke Hales/Getty Images
By Alaa Shamali
The Met Police is investigating a clip of an anti-genocide protester criticising actor Helen Mirren’s Zionism as a hate crime. Mirren is a supporter of Israel and who wants it to last “for eternity”, but is not Jewish. Zionism is a political ideology – one that is intrinsically racist, ethno-supremacist and, as shown everywhere around Israel, murderous.
View this post on Instagram
Mirren is not ethnically Jewish and is on record describing herself as an atheist. Contrary to media and pro-Israel narratives, many Jews are not Zionist. In fact, within a few years a majority of UK Jews will belong to communities that vehemently reject it, even leaving aside the horrors of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Met Police: See no evil — but call good ‘hate’
Meanwhile, the Met Police continues to ignore hate crimes against Muslims and Palestinians and their supporters — and even actual war crimes by British supporters of Israel. The force actively “peddles falsehoods” about the anti-genocide movement while turning a blind eye to the foulest racism spouted by far-right hate-marchers. Met Commissioner Mark Rowley has still not withdrawn his outright lies about peace march organisers trying to march near synagogues.
In the UK under politicians, lobbyists and enforcers that adhere to racist ideologies, good and evil all too easily – in fact routinely – have become inverted. White, privileged actors suffer ‘hate’, while actual hate directed at oppressed and murdered minorities drifts by ignored. And those who try to turn reality the right way up again are demonised as the problem.
Featured image via Leon Neal/Getty Images
By Skwawkbox
Politics
New York mayor, Zohran Mamdani, to boycott largest Zionist gathering in world outside of Israel
Mamdani — New York’s (NY) annual Israel Day Parade on Fifth Avenue is the largest gathering of Zionists in the world outside of “Israel”. It has been held annually in the city for more than 60 years, and will take place on 31 May.
Mamdani: “I’ve made my views on the Israeli government abundantly clear”
Tens of thousands are expected to attend the event as New York has the largest Jewish community outside of Israel. But for the first time in its history, the parade will go ahead without the City’s mayor attending. Zohran Mamdani is honouring the pledge he made last year on his campaign trail, and is boycotting the event.
The Socialist Muslim mayor said at a press conference on 28 May:
I said on the campaign trail that I wouldn’t be attending the parade, and I’ve made my views on the Israeli government abundantly clear.
The event is organised by the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York (JCRC). They describe it as “a proud expression of Jewish identity and our enduring connection to the people of the State of Israel.” The Israeli occupation will send three ministers and 13 Knesset members to the parade. This, they say, will “send a message to New York’s Jewish community that the State of Israel is by their side.”
Mamdani says the Palestinian cause is central to his identity. He supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. He also openly speaks out against the genocide in Gaza, and the Israeli occupation’s apartheid in the West Bank.
We pay our electeds with our tax $$$ to represent us but they go on paid-for trips to Israel.
We have 3 letters for them: #BDS
Every elected must be pressured to stand with Palestinians, oppose Apartheid & assert that the fight for dignity knows no exception.#FreePalestine pic.twitter.com/xczCuhTnyn — Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@ZohranKMamdani) May 12, 2021
Mamdani also said he would arrest war criminal Netanyahu should he ever set foot in New York while he is mayor.
Mamdani accused of antisemitism for choosing not to attend Israel Day Parade
Predictably, following Mamdani’s election win, Zionists in New York accused him of antisemitism. This was because he called out Israeli occupation crimes, and US involvement in these. He has demanded an end to “New York’s subsidies of settler crimes” — crimes which are carried out to forcibly displace Palestinians and ethnically cleanse the West Bank. And he has spoken of US “law enforcement” learning counterterrorism tactics from the Israeli occupation military and police. These exchange programmes are often initiated by Jewish Zionist organisations.
Protest group End Jew Hatred recently held a demonstration outside Mamdani’s home. They held placards which read:
“AntiZionism is not a political position. AntiZionism is a hate movement”
Mamdani is now being called antisemitic, due to his refusal to take part in the Israel Day Parade.
VIDEO: Thousands gather outside Gracie Mansion on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, protesting New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
The protest is organized by the End Jew Hatred organization. pic.twitter.com/pX3HEOyPJU — Breaking 4 News (@Breaking_4_News) May 27, 2026
New York State Assembly member, Michael Novakhov, spoke at the rally. He said:
We will not stay silent in the face of antisemitism, Communism, and the dangerous pro-terrorist rhetoric coming from Zohran Mamdani.
Estimated 30 million Christian Zionists in US
The NY Israel Day Parade 2026 theme is “Proud Americans, proud Zionists”. Christian Zionists in the US are thought to number around 30 million. This figure is higher than the number of Jews throughout the world. Most Zionists in the US are conservative Evangelical Christians, the American religious group most likely to favour “Israel”. This is because they view Jewish presence there and the rebuilding of the temple in occupied Jerusalem as essential for the second coming of Jesus.
A powerful network of billionaire-funded Zionist lobbying groups and religious extremists drives America’s devastating role in oppressing Palestinians. They are dedicated to the advancement of political Zionism. And by weaponising millions of dollars they ensure the US government remains complicit in apartheid and war crimes against Palestinians.
One of these Zionist lobby groups is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). It wields huge legislative and political influence.
During the 2024 campaign trail, AIPAC, through its affiliated United Democracy Project, poured $100 million into supporting pro-Israel candidates and systematically targeting anti-Zionist ones. Those who spoke out for Palestinian liberation, called for a weapons embargo on the Israeli occupation, or opposed Zionist colonial expansion were targeted, smeared, and unseated.
By holding US politicians hostage to campaign donations, AIPAC guarantees a continuous flow of multibillion-dollar weapon shipments to “Israel”. These are then used in its countless war crimes around the Middle East, including occupied Palestine.
But public opinion about the terrorist state of Israel is changing in the US, as in the rest of the world. AIPAC’s role in American politics is becoming deeply controversial, especially with younger voters. Socialist, AIPAC critic, and Palestine rights advocate, Chris Rabb, was an outsider in the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania. But has just won, with 45 percent of the vote.
60 percent of US adults have an unfavourable view of “Israel”, up seven percent since 2025
A March 2025 poll from Gallup highlighted that only 46 percent of Americans support “Israel”. This is the lowest figure in 25 years of tracking. 33 percent expressed sympathy for Palestinians, a record high.
Recent polls confirm American support for the Zionist regime has fallen to historic lows. According to the Pew Research Centre, 60 percent of US adults have an unfavourable view of “Israel”. This figure is up from 53 percent in 2025. In those under the age of 50 the figure was 70 percent.
Another poll, from 2025, indicates that only 47 percent of Americans believe supporting Israel serves the US national interest. This figure has dropped from 69 percent in late 2023.
For decades, the political, financial, and ideological influence of Zionist advocacy went unquestioned in the US. And politicians showed unwavering support and loyalty to “Israel”. But the occupation’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, and apartheid system in the West Bank, has opened eyes. The blatant atrocities, lies, greed, and arrogance of the Zionist occupation are changing public consciousness.
Americans are now refusing to stay silent despite the influence of Zionist lobby groups such as AIPAC, and the inevitable “antisemitic” smear campaigns. This gives Palestinians hope for the future.
Featured image via Adam Gray/Getty Images
By Charlie Jaay
Ukrainian drones strike Russian energy sites and set off fires
‘Misleading financial statements’: Suzlon to challenge Sebi’s penalty order before SAT
Nvidia (NVDA) and Microsoft Partner on AI-Powered Windows PCs Set for Next Week Debut
Steven Gerrard disagrees with Gary Neville over ‘shock’ Chelsea and Arsenal claim | Football
US brings back mandatory military draft registration
Register Renaming | Hackaday
#fyp #viralvideo #canada #money #hopecore #financialmindset #wifimoney #mindsetqoutes
4 LIFE slips namely Financial, Relationship, Mental, Career. #lifeadvice #lifeadvice #shorts #reels
Joseph Chalom: The Ethereum Bull Thesis in 2026 (Why Now)
-
Business7 days agoNYT Strands Answers May 24 2026 Revealed for Puzzle No. 812 Theme Summer Essentials
-
NewsBeat4 days agoIsrael says it has killed new Hamas military leader in Gaza City airstrikes
-
Tech4 days agoNASA taps Blue Origin to deliver lunar rovers for Moon Base initiative
-
Politics6 days agoBridgerton Season 5: Cast, Release Date And Everything We Know So Far
-
News Videos4 days agoXRP *JUST* SUCCEEDED!!!! CLARITY ACT EXPOSED!!! (SHE EXPOSED IT)
-
Sports5 days ago2026 NBA Finals schedule, odds: Knicks await Thunder or Spurs after winning East
-
Business4 days agoSelena Gomez Reportedly Upset Over Benny Blanco’s Comments on Her ‘Terrible’ Diet
-
Crypto World5 days agoMicron Crosses $1 Trillion Market Cap as AI Demand Reshapes Memory Sector
-
Crypto World7 days ago
Brian Armstrong Outlines Crypto Vision for the Future Financial System
-
News Videos2 days agoThis is BROKEN! INSANE 5x MONEY CAR WASH WEEK! The NEW GTA Online UPDATE Today! (GTA5 New Update)
-
Business6 days agoBTS Sells Out Four Las Vegas Shows at Allegiant Stadium for ARIRANG World Tour
-
Tech5 days agoChina assigns ID codes to 28,000+ humanoid robots
-
NewsBeat6 days agoHottest May day ever as London hits 34.8C in 2C leap from previous records
-
Tech6 days agoMicrosoft’s quiet Claude Code retreat and the real cost of enterprise AI
-
Tech2 days agoWaymo dominates autonomous vehicle registrations as Tesla trails behind
-
Business6 days agoNikkei 225 Surges Past 65,000 for First Time as Iran Peace Hopes Fuel Record Rally
-
Tech4 days ago
The Samsung pay deal is the moment Korean unions changed register
-
Entertainment5 days ago‘Breaking Bad’ Star’s Easy-to-Binge 6-Part Crime Series Spin-Off Is Finally Heading to Free Streaming
-
Tech6 days agoWestone Audio and Etymotic Acquired by Fidelity Collective in Major IEM Market Move
-
NewsBeat6 days agoCrowds find riverside shade in York as temperatures soar
You must be logged in to post a comment Login