Source link

The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium (RMCC) has spoken out against government plans to access asylum seekers’ age using AI.

On Friday 29 May, the Home Office announced plans to use AI in cases when an asylum seekers’ age is in dispute. However, the RMCC warned that the scheme could lead to yet more wrongful detentions of vulnerable children in adult facilities.

The news follows April’s revelations from the independent Humans for Rights Network, which exposed the fact that the Home Office routinely detains so-called “age-disputed children” as adults. Of the 76 age-disputed detainees at the time, 26 had been — or were in the process of being — reassessed as children by Social Services.

Just get an AI to do it…

Most of the unaccompanied children who brave the journey to the UK in search of asylum are 16-17 years old. The Home Office’s own data shows that social workers are more than twice as likely to confirm that these individuals are minors compared to assessments carried out by immigration officers.

Ultimately, over two-thirds of the age-disputed individuals are confirmed to be their stated age. Nevertheless, Labour choose to focus on the ‘threat’ of the perceived adult migrants.

Alex Norris, the minister for border security and asylum, argued that:

For too long, adult migrants making false age claims have exploited the system and diverted vital support away from children at risk.

That is why we are rolling out AI technology to put a stop to this, ensuring those who game the system are identified, detained and removed without delay, and those who deserve support and protection are given it.

That now-familiar appeal to AI is part of Labour’s massive push to use the technology across vast swathes of public life – including policing and the court system.

Private sector enrichment

Of course, that AI-push has also seen massive amounts of public money pad the pockets of tech-sector CEOs. One company alone – genocide-linked Palantir – currently holds over £500m in public contracts, from the NHS to law enforcement.

The government’s machine-learning obsession was championed by Tony Blair and his eponymous think-tank, which just happened to take a £250m donation from AI-specialist CEO Larry Ellison.

With regard to refugee age verification, the Home Office handed a 3-year, £322,000 contract to Akhter Computers Ltd for testing and development.

But what exactly is the AI technology that Labour is aiming to deploy in this particular case? Friday’s Home Office announcement explained that:

Facial Age Estimation (FAE) uses machine learning technology to estimate an individual’s age within seconds by analysing a facial photograph without further information about the individual. […]

FAE is not the same as facial recognition technology. While both use artificial intelligence, they serve different purposes and use different algorithms. Facial recognition compares an image against a database to identify a person. FAE does not identify individuals and does not search any databases. It only estimates an age from an image.

The Home Office isn’t using FAE at the present moment in time. However, the department plans to spend the remainder of the year testing the technology ahead of a rollout in 2027.

‘Problems with bias and inaccuracy’

However, the plans have met with strong opposition from organisations representing young refugees. Kamena Dorling, co-chair of the RMCC, stated that:

The government’s proposals are deeply concerning. AI cannot account for the factors that can significantly affect a young person’s appearance after fleeing conflict and persecution and undertaking dangerous journeys, including trauma, malnutrition, and exhaustion.

Existing evidence also shows that AI faces the same problems with bias and inaccuracy as human decision-making, with similar patterns of errors.

Advertisement

Whilst it may seem intensely obvious, the fact that children fleeing active warzones might look older than their years apparently escaped Labour’s notice.

Likewise, as Dorling said, AI has a tendency to replicate human errors, rather than eliminating them. Meanwhile, it obscures those errors in a cloak of cold, algorithmically-determined ‘fairness’.

‘A false sense of certainty’

Senior policy analyst and consortium member Kama Petruczenko, of the Refugee Council, said:

The government’s own figures already show that hundreds of children are being wrongly treated as adults following flawed visual assessments at the border, with devastating consequences for their safety and wellbeing.

AI and facial age estimation technology are not a simple or risk-free answer to these longstanding problems. Poor image quality and bias in datasets can also affect accuracy.

Advertisement

There is a real danger that this technology creates a false sense of certainty in decisions that are already extremely difficult to get right. If flawed assessments are simply automated, more children could end up wrongly placed in adult accommodation, detention centres or even prisons.

The government has already shown an awareness of these biases. However, beyond vague statements about trying to minimise errors, it simply doesn’t care. The Home Office announcement stated that:

There is evidence in testing data that FAE performance can vary depending on ethnicity, skin tone, gender, place of birth and quality of input image. NIST [The National Institute of Standards and Technology] found that error rates were almost always higher for female faces, although it didn’t find out why as testing was purely on performance rather than how algorithms work.

Vendors take bias seriously and commercial FAE technology is trained to be representative of the broadest possible demographic range of potential users.

‘The technology is racist and sexist, but we’re sure the people selling it to us are doing their best’. Well that’s all fine then, please carry on.

The RMCC will release its full report, titled ‘Benchmarks and Borders: the use of facial age estimation to assess the age of unaccompanied young people seeking asylum’, in June this year. If the current state of Labour’s AI policy is anything to go by, the consortium will have no shortage of criticisms to fill its pages.

Featured image via Leon Neal / Getty Images

By Alex/Rose Cocker

Source link

The director of Backrooms has revealed he’s already got ideas for more films set within the film’s bizarre universe.

Released last week, Kane Parson’s critically-acclaimed new horror movie centres around the lonely owner of a struggling furniture shop, who stumbles upon an unsettling other dimension through the wall of his store’s basement.

As he progresses further into the seemingly limitless space, he becomes increasingly obsessed with what he discovers and how it relates to the world outside.

During a new interview with Variety published on Backrooms’ release date, its director teased: “Without a doubt, Backrooms has always been planned to be more of a series that goes outside the confines of this film.

Advertisement

“If anything, I would say this is a bit of a foot in the door that would lead to more of a progression towards the true root of the narrative, which has been set up online for years. But a version that maintains accessibility and lets this be the way in.”

He continued: “For people who are into it, I’ve got a contract, and I got a hold at my end, and that means I am definitely not done with Backrooms.

“I’ve got very specific things that I’m working on, things are in the works right now that I am eager to be able to talk about, but, currently, it’s still in a secret mystery world.”

Backrooms’ origin story is a bit of an interesting one in itself.

Advertisement

The idea stems from a 4chan post from back in 2019 showing an environment similar to the one seen in the Backrooms movie, which then became its own “creepypasta” (an online term for a widely-shared horror story that gains notoriety and viral fame by being copied and pasted around various corners of the internet) when someone came up with text to accompany it.

While Backrooms’ original “creepypasta” was shared anonymously, Kane Parsons began a YouTube series based on the idea in 2022, the success of which led to his new film.

He added to Variety that he has no intention of “leaving YouTube behind” now he’s crossed over into feature-length filmmaking.

“I immensely enjoy the work I’ve done there, and I feel creatively fulfilled by it in a way that’s proportional to what I’ve done with this film,” he insisted. “I personally think there’s merits, because there’s a lot of projects that I just could never do outside of YouTube, or outside of a more free-form internet multimedia container.

Advertisement

“So I wouldn’t limit myself just to one spot, but I do think it’s a way of saying that I’ve got a bit of a good thing going right now that I want to utilise with the energy and positivity around this film.”

Backrooms is in cinemas now.

Source link

The Home Office has banned left-wing commentator and TV host, Cenk Uygur, from entering the UK, on Israel’s behalf. He is a vocal critic of pro-Israel influence over Western governments. Cenk Uygur has highlighted the irony of the UK ban over X. He said:

if I had said that the Israeli government controls the British government so thoroughly that they’ll ban someone from coming to the UK just for criticizing Israel, they would have said that was an antisemitic statement.

The commentator noted that he was banned not for any views or opinions he’s expressed about the UK.

Uygur argued that “Israel controls the American government,” largely because the pro-Israel lobby in the US channels significant financial support to members of Congress. He presented this as the main issue for Starmer’s government. While this is an overly simplistic and debatable political argument, it is not inherently a religious one. Nevertheless, some pro-Israel voices in the UK claim otherwise.

The UK banning Cenk Uygur for criticising Israel’s genocide in Gaza and US support isn’t just an attack on free speech, either. It also carries an antisemitic implication. This implication falsely equates criticism of genocidal war criminals with hatred of a whole religious group.

The British government is saying they're banning me because I am "a serious risk to the public order" due to my criticism of Israel.

They say that my charge that Israel controls the American government through donations to 94% of Congress, while factual, is antisemitic…

— Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) May 31, 2026

Cenk Uygur had previously called for the US to assert independence from pro-Israel interests during an appearance on Piers Morgan‘s talk show. After the UK decided to ban Cenk Uygur, Morgan has defended his guest, emphasising that he was making political rather than religious points:

She is a disgusting bigot who spews constant vile hatred against Muslims for being Muslim. Where has Cenk Uygur ever said anything hateful and bigoted against Jews for being Jewish? https://t.co/4TBnhNL9La

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) June 1, 2026

Green Party leader Zack Polanski, has also called out the government’s cynical move. The Jewish politician lamented how the Labour government was:

doing everything possible to silence criticism of the Israeli government.

He called the ban of both Cenk Uygur and fellow Israel critic Hasan Piker “a really grim decision”:

This is a really grim decision alongside Cenk.

People often talk about dangerous road we'd go down under a Reform government – this is another clear warning we're down there already.

Advertisement

A Labour government doing everything possible to silence criticism of the Israeli Government. https://t.co/XS8GKEFJMe

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) June 1, 2026

It’s one thing for a government to challenge people spreading hatred of entire religious or ethnic communities. It’s another entirely when a government decides to limit political debate on behalf of a country currently committing genocide. And that’s exactly what has just happened.

Featured image via the Young turks / YouTube 

By Ed Sykes

Source link

!function(n){if(!window.cnx){window.cnx={},window.cnx.cmd=[];var t=n.createElement(‘iframe’);t.display=’none’,t.onload=function(){var n=t.contentWindow.document,c=n.createElement(‘script’);c.src=”//cd.connatix.com/connatix.player.js”,c.setAttribute(‘async’,’1′),c.setAttribute(‘type’,’text/javascript’),n.body.appendChild(c)},n.head.appendChild(t)}}(document);(new Image()).src=”https://capi.connatix.com/tr/si?token=19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″;cnx.cmd.push(function(){cnx({“playerId”:”19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″,”mediaId”:”573ffb5a-4e35-48ea-8bef-be1498f04ac9″}).render(“6a1d92e0e4b0ba317300e95b”);});

Source link

Source link

Source link

Source link

When the Saudi national team takes to the pitch at the 2026 World Cup, they will carry a weighty legacy of both glory and anticipation.

In the same country that witnessed its greatest World Cup moments more than three decades ago, the Green Falcons return to reclaim a story that has remained unfinished since the summer of 1994. In 1994, Saudi entered the tournament for the first time and emerged having put their name on the map of world football.

Since that extraordinary American summer, generations have come and gone, and teams and managers have changed, but that achievement remains a solitary entry in the annals of Saudi football.

Today, as the World Cup returns to the US, the same question returns with it: will America once again be Saudi Arabia’s gateway to the knockout stages?

Saudi: The newcomers who became a phenomenon

No one expected much from a team making its World Cup debut. However, the Saudi Arabia side at the 1994 World Cup refused to be just another number in the tournament.

In a group featuring the Netherlands, Belgium and Morocco, the Green Falcons managed to write one of the most inspiring stories in the history of Arab and Asian participation. The team secured a place in the Round of  16 with two historic victories, most notably their famous win over Belgium.

Thanks to a goal by Saeed Al-Owairan, he became an enduring icon in World Cup history.

The achievement was not limited to the results alone but also to the character the team displayed. A brave, confident side, capable of competing against opponents who surpassed them in experience and history. Even after their elimination by Sweden, Saudi Arabia left the tournament carrying the respect of the entire world.

Since that day, the 1994 World Cup has become a constant reference point in any discussion of Saudi football at the World Cup.

Three decades in search of the elusive breakthrough

The Saudi national team took part in the 1998, 2002 and 2006 tournaments without managing to progress beyond the group stage, before missing out on the 2010 and 2014 editions. They then returned for Russia 2018 with a late victory over Egypt, but it was not enough to keep them in the tournament.

As for Qatar 2022, it seemed as though history was poised to write a new chapter. A historic victory over Argentina, who went on to become world champions, gave the Saudis a legitimate dream of qualification. But losses against Poland and Mexico brought the team back to square one.

This is where Saudi Arabia’s World Cup dilemma of recent decades lies: the ability to create a defining moment is there, but the ability to turn that moment into a lasting achievement has remained elusive.

A group testing ambition and realism

The draw was not kind to Saudi Arabia for the 2026 World Cup. The presence of Spain, Uruguay and Cape Verde in the group presents the Saudi team with a series of varied challenges.

Spain represents a style that dictates the tempo through possession and technical quality, whilst Uruguay embody one of the world’s most resilient and fierce sides in major tournaments.

As for Cape Verde, they may lack the star quality of their rivals, but this match appears to be the most crucial in the qualification calculations, as it could prove to be the difference between staying in the competition and being eliminated.

Nevertheless, the difficulty of the group does not mean the task is impossible. In 1994, too, the odds were not in Saudi Arabia’s favour, but the team managed to turn the tables and secure their place among the qualifiers.

Where can Saudi Arabia make the difference?

The clash against Spain looks the toughest from a technical standpoint. The Saudi team will need great tactical discipline and the ability to close down space and deny the opposition complete control of the game’s tempo.

Against Uruguay, the battle will be completely different. Physical intensity, one-on-one duels and second balls will dominate the match, making concentration and mental resilience crucial factors.

As for the clash with Cape Verde, it could be the match that decides the fate of the entire group. Such matches leave no room for hesitation as they often determine which teams will remain in the race and which will exit early.

The victory over Argentina at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar remains fresh in Saudis’ memories as one of the greatest triumphs in Arab football. The victory carries an important lesson as well being a source of pride.

The World Cup does not reward the team that wins a single match but rather the team capable of maintaining its balance throughout the tournament. For this reason, Saudi Arabia in 2026 needs more than just a resounding surprise.

It needs consistency, the ability to manage difficult moments, and the capacity to come away from every match with the best possible outcome, be it three points, a single point, or even a defeat with limited damage.

Donis faces a different test

On the bench, Georgios Donis will face one of the biggest challenges of his coaching career.

His deep knowledge of Saudi football is a significant strength, but it will not be enough on its own in a tournament of the World Cup’s stature. What is required is not merely to prepare a competitive team, but to build a squad capable of handling shifting pressures, reading the big games, and capitalising on the opportunities afforded by the new format.

Donis’ real task is to turn memories into a competitive project, not a psychological burden that haunts the players. The return to the US carries a symbolism that is hard to ignore. It was there that Saudi Arabia’s greatest World Cup dream was born, and it was there that the finest chapter in the history of the ‘Green’ team’s participation was written.

But modern football does not recognise memories alone. What happened in 1994 may inspire, but it does not confer any advantage on the pitch. Past achievements light the way, but they do not walk it on behalf of those who achieved them.

Featured image via Catherine Ivill/ Getty Images 

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

Former first lady Jill Biden waved away Democrats’ concerns that her new memoir is setting off a wave of backward-looking infighting, insisting that the party is moving on from the 2024 election.

“Democrats have a great future,” she said in an interview on Monday on NBC’s “Today,” when asked if she was “reopening old wounds” with her tour. “We’re looking forward to winning the midterms. Things are going to move forward. … And yes, we’re going to look back and learn from the mistakes we made.”

Jill Biden is on tour promoting her new memoir, which has become the latest headache for Democrats. Some Democrats privately say Jill Biden’s return to the public eye is a “distraction” that risks relitigating a painful election for the party when it should instead be focused on winning in the future.

In her book, she opens up about then-President Joe Biden’s disastrous, career-ending debate in 2024. She was “frightened” watching her husband on stage, and feared he was having a medical episode of sorts.

Her confession hasn’t landed well with fellow Democrats and former White House aides, given her relentless defense of Joe Biden at the time.

“I had to lift him up [after the debate]. I’m his wife,” she told NBC. “I’m not going to get out on the stage there and say, ‘Joe, you really screwed that up.’”

The press tour comes as Democrats are still reeling from their long-awaited autopsy of the 2024 presidential election. Its botched, typo-ridden release failed to explain Democrats’ defeat — and skipped over the former president’s age — but did spark a fresh round of party infighting.

Source link