Rupert Murdoch’s The Sun newspaper has published a story about BBC news presenter Huw Edwards – although without initially naming him – paying a 17 year-old £35,000 for intimate photographs with the money used to finance (his) crack-cocaine addiction. The story appears to be seriously factually flawed and published despite being informed by the young man concerned that the story was incorrect. The story clearly suggested that Edwards engaged in illegality by procuring intimate photographs from a 17 year-old when this was known to be untrue by The Sun newspaper.
Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper is facing serious questions over its reporting and ethical standards, after it alleged Edwards paid a 17-year-old for explicit images – only for police to conclude there was no evidence to support this allegation of serious criminal wrongdoing.
Days later, his wife said Edwards is in a hospital dealing with “serious mental health issues” and the newspaper is rapidly backtracking on its original story. Extraordinarily, on Wednesday night the Sun insisted its initial claim that the presenter had given a young person “more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images” was not a suggestion of criminal activity.
Instead, the newspaper blamed other media outlets for misinterpreting its reporting and leading to the police getting involved, saying: “We must also re-emphasise that the Sun at no point in our original story alleged criminality and also took the decision neither to name Mr Edwards nor the young person involved in the allegations.”
Even before the police had cleared Edwards of illegal behaviour, doubts started to emerge over the Sun’s key allegation that he bought pictures from a 17-year-old. The young person in question, now an adult aged 20, issued a statement on Monday through their lawyer saying the allegations were “rubbish”.
The Prime Minister ‘inadvertently’ broke the MP’s code of conduct due to ‘confusion’
The Prime Minister has been brutally ridiculed after the parliament’s standards commissioner declared he had ‘inadvertently’ broken the MPs’ code of conduct, for failing to declare his wife’s shares in a childcare company set to benefit from government policy.
Concerns over shares Akshata Murty held in the childcare company Koru Kids were raised back in April, when the company was listed as one of six childminder agencies in the Tory’s pilot childminder incentive.
Sunak supposedly got ‘confused’ over government rules so failed to declare his interests which led to the conclusion by the parliamentary commissioner for standards, Daniel Greenberg, that he had ‘inadvertently’ broken the rules.
His ‘confusion’ was around the difference between registering and declaring his interests, with the inquiry stating that no further action will be taken.
However, his ‘inadvertent’ rule breaking to the financial benefit of his family has raised many eyebrows. With public figures pointing to a wider theme of Tory MPs excusing themselves from misconduct.
The claim that the PM’s failure to declare his wife’s investment in a childcare company subsidised by his Government was ‘inadvertent’ is open to question
…
Such ‘confusion’ about what interests the Prime Minister needs to declare appears to be a regular occurrence for the Prime Minister, however.
Here’s all the other times Rishi Sunak has appeared ‘confused’ about which conflicts of interests he should and shouldn’t publicly declare.
A freakish season of record temperatures, wildfire smoke and the destruction of Lahaina could soon become normal, climate experts say
It’s been a strange, cruel summer in the United States. From the dystopian orange skies above New York to the deadly immolation of a historic coastal town in Hawaii, the waning summer has been a stark demonstration of the escalating climate crisis – with experts warning that worse is to come.
A relentless barrage of extreme weather events, fueled by human-caused global heating, has swept the North American continent this summer, routinely placing a third of the US population under warnings of severe heat and unleashing floods, fire and smoke upon communities, with a record 15 separate disasters causing at least $1bn in damages so far this year.
The heat has been particularly withering in places like Phoenix, Arizona, which had a record 31 consecutive days at temperatures above 110F (43C), while an enormous heatwave across the central swath of the US this week caused schools to be closed in states such as Wisconsin, Colorado and Iowa and food banks to be shut in Nebraska.
While the aftermath of hurricanes continue to affect residents, such as those in Houston, Texas devastated by Hurricane Harvey (above), research has found that the frequency and intensity of these latest storms have done little to shift public opinion about their connection with global warming. (Photo: Texas Military Department, Flickr CC BY-ND 2.0)
In Miami, which had a record 46 days in a row with a heat index above 100F (37C), there was no respite even in the nearby ocean, with a raging marine heatwave turning the seawater to a temperature more normally seen in hot tubs, raising fears that Florida’s coral reef will be turned to mush.
“It’s been a shocking summer,” said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA. “We know most of this is happening because of long-term warming of the climate system so it’s not surprising, sadly, but you still get shocked by these extremes. Records are not just being broken, they are being shattered by wide margins.”
“This vast lease sale—for millions of acres—poses threats to Gulf communities and endangered species while contributing to the climate crisis this region knows far too well,” said one advocate.
Calling the Biden administration’s plan to go ahead with an offshore drilling lease sale “mind-boggling” as the United States faces escalating climate harms including “record heat, fires, and flooding,” several advocacy groups filed a federal lawsuit Friday challenging the U.S. Interior Department’s impending sale of 67 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to the fossil fuel industry.
Groups including the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Earthjustice, and Friends of the Earth (FOE) filed the lawsuit saying that in moving forward with Lease Sale 261—the last of three offshore lease sales mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act—the Interior Department did not sufficiently consider the environmental impacts on people and wildlife across Gulf communities.
“As steward of the country’s public lands and waters, Interior has a duty to fully consider the harms offshore leasing can cause, from air pollution to oil spills, and beyond,” said Julia Forgie, attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the plaintiffs. “This vast lease sale—for millions of acres—poses threats to Gulf communities and endangered species while contributing to the climate crisis this region knows far too well. We are holding the agency to its obligation to carefully assess these risks and the climate fallout of this giveaway to Big Oil.”
“If we are going to make a dent in the climate crisis, business as usual must stop.”
A study published in May in Environmental Research showed that people living near offshore drilling rigs are at heightened risk for respiratory and cardiovascular issues as well as other serious illnesses, along with facing the rising threat of extreme weather due to fossil fuel emissions from such projects.
Lease Sale 261 could result in the production of more than 1 billion barrels of oil and 4 trillion cubic feet of fossil gas over the next 50 years, noted the groups, leading to more than 370 tons of greenhouse gases at a time when scientists and energy experts are warning that continued fossil fuel extraction is threatening the planet.
The sale is scheduled to be held on September 27, around the same time that the Interior Department is expected to release its proposal for a five-year offshore oil and gas leasing program.
That proposal could include as many as 11 new offshore lease sales “with the potential to emit up to 3.5 billion tons of carbon pollution,” said the groups.
The lawsuit filed on Friday accused the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) of presenting “an incomplete and misleading picture of oil spill impacts and risks based on flawed modeling that failed to properly consider reasonably foreseeable accidents” in its analysis of environmental impacts that could be caused by Lease Sale 261.
“The final SEIS [supplemental environmental impact statement] failed to take the required ‘hard look’ at the significant impacts of this action,” reads the lawsuit. “For example, the bureau did not rationally evaluate the impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, relying instead on problematic modeling and assumptions to conclude that these massive lease sales will result in only slightly higher emissions than not leasing at all, and further failed to consider the impacts of such fossil fuel development on climate goals and commitments. With regard to environmental justice, the final SEIS arbitrarily dismissed the impacts of onshore oil and gas infrastructure—refineries, petrochemical plants, and other industrial sources that process fossil fuels and related products from these lease sales—on Gulf communities.”
The lawsuit was filed as thousands of people in Louisiana’s so-called “Cancer Alley” were ordered to evacuate due to a chemical leak and fire at a petroleum refinery.
Hallie Templeton, legal director for Friends of the Earth, said the group will “keep fighting until the Gulf of Mexico is off the table for good.”
“Unfortunately, given BOEM’s history of sacrificing the Gulf of Mexico to Big Oil, this lease sale decision comes as no surprise,” said Templeton. “Our lawsuit should also come as no surprise, since BOEM continues to rely on the same outdated, broken environmental analysis. If we are going to make a dent in the climate crisis, business as usual must stop.”
MILLIONS of cash-strapped households are facing higher gas and electricity bills this winter despite a lower energy price cap, the labour movement warned yesterday.
Amid declining wholesale prices, regulator Ofgem announced a new average annual energy cost across Britain of £1,923 from October 1 — down from £2,074.
Typical prepayment meter customers will see their bills falls to £1,949 a year.
But experts warned a decision by Tory ministers to cut government energy support alongside an increase in compulsory standing charges would hike costs for some, while many would see little or no change.
