Connect with us

News

Anatomy of a hospital attack: What happened in Mariupol

Published

on

Anatomy of a hospital attack: What happened in Mariupol

Metropolis officers stated not less than 17 folks have been injured within the assault, together with youngsters, girls and docs. A minimum of 5 folks have died because the assault. Unmute Mute

“We have been mendacity in wards when glass, frames, home windows and partitions flew aside. We don’t know the way it occurred. We have been in our wards and a few had time to cowl themselves. Some didn’t.” These have been the phrases of Mariana Vishegirskaya, a survivor of the assault, to the Related Press (AP).

Vishegirskaya, pregnant and face bloodied, is photographed right here strolling down the steps of the broken constructing.

Advertisement

She gave beginning the subsequent day to a child lady.

Among the many injured was a pregnant lady who was photographed being carried out on a stretcher. Neither she nor her child may very well be saved, a surgeon who handled her later confirmed. The picture precipitated shockwaves world wide.

As these tales of struggling emerged, Russian officers threw doubt on their validity in information packages and on-line.

Advertisement

Regardless of Vishegirskaya talking publicly about her expertise to AP, Russia accused her and others of being actors and never actual victims. That is the declare that the Russian ambassador to the Netherlands makes on a Dutch information program. Unmute Mute

AP later stated its reporters on the scene noticed no signal the hospital was getting used as something aside from a hospital, nor something to counsel Vishegirskaya was not a real affected person.

Twitter says it has eliminated numerous tweets from the Russian Embassy within the UK for breaking its guidelines, “particularly our Hateful Conduct and Abusive Habits insurance policies associated to the denial of violent occasions.”

Advertisement

Russian International Minister Sergey Lavrov returned to the unique line – that this assault was justified – on the UN Safety Council the day after the assault. He alleged that the hospital was a base for the Azov battalion, which is built-in into the Ukrainian armed forces however was previously an unbiased ultra-nationalist militia. Unmute Mute

World leaders have condemned the assault on Mariupol Hospital No. 3, amongst them the President of the European Fee, Ursula von der Leyen.

Advertisement

In addition to the UN Secretary-Basic, António Guterres.

US Vice President Kamala Harris described the assault as “unprovoked” and “unjustified.” Unmute Mute

On the time of publication, Mariupol continues to be underneath siege with civilian buildings nonetheless being hit and many individuals in danger.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Rachel Reeves vows to ‘invest, invest, invest’

Published

on

Rachel Reeves vows to ‘invest, invest, invest’

Rachel Reeves has vowed to “invest, invest, invest” as she prepares to ramp up borrowing to fund a multibillion-pound capital programme at this month’s Budget.

But the UK chancellor also sought to assure jittery markets, telling the Financial Times she would install “guardrails” and was not in “a race to get money out of the door”.

“It’s about making prudent, sensible investments in the long term and we need guardrails around that,” she said.

In an interview, Reeves also indicated higher taxes would help fill a £22bn hole she has identified in the public finances and take pressure off government departments, some of which faced real-terms cuts. “There won’t be a return to austerity,” she said. 

Reeves has signalled she wants to ease borrowing rules in her October 30 Budget, the first by a Labour government since 2010, to fund extra capital investment in areas such as green energy projects and transport schemes.

Advertisement

But Reeves said the Office for Budget Responsibility, the fiscal watchdog, and the National Audit Office, the spending watchdog, would have key roles in scrutinising her plans and assessing their long-term value.

“We will make sure that investment genuinely boosts growth and we will look at the role of institutions to demonstrate that, including, for instance, the NAO as well as the OBR,” she said.

Yields on the 10-year gilt were at 4.12 per cent on Friday, the highest since late July, partly reflecting concerns among investors that Reeves will sharply increase borrowing in the Budget. 

Analysts have also argued that the chancellor should introduce robust reviews of investment to police valuations and net returns, reducing the risk that public money gets frittered away on poorly judged projects.

Reeves’s advisers have been discussing ways of ensuring the OBR fully reflects the growth-enhancing benefits of public investment as it pulls together its fiscal forecasts. “Invest, invest, invest is the theme of this Budget,” she said.

Advertisement

Part of the problem, however, is that the time needed to put projects in place mean the bulk of the growth benefits from new infrastructure projects can take longer than five years to be felt — even though this is the time horizon under which the chancellor is assessed under her fiscal rules.

“I hope that at the Budget the OBR will look at not just the short-term impact of boosting capital investment but also the long-term impact and the catalytic impact of public sector investment crowding in private investment,” she said. 

Reeves was speaking on a train en route from London to Merseyside, where she and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced more than £21bn of support over 25 years to develop the carbon capture and storage industry.

The chancellor confirmed she was looking to revise her fiscal debt rule to “take account of the benefits of investment, not just the costs” but declined to say how much more borrowing this would allow for capital expenditure.

Reeves intends to stick to her rule that states that net debt as a share of GDP should be falling between the fourth and fifth year of the forecast, but crucially she is looking at changes to the way that debt is defined.

Advertisement

Switching to balance sheet measures such as public sector net worth or public sector net financial liabilities would boost budget headroom by upwards of £50bn by the end of the parliament, allowing her to borrow tens of billions more for investment.

Investors are seeking reassurances that only part of this extra borrowing capacity would actually be used if she went down this route.

Reeves inherited plans from the previous Conservative government that would have seen a succession of cuts in public sector net investment.

Reversing those cuts and keeping net investment at this year’s level as a share of GDP would imply £24bn of extra annual spending by 2028-29, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said. Treasury officials admitted it would be “difficult” to achieve that figure.

Reeves will also use her Budget to raise taxes to help boost day-to-day Whitehall budgets, ripping up spending plans by ex-Conservative chancellor Jeremy Hunt that implied real-terms cuts for “unprotected” departments such as justice and local government.

Advertisement

“The idea of this Budget is to wipe the slate clean and make an honest assessment of spending pressures and tax as well,” she said. “The previous government was relying on a fiction. The Budget is an opportunity to bring honesty to the public finances.”

Reeves hinted that the £22bn fiscal “black hole” she claims to have unearthed this year was not a one-off. Many of this year’s costs — such as higher public sector pay — will recur in later years, along with other unexpected costs, and would need permanent funding.

“The truth is, if you add £22bn every year, you’re underwater on the previous government’s fiscal rules,” she said. She has refused so far to set a timetable for balancing the current budget but said that “five years is obviously the maximum”.

Reeves said the need to find tax revenues to cover current costs was “the real binding constraint at this Budget”.

She suggested that the wealthy should accept that they would have to pay their share, arguing that “bringing back stability” to the public finances would create the foundations for growth and future wealth creation.

Advertisement

Higher taxes on private equity bosses, private school fees and non-doms — albeit scaled back — are expected in the Budget, with speculation of higher rates of capital gains tax. “I’m not being ideological about this but we need to raise money,” Reeves said.

Meanwhile, Reeves admitted that the public was unsettled by the recent controversy over free clothes and other gifts donated to senior Labour figures. The issue has come at a time of tough financial pressure and after her early decision to cut £1.5bn of winter fuel payments to about 10mn pensioners.

In 2023 and this year Reeves accepted a total of £7,500 from an old friend, which was used to buy clothes before the election. She also accepted tickets for an Adele concert.

“I do understand why people think it is a little bit odd,” she said. “I’ve not taken any of these donations since I became chancellor. It’s important when you’re in government that you’re held to higher standards because you’re actually making decisions that affect the public.”

     

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

A victim of a crypto ‘pig butchering’ scam just got his $140,000 back

Published

on

A victim of a crypto ‘pig butchering’ scam just got his 0,000 back

The office of Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, pictured here, sued a crypto scam company known as SpireBit and seized its assets. The proceeds have now been handed back to victims of the scheme.

Charles Krupa/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Charles Krupa/AP

Aleksey Madan never thought the day would come.

This week he received a $140,000 check in the mail from Massachusetts officials. That was the full amount Madan had lost after falling for a get-rich-quick crypto scam.

“How would you feel if all your money was stolen and you never expected to get it back, then you did?” said Madan, 69. “It feels amazing. I’m overjoyed. And also in shock.”

Advertisement

Those funds were among the hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of cryptocurrency Massachusetts authorities seized from a fraudulent operation that targeted Russian-speaking seniors online and, in some cases, stole their life savings.

The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office began investigating the company, known as SpireBit, followed an NPR investigation last year detailing the stories of two victims who were lured into an investment scheme, only to realize it was a sham after they transferred large quantities of money into SpireBit’s cryptocurrency wallets.

SpireBit drew victims into its ruse by using ads on social media promising lucrative investment returns. SpireBit took out ads on Facebook and Instagram that falsely portrayed Elon Musk as endorsing the company through a Russian voice-over. 

But NPR could find no trace of a real investment company: The people listed as the company’s executives turned out to be just stock photos and fake LinkedIn profiles. A supposed London address for SpireBit turned out to be a kitchenware business. When victims tried to withdraw their money, the company sent them forged bank documents. After NPR’s reporting, financial regulators in the United Kingdom issued a public warning about SpireBit, classifying it as an operation run by “fraudsters.”

When NPR tried to reach out to SpireBit for comment last year, it responded through the Telegram messaging app by stating that crypto trading is volatile, and saying “the activities of our company are regulated according to the legislation of the country in which the head office of the company is located.” Now, that account has been deleted.

Advertisement

NPR’s investigation caught the attention of Massachusetts authorities, who in December sued SpireBit under its incorporated entity known as SBT Investments.

Investigators posed as a SpireBit customer and were able to pinpoint crypto wallets used by SpireBit. In a judgment issued in May, state officials won a court order that froze the company’s assets on the trading platform Binance.

While the full extent of SpireBit’s operation remains unknown, the company’s tactics are part of a proliferating type of online fraud known as pig butchering. The name comes from the process of gaining someone’s trust and building a friendship with them over the course of weeks or months — fattening up the pig before the kill, which in this case means stealing a large sum of money.

According to the FBI, crypto scammers stole more than $5.6 billion from Americans online last year.

According to the May court order, investigators in Massachusetts were able to seize a total of $269,000 from SpireBit’s crypto wallet, most of which is being distributed to four victims in the state.

Advertisement

Another SpireBit victim profiled by NPR, Naum Lantsman, 75, of Los Angeles, lost his life savings of $340,000 that he earned over decades as a small business owner. His family reported the theft to the California Attorney General’s Office, but a formal investigation was never initiated.

Officials from the Massachusetts and California attorney general offices did not return interview requests.

Continue Reading

News

Undecided Voters Tell Us About Their Biggest Worries

Published

on

Undecided Voters Tell Us About Their Biggest Worries

Donald J. Trump and Kamala Harris are starkly different presidential candidates. So why are so many voters — roughly 1 in 6 — still unsure of their choice?

We asked voters who have not yet made up their minds — 830 of them across five battleground states and Ohio — to name their biggest worries with both candidates.

Here is what they said.

  • Concern about Trump

    “He’s made people comfortable with being racist and set the country back 50 years with racism.”

    Concern about Harris

    Advertisement

    “She’s a liar and it feels like she hasn’t done anything she said she was going to do.”

    Black woman, 50s, Arizona

  • Concern about Trump

    “Don’t like his rhetoric, how he speaks to people.”

    Concern about Harris

    “Incompetent, no experience in foreign policy or running the government; also has no opinions except on abortion.”

    Advertisement

    White woman, 70s, Wisconsin

  • Concern about Trump

    “Too extreme.”

    Concern about Harris

    “I don’t know much about her, but I’m unsure about how prepared she is to be president.”

    Hispanic man, 30s, Arizona

    Advertisement
  • Concern about Trump

    “Having the right to control my own body.”

    Concern about Harris

    “Immigration and inflation.”

    Black woman, 20s, Georgia

  • Concern about Trump

    “Arrogance.”

    Advertisement

    Concern about Harris

    “She’s a woman and not sure if a woman should be running.”

    White woman, 50s, Arizona

  • Concern about Trump

    “Has felonies on his record.”

    Concern about Harris

    Advertisement

    “Don’t know much about her policy.”

    Black man, 50s, Georgia

  • Concern about Trump

    “I don’t trust him.”

    Concern about Harris

    “I don’t trust her.”

    Advertisement

    Black woman, 60s, Georgia

Until President Joe Biden dropped his bid for re-election, a large share of voters were unhappy with their choices for president.

Today, the electorate as a whole is happier, but the uncommitted voters are still not, according to recent polling by The New York Times and Siena College in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.

They trust neither former President Donald J. Trump nor Vice President Kamala Harris. They question the candidates’ honesty and ethics.

Advertisement

Based on New York Times/Siena College polls of 4,132 likely voters conducted in September, including 830 undecided or not fully decided voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Respondents who said they didn’t know or who declined to say are not included.

These voters are younger than the electorate overall, less educated and have a lower income. They are much more likely than voters overall to be Black or Latino, and a little more likely to be men.

Some of these voters may just stay home, but a meaningful portion of them will probably vote. And in a close election, they could be the deciding factor.

Advertisement

In trying to understand what is holding them back from committing, we asked voters to tell us in their own words about their worries. Their phrases were telling: “being a bully,” “she’s an idiot.”

In many ways, their words suggest that voters know, and perhaps have become inured to, Donald Trump’s slash-and-burn campaign style and personality.

But with Kamala Harris, who was plunged into the race only in July, their fears are wider ranging — encompassing both character and the issues, like the economy. And for some voters, the historic nature of her candidacy presents not progress but a drawback.

Voters are concerned about one thing when it comes to Trump: his character.

They said he is arrogant or erratic and talks too much. They talked about his age or criminal trials. The words boiled down to concerns about the former president’s personality and honesty.

Advertisement

Even voters who said they were leaning toward Trump mentioned concerns about chaos and dysfunction.

A small but notable share were also concerned, specifically, about his ability to carry out and complete the tasks of president, mentioning his age and mental capacity.

  • Concern about Trump

    “Angered easily.”

    White man, 40s, Michigan

    Advertisement
  • Concern about Trump

    “Being a bully towards other nations.”

    White man, 60s, Georgia

  • Concern about Trump

    “He is erratic, not very well-spoken and lies.”

    Advertisement

    White man, 40s, North Carolina

  • Concern about Trump

    “Him staying off the internet.”

    White man, 30s, Arizona

  • Concern about Trump

    “Being presidential, sense of decorum, way he communicates.”

    Advertisement

    Man, 60s, Michigan

  • Concern about Trump

    “Does not know when to shut up.”

    White man, 20s, North Carolina

    Advertisement
  • Concern about Trump

    “His age.”

    White woman, 20s, Wisconsin

At the same time, even though Trump has crossed all kinds of red lines during his campaign, voters used comparatively mild language in describing their doubts about him. Words like “a bit” and “a little” crept in frequently.

  • Concern about Trump

    “Little power hungry.”

    Advertisement

    White woman, 30s, Arizona

  • Concern about Trump

    “His authoritative tendencies.”

    White man, 30s, North Carolina

    Advertisement
  • Concern about Trump

    “Probably his rhetoric, maybe, and how he presents himself. And the debate was kind of rough.”

    Woman, 40s, Michigan

  • Concern about Trump

    “Bit decisive at times. He doesn’t always say the right things.”

    Advertisement

    White man, 20s, Georgia

  • Concern about Trump

    “I wish he could be a little more presidential.”

    White woman, 70s, Arizona

  • Concern about Trump

    “He might become too emotional when making decisions.”

    Advertisement

    Nonwhite man, 30s, North Carolina

Concerns about Harris are more varied.

For Kamala Harris, voters’ anxieties were broader and more complicated. Although qualms about her personality came up less often than with Trump, trustworthiness and honesty were still big question marks for many voters.

So was her ability to handle the economy. Voters specifically mentioned costs and inflation, a persistent concern among undecided and not fully decided voters over the last few months.

Advertisement
  • Concern about Harris

    “She will make the economy worse than it is.”

    Black man, 20s, Georgia

  • Concern about Harris

    “That she’s like every other politician, that she is not going to actually do anything to help us.”

    Black woman, 30s, Ohio

  • Concern about Harris

    “Bring down the price of groceries and housing.”

    Advertisement

    Black woman, 60s, Georgia

  • Concern about Harris

    “How she would handle the economy.”

    Hispanic woman, 20s, Georgia

  • Concern about Harris

    “Too liberal.”

    Black woman, 50s, Michigan

    Advertisement
  • Concern about Harris

    “Not following through.”

    White woman, 30s, Wisconsin

  • Concern about Harris

    “The people didn’t vote for her; she was appointed. That is not democracy.”

    White man, 60s, Wisconsin

  • Concern about Harris

    “Democrats take the African American vote for granted. Not sure her policies are going to benefit African Americans.”

    Advertisement

    Black man, 30s, North Carolina

They also questioned her abilities and wondered if she was ready for the job. Some voters described her with caustic language, which echoes Trump’s, who called her “mentally disabled” and “mentally impaired.”

Harris has not leaned into the historical nature of her candidacy — she would be the first woman of color to be president. For some of these voters, her background may be a challenge. Some voters used language that was outright sexist.

  • Concern about Harris

    “That she’s not intelligent enough to be president. I think she is an idiot.”

    White man, 70s, Arizona

    Advertisement
  • Concern about Harris

    “I don’t think she’s got it all together.”

    White woman, 70s, Arizona

  • Concern about Harris

    “Overall untrustworthy.”

    Black man, 40s, North Carolina

  • Concern about Harris

    “I don’t know much about her, but I’m unsure about how prepared she is to be president.”

    Advertisement

    Hispanic man, 30s, Arizona

  • Concern about Harris

    “She’s a woman. I’m not sure she can get the job done. People probably won’t listen to her.”

    White woman, 50s, Ohio

  • Concern about Harris

    “She’s a lady.”

    Black woman, 60s, Wisconsin

    Advertisement

Sources and methodology

Selected responses from New York Times/Siena College polls of 4,132 likely voters conducted in September, including 830 undecided or not fully decided voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Undecided and persuadable voters were voters in the survey who either did not pick a presidential candidate after being asked multiple questions about their vote choice or voters who ultimately did pick a candidate but said they were only “probably” but not “definitely” going to support that candidate.

Open-ended responses to the “biggest concern” question were coded into categories using a trained coder and validated with a second reviewer. The primary coder reviewed a sampling of responses and then created an initial coding schema. Categories were adjusted based on size and coherence throughout the process. Where there was disagreement between coders, proposed codes were reviewed, discussed and compared with similar examples in other surveys. To help ensure consistency, responses that exactly matched previous responses in prior surveys were automatically coded to the same category, but were still reviewed for accuracy.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending