Connect with us

News

Harrods accused of ‘failure’ of responsibility over Al Fayed allegations

Published

on

Harrods accused of ‘failure’ of responsibility over Al Fayed allegations

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Harrods was accused of a “systematic failure of corporate responsibility” by a lawyer representing alleged victims of Mohamed Al Fayed, following a slew of claims of sexual assault against the late former owner of the London luxury department store, including rape.

Dean Armstrong KC, who is representing some of the tycoon’s alleged victims, said in a press conference in London on Friday: “This is and was a systematic failure of corporate responsibility and that systematic failure is on the shoulders of Harrods.

“We are not going to get into a situation where there is any room for anyone to seek to avoid responsibility,” he added, “so we pursue Harrods and we focus on Harrods at this stage because of the collective responsibility.”

Advertisement

His comments came after the BBC broadcast the allegations against Al Fayed in a documentary and podcast about the businessman, who died last year aged 94. His son, Dodi, was killed alongside Diana, Princess of Wales, in a car crash in Paris in 1997.

More than 20 women alleged to the BBC that they were sexually assaulted by the billionaire, with five alleging they were raped. The women, who worked at Harrods from the late 1980s to the 2000s, said the alleged assaults were carried out at the company’s offices, in Al Fayed’s London apartment or on trips abroad. In the exposé, the BBC claimed that Harrods failed to intervene and also helped cover up allegations against Al Fayed.

Al Fayed owned and controlled Harrods between 1985 and 2010, when he sold it to a Qatari sovereign wealth fund for a reported £1.5bn.

Armstrong, who is part of the legal team retained by a number of alleged victims alongside US lawyer and women’s advocate Gloria Allred and barrister Maria Mulla, added that any prospective legal proceedings were not about financial compensation but about “much, much more”. 

“If Harrods feel that they ought to compensate women financially for what they’ve done and how they failed them, then, of course, that is something which we would welcome. But we are not going to sit here and accept any suggestion that we are only interested in money,” he said.

Advertisement

On Thursday law firm Leigh Day, which is representing an individual alleged to have been subjected to trafficking, rape and abuse by Al Fayed, said it was also looking at possible claims, including against Harrods. The firm is working with US law firm Motley Rice. Harrods said it would not comment on individual claims.

The luxury retailer on Friday said that it had accepted “vicarious liability for the conduct of Al Fayed” in order to settle claims that had been brought to Harrods’ attention since 2023, adding it “has reached settlements with the vast majority of people” who approached it.

Harrods declined to comment on the amount paid to women who alleged sexual misconduct, and said there were no outstanding claims at the time of the documentary airing.

“Harrods has received new enquiries since the broadcast which we will deal with swiftly and carefully,” the company added, saying “there were no [non-disclosure agreements] attached to these settlements” and it would not seek to enforce “any NDAs that relate to alleged sexual abuse by Al Fayed that were entered into during the period of his ownership”. 

In a statement on its website in response to the documentary, which aired on Thursday, the group said it was “utterly appalled” by the allegations of abuse perpetrated by Al Fayed. The company added that “during this time his victims were failed and for this we sincerely apologise”.

Advertisement

“While we cannot undo the past, we have been determined to do the right thing as an organisation, driven by the values we hold today, while ensuring that such behaviour can never be repeated in the future.”

Harrods said it was “a very different organisation to the one owned and controlled by Al Fayed between 1985 and 2010”.

News

Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel

Published

on

Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel

For decades, immigrants who have followed the rules and have not broken the law have had hopes of earning a green card, a document that allows them to live legally in the United States and gain a path to citizenship.

But under new guidance issued by the Trump administration, immigrants can now be denied a green card for expressing political opinions, such as participating in pro-Palestinian campus protests, posting criticism of Israel on social media and desecrating the American flag, according to internal Department of Homeland Security training materials reviewed by The New York Times.

The documents, which have not been previously reported, show how expansively the Trump administration is carrying out a directive from last August to vet green card applicants for “anti-American” and “antisemitic” views.

The administration includes criticism of Israel as a potentially disqualifying factor, with the training materials citing as an example of questionable speech a social media post that declares, “Stop Israeli Terror in Palestine” and shows the Israeli flag crossed out.

The materials were distributed last month to immigration officers at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security and handles applications for green cards and other forms of legal status.

Advertisement

They reflect how U.S.C.I.S. — long considered the gateway agency for legal migration — has rapidly transformed under President Trump into another cog in his administration’s deportation machine. The agency has worked to strip naturalized Americans of their citizenship and has hired armed federal agents to investigate immigration crimes.

The administration is also granting permanent legal residency to far fewer applicants. Green card approvals have fallen by more than half in recent months, according to a Times analysis of agency data.

“There is no room in America for aliens who espouse anti-American ideologies or support terrorist organizations,” Joseph Edlow, the agency’s director, told Congress in February.

Critics of Mr. Trump’s approach say the administration is seeking to restrict legitimate political speech, and has conflated opposition to Israeli government policies with antisemitism.

Basing green card decisions on “ideological screenings is fundamentally un-American and should have no place in a country built on the promise of free expression,” said Amanda Baran, a senior agency official under President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Advertisement

Administration officials said they were defending American values.

“If you hate America, you have no business demanding to live in America,” said Zach Kahler, a spokesman for U.S.C.I.S.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the administration’s policies had “nothing to do with free speech” and were meant to protect “American institutions, the safety of citizens, national security and the freedoms of the United States.”

The administration has moved aggressively against immigrants for expressing political views that officials have deemed anti-American, making ideology a central part of its immigration vetting process. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has revoked the visas of pro-Palestinian student activists, including one who wrote a column criticizing her university’s response to pro-Palestinian demands.

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed reviewing the social media histories of tourists seeking to visit the United States.

Advertisement

Immigration officers have significant discretion in deciding whether to grant foreigners long-term permanent residence. They have long considered a variety of factors, including criminal records, national security threats, family ties to the United States and employment histories.

Ideology has also traditionally been one of those factors. In some cases, U.S. law forbids officers from granting green cards to people who have belonged to a Communist or other “totalitarian” political party, have promoted anarchy or have called for the overthrow of the U.S. government by “force or violence or other unconstitutional means.”

But in the past, immigration officers have focused on statements that could incite or encourage violence, given concerns about infringing on constitutionally protected speech, former U.S.C.I.S. officials said.

The new training materials reviewed by The Times guide immigration officers through the factors they should consider when ruling on green card applications. They discourage officers from granting green cards to people with a history of “endorsing, promoting or supporting anti-American views” or “antisemitic terrorism, ideologies or groups.”

Immigration officers have been told to weigh those factors as “overwhelmingly negative.”

Advertisement

The documents list support for “subversive” ideologies as among other factors that could lead to an application being rejected. As an example, the materials point to someone “holding a sign advocating overthrow of the U.S. government.”

In addition, the guidance describes the desecration of the American flag as a negative factor, citing Mr. Trump’s executive order last year directing the Justice Department to prosecute protesters who burn the flag. The Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.

Immigration officers have also been told to scrutinize applicants who encourage antisemitism “through rhetorical or physical actions.” They were instructed to “focus particularly on aliens who engaged in on-campus anti-American and antisemitic activities” after the Hamas attacks against Israel in 2023, the documents show.

Further examples in the documents of conduct characterized as antisemitic include a social media post showing a map of Israel with the nation’s name crossed out and replaced with the word “Palestine.” Another illustrative post suggests that Israelis should “taste what people in Gaza are tasting.”

Immigration officers must elevate all cases involving “potential anti-American and/or antisemitic conduct or ideology” to their managers and to the agency’s general counsel’s office for review, according to the documents.

Advertisement

In recent months, the agency has also changed the way it refers to the employees who adjudicate green card applications, long known as “immigration services officers.” In job postings, it now calls them “homeland defenders.”

“Protect your homeland and defend your culture,” one posting says.

Steven Rich contributed reporting.

Continue Reading

News

America’s bid for energy supremacy is being forged in war

Published

on

America’s bid for energy supremacy is being forged in war

Additional work by Jana Tauschinski

Oil and gas tanker location and destination data are from Kpler. The map shows the latest position for vessels with an active AIS signal on April 19–20, filtered by minimum capacity thresholds: crude tankers of at least 50,000 deadweight tonnage (DWT); oil product tankers of at least 55,000 DWT; oil/chemical tankers of at least 40,000 DWT; LNG carriers of at least 150,000 cubic metres; and LPG carriers of at least 50,000 cubic metres. Net fossil fuel import data by country are based on Ember analysis of the IEA World Energy Balances 2023.

Continue Reading

News

Roommate faces murder charges in deaths of 2 University of South Florida doctoral students

Published

on

Roommate faces murder charges in deaths of 2 University of South Florida doctoral students

A 26-year-old man is facing two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of two University of South Florida doctoral students who went missing last week, local authorities said Saturday. 

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office in Florida said that evidence presented to the state attorney’s office resulted in the charges against Hisham Abugharbieh, the roommate of Zamil Limon, one of the doctoral students. 

Abugharbieh is accused of premediated murder with a weapon. He was arrested on Friday, the same day Limon was found dead. 

The family of Nahida Bristy, the other doctoral student, told CBS News that police said she is also likely dead. That is based on the volume of blood discovered at Abugharbieh’s residence, which he shared with Limon.

“Police told us she is no longer with us,” Bristy’s brother, Zahid Prato, said early Saturday.

Advertisement

The family was told her body may never be found and police believe she may have been dismembered, according to Prato. 

CBS News has reached out to police for more information.

Authorities said in a statement Saturday they were still searching for Bristy.

Limon’s remains were found on the Howard Franklin Bridge in Tampa Friday morning, Chief Deputy Joseph Maurer with the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office said. His cause of death was pending autopsy results.

Deputies with the sheriff’s office took Abugharbieh into custody on Friday after responding to a domestic violence call at a home in the Lake Forest Community, a neighborhood near USF’s Tampa campus, officials said. He also faces charges of domestic violence and evidence tampering, as well as a charge of failing to report a death to law enforcement.

Advertisement

Limon and Bristy, both 27, had last been seen in the Tampa area on April 16. 

Limon was studying the use of AI in environmental science and was set to present his doctoral thesis this week, his family said. Bristy is studying chemical engineering. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending