act

A MAJOR building society will make a big change to 47 savings accounts in weeks.

Nationwide is slashing the rates on several of its savings accounts.

1

The moves comes after rate-setters on the BoE’s Monetary Policy Committee cut the base rate from 4.5% to 4.25%.

This was the fourth interest rate cut since 2020.

The base rate is used by lenders to determine the interest rates offered to customers on savings and borrowing costs.

A base rate cut can mean that mortgage rates are lowered, which is good news for homeowners.

But it can mean that savers lose out as the interest they earn on savings will drop.

As the base rate falls some lenders, including Nationwide, have chosen to lower the interest rates on some savings accounts.

That includes its Triple Access Saver account which will see interest lowered from 1.95% AER to 1.80% come July 1.

AER, or Annual Equivalent Rate, is used to show you what you could earn from a savings account over a year. 

Its Cash Child Trust Fund will also have its interest lowered.

The rate will be lowered from 3.55% AER to 3.30% next month.

Meanwhile, the interest on its Help To Buy ISA will be lowered from 2.90% to 2.70%

You can take a look at the full list of account changes below

• Branch Limited Access
  • Previous rate: 1.90% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 1.75% AER/gross (variable)
• Limited Access Online Saver
  • Previous rate: 1.90% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 1.75% AER/gross (variable)
• Limited Access Saver
  • Previous rate: 1.90% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 1.75% AER/gross (variable)
• Branch Reward Single Access ISA
  • Previous rate: 3.35% AER/tax-free (variable)
  • New rate: 3.25% AER/tax-free (variable)
• Branch Single Access ISA
  • Previous rate: 3.35% AER/tax-free (variable)
  • New rate: 3.25% AER/tax-free (variable)
• Reward Single Access ISA
  • Previous rate: 3.35% AER/tax-free (variable)
  • New rate: 3.25% AER/tax-free (variable)
• Branch Single Access
  • Previous rate: 3.35% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 3.25% AER/gross (variable)
• Single Access Saver
  • Previous rate: 3.35% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 3.25% AER/gross (variable)
• Triple Access Online ISA
  • Previous rate: 1.80% AER/tax-free (variable)
  • New rate: 1.60% AER/tax-free (variable)
• Branch Triple Access ISA
  • Previous rate: 1.95% AER/tax-free (variable)
  • New rate: 1.80% AER/tax-free (variable)
• Triple Access ISA
  • Previous rate: 1.95% AER/tax-free (variable)
  • New rate: 1.80% AER/tax-free (variable)
• Branch Easy Access ISA
  • Previous rate: 1.55% AER/tax-free (variable)
  • New rate: 1.30% AER/tax-free (variable)
• Easy Access ISA
  • Previous rate: 1.55% AER/tax-free (variable)
  • New rate: 1.30% AER/tax-free (variable)
• Easy Access ISA 2
  • Previous rate: 1.55% AER/tax-free (variable)
  • New rate: 1.30% AER/tax-free (variable)
• e-ISA
  • Previous rate: 1.55% AER/tax-free (variable)
  • New rate: 1.30% AER/tax-free (variable)
• Fixed Term ISA Maturity
  • Previous rate: 1.55% AER/tax-free (variable)
  • New rate: 1.30% AER/tax-free (variable)
• Fixed Term Cash ISA Maturity
  • Previous rate: 1.55% AER/tax-free (variable)
  • New rate: 1.30% AER/tax-free (variable)
• Inheritance ISA
  • Previous rate: 1.55% AER/tax-free (variable)
  • New rate: 1.30% AER/tax-free (variable)
• Branch Reward Saver
  • Previous rate: 3.30% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 3.20% AER/gross (variable)
• Reward Saver
  • Previous rate: 3.30% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 3.20% AER/gross (variable)
• Help to Buy: ISA
  • Previous rate: 2.90% AER/tax-free (variable)
  • New rate: 2.70% AER/tax-free (variable)
• e-Savings Plus
  • Previous rate: 1.90% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 1.75% AER/gross (variable)
• Branch Smart Limited Adult
  • Previous rate: 2.85% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 2.75% AER/gross (variable)
• Branch Smart Limited Child
  • Previous rate: 2.85% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 2.75% AER/gross (variable)
• Smart Limited Access Adult
  • Previous rate: 2.85% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 2.75% AER/gross (variable)
• Smart Limited Access Child
  • Previous rate: 2.85% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 2.75% AER/gross (variable)
• Future Saver
  • Previous rate: 3.55% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 3.30% AER/gross (variable)
• Children’s Future Saver Issue 1
  • Previous rate: 3.55% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 3.30% AER/gross (variable)
• Branch Future Saver
  • Previous rate: 3.55% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 3.30% AER/gross (variable)
• Cash Child Trust Fund
  • Previous rate: 3.55% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 3.30% AER/gross (variable)
• Child Trust Fund Maturity ISA
  • Previous rate: 3.55% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 3.30% AER/gross (variable)
• Junior ISA Maturity
  • Previous rate: 3.55% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 3.30% AER/gross (variable)
• Smart Junior ISA
  • Previous rate: 3.55% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 3.30% AER/gross (variable)
• Branch Flex Saver
  • Previous rate: 1.65% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 1.50% AER/gross (variable)
• Flex Online Saver Issues 1 and 2
  • Previous rate: 1.65% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 1.50% AER/gross (variable)
• Flexclusive Saver
  • Previous rate: 1.65% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 1.50% AER/gross (variable)
• Flex Saver
  • Previous rate: 1.65% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 1.50% AER/gross (variable)
• Corporate Savings
  • Previous rate: 1.56% AER/1.55% gross (variable)
  • New rate: 1.30% AER/1.30% gross (variable)
• Branch Flex ISA
  • Previous rate: 1.60% AER/tax-free (variable)
  • New rate: 1.50% AER/tax-free (variable)
• Flex ISA
  • Previous rate: 1.60% AER/tax-free (variable)
  • New rate: 1.50% AER/tax-free (variable)
• Instant Access Saver Issue 10
  • Previous rate: 1.85% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 1.70% AER/gross (variable)
• Single Access ISA
  • Previous rate: 3.35% AER/tax-free (variable)
  • New rate: 3.25% AER/tax-free (variable)
• 1 Year Triple Access Online ISA
  • Previous rate: 4.00% AER/tax-free (variable)
  • New rate: 3.75% AER/tax-free (variable)
• 1 Year Triple Access Online ISA Issues 16 and 17
  • Previous rate: 4.00% AER/tax-free (variable)
  • New rate: 3.75% AER/tax-free (variable)
• 1 Year Triple Access Online ISA Issue 18
  • Previous rate: 4.00% AER/tax-free (variable)
  • New rate: 3.75% AER/tax-free (variable)
• 1 Year Triple Access Online Saver Issues 3, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17
  • Previous rate: 4.00% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 3.75% AER/gross (variable)
• 1 Year Triple Access Online Saver Issue 18
  • Previous rate: 4.00% AER/gross (variable)
  • New rate: 3.75% AER/gross (variable)

If you are not happy with the change, it is always worth looking at other providers to see if you can get a better deal.

Websites such as MoneyFacts share the best offers on the market for savings and other types of bank accounts.

OTHER BANKING CHANGES

Nationwide is not the only bank lowering the interest on some of its deals.

Leeds Building Society is slashing the rates on 58 of its savings accounts.

That includes its Five Access Saver which will have its interest rates lowered from 3.77% AER to 3.55% come June 27.

Meanwhile, Vault customers will see interest rates on their account from 3.80% AER to 3.65% come June 26.

The change will take place from June 23, but dates can vary from offer to offer.

Online bank Monzo also lowerd the intertest on its Personal Instant Access Savings Pots from from 3.50% AER to 3.25% AER.

June 2 (UPI) — A Trump-appointed judge in California on Monday blocked the Alien Enemies Act deportation of a Venezuelan migrant in the Los Angeles area, saying the administration failed to provide due process.

U.S. District Judge John Holcomb, who was nominated by President Donald Trump in 2019, issued a preliminary injunction to keep most Venezuelan migrants in central California, Los Angeles and Orange County from being deported under the 1798 law.

“The government is hereby preliminarily enjoined and restrained from removing or transferring out of this district any member of the putative class pursuant to the Proclamation pending further Order of the Court regarding the amount of notice and process that is due prior to removal,” Holcomb wrote.

The Alien Enemies Act allows the removal or deportation of migrants during an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” of the United States. Trump has argued that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua’s actions are a “predatory incursion.”

Holcomb’s ruling follows a complaint filed by Darin Antonio Arevalo Millan, a Venezuelan citizen currently being held at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Adelanto, Calif. Arevalo wanted the judge to order the government to provide at least 30 days’ notice before any deportation of Venezuelan citizens.

While the Trump administration told the court that Arevalo was not detained under the Alien Enemies Act, Holcomb ruled that Arevalo still “faces an imminent threat of removal.”

“Arevalo seeks to avoid being deported as an alien enemy without being afforded the opportunity to challenge that designation — not to avoid deportation altogether,” Holcomb wrote.

Judges in New York, Colorado and Texas have ruled that the president is misusing the Alien Enemies Act, while a judge in Pennsylvania ruled last month that Trump can use the law for alleged gang members if they are given enough notice for due process.

The U.S. Supreme Court also ruled last month that the Trump administration can revoke special legal protections for nearly 350,000 Venezuelan nationals living temporarily in the United States.

The Temporary Protection Status program is extended to migrants every 18 months, if they cannot live or work safely in their home country, due to war or natural disaster. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in February protections for certain migrants or violent gangs are not in the U.S. national interest.

Norbert A. Schlei, key lawyer in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who found legal underpinning for the 1962 blockade of Cuba, wrote landmark civil rights legislation and once waged a strong bid to replace an entrenched Republican California secretary of state, has died. He was 73.

Schlei died Thursday at an acute care hospital in Los Angeles of infections caused by long-term immobility, his wife, Joan, said Saturday. She said Schlei had been virtually unconscious since suffering a heart attack March 25, 2002, while jogging in Santa Monica.

Considered a legal wunderkind, Schlei was the Democratic candidate for the 57th California Assembly District in 1962 when he was tapped by President John F. Kennedy as an assistant attorney general in charge of the office of legal counsel.

At the time, Atty. Gen. Robert F. Kennedy, the president’s younger brother, quipped that Schlei — only 33 — had been named so there would finally be “someone younger” than he in the Justice Department.

But Schlei, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice John Harlan after graduating from Yale Law School, proved a scholarly asset to the Kennedys and later to President Lyndon B. Johnson and Atty. Gen. Nicolas Katzenbach during crises and in forging the landmark Kennedy-Johnson civil rights reforms.

Schlei was the principal draftsman of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Immigration Reform Act of 1967.

“I felt I was lucky,” Schlei told the New York Times in 1995, “because I was able to turn what ability I had to something important.”

Schlei had barely moved into his quarters in August 1962 as head of the office of legal counsel just vacated by Katzenbach, when he was put to work. The University of Mississippi had refused to allow James Meredith, a black student, to enroll that fall, and Kennedy sent Schlei to Oxford, Miss., to get Meredith into the school.

Hardly a month later, as the Cuban Missile Crisis developed, Kennedy asked Schlei to study the legal basis for presidential action in connection with Cuba after U.S. surveillance confirmed that Russia was installing surface-to-air missile sites in the Communist island nation. Schlei responded with what became Kennedy’s October justification for a naval quarantine on all offensive military equipment being shipped to Cuba.

“It is our view,” he wrote, “that international law would permit use by the United States of relatively extreme measures, including various forms and degree of force, for the purpose of terminating or preventing the realization of such a threat to the peace and security of the Western Hemisphere.”

The lawyer supported the view with references to self-defense rights, the collective and multilateral security obligations of the U.S. and the 1934 Cuban-U.S. Treaty, which established U.S. rights for its naval base at Guantanamo.

Although Schlei had to abandon his bid for assemblyman to go to Washington (incumbent Republican Charles Conrad was reelected), he tried for election in California four years later when he ran for secretary of state.

Schlei handily defeated six others in the 1966 Democratic primary, polling nearly twice as many votes as were received by his nearest competitor.

He also collected more than 2.7 million votes, a remarkable tally for a Democratic statewide office seeker in that penultimate general election against Republican Frank M. Jordan, incumbent for 23 years and at the time the only Republican statewide officeholder. Nevertheless, Schlei lost the general election Nov. 10, 1966, as Jordan was swept to victory in the Ronald Reagan Republican landslide.

Schlei, a personable Democratic campaigner, was only yards from Robert Kennedy at Los Angeles’ Ambassador Hotel when Kennedy was fatally shot on the night of the California primary in 1968. He largely bowed out of politics after serving as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention that year in Chicago.

A highly successful trial and securities lawyer who represented such clients as Howard Hughes’ Summa Corp. in lengthy litigation brought by ousted Hughes executive Robert Maheu, Schlei himself was tried in a Florida federal courtroom in 1995.

The charges and their aftermath were a cloud on Schlei’s brilliant career.

Schlei was acquitted of eight counts, including wire and bank fraud and money laundering, but was convicted by a jury of conspiracy and securities fraud for purportedly helping five others sell $16 billion in fake Japanese government bonds from the mid-1980s to 1992.

He was sentenced to five years in federal prison and lost his license to practice law for 3 1/2 years. But he never went to prison, remaining free on appeal. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and, in 1998, Schlei abandoned motions for a new trial to clear his name. Instead he agreed to a negotiated settlement of a year’s unsupervised probation on one misdemeanor count of conspiracy to possess counterfeit foreign securities, and resumed his law practice in L.A.

Joan Schlei said Saturday that Schlei had been completely exonerated after federal prosecutors conceded that there was a “possibility the instruments are valid” and that Schlei had been wrongly prosecuted.

Schlei maintained all along that he had done nothing illegal, and that prosecutors who issued charges against the others after a sting operation had added him only because of his high profile in Democratic and government circles to “get in the papers” and make the trial “newsworthy.”

At issue were bonds the Japanese government claimed were counterfeit and created by a forger they imprisoned in 1983. Schlei countered that the securities were legitimate, that they had been issued in 1983 by Japan’s minister of finance, Michio Watanabe, at the request of former Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka after Tanaka left office in a bribery scandal. Schlei said he had never sold the securities and had simply tried to help about 30 clients purchase them with the understanding that the securities would be redeemable only if they could persuade a current Japanese government to honor them.

Among the highly prominent character witnesses who testified on Schlei’s behalf during the trial was key Republican U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who had known Schlei since they were students together at Yale.

Born Norbert Anthony Schlei on June 14, 1929, in Dayton, Ohio, Schlei grew up in meager financial circumstances, taking odd jobs delivering papers and groceries to help his family. He paid his way through Ohio State University as a waiter, but managed to graduate with honors in English literature and international relations and earned three varsity letters for golf.

He served as a Navy officer during the Korean War and later went to Yale Law, where he graduated first in his class and was editor of the Yale Law Journal. After a year clerking for Harlan, he moved to Los Angeles in 1957 to work for the prestigious law firm of O’Melveny and Myers.

In 1959, Schlei helped form the firm Greenberg, Shafton and Schlei where he remained until he went to the Justice Department in 1962. In later years, he was associated with different law firms, most notably the Wall Street firm of Hughes Hubbard & Reed from 1972 until 1989, whose Los Angeles office he established.

He was co-author of “Studies in World Public Order,” a book on international law published in 1961, and in 1962 wrote the book “State Regulation of Corporate Financial Practices.”

Schlei sat on the boards of several corporations involved in international real estate and securities. Long involved in real estate development, Schlei had begun in 1959 to represent Janss Corp., which developed Westwood Village and the Conejo Ranch area near Thousand Oaks.

In addition to his wife, the former Joan Masson, he is survived by three sons and three daughters from his earlier marriages to Jane Moore and to attorney Barbara Lindemann — William, Andrew, Bradford, Anne, Blake and Elizabeth; and four grandchildren. Two other sons, Graham and Norbert L. Schlei, preceded him in death.

Calling hours will be 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. Wednesday at Gates-Kingsley Funeral Home, 19th Street and Arizona Avenue, Santa Monica. Graveside services are planned for 11 a.m. April 29 at Forest Lawn Hollywood Hills.

His wife asked that memorial contributions be made to any of these organizations: Amnesty International, the American Heart Assn., the American Cancer Society, the ACLU or the Constitutional Rights Foundation.

PORTLAND, Ore. — One program distributes laptops in rural Iowa. Another helped people get back online after Hurricane Helene washed away computers and phones in western North Carolina. Programs in Oregon and rural Alabama teach older people, including some who have never touched a computer, how to navigate in an increasingly digital world.

It all came crashing down this month when President Trump — on his own digital platform, Truth Social — announced his intention to end the Digital Equity Act, a federal grant program meant to help bridge the digital divide. He branded it as “RACIST and ILLEGAL” and said it amounts to “woke handouts based on race.” He said it was an “ILLEGAL $2.5 BILLION DOLLAR giveaway.” The program was funded with $2.75 billion.

The name seemed innocuous enough when the program was approved by Congress in 2021 as part of a $65-billion investment meant to bring internet access to every home and business in the United States. The broadband program was a key component of the $1-trillion infrastructure law enacted under the Biden administration.

The Digital Equity Act was intended to fill gaps and cover unmet needs that surfaced during the massive broadband rollout. It gave states and tribes flexibility to deliver high-speed internet access to families that could not afford it, computers to kids who did not have them, telehealth access to older adults in rural areas, and training and job skills to veterans.

Whether Trump has the legal authority to end the program remains unknown. But for now the Republican administration can simply stop spending the money.

“I just felt my heart break for what we were finally, finally in this country, going to address, the digital divide,” said Angela Siefer, executive director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, a nonprofit that was awarded — but has not received — a $25.7-million grant to work with groups across the country to help provide access to technology. “The digital divide is not just physical access to the internet, it is being able to use that to do what you need to do.”

The word ‘equity’

While the name of the program probably got it targeted — the Trump administration has been aggressively scrubbing the government of programs that promote diversity, equity or inclusion — the Digital Equity Act was supposed to be broader in scope.

Though Trump called it racist, the words “race” or “racial” appear just twice in the law’s text: once, alongside “color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, or disability,” in a passage stating that no groups should be excluded from funding; and later, in a list of covered populations, along with older adults, veterans, people with disabilities, English learners, people with low literacy levels and rural Americans.

“Digital Equity passed with overwhelming bipartisan support,” Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the act’s chief proponent, noted in a statement. “And that’s because my Republican colleagues have heard the same stories as I have — like kids in rural communities forced to drive to McDonalds parking lots for Wi-Fi to do their homework.

“It is insane — absolutely nuts — that Trump is blocking resources to help make sure kids in rural school districts can get hot spots or laptops, all because he doesn’t like the word equity!”

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which administers the program, declined to comment. It’s not clear how much of the $2.75 billion has been awarded, though in March 2024 the NTIA announced the allocation of $811 million to states, territories and tribes.

‘More confident’

On a recent morning in Portland, Ore., Brandon Dorn was among those taking a keyboard basics class offered by Free Geek, a nonprofit that provides free courses to help people learn to use computers. The class was offered at a low-income housing building to make it accessible for residents.

Dorn and the others were given laptops and shown the different functions of keys: control, shift and caps lock, how to copy and paste. They played a typing game that taught finger and key placement on a color-coded keyboard.

Dorn, 63, said the classes helped because “in this day and age, everything has to go through the computer.” He said it helped him feel more confident and less dependent on his children or grandchildren to do things such as making appointments online.

“Folks my age, we didn’t get this luxury because we were too busy working, raising the family,” he said. “So this is a great way to help us help ourselves.”

Juan Muro, Free Geek’s executive director, said participants get the tools and skills they need to access things like online banking, job applications, online education programs and telehealth. He said Trump’s move to end funding has put nonprofits such as Free Geek in a precarious position, forcing them to make up the difference through fundraising and “beg for money to just provide individuals with essential stuff.”

Sara Nichols works for the Land of Sky Regional Council, a multi-county planning and development organization in western North Carolina. On the Friday before Trump’s inauguration in January, the organization received notice that it was approved for a grant. But like other groups the Associated Press contacted, it has not seen any money.

Land of Sky had spent a lot of resources helping people recover from last year’s storms. The award notice, Nichols said, came as “incredible news.”

“But between this and the state losing, getting their letters terminated, we feel just, like, stuck. What are we going to do? How are we going to move forward? How are we going to let our communities continue to fall behind?”

Filling unmet needs

More than one-fifth of Americans do not have broadband internet access at home, according to the Pew Research Center. In rural communities, the number jumps to 27%.

Beyond giving people access to technology and fast internet, many programs funded by the Digital Equity Act sought to provide “digital navigators” — human helpers to guide people new to the online world.

“In the United States we do not have a consistent source of funding to help individuals get online, understand how to be safe online and how to use that technology to accomplish all the things that are required now as part of life that are online,” said Siefer of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. This includes providing families with internet hot spots so they can get online at home and helping seniors avoid online scams, she said.

“Health, workforce, education, jobs, everything, right?” Siefer said. “This law was going to be the start for the U.S. to figure out this issue. It’s a new issue in the big scheme of things, because now technology is no longer a nice-to-have. You have to have the internet and you have to know how to use the technology just to survive, let alone to thrive today.”

Siefer said the word “equity” in the name probably prompted Trump to target the program for elimination.

“But it means that he didn’t actually look at what this program does,” she said. “Because who doesn’t want Grandma to be safe online? Who doesn’t want a veteran to be able to talk to their doctor rather than get in a car and drive two hours? Who doesn’t want students to be able to do their homework?”

Ortutay and Rush write for the Associated Press and reported from San Francisco and Portland, Ore., respectively.

BGT fans have slammed the show after they say the wrong act was given the Golden Buzzer.

Fans of Britain’s Got Talent think that the show is “fix” after a magician, who had a “set-up” performance was awarded KSI’s Golden Buzzer – and nine-year-old gymnast, Binita.

8

8

8

8

KSI was brought in as an extra judge on Saturday night for the semi-final alongside Simon Cowell, Bruno Tonioli, Alesha Dixon, and Amanda Holden.

He was given the power to press the infamous golden buzzer and send one act straight through to the show’s grand final.

At the start of the magic act, Harry Moulding claimed that he was “going to create a special moment of real magic for one person” in the audience.

The magic act was full of incredible tricks which involved pop star references and predictions before the live show.

His performance then ended with a lady being proposed to by her boyfriend, and KSI was so blown away that he pressed the Golden Buzzer.

But despite the judges being blown away by the performance, fans were quick to say it was a fix.

Fans took to X immediately, with one writing: “What the f*** do they expect him to do for the final now?? Biggest fix ever, magic my bloody a***.”

A second claimed: “Utterly rigged and the trick itself was too grand and ridiculous it shouldn’t even be called magic. I know exactly how he did it, it was rigged.”

And now fans have slammed the “biggest fix” and said that a different act deserved the Golden Buzzer over Harry.

Reacting to Harry getting the coveted Golden Buzzer over nine-year-old dancing sensation Binita, fans took to X to air their frustrations.

One person penned: “KSI gave a golden buzzer for this fake proposal while my little girl Binita was actually the star performer.”

Another said: “Binita was absolutely outstanding, unbelievable talent and only 9 years of age, simply incredible, wow. Definitely worthy of the golden buzzer, I hope she makes it to the final, she was sensational.”

“Binita should have had that golden buzzer,” fumed a third.

“Now BINITA deserved a golden buzzer!! Not that nonesense,” echoed a fourth.

Britain’s Got Talent’s biggest ‘fix’ rows

Britain’s Got Talent has been plagued with ‘fix’ rows over the years. How many of these do you remember?

Jasmine Elcock – 2016: Teenage singer Jasmine Elcock stunned the nation with her version of Cher’s Believe. But it then transpired she had already performed professionally in London’s West End. Jasmine, 14, admitted: “I’ve performed in Annie in the West End at about the age of nine or 10, but I really get nervous.”

IrShad Shaikh – 2017: BGT fans were left questioning the rule book when IrShad Shaikh auditioned. He got four red buzzers from the judges, which would usually mean an instant dismissal. Yet in a strange turn of events, they let him continue with his act…and put him through to the next round.

Colin Thackery – 2019: Elderly war veteran Colin won BGT in 2019, but there was an outcry over the final. He warbled his place to win with a version of We’ll Meet Again but fans were furious that escapologist Jonathan Goodwin didn’t even rank in the top three. Viewers felt Jonathan – who almost suffocated while being buried alive in a gravel pit – should have won.

Axel Blake – 2022: Comedian Axel Blake was given a Golden Buzzer in 2022 after making the judges laugh. But fans were fuming when they discovered Axel already had a show on worldwide streaming platform Amazon Prime. Despite this, Axel still went on to win the series.

Taryn Charles – 2024: Singer Taryn Charles is one of this year’s hopefuls lucky enough to receive the Golden Buzzer. Bruno Tonilio put her straight through to the semi-finals following her performance of (You Make Me Feel Like) A Natural Woman by Aretha Franklin, but it has now come to light that she is no stranger to TV. Viewers recognised Taryn from an episode of ITV1’s Starstruck, where she impersonated Whitney Houston for judges Olly Murs, Sheridan Smith, Adam Lambert and Beverley Knight.

A fifth then wrote: “You can just tell the producers told KSI before the show to push the golden buzzer for the predictable magician act.

“Binita was the true star of the show and deserved the golden buzzer. Thank god the public voted her through.”

While a sixth said: “Little binita should have had that buzzer.”

And a seventh added: “And KSI golden buzzed a fake marriage proposal… 9 years old. Binita.”

Binita Chetry is just nine years of age and hails from Assam in India.

Showcasing her gymnastic skills on the hit talent show, Binita wowed the crowds during her audition has continued to do so throughout the competition.

Although she did not receive the last semi-final Golden Buzzer, she won the public vote, meaning she has sailed through to the grand finale.

Upon hearing the news of getting through to the final, Binita told hosts Ant and Dec how “thankful” she was.

8

8

8

8

After gunfire erupted outside a humanitarian aid event for Gaza at the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington late Wednesday, Yoni Kalin and his wife, JoJo, watched as museum security rushed attendees away from the doors and others who had just left came tumbling back in.

Among those who came in, Kalin said, was a man who appeared agitated, who Kalin and others in the museum first took for a protester, and who “walked right up” to police the moment they arrived, Kalin said.

“‘I did this for Gaza. Free Palestine,’” Kalin recalled the man telling the officers in an interview with The Times Thursday. “He went into his, ‘Free Palestine. There’s only one solution. Intifada revolution’ — you know, the usual chants.”

Kalin, a 31-year-old Washington, D.C., resident who works in biotech, said he still had no idea that two Israeli Embassy employees had been fatally shot outside. So when police started to pull the man away and he dropped a red kaffiyeh, or traditional Arab headdress, Kalin picked it up and tried to return it to him, he said.

The event that night — which Kalin’s wife had helped organize with the American Jewish Committee and the humanitarian aid groups Multifaith Alliance and IsraAID — had been “all about bridge building and humanitarian aid and support,” Kalin said, and he figured returning a protester’s kaffiyeh was in line with that ethos.

“I regret that now,” Kalin said Thursday morning, after a nearly restless night. “I regret touching it.”

Like so many other mourners across the nation, Kalin said he was having a hard time processing the “surreal, horrific” attack, and its occurring at an event aimed at boosting collaboration and understanding between Israelis, Palestinians and Americans.

“I don’t think him shouting ‘Free Palestine’ or ‘Free Gaza’ is going to actually help Palestinians or Gazans in this situation, especially given that he murdered people that are actually trying to help on the ground or contribute to these aid efforts,” Kalin said of the shooter. “It’s a really sick irony.”

Israeli officials identified the two victims as employees of the Israeli Embassy in Washington. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said Yaron Lischinsky was an Israeli citizen and research assistant, and Sarah Milgrim was a U.S. citizen who organized visits and missions to Israel. Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter said the two were a couple, and that Lischinsky had recently purchased a ring and planned to propose to Milgrim next week in Jerusalem.

U.S. authorities called the shooting an “act of terror” and identified the suspect as Elias Rodriguez, 31, of Chicago. Metropolitan Police Chief Pamela Smith said Rodriguez was seen pacing outside the museum before the shooting, and was later detained by security after walking inside.

Dan Bongino, deputy director of the FBI, said the agency was “aware of certain writings allegedly authored by the suspect, and we hope to have updates as to the authenticity very soon.” He said Rodriguez had been interviewed by law enforcement early Thursday morning, and that the FBI did not believe there was any ongoing threat to the public.

President Trump, who spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday, and U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi have both promised justice in the shooting.

“These horrible D.C. killings, based obviously on antisemitism, must end, NOW!” Trump posted on social media. “Hatred and Radicalism have no place in the USA.”

Israel Bachar, Israel’s consul general for the U.S. Pacific Southwest, based in Los Angeles, said security has been increased at consul facilities and at other Jewish institutions, with the help of American law enforcement and local police.

The shooting comes amid Israel’s latest major offensive in the Gaza Strip in a war since Oct. 7, 2023, when Israel was attacked by the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

The attack, launched from Gaza, killed 1,200 people, while Hamas claimed about 250 hostages. Israel’s response has devastated Gaza and killed more than 53,000 people, mostly women and children, according to local health authorities.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi visits the site of the shooting outside the Capital Jewish Museum on Thursday.

(Tasos Katopodis / Getty Images)

About 90% of the territory’s roughly 2 million population has been displaced. Much of urban Gaza has been bombed out and destroyed, and Israel has blocked huge amounts of aid from entering the territory, sparking a massive hunger crisis. Protests of Israel’s actions have spread around the world and in the U.S., which is a major arms supplier to Israel.

Brian Levin, founder of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at Cal State San Bernardino, said that for decades, antisemitic and anti-Muslim attacks have increased in the U.S. when conflicts arise in the Middle East — and Israel’s current war is no exception.

“With the worst conflict the region has seen in years, with a horrifying loss of life and moving images of the suffering taking place in Gaza, what ends up happening is the soil gets soft for antisemitism,” Levin said.

In recent years especially, the spread of such imagery — and of misinformation — on social media has produced “a rabbit-hole where people can get increasingly radicalized,” and where calls for retribution against anyone even tangentially connected to a disfavored group can drown out messages for peace, compassion and aid, Levin said.

“We have unfortunately been caught in a time when the peaceful interfaith voices have been washed over like a tsunami, leaving a vacuum that allows conflict overseas to generate bigotry and violence here,” he said. “We see that again and again — we saw that with 9/11 — where communities become stereotyped and broad-brushed and labeled in certain niches as legitimate target for aggression, and that feeds upon itself like a fire, where you end up having totally innocent people being murdered.”

Several organizations have described Lischinsky and Milgrim as being committed to peace and humanitarian aid work. Kalin said many of the people at the museum event were — and will continue to be.

“This act of violence just makes me want to build bridges even stronger. I think we need to strengthen the coalition. We need more Muslims, we need more Christians, we need more Israelis, we need more Palestinians,” Kalin said. “We need people that believe that peace is the answer — and that hate and violence isn’t going to solve this issue.”

PRO-Palestinian demonstrators were seen burning down Israeli flags to protest against a Eurovision performer who survived the brutal October 7 Hamas attacks.

Dozens of Palestinian supporters reached Basel – the host city of this year’s Eurovision contest – to protest against Israel’s participation in the competition.

3

3

3

Yuval Raphael, a survivor of the brutal October 7 Hamas attacks, is set to perform in the finale tonight.

The 24-year-old managed to survive the massacre at the Nova music festival by hiding under piles of bodies and pretending to be dead.

She represented Israel with the song New Day Will Rise in the competition.

But the celebration of music and unity was ruffled by discord over Israel’s participation.

Hordes of protesters were seen filling up the Eurovision square holding signs which read “boycott Israel apartheid” and “no stage for genocide”.

Israel’s inclusion in the song contest has been the subject of deep controversy following the country’s intense bombardment of Gaza and its blockade of food and humanitarian supplies.

Raphael is considered one of the favourites to win the contest, according to bookmakers – despite the protests and controversies.

With protests expected to mount as the Eurovision final in Switzerland approaches, Israel’s National Security Council (NSC) has put out an advisory to the country’s citizens travelling for the event.

“International events of this type are a prime target for threats and attacks by various terrorist groups,” the council warned.

The NSC, along with Israel’s Diaspora Affairs Ministry, its expected to expand its presence and monitoring activities as the final approaches.

A situation room will operate with two deputies on-site over the weekend to maintain constant communication with Israeli citizens.

Citizens travelling are also required to install the IDF Home Front Command’s emergency alert app to stay alert to any security threats.

Gilad Kariv, chair of Israel’s Knesset Committee on Immigration, Absorption and Diaspora Affairs, said: “Every Israeli currently in Switzerland should make sure the Home Front Command app is installed.

“Anti-Israeli activity poses a risk to Israeli supporters and fans in Basel.

“We requested that the Foreign Ministry’s situation room be fully staffed, with social media monitoring and real-time tracking of planned protests.”

THE SECRET ingredients to the perfect Eurovision song have been revealed and it might be bad news for the UK’s act. 

As various European countries go head-to-head tonight, a leading betting company has revealed that winning Eurovision songs always have three key traits.

4

4

Sport Betting Online found that the first of the three factors relates to whether the song is written in a minor or a major key; minor keys often sound sadder, where major keys tend to sound happier and more joyful.

80 per cent of the winning songs, including Nemo’s The Code and Loreen’s thrilling Tattoo, are written in a minor key. 

Most winning songs also have an average tempo of 106 beats per minute (BPM), with Maneskin’s Zitte e Broni having 103 BPM and Kalush Orchestra’s Stefania having 105 BPM.

The final factor relates to language, as ten of the last 15 winning songs were written in English.

Despite that advantage, the UK act has the odds stacked against them – according to exclusive information from Sports Betting online.

Remember Monday’s track is written in a major key and has an average BPM rate of 136.

A spokesperson from the betting company said: “Remember Monday’s entry brings a vibrant and relatable energy to Eurovision 2025.

“Their harmonious vocals and genre-blending style align with several successful trends.

“However, the song’s major key and humorous theme might set it apart from the emotionally intense entries that have recently won.

“If audiences are ready for something fun and feel-good, the UK may have a dark horse on its hands.”

Despite the track bucking several winning trends, Remember Monday’s song was well-received when they took to the stage on Thursday.

Fans could be heard cheering throughout the trio’s performance, while singing along to What the Hell Just Happened’s catchy lyrics.

Brits loved the track too, with one writing on social media: “Remember Monday could WIN THIS WHOLE THING. INCREDIBLE. Perfection in the arena!”

UK fans can only hope that its broad appeal – with country aesthetics being on trend and English being the language of most winning songs – will take the trio to a win.

Sports Betting Online also analysed the frontrunners at this year’s singing competition, though, and one group is set to take the contest by storm. 

4

Sweden’s Bara Badu Batsu – performed by KAJ – has an average BPM of 106 and is written in the minor key, specifically A Minor. 

The track is sung in Swedish with Finnish phrases, which does buck the trend of winning songs being in English.

However, experts think this may work in the trio’s favour – just a singing in Italian took Maneskin to a win.

Following close behind is Austria’s JJ who will be singing a track entitled Wasted Love. 

This track has 133 BPM, which is much faster than the average winning BPM, but is written in a minor key. 

It is also sung in English, which normally broadens a song’s appeal at the competition. 

The final frontrunner is France’s Louane, whose track was recorded at 88 BPM and is sung in the singer’s native language. 

Her heartbreaking song is entitled Maman – the French word for “mother”.

With all of the data considered, the competition is Sweden’s to lose. 

The contest will kick off on May 13, 2025, in Basel, Switzerland, before ending on May 17.

Last year’s winning artist Nemo will be performing their track – entitled The Code – at the finale.

However, not every country in Europe will be appearing at the competition.

Russia has been banned from competing due to controversies surrounding the invasion of Ukraine.

Other countries, including Bulgaria and Romania, have pulled out due to funding problems.

Israel has confirmed that it will be competing at Eurovision 2025, despite an open letter – signed by several former winners – urging judges to ban the country from the contest.

4

The United States Supreme Court has granted an emergency petition from a group of migrants in Texas, barring the use of an 18th-century wartime law to expedite their removals.

Friday’s unsigned decision (PDF) is yet another blow to the administration of President Donald Trump, who has sought to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to swiftly deport undocumented immigrants out of the US.

Only two conservative justices dissented: Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

While the high court has yet to rule on the merits of Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, it did issue “injunctive relief” to Venezuelan migrants faced with expulsion under the centuries-old law.

“We have long held that ‘no person shall be’ removed from the United States ‘without opportunity, at some time, to be heard’,” the court majority wrote in its ruling.

It reaffirmed a previous opinion that migrants in the US are entitled to due process – in other words, they are entitled to a fair hearing in the judicial system – before their deportation.

Friday’s case was brought by two unnamed migrants from Venezuela, identified only by initials. They are being held in a detention centre in north Texas as they face deportation.

The Trump administration has accused them, and others from Venezuela, of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. It has further sought to paint undocumented migration into the US as an “invasion” and link Tren de Aragua’s activities in the US to the Venezuelan government, an assertion that a recently declassified intelligence memo disputes.

That, the Trump administration has argued, justifies its use of the Alien Enemies Act, which has only been used three times prior in US history – and only during periods of war.

But Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act has spurred a legal backlash, with several US district courts hearing petitions from migrants fearing expulsion under the law.

Multiple judges have barred the law’s use for expedited removals. But one judge in Pennsylvania ruled the Trump administration could deploy the law – provided it offer appropriate notice to those facing deportation. She suggested 21 days.

The Supreme Court on Friday did not weigh in on whether Trump’s use of the law was merited. Instead, its ruling – 24 pages in total, including a dissent – hewed closely to the issue of whether the Venezuelans in question deserved relief from their imminent deportation under the law.

The majority of the nine-justice bench noted that “evidence” it had seen in the case suggested “the Government had in fact taken steps on the afternoon of April 18” to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, even transporting the migrants “from their detention facility to an airport and later returning them”.

The justices asserted that they had a right to weigh in on the case, in order to prevent “irreparable harm” to the migrants and assert their jurisdiction in the case. Otherwise, they pointed out a deportation could put the migrants beyond their reach.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh went a step further in a separate opinion, calling on the Supreme Court to issue a final and binding ruling in the matter, rather than simply grant this one petition.

“The circumstances call for a prompt and final resolution, which likely can be provided only by this Court,” he said, agreeing with the majority’s decision.

Thomas and Alito, in their dissent, argued the Supreme Court had not afforded enough time to a lower court to rule on the emergency petition.

In the aftermath of the ruling, Trump lashed out on Truth Social, portraying the Supreme Court’s majority as overly lax towards migrants.

“THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!” Trump wrote in the first of two consecutive posts.

In the second, he called Friday’s decision the mark of a “bad and dangerous day in America”. He complained that affirming the right to due process would result in “a long, protracted, and expensive Legal Process, one that will take, possibly, many years for each person”.

He also argued that the high court was preventing him from exercising his executive authority.

“The Supreme Court of the United States is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do,” he wrote, imagining a circumstance where extended deportation hearings would lead to “bedlam” in the US.

His administration has long accused the courts of interference in his agenda. But critics have warned that Trump’s actions – particularly, alleged efforts to ignore court orders – are eroding the US’s constitutional system of checks and balances.

In a statement after the ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) praised the court’s decision as a bulwark against human rights abuses.

“The court’s decision to stay removals is a powerful rebuke to the government’s attempt to hurry people away to a Gulag-type prison in El Salvador,” said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.

“The use of a wartime authority during peacetime, without even affording due process, raises issues of profound importance.”

The Supreme Court currently boasts a conservative supermajority, with six right-leaning judges and three left-leaning ones.

Three among them were appointed by Trump himself. Those three sided with the majority.

May 16 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked the administration of President Donald Trump from using the rare wartime Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan detainees accused of being members of violent gangs.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, also rebuked judges from a U.S. District Court in North Texas for waiting too long to act on urgent requests related to the impending deportations.

The decision, which sent the case for deliberation back to the Fifth Circuit court, effectively blocks any removals under the Alien Enemies Act until the case can be properly reviewed.

The case is rooted in an April 17 request from two Venezuelan detainees for a temporary restraining order to stop their removal from the United States, which the district court denied that evening.

Later that night, the two detainees were given notice of their imminent removal, leading their lawyers to file a second, emergency request for a temporary restraining order to halt their deportation just after midnight.

“The named applicants, along with putative class members, are entitled to constitutionally adequate notice prior to any removal, in order to pursue appropriate relief,” the Supreme Court wrote in its latest ruling.

The lawyers asked the court to rule on the second request or hold a status conference by 1:30 p.m. The district court failed to rule on the request or hold a status conference that day, with their inaction becoming central to the Supreme Court’s rebuke.

“A district court’s inaction in the face of extreme urgency and a high risk of ‘serious, perhaps irreparable,’ consequences may have the effect of refusing an injunction,” the Supreme Court ruled.

By 3 p.m. on April 18, the lawyers for the detainees appealed to the Fifth Circuit, claiming that the district court’s inaction amounted to a constructive denial — which is when a court does not officially decline a request but acts, or fails to act, in a way that is effectively a denial.

The Supreme Court previously ruled in this case, ordering an emergency injunction that evening to stop the deportations before midnight. That ruling was a procedural hold, not a final ruling, and did not weigh in on the legality of the deportations.

In the days following the emergency injunction, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the detainees had not given the district court enough time to respond before escalating the case.

This prompted the process for the case to return before the Supreme Court as the detainees asked the high court to treat their emergency application as a formal petition for the court to hear the case, review the lower court’s rulings and to settle the constitutional questions raised by their deportations.

The Supreme Court has vacated the Fifth Circuit court’s dismissal and sent it back to the lower court for a proper legal review, preventing the government from further deportations until the case can be properly decided.

The high court clarified that, as on April 19, its ruling does not address the underlying merits of each side regarding removals under the Alien Enemies Act.

“We recognize the significance of the Government’s national security interests as well as the necessity that such interests be pursued in a manner consistent with the Constitution,” the Supreme Court wrote. “In light of the foregoing, lower courts should address AEA cases expeditiously.”

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Clarence Thomas, arguing that the Supreme Court never had the legal authority to step in because there was no valid appeal since the district court never actually denied the temporary restraining order request.

There was hope that it would be Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy meeting in Turkiye this week, for the first time since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

That wasn’t to be, after Russia confirmed that Putin would not be travelling to Turkiye. But both countries still sent delegations – agreeing to a prisoner swap – and the meeting in Istanbul on Friday was the first direct talks since shortly after the war began in February 2022.

Some of those talks in 2022 were also hosted by Turkiye, highlighting the central role the country has played in the search for a resolution to one of the world’s most significant geopolitical conflicts.

Turkiye is also poised to expand its influence in Syria, where the US has lifted sanctions on the Turkish-allied government, and has a significant win on the domestic front, after the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) announced this week that it was disbanding, ending a 40-year war against the Turkish state.

A direct meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy on Turkish soil would have capped off a strong week for Turkiye, but analysts say that its central role to the process is a victory nonetheless.

“Turkiye stands to win diplomatically whichever way the talks go,” Ziya Meral of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) said, even if the analyst ultimately was sceptical of any peace framework emerging from the talks. “It fulfils Ankara’s desire to be a negotiator and key player in regional developments. The fact that Ankara is in a position to engage both with the United States and Russia, as well as Ukraine is indeed a diplomatic success.”

Over the last 15 years or so, Turkiye has established itself as a significant diplomatic player, extending its influence across Africa and playing a pivotal role in the overthrow of long-term Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad, all while maintaining an intensely delicate balancing act between belligerents in the Russia-Ukraine war.

“There are many reasons why Turkiye is hosting the talks,” Omer Ozkizilcik, a non-resident fellow at The Atlantic Council, told Al Jazeera.

“Turkiye started a peace process independent of the US shortly after the invasion, leading to the Istanbul protocols of 2022. This is also a new model of negotiation, pioneered by Turkiye,” he said, referring to the draft peace agreement brokered between the two states that Russia has since accused Ukraine and the West of walking away from.

“Before, neutral states such as Switzerland with no stake in the conflict would mediate. Now, under a new model, Turkiye is successfully negotiating in conflicts where it does have diplomatic, economic and geopolitical stakes,” Ozkizilcik added, listing a number of disputes where Turkiye had played a mediating role, such as that between Ethiopia and Somalia, where Turkiye was able to negotiate in December a “historic reconciliation” in President Recep Tayyip Erodgan’s words.

Turkiye has its own interests across these countries, including its supply of drones to Ukraine and a significant military presence in Somalia. However, it is still able to present itself as a reliable arbitrator in peace talks involving these countries.

“It’s a new Turkish model that is seeing the country emerge as a regional diplomatic power,” Ozkizilcik said.

Hot and cold relations with Russia

The balancing act Turkiye has followed in negotiating between Russia and Ukraine hasn’t been easy – particularly when Ankara has had to take into account its opposition to Russian expansionism in the Black Sea region and Moscow’s support for parties opposed to Ankara in the Middle East and North Africa.

Turkiye labelled Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a “war” early in the conflict, allowing it to implement the 1936 Montreux Convention – effectively confining Russia’s military vessels to the Black Sea.

Ankara and Moscow have also found themselves on opposing sides in Libya and Syria. In Libya, Turkiye backs the United Nations-recognised government, in contrast to Russia’s support for armed forces in the insurgent east, while in Syria, Turkiye supported the ultimately victorious opposition forces against the Russian-backed al-Assad regime.

Syria was the source of the biggest tension between the two when, in 2015, Turkiye shot down a Russian fighter jet near the Turkiye-Syria border. The incident triggered a severe deterioration in diplomatic and economic ties, but a Turkish statement of regret led to a rapprochement the next year, and relations have remained strong.

Those strong ties have also survived Turkiye’s supply of drones and other military equipment to Ukraine throughout the course of the war.

Russia has seemingly turned a blind eye to that, and maintains “economic, diplomatic and energy relations” with Turkiye, Ozkizilcik said.

The benefits of good relations with Turkiye seem to outweigh Russia’s unhappiness with some aspects of Turkish policy, and Turkiye’s position as a member of NATO that Russia can still deal with is in itself useful.

In 2022, Turkiye was prominent in opposing Western sanctions on Russia; describing them as a “provocation“. And Turkiye has rarely been content to toe the NATO line, for a time opposing Sweden and Finland’s entry into the alliance, and also agreeing on a deal to buy Russia’s S-400 missile system in 2017.

Turkiye’s purchase of the missile system led to US sanctions, exclusion from the F-35 defence programme and accusations in some quarters that Ankara was “turning its back” on the West as part of a pivot towards Russia.

“Both sides have learned to compartmentalise differences,” Ozkizilcik said. He referred to an attack in 2020 that killed more than 33 Turkish soldiers in Syria by regime forces acting in coordination with Russia. “There were talks, both sides met and addressed the issue and they moved on. More recently, when Turkish-backed forces overthrew the Assad regime, Erdogan still called Putin on his birthday and congratulated him.”

Friendship with Ukraine

But Turkiye has been able to strengthen its relationship with the West in the years since, demonstrating its usefulness, particularly when it came to Ukraine.

Turkiye was instrumental in brokering a deal in 2022 to allow Ukraine to export its grain by sea, and has also been firm in its stance that Russian-occupied Crimea – the homeland of the Turkic Muslim Crimean Tatars – be returned to Ukraine.

Steven Horrell, a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, believes that Ukraine “appreciates Turkiye’s past support to them”, even if it has some qualms about its ties with Russia.

Zelenskyy has repeatedly thanked Erdogan for his role in facilitating talks and in supporting Ukraine. On Thursday, the Ukrainian leader highlighted Turkiye’s support for Ukraine, and even said that his country’s participation in direct talks – despite Putin’s absence – was “out of respect” for Erdogan and US President Donald Trump.

Earlier in the week, Zelenskyy had thanked Erdogan for his support “and readiness to facilitate diplomacy at the highest level”.

I spoke with the President of Türkiye @RTErdogan to discuss key details of the meeting in Türkiye, which could help bring an end to the war. I am grateful for his support and readiness to facilitate diplomacy at the highest level. We share a common view on the need for a… pic.twitter.com/BX1pw28f3x

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) May 12, 2025

The emphasis on mutual respect and friendship highlights that for Ukraine, Turkiye is not an ally it can afford to lose.

And that gives Turkiye some leeway in its ability to maintain close ties to Russia without any negative backlash from the West, and a chance to fulfil some of its own goals.

“Turkiye would certainly gain some prestige from hosting the talks, even more so if they are successful,” said Horrell. “Turkiye views itself not just as a regional leader, but truly a leader on the global stage. They gain in both of the bilateral relationships with Russia and Ukraine if they help achieve the goals of peace.”

WASHINGTON — Through a mix of marketing and campaign discipline, Barack Obama turned the selection of his running mate into a genuine drama.

For weeks, the Obama campaign kept silent about virtually every aspect of the process, with the candidate coyly telling reporters the other day that he had made up his mind — and “wouldn’t you like to know” exactly when he would tell the world?

Top campaign strategists and surrogates for Obama professed to know nothing about his intentions, the better to keep the mystery alive.

Obama’s handling of the announcement is the latest example of his penchant for crafting big, attention-grabbing events out of what are normally predictable campaign steps.

Every presumptive nominee needs a No. 2. But Obama led the search in a way that kept the public focus squarely on himself while giving his campaign an organizational lift.

In a clever bit of salesmanship, the campaign invited people to “be the first to know” the name of Obama’s choice, offering to send the news in a text message.

In return, people gave up their e-mail addresses and cellphone numbers — data the campaign can use to mobilize turnout come election day. The campaign has declined to say how many people signed up.

But news that the No. 2 pick was Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. leaked before the text was sent.

For all the stagecraft, some Democratic Party veterans warned that Obama’s efforts could backfire if the vice presidential choice turned out to be a familiar name — as it did. Voters might decide that Biden didn’t warrant the extended drumroll of the last few days.

Then there is the risk that Obama will be seen as overly consumed with campaign theatrics. His Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, is already portraying Obama as a shallow celebrity. Obama’s trip overseas — another example of how his campaign constructed an attention-getting moment — may have played into such perceptions.

There is nothing unusual about a presidential candidate traveling abroad. McCain also went overseas after clinching the nomination.

But Obama turned the trip into a signature moment of his campaign, a test of his ability to hold his own with world leaders.

Network anchors covered the journey with an intensity that left the McCain campaign envious. The emotional apex was Obama’s speech to a huge crowd in Berlin, some waving flags handed out by Obama aides.

But since returning home, Obama has seen his lead over McCain diminish in national polls.

Don Fowler, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said that the build-up for Obama’s vice presidential announcement will end up subjecting the nominee to an uncomfortable degree of scrutiny.

“All this coaxing, this being coy and planning to the nth degree is going to invite the most detailed critical scrutiny that you’ve ever seen,” Fowler said before Biden’s name leaked out.

“In spite of the fact that [the rumored choices] are all wonderful people, none of them is Jesus and none of them is Moses. Even their friends can point out shortcomings.”

Another test of Obama’s campaign strategy comes Thursday, when he accepts the Democratic presidential nomination in a Denver football stadium that can seat 76,000 people.

The traditional location would be the smaller indoor arena where the rest of the convention will unfold. But Obama is raising the stakes by moving the event to a bigger venue, putting more pressure on himself to deliver an exceptional speech.

Any number of things could go wrong; a heavy rain could spoil the mood.

But as with the running-mate drama, the Obama campaign went with an unorthodox choice to make more of the moment and to exploit interest in the speech for organizing purposes.

Obama aides said that spectators who are given tickets to the event will be asked to go out and register Democratic voters.

In that way, Obama’s speech may serve to strengthen an already formidable field operation.

But if he is flat that night, the acoustics do not work or the lighting is poor, he may wish he had stuck to the more controlled environment of the Pepsi Center.

Mark Fabiani, communications director for Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign, said that Obama is taking a calculated risk with his stadium speech.

“It’s double-edged, because it creates tremendous expectations,” Fabiani said.

He noted that the last nomination speech in such a venue was by John F. Kennedy, nearly 50 years ago in Los Angeles.

“So this is going to be something that most people haven’t seen in their lifetime,” he said.

But at the same time, “if you let expectations get out of control, and you can’t satisfy them, you’ve got yourself into a big hole,” he said.

Fabiani sees the timing of the vice presidential announcement as another gamble. By waiting this long, Obama succeeded in drawing out the suspense. But he also gave up days of coverage devoted to the newly minted Democratic ticket.

Now that news of Biden’s selection is out, media coverage will turn quickly to the convention and the enduring saga about the role there of Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, Fabiani said.

“They’ve waited until the last minute before the convention. . . . With the Clintons looming large at the convention on Monday and Tuesday, people are pretty quickly going to move to that,” he said.

—

[email protected]

I had closely followed the genocidal war in Gaza for nine months when an opportunity came around to volunteer as part of a medical mission organised by the United Nations, World Health Organization and the Palestinian American Medical Association.

As a trained nephrologist, a doctor who treats patients with kidney disease, I felt there was a critical need for specialised medical care amid the collapse of the healthcare system in Gaza and the high number of medical specialists who had been killed.

I also felt it was my duty as a Muslim to help the people of Gaza. Islam teaches us that whoever saves one life, it is as if he had saved all of humanity; taking care of others is an act of worship, and standing up against injustice is a moral obligation.

I believe my degrees are not meant to simply hang on the walls of an air-conditioned office or help me drive the nicest car or live in an expensive neighbourhood. They are a testament to the fact that I have taken an oath to dedicate my expertise to the service of humanity, to maintain the utmost respect for human life and to offer my medical knowledge and compassion to those in need.

So on July 16, I departed for Gaza with a few other medics.

We entered the strip through the Karem Abu Salem crossing. We went from observing the prosperity, comfort and wealth of the Israeli side to recoiling at the destruction, devastation and misery of the Palestinian side. We basically saw what apartheid looks like.

On our short trip through southern Gaza to reach our destination in Khan Younis, we saw many buildings bombed, damaged or destroyed. Homes, schools, shops, hospitals, mosques – you name it.

The amount of rubble was sickening. To this day, I can’t unsee the landscapes of destruction I witnessed in Gaza.

We were accommodated in Al-Nasser Hospital because it was too dangerous to stay at any other place. We were welcomed and cared for so much that I felt embarrassed. We were seen as saviours.

I treated patients with kidney problems, worked as a primary care physician and sometimes helped during mass casualty events in the emergency room.

Dialysis requires clean water, sterile supplies, reliable electricity, medications and equipment that must be maintained and replaced – none of which was guaranteed under the Israeli blockade. Each dialysis session was a challenge. Every delay increased the risk of my patients dying. Many of them did die – a fact I struggled to accept, knowing that under normal circumstances, many of them could have been saved and lived normal lives.

I remember the smiling face of one of my patients, Waleed, a young man who suffered from kidney failure caused by early-onset high blood pressure, a condition that, with access to proper treatment, could have been managed appropriately.

Dialysis was Waleed’s lifeline, but he couldn’t get an adequate number of sessions due to the Israeli blockade causing severe shortages of medical supplies. Malnutrition and worsening living conditions only accelerated his decline.

I remember how short of breath he was, his body overloaded with fluid and his blood pressure dangerously high. And yet, every time I saw him, Waleed greeted me with a warm smile, his spirit somehow intact, his mother always by his side. A few months after I left Gaza, Waleed passed away.

Another patient of mine was Hussein, a gentle, kind-hearted, deeply respected man. His children cared for him with love and dignity.

He suffered from severe hypokalaemia and acidosis: His body’s potassium levels were dangerously low, and acid built up to toxic levels. To address his condition, he needed basic medications: potassium supplements and sodium bicarbonate pills.

These were simple, inexpensive, life-saving medicines, and yet, the Israeli blockade did not allow them in. Because he could not find these pills, Hussein was hospitalised multiple times for intravenous potassium supplementation.

Despite his immense suffering, Hussein remained gracious, brave and full of faith. When speaking, he always repeated the phrase Alhamdulillah (praise be to God). He passed away a few weeks ago, I was told.

Waleed and Hussein should be here – smiling, laughing, living happily with their families. Instead, they became casualties of siege and silence. These are two of so many tragic stories I know of and I witnessed. So many beautiful lives that could have been saved were lost.

Despite this grim reality, my colleagues in Gaza continue to do their utmost for their patients.

These are medics who are bruised in every way. They are not only battling the daily struggles of life like all other Palestinians in Gaza but also witnessing daily horrors of headless babies, amputated limbs, fully burned human beings and sometimes the lifeless remains of their own loved ones.

Imagine working with no anaesthesia, limited pain medications, very few antibiotics. Imagine surgeons scrubbing with plain water, children undergoing amputations with no sedation, full-body burns patients’ dressings being changed with no pain relief.

Still these healthcare heroes just keep going.

One of the nurses I worked with, Arafat, made a deep impression on me. He was living in a makeshift shelter with multiple family members. It offered no protection against the elements – the cold winter, the scorching heat or the drenching rain.

He starved – like all other Palestinians in Gaza – losing 15kg (33lb) in nine months. He walked 2km to 3km (1 to 2 miles) every day to work with worn-out sandals, facing the danger of Israeli drones bombing or shooting him in the street.

And yet, the smile never left his face. He took care of more than 280 dialysis patients, treating them with care, attentively listening to their anxious families and uplifting his colleagues with light humour.

I felt so small next to heroes like Arafat. His and his colleagues’ resilience and persistence were unbelievable.

While in Gaza, I had the opportunity to visit Al-Shifa Hospital with a UN delegation. What once was Gaza’s largest and most vital medical centre was reduced to ruins. The hospital that was once a symbol of hope and healing had become a symbol of death and destruction, of the deliberate dismantling of healthcare. It was beyond heartbreaking to see its charred, bombed-out remains.

I stayed in Gaza for 22 days. It was an absolute honour to visit, serve and learn life from the resilient people of Gaza. Their relentless courage and determination will stay with me until I die.

Despite witnessing what I could have never imagined, I did not have the urge to leave. I wanted to stay. Back in the United States, I felt profound guilt that I left behind my colleagues and my patients, that I did not stay, that I did not do enough.

Feeling this constant heartache, I cannot understand the growing number of people who are accustomed to the daily reports of Palestinian deaths and images of torn bodies and starving children.

As human beings and as health workers, we cannot quit on Gaza. We cannot stay silent and passive. We must speak out and act on the devastation of healthcare and attacks on our colleagues in the Gaza Strip.

Already fewer and fewer healthcare workers are being allowed to enter Gaza on medical missions. The current blockade has prevented all medical supplies from going in.

We, as healthcare professionals, must mobilise to demand an immediate lifting of the siege and free access to medical missions. We must not stop volunteering to help the struggling medical teams in Gaza. Such acts of speaking out and volunteering give our colleagues in Gaza the hope and comfort that they have not been abandoned.

Let us not allow Gaza to be just a symbol of destruction. Instead, let it be the example of unbreakable spirit.

Stand, speak and act – so history remembers not just the tragedy but also the triumph of human compassion.

Let us uphold human dignity.

Let us tell Gaza, you are not alone!

Humanity is on your side!

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.