age

In 2017, a reckoning over sexual violence called “#MeToo” swept the globe. Eight years later, has the movement done enough for survivors? And what will it take for some of the world’s most powerful men accused of sexual misconduct to face consequences?

This week on UpFront Marc Lamont Hill speaks to founder of the Me Too movement, Tarana Burke.

The Department of Justice has released files related to the late convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein after mounting pressure led President Donald Trump to sign the Epstein Files Transparency Act last month. Trump, who himself has been accused dozens of times of sexual assault and misconduct, has already appeared in photos, emails and other documents in connection with Epstein, causing a rift in his base. Other business elites, academics, politicians and world leaders have also been named in connection to Epstein. While some have faced minor consequences, only Ghislaine Maxwell has been criminally convicted as part of Epstein’s sex trafficking of minors. Will newly released documents lead to new convictions and genuine accountability for survivors?

NEXT time you’re exploring France, you might spot something that looks like a UFO.

However, it is more likely to be a swimming pool, built back in the 1970s.

Called “Piscines Tournesol” – or “sunflower pools” – it aimed to build 1,000 swimming pools across the country.

This was launched by then Secretary of State for Youth and Sport, Joseph Comiti.

They hoped to encourage more people to swim, after the a series of drowning incidents.

Not only that, but it followed a poor performance from the French swimming team in the 1968 Summer Olympics.

DIVE IN

Historic Victorian swimming pool reveals opening date after £6.5million revamp

SPLASH OUT

Costa del Sol’s biggest waterpark hotel with eight pools is 23C in half term

Around 700 were built, but there was one particular style that was praised.

With a number of designs put forward, the winner was created by architect Bernard Schoellerr – called Piscines Tournesol.

Despite plans for 250 “sunflower” pools across the UK, around 183 were built.

Each one was around 25m long and 10m wide, with a 35m diamater domed roof.

Most of the light came from the round port-hole style windows.

While named after the flower, the pools look more like a spaceship, many have said.

In good weather, the roofs open 120 degrees, so are half indoors and half outdoors.

Sadly only 100 remain across France, although a number are still open to the public, although there are a few also across Luxembourg and Belgium.

One of the easiest for Brits to visit is Piscine Tournesol d’Hellemmes, on the outskirts of Lille.

Or there is Tournesol Raymond-Mulinghausen, 30 minutes from the centre of Paris which even launched €1 swims this summer for kids.

And one of the oldest is Piscine Tournesol de Bonneveine in Marseille, which was granted heritage status in 2000.

I saw one on holiday in Luxembourg, in the early 80’s. It was on top of a hill, hidden behind some trees, just like a real UFO

It’s beautiful, so Space Age looking. Does it open any further, to expose the whole pool?

Here’s how to find the grand Grecian-style pool in the UK.

And we’ve rounded up the best outdoor swimming pools in the UK.

When three young girls die from leukaemia within a year in a Mexican town, the authorities insist that the water is not contaminated. A teacher and local mothers demand answers and form an action group to investigate the cause. When they team up with a scientist, they find out their water is highly radioactive.

Corporate agriculture for export has depleted the aquifers, leaving behind an ancient layer of groundwater that is poisoning their town. This revelation prompts national outrage and leads the government to cut off the town’s water supply, while some officials still claim that the water is safe.

As the community turns against the women, they face a difficult choice. They must either give up their activism or keep fighting for clean water and environmental justice.

The Age of Water is a documentary film by Isabel Alcantara Atalaya and Alfredo Alcantara.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Thursday unveiled a series of regulatory actions designed to effectively ban gender-affirming care for minors, building on broader Trump administration restrictions on transgender Americans.

The sweeping proposals — the most significant moves this administration has taken so far to restrict the use of puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgical interventions for transgender children — include cutting off federal Medicaid and Medicare funding from hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to children and prohibiting federal Medicaid dollars from being used to fund such procedures.

“This is not medicine, it is malpractice,” Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said of gender-affirming procedures on children in a news conference on Thursday. “Sex-rejecting procedures rob children of their futures.”

Kennedy also announced Thursday that the HHS Office of Civil Rights will propose a rule excluding gender dysphoria from the definition of a disability.

In a related move, the Food and Drug Administration issued warning letters to a dozen companies that market chest-binding vests and other equipment used by people with gender dysphoria. Manufacturers include GenderBender LLC of Carson, California and TomboyX of Seattle. The FDA letters state that chest binders can only be legally marketed for FDA-approved medical uses, such as recovery after mastectomy surgery.

Proposed rules would threaten youth gender-affirming care in states where it remains legal

Medicaid programs in slightly less than half of states currently cover gender-affirming care. At least 27 states have adopted laws restricting or banning the care. The Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding Tennessee’s ban means most other state laws are likely to remain in place.

Thursday’s announcements would imperil access in nearly two dozen states where drug treatments and surgical procedures remain legal and funded by Medicaid, which includes federal and state dollars.

The proposals announced by Kennedy and his deputies are not final or legally binding. The federal government must go through a lengthy rulemaking process, including periods of public comment and document rewrites, before the restrictions becoming permanent. They are also likely to face legal challenges.

But the proposed rules will likely further intimidate health care providers from offering gender-affirming care to children and many hospitals have already ceased such care in anticipation of federal action.

Nearly all U.S. hospitals participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, the federal government’s largest health plans that cover seniors, the disabled and low-income Americans. Losing access to those payments would imperil most U.S. hospitals and medical providers.

The same funding restrictions would apply to a smaller health program when it comes to care for people under the age of 19, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, according to a federal notice posted Thursday morning.

Moves contradict advice from medical organizations and transgender advocates

Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, on Thursday called transgender treatments “a Band-Aid on a much deeper pathology,” and suggested children with gender dysphoria are “confused, lost and need help.”

Polling shows many Americans agree with the administration’s view of the issue. An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey conducted earlier this year found that about half of U.S. adults approved of how Trump was handling transgender issues.

Chloe Cole, a conservative activist known for speaking about her gender-transition reversal, spoke at the news conference to express appreciation. She said cries for help from her and others in her situation, “have finally been heard.”

But the approach contradicts the recommendations of most major U.S. medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, which has urged states not to restrict care for gender dysphoria.

Advocates for transgender children strongly refuted the administration’s claims about gender-affirming care and said Thursday’s moves would put lives at risk.

“In an effort to strongarm hospitals into participating in the administration’s anti-LGBTQ agenda, the Trump Administration is forcing health care systems to choose between providing lifesaving care for LGBTQ+ young people and accepting crucial federal funding,” Dr. Jamila Perritt, a Washington-based OB/GYN and president and CEO of Physicians for Reproductive Health, said in a statement. “This is a lose-lose situation where lives are inevitably on the line. “

Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen, senior vice president at The Trevor Project, a nonprofit suicide prevention organization for LBGTQ+ youth, called the changes a “one-size-fits-all mandate from the federal government” on a decision that should be between a doctor and patient.

“The multitude of efforts we are seeing from federal legislators to strip transgender and nonbinary youth of the health care they need is deeply troubling,” he said.

Actions build on a larger effort to restrict transgender rights

The announcements build on a wave of actions President Trump, his administration and Republicans in Congress have taken to target the rights of transgender people nationwide.

On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order that declared the federal government would recognize only two immutable sexes: male and female. He also has signed orders aimed at cutting off federal support for gender transitions for people under age 19 and barring transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports.

On Wednesday, a bill that would open transgender health care providers to prison time if they treat people under the age of 18 passed the U.S. House and heads to the Senate. Another bill under consideration in the House on Thursday aims to ban Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care for children.

Young people who persistently identify as a gender that differs from their sex assigned at birth are first evaluated by a team of professionals. Some may try a social transition, involving changing a hairstyle or pronouns. Some may later also receive hormone-blocking drugs that delay puberty, followed by testosterone or estrogen to bring about the desired physical changes in patients. Surgery is rare for minors.

Swenson, Perrone and Shastri write for the Associated Press. Shastri reported from Milwaukee. AP writer Geoff Mulvihill contributed to this report.

Oscar-winning director Guillermo del Toro’s new film Frankenstein brings Shelley’s old questions back into sharp focus. Watching it, I wasn’t thinking about the film alone but about the world we now inhabit: a world driven by machines that imitate judgement, technologies released faster than any ethics can catch them, and creators who often step back from the consequences of what they build. The story became a frame for thinking about invention without care and the human cost of systems that move ahead of responsibility.

From the first shot, it was clear del Toro wasn’t interested in telling a simple horror story. He was asking what happens when creation slips away from responsibility. His protagonist Victor Frankenstein is a man capable of making life but unwilling to face what follows. His Creature is marked by a worn, unmistakably human presence, punished simply for existing. Together they pull Shelley’s story into the present, where knowledge outruns empathy and creators disown the harm their inventions cause. This isn’t a film review. It’s a way of thinking about an age built on AI, automated judgement and systems that move faster than the societies they reshape.

The Image as Argument

Del Toro’s visuals feel like political claims. Inside the lab, everything shines with promise, but the world around it already feels smaller, narrowed by Victor’s drive. Step outside, and the landscape is hard and unwelcoming. The images hint at a future where speed counts for more than judgement, and the tools we build quietly take choices away from the people who have to live with them.

The Creature and the Human Left Behind

The Creature’s journey exposes what gets left behind when systems evolve without accountability. His struggle is not mythic fortitude. It is the fight of someone denied belonging, yet still reaching for it. His suffering comes not from nature but neglect. That is where the story finds its political edge. When institutions, technologies or creators step back, people fall through the cracks. Monsters are produced through abandonment long before they ever lash out.

The Wound of Inheritance

Endurance teaches survival, but survival alone cannot heal neglect. To understand where that wound begins, we have to turn from myth to the people who make it. Like Shelley, the director builds his story on failed fathers: men who mistake intellect for affection and principle for presence.

In Shelley’s novel, Victor’s father is distant, a man of education and propriety who believes guidance is best delivered through correction rather than warmth. When Victor loses his mother, his father’s stoic restraint becomes a model of civility that hides a failure of empathy. That early absence of emotional attention shapes Victor’s later obsession with mastering life instead of understanding it. Shelley knew this pattern intimately.

Her father, William Godwin, preached liberty and reason but struggled with tenderness. He married Mary Wollstonecraft, the feminist intellectual, only after her death, a gesture that exposed how intellect can perform care without ever practising it. Shelley grew up inside that contradiction: a father who believed in just progress yet withheld warmth. Frankenstein became her answer to that hypocrisy. Victor Frankenstein is Godwin’s idea of pure reason turned human. He creates life but cannot care for what he has made. His emotional detachment does not just inform his choices; it defines his mythic role.Victor became the modern Prometheus. By the end, he finally confesses what drives him: pride, greed, and the hunger to control. It is the only peace he earns, and it feels like the confession of our own age.

Del Toro recognises the same model and turns it outward. His Victor belongs to our century of technocrats who build systems and then deny their consequences. He is our era’s new aristocracy of tech feudalism: ambitious, efficient, and unaccountable. The technology elite speak of optimisation, disruption, long-term futures and existential threats, but rarely of the ordinary lives reshaped by their decisions. Some imagine themselves visionaries, others saviours, others guardians of civilisation. But Shelley’s question cuts through that confidence. What does it mean to create something powerful, then step aside when it begins to rearrange the world?

Systems Without Stewards

The logic of the story echoes the world we now occupy. Tools built to support us now automate decisions about welfare, policing and work. Machine learning reshapes social life faster than regulators can understand it. Data systems expand with no clear stewards. What Shelley framed as a private tragedy now feels structural. Victor’s refusal to care has become a model reproduced across industries.

And this is where the parallel lands. We’ve slipped into a century shaped by people who build vast systems yet refuse to own the worlds those systems produce. Think of Elon Musk’s faith in acceleration, or Peter Thiel and Alex Karp insisting that Palantir’s surveillance tools are essential for democracy. Each stance mirrors Victor’s belief that intellect alone justifies power. They cast themselves as guardians of progress, yet their creations are already remaking social life faster than any public can respond. Frankenstein unsettles because it shows what follows when men commanding immense influence refuse to look directly at the people caught beneath their ambitions.

That is why the Frankenstein story matters again. It does not tell us how to regulate AI. It reminds us that danger begins when makers decide they are above the consequences of their work. Shelley wrote a warning. Del Toro simply holds up the mirror. The question is no longer whether Victor failed. It is whether we, facing our own age of unsupervised power, will choose to do any better.