ban

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) has updated its travel guidance for British nationals travelling to Thailand, with tighter visa-free stay restrictions for UK travellers coming into force on 15 September 2026, alongside revised weather warnings

The Foreign Office has warned Brits to check their paperwork is in order as a country changes its entry rules.

As of today, Thailand’s entry system has changed. After two years running a generous scheme under which citizens of 93 countries and territories could enter visa-free for stays of up to 60 days, a harsher system has taken over. Effective this morning, the length of stay has been cut in half from 60 days to 30 days for many nationalities.

For US, UK, Australian and Canadian citizens, the principle remains straightforward: no visa is required for a tourist stay of up to 30 days in Thailand. However, the visa-free period has been halved from 60 to 30. If you want to stay in the country for longer than that, you’ll have to apply for an extension of up to 30 additional days. The Thai government has indicated that this should be granted.

Another major change is that the visa-free scheme now applies only to tourists. Those entering the country for work or other purposes now use the visa category corresponding to their activity.

The reform also reintroduces a restriction on land-border entries, with those using the 30-day visa exemption allowed only two land-border crossings per calendar year. Nationals of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore are not subject to this limit.

Ahead of the changes coming into effect today, the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) issued updated advice to Brits, a record-breaking million of whom visited Thailand last year. The government warned of the consequences of overstaying your visa or visa-free period.

“If you overstay the period of your visa, you will get a fine of 500 Thai baht a day up to a maximum of 20,000 baht. You risk being:

• held in detention
• deported at your own expense
• banned from re-entering Thailand for up to 10 years

“Conditions in detention centres can be harsh.”

Thailand relaxed its visa rules in 2024, expanding the number of countries that qualified for visa-exemption, while extending the maximum length of stay to 60, in a bid to boost its tourism sector post-Covid. Tourism accounts for as much of 20% of the country’s GDP.

However, the rise in visitor numbers has caused tensions in the country. Back in May government spokesperson Rachada Dhanadirek told reporters that while tourism provided “benefits, such as boosting the economy”, the former visa scheme had allowed people to “exploit” the system. Foreigners overstaying and illegally operating businesses in tourism hotspots, without the proper permits, is a particular concern in parts of the country.

The full FCDO advice reads: “From 15 September 2026, if you enter Thailand under the visa exemption scheme, you can stay for up to 30 days for tourism. If you entered Thailand before 15 September 2026, you will usually be allowed to stay for the period granted when you arrived. If you want to stay longer, you must get the appropriate visa before you travel or, if eligible, apply for an extension through the Thai immigration authorities.

“You may be asked to show that you meet the entry requirements. This could include proof that you have enough money for your stay (at least 10,000 Thai baht per person or 20,000 Thai baht per family) and evidence of onward or return travel. British nationals have been refused entry for failing to provide this evidence.

“If you overstay your permission to stay in Thailand, you could be fined, detained, deported or banned from re-entering the country. Make sure you understand the conditions of your stay and get any visa extension you need before your permission expires.”

Alongside the entry guidance, the Foreign Office has revised its advice on Thailand’s rainy season and the dangers posed by heavy downpours.

The rainy season generally runs from May to October across most of the country, and from November to March in Koh Samui and south-east Thailand. However, the updated guidance warns that “weather patterns have become increasingly unpredictable and periods of intense rainfall can occur across Thailand.”

It continues: “Heavy rainfall can cause flash flooding, landslides and disruption to transport, particularly in northern, north-eastern and mountainous areas. Conditions can change rapidly and may result in road closures and local travel disruption. Lakes, caves and waterfalls are particularly at risk of dangerous flash flooding.”

Holidaymakers should follow instructions from local authorities and keep a close eye on weather warnings from the Thai Meteorological Department.

For all the hysterical outrage that accompanied the announcement of the UK’s measures against illegal Israeli settlements last Tuesday, the world did not end. The reality is that these steps were merely bringing Britain into line with its legal obligation to act against an unlawful occupation and narrow the gaping chasm between the reality on the ground in Palestine and the rhetoric deployed in Westminster.

The reaction of those who support the Israeli settlements — war crimes under the Rome Statute — was frenzied. Anti-Palestinian bodies bellowed outrage. The chief rabbi declared this would be a “dark day for British Jews,” as if somehow they were the target of the measures or the victims of what has been happening. His comments were dangerous as he, along with “establishment” UK Jewish groups like the Board of Deputies of British Jews, blurred the distinction between the actions of the state of Israel and British Jews. This deliberately conflates antisemitism with anti-Israel sentiment.

Others also claimed, with no evidence, that the measures would make British Jews unsafe. The deplorable increase in antisemitic attacks in the UK and elsewhere has never been motivated by British actions against Israel, not least as there has hardly ever been any such action.

In fact, a sizable segment of the British Jewish community welcomed the settlement trade ban or at least accepted it as a reasonable response to the unprecedented building of settlements and frenzy of state-backed Israeli settler violence.

The reaction of those who support the Israeli settlements — war crimes under the Rome Statute — was frenzied

Chris Doyle

The mainstream media coverage was frequently dire. Many columnists depicted British Jews as a victim of the settlement ban. Very few outlets dared suggest that the actions were designed to help Palestinians under threat of ethnic cleansing, forced dispossession and settler pogroms. Once again, the victims were erased from the story.

The other claim was that the US would retaliate against London. This was triggered in large part by the knee-jerk reactions of US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, who posted: “The Brits have lost it. The Jew hate of their government knows no boundaries and knows no facts.” He denies it but he probably did not know Ed Miliband, the foreign secretary, is a British Jew whose parents were refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe. But Huckabee is an extremist maverick, an ardent Zionist who believes in a “Greater Israel.”

Far from retaliating, the US State Department made clear Huckabee’s comments were not authorized. He had been freelancing again. One official said Washington was “staying out of it.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio was far more measured in his comments. He did not even condemn the British actions. President Donald Trump, who is rarely shy of airing any disagreement, has said nothing. In short, the US has taken zero steps. Trump looks increasingly disenchanted with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, not Andy Burnham or Miliband. The president has yet to declare support for Netanyahu ahead of next month’s Israeli elections, as the beleaguered leader hopes.

The settlement lobbies were almost certainly shocked by the 11 countries that joined the UK in confirming they were or would be adopting similar measures. This included France and Canada, meaning three of the G7 states are acting.

Those states yet to adopt the ban have at least condemned the settlements and are not opposing London’s actions

Chris Doyle

Britain was far from isolated, quashing yet another criticism. Those states that have yet to adopt the ban have at least condemned the settlements and are not opposing London’s actions.

In contrast, it is Israel and the US that find themselves once again in a crowd of two. These two states, as they were with the foolhardy war on Iran, align themselves against international law and accountability.

The retaliatory Israeli measures will also hardly dent the British interest. Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar announced the closure of the British Consulate in Jerusalem, the ejection of the British participants in the International Gaza Support Center that oversees aid flows into Gaza and the termination of the British support team that is helping to train the Palestinian Authority.

Note that all these measures hit Palestinians far more than the UK, which is of course the Israeli priority. It means fewer states overseeing aid into Gaza, less support to the PA and, by closing diplomatic premises linked to the Palestinians in Jerusalem, further severs the remaining Palestinian ties to the city.

Expect a raft of settlement announcements shortly. This will be the primary Israeli response to the actions of these dozen states.

Will these measures have an impact? Are they sufficient? Almost certainly not. And the Netanyahu coalition, in election season, will just press the accelerator on the aggression and violence. Other Israeli politicians may get the message: The patience of international actors has finally worn out, albeit decades too late.

These steps should not be belittled. The 12 states have shifted from a declaratory poise to a position of action. For once, the Israeli government is going to have to bear a cost for the occupation that has hitherto not existed.

The message is clear. If Israel behaves like a pariah state, it will start to be treated like a pariah state.

Chris Doyle is director of the London-based Council for Arab-British Understanding (CAABU). He has worked with the council since 1993 after graduating with a first class honors degree in Arabic and Islamic Studies at Exeter University. He has organized and accompanied numerous British parliamentary delegations to Arab countries. Twitter: @Doylech

More from Chris Doyle

Paris: The French government submitted a reworked proposal to ban social media for children, after its previous ban was struck down by the country’s top constitutional authority, President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday.

“After rigorous technical work the government today is notifying” the European Commission of the new draft, Macron wrote on X. The notification is a key step, as it ensures that the legislation is in line with European Union laws.

LONDON: Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has voiced support for the UK’s new ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements.

He told The Guardian that the decision, announced by Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, “became unavoidable as a result of a continuous effort of ethnic cleansing perpetrated by a large group of Jewish terrorists in the West Bank.”

Olmert added: “The crimes of these terrorists are actively assisted by police and military units over a long period of time.

“The highest levels of government led by Minister of Defence (Israel) Katz and Prime Minister (Benjamin) Netanyahu are actively supporting these terrorists and avoid taking the necessary measures to stop it.”

Olmert’s comments come as Israelis prepare to go to the polls late next month. “Millions of Israelis are appalled by this terror and are actively resisting the terrorists,” he said.

“Sanctions are directed against the terrorists not against Israel, and as such they are unavoidable.”

In announcing the new UK policy, Miliband referenced earlier comments by Olmert, saying: “Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli prime minister, has described what is happening as, I quote, ‘a violent and criminal effort to ethnically cleanse territories in the West Bank.’”

LONDON: The UK government is banning trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, where it says “settler terrorists” are carrying out ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband says the UK will ban imports of all goods from the settlements, and some services including financing, construction, infrastructure, real estate and advertising for settlements.

In a toughening of its stance against Israel’s occupation, Miliband told lawmakers in the House of Commons that the government was acting to preserve the chance of a two-state solution.

Developing…

DODGING the crowds on Oxford Street could become a thing of the past ahead of new plans to ban all traffic.

The busy London street is taking its first steps to becoming pedestrianised and will partially close to cars in October.

It’s not the first time that Oxford Street has been closed to vehicles – but this will be a move for a permanent change.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan‘s vision is for it to be transformed into a ‘pedestrian plaza’ at the cost of £150million.

At first, not all of Oxford Street will be closed to cars – the plan is for 1km to be traffic free by the second half of October.

Buses won’t be allowed to drive down the pedestrianised area either and will be diverted to other roads.

ALL IN

UK holiday parks where you can go ALL INCLUSIVE from £25pp with shows & waterparks

RETRO RATES

Our fave childhood holidays that have stayed ridiculously CHEAP – from £9.50pp

The section closed to traffic will be Orchard Street near Selfridges and Great Portland Street.

This area includes the Oxford Circus junction where Oxford Street and Regent Street cross.

Not only will the road be shut, but there will be new seating and planters installed too.

This is a test followed by a review of the scheme which will take place in spring 2027 – work will then start on making it permanent later on in the year.

The end aim is for Oxford Street to undergo an enormous £150million to be completely pedestrianised between Oxford Circus and Marble Arch.

There will be more space for its 500,000 daily visitors to walk around by replacing the roads with paths.

There are concerns though – some locals are worried that the pedestrianisation will push the traffic out into the surrounding areas such as Soho and Mayfair.

Council leader Paul Swaddle has raised further issues including safety.

He said: “At the moment, if you go to Oxford Street at midnight, there are buses, there are people getting night buses – you would feel relatively safe.

“If you were crossing that on your own – if one of my kids was crossing it on their own in the evening, I’d be concerned.”

Other concerns are about emergency services, however unlike private vehicles, they will have access to the street at any time in the new plan.

Nick Kyrgios is eligible to return to tennis after accepting a one-month ban for testing positive for cocaine.

The Australian, 31, was provisionally suspended on 4 August after a sample he submitted during the Mallorca Open in June was found to contain benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine.

Kyrgios told investigators from the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) that he used cocaine at a nightclub in Magaluf in the early hours of 20 June.

He played his first-round match at the Mallorca tournament two days later, losing in straight sets to compatriot Adam Walton.

The ITIA accepted he used cocaine outside of competition after consulting with an an independent expert.

Kyrgios could have faced a maximum three-month ban but it has been reduced to one month after he entered a treatment programme.

His one-month ban ended on Thursday, 3 September.

Kyrgios, who has fallen to 918 in the world rankings, will also lose his prize money of 6,570 euros (£5,650).

When the positive test was announced, Kyrgios said he would step away from social media and public life for the next 28 days to “focus on getting myself right”.

The former world number 13 has played just four singles matches this season, having struggled with knee and wrist injuries in recent years.

He last played in the men’s doubles at Wimbledon, where he and partner Alexander Bublik lost in the first round.

After his initial suspension was announced, Kyrgios said the past few years of injuries had taken “a huge toll on me, both mentally and physically”.

“My body hasn’t been able to do what my mind expects it to do,” he wrote in a lengthy statement on Instagram.

“Coming to terms with being near the end of my career has been harder than I ever imagined.

“None of that excuses what I did.”

Cocaine is classified as a stimulant and substance of abuse on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s prohibited list.

Kyrgios has long been a controversial figure in tennis.

His behaviour on court has been widely criticised and he has been given numerous large fines for smashing racquets, making audible obscenities and arguing with the umpire.

In 2023, he admitted assaulting an ex-girlfriend two years earlier. He avoided a criminal conviction.

He was criticised further for making a series of comments which have been considered misogynistic.

In 2024 he shared a post from controversial influencer Andrew Tate. He later said he had gone “to all lengths” to distance himself from the self-proclaimed misogynist.

Kyrgios was also critical of the handling of two high-profile anti-doping cases involving top players Jannik Sinner and Iga Swiatek, calling them “disgusting” for tennis.

Kyrgios has won seven ATP Tour singles titles and reached the Wimbledon final in 2022, losing in four sets to Novak Djokovic.

He and compatriot Thanasi Kokkinakis won the Australian Open men’s doubles title together in 2022.

Kyrgios has also spoken about his struggles with mental health, saying he “genuinely contemplated” suicide and spent time in a psychiatric hospital in London after losing at Wimbledon in 2019.

Sept. 3, 2026 9 AM PT

BOSTON — A federal judge in Boston said Thursday the U.S. Postal Service has told her nothing about how it would implement a plan to regulate mail ballots for the midterms as she considers whether to let the plan proceed in the weeks before Election Day.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani is deciding whether to extend her prohibition on the proposed regulation of mail ballots, an effort undertaken as part of an executive order by President Trump. The hearing in the closely watched case came a day before the first state begins sending mail ballots to voters.

“We are 70 days from the election and I have nothing from the USPS about how this will happen,” Talwani told Michael Velchik, the Justice Department lawyer representing the Postal Service.

Last week, Talwani imposed a 14-day temporary restraining order to keep it from being used. That order expires next week as more states begin sending out mail ballots. Velchik said the administration will most likely go to the Supreme Court by the end of the week to seek permission to resume implementing the plan.

Talwani has been here before. In June, she prohibited the administration from implementing Trump’s order for the November election, ruling the changes came too close to voting for the federal government to embark on such a project.

But the Supreme Court late last month ruled that Talwani’s order was premature because the Postal Service had not yet published regulations governing how it would apply Trump’s order. The agency did so just before the high court ruling came down, prompting Democrats and voting rights groups to swiftly re-file their lawsuits.

They counter that the president has no authority to set election rules, which is a power designated in the Constitution to the states and in some cases Congress.

They won an initial victory with Talwani’s restraining order, which has already been appealed by the administration.

Trump has long opposed mail voting and falsely blamed it for his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, even though he often uses that method to cast his own ballot.

Election officials say there’s simply no way they can comply with the Postal Service directives, which could require a complete overhaul of their operations. Before it delivers mail ballots for any state, the Postal Service would have to approve the design of the envelopes that contain them and have the state upload a list of voters receiving them to an online portal.

Some ballots have already gone out. A few municipalities in Wisconsin opted to send mail ballots to voters earlier this week, but Friday marks the full kickoff of voting as North Carolina starts shipping its mail ballots to all voters who requested them.

The administration has contended the changes are relatively minor and legal. But the portal was still not active this week, and most election offices have already printed their envelopes and ballots.

Velchik told Talwani that the federal government is offering states the choice to opt into the system. But the Postal Service has yet to identify a single state that has done so.

A whistleblower report made public this week warns that the postal system’s requirements could lead to millions of mail ballots never being sent. The new rule requires all ballots to be physically brought to post offices before being mailed to voters, but if a single one’s bar code registers an error, the whole batch gets thrown out, even if it contains tens of thousands of legitimate ballots.

Riccardi and Casey write for the Associated Press. Riccardi reported from Denver.

Aug. 28 (UPI) — The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to allow the Pentagon to ban transgender individuals from serving in the military.

A federal appeals court ruled in June that the military’s attempts to remove transgender Americans was “both arbitrary and based upon animus.”

On Friday, Solicitor General John D. Sauer appealed to the country’s top court to reverse the ruling.

“The court asserted that the policy likely denies equal protection because it reflects invidious discrimination against trans-identifying people,” Sauer wrote in his petition. “That gravely erroneous holding warrants this Court’s review.”

“The authority of the U.S. military to determine who may serve in the Nation’s armed forces is a matter of exceptional importance,” he added. “Whether the Constitution prohibits the military from exercising that authority by adopting a policy like the one here is a recurring issue, which has arisen before and will likely arise again absent this Court’s review.”

President Donald Trump has targeted transgender service members since the first days of his second administration.

He signed an executive order saying transgender troops’ health needs are “inconsistent” with service in the military.

The National Center for LGBTQ Rights and GLAD Law sued in February, and the federal appeals court in the District of Columbia agreed with the plaintiffs.

Judge Robert Wilkins said the ban on transgender service members “appears driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group.”

“We are confident the Supreme Court will affirm that the Trump administration cannot base policies on hostility toward a group of people,” said Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law senior director of transgender and queer rights, in a statement.

“As the Trump administration’s own attorneys admitted, these are qualified individuals who are meeting all military standards,” Levi added. “There is no reason to waste millions of taxpayer dollars to kick out thousands of highly trained, skilled, and decorated troops based on nothing but hostility and this administration’s political whims.”

The Supreme Court is on summer recess and will return on Oct. 5.

After an outcry from immigrant and civil rights advocates over plans to equip immigration officers with gloves capable of delivering electric shocks, California lawmakers on Thursday unveiled a bill that would ban the use of shock gloves by any law enforcement agent in the state.

The gloves deliver can an electrical shock strong enough to drop a strong man to his knees in an instant, and proponents say the gloves provide a fast and non-lethal way to subdue a person.

Two weeks ago, the Associated Press reported that the Department of Homeland security planned to use $10 million to $20 million to procure the gloves from Compliant Technologies of Lexington, Ky., for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. The department defended its decision, saying it was “made with careful consideration” and that other law enforcement agencies in the country already use the technology.

Civil rights organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union accused the department of attempting to intimidate the public by arming agents with another use-of-force option. They noted that ICE already is contending with criticism for multiple deaths in custody and during arrests.

Assembly Bill 2760, authored by state Assemblymember LaShea Sharp-Collins (D-San Diego), would prohibit local, state and federal agencies from possessing, using or procuring electric taser gloves in the state or with state funds.

“We cannot spend state money or tax dollars on technology that is not to better our state,” Sharp-Collins said during a news conference with other lawmakers in Sacramento. “It cannot be used on our children, it cannot be used on our teachers, our business owners, it cannot be used on anyone.”

The CTG-5 G.L.O.V.E — standing for Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter — resembles a thick work glove and can be activated to emit a 380-volt shock upon contact with a body. Compliant Technologies has maintained that the gloves are weaker than traditional tasers, but critics say they can be life-threatening in the hands of ICE.

“Many people try to say weapons like this are about de-escalation, but I don’t know how many people have put hands on someone and said that’s de-escalation,” state Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-Alameda) said. “There’s already a spectrum of non-lethal, less-than-violent weapons out there that exists… ICE and law enforcement don’t need another tool.”

The gloves have been adopted in detention centers, law enforcement agencies and jails across the country, though apparently none in California. Last week, AP reported that Omaha police agreed to stop using the shock gloves after parents realized they’d been adopted by departments that monitored schools.

Sharp-Collins said she prepared the legislation in consultation with the state attorney general’s office and legislative council to ensure it would withstand a challenge from the Trump administration if it became law.

The Senate voted 30-9 on Monday to approve a rule change that would allow for the bill to pass quickly before the end of the legislative session on Aug. 31.

Dolly Parton may be gone, but her spirit of self-expression is still making waves — this time in a Texas federal court.

U.S. District Judge David Hittner on Tuesday cited the late artist in his decision to strike down Senate Bill 12, a 2023 law that sought to restrict drag shows. His decision, which blocks the Texas attorney general from enforcing the law, noted that the prohibition was “an unconstitutional restriction on speech.”

Just as many people “chastised Dolly Parton as a voluptuous sex symbol because of her big hair, flamboyant clothes and breast exposure … there are erotic elements in countless popular performances that could be subject to both civil and criminal penalties under S.B. 12,” Hittner wrote in his decision.

And because the law doesn’t specify who determines whether a performance “appeals to the prurient interest” or that the work be considered as a whole, a single sexual or erotic moment in a performance could result in penalties, he wrote. Those penalties include civil fines of up to $10,000 for businesses and a misdemeanor charge that carries up to a year in jail for participating individuals.

Hittner’s decision came down on the same day Parton, the 80-year-old legendary songwriter, actor and businesswoman, died following a brief battle with cancer.

Parton was referenced several times in court records associated with the case. One of the plaintiffs, Brigitte Bandit, a drag queen and longtime activist, frequently performs as the Grammy-winning artist.

In an Instagram post on Tuesday, Bandit wrote that Parton had been a “huge influence” on her life and her drag performances. She even brought a children’s book about Parton to testify at the Texas Capitol, which eventually got back to the country music star, who then gifted Bandit a signed rhinestone-covered guitar.

“Dolly has shaped much of my life as a drag artist,” Bandit wrote on Instagram, calling her a “queen who has changed the world with her love, artistry, and GLAM! my diva forever.”

After the 2016 mass shooting at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., Parton called herself a “patron saint” of the gay community in an interview with Billboard.

“All those drag queens, sometimes I see some of them look more like me than I do,” said the star, who famously lost a Dolly Parton lookalike contest.

Tuesday’s ruling wasn’t the first time the law, widely touted as a “drag ban,” has been deemed unconstitutional by the courts.

Hittner initially struck down the law in September 2023, just a few months after the Texas Legislature passed it. In November 2025, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the lower court’s injunction and returned the case to district court with instructions on how to reconsider it.

In the end, the high court’s directions did not change Hittner’s determination that the law violates the 1st and 14th amendments.

Hittner wrapped up his decision with a suggestion for those who oppose or are offended by the performances: “[T]he solution is relatively simple … just don’t go.”

Dutch group Christians for Israel is taking the government to court in the Netherlands over its plans to introduce a ban on importing goods from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and Golan Heights.

The ban, which was announced in July, is due to take effect on September 22 and will run for three years. It bars importing, buying and selling goods produced in Israeli settlements, as well as intermediary services and any attempt to circumvent the rules.

But the Israel Product Centre (IPC), part of Christians for Israel (CvI), a Dutch evangelical organisation which a recent study found has donated about $300,000 to illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, has responded by filing summary proceedings against the state, with the hearing due today.

Here’s what we know about this case.

What is the case about?

The IPC has issued summary proceedings against the Dutch state, seeking to block the July decree.

The IPC argues the measure is “one-sided” and that the window it now has to clear its existing stock – some 20,000 bottles of wine – is too short.

It is also arguing that a national ban conflicts with the European Union’s principle of free movement of goods.

A verdict is not expected for about two weeks.

How has this case come about?

EU rules have long required goods from illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank to be labelled by their origin – Palestine – rather than as “product of Israel”, but the bloc has not placed an outright ban on trading with Israeli settlements. That remains up to individual countries.

In February 2020, the Dutch advocacy group DocP urged consumers to file complaints with the Dutch food safety authority, NVWA, if they found wine and Dead Sea cosmetics had been mislabelled.

Following complaints, the IPC changed its labelling to “product uit een Israelisch dorp in Judea & Samaria [product from an Israeli village in Judea and Samaria],” which it argued accurately reflected the exact geographical and administrative reality of the origins of the products without deceiving the buyer. Judea and Samaria is the biblical name used by the Israeli government to refer to the West Bank. DocP argued this fell short of the requirement to label products correctly, and continued its campaign.

In 2021, the NVWA agreed and fined the IPC 2,100 euros (about $2,500) for mislabelling goods.

Then, in July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion that Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful and must end “as rapidly as possible”.

This shifted the legal argument beyond mere consumer labelling, with the court saying countries should take steps to prevent trade or investment relations which help to maintain the unlawful presence of Israeli settlers in the Palestinian territories.

The lower house of the Dutch parliament acted on that in September 2025, proposing an import ban.

The national decree against importing goods from Israeli settlements was made in July this year.

Does Christians for Israel describe the West Bank as ‘Israel’?

CvI describes the West Bank as a “disputed territory” rather than accepting the international legal description of it as “occupied Palestinian territory”.

It says it believes that Israel has strong claims to sovereignty there and that Jews have a right to live there.

The vocabulary matters in a legal sense, as “disputed territory” is not the same as “annexed territory”, therefore, the legal apparatus which would make settlement trade unlawful doesn’t straightforwardly apply.

The group’s stated reasons for funding projects there, it says on its website, are rooted in the Bible; it cites Ezekiel 47:21-23: “Peace for the Jewish people and resident foreigners inheriting alongside the tribes of Israel.”

However, the ICJ’s July 2024 advisory opinion is clear that the Fourth Geneva Convention’s Article 49(6) and successive Security Council resolutions treat the territories as occupied and the settlements as unlawful.

How have other Christian organisations in the West responded to trade with settlements?

Western churches are split on the issue, with CvI sitting at one end of the spectrum.

Mainline Protestants, including the Presbyterian Church in the United States, have divested shareholdings in Caterpillar, HP and Motorola Solutions as early as 2014, and from Israeli bonds in 2024. The United Methodist Church has opposed Israeli settlements since 1996 and sold its Israeli bond holdings last August.

The World Council of Churches called for sanctions against illegal Israeli settlements in 2025, divestment and an arms embargo.

The Vatican calls settlements an obstacle to peace but has avoided divestment so far.

Christian Zionist bodies, however, including Christians United for Israel (CUFI) and the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, send funding for settlements and fight against boycotts.

How significant is this ban?

It is significant considering that the Netherlands is one of only four EU countries currently imposing a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements.

Trade from illegal settlements to the EU is estimated to be worth up to $400m per year.

The Netherlands is also a big market for the illegal settlements; a recent investigation by legal advocacy group Global Echo, which analysed thousands of shipments from Israeli settlements between 2017 and 2026, shows that within the EU, the Dutch market is the largest importer of goods from illegal settlements, with about 30 percent destined for or passing through the country.

Which European countries have banned products from West Bank settlements?

Spain has banned all imports of products from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, since September 2025. The decree also enforces an embargo on defence exports and dual-use technology to Israel, bans ships carrying military fuel for Israel from Spanish ports, and restricts advertising for services or goods linked to Israeli settlements.

Ireland’s parliament approved the text of its Israeli Settlements (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill in May and the bill was signed into law in July. It covers all goods produced in Israeli settlements, but excludes services.

Belgium’s federal government approved a draft royal decree in July introducing a specific regime for goods from Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The precise details of the new law will be determined by the government in due course.

Slovenia imposed restrictions on imports from Israeli settlements under its previous government, but the new conservative government reversed them in June 2026.

The EU as a bloc remains deadlocked over whether a ban counts as foreign policy requiring unanimity or trade policy needing only a qualified majority, with ministers not meeting again in a decision-making format until October.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar last year described the push by some European governments to implement the ICJ advisory opinion as “shameful”.

Which European countries still allow trade with West Bank settlements?

Nearly all of them.

Outside the three European Union states which still have bans in place, settlement goods can be sold legally everywhere, including in most of the EU.

At a July 2026 meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels, which addressed trade from Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories, Germany, Austria, Czechia and Hungary were opposed to an EU-wide ban.

Beyond the EU, the United Kingdom does not forbid trade with illegal Israeli settlements, although new Prime Minister Andy Burnham is reportedly considering a ban. In a recent parliamentary briefing, Amnesty International called on the UK government to implement a ban.

It said: “The argument for a UK ban on trade with settlements is clear. The UK government itself accepts it should take stronger action in response to settlement expansion and annexation. The International Court of Justice has directed states not to trade with Israel in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and there is precedent in UK law and policy to not trade with illegally occupied lands, ie Crimea and other illegally occupied parts of Ukraine.”

Aug. 26 (UPI) — A U.S. district court has blocked Texas from banning drag performances as unconstitutional, ruling that the solution to the problem is for those who find such events offensive to just not attend.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 12 into law in June 2023 to ban “sexually oriented performances” via civil penalties on businesses that host them and criminal penalties on performers.

It has been debated in the courts since, with a court ruling it unconstitutional in 2023 and an appeals court in February allowing it to take effect while sending the case back to the district court for review.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge David Hittner, a Reagan appointee who issued the 2023 ruling, declared Senate Bill 12 an unconstitutional restriction on speech and ordered that the state be permanently enjoined from enforcing it.

“Finally, for those who find such activities as described in this case offensive, the solution is relatively simple … just don’t go,” Hittner said.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for the U.S. Senate with President Donald Trump‘s endorsement, called the ruling in a statement “flawed,” arguing without proof that it will endanger children while being “an affront to Texas values.”

“I will appeal this decision immediately and continue to fight to protect our kids,” he said online.

Meanwhile, civil rights and LGBTQ advocates celebrated the ruling.

“Today’s decision confirms that the legislature’s attempt to ban drag performances was unconstitutional from start to finish,” Brian Klosterboer, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, which filed the original lawsuit in August 2023, said in a statement.

“This law stifled free expression across our state and made people afraid to engage in or attend drag shows and other performances. But all Texans — no matter our gender or background — are guaranteed the right to free expression.”

Brigitte Bandit, a drag performer and a plaintiff in the case, said the ruling was “a relief.”

“As a lifelong Texan, I’m sick of this state trying to censor art and stoke hatred and violence against drag artists and the LGBTQIA+ community. No one should be punished for performing drag, and I wish lawmakers would take steps to protect kids from real dangers in our state instead of trying to divide and marginalize us.”

UCLA is proceeding as though it landed a massive gift this week, with 2025 Sun Belt Player of the Year Trent Hendrick joining the Bruins for practices Monday and Tuesday.

Hendrick is among 16 players who sought a Louisiana temporary restraining order allowing them to return to college after entering the NFL draft pool, arguing they would not have left had they know NCAA rules would change granting them an extra year of eligibility.

The temporary restraining order was granted last week, but the Big Ten voted on Tuesday to pass a new rule that prohibited football players who have signed a professional contract, were on a professional roster at any point or declared for the NFL draft as an underclassman without withdrawing, from maintaining eligibility for athletic competition.

Hendrick, however, did not sign a contract, never earned a spot on a roster and didn’t declare for the draft as an underclassman.

Linebacker Trent Hendrick participates in a drill during the Cleveland Browns’ rookie minicamp on May 8. Hendrick is now poised to play for UCLA.

(Sue Ogrocki / Associated Press)

“We support the Big Ten’s adoption of the new professional football players rule and understand the importance of having clear and consistent eligibility standards across the conference,” UCLA athletic director Martin Jarmond said in a statement on Tuesday. “We have been in communication with the Big Ten throughout this process, and our student-athletes are eligible under the guidelines adopted today. We are excited to turn our full attention to the upcoming season and our opener [versus] California on Sept. 5.”

It is unclear whether anyone will contest the Louisiana temporary restraining order.

For now, Hendrick is quickly getting up to speed in a system he learned while competing under head coach Bob Chesney and defensive coordinator Colin Hitschler last season at James Madison.

Chesney was excited on Monday to welcome Hendrick to Westwood. Hitschler told reporters Tuesday he, too, was pleased to see Hendrick on the UCLA roster.

James Madison’s Trent Hendrick tackles Washington State’s Maxwell Woods during a game on Nov. 22.

(Brien Aho / Getty Images)

“We had a lot of fun together last year and I think he did a great job where he was,” Hitschler said. “I’m glad he got the opportunity for himself to hopefully continue to play college football here. What a special opportunity for him and let’s make the most of it.”

Both coaches said they faced competition to land Hendrick after last week’s restraining order was granted.

“He’s a really good player,” Hitschler said. “He made a lot of plays for us last year and he loves the game. … Awesome kid, loves the game, loves the work, loves the grind, you know, and he’s talented.”

Can a player who joined a roster less than two weeks before the season opener be ready to play immediately? Hitschler thinks so.

“Trent’s a kid that stays ready,” Hitschler said. “He was begging for an opportunity to get a tryout in the league. Just another opportunity to maybe get it. So he was working out, he was in great shape. He’s a kid that lives, eats and sleeps football and God blessed him with an opportunity here, let’s see what he can make of it.”

The Big Ten is holding schools accountable for compliance with its rule and told the Associated Press restrictions in other sports such as basketball could follow.

A head football coach who plays a former pro will be suspended 50% of the season and his school will be fined, the Big Ten confirmed to the AP on Tuesday.

The topic is a hot one around college athletics. Wake Forest athletic director John Currie, chairman of the Atlantic Coast Conference athletic directors group for the upcoming season, said his colleagues planned to discuss the issue Wednesday.

“I don’t think anybody in our league likes the idea of taking away opportunities from existing college students and graduating high school players, which is exactly what is happening when a school signs a player out of an NFL camp to their team,” Currie wrote in a text message to the AP.

Duke coach Manny Diaz said the Power Four conferences need to present a unified front. The Big 12 and Southeastern Conference have not announced steps, though the SEC ripped the potential for pros back in college in a statement late Monday.

“I think you’ll see more leagues start to govern themselves since we’re having such a hard time finding it at a national level,” Diaz said. “I think everyone understands it’s absolutely absurd. We can enjoy the fact that the players can benefit financially from playing in college now. At the same time, recognize the ultimate truth that we’re not a professional sports franchise. We are a collegiate, scholastic school activity, and we’ve got to rein that in.”

Agent Drew Rosenhaus told the AP on Monday that former Mississippi tight end Dae’Quan Wright had been waived by the Cleveland Browns and, if he clears waivers, will join Lane Kiffin’s roster at Louisiana State. Wright played two seasons for Kiffin at Ole Miss.

Wright was among a group of players who sued in a Louisiana court, saying the new NCAA rule granting five years of eligibility to most athletes should apply to him and others who were not “grandfathered” into the rule, which did not include the high school Class of 2022.

“Over 100 athletes in multiple sports were cleared and said you could go play. That’s a court order,” Kiffin said Tuesday on “The Pat McAfee Show” on ESPN. “If you think back on all the different court orders of great players that were granted — whether that’s Diego Pavia or, now, Trinidad [Chambliss] that were allowed to play a sixth year, we followed all court orders. I think you get into a really interesting situation as a conference if you’re now saying, ‘Well, we’re not going to follow this court order.’ These kids that a court says can go anywhere, we’re going to say, ‘No you can’t.’”

The situation has drawn sharp criticism among coaches in college and the NFL. Rams coach Sean McVay said reversing the college football-to-NFL pipeline was mind-boggling.

“I don’t know enough about it, other than the fact guys that can be in NFL camps, if it doesn’t go down for them, they can go back to college,” McVay said. “I mean, I feel like I took a freaking gummy. I don’t even understand it. It’s true. I mean, looking at this stuff, I’m like, surely that’s not real. But I just try to stay in my lane. But I would say it’s very unique and it’s very different.”

Correspondent Jordan Puente and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

A PRETTY Italian city has banned riding bikes in certain areas – after the mayor was hit by one.

Como is known for its historic city centre with a Gothic-Renaissance cathedral and alpine backdrop.

But many use bikes to get around the city and now the Mayor of Como, Alessandro Rapinese, is introducing a bike ban in parts of the city after he was hit by an electric bike.

From September, bikes will be banned across around 30 streets.

The bike ban applies to both electric and push bikes.

According to Italian media Ansa, the Mayor said: “People act based on their own experiences and I know what it’s like to be hit by one of these beasts.”

Read more on travel inspo

GO ON

All the little-known websites for cheap or FREE tickets to gigs, theatre & festivals

CHEAP BREAKS

UK’s best 100 cheap stays – our pick of the top hotels, holiday parks and pubs

He added: “In this case, I didn’t even end up in the hospital.

“I was hit by a bike. I gathered information, and that’s where the measure came from.”

The new bike rules are part of a wider traffic plan which will create a Limited Traffic Zone (ZTL) to manage tourists better as well as implement stricter rules on vehicles in the city.

Other rules introduced include some vehicles requiring an annual permit and a €3 (£2.60) permit for daily entry to the city.

And tourists staying in hotels can only drive in the city centre if their accommodation has parking.

Deliveries can also only occur between 6am and 11pm.

Locals are outraged with the decision and have pledged to organise a protest on September 12.

Como isn’t the only Italian spot to place restrictions on bikes – Palermo has also restricted bikes in some areas since 2023.

The mayor of Como has banned riding bicycles in certain areas of the historic Italian city after he was hit by an electric one.

Alessandro Rapinese said the ban was necessary to improve public safety. It means from September, cyclists will have to dismount through an area of around 30 streets.

He told Italian news agency Ansa: “People act based on their own experiences and I know what it’s like to be hit by one of these beasts.”

Several other local authorities around Europe, including in the UK, have restricted where and how e-bikes and other single-person vehicles can be used.

The measure put forward by Rapinese is part of a package of new traffic regulations, establishing a Limited Traffic Zone (ZTL) to manage tourist growth, and which impose stricter rules on cars and vans in the city centre.

Many of the roads covered by the ban are the widest in the old town and are popular with delivery drivers.

The measure applies to both electric and push bikes, as the Italian highway code does not distinguish between models.

Rapinese explained his decision in a video as part of a series of online videos he produces himself, known as RapiNews24.

He recounted an incident in which he had been leaving city hall in July and collided with an e-bike shortly after his administration had discussed traffic restrictions in the city centre.

The cyclist involved in the collision has not been identified.

“In this case, I didn’t even end up in the hospital,” Rapinese said. “I was hit by a bike. I gathered information, and that’s where the measure came from.”

THEY say the grass isn’t always greener on the other side, but it appears it is when you look over the fence of Mark Wright’s Essex mansion.

The former Towie star has come under fire from fans for his very healthy looking lawn – despite the region’s new hosepipe ban after multiple heatwaves.

Essex and Suffolk Water introduced a hosepipe ban earlier this month as a result of a lack of rain this summer.

Under a temporary use ban, customers cannot use a hosepipe, sprinkler, or pressure washer for various activities, such as watering plants or filling up hot tubs.

However, Mark took to Instagram earlier this week to share a video of himself relaxing in his outdoor pool, with his green garden grass seen behind him.

As he sipped on cocktails in the clip, Mark was sharing his at-home drinks recipe with fans.

top cook

Romeo Beckham shows off pizza making skills – as fans mock Brooklyn’s ‘grim’ pasta

‘CAN’T BEAR IT’

Vogue Williams savages Katie Price’s hubby Lee & rants ‘he’s taking p**s’

However, fans were more confused over his garden than his homemade mojito.

One user commented below the video: “Amazing grass considering a huge hose pipe ban and much of Essex not have basic water access ATM. Man of the people I see”.

“The grass is looking nice and green 😂,” said a second.

A third wrote: “FYI everyone else has a hosepipe ban?! ?”

“Picture of your house with luscious green grass going around social media while every surrounding bit of land is dead?

“Let all the farmers put their cattle on your land and eat the grass!! They are struggling,” slammed another.

Mark and his wife Michelle moved into their £3.5 million mansion in 2022, after spending years building it into their dream home.