ban

June 15 (UPI) — The British Court of Appeals ruled Monday that the ban on the pro-Palestine organization Palestine Action is lawful and upheld its designation as a terrorist organization.

The five judges on the Court of Appeals ruled that the ban on the organization under the Terrorism Act is “justified and proportionate.” The proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organization makes supporting the group punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

More than 2,500 members of the group have been arrested.

Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action who originally challenged the ban in court, said she plans to appeal the ruling in the British Supreme Court.

“We will fight this all the way,” Ammori said. “We will seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and, if need be, take this to the European Court of Human Rights.”

Palestine Action has remained banned since February, despite the High Court in London ruling that it is disproportionate and an unlawful violation of free speech rights.

“The future threats and risks posed to third-party individuals and property by Palestine Action are perhaps the most important factors to weigh in the balance,” Sue Carr, chief justice, read from the appeals court’s ruling. “In that connection, it is important to understand that the home secretary is in the best position to assess those future threats and risks. She is advised by experts on anti-terrorism.”

Carr acknowledged that the ruling may chill free speech and may deter people from lawfully assembling to protest Israel’s actions in Gaza or show support for Palestinians.

Non-government organizations, including Liberty, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International UK and Greenpeace, said Monday’s ruling is a misuse of counter-terrorism authority.

The United Kingdom’s Court of Appeal has ruled that the British government was right to proscribe the Palestine Action activist group as a “terrorist” organisation last year.

Palestine Action is a British protest group which was founded six years ago and describes itself as a movement “committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime”.

On Monday, police made more arrests of protesters demonstrating in support of Palestine Action outside the Court of Appeal in London.

Since the group’s proscription, which also bans support for proscribed groups, about 3,000 people have been arrested.

The Metropolitan Police welcomed the ruling and said it would continue to arrest those who protest in support of the group.

Here is what we know about the ruling:

What has the Court of Appeal ruled?

The judgement released on Monday states: “The proscription of an organisation like Palestine Action is highly controversial. But it is a fundamental mistake to overlook the fact that Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism”.

The ruling was made by a five-strong panel, including the two most senior judges in England and Wales.

Palestine Action, which was formally proscribed by the UK last July, is a British protest group founded six years ago. It says it uses “disruptive tactics” to target “corporate enablers” and companies involved in the manufacture of weapons for Israel, such as Israeli group Elbit Systems, Italian aerospace company Leonardo, French multinational Thales and Teledyne from the United States. The group has targeted British facilities linked to those companies.

In all, British police say action by the group has resulted in millions of pounds of criminal damage.

A court in London ruled on June 12 that four Palestine Action members convicted of criminal damage at a British facility owned by Israeli weapons group Elbit Systems near Bristol, west England, would be sentenced on the basis that their actions had a “terrorist connection”.

Why was this case brought?

Following the proscription of Palestine Action last year, the group’s co-founder, Huda Ammori, challenged the decision in the High Court. In February, the High Court ruled that the government’s “terror group” ban was unlawful and disproportionate.

The government immediately said it would appeal. “I am disappointed by ⁠the court’s decision ⁠and disagree with the notion that banning ⁠this terrorist organisation ⁠is disproportionate,” ⁠Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood ⁠said.

The judgement on Monday agreed with her. Its ruling states: “The Home Secretary had the institutional competence and the democratic accountability to make the decision. The Proscription Decision was consistent with the Home Secretary’s Proscription Policy and was proportionate. It was not unlawful.”

Why did the UK proscribe Palestine Action?

On June 20, 2025, Palestine Action activists broke into the Royal Air Force base at Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and sprayed two military aircraft with red paint.

Days after the Brize Norton attack, members of parliament voted in favour of proscribing the group. That classified Palestine Action as a “terrorist” organisation, bringing it into the same category as armed groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS).

Critics decried the vote, arguing that while members of the group have caused damage to property, they have not committed violent acts that amount to terrorism. More than 130 high-profile public figures have spoken out against the proscription.

Other previous actions the group has taken include:

• In 2021, members protested for six days on the roof of Elbit Systems’ subsidiary, UAV Tactical Systems in Leicester, until some were arrested by police.
• In 2022, the group broke into a Thales equipment factory in Glasgow, causing damage to weapons worth more than a million pounds ($1.3m).
• In 2024, 10 months into Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, Palestine Action activists broke into an Elbit Systems UK facility near Bristol in southwest England, causing another million pounds of damage.

How has Palestine Action responded to the ruling?

In a statement read by a representative following the ruling, Palestine Action’s Ammori said the group will challenge the judgement in the UK’s Supreme Court.

“We will fight this all the way. We will seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and, if need be, take this to the European Court of Human Rights,” Ammori said.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), established by the Council of Europe, allows individuals to hold member states accountable for rights violations through a dedicated court. When the ECHR finds a violation, its judgements are legally binding on the state concerned under the European Convention on Human Rights.

“We will not stop fighting to overturn one of the most extreme attacks on free speech and the right to protest in modern British history,” Ammori added.

“This unprecedented abuse of power has devastated the lives of thousands of people while silencing dissent over Israel’s slaughter of the Palestinian people during the genocide, when that dissent could not be more urgent.”

How have others reacted to the ruling?

Anas Mustapha, Head of Public Advocacy at CAGE International, said: “This ruling tells us exactly what these powers are for. They are not safeguards against violence, they are authoritarian tools for crushing dissent.”

Mustapha added: “No ruling from any court is going to convince people that their conscience is wrong, and no amount of legislation will make support for Palestine disappear. The only sustainable outcome is the abolition of these laws in their entirety.”

Thomas Bell, acting UK Director of Human Rights Watch, said: “This disastrous decision further cements the UK’s place among countries that are backsliding on human rights by classifying acts of protest as terrorism.”

“When Palestine Action members have committed criminal damage, that should be dealt with under normal criminal laws, not by misusing overbroad and poorly defined terrorism powers. Defining a protest group as terrorists has created an absurd situation where thousands of people peacefully holding up signs have been arrested,” Bell added.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer says the UK will ban social media for teens under the age of 16 and impose tighter rules on gaming and livestreaming platforms, with regulations to follow by the end of the year. He says the move is aimed at protecting children, and will curb the power of big tech companies through tough online safety measures.

BBC Breakfast viewers were left in hysterics after a schoolgirl’s response to the social media ban.

A schoolgirl has gone viral for her response to a BBC presenter’s question about the social media ban.

Sir Keir Starmer announced on Monday, June 15, that under-16s will be banned from using social media to protect their health and safety.

He said the ban would give children more time, freedom and opportunities, adding: “That is all any parent wants. They want to know that Britain will be better for their children, that they will get a fair chance.”

If passed in parliament, the ban will come into force by spring 2027, the Prime Minister added.

Not everyone has been left thrilled with the announcement, including several children who will see their social media usage taken away.

One teen appeared on BBC Breakfast, and had a reaction that left viewers “howling”.

While presenters Jon Kay and Sally Nugent were in the studio, BBC journalist Fiona Lamdin broadcast live from a school in Tarleton, Lancashire.

She began: “I’m just outside Preston at Tarleton Academy, as I arrived this morning, I watched the pupils. These pupils are from year seven to year nine so aged 11-14.

“Like many schools across the country, they put their phone in a pouch which is then locked, a magnetic lock and they cannot then get to that throughout the whole school day.

“This school is completely phone-free. I have to say, we have asked with the permission of the head for the pupils to get their phones out this morning so we can get their screen time.”

Fiona then spoke to various students whose screen times from the weekend were several hours.

One child thought his would be between two and four hours, but actually had ten hours of screen time on one day, which, he said, was mostly spent on TikTok, “scrolling because I’m bored”.

“I’ll just have to adapt, maybe go read a book or go outside,” he admitted, if the changes were to come in force. “I’ll feel quite disappointed, because I’ve got nothing else to do throughout the day, so I’ll just have to do other things that will be fun.”

While he had given options of things he could do if he were to be banned from social media, another school child wasn’t so convinced.

Just hours later, BBC Breakfast returned to Fiona in Lancashire, after Sir Keir’s announcement, as she caught up with the children after the ban had been announced.

Most of the students revealed their disappointment, and schoolgirl Isabella shared: “I didn’t think it would actually happen, l kind of thought he would chicken out of it and give it more time or more consideration but he seems pretty sure of it and I’m not sure if I agree with him.”

She said she was most worried about not being able to contact her friends, adding that she mainly used social media to speak to her family.

After revealing her screen time over the weekend was nine hours, Isabella was asked by Fiona what she would now do with her spare time.

Isabella’s dead pan response followed: “Stare at a wall.”

Viewers were left in hysterics, re-sharing the clip on social media as one person captioned it: “This diva’s got the best reaction to the social media ban x.”

“Icon,” one person replied, as another said: “SCREAMING.” “HOWLING,” another wrote, while one person added: “Nahh she’s jokes.”

BBC Breakfast airs daily from 6am on BBC One and iPlayer.

British PM warns social media platforms are exposing children to content that is ‘dangerous’ and ‘designed to be addictive’.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced a ban on social media sites ⁠⁠for under-16s as the United Kingdom plans to join a growing list of countries that place online restrictions on children.

The sweeping changes will reflect Britain’s values, help to protect children online and push back against the power of big technology companies, Starmer said at a ⁠⁠news conference on Monday.

“It is clear to me a full ban is the right choice,” he told reporters.

“This will change the conversations that parents have and the expectations of children over time. It will make a huge difference. It will make our children safer. It will make our children happier. It will give them more time, more security, more freedom to grow up, more opportunity.”

As well as a ban on sites ‌‌such as TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram, he said his government would take action against gaming and livestreaming services that allow children to talk to strangers.

“Is there a situation in the offline world where you would just let your child pair up with a stranger, an adult that you don’t know anything about? No, so we’re taking action on that,” Starmer said.

The prime minister warned that social media platforms are “exposing them to content that is dangerous” and “designed to be addictive”.

Timeline

Starmer said he hoped to pass the regulation by late December so the ban could come into force in the spring next year.

The government said in a statement it will also consider overnight curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling for under-18s and will announce more details in July.

Starmer said the upcoming ban was influenced by the experience of Australia, which in December became the first nation to ban people under 16 from social media.

Canada’s culture minister last week put forward a bill that would prohibit anyone under 16 from having social media accounts and oblige AI chatbot platforms to curb the creation of harmful content.

The UK announcement followed government-led consultations in which British teenagers trialled social media bans and time limits on apps.

A spokesperson for YouTube responded with a warning that such a blanket ban would push children towards “less safe services”.

This being California, Hollywood celebrities sometimes jump into battles over state legislation in Sacramento.

Last week, a group of singers and actors went up against the plastics industry over a bill that would have banned single-use plastic grocery bags from California stores.

“I’ve been bombarded by phone calls by folks who live in Malibu and stars who live in Hollywood,” Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) told colleagues during the floor debate.

An aide to the senator said he was contacted in support of the bill by entertainers including singers Bonnie Raitt, Bette Midler and Jackson Browne, and actress Rita Wilson, the wife of Tom Hanks.

Midler also went to Twitter before the vote, writing “California getting ready to vote on a statewide ban of non re-usable plastic bags! HELP BAG BAN SB 405!!!!!!”

But De Leon said he opposed the bill because it could cost 500 jobs in his district, many of them, he said, held by immigrant women — “Women head of households, women who have to work to put food on the table.”

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima), the bill’s author, countered that working families are already paying a cost as government agencies have to spend money removing bags littering beaches, streets and the oceans.

This round went to the industry. The bill fell three votes short of the tally needed for passage, killing it for the year.

In a statement to The Times after the vote, Midler was critical of the legislators who voted against the bag ban. “Plastic bags are a scourge to the planet and everything that tries to live on it,” Midler said. “Shame on them all for caving.”

ALSO:

California lawmakers OK a dozen gun-control measures

California Assembly approves hike in state’s minimum wage

California Senate seeks to shed more light on campaign cash

patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com

Scottish Rugby has imposed a 12-month ban on Alloa RFC president Alan Stewart attending matches following an after-dinner speech, described as “racist, homophobic and sexist” by some present.

Stewart has also been suspended from holding any role within the game over the same time period.

Multiple objections were made following remarks by Stewart during Musselburgh RFC’s annual dinner on 18 April and an independent disciplinary panel has upheld a misconduct complaint.

Stewart, who can appeal against the decision, has also been instructed to undergo equality, diversity and inclusion training.

Charges against Musselburgh RFC and their president were not upheld.

In April, the board of Musselburgh RFC issued an apology to those who attended, saying: “We particularly wish to recognise and acknowledge the hurt caused to our women’s team, who we are extremely proud of and to whom we are committed to providing a safe and nurturing environment.”

The club criticised the “very poor judgement of the speaker” and said he had sent a written apology.

In a statement issued at the same time, Scottish Rugby said it is “committed to equality, diversity and inclusion at every level of the game”, adding: “There is no place for discriminatory behaviour in our sport, or in wider society.”

BBC Scotland has approached Stewart and Alloa RFC for comment.

Irish Taoiseach Martin says the far-right ministers have shown ‘a desire to see the elimination of Palestinians from Palestine’.

Ireland has barred Israel’s National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, from visiting the country, citing their conduct towards pro-Palestinian activists and support for policies that would displace Palestinians from their homeland.

Ireland’s Prime Minister Micheal Martin – known as the Taoiseach – confirmed the move on Friday, saying the two far-right ministers had advocated positions that amounted to “a desire to see the elimination of Palestinians from Palestine”.

Both Ben-Gvir and Smotrich have repeatedly called for Israel to annex Palestinian territories and push Palestinians out of Gaza, provoking condemnation from rights groups and several foreign governments.

Martin also referenced the treatment of pro-Palestinian activists who were part of a Gaza-bound aid flotilla last month.

Ben-Gvir provoked widespread condemnation when he shared video of himself mocking the detained activists as they knelt on the floor, blindfolded, with their hands bound.

In a statement, Ireland’s justice ministry said Justice Minister Jim O’Callaghan had instructed immigration officers to refuse entry to Ben-Gvir and Smotrich should they seek to enter the state.

Ben-Gvir became a minister in 2022, after an alliance with Smotrich’s far-right Religious Zionist party came third in legislative elections.

Smotrich, who himself lives on an illegal Israeli settlement, has been a vocal advocate of Israel annexing the occupied West Bank, saying he hopes to “kill the idea” of a Palestinian state.

Together, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich form a cornerstone of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition.

‘Justifies EU sanctions’

Addressing Ireland’s travel ban at a summit in Montenegro, Martin said the two Israeli ministers should also be subject to EU sanctions.

“In my view, their behaviour justifies sanctions at EU level as well, and that’s something that we will raise, whether we can get sufficient support across the European Union is a different matter,” Martin was quoted by Irish broadcaster RTE.

Since Israel’s genocidal attacks on Gaza, Ireland has been among the most outspoken critics of Israel.

In 2024, Ireland officially recognised the Palestinian state, after which Israel ordered the closure of its embassy in Dublin.

Ben-Gvir and Smotrich have faced bans from other European countries over their conduct, including Britain, Spain and Slovenia. Last month, France banned Ben-Gvir from entry.

WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.

Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.

It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.

The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.

The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.

The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.

The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.

Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.

On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.

“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.

The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.

In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.

The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.

But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”

After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.

The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.

“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.

The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.

Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.

Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.

“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”

Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”

Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.

On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”

“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.

ANOTHER Brit was banned from boarding his flight home due to confusing passport rules recently introduced.

Dad-of-two, Kyle Harris, was refused boarding onto his booked Jet2 flight from Kefalonia in Greece back to the UK due to only having an American passport.

The 39-year-old had been on holiday with his wife and two sons and was unaware that new passport rules impacting dual-national Brits was introduced back in February.

Dual-national Brits used to be able to fly back to the UK on their second passport, which in Kyle’s case is his American passport.

However, now, a UK or Irish passport must be shown at the border or the traveller can get a digital ‘certificate of entitlement’, but this would cost a steep £589.

Ruth – Kyle’s wife – wrote on Facebook: “Imagine being told your husband can’t come home to the UK – despite living there for 39 years, paying 24 years of tax and national insurance, attending nursery, primary and secondary school, raising British children and building his entire life there.

Read more on travel inspo

TRAVEL TIP

The £2.99 SIM hack that can save Brits HUNDREDS abroad

STAYCAY

Our travel experts’ best-kept-secret UK holiday spots for summer – from £37 a night

“That’s exactly what happened to us on Saturday.

The family has had to extend their time away and has reached out to the British consulate in Greece as well as the Foreign Office in London.

Ruth added: “Not once during booking, travel, or check-in were we warned this could happen.

“Nor have we seen any of a large campaign that has apparently taken place to ensure people travelling this way know. This situation needs attention.

“How can a system be rolled out with so little communication that someone who has lived in the UK virtually their entire life suddenly feels unwelcome, forgotten, and forced to prove they belong?

“Right now my husband feels more like a foreigner than a citizen of the country he calls home.”

A Jet2 spokesperson said they were “sorry” for the situation but added: “Our cabin crew acted in accordance with government legislation and sought guidance from the Home Office, as the passenger did not have the correct documentation at the time of travel.

“We advise all customers to check Foreign Office travel requirements before travelling.”

The change comes as new Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) has been introduced, which requires all Brits to enter the UK on their British passport.

The change comes as the new Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) has been introduced, which is a £20 digital travel permit required from all non-British travellers entering the UK.

Dual-national Brits are not able to apply for one.

He also isn’t the first person to fall victim to the new rules – back in April, 26-year-old Natasha Cochrane De La Rosa was left stuck in Spain after trying to return to the UK without a British passport.

A British-French student was stuck in Madrid for the same reason, as well as an 18-year-old British-Danish student who was banned from her return flight to the UK from Mumbai.

AFTER returning to Instagram Katie Price has found herself with one less loyal follower – her husband Lee Andrews.

Katie was previously left fuming after her account with a whopping 2.6 million followers was removed from the platform.

The ban came at a tumultuous time for the former glamour model, following a man hunt for Lee, who is currently thought to be jailed in Dubai’s Al Awir prison.

But after regaining access to her page earlier today, she was met with a mystery.

Katie’s conman hubby Lee has hit the unfollow button on the star, something that usually points towards trouble in paradise.

Lee now follows nobody over on the app.

NO SHAME

I was first to interview Lee Andrews — his reaction proves he’s out for himself

PRICEY IS BACK

Katie Price RETURNS to Instagram after being locked out & investigated

Things between the pair have certainly been a rollercoaster these past few weeks as she claimed to have told him he was the “most hated man in Britain” over the phone.

The reality TV legend told fans last week that she and Lee had a two-minute phone call from which he dialled in from a prison call box.

Lee claimed he’d been detained on suspicion of spying but that lie was quickly debunked.

Authorities confirmed to us he was NOT being held over spying charges and we understand he’s behind bars over claims relating to a private, civil matter.

Lee, who has “three phones” and bragged about being an “arms dealer,” is due for release today but must pay a four-figure fine.

The self-confessed “businessman” has certainly fuelled speculation on his relationship with Katie after savagely unfollowing her.

She was furious with Lee when he “made her look a d**k” after failing to show up for their joint GMB interview but this could be the ultimate betrayl.

Podcast host Katie had her Instagram account taken away over the weekend due to her flashing her boob in one post, alongside a flurry of promotions for CBD products.

Meta, the company behind the social media giant, removed her entire profile as it investigated.

Execs are understood to have analysed her posts and stories, and found no wrongdoing, hence why her profile has now returned.

ONE of the UK’s prettiest islands has been forced to ban people travelling there once a week.

Ulva is home to just 16 people but after it starred on a TV show, has experienced ‘unprecedented interest’ by tourists.

In a bid to control the number of people visiting the small Scottish island, the local and only ferry service has announced it will not run on Sundays.

Ulva is an island in the Inner Hebrides of Scotland found off the west coast of the Isle of Mull.

The island receives an influx of visitors during the spring and summertime – but this year has had more than ever.

This is a result of the TV show, Banjo & Ro’s Grand Island Hotel being aired on BBC Scotland and iPlayer.

BUDGET BREAKS

The stunning Europe beach resorts you can fly to for £15.99 – plus £34 hotels

SPLASH OUT

Top UK waterparks mapped with spas, private cabanas & rollercoasters – from £5pp

Banjo and Ro who hail from Australia appeared on the series renovating Ulva House – a Regency home that will open as a hotel.

Since the show aired, the island has become much busier – so much so that the ferry operator has decided to close on certain days.

The ferry is the only way to get to Ulva as it crosses the strait from Mull in around 5-minutes.

The foot passenger ferry operates on weekdays from 9am to 5.30pm and does not operate on Saturdays.

In recent news, the ferry announced it will no longer carry passengers across on Sundays either.

In a recent post, it said: “None of us could have predicted how significant the increase in the numbers of visitors would be, so to give ourselves, the Boathouse [restaurant] and fellow islanders the chance to recharge and prepare for the week ahead, we have made the difficult decision not to open Sundays this summer.”

For those who have already pre-booked a trip to the island in June, July or August, the ferry operator has said that it will still help visitors across.

Banjo and Ro already run The Boathouse on Ulva, a restaurant where visitors can pick up a coffee or local fish dishes.

The island is car-free island with cliffs, moorlands, woodland as well as quiet beaches and bays.

Talking to Sun Travel about the island, Banjo described it as “another world” and there’s plenty of wildlife to spot too.

Banjo said: “We’ve got otters, dolphins and seals swimming by, and one ferry you can take from Ulva is called Turus Mara which goes to the Treshnish Isles, it’s home to puffins.

“Often we go there for a puffin picnic just to sit with them, that’s one of our favourite things to do.

“There are more cows than people too so you’re likely to see a lot of them. And you’ve got a great chance of seeing the Northern Lights when the sun goes down.”

When it comes to activities on the island, of course Banjo suggests stopping at The Boathouse for a “pre-walk coffee” then a walk to Ormaig.

Here is where there are ruins of the island’s villages.

Another attraction is Livingston’s Cave, and nearby you’ll see “gorgeous view of Inch Kenneth where the Mitford sisters used to live”.

Then Banjo said: “Head back to The Boathouse for lunch – we serve fresh langoustines, crab and lobster which you can enjoy with a fresh bottle of wine.”

Officials are considering measures that would allow UK airlines to block disruptive passengers with a history of serious misconduct from travelling, amid a sharp rise in onboard incidents since the pandemic

Ministers are exploring proposals that could result in persistent troublemakers being banned from future flights amid growing alarm over disruptive behaviour on aircraft.

Officials are weighing up a system that would enable airlines to identify passengers with a track record of serious misconduct and potentially deny them the ability to travel. Under the plans, which are still at an early stage of consideration, details of blacklisted passengers could be shared throughout the aviation industry.

Should someone attempt to book a flight after being added to the list, the airline or tour operator could receive notification and be given the choice to block the reservation, effectively grounding that individual indefinitely.

Civil liberties campaigners have, however, raised alarm about the proposals, cautioning they could set a “dangerous precedent” through the sharing of personal data and limitations on access to transport, reports the Express.

Currently, airlines have the power to ban passengers who have displayed violent or abusive conduct while travelling with them. Yet existing restrictions only extend to the specific carrier involved in the incident, meaning offenders can frequently sidestep penalties by simply booking with a different airline.

The primary hurdle facing any new system is current data protection law, which prohibits carriers from exchanging passenger details with one another, even where criminal offences have taken place.

Who is calling for some passengers to be banned from all flights for life?

Calls for stricter measures have grown louder following a string of high-profile mid-air incidents that have gone viral online, reports the Daily Mail. These have included episodes where cabin crew faced death threats and violent clashes erupted between passengers in aircraft aisles.

Such incidents are among hundreds logged annually and have often led to expensive flight diversions that wreck holidays and travel arrangements.

There appears to be widespread public backing for harsher punishments, with recent polling indicating most Britons support restrictions on passengers who commit serious misconduct while airborne.

Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary has previously urged limits on airport alcohol sales, including curbs on early morning pints, in an effort to cut the number of disruptive passengers getting on planes.

Ministers aren’t attempting to stop travellers from having a drink before their flight. Rather, they’re hoping any future system would promote better conduct while helping to safeguard cabin crew, families and fellow passengers.

It’s understood the proposals are being worked on by the Home Office and Department for Transport but remain in the early stages and require additional consultation with the aviation sector. Any system would need to tackle existing privacy regulations, which currently stop airlines from sharing passenger data.

Ministers are expected to sit down with industry bosses later this month to thrash out the details of the plans. A government source said: “Everyone should be able to enjoy a pint at the airport, but anti-social behaviour on flights is totally unacceptable.

“It threatens the safety of passengers and crew and disrupts hard-earned holidays.

“There are already tough laws in place to deal with offences committed on flights, but we are exploring with industry how we can better address this issue, ensuring we crack down on people who persistently cause chaos. Everyone should be able to fly without fuss.”

Department of Commerce issues guidance on chip restrictions amid concerns about loopholes in export control regime.

The United States has issued a notice affirming its restrictions on shipments of semiconductors to subsidiaries of Chinese companies located outside China amid concerns about loopholes in Washington’s export control regime.

The Department of Commerce said in the guidance issued on Sunday that its licensing requirements for the export of advanced AI chips applied to all businesses with headquarters or a parent company in China.

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), which falls under the Commerce Department, said it issued the clarification in response to questions about whether it was enforcing preexisting licence requirements after it had overturned former President Joe Biden’s AI Diffusion Framework.

“The answer is yes,” the BIS said in the notice.

Unveiled in the final days of the Biden administration, the AI Diffusion proposed the implementation of a globe-spanning framework to control access to AI chips, including export caps for all but the closest US allies.

The framework drew backlash from tech firms, including Nvidia, the world’s most valuable chip company, which cast the proposal as a threat to innovation and cross-border collaboration.

President Donald Trump’s administration scrapped the framework last May, ahead of its implementation, citing the “burdensome new regulatory requirements” and the harm it would do to Washington’s diplomatic relations with other countries.

Chip giant Nvidia, whose top-of-the-line Blackwell GPUs are banned for export to China, said it had already been operating in keeping with the clarified rules.

“The guidance reaffirms that NVIDIA’s sales and vetting process is correct – consistent with our existing approach, licences are required to ship controlled products to PRC headquartered companies,” a Nvidia spokesperson told Al Jazeera, using the acronym for the People’s Republic of China.

AMD and Intel, Nvidia’s main competitors in the GPU space, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

TSMC, which manufactures the most advanced chips on behalf of clients such as Nvidia, did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

The BIS also did not respond to inquiries.

Chris McGuire, a former State Department official who worked on technology policy in the Biden administration, accused the Trump administration of providing Chinese companies a loophole to buy export-controlled chips.

“Chinese companies have been buying these chips, very likely at scale. And because BIS has not updated export control regulations to clearly state what it IS enforcing, all of this was legal,” McGuire said in a post on X.

“This clarification does make clear that Blackwell shipments to China-headquartered companies outside of China are now illegal again – which is good, although obviously we have to see how many shipments have already gone to assess how much damage was done,” McGuire said.

“BIS’ statement acknowledges these shipments have been happening when it says companies who bought chips under this loophole don’t have to stop using them.”

The US has rolled out numerous restrictions on the supply of high-end technology to China, as Washington and Beijing battle for dominance in AI.

In December, Trump announced that he would allow Nvidia to sell its H200 chip to China, in a major loosening of Washington’s export controls.

While not Nvidia’s most advanced chip, the H200 is about six times as powerful as the H20, the most advanced chip previously allowed for export to China.

Parisians cooled off in the city’s Saint-Martin canal as an unprecedented heatwave pushed temperatures across Europe far above seasonal norms. Swimmers ignored long-standing bans, swimming outside designated bathing sites.

The rule reminder comes after a flight was forced to divert and deal with the issue

An EasyJet plane had to make an emergency landing in Rome over the weekend because there was a potential fire risk linked to a passenger’s luggage. The captain told all 180 passengers that a restricted item in the cargo hold posed a serious danger and had to be dealt with on the ground.

Reports suggest that a passenger had left their phone charging in their checked baggage using a power bank. It is claimed that a woman told a flight attendant the location of her power bank, prompting the aircraft to be diverted due to a possible fire risk.

The emergency landing happened at 11.30pm on Saturday, May 23. Passengers were reportedly provided with hotel rooms, though some chose to sleep in the airport terminals, as the next EasyJet flight back to the UK wasn’t available until 2pm the following day (May 24).

On EasyJet’s website, the airline sets out its regulations regarding lithium batteries, including what is classed as “prohibited”. It said: “Power banks are accepted on EasyJet aircraft with a Wh rating not exceeding 160Wh for lithium batteries. Power banks are prohibited from use on EasyJet aircraft and must not be used to charge other devices.

“Power banks must be carried in carry-on baggage only. It is recommended that power banks be carried where they can be monitored (i.e. on your person)”

The airline also restricts people to bringing no more than two power banks per person. All power banks “must be individually protected”, according to EasyJet, such as placing them back in original retail packaging or a plastic bag.

These power bank regulations apply to virtually all major airlines, including Ryanair, Jet2, TUI and British Airways. Travellers should check with their individual airline for any specific rules and requirements concerning travelling with a power bank, reports the Express.

Why are power banks considered such a risk?

Power banks are forbidden from use or storage in specific areas on aircraft because they contain lithium-ion batteries. These batteries are extremely combustible and can suffer “thermal runaway,” a chain reaction that may cause them to overheat or ignite.

While they aren’t completely ‘banned’, power banks must be stored in hand luggage and cannot be used while airborne. This is because, should a battery overheat, cabin crew can quickly reach, identify, and put out the flames.

Charging gadgets through them generates additional heat, increasing the fire risk. Some carriers have rules stating that power banks cannot be placed in overhead lockers and must remain visible (such as in the seatback pocket or beneath the seat ahead of you) so that passengers and crew can immediately notice if smoke or flames appear.

Your entitlements if an aircraft is forced to make an emergency landing

If your aircraft makes an emergency landing or diversion, your entitlement to compensation, a refund, or an alternative booking depends entirely on the cause of the emergency. You are legally entitled to specific help during the delay, whatever the reason for the diversion.

Regardless of whether the emergency came from an airline problem or an unforeseeable circumstance, the carrier is legally required to care for you while you wait. This includes vouchers or reimbursement for reasonable meals and beverages, hotel accommodation and transport (if delayed overnight).

If your flight experiences substantial delays or is eventually cancelled, you have the right to select between alternative travel under similar conditions at the earliest opportunity or a refund. Check specific refund entitlements with your selected airline.

The Civil Aviation Authority today said ‘more awareness’ was needed as travellers ‘not aware’

Airlines have banned very common electrical items from flights – as news emerged of a surge in problems on flights caused by the items. Some carriers have begun to completely ban power banks that people use to charge their phones and tablets due to safety concerns. Generally, power banks are only permitted in carry-on, not checked luggage, amid fears they could explode and catch fire mid-flight.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) today said ‘more awareness’ was needed as portable chargers carry ‘serious risks’ of overheating or catching fire. Jonathan Nicholson from the CAA told BBC News that restrictions such as not putting the devices in checked luggage were not “somebody being pedantic” or “for the sake of it”, with passengers urged “to do the right thing”.

Concerns are rising that people are ignoring the bans and simply taking the devices on board. Power banks have become popular because they offer essential, portable, and fast-charging power for smartphones and other devices while on the move, easing battery anxiety. They are affordable, compact, and versatile, enabling users to remain connected without needing a wall outlet, making them perfect for travel.

It comes after a UK-bound easyJet flight was diverted to Rome last week because a passenger had packed a charging power bank in hold luggage. The airline said the captain had decided to divert “in line with safety regulations” after a passenger informed crew during the flight that the portable charger was in the hold of the aircraft. Many airlines have toughened rules on power banks, often requiring that they be stored in hand luggage because of the risk of lithium-ion batteries catching fire.

The flight touched down safely at Rome Fiumicino and was rescheduled to the next day. A survey by the CAA of 1,000 UK passengers in November 2025 suggested more than a third know what lithium batteries are and are aware rules exist, but are unsure what the rules involve. Over-55s typically knew the rules better.

Mr Nicholson said the “basic set of international rules” all passengers must follow on power banks are:

• Take them with you on board the aircraft, not in checked luggage
• A maximum of two power banks per passenger
• When on board the aircraft, don’t use them and “absolutely do not charge the power bank itself because that’s when they become really hot and most susceptible to having an issue”

Mr Nicholson said incidents involving power banks were “certainly on the rise” as portable chargers grow in popularity, alongside vapes which are not allowed in checked luggage either.

Vietnam Airlines, Vietjet Air and now Emirates have banned the batteries. Emirates states, like many airlines, the devices cannot be used during flight. In certain circumstances, they will be permitted on planes provided they are switched off and stored under your seat – not in the overhead cabin – with these rules coming into effect in October.

According to UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) safety experts, lithium batteries pose a danger on planes primarily because of their potential to enter “thermal runaway,” a phenomenon where a battery undergoes a rapid, uncontrollable rise in temperature, leading to fire, explosion, and the release of toxic fumes. Ryanair, easyJet and TUI all have regulations in place concerning power banks, batteries and electrical devices.

Ryanair

You may carry up to 15 personal electronic devices (this includes but not limited to: smartphones, tablets, laptops, cameras, handheld game consoles, headphones, power banks). Spare lithium batteries (including power banks) must be individually protected to prevent short circuits by placement in the original retail packaging or by otherwise insulating terminals by taping over exposed terminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag or protective pouch and carried in carry-on luggage only.

You may also carry up to 20 spare lithium batteries, provided they do not exceed 100Wh each.

Spare lithium batteries including power banks brought into the cabin should not be used to charge or power other portable electronic devices during taxi, take-off, or landing, not exceed 100Wh. They should not be placed in the cabin baggage loaded in the overhead storage locker. Be placed in cabin baggage under the seat in front, or on your person. Devices or batteries over 100Wh are not permitted in the cabin or the hold with the exception of Electric Wheelchair batteries.

Spare batteries, including power banks are not permitted in checked baggage.

For more information click here.#

easyJet

EasyJet strictly requires all lithium-ion batteries, spare batteries, and power banks to be carried in cabin hand luggage only, prohibited in hold luggage due to fire risks. Power banks under 100Wh (roughly 27,000mAh) are allowed without approval; items between 100-160Wh require airline approval. Batteries contained in portable electronic devices should be carried as carry-on baggage.

Should these items be packed in checked baggage, steps must be taken to prevent accidental activation and to safeguard the devices against damage; all devices must be completely switched off (not in sleep or hibernation mode). EasyJet imposes a limit of 15 portable electronic devices per passenger. Portable electronic devices containing non-spillable batteries must not exceed 12V or 100Wh, and passengers may carry no more than 2 spare batteries.

Where Smart Baggage is being brought into the cabin, the customer must be able to easily disconnect and remove the lithium battery / power bank, but it can remain in the bag. Smart baggage must not be accepted for travel if the lithium battery / power bank cannot be readily disconnected and removed by the customer. If smart luggage is to be checked in and placed in the hold, the lithium battery/power bank must be disconnected from the smart luggage at Bag Drop and taken into the cabin. Any exposed terminals should be protected from short circuit. The lithium battery/power bank needs to be disconnected, so if you are unable to remove it from your luggage, we won’t be able to accept the bag on board.

For more information click here.

TUI

TUI’s regulations forbid passengers from carrying loose lithium batteries, power banks, or spare batteries in checked-in luggage. These items must be kept in hand luggage only. Power banks must generally not exceed 100Wh, and terminals must be shielded from short circuits. Devices should not be recharged while on board. Dry AA(A) batteries (type Alkaline, NiMh, NiC) for small personal items such as a pocket torch or a radio are permitted, provided they are inside the device or enclosed in sturdy packaging.

Where devices are stored in hold baggage, precautions must be taken to safeguard the device from damage and to prevent accidental activation; the device must also be completely switched off (not in sleep or hibernation mode). Loose batteries and power banks should be individually protected against short circuits by storing them in their original packaging, with terminals taped or placed in a plastic bag in hand luggage.

Airline permission is always required for medical devices. For further details, see section Baggage – Medical baggage. TUI fly requires all power banks to be carried in hand luggage, never in checked baggage. They must be packed to prevent short circuits (original packaging or taped terminals). Generally, capacity is limited to 100 Watt-hours (Wh) per battery, with power banks not permitted to be used for charging devices or recharged onboard.

• Hand Luggage Only: Due to fire risk, all lithium-powered battery packs must be in the cabin. Capacity Limits: Power banks up to 100 Wh (roughly 27,000 mAh at 3.7V) are generally permitted.
• Safety Requirements: Terminals must be protected against short circuits, such as by taping them or keeping them in individual plastic bags.
• In-flight Usage: Power banks cannot be used to charge phones or laptops during flight, nor should they be recharged using aircraft power outlets.
• Storage: Keep them in your seat pocket or under your seat, not in overhead bins

For more information click here.

The CEDB has asked the sport’s global governing body Fifa to make the ban, which prohibits Vlachovsky from taking part in any football-related activity, worldwide.

It has also ordered the Football Association of the Czech Republic to revoke Vlachovsky’s coaching licence.

Leading players’ union Fifpro reported that players of 1. FC Slovacko only learned they had been secretly filmed after the arrest.

Fifpro – the global representative organisation for professional footballers – said the players were filmed on Vlachovsky’s camera hidden in a backpack, and the youngest was aged 17.

Earlier this year, a group of the victims came forward to demand further action, with players telling Czech media publication Seznam Zpravy, external Vlachovsky’s crimes had left them afraid to sleep at night and anxious about being in public in case they were being filmed.

Vlachovsky had previously led the Czech Republic Under-19s women’s team and was once voted the best women’s coach in the country.

World Gymnastics has lifted all restrictions on Russian and Belarusian athletes with immediate effect.

Athletes from both countries were banned from international competition in March 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

They were subsequently permitted to compete as neutrals towards the end of 2024 but will now be allowed to return to international competitions under their national flags.

World Gymnastics confirmed the decision in a statement, external following a meeting of its executive committee in Egypt last weekend.

The reversal applies across all five disciplines governed by World Gymnastics, including artistic, rhythmic, acrobatic and aerobic gymnastics as well as trampolining.

Russia has historically been one of the strongest countries in gymnastics.

They won two golds and 10 medals overall at the Tokyo Olympics in 2020, competing under the Russian Olympic Committee banner, before being banned from Paris 2024.

The move to allow athletes from Russia and Belarus to take part under their flags follows a similar decision by World Aquatics in April while the International Judo Federation lifted its ban last November.

The International Paralympic Committee removed its suspension on athletes from the two countries competing last year and they took part in the 2026 Winter Paralympics in Milan-Cortina.

Published on
12/05/2026 – 19:47 GMT+2

An EU committee made up of experts from member states voted on Tuesday to ban imports of Brazilian meat starting 3 September due to the use of antimicrobials to stimulate animal growth.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The decision to remove Brazil from the list of countries that comply with EU food safety standards comes as the EU-Mercosur free trade agreement between the EU and Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay provisionally entered into force on 1 May.

The deal, which liberalises trade of agri-product between both sides of the Atlantic, remains fiercely opposed by EU farmers, who fear that different production standards on both sides of the Atlantic will create unfair competition from Latin American imports.

“The fact that the Union is able to enforce the rules is essential for trust, a level playing field, and good relations with our trading partners,” an EU diplomat told Euronews.

An official with knowledge of the file said that the vote was unanimous and makes Brazil the first country removed from the list of states complying with EU restrictions on antimicrobial use in animals.

The list of third countries which comply with EU requirements, and therefore can export food-producing animals to the EU, will be formally adopted in the coming days.

The European Commission has consistently said EU food safety rules would continue to apply to agricultural products imported from Latin America after the deal enters into force.

Commission’s spokesperson Eva Hrncirova confirmed to Euronews that from 3 September Brazil will no longer be able export to the EU commodities such as bovine, equine, poultry, eggs, aquaculture, honey and casings.

“Trade agreements do not change our rules,” Hrncirova said, adding: “The Commission establishes the Union’s mandatory sanitary and phytosanitary standards, and both our farmers and exporters from third countries have to comply with them.”

Brussels has also negotiated safeguards aimed at protecting EU farmers, including mechanisms to monitor potential market disruption from a surge in imports from Mercosur countries. Quotas were also introduced for sensitive products, including poultry and meat.

Once compliance with the safety rules is demonstrated by Brazil, the EU will be able to resume the imports, and Brazil will be able to benefit from the same tariff relief as the other Mercosur countries.

easyJet passengers are being warned they could face serious consequences if they don’t completely switch off certain electronic devices

Holidaymakers travelling with easyJet this summer are being warned that they could unknowingly fall foul of strict cabin rules unless they fully switch off a commonly used electronic device before stepping on board. The trouble is that many passengers only discover the rule once they’ve already reached the airport or are on the verge of boarding, where last-minute slip-ups could spell serious problems.

According to EasyJet, the warning relates to e-cigarettes and vaping devices, which must be carried in hand luggage only and are strictly forbidden from being stowed in hold baggage under any circumstances. The airline’s official policy states: “All electronic cigarettes and vaping devices must be carried in the cabin, re-charging is strictly prohibited and the device must be completely switched off.”

It also advises passengers to keep their devices on their person where they can be kept an eye on throughout the flight, reducing the risk of accidental activation. These rules are in place due to concerns over lithium-ion batteries, which are used to power vaping devices and are well known for posing a fire risk if they become damaged or overheat.

The UK Civil Aviation Authority categorises lithium batteries as a significant safety risk in aviation due to their potential for ‘thermal runaway’, producing intense heat and flames that are notoriously difficult to extinguish in confined spaces. The International Air Transport Association has highlighted a worldwide rise in lithium battery-related incidents, which has gone hand in hand with the increasing prevalence of portable electronic devices, prompting airlines across the globe to tighten their rules considerably.

EasyJet also warns that passengers must take precautions to prevent their vaping devices from being switched on accidentally during flights, including ensuring they are fully powered down before boarding. The airline stipulates that travellers may carry no more than two spare batteries in their hand luggage, and that these must be properly protected to prevent them from coming into contact with metal objects.

Under UK aviation rules, vaping devices must be kept in hand luggage at all times. Official government guidance states that e-cigarettes are strictly prohibited from hold baggage.

Industry experts point out that confusion often arises because rules can vary between airlines and destinations, which can leave passengers unknowingly packing the wrong items before they even reach airport security. Aviation safety specialists also warn that using or charging vaping devices while on board flights is strictly prohibited by all major airlines, with penalties ranging from confiscation to fines or even travel bans in severe cases.

As summer travel demand picks up, holidaymakers are being urged to check airline regulations before they set off to avoid delays, confiscations, or being refused entry at the boarding gate.