blame

Oct. 31 (UPI) — An upscale London real estate firm has apologized for failing to apply for local authority approval for Chancellor Rachel Reeves to rent out her familiy home in South London after offering to take care of it.

Gareth Martin, owner of Harvey & Wheeler, based in South London’s exclusive Dulwich Village, said Thursday that the firm’s then-property manager had promised to obtain the $1,250 “selective” permit required from Southwark Council, but the application was never submitted.

“We deeply regret the issue caused to our clients as they would have been under the impression that a license had been applied for,” said Martin.

Martin said the manager unexpectedly quit the firm just days before the house was leased and nobody else in the office picked up on the fact the application to register the property as a rental remained outstanding.

He stressed the firm did not normally deal with the permits as compliance with housing codes was the responsibility of homeowners but the offer was made in this case in order to be helpful.

The mix-up led to Reeves having to issue a written apology to Prime Minister Keir Starmer amid calls from opposition lawmakers for her to be investigated or fired over the infringement for which the borough could impose an unlimited fine on Reeves or Harvey & Wheeler.

Southwark Council said it would not be taking action against either party, explaining that it usually sent a notice to landlords reminding them they are required to apply for a change of use and that it only resorted to prosecution as a last resort.

However, Reeves was still facing questions over the issue Friday because in her apology letter to Starmer she said had not been aware a permit was necessary.

Hours later, she was forced to issue a clarification, writing in a second letter to Starmer, that Harvey & Wheeler had informed her husband a license would be required, but that they would deal with the application. Reeves said she took full responsibility for the oversight.

Starmer has staunchly backed Reeves, saying Sir Laurie Magnus, his independent adviser on ethics, had ruled that it was an inadvertent oversight and that she had not broken the ministerial code.

Presented with the emails between Harvey & Wheeler and Reeves’ husband when consulted for a second time late Thursday, Magnus’ advice remained that he found “no evidence of bad faith.”

Magnus was appointed to the role by the previous Conservative administration of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

Starmer offered only a mild rebuke of Reeves, who is set to deliver a watershed budget for the government in less than a month, in which she will lay out how she plans to plug a fiscal hole of as much as $40 billion and boost lackluster economic growth.

“Clearly it would have been better if you and your husband had conducted a full trawl through all email correspondence with the estate agency before writing to me yesterday,” he wrote, but said he accepted it was a mistake and that no further action was necessary.

However, Reeves’ defense that she did not know she needed to get a permit has also come under scrutiny because in recent days she posted on social media praising the regulations and saying they should be adopted more widely.

In a series of posts on X on Oct. 20, she hailed a city hall decision in the district in northern England she represents to extend the licensing scheme for private landlords to more areas.

“I welcome Leeds City Council’s decision to expand their selective landlord licencing policy to include the Armley area. While many private landlords operate in the right way, we know that lots of private tenants in Armley face problems with poorly maintained housing,” she wrote.

Opposition Conservative Party Leader Kemi Badenoch said Labour had been mired in a series of scandals but there should now be a formal investigation by the ethics adviser, saying she would accept the outcome whatever was conclude

“She is the Chancellor,” she told the House of Commons on Thursday.

“This is an offense that she is supposed to have committed as Chancellor, a criminal offense, and maybe it is the letting agent’s fault. But isn’t it funny with Labour, it’s always somebody else’s fault. Always. It’s never their own fault,” said Badenoch.

Reeves put the family home on the market for $4,265 a month in July 2024 after becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer when Labour won a landlside general election victory.

The position comes with a residence in Downing Street, at no. 11, next to the prime minister’s.

Welcome back to the Times of Troy newsletter, where after one last rain-soaked showdown in South Bend, we pour one out for one of the great rivalries in the history of college football. After a century of meeting on the football field, USC and Notre Dame are not currently scheduled to meet again. This, by all accounts, is a terrible shame.

Outside of L.A., the college football world has placed the blame for the rivalry’s demise squarely on USC’s shoulders. Notre Dame made sure that was the case when its athletic director, Pete Bevacqua, ran to Sports Illustrated last spring, immediately after USC made an offer to renew the series for one year.

As PR moves go, it was a smart one: By firing the first missive, Bevacqua knew that Notre Dame could shape the narrative around negotiations. And ever since, as Bevacqua hoped, Notre Dame has been cast by much of the national media as valiantly attempting to save the rivalry at any cost, while USC looks like its running scared away from it.

Which is really quite ironic, if you know the recent history of how Notre Dame has handled its rivalries.

Thirteen years ago, minutes before the two schools were set to face off in South Bend, former Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick famously handed then-Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon a letter as notice that Notre Dame intended to cancel the remainder of their rivalry series. It was as passive aggressive as scheduling changes get. Brandon didn’t even read the letter until after the game.

These two teams went way back, before USC even first fielded a football team. The two Midwest rivals first faced off back in 1887, when Michigan literally taught Notre Dame how to play football. (Not kidding.) Not to mention it was actually a Detroit Free Press columnist who first called Notre Dame the “Fighting Irish.” (Imagine the royalties!)

But in 2012, Notre Dame declared without any further conversation that it was backing out of the game. The reason? As part of its move to the Atlantic Coast Conference in every other sport, the Irish football program agreed to play five games against ACC schools every year.

No one at Notre Dame seemed all that concerned about history and tradition then. Swarbrick, at the time, called canceling the series “a necessary precaution,” given the future uncertainty surrounding its schedule.

Sound familiar?

Except, in this case, Notre Dame kept Purdue on its future schedule. And Michigan State. It chose to maintain its series with Navy, which had beaten the Irish just three times in the previous half-century, as well as Stanford. I wonder why.

Months later, then-Michigan coach Brady Hoke told a crowd at a booster luncheon that Notre Dame was “chickening out” of the rivalry. And he was right.

A dozen years later, Notre Dame is floating the same accusations about USC.

Except, in this case, USC has made efforts to maintain the series after moving to a much less flexible and more difficult schedule in the Big Ten. It has tried to keep the game going despite being locked into nine conference games — and with far less incentive to add strong non-conference opponents than there was in 2012. USC even amended its initial offer to extend the rivalry for multiple years, instead of just one, as a compromise.

Look, USC isn’t blameless in all of this. But no one seems to have acknowledged yet that Notre Dame hasn’t exactly helped negotiations along. It doesn’t want to move the game from October or November to September, as USC has asked — not because of tradition, as has been suggested, but purely because it’s much more convenient to Notre Dame to keep USC later in the season, when no other top programs want a team such as Notre Dame smack dab in the middle of its conference slate.

Who cares about the tradition of when the game is played, if the other option is it’s not played at all? If the Irish are so concerned about maintaining the USC rivalry, why didn’t they insist that Clemson — a team it has much less history with — play their newly signed 12-season series in mid-October?

Because Notre Dame is used to dictating the terms of engagement and getting its way. It has the flexibility of being without a conference. And it also knows it has the narrative firmly on its side. So why bother budging when the pitchforks are already pointed toward USC?

I don’t expect that to change any time soon, even as both athletic directors say they’re “optimistic” an agreement can be reached. Not unless USC is ready to capitulate. Until then, the public pressure will remain on the Trojans alone, while Notre Dame points across the bargaining table and cries chicken. Irony, be damned.

Yes … technically.

If USC wins each of its next five games to finish 10-2, you can count on the Trojans being in the 12-team field. But anything less than that, and they’re going to have a tough time making a case.

Let’s say USC only loses on the road to No. 6 Oregon from this point on. That would put the Trojans at 9-3, with just two Big Ten losses — and three overall. That’s a good season! But no team with three losses has ever made it into the Playoff, and while there’s a legitimate argument that this year will be the first, USC presumably wouldn’t have enough marquee wins to move the needle with the committee.

Michigan is currently USC’s only win over a team above .500. Nebraska, Iowa and Northwestern are all 5-2, but only one of the three has a top 25 win this season — the Huskers won their opener against No. 21 Cincinnati. The toughest test left aside from Oregon could very well be UCLA, which has won three in a row after starting 0-4.

Perhaps there’s a world where USC, with one conference loss, could end up in the Big Ten title game. But in addition to beating the Ducks, that would also require moving past either Ohio State or Indiana, neither of which have looked particularly vulnerable of late.

However you try to spin it, getting USC into the Playoff requires serious finesse. By losing to Notre Dame, the Trojans closed off the easiest path to a postseason run.

More than likely, USC’s hopes now hinge on running the table. But nothing I’ve seen recently suggests that’s a likely option. Instead, with each passing week, my 8-4 prediction is feeling just about right.

Jayden Maiava throws a pass under pressure in the second quarter against Notre Dame.

(Justin Casterline / Getty Images)

—Stop asking if Lincoln Riley is going to give up playcalling. It ain’t happening. It wasn’t that long ago that Riley’s playcalling was the main reason for his historic rise through the coaching ranks. That felt like ancient history on Saturday night, as Riley dialed up a failed trick play to star wideout Makai Lemon that ended in a game-altering fumble. Riley admitted after the game that it was “a stupid call,” which is the closest he’s come to accountability in that department. He added later that his two failed fourth-and-short calls weren’t very good either. “I’ve gotta be way better for our guys,” he said after. It’s good that he recognizes his shortcomings in this situation, but how we’ve gotten to this point, with Riley’s playcalling having a clear negative affect, I can’t quite explain. Riley has had impressive moments calling plays this season, which are easy to forget after such a bad performance. But the fact that he seems to be at his worst in the biggest moments is not the best sign for turning things around in the future. All that said, it would presumably take an intervention from one of his bosses to hand off those duties to Luke Huard. The ego hit would simply be too significant for Riley to initiate that change otherwise.

—USC struggled to protect Jayden Maiava, and it paid the price. The Trojans’ front allowed a season-high 17 pressures to Notre Dame, and Maiava completed a meager 31% of his passes and threw both of his interceptions when under pressure Saturday. The good news is that reinforcements are on the way. Starting left tackle Elijah Paige dressed for Saturday’s game, but was only available in case of emergency. Center Kilian O’Connor, meanwhile, was surprisingly listed as questionable against Notre Dame. Both should be good to go when USC takes on Nebraska in two weeks.

—USC has lost 11 straight on the road to top 25 teams, six of which came under Riley. The last win USC had against a ranked opponent on the road came in November … of 2016! And USC’s last chance this season to rectify this terrible streak will likely be in Eugene next month — a game the Trojans are, as of now, unlikely to win. That means we’re staring down the barrel of an entire decade without a win over a ranked team on the road, which is totally unacceptable for a team that sees itself as a blue blood of college football.

—After having zero rim protection a year ago, USC might have one of the best rim protectors in the Big Ten this season. Just take a look at the statline for new 7-foot-5 center Gabe Dynes from USC’s exhibition against Loyola Marymount. Dynes had six blocks, three of which came in his first 10 minutes of the game. Dynes also had nine points, eight rebounds and even three assists, as the USC took care of business in a 60-51 win. The Trojans shot just 33%, but showed that their defense can be a strength by holding Loyola Marymount to just 28% from the field. Dynes will be an important part of that equation and if he can contribute on offense, well … the sky could be the limit for the 7-footer.

Olympic sports spotlight

After losing four of six to start its Big Ten slate, USC’s women’s volleyball team bounced back in a big way over the past weekend, winning two critical matches on the road. The highlight of the weekend was a 3-1 win over No. 9 Wisconsin, USC’s best win yet of this season.

Redshirt freshman outside hitter London Wijay had a career performance in the win over Wisconsin, tying a career-high with 24 kills, while freshman libero Taylor Deckert tallied back-to-back 20-dig performances over the weekend. USC also handled Iowa in four sets, to bring its Big Ten record to 4-4 on the season.

In case you missed it

USC’s College Football Playoff hopes take a big hit in rain-soaked loss to Notre Dame

King and Kaylon Miller always believed they could rise from USC walk-ons to key roles

Depleted USC fined by Big Ten for playing running back listed ‘out’ on injury report

What I’m watching this week

Jason Bateman as Vince, Jude Law as Jake in “Black Rabbit.”

(Courtesy of Netflix)

The last time Jason Bateman got in with the wrong crowd on a Netflix show, one of the best shows of the last decade was born. I didn’t want to place “Ozark”-level expectations on “Black Rabbit,” Bateman’s new show on Netflix with Jude Law, but after watching the first two episodes, I can say with confidence that it’s off to just as strong of a start.

Law stars as a New York restaurateur whose life is upended when his estranged brother, played by Bateman, suddenly comes back into his life and drags him unwillingly into New York’s criminal underworld. The show’s tone is about as tense as it gets — think “The Bear” meets “Uncut Gems” — but if you’re in the mood for a thrill ride, then this show is worth your time.

Until next time …

That concludes today’s newsletter. If you have any feedback, ideas for improvement or things you’d like to see, email me at [email protected], and follow me on X at @Ryan_Kartje. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.

When federal prosecutors arrested a man Wednesday for setting a small fire that reignited days later into the deadly Palisades blaze, they suggested the arrest largely settled the matter of blame.

“A single person’s recklessness caused one of the worst fires Los Angeles has ever seen,” Bill Essayli, acting United States attorney for Central California, said as he announced the arrest of Jonathan Rinderknecht, a 29-year-old Uber driver.

But the new details they offered about the cause of the fire only added to residents’ anger and dismay about how city officials handled the fire that killed 12 people and destroyed more than 6,700 structures across Pacific Palisades and Malibu. It also renewed calls for City Hall to be held accountable.

The Santa Ynez Reservoir in Pacific Palisades was going through maintenance and empty during the Palisades fire. Photographed on Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2025.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

Until this week, the focus of Palisades residents has been on a reservoir that was supposed to be a key source of water for the neighborhood being dry and other issues related to the fire response. But federal investigators concluded Wednesday that L.A. firefighters thought they had put out the small fire Rinderknecht allegedly set Jan. 1 only for it to smolder and burn underground and then rekindle in heavy winds Jan. 7.

This latest revelation is fueling debate over whether the city of L.A. or the state of California can be found civilly liable for its role in the fire.

Already, a flurry of complaints have been filed over the last 10 months accusing various L.A and California officials of failing to prepare for and respond to the fire.

Most legal experts agree that cases against government entities are tough because California law gives public officials broad immunity from failing to provide fire protection. Some argue that a criminal case against Rinderknecht could ultimately hurt residents’ civil complaints.

“Now those civil cases are dead in the water, because you have an arsonist,” said Neama Rahmani, president of the L.A.-based law firm West Coast Trial Lawyers, which is handling Eaton fire cases against Edison.

“That ultimately means that the already weak civil cases against the government became even weaker,” he said, “because now you have the person who’s really at fault for all this.”

EPA crews comb the ruins for hazardous material at a home on Miami Way, that was burned in the Palisades Fire, Thursday, February 6, 2025.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

But lawyers suing the government on behalf of Pacific Palisades residents disagree, and maintain that Rinderknecht’s arrest does not undermine their case.

Just hours after federal law enforcement officials announced Rinderknecht’s arrest, attorneys representing thousands of Palisades fire victims filed a new master complaint against the city of L.A. and the state of California, plus about a dozen new defendants, including Southern California Edison, Charter Communications and AT&T.

“We never allege that the state or the city started the Palisades fire,” said Alexander “Trey” Robertson, an attorney representing 3,300 Palisades fire victims. Rather, he said, their case against the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the California Department of Parks and Recreation hinged on the lack of preparations in advance of the fire and the response after the fire started. “That has nothing to do with what started the Lachman fire,” he said. “It is what transpired after that fact.”

The 198-page complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, was not a response to Rinderknecht’s arrest or the new details provided by federal prosecutors. Wednesday just happened to be the deadline a judge set for lawyers to file an omnibus complaint on behalf of 10,000 residents and business owners.

Robertson noted that his complaint did not include the Los Angeles Fire Department: California government code gives it broad immunity against claims of negligent firefighting.

But Robertson argued that the LADWP is liable, because the draining of the Santa Ynez reservoir resulted in fire hydrants running dry and their energized power lines came down on homes and vegetation that ignited additional fires. And the state of California is also liable, he said, because it did not inspect its land in the days between the Lachman and Palisades fires to ensure that no smoldering embers or residual heat remained that could reignite during the predicted Santa Ana wind event.

Robertson said there is case law that holds that a public entity is liable for a “dangerous condition” allowed to exist on its property that causes a fire.

“We allege that the embers from the Lachman Fire which the state allowed to burn for six days on its land (Topanga State Park) constituted a ‘dangerous condition of public property.’ This claim is expressly authorized by statute and not barred by the immunity statutes.”

Rahmani, whose law firm is handling cases against Edison in the Eaton fire, said that would be a very tough ‘dangerous condition’ case.

“What was the dangerous condition here that caused this fire?” he asked. “You’re saying the state has a legal duty. Think of all the hundreds of thousands of square miles of state parks in California to inspect the land. I don’t think any judge would say that there’s a legal duty to inspect forest land for smoldering fire.”

David Levine, a professor of law at UC San Francisco, said Wednesday’s arrest ultimately didn’t seem to change the limited liability public officials have in a fire through government immunity.

“It would be hard to prove liability on that because they’re going to have so much protection due to immunity,” Levine said. “Because these are public entities, they’re not going to be liable for punitive damages.”

Still, Levine said, plaintiff lawyers’ could try to thread the needle by using a ‘dangerous condition’ exception. “The statutes allow for that kind of a claim, but you have to prove it,” he said. “That’s a factual matter that would have to be developed.”

Rahmani said he always thought the cases against government entities in the Palisades fire were weak because California statute gives officials broad immunity from failing to provide fire protection.

“I personally feel that they’re leading people on, giving them hope that does not exist,” Rahmani said.

The emergence of a criminal suspect in the Palisades fire further hindered attorneys’ case, Rahmani said, because judges and juries tend to put all the fault on the criminal, even if there was a claim for negligence. “Because you have an intentional criminal act,” he said, “liability would have to be apportioned between the bad actors.”

Jurors, he said, already tended to be reluctant to put a lot of liability on government defendants. “They’re thinking, ‘Hey, my taxes are gonna go up, who’s gonna pay for all this?’.. That’s why it’s very hard to get massive verdicts against government entities.”

Asked about potential liability for the state or other jurisdictions in the Palisades fire resulting from the reignition of an earlier fire, California Gov. Newsom said, “We will look at the facts and judge on the basis of those facts.”

“When it comes to the issue of fire liability, I know a thing or two, going back to Paradise…” Newsom added. “This is done without political interference. The facts need to be pursued.”

Some lawyers expect that claims will be filed against Uber, Rinderknecht’s employer.

“Obviously, Uber is going to fight that,” Rahmani said. “In terms of someone to go after, Uber seems to me to be the only entity, and that’s gonna be a tough argument.”

Legal experts appear to agree on one thing: Even if Rinderknecht is convicted, he cannot possibly compensate the thousands of residents in the affluent coastal neighborhood of Pacific Palisades who lost loved ones and homes.

“I’ll assume he’s not an heir of Elon Musk or Estee Lauder,” Levine said. “The private and public loss is so vast here. Whatever assets this guy has, I would say, wouldn’t even qualify as a drop in the bucket.”

“Criminal justice — having someone be held accountable — is important,” Rahmani said. “But obviously, as far as money in the bank, it’s not going to be helpful.”

If an arsonist was found responsible in the Eaton fire, Rahmani said, that would have a huge impact on legal claims.

“That would be a home run for Edison,” Rahmani said. “That would save them and the California Fire fund billions of dollars, because then they wouldn’t be a fault. It wouldn’t be their tower. It wouldn’t be the electrical fire. This sort of arson with an accelerant, it would completely change the game, and the value of those claims would go to almost nothing.”

Times Staff Writer Daniel Miller contributed to this report

About two months ago, my cousin Guillermo happily ventured from picturesque Cuernavaca, Mexico, to 95-degree Southern California.

He took his wife and two young kids to Disneyland, Universal Studios, the zoo, the beach and a Dodger game over a week span and then gleefully returned home. He spent about $6,000 for what he hoped was a lifetime of stories and memories.

His actions were pretty normal for a tourist though his timing was not.

Tourism to Los Angeles and California, in general, has been down this summer, representing a blow to one of the state’s biggest industries.

Theories as to why people aren’t visiting were explored this past week by my colleague Cerys Davis.

Davis spoke with experts and provided the scoop. Let’s take a look at what she wrote.

What the numbers say

International tourist arrivals to the state fell by 8% in the three months through August, according to data released Monday from Visit California. That is more than 170,000 fewer global tourists than last year. This is critical because international tourists spend up to eight times more per visit than domestic tourists.

Of all the state’s international travelers, arrivals from Canada fell the most (32%) in the three summer months.

Empty landmarks

On Hollywood Boulevard, there are fewer tourists, and the ones who show up are spending less, said Salim Osman, who works for Ride Like A Star, an exotic car company that rents to visitors looking to take a luxury vehicle for a spin and snap the quintessential L.A. selfie.

This summer, he said foot traffic dropped by nearly 50%.

“It used to be shoulder to shoulder out here,” he said, looking along the boulevard, normally teeming with tourists.

Business has been slow around the TCL Chinese Theatre, where visitors place their hands into the concrete hand prints of celebrities like Kristen Stewart and Denzel Washington.

There were fewer people to hop onto sightseeing buses, check out Madame Tussauds wax museum and snap impromptu photos with patrolling characters such as Spider-Man and Mickey Mouse. Souvenir shop operators nearby say they have also had to increase the prices of many of their memorabilia because of tariffs and a decline in sales.

Many of the state’s most prominent attractions are also experiencing dry spells. Yosemite National Park reported a decrease of up to 50% in bookings ahead of Memorial Day weekend.

Theories as to what’s keeping tourists away

The region’s economy and image suffered significant setbacks this year.

Shocking images of the destructive Eaton and Palisades fires in January, followed by the immigration crackdown in June, made global news and repelled visitors like friends of Australian tourists Geoffrey and Tennille Mutton, who didn’t accompany the couple to California this summer.

“A lot of people have had a changed view of America,” Geoffrey said as his family enjoyed Ben & Jerry’s ice cream outside of Hollywood’s Dolby Theatre. “They don’t want to come here and support this place.”

Meanwhile, President Trump’s tariff policies and other geopolitical posturing have convinced many international tourists to avoid America, particularly Canadians, said Palm Springs Mayor Ron deHarte.

“We’ve hurt our Canadian friends with actions that the administration has taken. It’s understandable,” he said. “We don’t know how long they won’t want to travel to the states, but we’re hopeful that it is short-term.”

President Trump’s talk of making Canada the 51st state and his decision to hit Canada with tariffs have not endeared him to Canadian travelers. Meanwhile, media overseas have been bombarded with stories of capricious denials and detentions at U.S. border crossings.

Visitors from China, India, Germany and Australia also avoided the state, according to the latest data. That has resulted in a dip in traffic at most Los Angeles area airports. Cynthia Guidry, director of Long Beach Airport, said reduced airline schedules, economic pressures and rising costs also hurt airport traffic.

Viva Mexico (tourists)!

Despite the southern border lockdown and the widespread immigration raids, Mexicans were a surprising exception to the tourism slump. Arrivals from our southern neighbor were up about 5% over the last three months from 2024.

I asked my cousin, Guillermo, about his travel motivations.

He noted his desire to see family but also to visit many of Southern California’s jewels. He added that planning for this trip started a year earlier too.

Asked if he’d reconsider visiting California in the future, he delivered a timeless response.

“If there’s a deal, I’ll go.”

For more, check out the full story here.

The week’s biggest stories

(Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times)

Explosion at Chevron’s El Segundo Refinery

Crimes, courts and policing

Media and tech news

Entertainment news

Unexpected deaths

More big stories

This week’s must-reads

More great reads

For your weekend

(Stephanie Breijo / Los Angeles Times)

Going out

Staying in

Have a great weekend, from the Essential California team

Jim Rainey, staff writer
Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor
Andrew J. Campa, reporter
Hugo Martín, assistant editor
Karim Doumar, head of newsletters
Diamy Wang, homepage intern
Izzy Nunes, audience intern

How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to [email protected]. Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on latimes.com.

Oct. 1 (UPI) — The U.S. government shut down at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday after the Trump administration and Democrats failed to agree on a funding resolution, trigging a blame game and creating uncertainty over the future of federal programs and employees.

Over Tuesday, both sides failed to pass legislation to keep the government open — a stalemate the product of Republicans trying to pass a funding resolution that holds spending flat for the rest of the year, while Democrats are adamant that the resolution protect and expand medical coverage for millions of Americans who could lose their insurance by the end 2025.

After the deadline passed, each side was quick to blame the other.

“It’s midnight. The Republican shutdown has just begun because Republicans wouldn’t protect America’s healthcare,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Senate minority leader, said in a recorded statement posted to X.

“We are going to keep fighting for the American people.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., in turn, blamed the Democrats.

“Democrats have officially voted to CLOSE the government,” he said on X.

“The only question now: How long will Chuck Schumer let this pain go on — for his own selfish reasons?”

It’s the fourth government shutdown under a President Donald Trump administration, and the first since late 2018, when the government closed for 35 days. The fight was over billions in border-wall funding Trump wanted that the Democrats resisted.

According to a Congressional Budget Office report, some 75,000 federal workers are at risk of furloughed, though the Trump administration has threatened to fire them and slash government programs.

Last week, the Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum threatening mass firings of federal employees if “congressional Democrats” do not agree to the Trump administration’s proposal.

During a press conference in the White House earlier Tuesday as the shutdown loomed, Trump said if the government closes, they could cut programs, the federal budget and benefits.

“The last person who wants it shut down is us. Now, with that being said, we can do things during the shutdown that are irreversible, that are bad for them and irreversible by them, like cutting vast numbers of people out, cutting things that they like, cutting programs that they like,” Trump said.

“So, they’re taking a big risk by having a shutdown.”

The threat of mass firings was swiftly met Tuesday by a lawsuit from federal worker unions, challenging it as an unlawful abuse of power designed to punish workers and pressure Democrats.

“Announcing plans to fire potentially tens of thousands of federal employees simply because Congress and the administration are at odds on funding the government past the end of the fiscal year is not only illegal — it’s immoral and unconscionable, American Federation of Government Employees President Lee Saunders told UPI in an emailed statement.

“If these mass firings take place, the people who keep our skies safe for travel, our food supply secure and our communities protected will lose their jobs.”

Republicans have attempted to frame the Democrats’ healthcare demands as support for undocumented migrants, while Democrats lambasted their GOP counterparts for lying.

“This is a lie,” Schumer said on X in response to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller accusing the Democrats of not supporting the GOP’s spending resolution “because it doesn’t give free healthcare to illegals.”

“Not a single federal dollar goes to providing health insurance for undocumented immigrants. NOT. ONE. PENNY,” Schumer responded to the pair on X.

“Republicans would rather lie and shut down the government down than protect your healthcare.”

Like that one friend who repeatedly promises to quit drinking after just one last round, the American government is staggering toward another shutdown. It’s starting to seem inevitable — because it looks as though neither side is going to swerve in this game of chicken.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate minority leader who somehow manages to perpetually look both tired and smug, can’t afford another political retreat. He’s refusing to give Republicans another blank check, aiming instead to wring out some key concessions in exchange for a few Democratic votes to get a funding bill through the upper chamber.

The problem? President Trump, who runs the show for Republicans, views a shutdown the same way Hans Gruber viewed the FBI in “Die Hard”: as a feature, not a bug. Shuttered agencies and mass firings of federal workers aren’t obstacles; they’re leverage (and sometimes the goal itself).

Schumer can’t back down, and Trump doesn’t want to back down. That’s why the shutdown feels more imminent than the last time we flirted with one, back in March, when Schumer and Democrats folded.

In fairness, their reasoning wasn’t crazy. Trump and Elon Musk were running roughshod with their Department of Government Efficiency, and a shutdown would have only given Republicans more discretion to decide which services (Space Force, a new White House ballroom and, I don’t know, a National Strategic Spray Tan Reserve) were “essential.”

Democrats also had a plausible reason to believe that Trump’s steep “reciprocal” tariffs would wreck the economy. They reasoned that if they just kept their heads down, the president would take all the blame for the crash — a reasonable idea that fell apart when Trump pumped the brakes before careening the economy off a cliff.

Since then, Trump has engaged in a campaign of authoritarian-tinged vengeance at such an impressive pace that the Democrats’ strategy of “playing possum” seems laughably passive and utterly naive — like assuming a hurricane will just get tired and stop.

So now Democrats are thinking, “Well, things can’t get any worse if we fight back.”

(Spoiler alert: Things can always get worse.)

Still, you can’t blame Dems for drawing a line in the sand, consequences be damned. Blocking government funding is one of the only mechanisms at the disposal of a minority party to demonstrate their opposition. Moral outrage and pride practically demand it.

Why help bankroll a government led by a man who doesn’t negotiate in good faith and seems intent on bulldozing democracy itself?

Why be complicit in normalizing — and funding! — Trump’s abnormal behavior?

Unfortunately, most voters don’t care about democracy in the abstract, and even fewer care about the inner workings of Congress. They care about kitchen-table issues.

So Democrats are trying to marry their righteous fury with something more practical and concrete — casting the shutdown as a battle to extend Obamacare subsidies and undo GOP Medicaid cuts.

If you’re keeping score, the opposition party is now trying to portray this looming shutdown as being about multiple things. And anyone who’s ever cracked a marketing textbook knows, that’s a fraught strategy. Dare I say “doomed”? If you can’t stay on one message, your opponent will control the narrative — meaning Republicans will blame the fallout on obstructionist Democrats.

Republicans have a simpler pitch that could almost fit on a bumper sticker: “We just want to keep things funded at the current level, plus toss in a little extra security for lawmakers.”

Which message will prevail? Who will take the blame if the government shuts down and Americans are suffering in myriad ways? Democrats say that Republicans control everything, so the buck stops with them. Republicans will say the Senate requires 60 votes and Democrats are withholding support to score political points. It’s not a slam dunk for either party. The American people just want the government to function, and neither side is making that easy.

You really have to squint to imagine a scenario where Dems could honestly declare “mission accomplished” when this is all over. Still, there is a growing sense that it’s better to go down fighting, even if you’re destined to lose (which they might be).

But make no mistake, a shutdown is very likely happening. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives isn’t even set to return to Washington until Wednesday (the day the government could be shuttered).

Meanwhile, Trump abruptly canceled negotiations with Democratic leaders, citing “the unserious and ridiculous demands being made by the Minority Radical Left Democrats.”

The good news: We’re not talking about the debt ceiling or a possible government default; it’s just a government shutdown (something that has happened many times already). Social Security checks will still arrive. Federal workers will eventually get paid. Parks will close. Life will stagger on.

And so, barring some deus ex machina, we slouch toward another shutdown: a bureaucratic farce that everyone can see coming a mile away. It accomplishes nothing productive, yet feels destined to happen — like the “Austin Powers” slow-motion steamroller gag, except stretched out over weeks, costing billions of dollars and hurting millions of lives.

We’ve seen this movie before. We’re the ones being flattened.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

MILLIONS of households are facing a £100 rise in their energy bills next year due to the Government’s net zero policies, according to new analysis.

Energy analysts Cornwall Insight said changes being made to push the country towards net zero will fuel a rise in energy bills for the average household.

1

It predicted the changes will add more than £100 to the energy price cap in April 2026 compared with January.

The energy price cap is the maximum amount energy suppliers can charge you for each unit of energy and standing charge, and it’s updated every three months.

Cornwall Insight said bills will increase for households because of the cost of connecting new wind and solar farms, the construction of the Sizewell C nuclear power station, and upgrades to the gas networks.

It also suggested further rises will follow later because of the construction of pylon lines, underground cables and substations.

It means households are likely to be paying more for their energy at a time when inflation remains high and many are struggling with the cost of living.

The UK has legally committed to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

This means the total amount of emissions produced is equal to or less than the amount removed from the atmosphere. 

But the Government is having to balance this with extra costs to households up and down the country.

Ahead of the election, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband had pledged to cut household energy bills by £300 by 2030.

He repeated that promise again last month.

Cornwall Insight’s Dr Craig Lowrey said investing in renewables would eventually reduce bills and it was necessary in the long run.

But he said: “Rising energy bills are never welcome, and this latest view of transmission charges – although only indicative – will add yet another cost to the long list of pressures on household finances.”

The average energy bill for a dual-fuel home is currently £1,720 per year.

However the energy price cap is set to rise at the beginning of October, bringing it to £1,755.

Yet another rise is expected in January because of seasonal increases in wholesale costs.

The £100 bill increase predicted by Cornwall Insight is unrelated to the wholesale cost of gas.

The experts say it’s due to the cost of maintaining and expanding the UK’s power grid.

It said electricity network costs alone would add £30 a year, and this will rise to £50 a year by 2028.

Meanwhile green levies will add another £18, including £12 of advance payments for building Sizewell C.

Upgrading the gas network, which is partly needed to accommodate the introduction of green hydrogen, will add another £53.

Cornwall Insight said the bill increases were “not totally unexpected but highlight potential further financial pressures than households will face”.

It’s expected households will end up paying higher standing charges.

A standing charge is a fixed daily fee added to your energy bill, charged by your supplier regardless of how much energy you use.

Increasing standing charges is controversial as households aren’t able to avoid paying them.

While you could bring down your energy bills by cutting down on how much energy you use, there isn’t a way of reducing the cost of a standing charge.

This can leave struggling households forced to pay extra.

Ofgem has said households will later feel the benefit of an expanded electricity network through their bills, but this will take time.

Dr Lowrey said: “These costs are not just another item to tag onto the bill, they are essential to the long-term security and affordability of Great Britain’s energy system.

“For years, households have been at the mercy of global energy markets, with prices soaring and crashing in response to events happening thousands of miles away. It’s unpredictable, and it’s ultimately unsustainable.

“Investing in Britain’s transmission network means building a cleaner, more resilient energy system – one powered by renewables grown right here at home. Yes, it will take time. Yes, it will cost money. But every pound we invest today is a step toward a future where our energy is not only greener, but also more secure and, in time, more affordable.

“People rightly expect renewables to bring bills down, and they will. But first, we need to lay the foundations. There are a lot of costs involved in the transition, but the costs of doing nothing will be far greater.”

Help with energy bills

If you are struggling with your energy bill then there is plenty of support on offer.

For example, the Winter Fuel Allowance offers £300 to pensioners to help cover the cost of their heating during colder months.

Around 75% of pensioners are expected to receive the support this year, after Labour U-turned on the tighter eligibility criteria it announced last winter.

Struggling families can also get access to money through the Household Support Fund (HSF).

Each council in England has been allocated a share of the £742million fund and can distribute it to residents in need.

Exactly how much you can get and how the money will be paid depends on your council and situation.

Plus, thousands of households will receive the Warm Home Discount, which is worth £150.

The discount is given to households on a low-income or claiming certain benefits, such as Universal Credit.

It is not paid as cash and is instead applied as credit to your energy bill.

If you are falling behind on your energy bill then you can also get help through your energy supplier.

British Gas has announced a £140million support package to help customers facing financial hardship.

This includes free energy grants, tailored support for households and small business customers and funding for advice centres and charities.

It has also launched You Pay: We Pay, which gives households the opportunity to have their payments matched by British Gas for a period of six months.

Octopus Energy’s £30million Octo Assist fund is designed to help customers keep on top of their energy bills.

It includes free electric blankets, Winter Fuel Payments and standing charge waivers.

EDF’s Customer Support Fund gives grants and help to vulnerable customers who are struggling with energy debt.

It can support customers with electricity or gas bill debts, and provide essential white goods such as a fridge or cooker.

HARD as it is to accept, if the prime McCann suspect disappears after his release from prison he’ll take all hope of solving the Maddie case with him. And I know who is to blame.

Prime suspect Christian Brueckner, 49, was given a meagre seven years behind bars for tying up, torturing and raping a pensioner in 2005, in Praia da Luz – the same village Maddie disappeared from two years later, but has now been released.

10

10

10

When he was sentenced in 2019 – after witnesses and DNA tied him to the dreadful attack – he was already a multi-convicted paedophile targeting girls as young as five and with a known obsession for brutal sexual attacks, which he privately fantasised over.

But thanks to Germany’s soft-touch justice system, he has now walked free from prison despite warnings he could reoffend, serving the same sentence a violent burglar would have faced in Britain.

And was his time behind bars tough? One lag told The Sun that JVA Sehnde prison – where Brueckner was caged – is “like Starbucks,” full of friendly staff, abundant coffee and individual TVs and electrical goods provided for every inmate.

The harsh reality is that the paltry sentence Brueckner was handed by a judge is not out of the ordinary in Germany.

Critics have described the justice system as so farcical that it has become “accommodating” to criminals and “a blessing” to violent crooks and sex attackers.

In fact, you can look no further than ten miles from the prison where McCann suspect Brueckner was housed.

In Hanover, a man dubbed “The Maschsee Murderer” isn’t hiding or scraping by after his awful crime – he is enjoying a thriving social media existence.

In 1997, Alexander K lured a friend to Lake Maschsee, strangled her, dismembered the body and dumped the remains in the water.

The right-wing extremist was sentenced to just 15 years behind bars and was simply released after serving his term, despite the brutality of his crime.

Since then, Alexander has become a TikTok phenomenon with followers fascinated by him arranging dates through apps while he openly talks about his dark past.

He would go on to post pictures and videos of women he enjoyed dinner with, callously wearing T-shirts that read: “I survived a date with the Maschsee Murderer.”

While exploiting such an unforgivable crime is forbidden in the UK, Alexander has capitalised on his past, turning his vile reputation into a source of danger tourism.

Such a clear mockery of victims and the justice system suggests Brueckner could easily disappear without a trace after his release.

Another case close to Brueckner’s former jailhouse in Hanover highlights the uphill battles faced in monitoring offenders – and keeping their victims safe and reassured.

10

10

10

10

Vanessa Münstermann’s life was transformed forever when a jilted ex took revenge by throwing acid in her face – causing her agonising pain and a lifetime of disfigurement.

The 29-year-old beautician lost an eye and an ear after she was attacked while walking her dog – and was forced to undergo surgery for years afterwards to treat her injuries.  

Critics have described the justice system as so farcical it has become ‘accommodating’ to criminals and ‘a blessing’ to violent crooks and sex attackers

A judge at the time described it as “an extreme crime with extreme consequences”.

Yet her former lover is set to be released imminently after just SIX years behind bars.

Panicked Vanessa – worried about retribution – has been trying to get officials to slap him with an electronic tag to monitor his movements and include conditions not to go near her.

Despite fighting for more than two years, there are no signs of success.

Maddie suspect released

German investigators also faced a similar uphill battle before Brueckner’s release, but it appears their calls for the sex offender to be tagged have been granted.

He officially left the high-security prison in Sehnde near Hanover just after 9:15am German time yesterday morning.

The rapist was even given breakfast before being driven away in his lawyer’s black Audi A6.

A chilling image showed Brueckner wearing a red and white striped shirt as he sat in the rear seat with his hand up in the air.

Brueckner has refused to rule out fleeing Germany now that he is free, sparking fears he could slip into a non-extradition country and dodge justice forever – even if a major Maddie breakthrough is found.

Officials have tried all they can to keep track of him, with an electronic tag being mandated and the seizure of his passport.

But investigators still worry Brueckner could flee Germany despite his conditions due to no passport being required to move freely within mainland Europe.

If he crosses the German border, then it’s believed the tag would no longer work, making him untraceable.

But let’s be clear – while the German justice as a whole has allowed Brueckner to walk free, German prosecutors, the courts, and police forces can only work with the laws of their country, which appear to be stacked heavily in Maddie suspect’s favour.

This is the situation justice officials face in Germany.

In the UK, murder attracts an automatic whole-of-life sentence. Judges set a minimum tariff — usually 20–30 years, but it can be longer.

Whole-life terms are possible in the most serious cases, meaning a prisoner will never be released.

In Germany, most killers would expect to be released after just 15 years.

In the UK, violent rapists – such as Christian Brueckner – would expect to be jailed for up to 15 years – or longer if there are aggravating factors.

Post-release monitoring exists in almost every case, making it the rule rather than the exception.

In Germany, rapists can enjoy just two years behind bars, while those with longer sentences of up to ten years are usually released early.

German law offers no way back – no remedy after the case to protect its citizens from such a threat

Terrorists face life behind bars in the UK, but often just 10–15 years in Germany, again with early release after two-thirds of the sentence has been served.

Armed robbers get 10–20 years in the UK, but as little as just five years in Germany.

Britain makes extensive use of probation, electronic tagging, Sexual Harm Prevention Orders, and lifelong licence conditions for high-risk offenders. Breaches can mean immediate recall to prison. 

German authorities face a battle just to fit electronic tags – as shown by Brueckner’s case.

There are fewer conditions upon release – and sometimes none at all – and post-release monitoring can be as little as a weekly phone call, even for society-threatening offenders such as Brueckner.

The judge who handed Brueckner the current soft sentence from which he was yesterday released is the same judge behind his sensational acquittal for rape and sex attacks on children last year.

It’s hard not to question the court’s attitude to that trial last year. It spent years trying to reject the case but was forced to take it on by a higher court and there has been private speculation over the bad blood of being forced to take such an unwanted case.

But experts have told me the judge did exactly her job and followed German law to the letter.

Perhaps her only mistake was failing to slap an order on Brueckner at his 2019 sentence that would have given officials the option to keep him behind bars, given the extraordinary danger he poses to the public.

10

10

The argument for Germany’s preoccupation with individual liberties over society protection is understandable.

The Weimar Republic, which Adolf Hitler hijacked for his own evil ends, used police and courts to design the society it wanted – turning the justice system into a tool of dictatorship, repression and mass murder.

Modern Germany built its constitution to avoid ever again allowing courts or police to be used as instruments of tyranny, enshrining individual rights and strict limits on state power.

That is a situation the wonderful, abundantly reasonable people of Germany never want repeated.

Germany is a brilliant, modern, rich, thriving, forward-thinking democracy – with problems Britain might gladly swap its own battles for.

The people are hardworking, friendly, intelligent – but also funny and laidback in a way that smashes the clichéd image the country has sometimes carried outside its borders.

It’s well recognised here, however, that the cost of all this seems to be a propensity to forgiveness and trust in its offenders.

10

Chelsea manager Enzo Maresca thinks Cole Palmer’s injury is “not random” and is concerned about the lingering effects of winning the Fifa Club World Cup.

The 23-year-old forward has been ruled out of Saturday’s Premier League match at home to Fulham.

Palmer’s injury has been linked to an unprecedented 12-month season where his team played 64 matches, including the expanded Club World Cup tournament in July.

After beating Paris St-Germain in New Jersey on July 13, and having less than two weeks to prepare for the current campaign, Chelsea had their shortest ever gap between seasons. This included the 2019-20 and 2020-21 campaigns, which were impacted by the Covid pandemic.

When asked about Palmer’s absence, Maresca said: “I don’t think that it is random that our three players with the most minutes last year were Levi [Colwill], Cole and Moi [Caicedo].

“Levi is injured, Cole too and Moi today only had his first training session since the West Ham game.

“It is not random, it is the amount of games. Look at [Manchester] City last year, they lost Rodri after two or three games. He was a player that had the most minutes for them.

“We are going to have problems this season for sure because of last season. But It’s about how we can adapt and get players to recover.”

England defender Colwill started 35 of Chelsea’s 38 league matches last season but is expected to be out for the majority of the season after knee surgery.

Meanwhile, Caicedo is now a doubt for the visit of Fulham, having been Chelsea’s only player to start every league match last season.

Palmer, who pulled out of last week’s win at West Ham with a niggle in the warm-up, was also a near ever-present in the previous campaign.

Maresca added: “I have said that with Cole we are much better with him than without him. But if he has some problems we need to give him the right time to recover.

“It doesn’t matter if Estevao [Willian] is there or not, we can’t tell Cole he can relax, we need Cole back at 100%.”

Maresca’s complaints occur within the wider context of global players’ union Fifpro’s legal actions against world football governing body Fifa.

Fifpro president Sergio Marchi claimed Fifa “chose to continue increasing its revenue at the expense of the players’ bodies and health” in July after Chelsea’s 3-0 victory over PSG to end the tournament in the United States.

That came in response to claims by Fifa president Gianni Infantino that he was running “the most successful club competition in the world”.

Indiana Fever star Sophie Cunningham doesn’t believe a dirty play led to her season-ending knee injury, and she wants everyone to stop accusing Connecticut Sun guard Bria Hartley of intentionally hurting her.

That includes Cunningham’s own mother.

Cunningham addressed the matter on an episode of her “Show Me Something” podcast that dropped Tuesday. It’s the same day the Fever announced that Cunningham will miss the remainder of the season after getting injured during Sunday’s game in Connecticut.

Hartley was driving toward the basket during the second quarter when she lost balance and collided with Cunningham on her way to the floor. Cunningham immediately grabbed her right leg in pain and was eventually helped off the court.

The seven-year WNBA veteran told co-host West Wilson that she tore the MCL in her right knee and surgery is scheduled on Friday. She also said that she has no hard feelings toward Hartley and does not blame her for the season-ending injury.

“I know Bria, and I’m actually really good friends with Bria,” Cunningham said. “… There was no ill intent. I think it was basketball play. I was just in the wrong spot at the wrong time. She fell — like there’s no way that she would go in there and potentially try to hurt me. So yeah, I have nothing but love for Bria.”

Among those who have questioned Hartley’s intentions is Cunningham’s mother, Paula, who reportedly wrote on a now-deleted X (formerly Twitter) post that Hartley is a “disgruntled player” who is “plain mean and plays out of control.”

Cunningham said she set her mother straight .

“I was like, ‘No, Mom, I get it, but I promise you, Bria and I are super cool,’” Cunningham said. “‘She would never try to hurt me, because there are some girls that I think might, but she wouldn’t do that.’ So I have nothing but love. And I hope people stop giving Bria some heat, because I don’t think she meant to do that at all.”

Cunningham also addressed a photo, taken by David Butler II for Imagn Images, from immediately after the injury occurred that some think shows Hartley smiling while Cunningham is holding her leg in agony.

“I think that smile, it wasn’t like a — it was like an ‘ooh’, you know, like, one of those,” Cunningham said, making a grimace. “So I’m totally fine” with Hartley.

In June, Cunningham sparked a scuffle between Fever and Sun players when she took down then-Connecticut player Jacy Sheldon, who was making a break toward the basket late in the game with Indiana leading by 17. Sheldon has since been traded to the Washington Mystics. Some have viewed Cunningham’s move as payback after Sheldon poked Fever superstar Caitlin Clark in the eye during a play earlier in the game.

The Fever have struggled with injuries this season. Clark hasn’t played in more than a month because of a groin injury, and guards Sydney Colson (ACL) and Aari McDonald (broken foot) saw their seasons come to a premature end because of injuries during an Aug. 7 game at Phoenix.

Defence Ministry accuses Kurdish-led SDF of injuring four army personnel and three civilians in rocket attack near Manbij.

Syria’s Ministry of Defence has accused the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) of carrying out a rocket attack on a military position in northern Syria, injuring four army personnel and three civilians.

In a statement carried by Syria’s official SANA news agency, the ministry said the military was able to repel the attack in the countryside of the city of Manbij.

“The army forces are working to deal with the sources of fire that targeted the civilian villages near the deployment lines,” the ministry said, adding in a later statement that the military was carrying out “precise strikes”.

But the United States-backed SDF said in a statement that it was responding to “an unprovoked artillery assault targeting civilian-populated areas with more than ten shells” from factions operating within Syrian government ranks.

The statement made no mention of casualties.

The incident comes after the SDF signed a deal in March with Syria’s new interim government to integrate into state institutions.

The SDF has controlled a semi-autonomous region in the northeastern part of the country since 2015, and the deal, if implemented, would bring that territory under the full control of Syria’s central government, led by interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

Al-Sharaa led the lightning rebel offensive that toppled longtime Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in December last year.

Discussions over the integration of the SDF into the Syrian state had been ongoing since the fall of al-Assad, but were hampered by divides fostered over years of civil war.

The deal reached in March did not specify how the SDF would be merged with the Syrian armed forces.

The SDF has previously said its forces must join as a bloc, while Damascus wants them to join as individuals.

“While we reaffirm our commitment to respecting the current de-escalation arrangements, we call on the relevant authorities in the Syrian government to take responsibility and bring the undisciplined factions under their control,” the SDF said in its statement.