claim

In a high-stakes gamble, Wall Street hedge funds are offering to buy claims that insurers may have against Southern California Edison if the utility is found liable for causing the devastating Eaton fire in Altadena.

The solicitations are legal, but have alarmed California state officials — who loathe the idea of investors profiting from a disaster that claimed 18 lives and destroyed more than 9,400 homes and other structures.

“I think everyone in this room looks at a catastrophe, like what happened in Southern California, and our natural instincts are to say, ‘What can we do to help?’” Tom Welsh, the chief executive of the California Earthquake Authority, which manages the state’s wildfire fund, said at a recent public meeting. “There are other actors in the environment who look at that situation in Southern California and ask instead, “What can I do to profit?’”

The investors are aiming to buy so-called subrogation claims from insurance companies. These are claims that insurers would file against Edison seeking reimbursement for the money they paid to their policyholders for fire damages if it’s determined the utility’s equipment triggered the wildfire that began Jan. 7.

For the insurers, selling the claims — even at a steep discount — allows them to get at least some reimbursement for the money they’ve paid out. For the hedge funds buying the claims, it’s a gamble that could pay big if Edison is found liable and they can cash in those claims for much more than they paid.

More than $17 billion in insurance claims for the Eaton and Palisades fires has been paid out so far, according to the California Department of Insurance.

State officials say California has a stake in the trading of fire-related subrogation claims, which was previously reported by Bloomberg, because of the potential effect on the state’s wildfire fund.

That fund, which currently has about $21 billion, would be used to cover most of the costs of damage claims should Edison be found liable for starting the Eaton blaze. While the cause is still under investigation, a leading theory is that a decommissioned transmission line in Eaton Canyon was reenergized and sparked the blaze, Edison has said.

The wildfire fund is managed by a state board called the Catastrophe Response Council. At its last meeting in May, Welsh told the board that solicitations from New York brokers and investment firms began landing in his email inbox in March.

Ronald Ryder at Oppenheimer & Co., a New York investment firm, told Welsh in an email on April 15 that his company was currently trading the subrogation claims. Ryder wrote that there had already been 10 transactions worth more than $1 billion in recovery rights for the Eaton fire as well as the Palisades fire in Pacific Palisades, where the city of Los Angeles faces potential liability.

In another email, Ryder told Welsh that investors were bidding 47 cents on the dollar for the claims related to the Eaton fire. For the Palisades fire, the bidding was 5 cents on the dollar, Ryder wrote.

Welsh warned the council that “speculative investors” might hold onto the Eaton claims and “really try to get outsized profits by demanding settlements from Edison of 75, 80, 85 cents on the dollar.”

If that were to happen, the wildfire fund could pay out “hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars” more than if the claims were settled directly by the insurers, he said.

“That would really, very negatively impact the durability of the wildfire fund,” Welsh said.

Oppenheimer declined to comment, and Ryder didn’t respond to messages.

Under a 2019 state law, the state wildfire fund would be expected to reimburse Edison for most of the insurers’ payments to policyholders if its electrical equipment is found to have started the Eaton fire. The Palisades fire, which occurred in territory serviced by the L.A. Department of Water and Power, isn’t covered by the state fund.

California lawmakers created the wildfire fund in 2019 to protect the state’s three biggest for-profit utilities — Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric — from bankruptcy if their equipment sparks catastrophic wildfires.

The possibility of large settlements paid out by the wildfire fund has led to dozens of lawsuits against Edison, even before the cause of the fire has been determined.

If found responsible for the fire, Edison would negotiate settlements with the insurers, as well as with homeowners and others who have filed lawsuits, saying they’ve been harmed. The utility would then ask the state wildfire fund to cover those amounts.

If the insurers have sold their claims, however, the investors who bought them would reap the returns. Attorneys who handle the complex transactions would also get a cut and “generally take a very high percentage off the top,” Paul Rosenstiel, a catastrophe council member, said at last month’s meeting.

Already, Gov. Gavin Newsom and other state leaders are worried that the $21-billion wildfire fund could be depleted by damage claims from the Eaton fire.

Welsh recounted how a hedge fund had profited in 2019 by buying insurers’ subrogation claims against PG&E after its transmission line was found to have started the 2018 Camp fire that killed 85 people and destroyed much of the town of Paradise. Bloomberg reported at the time that hedge fund Baupost Group made a profit of hundreds of millions of dollars by buying the claims at 35 cents on the dollar and later getting a settlement valued at much more.

To stop hedge funds from profiting on the claims, Welsh said, the earthquake authority is now considering changing its claim administration procedures to make the settlements less lucrative for those investors.

One possible change being discussed, according to authority staff, would require a utility that ignited a wildfire to prioritize settling the claims of victims and insurers who have not sold their subrogation rights before those claims owned by hedge funds.

Looking to win this competition for the first time, Surrey were always on top of Sussex from the moment Will Jacks (43) and Dom Sibley (45) hammered a 52-run opening stand from the opening five overs.

Although the tournament’s third-highest run scorer, Jason Roy was out for a two-ball duck but Sam Curran took up the mantle with 38 before Ollie Sykes provided some late fireworks.

The 20-year-old, playing only his eighth game in this format for Surrey, thrashed four sixes and two fours for a career-best 44 not out.

The target of 211 always looked out of reach for the visitors as the home side’s powerful bowling attack of Reece Topley (3-34) and Tom Curran (2-24) took three early wickets between them to reduce Sussex to 14-3.

Match scorecards

Tom Clark (45) and Danny Lamb (49) offered brief resistance for Sussex, but with Mitchell Santner (3-26) and Chris Jordan (1-35) also among the wickets Surrey’s latest win sends out a clear warning to the rest of the teams in the competition.

Having been the surprise package to win the competition for the first time last year, Gloucestershire have endured a miserable defence so far, losing their opening five matches, but victory at Kent keeps alive their slim hopes of making it out of the South Group.

Once again it was Ajeet Singh Dale who impressed with the ball as he picked up his second successive three-wicket haul (3-24) to help limit Kent to 157-9 after they had chosen to bat.

Fresh from a stunning century against Somerset on Sunday, Daniel Bell-Drummond (3) became one of Singh Dale’s victims and the home side were indebted to Tawanda Muyeye (33), Harry Finch (42) and captain Sam Billings (38) but they could only add 34 runs from their final five overs.

Gloucestershire made the run chase look comfortable by winning with 10 balls to spare but not before the weather caused a brief stoppage.

After hammering a six, D’Arcy Short (33) found the sun shining straight into his eyes and the umpires took the players off the pitch until it had disappeared behind the stands.

The break did not change the direction of the match as Ollie Price (41*) and skipper Jack Taylor (54*) came together to share an unbroken fourth-wicket stand of 98 and finally get off the mark.

BRITISH pubs could rake in a massive £32 million if Trooping the Colour was designated a bank holiday, beer bosses believe.

The British Beer and Pub Association say an extra 6.5 million pints would be pulled, pouring £5.5 million into the Treasury in VAT and £3 million in beer duty.

1

Booze bosses called for the King’s birthday to be marked every year with a three-day weekend.

Emma McClarkin, Chief Executive of the BBPA, said: “This weekend was a celebration of British tradition, nation and community.

“Our pubs are central to that story—bringing people together and boosting the economy.

“A bank holiday would not only honour our heritage but deliver a tangible economic and social dividend as communities come together and raise a glass to Beer Day Britain as well as celebrate everything that is great about Britain.”

She added that ministers should support pubs with a long-term plan that includes a cut to beer duty and fairer business rates.

LOVE Island fans have hit out at the show for setting up a “scripted” scene between the boys on tonight’s show.

The lads headed off to enjoy an evening without the girls and the conversation quickly turned to their pairings.

3

3

3

But the girls weren’t entirely thrilled with what they heard.

Each of the lads took it in turns to discuss their relationship.

Connor said he was “enjoying” Toni’s company despite not being each other’s natural types.

Ben said it was a “long time coming” with Shakira, while Dejon said he “wasn’t expecting to find something so rare so quick” with Meg.

Tommy admitted he and Megan were strong – saying she “ticks every single box” and added: “I’m new to the relationship stuff, but I’m putting in the energy.”

But Harry was keen to stir up some trouble and asked if any of the lads had any worries.

Harry asked Ben if there was anything he should be concerned about when it comes to Shakira.

“With the Blu situation, her not being honest if she’s not feeling it. If it was me and I wasn’t feeling the girl. I made it known, I don’t feel like Shakira does that, she can give mixed signals,” Ben explained.

Tommy admitted all of the girls could have their heads turned.

While Harry said he had concerns when it came to Helena after her threesome confession.

But viewers were quick to claim that the conversation looked like a “set-up” and appeared to be “scripted”.

One wrote: “Well this isn’t scripted at all is it(!).”

A second said: “Ohh the producers doing something different but still scripted a bit cause if you’re told to sit down and discuss the girls you know it’s going to be shown back.”

A third commented: “This show is becoming more and more scripted. Their mannerisms are not natural.”

Another added: “Idk this part seems scripted.”

And the surprises didn’t stop there, as all of a sudden the boys are greeted by not one, not two, but THREE brand new bombshells. 

Emily, Malisha and Yasmin crashed the boys’ night and wasted no time in getting to know the group.

Megan spotted the bombshells and shouted “There’s three of them!”

A stunned Meg added: “You’re joking!”

Harry asksed the new bombshells: “Are you coming back with us?”

Malisha said: “Of course I am!”

Yasmin added to the boys: “Tell us what your situation is in the Villa at the moment?”

They fill them in on their current situations and how they’re feeling, but as they’re blissfully unaware that their every move is being watched, they don’t hold back with their answers.

KYLE WALKER angered Manchester City fans after admitting he would sacrifice one of his Premier League medals to have been part of Tottenham’s Europa League triumph.

The Etihad club captain left Pep Guardiola stunned when he asked for a move away in January — when City were right in the middle of a crisis.

3

3

3

He joined AC Milan on loan but the Italians turned down the option to sign him permanently.

And boss Pep left the 35-year-old right-back out of his Club World Cup squad, meaning he is free to find a new club.

But City fans were angry when Walker revealed on his BBC podcast he would have loved to have been with former club Spurs as they ended their 17-year trophy drought.

Walker has won six Premier League titles at City and was part of their Treble-winning side in 2022-23.

He said: “I’d probably give up one Premier League title, not the first, to have won that Europa League with Tottenham because I know what it means.

“Probably my second — although that was the ‘Four-midables’ [when they won all four domestic trophies].

“It’s hard to give one away but for what that moment meant, to say I was in that Spurs squad that won a trophy.”

City fans slammed Walker, with one saying: “Just ban this guy from the Etihad and get it over and done with. He’s already freely hating us, why protect whatever is left of his relationship with the club.”

JOIN SUN VEGAS: GET £50 BONUS

Another added: “Mental. I could never ever imagine John Stones, Nathan Ake, Samir Nasri, Carlos Tevez ever coming out and saying they would give up even a Community Shield to win a trophy at a former club.”

Tottenham supporters were delighted to see that he still loves the club, as one commented: “Great to hear you say ‘we’ when referring to Spurs.”

A second said: “As a Spurs fan, it was really heartwarming to hear Kyle’s words and his feelings connected to the Europa League final. I was gutted when he left for Man City, but I’ve always been happy seeing him win trophy after trophy.”

Walker — who spent eight years on Tottenham’s books — admitted he was a bag of nerves watching his old club beat Manchester United 1-0 last month.

He added: “It was the first time in a long time I’ve been nervous — and I wasn’t even playing.

“I was there with my iPad and I couldn’t sit and watch it. I was walking up and down my room.

“We reached a lot of finals but against better teams who knew how to win.

“They’ve always been a club that nearly got over the line but not quite. I’m buzzing for them.”

Walker joined City from Spurs in July 2017 and has a year left on his deal.

Turkish giants Fenerbahce are the latest to show an interest in him.

While the ruling does not order Khalil’s immediate release, it does undermine the US government’s case against Khalil.

A federal judge in New Jersey has ruled the administration of United States President Donald Trump cannot use an obscure law to detain Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil for his pro-Palestine advocacy.

The ruling from US District Judge Michael Farbiarz on Wednesday cut to the core of the Trump administration’s justification for deporting Khalil, a permanent US resident. But it came short of ordering Khalil’s immediate release from detention.

Instead, Judge Farbiarz gave the administration until 9:30am local (13:30 GMT) on Friday to appeal. After that point, Khalil would be eligible for release on a $1 bail.

Nevertheless, the judge wrote that the administration was violating Khalil’s right to free speech by detaining and trying to deport him under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. That provision allows the secretary of state to remove foreign nationals who bear “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.

Judge Farbiarz has previously signalled he believes that provision to be unconstitutional, contradicting the right to free speech.

“The petitioner’s career and reputation are being damaged and his speech is being chilled,” Farbiarz wrote on Wednesday. “This adds up to irreparable harm.”

Khalil was arrested on March 8 after immigration agents showed up at his student apartment building at Columbia University in New York City. After his arrest, the State Department revoked his green card. He has since been held at an immigration detention centre in Louisiana.

The administration has accused Khalil, a student protest leader, of anti-Semitism and supporting Hamas, but officials have offered no evidence to support their claims, either publicly or in court files.

Critics have instead argued that the administration is using such claims to silence all forms of pro-Palestine advocacy.

Like other student protesters targeted for deportation, Khalil is challenging his deportation in immigration court, while simultaneously challenging his arrest and detention in federal proceedings.

The latter is called a habeas corpus petition, and it asserts that the Trump administration has violated his civil liberties by unlawfully keeping him behind bars.

While students in the other high-profile cases — including Mohsen Mahdawi, Rumeysa Ozturk and Badar Khan Suri — have all been released from detention as their legal proceedings move forward, a ruling in Khalil’s case has been slower coming.

In April, an immigration judge had ruled that Khalil was deportable based on the State Department’s interpretation of the 1952 law, despite a written letter from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio providing no further evidence for the allegations made against him.

Immigration judges fall under the executive branch of the US government and are generally considered less independent than judges in the judicial branch.

Also that month, immigration authorities denied Khalil’s request for temporary release for his son’s birth.

In the case before the New Jersey federal court, meanwhile, the Trump administration has argued that Khalil was not fully transparent in his green card application, something his lawyers deny. But Judge Farbiarz indicated on Wednesday that it was unusual and “overwhelmingly unlikely” for permanent residents to be detained on such grounds.

There’s a line in Eric Coomer’s defamation lawsuit against Mike Lindell, the MyPillow guy, that strikes me as the perfect description of what happens when influential partisans belch lies about innocent people in these insanely charged political times:

“The real world consequences for the subjects of those lies,” says the lawsuit, “have been devastating.”

Indeed.

Think of Georgia poll workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss, whose lives were destroyed when Rudy Giuliani, once President Trump’s top campaign lawyer, claimed the pair had rigged the 2020 election outcome in their state. Giuliani even invented a blatantly racist story about the women passing drugs to each other at their Fulton County polling place. Trump amplified the claims. The two women received death threats, were loath to leave home even for groceries and had to go into hiding. I will never forget how sad and broken they seemed during their testimony before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Happily, Freeman and Moss won a $148-million settlement from Giuliani, leading the former New York mayor to unsuccessfully sue for bankruptcy in an effort to dodge his obligation. Now stripped of his license to practice law in New York, Giuliani has fallen so far he’s not even a punchline on late night TV anymore.

Just like Freeman and Moss, Coomer, the former director of product strategy and security for Dominion Voting Systems, was subjected to a torrent of false claims about election rigging by Lindell and other right-wing conspiracy theorists and media outlets. Like Freeman and Moss, he was terrorized and driven into hiding.

He left his job, moved to a new location, placed guns around the house he borrowed from a friend, experienced depression and panic attacks, and believes he will not be able to return to his profession.

“People were essentially taking bets on how my brother’s corpse would be found and which nefarious shadow group would be behind his death,” Coomer’s brother told the New York Times in 2021. “He would be executed by the state or he would be found with a falsified suicide note and two gunshots in the back of his head.”

Coomer, like others, became collateral damage in the misbegotten MAGA campaign to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Fox News hosts, including Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro and Lou Dobbs, completely lost their minds, and the company allowed its highest-profile stars to spew lie after lie about the election in general and Dominion Voting Systems in particular, knowing full well (as News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch admitted under oath) that Dominion was blameless and that Joe Biden had won fair and square.

That unsavory chapter ended up costing Fox $787.5 million in a settlement to Dominion, which allowed the right-wing network to avert a trial.

Coomer, who has filed lawsuits against Giuliani and several others who spread lies about him, now gets his day in court against Lindell. The defamation trial, which began Monday, is expected to last through the end of this week. (Coomer settled suits against conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell; Newsmax; One America News Network, or OAN; and an OAN correspondent. His suit against Guiliani is pending.)

The false claims against Coomer were dreamed up by a conservative Colorado podcaster, Joseph Oltmann, who told listeners that he had infiltrated an “Antifa conference call” in which “Eric, the Dominion guy” claimed to have rigged the election against Trump. (Coomer’s defamation suit against Oltmann is also pending.)

“Oltmann,” says Coomer’s lawsuit, “claimed this supposed call happened on some unspecified date months before the election, but that he did not think to take action until after the election was called for President Biden …. Oltmann’s story is inherently implausible.”

Not to mention, outlandish and preposterous.

In his campaign against Coomer, Oltmann posted a photo of the Dominion executive’s home on his social media and urged his followers to “blow this sh— up. Share, put his name everywhere. No rest for this sh—bag … Eric we are watching you.”

Lindell, who seems never to have come across a right-wing conspiracy theory he couldn’t embrace, picked up on Oltmann’s fantasies about Coomer and began spreading them far and wide — in interviews, on his website, in social media, etc.

On his FrankSpeech media platform, Lindell addressed Coomer directly: “You are disgusting and you are treasonous. You are a traitor to the United States of America.” (Classic case of projection, imho.)

Lindell could have settled as so many others have done. Instead, he has chosen to fight on, hawking pillows, sheets and slippers to pay his legal bills as he goes. His attorney said that because he believed what he was saying was true, it’s not defamation. “It’s just words. All Mike Lindell did was talk,” Lindell’s attorney told the jury. “Mike believed that he was telling the truth.”

Before the trial, Lindell stood on the federal courthouse steps in Denver and proclaimed that his only goal in all this was to ban electronic voting machines and replace them with paper ballots.

“If we can get there,” he said, “I would sacrifice everything.”

If Coomer wins his defamation case against Lindell — and I really hope he does — Lindell will have lost a lot and gained very little. First, the case has nothing to do with the validity of voting machines. Second, an estimated 98% of American voters already cast ballots that leave a paper trail because that’s one way voting machines record votes.

But Lindell, like so many of his MAGA compatriots, still won’t let reality stand in the way of Trump’s Big Lie.

@rabcarian.bsky.social Threads: @rabcarian

Coco Gauff of the United States wins her second Grand Slam title beating Aryana Sabalenka of Belarus at the French Open.

Coco Gauff has won the French Open for the first time by defeating top-ranked Aryna Sabalenka 6-7 (5), 6-2, 6-4 in the final.

The second-ranked Gauff came out on top of Saturday’s contest that was full of tension and momentum swings to claim her second major trophy after the 2023 US Open, where she also came from a set down to beat Sabalenka in the final.

It was the first number one vs number two final in Paris since 2013, when Serena Williams defeated Maria Sharapova, and just the second in the last 30 years.

After Sabalenka sent a backhand wide on Gauff’s second match point, the 21-year-old American fell onto her back, covering her face with both hands before resting her forehand on the clay. After greeting Sabalenka at the net, she hugged film director Spike Lee and celebrated with her entourage, three years after she lost her first final at Roland-Garros.

Sabalenka started the deciding set strongly, sticking to her high-risk approach to hold her first service game.

Gauff responded by raising her level, winning a superb rally in the third game that drew loud cheers and applause from the crowd. After an intense exchange of drop shots, Gauff hit a lob that Sabalenka chased down before attempting a shot between her legs — only for Gauff to intercept it at the net and finish with a winner.

Gauff was consistent from the baseline and earned a break point, which she converted when Sabalenka double-faulted, giving her a 2-1 lead. Sabalenka turned towards her box and shouted in frustration, but then regained her composure, breaking back to level the match at 3-3.

She was broken again at love, however, and Gauff then held serve twice to claim the title after a match that lasted 2 hours, 38 minutes.

In the latest twist in the legal saga between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, Lively is dropping two claims against Baldoni of emotional distress.

As if the drama couldn’t get any messier, the accusations continue to fly. Baldoni’s lawyer filed a letter requesting that the judge in the case compel Lively to “identify her medical and mental health care providers” — signing a HIPAA release to open up access to her therapy notes and pertinent medical info, as People reported.

Rather than do so, the letter says, Lively requested to withdraw her claims of emotional distress, but maybe just for now. Baldoni’s attorney Kevin Fritz said the actor wanted to keep the right to re-file those emotional distress claims at a later time — but Lively “can’t have it both ways.”

Lively’s lawyers take another view.

Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb accused Baldoni’s legal counsel of a “press stunt,” saying they are simply “preparing our case for trial by streamlining and focusing it,” as per Deadline’s reporting.

U.S. District Court Judge Lewis J. Liman had this to say on Tuesday: The two parties must decide “whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice” before proceeding further — the claims are either to be dismissed forever or possibly pursued again, but there is no in-between.

Representatives of Baldoni and Lively did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment on Tuesday.

The order comes as the latest event in the lawsuit, with a trial set to begin in March 2026. Lively initially filed a sexual harassment and retaliation complaint in September.

She accused Baldoni, along with his team, of orchestrating a smear campaign against her after she reported on-set sexual harassment, as first reported by the New York Times.

Most recently, Lively sought to dismiss a defamation countersuit from Baldoni. The motion, filed in March, cites a California law that prohibits “weaponizing defamation lawsuits” against those who have filed suit or “spoken out about sexual harassment and retaliation.”

Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman later called the motion “one of the most abhorrent examples of abusing our legal system.”

But Lively’s motion only picked up steam as it drew widespread support from advocacy groups. Equal Rights Advocates, a gender equity and workplace protection-oriented nonprofit based in San Francisco, urged a federal judge to support the motion and uphold the aforementioned law.

Jessica Schidlow, legal director at Child USA, a nonprofit that pushes for more legal protection of abuse victims, told The Times in May that if the law were to be struck down, it would “essentially do away with the protections for all survivors.”

“It would be a devastating setback and completely undermine the purpose of the law, which was to make it easier for victims to come forward and to speak their truth without fear of retaliation,” she added.

SKY customers have just hours left to claim a free gift worth £20.

The freebie was issued as an apology after Sky‘s major TV outage on May 15.

4

4

It saw Sky viewers left without telly for hours due to a technical issue.

And even after the outage, some users still struggled to get their tellies working – with others calling for compensation.

Days after, Sky revealed it was handing out a free Sky Store movie worth £20.

But that offer is due to expire in a matter of hours.

The gift is only available to claim until the end of Saturday, May 31, at which point it will vanish.

To claim it, go to the TV homepage, visit the Sky Store, then click the Your Sky Store Gift On Us tile to choose a movie.

Sky called the free movie a “small gift for your understanding”.

In an email to customers, Sky wrote: “We’re extremely sorry if you experienced disruption to your Sky Q services recently.

“On the evening of 15 May, a technical issue caused some Sky Q boxes to enter standby mode.

“Our teams acted quickly to resolve the issue and restore services.”

CLEAR SKY?

The outage affected a huge number of customers, with tens of thousands of complaints showing up on service tracker Down Detector.

Customers faced blank screens and error messages during the outage, with a smaller number of TV fans having issues days after the event.

Sky sent a text message to customers explaining what to do if you were still experiencing TV issues after the fix.

“These issues have been fixed,” explained Sky.

4

“If you’re still having trouble, please switch off your box at the mains for 30 seconds, then back on.

“For mini box issues, also reboot the main box.”

The issue only affected customers using Sky Q, which works using a satellite dish attached to your home.

It didn’t affect anyone with a Sky Glass television or Sky Stream set-top box, however.

TRY THESE SKY TRICKS!

Got Sky Q? There are some handy tricks worth knowing about…

Find your lost TV remote

If you can’t find your Sky Q remote, don’t panic.

Just press the Sky Q logo on the front of your TV box.

It’s actually a button that will trigger your TV remote’s built-in ringer.

You’ll get 30 seconds of beeping to find where you’ve dropped it. Hint: it’s probably under the sofa cushion.

Search movies by quotes

You might have already used voice search for controlling TV playback – but your remote’s microphone has another clever trick.

It turns out that you can say movie quotes into the remote and Sky will find the film for you.

This is handy if you can’t remember the name of a top movie or show.

Here’s a list of movie quotes to try on Sky.

Save lost recordings

Have you ever deleted something you’d recorded on Sky, only to regret it later?

Or maybe someone in your family removed something without telling you – sparking a massive row.

Don’t panic: you can get them back.

Just go to Recordings > Manage > Deleted and then simply hit Undelete on the item that you want to resurrect.

If you do that, it’ll return to your Recordings section as good as new.

Picture Credit: Sky

That’s because Sky Glass and Sky Stream rely on an internet connection instead of a satellite dish.

STREAM ON

It comes days after millions of Sky customers were warned of four TV channel changes.

Sky customers recently received an upgrade for a popular TV app filled with top movies.

There’s a clever Sky trick to unlock hundreds of extra TV channels and movies for free instantly.

4

And some Sky customers are owed free cinema tickets every single month.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office sent a letter on Friday requesting that the Trump administration remove California from its list of sanctuary jurisdictions that obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law.

The Department of Homeland Security issued the list this week in accordance with an executive order President Trump signed in April that directs federal agencies to identify funding to sanctuary cities, counties and states that could be suspended or terminated.

In the letter, Newsom’s office contended that federal court rulings have rejected the argument that California law limiting law enforcement coordination with immigration authorities “unlawfully obstructs the enforcement of federal immigration laws.”

“This list is another gimmick — even the Trump Administration has admitted California law doesn’t block the federal government from doing its job,” Newsom said in a statement. “Most immigrants are hardworking taxpayers and part of American families. When they feel safe reporting crimes, we’re all safer.”

California is among more than a half-dozen states that were included on the list for self-identifying as sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants. Forty-eight California counties and dozens of cities, including Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego and San Francisco, were also on the Trump administration’s list of more than 500 total jurisdictions nationwide.

The state strengthened its sanctuary policies under a law signed by former Gov. Jerry Brown that took effect 2018 after Trump won office the first time. Then, state officials tried to strike a balance between preventing local law enforcement resources from being used to round up otherwise law-abiding immigrants without obstructing the ability of the federal government to enforce its laws within the state.

Local police, for example, cannot arrest someone on a deportation order alone or hold someone for extra time to transfer to immigration authorities. But state law does permit local governments to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to transfer people to federal custody if they have been convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors within a given time frame. The limitations do not apply to state prison officials, who can coordinate with federal authorities.

The law has been a thorn in the side of the Trump administration’s campaign to ramp up deportations, which the president has cast as an effort to rid the country of criminals despite also targeting immigrants with no prior convictions.

In a release announcing the list, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said politicians in sanctuary communities are “endangering Americans and our law enforcement in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens.”

“We are exposing these sanctuary politicians who harbor criminal illegal aliens and defy federal law,” Noem said. “President Trump and I will always put the safety of the American people first. Sanctuary politicians are on notice: comply with federal law.”

The Trump administration’s assertion that California’s sanctuary policies protect criminals from deportation appears to irk Newsom, who has repeatedly denied the allegation. Trump’s threat to withhold federal dollars could also pose a challenge for a governor proposing billions in cuts to state programs to offset a state budget deficit for the year ahead.

Homeland Security said jurisdictions will receive a formal notice of non-compliance with federal law and demand that cities, counties and states immediately revise their policies.

“When it happens, our staff members want to protect each other because it’s a disgusting thing to happen. I wanted to calm the situation down.

“Livingston have been first class, they have CCTV here so they’ll identify who it was and take action.”

County’s chief executive Steven Ferguson echoed his manager’s comments, adding that the Highland club are “not going to accept that”.

Livingston manager David Martindale did not witness the incident but said it would be “disgusting if true”.

“I’m sure the club will get to the bottom of that,” he added. “It’s vile. Disgusting. Really, really disappointing.”

The game ended 1-1 after Ronan Hale’s late penalty cancelled out Danny Wilson’s opener, with the sides meeting in the return leg in Dingwall on Monday to decide which of the two will be in the top flight next season.

SCOTTIE SCHEFFLER appears to have made a lighthearted joke about his arrest with a bold outfit choice at the PGA Championship.

The American, 28, was arrested by police outside of the PGA Championship hours before tee-off last year after trying to drive into the entrance around the scene of a fatal bus crash.

2

2

He faced charges of second-degree assault of a police officer, third-degree criminal mischief, reckless driving and disregarding traffic signals from an officer directing traffic.

The criminal charges against him were dropped just 12 days after his arrest, but not before his mugshot from the Valhalla Golf Club incident went viral across the internet.

And it is that famous image of him wearing orange overalls that he appears to have taken a nod to with his outfit this year.

The World No.1 was seen wearing an orange polo shirt with the Nike symbol plastered on.

He appeared to be in far calmer waters wearing orange colours this time around.

Reacting on social media, one fan said: “New tradition.”

A second said: “I was so hoping that he would do this. Nice move Scotty.”

A third added: “They let anyone in majors now a days,” followed by laughing emojis.

BEST ONLINE CASINOS – TOP SITES IN THE UK

Another said: “He’s got to be messing?”

Other users reckoned the burnt orange colour was a nod to his time at the University of Texas in Austin, with the orange being the burnt orange.

Scottie Scheffler is eyeing his third PGA Championship at Quali Hollow in North Carolina.

The first round of tee offs have already begun, with Scheffler in the same round one group as Rory McIlroy and Xander Schauffele at 1.22pm UK time.

In the UK, the PGA Championship will be broadcast live on Sky Sports Golf.

Sky Sports customers can live stream all the action via the Sky Sports app.

SAMSUNG’s latest release is the thinnest smartphone on the market.

If you pre-order the Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge now, you’ll get a free pair of Galaxy Buds3 Pro, worth £219, included with your purchase.

1

Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge, £52 per month on Sky Mobile

For anyone shopping around for a new handset, deals like this are a fantastic way to get more for your money.  

Sky Mobile is well-known for offering affordable deals, often sweetened by boosted data plans at no extra cost.

The standout pre-order deal here is the 10GB data plan, which is boosted to 40GB for just £12 per month.

There’s nothing to pay upfront either, and with the free Buds3 Pro thrown in, this deal delivers on all fronts.

If storage is important to you, Sky Mobile is also offering a double storage deal on the Galaxy S25 Edge.  

You can get 512GB worth of storage for the price of the 256GB model, just £40 a month, saving you a tidy £4.

This double storage offer ends on May 29th, so act quickly to enjoy more space for less.  

The Galaxy S25 Edge itself is a standout device in the S25 series, offering a thinner, lighter design compared to the other models.  

While I haven’t tested it myself, our Assistant Tech and Science Editor, Jamie Harris, has had a first-hand look at the Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge.

He praised the handset for being “lighter than any iPhone 16 model around.”

There are trade-offs to achieve that smaller frame, though.

The Samsung Edge is so much lighter because it comes with a noticeably smaller battery compared to the rest of the S25 lineup.

It sports a 3,900mAh battery, compared to 4,000mAh on the Galaxy S25, but that still gets you around 24 hours of video playback with moderate use.

But for shoppers looking for one of the latest Android models without the bulk and weight of modern handsets, the Edge strikes the right balance.  

The deal is only available for purchases made between May 13th 2025, and May 29th, with the headphones dispatched with your device.  

We regularly round up the top data plans from all major providers, so check out our best SIM-only deals page for more savings.

Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge, £52 per month on Sky Mobile

In police circles, it’s known as the “LAPD lottery.”

Speaking at a city budget presentation this month, Police Chief Jim McDonnell said some officers have sought to “weaponize” the department’s disciplinary system to settle grievances, leaving city taxpayers on the hook for the legal bills.

Los Angeles has paid out at least $68.5 million over the last five years to resolve lawsuits filed by officers who claimed to be the victim of sexual harassment, racial discrimination or retaliation against whistleblowers, according to a Times analysis of payout data released by the city attorney’s office.

Skeptics inside the Los Angeles Police Department write off the claims as opportunistic officers trying to hit the jackpot, twisting paper trails created by the department’s much-maligned internal discipline system into the basis for lawsuits.

But the officers who sue and their labor attorneys argue the department’s continued failure to thoroughly investigate complaints or fix systemic issues leaves no other recourse.

Several recent civil trials have resulted in settlements or jury awards in the seven figures or more, including $11.5 million to a former K-9 officer who alleged colleagues spread false rumors about him and mocked his Samoan heritage. Dozens of other suits remain pending, likely leaving the city staring down more substantial payouts in the coming years.

The question of how to deal with the suits has emerged as one of the most pressing issues since McDonnell’s tenure as chief began in November. Mayor Karen Bass has said the city’s $1-billion budget deficit is at least partly driven by expensive legal payouts, as well as emergency response costs related to the Palisades fire and “downward national economic trends.”

Last year, the LAPD’s private fundraising arm gave $240,000 to hire an outside consultant to help the department analyze “the results of litigation to see if there are lessons to be learned from that.”

The consultant, Arif Alikhan, the department’s former director of constitutional policing, said he and his team are seeking to identify trends of risky behavior, improve tracking of problem employees and hold supervisors accountable for not addressing conduct that exposes the department to liability.

Part of the challenge, he said, is that cases take years to resolve, leading to lag time in awareness. “Then it kind of bubbles up and becomes a bigger issue and then you have multiple people suing.”

The city attorney’s office, which is responsible for defending the department against lawsuits, said in response to questions from The Times that cases are settled when “there could be a jury finding of liability, and when we can reach an agreement for a reasonable amount of money.”

“We will always do what is in the best interests of the city and continue to aggressively defend lawsuits—especially when plaintiffs’ attorneys try to make a fortune off of the City with unreasonable non-economic damages claims,” the city attorney’s office said in a statement. “Our office will aggressively defend against lawsuits that lack merit, as well as lawsuits in which the plaintiff’s attorney is making unreasonable demands for taxpayer dollars to resolve a case.”

The LAPD has long wrestled with costly litigation, and many claims by aggrieved officers are dismissed. But according to the data released to The Times, payouts for officer-driven lawsuits have increased recently: At least 13 verdicts or settlements worth $1 million or more have come since 2019, including nine in the last three years.

Beyond the cost to taxpayers, the public airing of workplace disputes can prove embarrassing to a department that has long fancied itself a spit-and-polish institution.

Take the Transit Services Division, where years of troubles and finger-pointing have led to a snarl of more than half a dozen lawsuits.

A former detective, Heather Rolland, received a $949,000 payout after she accused male colleagues of disparaging her for being injured on the job and of fostering a hostile work environment for women who worked in the division, which holds a lucrative contract with the county Metropolitan Transportation Authority to provide security on bus and train lines.

Among the male officials mentioned in her lawsuit is Randy Rangel, a former Transit Services sergeant, who filed his own claim against the city alleging he was retaliated against after reporting another officer for abusing his overtime pay. Last month, an L.A. County jury awarded him $4.5 million, which may still be challenged on appeal.

One of the witnesses who testified on Rangel’s behalf was his former captain, Brian Pratt, who also has a pending suit against the city. Pratt contends he was targeted with an anonymous personnel complaint after accusing a deputy chief of inappropriately using division staff to do nontransit work — a claim the city has denied in court filings.

The cycle of litigation continued with an internal affairs detective assigned to investigate Pratt. The detective alleged in a whistleblower claim that his bosses demanded unfavorable findings despite no evidence of wrongdoing. The lawsuit by Det. Hamilton Alvarenga also remains pending, with the city disputing his allegations.

Yet another Transit Services supervisor, Ashraf “Andy” Hanna, is pursuing legal action over what he alleged is a culture of anti-Arab discrimination. Hanna is also named as a defendant in several lawsuits, with co-workers accusing him of workplace hostility, which he disputes. One of his accusers, an officer named Natalie Bustamante, recently settled her sexual harassment lawsuit with the city for an undisclosed sum.

LAPD officers are supposed to report wrongdoing — or attempts to cover it up — to their supervisors, internal affairs or the Office of the Inspector General, which can investigate and potentially refer cases of misconduct to the chief for discipline. Those complaints are sealed from the public under state law, but the plaintiffs in several recent civil lawsuits alleged that the internal investigations tended to drag on unnecessarily and rarely led to punishment for the accused.

Attorney Matthew McNicholas, who has represented scores of officers in civil lawsuits, said he thinks that the growing payouts are a reflection of the city attorney’s hardball approach to civil litigation. This tough stance is costing taxpayers money by insisting on fighting cases even when it was clear they would lose in court, he said.

He pointed to the cases of Lou and Stacey Vince, a police couple who filed separate lawsuits against the department for retaliation and discrimination they faced while working in the San Fernando Valley. Lou Vince had alleged mistreatment after he returned from a work injury. In her claim, Stacey Vince said that after speaking up in her husband’s defense, she was denied a promotion and moved into a cramped office underneath the gym floor at the Police Academy with no furniture or Wi-Fi.

The couple, represented by McNicholas, received nearly $11 million in combined payouts.

“We tried to settle them both for low seven figures,” he said.

Joanna Schwartz, a UCLA law professor, said risk managers in L.A. and other cities should be looking for “policy changes or adjustments to staffing” after getting sued repeatedly.

“Best practices include internally investigating all allegations brought in lawsuits and then reviewing all the information that comes out during the course of discovery and trial,” Schwartz said.

The issue is not unique to the LAPD: Los Angeles County spent $150 million last year alone to defend the Sheriff’s Department from a slew of legal claims. And employment-related awards are only a fraction of the $358.8 million paid out in all LAPD lawsuits since 2019, including for traffic accidents, crackdowns on protesters and a botched fireworks detonation that leveled several city blocks and left dozens of residents displaced.

But the department’s handling of workplace complaints has drawn criticism on multiple fronts, including from the Los Angeles Police Protective League.

The union for rank-and-file officers, which sometimes helps members bring lawsuits, has cited the large verdicts as a sign senior LAPD officials are turning a blind eye to injustices in the workplace.

Last week, Jamie McBride, an outspoken union board member, filed a lawsuit in which he accused an assistant police chief of unfairly reprimanding him for speaking out about the LAPD’s grooming policy, the rules for how officers can keep their hair and mustaches.

McBride said in his suit that his remarks came during a union meeting in August 2023, when someone in the audience asked whether the department intended to change its rules to allow beards without a medical exemption, which is commonly granted to Black officers with skin conditions that make shaving painful.

McBride said he replied, “Well, I hope not ‘cause I think it looks like s—.”

He learned, according to his lawsuit, that that the department opened an investigation for what it deemed “racially discriminatory comments.”

McBride’s suit argues that his statement — “however controversial” — was made in the “context of protected union activity.”

The city has not yet filed a response in court to McBride’s claim. He didn’t respond to a message seeking comment.

McBride, who previously received $1.5 million after suing over alleged retaliation by his LAPD supervisors, is part of an internal work group looking at potential changes to the discipline system, along with Deputy Chief Michael Rimkunas, who runs the department’s professional standards bureau.

Rimkunas defended the department’s “thorough and comprehensive process” for addressing officer complaints, but said he is also pushing for “additional safeguards to be certain the complaint system is properly used.”

He said internal investigators are being more judicious about screening complaints before starting a formal inquiry. Cases involving apparent personality conflicts between employees are referred back to their supervisors for mediation “within weeks, even when the behavior may not have reached the level of misconduct,” he said.

It used to take up to a year, Rimkunas said, to “reach a point for potential intervention.”