conduct

A long-awaited pact between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China for a “code of conduct” in the disputed South China Sea is unlikely to materialise during the regional bloc’s annual gathering of leaders in Manila this week, analysts and officials say.

The agreement would aim to manage tensions and prevent conflict at sea. But talks have dragged on for more than 20 years. In 2023, foreign ministers agreed to work towards finalising the accord within three years.

That deadline fell on 2026 – the year the Philippines took its turn as chair of ASEAN. Under its leadership, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) said negotiators have met at least once a month.

But they have fallen short of arriving at a consensus ahead of the summit.

“I just want to say that at this point in time, 80 percent of the document itself is finished,” DFA Secretary Maria Theresa Lazaro said on Saturday, adding that there are some ‘salient’ points that still need to be ironed out.

She has previously said that geographical scope is one of the contentious issues. Beijing insists it has jurisdiction over nearly the entire South China Sea despite a 2016 international ruling invalidating that claim.

The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia also have overlapping territorial claims.

A war of words

The Philippines would also like the accord to respect the rights of countries outside the region, according to DFA spokesman Dominic Xavier Imperial. Half of the world’s merchant ships pass through the South China Sea.

But the country may be caught between a rock and a hard place.

“You can’t win it because if you get a good document, you’ll be accused of railroading or it would come across as self-serving. But if it’s a bad document, the Marcos Jr administration will be seen as a weak government,” Aries Arugay, a political scientist at the University of the Philippines, said.

China has consistently accused the United States and its allies, who regularly conduct freedom of navigation operations with the Philippines, of interference.

Tensions between Manila and Beijing have escalated since Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr took office in 2022. The China Coast Guard has repeatedly deployed water cannon against Philippine vessels and maritime confrontations have resulted in collisions and, on one occasion, a Filipino soldier losing a finger.

In recent weeks, the two countries have been engaged in a war of words.

In September, Philippine Defence Secretary Gilberto Teodoro’s public response to a handwritten note rejecting the 2016 South China Sea ruling – reportedly from Beijing’s military attache in Seoul – went viral.

“Perhaps basic decency and behaviour is what China needs to do,” Teodoro, who has been barred from entering China, said.

A month later, Beijing’s ambassador to Manila, Jing Quan, told reporters that if China wanted to use force, “we may easily win. But no, we will not choose force. We love peace”. The statement was made in response to a question about Teodoro calling China a “troublemaker”, but which Marcos said “sounded like a threat”.

What followed was a barrage of social media posts by Philippine officials criticising Jing, with the Chinese embassy replying in kind. Senators called for the expulsion of the Chinese envoy.

And, in late October, China accused Teodoro of a late invitation to the ASEAN defence ministers’ meeting in Cebu. Without ample time to prepare, it said it could only send its Manila-based defence attache.

“When that happened, I think the concern, especially on the part of the DFA, was, ‘We don’t want China not sending their premier. It would not look good on us as a host country,’” Lucio Pitlo, past president of the Philippine Association for Chinese Studies, said.

With just days before world leaders were due to arrive in Manila, diplomats from both sides stepped in.

In a phone call, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told Lazaro, his Philippine counterpart, to rein in politicians.

“The Philippines should strengthen restraint over the relevant individuals and send a rational and unified voice on its policy toward China,” Wang said in a statement released by the Chinese embassy in Manila.

Lazaro described the conversation as having been “frank and constructive”.

However, the DFA followed up with a statement saying it found public commentary by certain government officials “regrettable”.

“Whatever personal convictions public officials may hold, their public platforms carry institutional responsibilities,” it said. “They may not pursue preferred approaches toward China, or any other international partner, without regard for the consequences on the government’s overall policy.”

‘Airing dirty laundry’

Some analysts say the spat has further exposed division within the Marcos administration.

“They’re airing dirty laundry out there. It doesn’t communicate coherence. It doesn’t project a unified stance. This could have been an internal memo,” Arugay said.

But Pitlo said the last-ditch diplomatic effort had achieved its objective. Chinese Premier Li Qiang is now attending the ASEAN Leaders’ Summit in Manila.

Despite this, Pitlo shares pessimism about leaders reaching a conclusion to negotiations for a code of conduct in the South China Sea.

“I think with all the concerns about trade protectionism, the disruption in supply chains, economic issues will be very high in the agenda. I think it will be a tall order to get the code of conduct done.”

For a time, Chad Bianco was one of the front-runners in the race for California governor — or at least as front-runnery as a Republican can get in this cobalt-blue state.

Polling in the primary showed the Riverside County sheriff drawing support in roughly the mid-teens, which — while nothing to shout about — was still enough in a jumbo-sized field to place Bianco among the top contenders.

His main rival among Republicans was Fox talk-show host Steve Hilton. The question was which of the two GOP hopefuls would President Trump bless, ensuring their advancement to certain defeat in November. That made their competition a bit like jousting for the last berth on the sinking Titanic, or elbowing for the opportunity to go before a firing squad.

But whatever.

Bianco, being a sheriff outfitted with a badge and gun and all, played his Trump card, mindful of the president’s monomaniacal obsession with nonexistent voter fraud. Acting on flimsy pretenses, Bianco arranged in February for the seizure of hundreds of thousands of Proposition 50 ballots, questioning the integrity of the election months after the fact.

Never mind that Riverside County voters approved the Democratic gerrymandering measure by a comfortable margin. Hitching himself to the president’s favorite hobbyhorse, Bianco’s performative policing was an obvious attempt to curry favor with the nation’s election denier in chief.

Alas for Bianco, the ploy didn’t work. Trump endorsed Hilton, who finished second in the June primary and was predictably crushed Tuesday by California’s governor-elect, Xavier Becerra.

Now the bill has come due.

Not surprisingly, Bianco’s unlawful actions resulted in litigation. Lawsuits brought by California’s attorney general and UCLA’s Voting Rights Project went all the way to the state Supreme Court, which scorched the sheriff in a September decision calling his actions illegal, perplexing and “a substantial risk to election integrity.”

Naturally, that legal skirmishing cost money, so Bianco asked the county Board of Supervisors to pony up and pay the bills arising from all his sheriffy swaggering, ballot confiscating and Trump pandering. The board said no, in a 4-1 vote in April. So last month, Bianco filed a claim seeking damages.

“If the County rejects the claim, Sheriff Bianco will have the right to sue the County … which he intends to do,” Bradley Hertz, Bianco’s attorney, wrote in an email to Times reporter Iris Kwok. Bianco’s actions, Hertz said, “arose out of his official actions.”

Which they most certainly did, if one defines “official actions” as going before a judge who touted Bianco’s endorsement when he ran and securing a warrant based on the claims of nutty political activists, all so Bianco could promote his political interests and advance his long-shot run for governor.

Does Bianco have a leg to stand on?

“In California, officers are entitled both to the cost of representation and to settlements and judgments against them for conduct in the course and scope of their employment,” said Joanna Schwartz, a professor at UCLA Law School and an expert on indemnification and qualified immunity, to use the legal terms. “How that gets sorted out in individual cases depends.”

Which suggests the case of Bianco vs. the County of Riverside will very likely wind up before a judge. (And result in more needless, court-clogging litigation.)

One of the most insidious aspects of Trump’s ruinous rule is the use of public office, taxpayer dollars and the color of authority to advance the president’s personal and political self-interests.

His thoroughly corrupted Justice Department blatantly acted to subvert Tuesday’s balloting. His Interior Department installed new signage in national parks to present Trump’s whitewashed version of history. His Federal Communications Commission has persecuted TV networks and sought to muzzle late-night comedians who bruise the president’s ever-so-fragile feelings.

And on it goes.

Judges around the country, that thin, black-robed line of defense, have repeatedly pushed back on Trump’s false election claims. And they’ve sanctioned some who’ve used their office or breached the rules of professional conduct to aid and abet the president’s reckless attempts to despoil our democracy.

Tina Peters, the former Colorado elections clerk who allowed tampering with her county’s election machinery in a harebrained scheme to show the 2020 election was “rigged,” received a stiff prison term and served 20 months before Gov. Jared Polis commuted her sentence and freed Peters to cause more mischief.

Attorneys have been fined and sanctioned for peddling Trump’s stolen election claptrap and presidential factotums Rudolph W. Giuliani and John Eastman were disbarred for their efforts to overturn the 2020 result. Giuliani was also slapped with a $148-million libel verdict for smearing two election workers in Georgia.

Despite those sanctions, the administration continues pressing phony claims of rampant voter fraud. Although Tuesday’s vote went smoothly and Trump accepted the results — as well he should — more of his enablers need to be held to account, as a means of deterrence. That’s a concept that Bianco, a law enforcement professional, surely understands.

There’s a saying in the retail industry, dealing with those who damage the merchandise: You break it, you buy it.

Grasping to advance his political ambitions, Bianco recklessly used and abused his authority as county sheriff to vandalize California’s election system and betray the public trust.

He broke it, he owns it.

Now Bianco needs to pay up.

THE BBC has been accused of enabling Russell Brand with the disgraced star claiming his Beeb boss was “incredibly tolerant” of his behaviour.

Brand, 51 – due to be sentenced on Monday – is being monitored around the clock by guards after he was found guilty on Thursday.

Brand was facing trial for three counts of rape, one count of attempted indecent assault and three counts of sexual assault.

Following eight and a half hours of deliberation the jury delivered guilty verdicts on three counts of sexual assault and one count of rape, bringing the four-week trial at Southwark Crown Court to a close.

He was refused bail and was sent down to the cells with two female dock officers after the verdict was handed down.

The jury found Brand guilty of groping an MTV worker during a party at a Soho bar in 2004, but not guilty of going on to rape her in a toilet.

TIME’S UP

Rapist Brand will spend YEARS behind bars when beast finds out fate in days

BEHIND BARS

Brand’s ‘humiliating’ strip search & ‘inedible’ meal on first night in jail

He was also convicted of kissing and groping a Capital Radio worker after encountering her in a corridor in 2005.

And, he was found guilty of raping a 21-year-old fan at his Hampstead house after meeting her at a 2009 stand-up show at the Hammersmith Apollo.

Brand was also convicted by the jury of sexually assaulting a Channel 4 worker in 2009 when she had been forced to give him a massage.

The convictions piled further pressure on the BBC after it was revealed Brand had boasted his boss at the Beeb was “incredibly tolerant” of his sexual behaviour.

Britain’s public broadcaster has faced scrutiny over the actions of its stars in the past, including Huw Edwards and Jimmy Savile.

Channel 4 and MTV are also now under the spotlight for their alleged failures in how Brand’s behaviour was managed.

Liz Kershaw, a radio DJ who worked with the BBC for some 30 years, accused the corporation of “enabling Brand’s behaviour.”

Writing in The Telegraph, she said: “Maybe his enablers should finally have been brought to book. Media executives, comedy club promoters.

“His agent. After all, as Brand once said, ‘people will let you be a nutter as long as they are making money out of it.’”

Brand claimed in the mid-2000s that Lesley Douglas, his boss when he worked at BBC 2, “loved me and gave me lots of room – so I took that room.”

He claimed this included allowing him to use the disabled toilets for sex with radio competition winners.

Brand was also accused of raping two more women and could now face further criminal charges, it was revealed after the verdicts.

The court heard that one of the complaints comes from a woman who dated Brand when he was 30 years old and another was a 16-year-old schoolgirl.

The Metropolitan Police has confirmed that investigations are ongoing into the two allegations made against Brand.

After today’s guilty verdicts were delivered, Brand’s barrister launched into an extraordinary foul-mouthed rant at a journalist as he left the courtroom.

Ian Winter KC launched into the verbal tirade at Sunday Times journalist Rosamund Urwin.

He said to her: “I hope you are pleased with yourself”, and she was heard replying: “I’m pleased justice has been done.”

Mr Winter said during the clash: “Well, it wasn’t. You f***** it.” “Congratulations,” he added.

During the trial, Mr Winter had argued that reporting of allegations against Brand by Ms Urwin and others had “poisoned the well”, and rendered it impossible for him to have a fair trial.

The trial judge, Mr Justice Bennathan, dismissed an attempt by Brand to block his trial from taking place because of negative media coverage.

Brand tried to smear journalists as “criminals” and claimed women accusing him of abuse were “fictional” in a doomed bid to avoid trial.

He argued he had been “destroyed” by a “trial by media” when the Times, the Sunday Times and a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary exposed him as a sexual predator in 2023.

A series of women came forward to police afterwards, speaking out about being raped, forcibly kissed and groped by Brand during his showbiz career.

Media claims published in 2023 sparked a criminal investigation and Brand was interviewed under caution four times between November 2023 and January 2024.

The former BBC Radio 2 presenter went on trial after he was accused of offences against six women from 1999 to 2009.

Brand denied all the charges, insisting any sexual contact was consensual.

The court heard how Brand became a “ruthless, calculated and manipulative” predator as he sought to satisfy his “voracious” sexual appetite as part of a depraved campaign to sleep with 5,000 women.

During the trial,  Brand’s lawyer Ian Winter, had argued that reporting of allegations against Brand by Ms Urwin and others had “poisoned the well”, and rendered it impossible for him to have a fair trial.

The trial judge, Mr Justice Bennathan, dismissed an attempt by Brand to block his trial from taking place because of negative media coverage.

Brand tried to smear journalists as “criminals” and claimed women accusing him of abuse were “fictional” in a doomed bid to avoid trial.

He argued he had been “destroyed” by a “trial by media” when the Times, the Sunday Times and a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary exposed him as a sexual predator in 2023.

The convictions sparked claims the BBC and other broadcasters turned a blind eye to Brand’s behaviour.

An internal corporation report, published in 2023, found that numerous complaints about Brand had been ignored.

His former BBC boss previously issued a statement via a spokesperson.

It read: “Ms Douglas did not at any time encourage, enable and/or fail herself to take any adequate steps within her power with regard to the conduct of Mr Brand of which she was aware.”

Following Brand’s conviction, a BBC spokesperson said: “Firstly, the thoughts of everyone at the BBC are with the brave women who came forward and told their stories which led to a conviction in this case.

“There can be no place for the abuse of power.

“Across the industry, we must work together to ensure that anyone who suffers at someone else’s hand feels able to report it, that their concerns are taken seriously and that they are listened to.

“We published a detailed report in January 2025 into how complaints about Russell Brand’s conduct were handled. This looked at eight allegations of misconduct while he worked here between 2006 and 2008.

“It was of great concern to us that some people felt unable to raise concerns about Brand’s behaviour. We apologised to those impacted, for both the culture and failings at the time, and we reiterate that apology again today.”

The Sun has contacted the BBC for comment.

One demerit point added to the Pakistan pacer Haris Rauf’s disciplinary record for conduct during ODI against England.

Pakistan pacer Haris Rauf has been reprimanded and fined 20 percent of his match fee for “displaying conduct contrary to the spirit of the game” against England, while the visitors were fined for a slow over-rate, the International Cricket Council (ICC) said.

Rauf breached Level 1 of the ICC Code of Conduct during Sunday’s One-Day International (ODI) tri-series match against England, which Pakistan unexpectedly won by one wicket thanks to batting heroics by Shadab Khan.

The right-arm fast bowler breached Article 2.2 of the ICC Code of Conduct for Players and Player Support Personnel, which relates to “displaying conduct contrary to the spirit of the game”, according to the ICC.

One demerit point was also added to his disciplinary record, bringing the total to five, since this was his third offence within 24 months.

The incident occurred at the end of the 46th over of Pakistan’s innings, where Rauf appealed for a wide at the non-striker’s end before arguing with England all-rounder Will Jacks.

Per the ICC, Rauf raised his bat and continued the exchange with Jacks despite a warning from umpire Sharfuddoula Ibne Shahid. He then brushed past the umpire while walking towards Jacks.

Separately, England were fined 15 percent of their match fee for being three overs short of their target after time allowances were taken into account.

Players are fined 5 percent of their match fee for every over their side fails to bowl within the allowed time, according to Article 2.22 of the ICC Code of Conduct.

Rauf and England captain Harry Brook admitted their respective offences and accepted the sanctions proposed by Jeff Crowe of the Emirates ICC Elite Panel of Match Referees. As a result, no formal hearings were required.

The charges were levelled by on-field umpires Rashid Riaz and Sharfuddoula, third umpire Wayne Knights and fourth umpire Nassir Hussain.

Pakistan are through to the two-series final, while England take on Sri Lanka on Thursday for a shot at redemption and a chance at making the final after being thrashed by the Lions last week.

Three NFL head coaches were each fined $250,000 Wednesday for their conduct toward game officials. Yet apparently nobody has to whip out a checkbook quite yet.

The fines are on hold and could be rescinded altogether if the coaches behave themselves going forward, according to multiple reports.

The New England Patriots’ Mike Vrabel, the Philadelphia Eagles’ Nick Sirianni and the New York Jets’ Aaron Glenn were hit with the fines, which were put into abeyance pending future interaction with officials.

The NFL did not disclose the specific behavior that prompted the organization to single out those coaches, although all three have had visible sideline beef with officials this season.

Vrabel left the coaching box to confront an official late in the first half of the Patriots’ 29-26 victory over the Buffalo Bills on Oct. 5, losing his cool over a defensive holding call against Patriots’ cornerback Marcus Jones. Vrabel was hit with a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.

Referee Bill Vinovich said afterward that Vrabel was flagged for using profanity toward an official. Vrabel told reporters that Vinovich “was a little sensitive. I told him it was a terrible — I’m not going to say effing call. I’ve said that 87 times since I’ve been a head coach. It was nothing derogatory.”

A week later, Glenn went on a tirade while surrounded by three officials during the Jets’ victory over the Browns. Sirianni has had several sideline temper tantrums, including one Sept. 28 after Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts was called for intentional grounding.

Troy Vincent, the NFL executive vice president of football operations, told reporters Wednesday at the owners meetings in New York City that sportsmanship was a discussion item. The fines appear to be sending a message that relationships between coaches, game officials and players need to be more civil.

The NFL suspended game officials Jeff Seeman and Adrian Hill on Oct. 5 following separate incidents of unprofessional conduct toward players. Seeman appeared to curse at Arizona Cardinals tight end Trey McBride, and Hill confronted Minnesota Vikings linebacker Eric Wilson after being inadvertently knocked down.