Crossroads

BELOVED Brit soap actor Tony Adams who starred in Crossroads has died aged 84 with tributes pouring in.

The legend died at Sussex County Hospital in Brighton on Saturday, with his wife Christine by his side.

Anthony Sawley Adams was born in Anglesey, Wales, in 1940 and later trained as an actor at the Italia Conti theatre school.

Following performances on the stage, he made his name as Dr Neville Bywaters in the 1970s soap General Hospital and appeared in the Dr Who series The Green Death.

In 1978, he took on the role of accountant Adam Chance in soap Crossroads – the role for which he became best known.

The series ended in 1988 after more than 4,500 episodes, with Adams staying until the end.

DARK HORSE

Katy Perry & Justin Trudeau hold hands at strip bar during 1st public appearance

HAND IN HAND

Romeo Beckham officially back with Kim Turnbull as they hold hands in Paris

He was one of the original cast members, including Jane Rossington and Kathy Staff, who returned when the soap was revived in 2001.

Adams then appeared in the stage version of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang at the London Palladium Theatre, where he played Grandpa Potts, in 2004.

In 2023, he had a cameo role in Nolly – a three-part drama created by Russell T Davies which tells the story of Crossroads actress Noele Gordon.

Actor Augustus Prew, who played Adams in the drama, described him as a “magical man” during interviews at the time.

Michael Rose, of The Michael Rose Organisation Ltd, paid tribute to Adams as an “absolute joy” and a talented actor, dancer and singer.

“He was one of the warmest gentlemen you could wish to work with,” Mr Rose said.

“He was an absolute joy. He was a dancer originally but there was nothing Tony couldn’t do.

“He was a very accomplished actor, he was a really good dancer and singer.

“He played Grandpa Potts in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and was a joy to have in the company, as he was in every company.

“We shall miss him.”

1996. Wembley Stadium. I’m standing in a sea of England flags and fans, watching the Euros semi-final. As the crowd roars with one voice, it’s electric. Football’s coming home.

3

It didn’t of course. But that day, England stood shoulder to shoulder. Beyond the stadium, across the entire country, we shared the highs and lows together.

Being there felt like we were part of something larger than ourselves. An England that belonged to our grandparents and our history, but also to our children and our future. And I felt like I was part of it.

That’s the power of our flag. To make us all feel like part of Team England.

Win or lose, north or south, black or white, old or young. Even Spurs and Arsenal were on the same team that day, cheering on our country.

So I know what a source of pride our flag can be, and what it means to people.

Which is makes it all the more shameful when people exploit that symbol to stoke anger and division.

I know people feel angry that the country they love doesn’t seem to work for them.

3

People who feel like they’re doing everything right, but getting nothing to show for it.

Working harder and harder just to stand still, and worried what the future will look like for their kids.

I share that frustration. I’m determined to fix it. But a small minority see instead an opportunity to whip up hatred. To follow and old and dangerous playbook that sets people against one another.

That’s what we’ve seen in parts of the country. Police officers assaulted.

Loutish behaviour on the streets. And people made to feel like they are not welcome or safe here because of their heritage, religion or colour of their skin.

We’ve seen a nine year old black girl shot at in a racist attack. Chinese takeaways defaced. That sends a shiver down the spine of every right-minded Brit. This is not who we are.

When populist politicians, convicted criminals, and foreign billionaires take to the stage to encourage violence, make racist comments, and threaten our democracy, it casts a dark shadow of fear and violence across our society.

They want to drag our country down into a toxic spiral of division and hatred because it’s good for them. But their vile lies are not good for the country.

Here’s the truth. Over the past 15 years, trust in politics has been eroded. the economy became weaker and weaker. Opportunities disappeared as libraries, leisure centres, community spaces shut down during austerity.

Public services like our NHS neglected, neighbourhoods looking more and more tired as high streets shuttered up, anti-social behaviour blighting people’s lives.

Working people were left to scrap over fewer and fewer crumbs.

Now we’re at a crossroads. There is a dark path ahead of division and decline, toxicity and fear.

3

A path that relies on destruction and disappointment, because when the damage is done and the graffiti cleaned away, it’s clear the populists  never had anything to offer – no hope, no future, no answers.

Or, there is the patriotic path of national renewal. Every one of us playing our part to renew, restore, rebuild the country we love.

That is the path we choose. 

Because this government is taking responsibility to reverse the decline.

We’re growing our economy so there’s more to go round for everyone, with 5 cuts in interest rates saving families up to £1,000 on their mortgage each year.

We’re building 1.5 million new homes, new towns, hospitals and schools and improving transport across the country. We’re delivering 5.2 million extra NHS appointments.

And we’re saving families £7,500 a year on childcare, giving hard working parents more cash and more time.

Of course we need to deal with the issues the country faces, like illegal immigration, head on.

But the way to be proud of our country again is to be part of the renewal, not the destruction. This is a struggle for the heart and soul of our nation.

But it’s not between ordinary people who simply want a better life for their families. It’s between patriots who care about our country, and populists who only care about themselves.

They want to control a current of tension and fear. I want the electricity I felt in that stadium almost thirty years ago, of a defiant Britain, a nation of decency and diversity, that still dares to stand together and believe in better.

Because this is the country that stood tall – with our allies – against the forces of fascism 80 years ago.

This is who we are. We’ve got the match of our lives ahead. And we need you on the pitch.

Maybe the national team turned a corner in last week’s 2-0 win over Japan.

Maybe the change to a 3-4-2-1 formation unlocked the lively and innovative play that had been missing in the team’s first year under coach Mauricio Pochettino. Maybe Pochettino and his players have finally found the chemistry and coordination that was so obviously missing.

And maybe, just maybe, the U.S. really can make a deep run in next summer’s World Cup, the first to be played in the U.S. in 32 years.

Maybe.

Or maybe not.

One game can’t totally erase the dysfunctional and dispassionate performances that have marked much of the brief Pochettino era, one which included four consecutive losses at home and two losses in as many games with Mexico.

Nor can it make up for a player pool that has seemingly grown thin and ever-changing or speed the learning curve for a successful club coach who has struggled with the transition to the international game.

But it can buy the team and its coach some time.

“Touch the right buttons and we start to perform,” Pochettino said last September, shortly after he took the U.S. job. Just now, however, is he finding those buttons.

The win over Japan clearly lifts a huge weight off Pochettino and his players, but the reprieve may be temporary. If the U.S. regresses in friendlies with Ecuador and Australia next month, the angst and despair that have hovered over the team most of the year will return.

What it all means is Pochettino and the USMNT have reached a fork in the road. And the path they take will likely shape U.S. Soccer’s future for years, if not decades.

A World Cup the federation has been pointing to for years is just nine months away and much is riding on the U.S. team’s performance. A deep run in the tournament will engage and ignite the country, open the wallets of deep-pocketed sponsors and do more for the sport in the U.S. than any event since the last World Cup held here. That one led to the formation of MLS, which has grown into the largest first-tier professional league in the world, and the establishment of the U.S. Soccer Foundation, which has invested more than $100 million at the grassroots level, impacting nearly 100 million kids.

The coherent performance against Japan — albeit a young, inexperience Japanese “B” team — brought hope that a successful path, the longest one at the fork in the road, is still open.

But three days before beating Japan, the U.S. was thoroughly outplayed by South Korea in a 2-0 loss — the team’s sixth loss in 14 games this year — that raised alarm. According to The Athletic, the performance dropped the U.S. to 48th in the world in the Elo Ratings, a results-based formula for measuring all men’s national teams. It was the lowest ranking in 28 years for the Americans.

If the USMNT follows the South Korea path in the World Cup, its tournament run could be short, ending in the first two rounds and likely stunting both interest and investment in soccer in the U.S.

With just three international breaks remaining before the World Cup, there is reason for both hope and concern.

Pochettino’s lineup choices remain as unsettled as his tactical approach — although the Japan game may help settle that. As Stuart Holden, World Cup midfielder turned Fox Sports analyst, noted, the change to a three-man backline solved many problems.

Against Japan, Holden said, the center backs played with noticeable confidence and aggression. The formation also freed wingbacks Max Arfsten and Alex Freeman to be more creative and allowed attackers Christian Pulisic and Folarin Balogun, the team’s game-changers, to be more impactful.

There was much to like in the new approach and for the first time in his tenure, it seemed as if Pochettino had finally found a game plan that suited his players, with Balogun among those who benefited most: his goal, off an assist from Pulisic, was his first for the U.S. in nearly 14 months while his start was his first under Pochettino.

The other goal went to Alex Zendejas, who was called up for the first time this year despite having one of the best two-year runs of any USMNT attacker, scoring 16 goals and contributing 15 assists to help Mexico’s Club América to three straight Liga MX titles.

Another player who stepped up when given the opportunity was Seattle Sounders midfielder Cristian Roldan, who played an inspired 90 minutes, leading all players with 83 touches.

Pochettino welcomed the result but continued to argue it wasn’t the most important thing.

“It’s the process,” he told reporters.

“When you are strong in your ideas and your belief, it’s about never giv[ing] up.”

So which team is the real national team? The one that beat Japan or the one that was humiliated by South Korea? And what will the USMNT’s destiny be in the World Cup? A long, profitable run that changes the trajectory of soccer in the U.S. or a short, disappointing one that sets the sport’s progress back years?

The October games with Ecuador and Australia could go a long way toward determining that. There’s a lot riding on the answer.

World Cup ticket update

More than 1.5 million people registered for the chance to buy World Cup tickets in the first 24 hours of the tournament’s initial presale lottery, according to FIFA. Online applications came from 210 countries, FIFA said, with the three host countries — the U.S., Mexico and Canada — leading the way.

The presale draw, which began last Wednesday and will end Friday at 8 a.m. Pacific time, is the first phase of ticket sales for the tournament. After a random selection process, successful applicants will be notified via email starting from Sept. 29 and will be given a date and time slot to purchase tickets, starting at $60, beginning Oct. 1. When fans enter the window won’t affect their chances of winning.

Subsequent ticket sales phases will begin in October. Further details on the timeline and products are available at FIFA.com/tickets.

⚽ You have read the latest installment of On Soccer with Kevin Baxter. The weekly column takes you behind the scenes and shines a spotlight on unique stories. Listen to Baxter on this week’s episode of the “Corner of the Galaxy” podcast.

SEOUL, Aug. 20 (UPI) — On the 80th anniversary of Korea’s liberation from Japanese colonial rule, two voices offered radically different interpretations of what a vision for the peninsula should look like. One seeks accommodation with permanent division; the other proclaims unification as a historic calling.

In his Liberation Day address, President Lee Jae Myung departed from the long tradition of framing the national destiny around reunification. He declared:

“Liberation Day is not only a holiday for the South; it is also a day the North celebrates. … We will recognize the North’s system and will not interfere in its internal affairs.”

By effectively endorsing a “two-state” reality, Lee signaled that his administration would accept permanent division so long as Pyongyang demanded it. For critics, this was nothing less than an abdication of the historical mission of unification, one that independence fighters saw as inseparable from liberation itself.

The dissonance deepened later that evening, when Lee presided over what was billed as a “people’s inauguration” in Gwanghwamun. The spectacle was less a unifying celebration than a partisan rally, capped by his controversial pardons of political allies.

The controversy over Lee’s Liberation Day pardons was sharpened by the identities of those he chose to absolve.

Cho Kuk, a former justice minister, was convicted of academic fraud and abuse of power stemming from efforts to secure elite university placements for his daughter.

Yoon Mee-hyang, a former lawmaker and activist, was indicted on charges of embezzling funds from a civic group that supported surviving “comfort women” –Korean women forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military during World War II.

For many citizens, forgiving such figures on a day meant to honor national sacrifice and liberation struck a jarring note.

A day earlier, on Thursday, another vision had been articulated before an international audience in Seoul. Hyun Jin Preston Moon, chairman of the Global Peace Foundation, framed Korea’s division as a foreign construct that could — and must — be overcome.

“Thus, the division of the peninsula was a ‘foreign construct’ that had nothing to do with the aspirations of the Korean people and their movement for independence and self-determination,” he said. “Their dreams and aspirations were brushed aside like a sacrificial pawn on the global chessboard of great powers seeking to shape the future of Northeast Asia.”

Moon emphasized that North Korea itself already has abandoned unification as a national goal, underscoring the bankruptcy of the regime’s vision.

“The world should view the DPRK’s efforts … as a feeble effort to gain global legitimacy in pursuing a permanent two-state solution on the peninsula. The only real path to denuclearization is the peaceful unification of the two Koreas,” he said.

Rather than clinging to a Cold War framework, Moon called on Koreans to recover their ancient mandate of Hongik Ingan — “to live for the benefit of humanity.” He presented the Korean Dream as a unifying vision capable of renewing national identity, overcoming economic and demographic crises, and inspiring the world.

“The vision for this new age is the Korean Dream. It will not only engender a rebirth of Korean culture and historical heritage, but reconnect all Koreans to the providential calling of our people rooted in our founding ideals,” Moon said.

The Korean Dream, he argued, transcends left-right ideological divides by grounding itself in Korea’s history and in universal values. It offers a framework not only to heal the wounds of division, but also to address the internal crises facing both North and South — from the South’s demographic collapse and overreliance on export-driven conglomerates to the North’s political repression, poverty and isolation. By providing a common vision that speaks to both sides of the 38th parallel, it holds the potential to overcome obstacles that ideology and power politics have failed to resolve.

Concluding his address, Moon underscored the gravity of the moment:

“We live at a historic crossroads in a time when the fate of the peninsula and our people lie in our hands. … I believe that divine providence is guiding us to undo the mistakes of the past and lead our people to the promised land of unification centered upon the Korean Dream.”

A shifting global order

Korea today stands at a decisive inflection point. The U.S.-led liberal order that shaped the post-Cold War era is being remade. Under President Donald Trump, Washington has reasserted economic nationalism, redrawing trade rules and demanding fairer burden-sharing from allies.

For a nation like South Korea, where exports account for nearly half of gross domestic product, U.S. tariffs and global supply-chain realignments strike at the heart of its economic model. At the same time, China’s slowdown and mounting confrontation with the United States leave Seoul with shrinking room to maneuver.

Compounding these external pressures is an internal crisis: the world’s lowest fertility rate, the erosion of the traditional family structure and an export-driven economy still dominated by a handful of conglomerates. Without a new animating vision, Korea risks demographic decline, economic stagnation and growing irrelevance in the face of global upheaval.

Beyond old ideologies

Against this backdrop, Lee’s decision to legitimize permanent division appears out of step with the scale of the challenges. It reflects the lingering habits of South Korea’s progressive camp — approaching the North through a lens of coexistence while ignoring the deeper shifts transforming the international system.

Yet, what Korea needs today is not an outdated ideological posture, but a forward-looking national purpose that can unite its people, rally allies and meet a rapidly changing world.

The Korean Dream offers such a vision. It ties the nation’s destiny not to resignation or division, but to renewal — a chance to overcome historical wounds, restore national unity and provide a model of reconciliation for the world.

Eighty years after liberation, the true vision for the Korean people remains contested. Whether Korea’s future is defined by resignation to division or by a bold embrace of unification will determine not only its national destiny, but also its standing in the world.

Post-war Poland has enjoyed proper independence now for little more than 35 years. And it wants to keep it that way. But there are external pressures which Poles believe put them under very real threat.

The bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities using advanced bombers and massive ordnance marked a turning point in Donald Trump’s presidency, a man who came to power vowing to end “endless wars” and to withdraw the U.S. from its role as global policeman. With the announcement of a ceasefire between Iran, Israel, and the U.S. in June 2025, brokered by Oman under heavy international pressure, serious questions have emerged: Was the attack a tactical show of force meant to drag Iran back to the negotiating table, or a step toward broader conflict? Is Trump seeking lasting peace, or is he tempted by the drama of a military triumph? And can he leverage this fragile truce to return to diplomacy, or will he stay the course of escalation?

Trump entered the White House in 2016 by sharply criticizing the Iraq War and the massive costs of U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. He even justified the 2020 assassination of Qassem Soleimani as a measure to prevent war. At the time, he passionately declared, “We are no longer the world’s policeman.” But the June 2025 bombing campaign, nicknamed “Operation Midnight Hammer”, reflected a clear shift in his approach. The operation, which targeted Iran’s Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow sites, reportedly caused serious damage to the country’s nuclear program, according to U.S. sources. However, it was launched without congressional approval or broad international support.

Analysts believe several factors drove this decision: the perceived weakening of Iran following the depletion of its proxy forces in Syria and Lebanon; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s push for U.S. military involvement against Tehran; and Trump’s need for a symbolic military “win” to bolster his domestic position amid growing anti-immigration protests and waning support among younger Republicans.

Yet, the ceasefire announced on June 24, 2025, facilitated by Oman and quietly backed by European powers and China, signaled that Trump may still be looking to contain the conflict. Reactions to the attack and subsequent truce have revealed deep divisions among Trump’s base and the international community. Steve Bannon, a staunch Trump ally, criticized the move as a betrayal of his anti-war promises, saying it was exactly what Trump had pledged never to do. Conservative figure Charlie Kirk warned that such conflicts could quickly spiral out of control. On social media, Trump supporters voiced concern about military spending and the potential for a drawn-out entanglement. Far-right commentator Jack Posobiec stressed that young Republicans prioritize fixing America’s domestic problems, like the economic crisis and social instability, over military adventures in the Middle East.

Global reactions were even harsher. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation condemned the strike as a violation of international law. The International Atomic Energy Agency warned that attacks on nuclear sites could have catastrophic environmental and humanitarian consequences.

The greater danger still looms. Bombing a country, without a ground invasion, rarely leads to peace. Iran, with its large population, complex military structure, and advanced missile and cyber capabilities, is not Iraq or Libya. A single miscalculation could unravel the ceasefire and plunge the region into deeper instability. If Iran retaliates, whether through asymmetric warfare or pressure on U.S. allies, the risk of escalation is high.

Trump still has the chance to change course. He could frame the strike as a final warning and use the ceasefire as a springboard back into diplomacy. A narrative like “We’ve shown our strength, now it’s time for peace” might resonate both domestically and abroad. But if he continues down the path of pressure, broadening the mission from containing Iran’s nuclear program to altering its behavior—or even regime change, he risks falling into the very trap he once called “the stupid wars of the Middle East.”

The success of the ceasefire and a return to diplomacy could solidify Trump’s legacy as a peacemaker. Its failure, however, may seal the end of his political career.

At midnight on 6th April 2025, Indian forces launched attacks on multiple locations in Pakistan, including Shakargarh, Sialkot, Muridke, Bahawalpur, Kotli, and the Muzaffarabad area of Punjab and the Pakistani part of Kashmir, using standoff precision-guided munitions. The attacks occurred in the Muslims’ religious places, hydropower infrastructure, and commercial air routes, violating international law and human norms alike, and so far 26 civilian deaths have been reported. India has also challenged Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and violated the international border in the darkness of night. India and Pakistan are the archrival two nuclear weapons states of the South Asia region. However, India’s attack indicates the aggressive posture of Indian Prime Minister Modi’s regime to target the unarmed civilian and innocent children. This is not merely a border skirmish; it is a calculated escalation with far-reaching strategic consequences for the entire South Asian region. Various media reports highlighted that in retaliation and for the defense of the state, Pakistani armed forces also hit all of the Indian fighter jets and drones from their own territory with PL-15.

The tension between India and Pakistan escalated when, on April 22, 2025, terror shattered the peace of Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam, a scenic hill station in Indian-administered Kashmir (IOJK) known as “Mini Switzerland.” Armed gunmen opened fire on civilians, resulting in 26 casualties. Instead of allowing a transparent investigation to determine the perpetrators, India hastily blamed Pakistan, offering no concrete evidence to back its claim. It was India’s security failure; before putting the finger on Pakistan, India needs to have a neutral investigation of the incident and should provide evidence of linkages of the Pakistani state to these attacks. However, India’s recent attack on Pakistan’s territory and targeting civilian population indicates that the Pahalgam attack was an orchestrated provocation. India, under the leadership of Narendra Modi, launched this attack not in defense but for political theater—under the cover of night, on civilian infrastructure, without evidence or provocation. This isn’t an act of strength—it’s a display of desperation. And if this escalates, it won’t just make headlines; it will be etched in history as the moment ego led us to the brink of nuclear catastrophe.

Pakistan has concluded the meeting of the National Security Committee under the leadership of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, and it has been decided that in consonance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, Pakistan reserves the right to respond, in self-defense, at a time, place, and manner of its choosing to avenge the loss of innocent Pakistani lives and blatant violation of its sovereignty. The Armed Forces of Pakistan have duly been authorized to undertake corresponding actions in this regard. India’s missile strikes inside Pakistan were reckless, unprovoked, and a clear violation of international law. India’s recent attacks have put the peace and stability of the entire South Asian region in serious jeopardy. At the moment the strikes occurred, 57 international commercial flights, including those operated by major Gulf and European airlines, were either within or approaching Pakistani airspace. This reckless action posed a direct danger to civilian air traffic, placing thousands of innocent lives at risk. It goes beyond a hostile move against Pakistan; it represents a clear threat to global peace and security. By heightening tensions in a nuclear-armed region, India has shown a disturbing disregard for international laws, aviation safety, and the value of human life.

By targeting civilian airspace and deliberately provoking conflict, India has revealed itself as a reckless and irresponsible actor on the global stage. Its actions undermine regional stability and pose a serious threat to international peace. The international community must look beyond India’s carefully crafted narratives and recognize the true source of aggression. This is a defining moment for global powers to uphold justice, demand accountability, and prevent further escalation. Without decisive diplomatic intervention, India’s adventurism could plunge South Asia and potentially the wider world into a dangerous and prolonged conflict. Several nations have already voiced serious concerns; Azerbaijan condemned the military strikes on Pakistan and urged restraint and dialogue; Turkey, through Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, expressed strong solidarity with Pakistan against India’s unprovoked aggression; and China described India’s military action as “regrettable,” calling for de-escalation and expressing concern over the unfolding situation.

To prevent the escalation between the two nuclear states, India and Pakistan, the international community must play a role to bring them to the negotiation table. Both states need an immediate ceasefire to avoid civilian deaths and triggering nuclear risks; they must also halt the cross-border military activities and refrain from provocative statements. There is also an immediate need to establish a neutral and impartial investigation mechanism under the supervision of the United Nations to determine the perpetrators of the Pahalgam attack. There must be restoration of military-to-military and diplomatic communication channels for conflict management. Moreover, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and the UN Secretary-General must actively intervene by appointing a special envoy to mediate between the two sides. Key international actors such as China, Turkey, the United States, the EU, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) should support de-escalation through diplomatic engagement and pressure for dialogue. Track two diplomacy is vital in the time of crisis and addresses the root cause of the internationally recognized disputed territory of Kashmir in accordance with the UNSC resolutions and wishes of Kashmiri people by granting them the right of self-determination.

Last but not least, both states need to realize that war is not the only solution, but it is a diplomatic failure to de-escalate the tension in the South Asian region. In a nuclearized region of South Asia, its consequences would be catastrophic not only for India and Pakistan but also for regional and global security. The world cannot afford another conflict zone. The international community must rise to the occasion, play an impartial mediating role, and help both nations choose peace over provocation and dialogue over destruction.