Group

Travel expert Simon Calder has advice for those heading abroad

Students celebrating their A-level results are being urged to think carefully about safety before setting off on gap years and adventures abroad.

Travel expert Simon Calder has issued a stark warning to young people preparing to head overseas – telling them that risk management should be at the heart of their plans. Calder, speaking on The Travel Expert podcast with Telegraph journalist Greg Dickinson, said he wanted students to return home “in one piece with nothing but happy memories”.

His advice comes as thousands of young people consider gap years, holidays or trips abroad before starting university. Calder, who took a gap year himself, said there was plenty to gain from seeing the world – but warned that students and their parents should not overlook the potential dangers.

His top three concerns are: drugs and drink, accidents in water and road safety. Calder said: “If you are going to go on a gap year, the main thing to do is risk management.”

He added: “I am absolutely concerned to try to make sure that everybody comes back in one piece with nothing but happy memories.”

Drugs, drink and the risk of spiking

Calder’s first warning was about alcohol and recreational drugs. He acknowledged that many people drink and some take recreational drugs, but urged travellers to understand the risks – including the possibility of their drink being spiked.

He also specifically warned students about methanol poisoning, which has tragically killed travellers overseas. His message was not simply to avoid excessive drinking or drugs, but to understand the potentially serious consequences of what can happen abroad.

And students should never allow alcohol or drugs to lead them into taking unnecessary risks. Calder warned against doing things such as hiring a scooter or going for a midnight swim after consuming drink or drugs.

Take care around water

Calder’s second major warning was about accidents in water. Young travellers heading to beaches, islands and other holiday destinations are urged to understand the dangers posed by strong currents.

One particular hazard is a rip current – a powerful current of water moving away from the shore which can quickly carry swimmers out to sea. Calder said travellers should “make absolutely sure that you know how to identify a rip tide” and understand what to do if caught in one.

The important message is not to panic or try to fight directly against the current.

Road safety

Calder stressed there was one danger that sat “absolutely top of my risk list” , which is road safety. He warned that road risks can increase sharply once travellers leave Britain.

“As soon as you leave the UK, risks start to multiply on the roads,” he said. His advice was to consider how you are going to travel around a country before setting off.

He suggested that, where appropriate, using trains or flying in countries with high road accident rates could reduce the risks faced by young travellers. Calder’s warning is particularly relevant to gap-year students who may be tempted to hire scooters or motorcycles as a cheap and convenient way of getting around.

Thailand warning

The discussion also turned to Thailand, a hugely popular destination for young British travellers. Dickinson warned that students should not assume the country is a place where drug use is tolerated simply because of its reputation for parties and nightlife.

He specifically highlighted the famous Full Moon parties – but stressed that Thailand has strict drug laws. Travellers can face serious consequences for possessing or taking illegal drugs. Dickinson said: “They’re extremely strict on drugs, so you basically need to not get involved with that whatsoever.”

SACRAMENTO — A billionaire-funded political group gave a $5-million donation to the campaign opposing California’s proposed wealth tax, the first of many expected in the expensive fight over a ballot question dividing the state.

If approved by voters, Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires who were residing in the state at the start of this year to pay primarily for healthcare.

The ballot measure has splintered California Democrats and their allies, who are at odds over which public services would receive a portion of the revenue and Proposition 40’s long-term impact on the state budget.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra and groups including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and the California Teachers Assn. oppose the tax, arguing it could push many of the state’s biggest taxpayers to relocate and in effect destabilize the state’s finances.

On Monday, nine Democratic state lawmakers announced their opposition to Proposition 40, writing in an open letter to voters that “while well-intentioned, this measure will blow a massive hole in our state budget in the years ahead and undermine our ability to sustain investments in the very priorities Prop 40 claims to support.” Its signers included Assemblymembers Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks), Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier) and John Harabedian (D-Pasadena).

The California Democratic Party, the California Federation of Labor Unions and progressive officials including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) support the tax, which is intended to raise roughly $100 billion over five years to backfill federal cuts to healthcare and other social safety net programs by President Trump and the Republican-led Congress.

To this point, Building a Better California — a group funded by Google co-founder Sergey Brin and other members of the Silicon Valley elite — has focused on qualifying two ballot measures meant to defang the billionaire tax while maintaining a neutral position on Proposition 40 itself.

That changed over the weekend when the group of billionaires officially came out against the measure and reported the $5-million donation to the anti-Proposition 40 campaign backed by teachers and firefighters unions.

A handful of billionaires have pumped more than $156 million into Building a Better California, mostly from Brin, who has given more than $100 million to the group. It has also received more than $17 million from venture capitalist L. John Doerr, $12 million from Ripple Labs founder Chris Larsen and $3 million from philanthropist and former Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt.

In addition to opposing the wealth tax, Building a Better California announced support for Proposition 3, which would permanently extend an existing tax on certain high earners, along with two housing bonds.

The group has already spent more than $127 million on two competing ballot measures written to weaken or nullify the billionaire tax: Proposition 41 would require audits for new state special taxes and prohibit new taxes from being excluded from the state spending limit. Proposition 42 would ban new taxes on assets such as as personal property, intellectual property and retirement accounts.

If Proposition 40 passes but either Proposition 41 or Proposition 42 receive more votes, the billionaire tax would be voided.

“A few controversial billionaires like Sergey Brin would rather spend millions to fund shady opposition campaigns than simply pay their fair share in taxes so millions of their fellow Californians don’t lose their healthcare. That’s shameful,” said Debru Carthan, executive vice president of Service Employees International United-Healthcare Workers West, the union that collected the signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

Abby Lunardini, a spokesperson for Building a Better California, said the state “is at an inflection point” due to its high cost of living and taxes.

“California’s future rests on both maintaining our economic competitiveness and making smart, accountable public investments that improve affordability and quality of life for all,” Lunardini wrote in a statement. “It’s rare for such a broad coalition to unite around any single cause in California, but it reflects the potentially devastating impact of this measure on healthcare, education, and our state’s economy.”

The $5-million donation is the largest reported by the Proposition 40 opposition campaign, which wrote in a statement that it “welcomes support from everyone — teachers, doctors, hospitals, community clinics, firefighters, housing advocates, blue-collar unions, entrepreneurs, small businesses, Democrats, and Republicans.”

The donation indicates that members of the opposition coalition — and not billionaires — will play a more visible role in campaign ads.

“Two groups in California that have the most credibility with voters are the teachers and the firefighters,” said Garry South, a Democratic strategist who has worked on past ballot measure campaigns. Making them visible messengers against Proposition 40 “is a very important credibility aspect for the No campaign.”

“Nobody likes political consultants or lawyers. They like firefighters and nurses and teachers,” Republican strategist Matt Rexroad agreed.

FairSquare says the FIFA president should not be able to run again under the world football organisation’s statutes.

Human rights organisation FairSquare has urged FIFA to rule that Gianni Infantino is ineligible to seek another term as the football governing body’s president, arguing he ⁠has already served the maximum three terms permitted under the body’s statutes.

FIFA presidents are limited to three terms in office. However, in 2022, Infantino successfully argued that his first spell in charge, which began when he was elected at an Extraordinary FIFA Congress ⁠in 2016 following Sepp Blatter’s resignation, should not count towards that limit because it completed an interrupted mandate.

In a letter sent to FIFA’s Governance, Audit and Compliance Committee (GACC) as reported by The Athletic, FairSquare said that interpretation was inconsistent with FIFA statutes.

“The complaint we have filed provides clear evidence that this is a clear breach of the rules and one that sets a very dangerous precedent,” FairSquare’s ‌Director Nicholas McGeehan told the Reuters news agency.

“The rules state clearly that three presidential terms is the maximum allowed; FIFA can’t simply circumvent this rule – which serves as a check on presidential power – by saying that his first term doesn’t count.”

Infantino is facing mounting scrutiny ahead of next year’s FIFA Congress, where he is expected to seek re-election for the 2027-31 cycle. The vote is scheduled to take place in Morocco on March 18.

Last week, UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation and CONCACAF called for a review of Infantino’s conduct after FIFA proposed creating a $20bn subsidiary linked to its competitions, including the World Cup, to ⁠attract private investment. Sources with knowledge of the situation told Reuters that the three confederations viewed the letter ⁠as an opportunity for Infantino to quit with his dignity intact.

Several national associations have also voiced concerns. Scottish Football Association chief executive Ian Maxwell told the BBC on Monday that his federation would not support Infantino’s re-election.

Infantino, however, retains the backing of the African and South American confederations.

Questions over transparency

FairSquare also questioned the transparency of the 2022 ruling, saying the committee’s reasoning had never been made public.

“The fact they didn’t provide any reasoning to support this ⁠claim, and that they announced the apparent decision two days before the final of ⁠the Qatar 2022 World Cup, suggests that they knew full well that there was no basis to discount Infantino’s first term,” McGeehan said.

The letter to the GACC was drafted with assistance from Miguel Maduro, the former head of FIFA’s independent Governance and Review Committee, who said the governing body could not disregard its ‌own rules.

“The principle of term limits was a fundamental aspect of the 2016 reform aimed at limiting power and the rule introduced is clear: no FIFA president can serve more than three terms of office,” Maduro said in a statement.

“Trying to carve ‌out ‌an exception to such a rule for Mr Infantino reveals both a resistance to the principle of term limits and how some at FIFA conceive of rules not as rules but as obstacles to be circumvented.”