hears

CHICAGO — A judge heard testimony Tuesday about overflowing toilets, crowded cells, no beds and water that “tasted like sewer” at a Chicago-area building that serves as a key detention spot for people rounded up in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Three people who were held at the building in Broadview, just outside Chicago, offered rare public accounts about the conditions there as U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman considers ordering changes at a site that has become a flashpoint for protests and confrontations with federal agents.

“I don’t want anyone else to live what I lived through,” said Felipe Agustin Zamacona, 47, an Amazon driver and Mexican immigrant who has lived in the U.S. for decades.

Zamacona said there were 150 people in a holding cell. Desperate to lie down to sleep, he said he once took the spot of another man who got up to use the toilet.

And the water? Zamacona said he tried to drink from a sink but it “tasted like sewer.”

A lawsuit filed last week accuses the government of denying proper access to food, water and medical care, and coercing people to sign documents they don’t understand. Without that knowledge, and without private communication with lawyers, they have unknowingly relinquished their rights and faced deportation, the lawsuit alleges.

“This is not an issue of not getting a toilet or a Fiji water bottle,” attorney Alexa Van Brunt of the MacArthur Justice Center told the judge. “These are a set of dire conditions that when taken together paint a harrowing picture.”

Before testimony began, U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman said the allegations were “disgusting.”

“To have to sleep on a floor next to an overflowing toilet — that’s obviously unconstitutional,” he said.

Attorney Jana Brady of the Justice Department acknowledged there are no beds at the Broadview building, just outside Chicago, because it was not intended to be a long-term detention site.

Authorities have “improved the operations” over the past few months, she said, adding there has been a “learning curve.”

“The conditions are not sufficiently serious,” Brady told the judge.

The building has been managed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for decades. But amid the Chicago-area crackdown, it has been used to process people for detention or deportation.

Greg Bovino, the Border Patrol commander who has led the Chicago immigration operation, said criticism was unfounded.

“I think they’re doing a great job out there,” he told the Associated Press during an interview this week.

Testifying with the help of a translator, Pablo Moreno Gonzalez, 56, said he was arrested last week while waiting to start work. Like Zamacona, he said he was placed in a cell with 150 other people, with no beds, blankets, toothbrush or toothpaste.

“It was just really bad. … It was just too much,” Moreno Gonzalez, crying, told the judge.

A third person, Claudia Carolina Pereira Guevara, testified from Honduras, separated from two children who remain in the U.S. She said she was held at Broadview for five days in October and recalled using a garbage bag to clear a clogged toilet.

“They gave us nothing that had to do with cleaning. Absolutely nothing,” Guevara said.

For months advocates have raised concerns about conditions at Broadview, which has drawn scrutiny from members of Congress, political candidates and activist groups. Lawyers and relatives of people held there have called it a de facto detention center, saying up to 200 people have been held at a time without access to legal counsel.

The Broadview center has also drawn demonstrations, leading to the arrests of numerous protesters. The demonstrations are at the center of a separate lawsuit from a coalition of news outlets and protesters who claim federal agents violated their First Amendment rights by repeatedly using tear gas and other weapons on them.

Fernando writes for the Associated Press. AP reporters Sophia Tareen in Chicago and Ed White in Detroit contributed to this report.

A BBC radio presenter who was sacked for his inappropriate radio segments says he thought he was acting within the guidelines.

Jack Murley, from Bodmin, was employed by BBC Radio Cornwall, in Truro, from 2019 until he was taken off air by the broadcaster in 2023.

2

2

His dismissal came after a “heated conversation” with his boss over his social media use.

The presenter was taken off air despite believing he was “acting within the BBC’s social media guidelines”, a tribunal heard.

Since 2022 Mr Murley had offered his views on social media about the BBC’s Local Value For All project, questions were also raised about one of his radio features.

Mr Murley’s Loosest Goose segment, a satirical show that included innuendo, was described at the disciplinary hearing as being “deeply inappropriate” and “well beyond innuendo.”

One of the beebs senior news editors told the tribunal it had been a “clear and straightforward decision” to consider the case as “gross misconduct.”

At the hearing in Exeter Mr Murley explained he would have been willing to make changes or even “undertake training” to keep his job.

He said if concerns were raised with him he would have acted to address them.

The former presenter is now seeking a whopping £48,000 in compensation.

The corporation said they removed the presenter from the airwaves because of the “heated conversation” he had with his manager.

According to Mr Murley the row stemmed from his social media use, which the firm took issue with.

A senior news editor at BBC Wales was the hearing manager for the disciplinary proceedings brought against Mr Murley.

The senior news editor said social media posts were viewed in the same light as a broadcast.

Speaking at the tribunal he would go on to say Mr Murley: “Should have had the knowledge and experience to be compliant with the guidelines.”

Mr Murley’s disciplinary hearing went to appeal and the hearing manager director of BBC Northern Ireland, Adam Smyth, upheld the decision.

Smyth said the corporation has to “be sure that our presenters are trustworthy.”

Mr Murley is said to have claimed he had several examples of managers endorsing his innuendo in his Loosest Goose radio feature.

He questioned how he was supposed to know that the show breached guidelines given that his seniors endorsed it.

The former presenter explained at the hearing: “I thought I was in the right.”

He added: “I think there was a way back, I wanted to stay at the BBC, I loved the BBC.”

The tribunal continues.

BBC News’ Biggest Blunders

The Beeb has suffered a number of gaffes recently, here we take a look at the biggest, and funniest, mishaps to date:

The US Supreme Court have been presented with arguments in a case attempting to overturn Colorado’s conversion therapy ban for minors.

Back in June 2019, Colorado became the 18th state to prohibit the harmful and discredited practice from being used with its

So-called conversion therapy refers to any attempt at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity and can often involve cruel and dangerous methods such as electroshock therapy, nausea-causing drugs, verbal and physical abuse, food deprivation, and forced prayer.

While it has been widely condemned by health experts and scientific bodies worldwide, the US Supreme Court has recently considered the possibility of overturning Colorado’s ban on the harmful practice —a move that could roll back similar laws in other states.

On 7 October, the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, heard oral arguments regarding the Chiles v. Salazar case – which stemmed from Christian therapist Kaley Chiles’ lawsuit against the state of Colorado.  

In her petition, the licensed professional counsellor, who is represented by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), claimed that the state’s conversion therapy ban violates her freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

During opening arguments, Chiles’ lawyer, James Campbell, alleged that Colorado law forbids counsellors like his client “from helping minors pursue state disfavored goals on issues of issues of gender and sexuality.”

“This law prophylactically bans voluntary conversations, censoring widely held views on debated moral, religious and scientific questions. Aside from this law and recent ones like it, Colorado hasn’t identified any similar viewpoint-based bans on counselling. These laws are historic outliers,” he alleged.

During Colorado’s opening argument, the Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson defended the state’s ban, citing that “state power is at its apex when it regulates to ensure safety in the healthcare professions.”

“Colorado’s law lies at the bull’s eye center of this protection because it prohibits licensed professionals from performing one specific treatment because that treatment does not work and carries a great risk of harm,” she continued.

“No court has ever held that a law like this implicates the First Amendment, and for good reason. First, the law applies only to treatments, that is, only when a licensed professional is delivering clinical care to an individual patient. In that setting, providers have a duty to act in their patients’ best interest and according to their professional standards.

“The First Amendment affords no exception. Second, because this law governs only treatments, it does not interfere with any First Amendment interest. It does not stop a professional from expressing any viewpoint about the treatment to their patient or to anyone else.”

In addition to the above, the court heard an argument from the US Federal Government’s Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, who came out in support of Chiles, stating that the Colorado law is “subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.”

During the question portions of the hearing, many of the conservative justices pushed back against the state’s law, with Justice Samuel Alito expressing concern that it was “blatant viewpoint discrimination.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett also posed the question of whether states can “pick a side” regarding the standard of care.

In response to Barrett’s question, Stevenson said: “The state can show we’re regulating a treatment and we’re regulating consistent with the standard of care. There is a confirmation, a security that the court can have that there is no other motive going to suppress viewpoints or expression.”

While addressing Campbell’s argument, liberal Justice Sotomayor described Chiles vs Salazar as “an unusual case,” citing that there has been no enforcement of Colorado’s law within the last six years.

She also pointed out that state officials did not consider Chiles’ faith-based counselling as a violation of the state’s ban before adding: “So how does that fit into being an imminent threat of prosecution? Yes, you have an argument; they’ve disavowed it. How does that give you standing?

In response, Campbell said he didn’t believe Colorado officials have disavowed enforcement, alleging that “the state was relying on a misreading of the allegations in the case to say there’s no standing.”

He also claimed that several anonymous complaints have been filed against his client, alleging that the state is now investigating them for violating the conversion therapy ban.

During a post-hearing press conference, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser told reporters: “This practice is harmful – it’s been banned on bipartisan basis in Colorado and many other states. It tells young people that who they are is not OK, leaving lasting harm.”

Weiser also pushed back on Campbell’s claim that the state was investigating Chiles, revealing that “there have been no official proceedings or efforts to take any action against the petitioner.”

In the wake of the hearing, an array of LGBTQIA+ activists and organisations have slammed the attempt to reverse Colorado’s conversion therapy ban, including Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson.

“So-called ‘conversion therapy is not therapy, it is an abusive, discredited pseudoscience rooted in shame, rejection and fear. It often resorts to guilt, coercion and trauma in a disturbing effort to make someone believe they are less than simply because of who they are,” she said.

“These appalling practices can destroy families, worsen mental health outcomes and rob people of their faith communities. Laws like Colorado’s are crucial in ensuring that parents can trust licensed mental health professionals to keep youth safe, supported and able to get the care they need without fear of judgment or bias.”

The Supreme Court is expected to reach a decision in Chiles v Salazar in June 2026.

To listen to the full 90-minute hearing, click here.

A TWO-year-old boy was killed as his parents walked him back from the beach, an inquest heard.

Sonny Macdonald was in his pushchair, just minutes away from home, when a car crashed into the family at around 8.15pm on August 16.

3

3

Tragedy struck as the vehicle lost control and smashed through a metal barrier in Gorrell Tank car park, Whitstable, Kent.

Sonny was pronounced dead at the scene, while his parents were rushed to hospital with serious injuries.

An inquest into the two-year-old’s death was opened at Oakwood House in Maidstone on Friday.

Coroner Katrina Hepburn said: “His mother and father witnessed his death, which occurred at approximately 8.24pm.

“[They] were walking back from Whitstable beach from the harbour with Sonny, who was in a pushchair.”

She said the car turned into Cromwell Road, “lost control” and “drove into the family”, as reported by Kent Online.

“The vehicle continued through a metal barrier down onto a car park below, around a six-foot drop, taking Sonny with it,” the coroner added.

Due to an ongoing police investigation, the inquest was adjourned.

Kent Police arrested a man in his 20s at the scene of the horror, on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.

He has been bailed while investigations are ongoing.

Floral tributes and cuddly toys were left at the scene in wake of the tragedy.

Canterbury and Whitstable MP Rosie Duffield said at the time: “I was shocked and very saddened to hear about the horrific incident in Whitstable, and I cannot begin to imagine what the family of the little boy who lost his life must be going through.

“My thoughts are with them and all caught up in this awful tragedy.

”Thank you to our excellent emergency services and all who were there to help, I hope the Police are able to carry out their investigations swiftly and provide some answers about what happened.

“I would urge anyone who may have been nearby to contact Kent Police in case you may have picked up important evidence on your dashcam, or witnessed something that may turn out to be significant.”

Witnesses who have not yet spoken to police, should call 01622 798538 or email [email protected], quoting reference BN/AL/058/25.

Relevant CCTV and dashcam footage can be uploaded via the online portal.

3