legal

POP superstar George Michael’s estate is suing his former best pal over footage from the recording of a lost album.

Andros Georgiou, 63, faces court for charging fans to watch scenes which he recorded of the ex-Wham! star.

George’s former best friend said he would be “turning in his grave” after the pop singer’s estate sued him over video footage of a secret unreleased album.

The Wham! star’s lawyers are taking Andros to court after he released almost 90 minutes of unseen footage shot in 1992 and 1993.

Andros launched a website last month charging fans to watch the film Trojan Souls — The Greatest Album That Was Never Made.

The record was to feature Elton John, Stevie Wonder, Janet Jackson, Aretha Franklin, Bryan Ferry, Seal and Sade.

NAGA QUITS

Bullying row & crude jokes – Naga’s Munchetty’s downfall as she quits BBC

wild ROMANCE

Princess Andre can’t keep up with ‘extreme’ mum Katie Price’s marriage to Lee

But the legal team from George’s estate has now lodged a case against him at London’s Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court, claiming its rights have been breached.

Furious Andros, 63, said the legal claim was “a case of sheer greed”.

On George, he said: “Yes, we fell out, but we loved and cared for each other deeply, and I find the baseless claims and the constant attempts to erase me from history both disrespectful and, frankly, a bit desperate.

“The film belongs to me.

“Trojan Souls belongs to me.

“They’ve opened Pandora’s Box.

“They won’t want me on the stand.

“I know way too much.

“Bring it on.”

Andros’s film shows the making of tracks for Trojan Souls: The Voice of Reason, a collaboration album with global superstars.

Pop fans are being asked to pay £4.99 for 48 hours of access to the 90-minute video online.

Tribe Media is also selling £19.99 VIP tiers, promising access to never-before-heard recordings of George’s unreleased songs from the record.

Andros shot the video using a camcorder given to him by Sony while they were in Japan on George’s Faith tour.

Andros said: “First and foremost — my brother in arms, my best friend, George Michael to you, Yog to me — would turn in his grave knowing what Russells (the estate’s lawyers) are attempting — and spending his money to do it.”

He went on: “It is well known Yog and I were working on Trojan Souls through my record label, Hardback Records.

“The film I have released was shot by me, with Yog’s full approval.

“This was a home video leaked over 30 years ago.

“It kept resurfacing on YouTube.

“So I decided, if you can’t beat them, put the film out myself, since others were already profiting from my home video.”

The legal case lists Andros and Tribe Media, the production house distributing the film.

The claimants are Robobuild Limited and Big Geoff Overseas Limited, the holding companies George used to manage royalties and world tours.

Andros and George were estranged before the star’s death on Christmas Day, 2016, but had been planning to reconcile.

They fell out after George’s arrest in an LA public toilet in 1998.

But Andros had spoken to his pal on the phone in the final weeks of his life.

The pair had a close friendship for decades after their fathers moved to the UK from Cyprus together in 1953.

Most of the one-hour 24-minute film shows George playing the piano, performing vocals with backing singers, grabbing a bass and talking to producers about his track list in an LA studio.

George lost interest in the album when his then-partner Anselmo Feleppa’s health declined.

Anselmo, who suffered from Aids, died in March 1993.

George never completed the album.

It can take up to two years for a case at the court to reach trial.

Lawyers for George Michael’s estate were asked to comment.

WASHINGTON — With Whitewater investigations likely to continue well into next year’s presidential campaign, the White House has decided on a hard-line legal and public relations counterattack that carries serious political risks for President Clinton.

On the legal front, the White House is relying on executive privilege as well as lawyer-client confidentiality to justify withholding notes on a November 1993 meeting at which the president’s lawyers and aides discussed Whitewater.

The notes have been subpoenaed by the Senate Whitewater investigative committee, and White House aides fear that they will be demanded by special counsel Kenneth W. Starr as well. Today the committee will vote to enforce the panel’s subpoena for the notes. Panel Chairman Alfonse M. D’Amato (R-N.Y.) said that the full Senate would vote on the matter before adjourning later this month and that he plans to seek an expedited court review.

Republicans have suggested that the 1993 meeting, which occurred when several federal agencies were investigating the activities of Clinton associates in Arkansas, may have dealt with ways to cover up damaging facts and obstruct justice.

And such charges, whatever their substantive merits, create a politically dangerous problem for an already embattled president going into an election year.

Some sources who have seen the documents insist that they contain no incriminating revelations. They say that the president is invoking executive privilege because waiving it would open the administration to a massive fishing expedition by partisan investigators. Executive privilege is the constitutional principle that a chief executive can maintain the confidentiality of internal communication involving the legal pursuit of his duties.

Yet even if the meeting notes are innocuous and the White House is holding them back only to protect a larger principle, the failure to make full disclosure can raise voters’ suspicions. Already, political opponents and some newspaper editorial writers are using such Watergate-isms as “stonewalling” to describe Clinton’s reaction.

Said a former Clinton White House official knowledgeable about Whitewater: “The problem here is that the courts might ultimately sustain the president but politically it’s a loser.

“In cases like these, the political dimension quickly overwhelms the legal dimension,” said this source. He predicted that Clinton eventually would find a way to release the documents in some form while continuing to assert that they are protected by either attorney-client privilege or executive privilege.

The Senate panel revealed Wednesday that in addition to the notes of the Nov. 5, 1993, meeting, the White House has not turned over four other Whitewater-related documents:

* A draft chronology of the Whitewater saga prepared by the Clintons’ personal lawyer, David E. Kendall. It was drafted five days after the Nov. 5 meeting.

* A letter written Jan. 4, 1994, to the president from Washington attorney James Hamilton, who has represented the family of the late Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster and who worked for the 1992 campaign.

* A New York Times article from Dec. 20, 1993, with notations Clinton wrote in the margin.

* Undated notes of White House aide Joel Klein.

Democrats said that the Clintons have every right to invoke privilege in this matter, and they suggested that the Republicans should try to negotiate a compromise rather than move toward a court battle. D’Amato described the Clintons’ position as “extraordinary and troublesome.” Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes of Maryland, the committee’s ranking Democrat, accused D’Amato of trying to provoke a confrontation for political reasons.

The White House is more concerned that waiving confidentiality would open the door for Starr to seek notes and testimony from Clinton’s attorneys.

Lawyers, including White House Counsel Jack Quinn, have advised Clinton that he cannot waive the privilege for only one meeting. If he waives it once, he cannot reassert it on another Whitewater issue.

While the White House public relations campaign is aimed at explaining Clinton’s case and marshaling support for it, it also is designed to discredit D’Amato as a political enemy with ethical problems of his own–a ploy guaranteed to stir more controversy and criticism of the president.

Times staff writers John M. Broder and Sara Fritz contributed to this story.

Chadwick Boseman’s brothers are taking the late US actor’s widow to court over her handling of his multimillion-dollar estate.

Derrick Boseman and Kevin Boseman have filed a petition with a Los Angeles court to force the Black Panther star’s widow, Taylor Simone Ledward, to distribute money to family members, and to have her removed as controller of his estate.

They claim she has mishandled distribution of the funds and “cannot be trusted with the continued administration of the estate”.

Boseman died at the age of 43 in 2020, four years after being diagnosed with colon cancer. He is best remembered for playing the lead role of T’Challa, king of Wakanda, in Oscar-winning 2018 Marvel blockbuster Black Panther.

According to court documents seen by BBC News, Boseman had assets worth $3.8m (£2.9m) but died without a will.

A court decided that 50% should go to Boseman’s widow, who was also appointed the estate’s administrator, with 25% to each of his parents.

The actor’s brothers filed the court petition last week on behalf of their parents, Leroy and Carolyn Boseman.

The petition said Ledward “has still not distributed the estate” and “continues to exert unilateral control” over it.

Ledward is also accused of creating a “lack of transparency” around his assets, and of keeping the actor’s parents “in the dark” about the deals and operations of a company that was set up to manage his image and rights.

The brothers claim Ledward’s “misconduct is causing ongoing harm” to Boseman’s elderly parents and depriving them “of financial assets at a vulnerable age when such support is most critical”.

“Moreover, the needless continuation of these proceedings denies Decedent’s [Boseman’s] family closure and causes emotional distress,” the court filing said.

“Imagine flipping through the channels and stumbling on a film starring your deceased son or brother, knowing that someone you do not know or trust is profiting from his image without your input or consent.”

Ledward – an R&B artist who uses the name Sahn – started dating Boseman in 2015 and they got married just six days before the actor’s death in August 2020.

The BBC has asked her lawyer for a comment.

In a statement to US media, the late actor’s brothers said: “On behalf of our parents, we are committed to ensuring that transparency, accountability, and respect guide the resolution of these matters.

“Our hope is that this process brings clarity, honors the court’s orders, and ensures the responsible stewardship of Chadwick’s legacy.

“We love our brother, and we remain committed to preserving his legacy with dignity, integrity, and respect.”

A BON Jovi tribute singer has been forced to change his name from One Jovi after a legal threat from the rockers’ lawyers.

Andy Hearn, 53, trademarked the jokey moniker after other performers tried to copy it.

But he then got a cease-and-desist letter from the ’80s hitmakers, named after lead singer Jon Bon Jovi, saying the tag was too similar.

Engineering fitter Andy, of Rotherham, South Yorks, has been in the band for six years but was worried about the costs of tackling the Livin’ On A Prayer stars in court.

He said: “I was disappointed a multi-billion-pound company would be bothered about someone doing pubs and clubs for a few pennies.

“I said, ‘If you think I’m a threat, then thank you — it’s a compliment’.”

BRAD HEARTBREAK

Fresh blow for Brad Pitt as daughter, 18, takes legal action to cut ties

AIRPORT CHAOS

Abbey Clancy’s daughter ‘nearly ARRESTED’ after ‘gun’ joke with US security

Andy said they claimed a tribute band name had to be at least 20 per cent different.

He said the exchange took place around three years ago and was resolved after several emails.

Andy was allowed to keep rocking Bon Jovi classics with his band – and at solo shows – under the ‘One Jovi’ name.

But he now releases his own songs under the tweaked moniker ‘Mr One Jovi’.

Andy insists it has not soured his love for the band, whose music he first discovered as a teenager.

He said: “It didn’t affect the way I feel about them.

“I remember listening to them when I was 14 and just absolutely loving it.”

Andy is now stepping out of Jon Bon Jovi’s shadow and chasing chart success with original music of his own.

Bon Jovi have been contacted for comment.

PHOENIX — Election officials in Arizona’s most populous county reached an agreement this week on how to jointly oversee the vote, ending a prolonged legal battle.

Republican Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap sued the predominantly GOP board of supervisors in June 2025, alleging it illegally took control of certain aspects of election administration. The board called the lawsuit frivolous and said Heap was wasting taxpayer money.

They reached a settlement this week to resolve the lawsuit after mediated negotiations, and the board approved it.

“This deal gets us out of the courtroom,” board Chair Kate Brophy McGee, said after Tuesday’s vote. “I’m sick of drama. We are done with being on the front page going forward.”

Heap said his objective was simple: to ensure his office’s statutory responsibilities are carried out lawfully.

“I am pleased we have reached an agreement that, when implemented, will restore those responsibilities and establish a clear framework for administering elections moving forward,” Heap said in a statement jointly released with the board.

Under the agreement, an interim plan proposed by Heap and approved by the Arizona Supreme Court will govern the July 21 primary. Early voting began in late June.

Heap will oversee much of early voting, selection of ballot drop box locations and other duties. The board will handle other areas, including Election Day voting, ballot tabulation and voting location equipment maintenance. The board also will fund a new $15 million information technology system and related positions for the recorder.

Heap was backed in the lawsuit by America First Legal, a conservative public interest group founded by Stephen Miller, a deputy chief of staff in the White House. Heap had claimed the board transferred funding, IT staff and some key functions — including management of drop boxes and establishment of early voting sites — away from his office through an agreement negotiated with his predecessor.

Heap defeated incumbent recorder Stephen Richer, in a GOP primary, and won the 2024 general election.

The two were at odds over election administration in Maricopa County. In the past, Heap has stopped short of repeating false claims that the 2020 and 2022 elections were stolen. But he has said voters don’t trust the state’s voting system and that it is poorly run. Richer, also a Republican, relentlessly defended the legitimacy of the vote.

Supervisor Steve Gallardo, a Democrat, did not vote to approve the settlement and criticized Heap during Tuesday’s board meeting.

“Honestly, I don’t think he wants to have an election that is conducted transparent or even an election that’s not compromised,” Gallardo said. “Now, with this, he owns it.”

Kelety writes for the Associated Press.

Madrid, Spain – Badr Tmairi, 22, from Morocco, has spent six years living in Spain without legal status. He arrived at 16, alone, without his family. He held legal residency briefly after turning 18, but lost it when he failed to renew it in time.

“What I want is to get my papers back so I can work as a hairdresser and travel to visit my family in Morocco,” he said.

Tmairi is one of more than a million people who have now applied for regularisation under a new scheme that contrasts with a growing European trend against irregular immigration.

He has been homeless for the past year. Without documents, finding work and decent housing in Spain is difficult.

“It’s very encouraging to know that so many people submitted an application and are trying to regularise their situation, but that huge number is also proof that the state has failed in its duty to protect the most vulnerable,” Edith Espinola, president of the Active Domestic Workers’ Service Association (SEDOAC) and spokesperson for the Regularizacion Ya (Regularisation Now), told Al Jazeera.

Regularizacion Ya, a collective made up of migrants, has led the push for regularisation since 2020. The measure grew out of a broad social consensus and has been backed by civil society organisations, the Catholic Church, trade unions and business associations.

Living without legal status, Espinola said, condemns people to social exclusion, as it has for Tmairi. Without rights or protection from abuse, they are unaligned with most of the rest of the population.

The new initiative, Spain’s first regularisation process since 2005, began in April and closed on June 30. The government now has three months to resolve the vast majority of the applications submitted.

Of the 1,174,978 applications, according to the Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security and Migration, only 11,000 have received a favourable resolution so far. About 608,000 have been accepted for processing, granting provisional residency and work permits until a final resolution.

‘All I want is to work’

Rocio Neciosupe, 54, is a Peruvian migrant who has spent two years without legal status in Spain. “Regularisation isn’t a handout; all I want is to work. To work without fear and with rights, so that if I fall and I’m sick, I don’t have to go to work that day and can still get paid, like anyone else,” she said.

Neciosupe, a cleaner in private homes, is busy across six different buildings around Madrid. But she is currently recovering from a back injury sustained in a fall at work. Without documents or a contract, she has no right to sick leave.

Unable to afford to lose her income while she recovers, her husband accompanies her to work each day and helps her with tasks she cannot manage alone.

Rocio, her husband and their two daughters, aged 22 and 17, have all had their regularisation applications accepted for processing and are now awaiting a favourable resolution.

“I want to support the country I live in, and if the country grows, we grow too,” Neciosupe added.

It is precisely in the contribution and growth potential of people like her that the Spanish government has framed its case for the measure.

“By 2050, Spain’s GDP would be 19 percent lower, 90,000 bars would close, 50,000 classrooms would shut and 220,000 farms would disappear,” Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said recently in a public address.

Gonzalo Fanjul, director of ISGlobal’s policy and development team and head of Research at the porCausa Foundation, said: “If you look at what’s happening in the United States, there are already estimates of the impact of the government’s violent, hostile anti-migration policies. Whole economic sectors are struggling to keep functioning.”

One of those sectors is care work. With an ageing population, Spain needs trained workers to fill positions in that sector, among others.

Josselyn Aguirre, 32, is one of those workers. A nursing assistant, she migrated from Ecuador to Spain in 2024. Her original plan had been to move to the United States, but her visa application was rejected.

“My goal is to stay and help older people. I really enjoy working with them,” she said.

“Here, in my country and in other countries around the world, this sector is collapsing due to a shortage of staff. That’s why I believe that being able to regularise your status and contribute as a professional benefits everyone,” she told Al Jazeera.

Migrants and refugees who applied for regularisation had already been living in Spain, working in the informal economy for years; 57 percent are men, most come from Latin American countries, and six out of 10 are below the age of 34.

So far, 159,097 additional people have registered with the Social Security system as a result of the regularisation process.

With this measure, “Spain has made a bet on growth. We’re going to be a country of 50 million people,” Fanjul said. “But it’s not enough.”

Amid a European political climate in which anti-migration rhetoric appears to be gaining ground, Spain’s approach shows another path is possible, though “regularisation is only the beginning”, Fanjul said.

“The system has been reset, but none of the underlying reasons that brought us to this point have been resolved.

“For the state to open up legal, safe and orderly channels for labour mobility is simply common sense,” he concluded.

Espinola is in no doubt.

Despite criticism from those opposed to the regularisation, she stressed, “We have come out stronger. The migrant community has once again shown its capacity for mutual support in difficult situations.”

The regularisation process is not yet over, she added: “We will remain vigilant to make sure the more than a million applications submitted are processed properly.”

July 9 (UPI) — More than a dozen news organizations asked a court to sanction OpenAI for withholding evidence in lawsuits filed against the company for copyright infringement.

The New York Times, New York Daily News, The Intercept and 14 other news organizations asked a federal court on Thursday for sanctions against the artificial intelligence company for lying about its ability to provide data showing how it has used copyrighted material to train its models.

The companies had sued OpenAI for violating copyright law by using their content to create a secondary product — its AI models — without paying for it, The New York Times and Variety reported.

In court, the AI company had said it could not search training datasets and output data, but earlier this year one of the company’s employees said during a deposition that the data could be accessed.

“The evidence is in OpenAI’s training data sets and ChatGPT output logs,” the organizations said in the court filing.

“But instead of just producing that evidence at the start of the case and focusing on the merits of its fair use defense, OpenAI chose obstruction,” they said.

In addition to accusing OpenAI of lying about searching for the organizations’ content in its data, they allege that the company deleted data logs, which would violate a court order to preserve relevant evidence.

An attorney for the organizations said in a statement that OpenAI had claimed that searching its ChatGPT outputs was “infeasible, burdensome and invasive of users’ privacy” but then lied about having already done searches.

OpenAI called the news organizations’ allegations in the filing “blatantly false,” and said that its use of their content falls under “the long-established principles of fair use.”

Taylor Swift has yet another new thing to celebrate.

Now in her newlywed era, the pop superstar’s concert film, “The Eras Tour: The Final Show,” earned five Emmy nominations Wednesday. This includes nods for variety special (pre-recorded), sound mixing for a variety series or special, directing for a variety special, picture editing for variety programming, and technical direction and camerawork for a special.

The nomination for variety special (pre-recorded) means Swift herself is a nominee as the performer and a producer of the concert film, which showcased the final performance of her record-breaking tour. This marks the “The Life of a Showgirl” singer-songwriter’s second career Emmy nomination. She previously won in 2015 in the category of creative achievement in interactive media — original interactive program, as the executive producer of the mobile app AMEX Unstaged: Taylor Swift Experience.

The accolades come just five days after Swift married beau Travis Kelce in an extravagant — yet secretive — Manhattan affair at Madison Square Garden. The Kansas City Chiefs tight end has spoken about his failed attempt to slide Swift his phone number (via friendship bracelet) when he attended an Eras tour concert in 2023.

The Emmy nominations follow her latest legal win. On Monday, a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice a copyright lawsuit that accused Swift of plagiarizing a self-published poet.

In February 2025, Kimberly Marasco, representing herself, filed a lawsuit that alleged Swift copied “unique expressions” such as short phrases and specific words from her poetry in numerous songs, including “The Man,” “Down Bad,” “I Can Do It With a Broken Heart,” “Hoax,” “Guilty as Sin?” and “It’s Time to Go.” A similar lawsuit Marasco filed against Swift and other named defendants was dismissed by the same judge last September.

Swift’s lawyers called the lawsuit “absurd and legally baseless” in their filings. “For instance, the concept of betrayal or the words ‘fire’ or ‘love’ cannot be owned by one person, as basic themes or words are not protectable by copyright law,” reads the motion to dismiss submitted by attorneys James Douglas Baldridge and Katherine Wright Morrone, who also represented co-defendants Republic Records and Universal Music Group.

In her order granting Swift and her record label’s motion, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon agreed, reiterating that “the allegedly infringed material — basic ideas, themes, metaphors, isolated words, and short phrases — is not protected expression and cannot be infringed.”

Cannon mentioned these allegedly plagiarized words and phrases included “tears,” “running,” “fire,” “rain,” “sky,” “love,” “invisible,” “caged me,” “flesh and blood” and “it’s time to go.”

Even if they were protected expressions, “the works are not even substantially similar — a point Plaintiff effectively concedes by characterizing the alleged copying as ‘paraphrase[s],’ ‘rephrase[s],’ and copying with ‘minor word substitutions,’” Cannon wrote.

But it appears Swift has not completely shaken off Marasco’s copyright lawsuit. The Florida poet has already filed an appeal.

Spain’s immigration scheme sees more than a million applications, with Latin Americans leading the numbers at 67 percent.

Almost 1.2 million undocumented migrants have sought legal status in Spain under a scheme that has defied a growing European crackdown on irregular immigration.

The government of Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, a standard-bearer of more open immigration policies, launched the vast plan in April while European neighbours toughen measures in response to pressure from ascendant far-right parties.

A total of 1,174,978 applications were submitted between mid-April and June 30 when the window closed, with more than 600,000 already being processed, Secretary of State for Migration Pilar Cancela told a news conference in Madrid on Thursday.

Latin America accounted for 67 percent of the submissions, with Colombia alone representing 25.9 percent of the total. African nationalities followed with 22.9 percent.

After Colombia, the most represented countries were Morocco at 13.3 percent, Venezuela with 11.8 percent and Peru at 8.8 percent.

An overwhelming majority of applicants were young, with eight out of 10 younger than 45 years old, while 57 percent of the total were males against 43 percent for females.

The application total does not necessarily indicate how many people will normalise their situation. According to government projections in April, there are about 500,000 potential beneficiaries.

Applicants must prove they have a clean criminal record and spent at least five consecutive months in Spain before January 1.

The authorities have three months to process their paperwork and decide whether to issue a work and residence permit valid only in Spain.

Sanchez has touted the benefits of immigration and the vast regularisation scheme for sectors such as construction that need to boost their workforce.

“Without immigration, Spain would lose 19 percent of its GDP by 2050,” Sanchez said on Tuesday during a presentation on migration. “And what does that mean in business terms? It means, for example, that 90,000 bars would have to close, that 50,000 primary and secondary classrooms would find themselves without students, and that around 220,000 farms would disappear.”

Without immigration, he added, Spain would be “poorer, emptier, weaker and without the resources to fund its welfare state”.

“Spain has never moved forward by building walls,” the prime minister said. “The only decent thing to do is extend a hand, not turn our backs on immigration.”

Spanish business leaders have welcomed the move, but the conservative and far-right opposition are furious about a policy they say will encourage more irregular immigration. Santiago Abascal, the leader of the far-right Vox party, slammed the scheme, calling it an “invasion”.

“More than a million strangers now competing with Spaniards for jobs, housing, daycare places, hospital beds, and social assistance. It’s an invasion. And it’s a betrayal,” Abascal said on X.

As CNN prepares for change under a new owner, the network’s chief legal affairs correspondent, Paula Reid, is heading for the exit and expected to jump to MS NOW.

The Washington-based Reid’s contract with CNN is up in several months and she has told the network she does not plan to renew. She is expected to sign on with CNN competitor MS NOW, according to people familiar with her plans who were not authorized to comment publicly.

A representative for MS NOW said the network does not comment on personnel matters but added, “as everyone in Washington knows, Paula Reid is an exceptional reporter, and any news organization would be fortunate to showcase her journalism.”

Reid‘s planned departure comes ahead of the impending merger of CNN parent Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount. The combination has led to speculation over who will run CNN, and the uncertainty is said to have played a factor in Reid’s decision.

Reid joined CNN from CBS News in 2021.

CNN and Paramount’s CBS News will be combined after the merger, but the management structure is still under discussion. Paramount put Bari Weiss, founder of the heterodox digital news site the Free Press, in charge of CBS News in October, with a mandate to move the network’s coverage more to the political center. Based on the chaos that has ensued at CBS News under her watch, many CNN insiders are concerned over her possible stewardship of an even larger and more complex organization.

CBS News executives and on-air talent have pushed back at Weiss’ efforts to make changes at the division, which many insiders have viewed as an attempt to placate the Trump White House while Paramount seeks regulatory approvals needed ahead of closing the $111-billion Warner Bros. Discovery deal.

Internal resistance to Weiss has been strongest at the venerable news magazine “60 Minutes.” The program’s star correspondent Scott Pelley was fired last month after he confronted management over the dismissals of executive producer Tanya Simon and his on-air colleagues Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega.

Weiss’ overhaul of the “CBS Evening News” with her handpicked anchor Tony Dokoupil has failed to improve the third-place program’s competitive position in the ratings. The program has also been criticized for some of its editorial decisions and logistical snafus.

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper has reportedly told colleagues he does not want to work for Weiss if the cable network is put under her purview. He already rejected an offer from Weiss to anchor the “CBS Evening News” and declined to renew his deal as a “60 Minutes” contributor after nearly two decades with the program.

The chaos at CBS has given pause to people at CNN. Larry Ellison, the tech billionaire and father of Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison, has reportedly promised Trump there will be sweeping changes to CNN after the merger.

Reid, 43, is among the many TV news correspondents and anchors that Trump has disparaged over the years, claiming they are unfair in their coverage. As White House correspondent for CBS News, Reid was known for asking tough questions of Trump during his White House briefings on the coronavirus.

Reid was a lawyer before becoming a journalist at CBS News in 2010. In addition to serving as White House correspondent for the network, she covered the Justice Department and the Supreme Court.

Reid would be another significant hire for MS NOW, the progressive-leaning channel that is rebuilding its roster after separating from NBC News and its parent, Comcast. The network formerly known as MSNBC is now part of Versant, a company with a stable of cable networks spun off by Comcast.

Peter Alexander, former chief White House correspondent for NBC News, is joining MS NOW as a morning anchor later this year. The network also hired former “CBS Mornings” executive producer Shauna Thomas as political director.

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s Noah Goldberg and David Zahniser, with an assist from Melissa Gomez and Connor Sheets, giving you the latest on city and county government.

The city of Los Angeles will shell out $120,000 for outside lawyers to fight a lawsuit filed by a councilmember challenging an ethics fine.

On Wednesday, the City Council voted unanimously to hire the law firm Hecker Fink LLP to represent the city’s Ethics Commission as it defends its decision to fine Councilmember John Lee $138,000 for allegedly violating city gift laws during a notorious 2017 trip to Las Vegas. Lee recused himself from the vote.

The city attorney’s office has said it can’t represent the Ethics Commission in Lee’s lawsuit because of a conflict of interest.

Lee was chief of staff to then-Councilmember Mitchell Englander when the two were plied with meals and alcohol, as well as hotel stays and gambling chips, by people seeking business with the city.

Lee, who represents the northwest San Fernando Valley, has claimed that he made a good faith effort to pay his own way. At a nearly $2,500 dinner that included Kobe beef, Maine lobster, Peking duck and sea bass, the only thing he ate was a spoonful of bird’s nest soup, he said at a hearing in his ethics case.

In 2020, Englander pleaded guilty to a single count of providing false information to the FBI and was sentenced to 14 months in prison. Three years later, he agreed to pay $79,830 to settle an Ethics Commission case focused on his own gift law violations.

The commission levied the fine against Lee in December, finding that he committed two counts of violating the city’s law against accepting gifts above a certain value, three counts of violating a law requiring that such gifts be disclosed to the public and five counts of misusing his city position.

David Tristan, the Ethics Commission’s executive director, had asked the council to provide at least $120,000 to defend against Lee’s lawsuit.

Lee declined to comment on the vote. In his lawsuit, he claimed that the statute of limitations had expired on the matters that were investigated by the Ethics Commission. He also accused the commission of overvaluing the share of gifts he partook in.

Lee is seeking to get the fine overturned.

More churn in the Karen Bass campaign

Turns out the shakeup in Mayor Karen Bass’ campaign did not end with the departure of Douglas Herman, her top strategist.

Herman told The Times on Wednesday that he stepped down due to “strategic differences” over the Nov. 3 runoff campaign against City Councilmember Nithya Raman. Bass’ team said on the same day that they had replaced him with Julie Chávez Rodriguez, who was campaign manager for the Joe Biden and Kamala Harris presidential campaigns in 2024.

A day later, political consultant Larry Grisolano confirmed that he too is no longer with the Bass reelection effort. His company, Thematic Campaigns, had been providing media and digital strategy.

On Friday, Berkeley-based research consultant Mike Rice told The Times that his firm, VR Research, had also left the Bass campaign, effective Wednesday. He declined to comment further.

Bass campaign spokesperson Alex Stack declined to discuss the departures. Asked if the campaign is in disarray, he said no, adding that Chávez Rodriguez’s hiring “is a really big get for us.”

“We’re getting a lot of positive feedback,” Stack said.

Still waiting on eviction defense contracts

In March, it appeared that a battle between City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto and the nonprofit running L.A.’s eviction defense program was over.

At the time, Feldstein Soto said she had concerns over awarding funds to the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, which has sued the city successfully over homelessness issues on multiple occasions. Feldstein Soto argued that contracts should not be awarded without rigorous reports and invoice review from Legal Aid and other nonprofits.

The City Council awarded the contracts anyway, funding the initial portion of a three-year, $177-million deal for Legal Aid and three other nonprofits to provide eviction defense, short-term rental assistance, tenant outreach and more as part of the city’s Stay Housed L.A. program.

But months later, Feldstein Soto’s office still hasn’t executed the contracts, frustrating tenants rights advocates and the nonprofits, which are struggling to pay their staff without the funds from the city.

“We’ve been really in a state of purgatory for over a year,” said Mike Dennis, senior director of housing justice at the Liberty Hill Foundation, which does tenant outreach as part of the city’s program.

Dennis said the failure to execute the contracts has created planning and operational uncertainty for the community-based organizations that Liberty Hill works with. Soon, some of them may face serious issues.

“We’re quickly approaching a point where the organizations are not going to keep being able to pay staff and absorb those costs,” he said. “The longer this goes on, the more likely we are to see contractions in the work.”

Earlier this month, Councilmember Ysabel Jurado put forward a motion asking the city attorney to explain why the contracts have not been executed. Jurado said the delay has left $17 million in funds unused.

“At the same time, the selected contractors struggle to maintain staffing without this funding, placing services for those at risk of homelessness in jeopardy,” she wrote in the June 2 motion.

Feldstein Soto argued in a June 15 response that Legal Aid has failed to agree to the “accountability and reporting requirements” needed to execute the contracts. She said those requirements were designed to make sure that taxpayer funds are spent properly.

“This office will continue to work with proposed contractors until the concerns are sufficiently addressed,” she said in a statement.

State of play

— UNHAPPY MEMORIES: Bass was out of town when the Boyle Heights warehouse fire erupted, which is giving voters a fresh reminder of her absence at the start of the Palisades fire. The situation could have an impact on her reelection campaign against Raman.

— HEADING TO THE BALLOT: A half-cent sales tax hike that would generate $345 million annually for the Los Angeles Fire Department will go before voters in the Nov. 3 election. The measure has been spearheaded by the city’s firefighter union, which gathered the signatures to qualify it for the ballot.

— D.A. DENIED: A judge has rejected Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman’s request to freeze payments in the $4-billion sex abuse settlement approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. The ruling boots Hochman from his brief stint in a civil courtroom as he moves forward with his criminal investigation into lawyers, recruiters and medical practitioners who may have submitted fraudulent claims.

— SOCIALIST SURGE: L.A.’s democratic socialists are looking to expand their power at City Hall yet again, setting their sights on the races for mayor and city attorney. Raman and city attorney hopeful Marissa Roy, both members of the L.A. chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, are heading into the runoff after strong showings in the June 2 primary. (DSA-LA endorsed Roy but not Raman in the primary.)

— A BLOWOUT ELECTION: Property owners across the city voted overwhelmingly against increasing the assessment they pay to maintain streetlights. City leaders had hoped to use the funds — an additional $80 million a year — to speed up repairs and upgrade the city’s 225,000 streetlights.

— CLEARING THE LAND: Overgrown lots razed by the Eaton and Palisades fires pose an increasing wildfire threat to surrounding properties. The county Board of Supervisors recently passed a motion calling on county departments to develop a plan to clear vegetation in Altadena and Sunset Mesa.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to combat homelessness went to the area around the Wiltern Theatre in Koreatown this week. The area is represented by Councilmember Heather Hutt.
• On the docket next week: On Tuesday, the council takes up a package of ballot measures that would rewrite the City Charter. The changes cover topics such as voting rights for noncitizens, expanded park funding and City Council oversight of policies at the Los Angeles Police Department.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration may end the Temporary Protected Status granted to more than 350,000 Haitians and Syrians whose home countries remain unsafe.

In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority said Congress gave the administration, not judges, the power to cancel or renew this temporary protection for non-citizens who are living and working here.

In a second win Thursday for the Trump administration, the court also upheld the administration’s policy of blocking asylum seekers at the southern border.

By the same 6-3 vote, the court said migrants do not have a right to apply for asylum if they are not already in the United States.

The decision on Temporary Protected Status could affect up to 1.3 million non-citizens who are in the country.

In 1990, Congress authorized this emergency humanitarian relief for non-citizens whose home countries were wracked by armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary disruptions.

Under the law, the Department of Homeland Security may grant this protection for 6, 12 or 18 months and either renew or extend it for a similar period.

But this legal authority has been under dispute since Trump returned to the White House last year and targeted the 1.3 million people with TPS from 17 countries who were living in the United States.

Trump’s lawyers said the law made clear there was “no judicial review” of the government’s decision to cancel the grant of temporary protection.

However, immigrant rights lawyers argued the government failed in its duty to consult the State Department and assess whether it was safe for migrants to return home.

Repeatedly, U.S. district judges agreed with the challengers and ruled the administration’s decisions were “arbitrary” and unreasonable. But in nearly every case, the Supreme Court granted emergency appeals from the administration and set aside those orders.

Since TPS was created, the government has ended the protected designation for citizens of 18 countries.

DHS under then-Secretary Kristi Noem ended TPS for Honduras, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Venezuela. A spokesperson for the agency previously said the Haiti designation became “a de facto amnesty program” and that allowing Syrians to remain is contrary to national interest.

Advocates for the immigrants argue that the administration failed to conduct the required process to properly evaluate each country’s conditions and instead acted on political grounds driven by racial animus.

State Department travel advisories for both countries warn people against traveling to either because of the risk of terrorism, kidnapping and widespread violence. But Federal Register notices announcing the terminations said country conditions had improved enough.

Recently released internal documents show that DHS decided to terminate protections for Haitians without any input from the State Department.

Citing the documents, which were obtained by the National TPS Alliance in a separate lawsuit, lawyers for the Haitians asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case and send it back to lower courts. They argued that the justices should first consider the communications before issuing a decision.

Internal emails show that homeland security officials sought a recommendation from the State Department in May 2025, ahead of Noem’s early June deadline on whether to extend protections for Haiti. But by the time Noem signed what appears to be a final decision memo, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had not received input from the State Department, the emails show.

“State recommendation for Haiti TPS has not come in despite of many outreach,” a homeland security deputy assistant secretary wrote in a June 2, 2025, email. A recommendation “would be helpful to have,” the person added.

Eleven days later, a USCIS project manager wrote in an email that Noem “recently elected to terminate Haiti without country conditions from DOS.”

USCIS initially recommended automatically extending protections before Homeland Security decided to terminate them, earlier versions of the memo indicate.

The June decision was blocked by a federal judge. In November, DHS issued another notice terminating TPS protections for Haitians.

That time, according a previously publicized email, a homeland security senior counselor asked a State Department official for the agency’s views on the country conditions in Haiti. The official, Spencer Chretien, didn’t address the country conditions but responded that “there would be no foreign policy concerns.”

Lawyers for the Haitians argued that response didn’t meet the legal standard for a sufficient consultation, though the Trump administration disagreed.

The bitter legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni over allegations of misconduct and retaliation tied to the making of “It Ends With Us” moved closer to a conclusion Friday after a federal judge ordered Baldoni and his production company to pay Lively’s attorneys fees related to his unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against her, while rejecting her bid for additional damages.

In a 47-page order, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman found that Lively was entitled to recover legal fees under a California law intended to protect people who report sexual misconduct from retaliatory defamation claims, ruling that Baldoni’s side had failed to show she acted with malice when making her allegations.

But Liman denied Lively’s request for treble and punitive damages, concluding that the procedural mechanism her lawyers used permitted recovery of attorneys fees and costs but not broader financial penalties.

Lively’s attorneys, Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb, called Friday’s ruling a victory for their client and emphasized that the judge found “there was no evidence she acted with malice.”

“The Court is awarding Ms. Lively attorneys’ fees and costs and has explained that a prevailing defendant under Section 47.1 may seek damages using different procedural mechanisms,” the attorneys said in a statement. “The parties’ settlement agreement expressly preserves Ms. Lively’s rights to obtain those damages.”

While the judge rejected Lively’s request for additional damages in this particular motion, her legal team said she could still seek them through other legal avenues permitted under the statute.

Bryan Freedman, Baldoni’s attorney, sharply disputed Lively’s characterization of the ruling, arguing that the court’s prior decisions had substantially undercut many of her original claims.

“There was no sexual harassment. There was no retaliation. There was no smear campaign,” Freedman said in a statement. “The court recognized it, the record reflects it, and we have maintained it from the very beginning.”

The amount Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios ultimately may have to pay has not yet been determined. Lively’s lawyers must still submit billing records and fee calculations for court approval.

The ruling follows last month’s settlement between Lively and Baldoni, which came just before what had been expected to be a closely watched federal trial in Manhattan. Under that settlement, neither side received financial compensation. But the agreement preserved Lively’s ability to seek attorneys fees and damages under California Civil Code Section 47.1, a relatively new statute designed to shield sexual harassment and assault accusers from retaliatory defamation claims.

Lively sued Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios, Wayfarer CEO Jamey Heath and others in December 2024, alleging Baldoni and his associates orchestrated a coordinated effort to damage her reputation after she raised concerns about misconduct during production of the film, which Baldoni directed and co-starred in. Baldoni denied wrongdoing.

Baldoni and Wayfarer later filed a $400 million defamation suit against Lively, her publicist Leslie Sloane and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, that was dismissed last year. Friday’s ruling dealt specifically with whether Lively could recover attorneys’ fees and damages tied to that dismissed suit under California Civil Code Section 47.1.

The latest ruling comes after Liman earlier this year dismissed 10 of the 13 claims in Lively’s lawsuit, including sexual harassment and defamation claims, while allowing retaliation-related claims to proceed.

In Friday’s ruling, Liman wrote that Baldoni’s team had produced no evidence demonstrating Lively acted maliciously when making her allegations.

“Allegations are insufficient on their own to demonstrate that statements were in fact made with malice,” the judge wrote. “That determination requires some evidence.”

Friday’s ruling offered each side new grounds to claim vindication in a legal battle that has played out as much in public statements as in court filings. Lively’s team pointed to the judge’s finding that she acted without malice, while Baldoni’s attorneys emphasized that many of her original claims had been dismissed.

Still, the settlement agreement bars either side from appealing Liman’s ruling, potentially drawing one of Hollywood’s ugliest recent legal fights to a close.

WhatsApp disrupted phishing attempts linked to NSO, blacklisted by the US for security concerns.

Meta has said it is ⁠filing a federal US ⁠court contempt order against Israeli spyware firm NSO Group for violating a permanent injunction that barred it from ever ⁠targeting WhatsApp and its users.

The company said on Monday that its WhatsApp messaging service disrupted new spear phishing attempts linked to NSO, an ⁠entity blacklisted by the United States government for engaging in activities that are contrary to national security or foreign policy interests.

These attempts were similar to previous “1-click phishing campaigns”, aimed to trick users into clicking ‌malicious links and direct them to external websites, Meta said in a blogpost.

A “1-click” is a type of cyberattack where a single click on a malicious link or attachment is sufficient to compromise a victim’s device or account, without requiring them to enter their credentials.

Meta said WhatsApp took down test accounts ⁠and groups created by NSO on its platform. ⁠NSO did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

Last year, a US court ordered NSO to stop targeting Meta’s WhatsApp, a development the spyware ⁠company warned could put it out of business.

While the ruling significantly reduced the punitive damages NSO ⁠owed Meta to $4m from an ⁠initial $167m, the injunction itself was seen as a substantial challenge for the company, which faces ongoing accusations of enabling human rights abuses through its Pegasus hacking tool.

Meta ‌said on Monday that last month it was joined by 12 prominent civil rights organisations, a coalition of security researchers, privacy advocates ‌and ‌digital rights experts, who filed their amicus briefs to fight NSO’s appeal against the permanent injunction.

Of the complaints made to the Citizens Advice Consumer Service, 42% involved all-inclusive packages abroad

More than four million people had problems with a package holiday in the past year, a survey for Citizens Advice suggests. The survey found 76% of adults had been on a package holiday before, and 34% of them had experienced a problem. Some 8% had suffered an issue within the last 12 months specifically, equating to an estimated four million travellers, it said.

The charity said it received about 14 complaints a day about package holidays, including issues such as unexpected changes to the hotel, denied refunds, and poor customer service. Of the 3,500 package holiday complaints made to the Citizens Advice Consumer Service in the past year, 42% involved all-inclusive packages abroad.

A third of complaints (33%) related to the quality of the holiday falling short of the agreed deal, such as hotels being misdescribed, bad food or unavailable facilities. Customer service failures made up 19% of complaints, including long waits on the phone, ignored complaints and administration errors made by firms.

As a result, one in four of those who experienced an issue with a package holiday (25%) said they suffered stress, anxiety or upset, while 17% had to pay extra for daily expenses. Citizens Advice encouraged holidaymakers to check what protections were included within their booking.

One complainant, Zorana, a semi-retired NHS doctor from north-east England, reported spending £6,300 on an all-inclusive, seven-night trip to Lanzarote with her daughter through a UK holiday operator. Torrential rain on the second day resulted in “nightmare” flooding, leaving hotel guests without electricity, water, food or internet.

However the woman said she received no on-site support from their operator, causing them considerable stress. Zorana, 66, said: “We spent the morning on the beach and planned the sauna for later. But when we were eating lunch the rain started and didn’t stop.

“By the time we got to the spa, the hotel told us we couldn’t go in because it was flooded. Half an hour later the electricity had gone. Without electricity, everything stopped. There was no more internet and no more water because the pumps were not working.

“We all gathered in the hotel lobby, to hear what was going on. It was the weekend and reps from all the other travel companies were there, talking with people, reassuring them, giving them information. Some were already distributed to other places. We asked, ‘Where is our rep?’ And we were told he doesn’t work on weekends.

“We were very angry. Hotel staff told us our travel company was always a problem and never helped people. We came home after five days and I started to chase the travel company for a refund. But the customer service adviser said they can’t deal with it because compensation was offered. But their offer was not adequate.

“I mentioned the lack of support, the delay, the value of the holiday, that I had to find and pay for another hotel, and because of this it was reasonable that they should give me all my money back. I feel a victim twice over because I had the stress of our holiday being ruined, and then months of trying to get compensation.”

Citizens Advice consumer spokeswoman Jane Parsons said: “Too often, people are left stressed and disappointed when their dream holidays are spoiled because they’re not getting what they paid for. To make matters worse, they’re having to spend a lot of time and effort trying to resolve issues, sometimes with no luck.

“A record of any issues that occur and evidence should be kept – like clear details of what went wrong and when, photos and receipts. If something goes wrong with your holiday you might be able to get compensation from the company you booked with. You should tell them about any issues as soon as possible – if you don’t say anything until you get home you might get less compensation, or none at all.”

Chartered Trading Standards Institute chief executive John Herriman said: “This research highlights the real impact poor practice in the travel sector can have on consumers, specifically the problems for consumers booking holidays online, particularly through social media.

Left out of pocket

“Too many people are left out of pocket or dealing with stress when holidays don’t meet what was promised. What should be a time to relax and unwind can turn into the opposite. While it’s vital consumers understand their rights, check the protections included and keep clear records if something goes wrong, businesses must meet their legal obligations and ensure they deliver the standard of service people have paid for – and resolve issues raised quickly.

“Strong consumer protection depends on both informed consumers and responsible traders.”

Consumers are entitled to compensation for a holiday if it was lower in value than the one booked, spending extra money was required because of a problem, a large part of the booked services were not provided, something goes wrong that causes distress or disappointment or if the holiday was completely ruined.

Yonder surveyed 2,018 adults between April 17-19 about their experiences with package holidays, including problems. Respondents were asked to exclude issues outside the operator’s control, like geopolitical events or natural disasters.

EXCLUSIVE: Scott Mills was axed from the BBC earlier this year after new evidence came to light about a historical alleged sexual offences – but this might not be the end of the former radio DJ

Axed star Scott Mills has seen a flurry of support this week as his husband Sam Vaughan returned to Instagram to mark their two-year anniversary.

In his first post since the DJ’s shock sacking, Sam posted a sweet picture of him and his husband from their wedding day, captioning the post with a white heart emoji and the words “2 years.”

Stars including Zoe Ball, Rylan Clark and Sara Cox reacted to the post, with former colleauge Zoe writing: “Love you,” in the comments, followed by four red heart emoji’s. Rylan and Sarah also posted hearts in the comments section.

It comes as the Mirror exclusively revealed that Scott is set to sue the BBC for unfair dismissal after his surprise sacking. The DJ has enlisted top lawyers to lodge a case against the BBC. It’s understood he will claim that he disclosed the full details of the cop probe – including the accuser’s age – to BBC Radio 1 bosses at the time.

The BBC has previously said that they knew about the investigation but that “new information” came to light which sources claim was the fact the accuser was under 16. But it’s understood Mills will argue that this was all raised at the time to Radio 1. A source said: “It’s going to get very messy indeed.”

Mills was interviewed by police in 2018 under caution after being accused of serious sexual offences against a boy under the age of 16. A full file was sent to the CPS, who said there was not enough evidence to charge him.

In April, Mills released a statement through his lawyers claiming he had been the subject of “rumour and speculation” since his sacking and that he had “co-operated fully” with the police investigation into the allegations.

As Scott gears up for a battle with the Beeb and his partner returns to social media, questions have been raised on when the DJ could make a career return. “I think Scott Mills’ route back into the spotlight will depend on whether the public see his departure as a temporary setback or as a sign that his broadcasting career has reached a crossroads,” Mayah Riaz, a PR to the stars, tells the Mirror.

“Historically, we have seen that established presenters who have a strong personal brands and years of goodwill behind them are often afforded a second act. This is especially true when they have built up a loyal audience and have industry support over many years,” she said.

The expert noted the significance of the public show of support towards Scott’s husband Sam as it highlights that the star still has a network of influential friends and colleagues who are willing to publicly stand by him. She said this can help “soften the narrative” and “remind people of the affection that exists for a personality.”

The DJ has lost a number of gigs since being axed by the BBC, including podcast roles on Race Across the World and Pop Top 10 with Rylan Clark. Mills was also dropped as a patron of children’s cancer charity Neuroblastoma UK and “stepped back” from his role as an ambassador for the MS Society UK.

His regular panto work, which reportedly made him £600,000 in the last three years, has also been cut. Imagine Theatre, which got Scott involved in Jack And The Beanstalk shows, said there are no plans to work with the presenter for the 2026/2027 season. It said the decision was taken before he was fired by the BBC.

If Scott was to make a comeback, Mayah suggests it won’t be through a “grand relaunch”. Instead, it could be through a project that reminds his audience why they connected with him in the first place.

She explained: “Talent and familiarity remain powerful currencies in broadcasting. It goes without saying that authenticity will be key. The public are increasingly sceptical of overly polished comeback campaigns and media-managed statements.”

Mayah says the public respond “far more positively to resilience, humility and genuine passion for the work” and the biggest mistake Scott Mills could make is to come across “desperate to reclaim the spotlight”. She added: “The strongest celebrity comebacks are those that give people something new to talk about.”

Mills previously issued a statement via lawyers thanking his well-wishers. He said: “I wish to thank from the bottom of my heart all those who have reached out to me with kindness, my former colleagues, and my beloved listeners, who I greatly miss.”

On the police probe, he said: “The recent announcement that I am no longer contracted to the BBC has led to the publication of rumour and speculation. In response to this the Metropolitan Police has made a statement, which I confirm relates to me.

“An allegation was made against me in 2016 of a historic sexual offence, which was the subject of a police investigation in which I fully co-operated and responded to in 2018.” He added: “Since the investigation related to an allegation that dates back nearly 30 years and the police investigation was closed seven years ago, I hope that the public and the media will understand and respect my wish not to make any further public comment on this matter.”

Zuffa Boxing’s first show in the UK, featuring Chris Billam-Smith, appears set to go ahead on Saturday despite legal action from rival promoter Boxxer.

Former WBO cruiserweight champion Billam-Smith is scheduled to fight Canadian Ryan Rozicki at the Bournemouth International Centre as the headline bout, with fellow Britons Jack Massey and Sam Hickey both on the undercard.

The event is due to be shown on Sky Sports, but promoter Boxxer claims to have contractual rights involving fighters on the bill and says they are appearing without “consent or authorisation”.

BBC Sport understands that Zuffa does not accept the claims by Boxxer and plans to proceed with the event as planned.

“Boxxer can confirm it is seeking urgent injunctive relief against Zuffa Boxing and Sky Sports concerning the promotion and proposed participation of fighters who remain subject to binding contractual obligations to Boxxer,” said a statement from Boxxer.

“Boxxer have ensured that all parties involved are fully aware of the contractual obligations owed to Boxxer by the fighters being promoted for Saturday’s event. Despite this, those fighters continue to be advertised and promoted without Boxxer’s consent.

“As a result of the conduct it has witnessed in recent months, Boxxer has been left with no option but to seek further relief from the English courts.”

Zuffa Boxing, which was founded by UFC president Dana White and backed by Saudi Arabian funding, is looking to rival the sport’s established promoters.

Billam-Smith signed a multi-fight deal with Zuffa Boxing in April after previously being promoted by Ben Shalom’s Boxxer.

Enrique Riquelme held up a Real Madrid shirt bearing Erling Haaland’s name, while campaigning for club presidency.

Manchester City is considering legal action after Real Madrid presidential ⁠candidate Enrique Riquelme ⁠said he would sign the Premier League club’s Norwegian striker Erling Haaland if elected.

Riquelme, a renewable energy entrepreneur challenging incumbent Florentino ⁠Perez, made the pledge during an appearance on Spanish television on Wednesday, where he held up a Real Madrid shirt bearing Haaland’s name.

“The stories which ⁠have emerged from Spain regarding the future of Erling Haaland are untrue,” a City spokesperson said on Thursday.

“There is no chance of this happening, and there is no contractual clause to enable it. We are considering legal action for ‌the use of our player’s image in this context.”

Riquelme said Haaland, who scored 38 goals in all competitions last season, had a release clause and wanted to move to the Spanish club, adding that he would make the transfer a priority if he wins Sunday’s election.

A joint statement from the 25-year-old footballer’s father, Alfie Haaland, and his agent, Rafaela Pimenta, swiftly ⁠rejected the suggestion, describing it as “not true”.

Riquelme added he ⁠would try to sign City’s Spain midfielder Rodri, saying he had spoken to the player’s agent and would “do everything possible” to bring the Ballon d’Or winner to Madrid.

The remarks come against ⁠the backdrop of Real’s presidential election, the first in two decades in which Perez is not running unopposed, ⁠after the club’s two seasons without a major ⁠trophy.

Voting is scheduled for Sunday, with some 100,000 club members eligible to take part.

Haaland had the option to join Real in 2022, when he left Borussia Dortmund. But he chose City, where ‌his father played.

While the striker, who won the Premier League Golden Boot for the third time in four seasons, said he would like to play ‌for ‌Real one day, there has been no suggestion he is unhappy at City. He signed a new nine-and-a-half-year contract in January 2025.

Perez announced on Wednesday that, should he be elected, he would bring Benfica manager Jose Mourinho back to Real Madrid for a second term at the helm of Los Blancos.

The Portuguese former manager of Manchester United, Chelsea and Inter Milan previously won the La Liga title during a three-year spell in Madrid.

Manchester City are contemplating taking legal action over a promise to sign striker Erling Haaland by a candidate in Real Madrid’s presidential election.

Enrique Riquelme – a renewable energy magnate who is challenging current president Florentino Perez for the position – unveiled a Real Madrid shirt bearing Haaland’s name while on television on Wednesday, saying: “He has a release clause and would like to join Real Madrid.”

A swift denial was issued in a joint statement by Haaland’s father and agent, before City rubbished the suggestion.

“The stories which have emerged from Spain regarding the future of Erling Haaland are untrue,” the statement read. “There is no chance of this happening and there is no contractual clause to enable it.

“We are considering legal action for the use of our player image in this context.”

More to follow.

Is Paramount making a Tony Soprano move?

David Ellison’s media company appears to be girding for a big battle with California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and fellow state attorneys general who may team up to file a lawsuit aiming to block Paramount’s proposed $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.

Last week, Paramount hired powerhouse antitrust attorney Jeffrey Kessler to help defend its proposed takeover of Warner, which owns CNN, TBS, HBO and the prestigious Burbank film and television studios.

Kessler — co-executive chairman of Winston & Strawn in New York — is one of the nation’s top antitrust lawyers. He most recently led the state attorneys’ case against concert promoter and ticketing firm Live Nation, resulting in a monumental win for the states, including California.

Now Kessler may be on the opposite side, potentially going after the government to help Paramount build a behemoth that would include CNN and CBS News, two historic film studios and four streaming services.

The states have not indicated whether they plan to go to court to block Paramount’s takeover of Warner, but Bonta has said Ellison’s proposed consolidation, which is widely expected to lead to layoffs, is problematic.

Paramount declined Tuesday to discuss Kessler’s remit. Kessler was not immediately available for comment.

Hiring an attorney who is more commonly aligned against big companies prompted at least one observer to postulate that Paramount could be angling to remove a big name from the legal chessboard to prevent him from joining the other side, in the vein of TV mob boss Tony Soprano.

During the HBO show’s fifth season, Soprano spent months consulting with top divorce attorneys, creating a potential conflict of interest that prevented those lawyers from representing his wife Carmela in the dispute.

Attorney Jeffrey Kessler arrives at federal court in Oakland in a file photo.

(Noah Berger/Associated Press)

Kessler also knows the ins and outs of a courtroom as well as antitrust settlements, which could benefit Paramount as it seeks to avoid a bruising court challenge.

More than 5,000 artists and other entertainment industry workers already have signed an open letter that urges Bonta to take action to upend the Paramount and Warner Bros. deal.

Ellison and his team have vowed to make $6 billion in cuts following the merger. The combined company would have to contend with $79 billion in deal debt.

Adding Kessler comes as state attorneys general have been taking a more aggressive role in waging anti-trust fights. Many believe the U.S. Justice Department has been sitting on the sidelines to allow deals favored by President Trump to sail through their legally mandated regulatory reviews.

Trump favors Paramount’s takeover of CNN and other Warner properties.

Paramount Chief Legal Officer Makan Delrahim has made several savvy tactical moves since joining Ellison’s Melrose Avenue firm last fall.

Delrahim, who was Trump’s antitrust chief during his first term, filed paperwork to win the U.S. Justice Department’s blessing in December — soon after Netflix had clinched the bidding war for Warner Bros.

Netflix ultimately bowed out of the auction in late February. And Delrahim’s move gave Ellison’s Paramount a head start in the regulatory approval process.

The company is waiting for confirmation that the Justice Department will consent to its Warner Bros. purchase. It is separately responding to issues raised by regulators in Europe.

It’s not clear when Bonta or his fellow attorneys general might decide whether to bring a case against Paramount, although the deadline is approaching because Ellison wants to get his deal wrapped up by September.

Attorneys general also could opt for negotiating a settlement agreement with Paramount, which might be willing to bend to concessions to get the deal approved.

Bonta is leading a challenge against another big merger — TV station owner Nexstar Media Group’s $6.2-billion purchase of rival company Tegna Inc. Nexstar owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles and more than 100 other stations.

Nexstar initially argued that Bonta’s action came too late — after Nexstar had gained its federal approvals for the deal. Nexstar also was in the process of consolidating Tegna’s operations and top Tegna executives had cashed out.

The move backfired on Nexstar as a federal judge in Northern California issued a preliminary injunction, ordering Nexstar to halt the Tegna consolidation.

U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley ruled Tegna must be managed as a separate company pending the outcome of a trial.

On Tuesday, Tegna announced that it hired a former Fox TV station executive, Patrick Paolini, as its chief executive. Beginning next week, Paolini will be responsible for “Tegna’s daily operations, revenue-generating business strategies, local journalism and production, and growth initiatives,” according to a corporate statement.

Paolini will report to Tegna’s board — not Nexstar.

A new report warns that Britain is undergoing a “deeply troubling transformation” in how it treats political protest as climate activists and pro-Palestine campaigners increasingly face lengthy prison sentences, sweeping legal restrictions and months in jail before trial.

The report, Britain’s Political Prisoners, copublished by researchers at the Centre for Climate Crime and Climate Justice at Queen Mary University of London and the campaign group Defend Our Juries, said the UK has “witnessed an increase in anti-protest powers granted to the police and the courts through legislation” that has “created a significantly more repressive legal terrain for activists engaging in civil disobedience and direct action”.

It traces the shift from crackdowns on protests by Extinction Rebellion, Black Lives Matter, Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil to more recent prosecutions linked to Palestine solidarity actions, including campaigns targeting British factories operated by Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer.

The report, released on Tuesday, found that a combination of new laws, broader police powers and increasingly punitive court tactics has reshaped Britain’s protest landscape since 2019.

The United Kingdom has witnessed numerous mass protests and direct actions by activists to pressure the government to stop selling arms to Israel during its genocidal war on Gaza, in which more than 72,000 Palestinians have been killed, including more than 40,000 women, children and elderly.

So what does Britain’s shifting stance on protests mean for civil rights, and what’s behind the legal clampdown on climate and pro-Palestine protests?

How Britain’s legal system has changed since 2019

The report painted a stark picture of how Britain’s legal system has changed in response to climate and pro-Palestine direct action campaigns through a mix of new laws, expanded police powers and what campaigners describe as increasingly punitive court tactics. What this means for protesters is longer jail sentences, stricter bail conditions and harsher treatment in the courts than was once typical for acts of civil disobedience, according to the report.

At the centre of that shift are two major laws introduced after waves of demonstrations by groups such as Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, two environmental groups that employ nonviolent civil disobedience tactics to pressure governments to address the climate crisis.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 transformed the old common law offence of “public nuisance” into a formal criminal offence carrying a sentence of up to 10 years in prison. This means actions that seriously disrupt the public – such as blocking roads, stopping traffic or shutting down infrastructure – can now lead to far more severe criminal penalties than before because the offence was never previously codified into legislation. Campaigners said the law has given prosecutors a powerful new tool to pursue long prison sentences against protesters.

The Public Order Act 2023 introduced a series of protest-specific offences in May of that year, largely in response to climate protests by groups including Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion, whose actions included blocking motorways, occupying oil terminals and targeting infrastructure projects in an attempt to pressure the government to halt new oil and gas extraction.

Such offences under the act included “locking on”, in which protesters attach themselves to roads, buildings, vehicles or each other using chains, glue or other devices to make removal difficult. The law also criminalised tunnelling, a tactic used by some activists to delay infrastructure projects, and introduced offences for disrupting major transport networks, oil terminals and other nationally important infrastructure. 

The legislation also significantly widened police powers whereby officers may now place restrictions on even one-person protests if they are deemed disruptive. Police were also granted powers to carry out stop-and-search operations in designated protest zones without needing reasonable suspicion that someone has committed an offence – a significant expansion of police authority criticised by civil liberties groups.

But the report argued the crackdown extends beyond parliament and into the courts.

One of its central findings is the growing use of civil injunctions and contempt of court proceedings against activists.

Oil companies, arms manufacturers, councils and universities have increasingly obtained court orders banning protests near their sites, the report said.

The report identified contempt of court as the most common route to imprisonment among the 249 protest-related cases it analysed. Contempt of court usually refers to someone disobeying a judge’s order or behaving in a way the court says interferes with justice. In protest cases, it has increasingly been used against activists who ignore injunctions or refuse to follow restrictions imposed during trials.

Because contempt proceedings are handled directly by judges rather than juries, campaigners argued they allow courts to imprison protesters more quickly and with fewer legal safeguards.

Researchers also highlighted what campaigners described as the “gagging” of defendants. Judges have increasingly stopped protesters from mentioning climate concerns, Gaza, international law or their political motivations in front of juries.

Courts have often argued that juries should focus only on whether a defendant broke the law, not on the political or moral reasons behind their actions. Critics said those restrictions prevent activists from fully explaining why they protested in the first place.

Campaigners also said the legal shift reflects a broader political change, driven in part by corporate lobbying under successive Conservative governments and continuing under Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour government. They argued that peaceful protest is increasingly being criminalised to protect corporate interests, regardless of wider ethical concerns about the supply of arms to Israel during its war on Gaza or opposing fossil fuel projects linked to the climate crisis.

Perhaps most controversially, the report pointed to the growing use of lengthy pretrial detention. That means protesters being held in prison before they have been convicted of any crime.

According to the findings, many activists spend months on remand awaiting trial while some Palestine Action defendants have been held for more than a year before their cases are heard in court.

In 60 percent of the cases studied, the final sentence handed down was shorter than the time defendants had already spent in custody awaiting trial.

Are lobbyists influencing the crackdown?

Tim Crosland, director of Defend Our Juries, said the findings challenge Britain’s claims of ensuring democratic protections.

“This report strips away the illusion that Britain remains committed to democratic principles,” Crosland said.

“It reveals that peaceful protesters are being jailed in ever-increasing numbers under pressure from the oil and arms industries, the Israeli government and their lobbyists.”

The report pointed to what it described as growing political and corporate pressure behind Britain’s crackdown on protest movements.

Researchers cited reports that parts of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act may have originated in proposals from the right-wing think tank Policy Exchange. According to the investigative news site Open Democracy, Policy Exchange has previously received funding from ExxonMobil. The think tank had earlier published a report titled Extremism Rebellion, which called for new laws targeting Extinction Rebellion activists.

Al Jazeera could not independently verify the links between the think tank and the legislation.

The report further alleged that British officials came under pressure from both Elbit Systems and the Israeli government to take a tougher approach towards Palestine Action protests targeting Elbit’s UK factories.

According to correspondence quoted by the researchers, the British government said in 2022 that it had “expressed our support in recognising the attacks and boycott on Elbit UK”. The report said the issue was later raised directly with then-Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab during a visit to Israel, where he reportedly “declared that the British government is committed to stopping the attacks”.

Zoe Blackler, founding director of the London events space Kairos, said: “In the face of this clampdown on the right to peaceful protest, we need to come together in solidarity and defiance.”

Which are the cases at the centre of Britain’s protest crackdown?

The report traced Britain’s hardening response to the protests through a series of landmark cases involving climate activists and Palestine solidarity campaigners, many of whom received lengthy prison sentences or spent months behind bars before trial.

Among the most high-profile is the case of the Whole Truth Five, a group of Just Stop Oil activists jailed in July 2024 over a Zoom call discussing plans to disrupt the M25 motorway. The five were convicted of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance and initially sentenced to between four and five years in prison.

The report described the case as one of the clearest examples of the tougher approach now being taken towards protest movements. Campaigners argued the sentences were extraordinary because the activists were punished largely for planning disruptive action rather than carrying it out. Prosecutors relied on conspiracy laws, which allow people to be charged for agreeing to commit an offence even if the planned action never ultimately happens.

Four Palestine Action activists were also sentenced to between 23 and 27 months for conspiring to damage an Israeli-linked arms factory in Wales. Meanwhile, four Just Stop Oil activists received prison terms of up to 30 months over plans to disrupt Manchester Airport despite never reaching the site. A fifth defendant, Noah Crane, spent almost a year in jail on remand before later being acquitted.

Another major case involved the Filton 24, Palestine Action activists prosecuted after a protest at an Elbit Systems factory in Bristol. Some defendants were held on remand for up to 18 months before trial.

After several activists were acquitted of aggravated burglary charges, most were eventually granted bail.

The report said the case raises “serious concerns” that prosecutors used unusually serious charges to justify holding defendants in prison for long periods before trial.

The report also highlighted the Brize Norton Five, activists accused of spray-painting air force planes in protest against Britain’s military links to Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. According to the report, the group has remained on remand since August and is not expected to stand trial until 2027, meaning some could spend close to two years in jail before a verdict is reached.

Other cases revealed the growing use of judicial “gagging orders”.

During the retrial of the Filton 6, a separate trial from the Filton 24, the judge barred defendants from mentioning Gaza, Elbit’s role in supplying weapons to Israel and their political motivations for protesting. Critics argued such restrictions make it harder for juries to hear the broader context behind direct action campaigns.

In another case, three Insulate Britain activists were imprisoned for contempt of court after defying a judge’s order not to mention the “climate crisis” or “fuel poverty” before a jury.

Despite the legal restrictions, several juries continued to acquit activists. The report pointed to acquittals involving Just Stop Oil protesters, Extinction Rebellion activists and a hung jury in the first Filton 6 trial as evidence that some jurors remained unconvinced by the increasingly aggressive prosecution of protest movements.

Kerry Moscogiuri, Amnesty International UK CEO, told Al Jazeera that “the right to protest is being eroded before our eyes.”

“We’re seeing a worrying shift where the state is using remand, sweeping injunctions and contempt proceedings to lock people up or silence them before they’ve even stood trial.

“The broader legal implications here are concerning. It’s not just about one group of activists; it’s about a systemic attempt to shut down dissent, something we’ve been ringing the alarm on for a long time.

“By replacing the presumption of liberty with preemptive legal intimidation, it creates a chilling effect, undermines the rule of law and flies in the face of basic human rights.”