legally

Weapons and support from the West, led by the United States, have been central to Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

The United Kingdom’s and European Union’s relations with Israel remain essentially unchanged despite the war.

Is this complicity? And could there be legal consequences for Western nations and their leaders?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests:

Michael Lynk – former United Nations special rapporteur for human rights in occupied Palestinian territory

Yara Hawari – co-director of Al-Shabaka: The Palestinian Policy Network

Ralph Wilde – professor of international law at University College London

Following a dispute a Ryanair passenger had with the airline when he asked to give up their place on the flight, a travel expert has offered detail on how such airlines exploit loopholes

Greedy airlines can legally “bump” passengers – move them onto other services without their permission – when they overbook flights, a travel expert has warned.

Passengers are not guaranteed a seat even when they book one, the professional confirmed, following recent disputes around the practice. One Ryanair passenger was moved onto another flight after the airline switched planes from a Boeing 737-8200 to a 737-800, which has eight less seats.

But Scott McCormick and his girlfriend Helena Boshwick, from Birmingham, “hadn’t reserved seats” for the two-hour trip to Palma de Mallorca, Spain, something travel expert Rory Boland recommends. However, he added airlines passengers are not guaranteed a seat even when they book one.

Mr Boland, travel editor at consumer group Which?, said: “Sometimes a last minute change of aircraft might mean less seats available than planned for, in other cases some airlines actively overbook, betting on ‘no shows’ to balance things out, while maxing their profits by charging for more seats than the plane can actually accommodate. If an airline ends up with too many people at the gate, it can’t just bump someone from the flight because they didn’t pay extra to reserve a specific seat.”

READ MORE: TUI flight erupts in panic after ‘bomb threat note’ discovered in toilet

Speaking to Mail Online, he continued: “So long as the flight is either departing the UK, or flying into the UK on a UK or EU based airline, the airline is legally obliged to ask for volunteers before resorting to forcibly denying boarding.

“If you volunteer then you surrender your right to statutory compensation, so you should make sure you’re happy with the amount you negotiate – at a minimum be sure to get at least get the amount you would be owed if the flight was cancelled – which would be up to £520 each for a long-haul flight, or less for a short-haul journey.

“If there are no volunteers, only then an airline can choose to deny a passenger boarding. Anyone who is bumped from a plane should have their flight rebooked as quickly as possible, and be paid cancellation compensation.”

Those who volunteer to be bumped on a flight must agree compensation with the airline, which will often make an announcement at the gate offering cash or vouchers. Passengers in such cases are also entitled to an alternative flight or a refund.

Mr McCormick and Miss Boshwick, both 33, did not book seats, it is understood, because they did not mind sitting apart on the two-hour flight. Because of this, Mr McCormick and Miss Boshwick were each assigned a random seat free of charge upon checking in, which they did online before departure.

READ MORE: I flew on hyped new airline claiming to bring back ‘golden age of aviation’ – it has a long way to go

Responding in relation to the couple’s complaint, a Ryanair spokesman said: “This flight from Birmingham to Palma de Mallorca (May 1) was not ‘overbooked’ – it was scheduled to operate on a 737-8200 (197 seats) but for operational reasons had to be swapped to a 737-800 aircraft (189 seats).

“As a result, 1 passenger was unable to travel on this flight, and was reaccommodated onto the next available flight to Palma de Mallorca.

“Mr McCormick’s travel companion was not refused boarding but chose not to board and travel on this flight from Birmingham to Palma de Mallorca and was required to pay a Missed Departure fee (£100) to be booked onto the next available flight.

“Mr McCormick was notified by email on the day of travel (May 1) that he was entitled to claim back reasonable receipted expenses, however Mr McCormick has yet to submit any expense receipts to Ryanair.”

May 23 (UPI) — State parks in Florida are now protected from commercial construction after Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the State Park Preservation Act into law Thursday.

The act, which will take effect in July, prevents developers from constructing hotels, golf courses or other commercial enterprises in any of Florida’s 175 state parks.

Pinellas County Democratic Rep. Lindsay Cross, who also is an environmental scientist, posted to social media Friday that the act establishes “protections for all 175 state parks against commercial development,” and also thanked “everyone who fought for this bill, and who stood up to preserve our home.”

Republican Rep. Peggy Gossett-Seidman, Highland Beach, called the passage of the act a “bipartisan, bicameral legislative victory,” on her X account Thursday, and then quoted “The Lorax” by Dr. Seuss to close her post with “I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues.”

The new law came after a backlash caused by a purported plan proposed by the state in 2024 and allegedly leaked by the Florida Wildlife Federation to allow commercial development at nine different state parks. All future developments are not completely banned but will instead need to be conservation-minded, and support nature-friendly activities such as camping, hiking and kayaking.

The Florida Wildlife Federation posted a note of appreciation to its website Thursday, with thanks given to the Florida Senate and House “for their unanimous support of this legislation every step of the way,” and it called the law “a massive win for wildlife, outdoor spaces, and future generations who will get to experience Florida’s natural wonders just as they should be: wild and natural.”

The Trump administration says it has accepted an airplane worth an estimated $400 million from the state of Qatar. While Trump is president, the White House says it would be used as the new Air Force One, then it would go to Trump’s presidential library after his term ends.

The aircraft would become the most expensive gift from a foreign government ever to a US elected official, ABC News reported. But some members of Congress say accepting it would be unconstitutional.

When asked about the potential gift at a May 12 executive order signing, Trump blamed Boeing’s lack of progress in building a new Air Force One. He said he would be “stupid” to refuse a free airplane, and said he won’t use it after he leaves office. “It’s not a gift to me, it’s a gift to the Department of Defense,” he said.

What do experts say?

Legal experts told PolitiFact they believe accepting the gift would violate the US Constitution’s emoluments clause, which reads, “No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

The emoluments clause was designed “to prevent foreign nations from gaining improper influence” over US leaders, said David Forte, Cleveland State University emeritus law professor.

Experts differed on whether accepting the plane would be an impeachable offense.

Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor, said that if Trump accepts the gift, it could be an impeachable deed, because it would amount to “a fully corrupt act.”

Forte, however, said the gift wouldn’t necessarily amount to a bribe or an impeachable offense, but it “is a form of influence buying designed to gain the gratitude of the recipient by playing to his vanity.”

Is this the first time Trump is facing such accusations?

During Trump’s first term, Congressional Democrats, private individuals and attorneys general from Maryland and Washington, DC, filed lawsuits against Trump stemming from the emoluments clause.

However, many of the cases were dismissed on procedural grounds, and the US Supreme Court did not rule on the transactions’ underlying constitutionality.

Trump’s possible acceptance of the aircraft is different, said Frank Bowman, a University of Missouri emeritus law professor.

In his first term, Trump said payments were made to his businesses. This time, there would be no connection to Trump’s businesses. It would be a gift offered for free with no promise of payment from the president or the US Treasury, Bowman said.

NBC News, citing an anonymous senior Justice Department official, reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi approved a memo prepared by the agency’s Office of Legal Counsel that deemed it was legal for the Defense Department to accept the gift. Bondi has previously lobbied on behalf of the state of Qatar.

Trump, on his part, has thanked Qatar for the jet.

“If we can get a 747 as a contribution to our Defense Department, during a couple of years whole they’re [Boeing is] building the other one, I think that’s a very nice gesture [from Qatar],” he said on May 12.

Can the emoluments clause be enforced against Trump?

Legal experts said it’s unlikely that Congress, controlled by Republicans, will stop Trump from accepting the gift.

Meghan Faulkner, communications director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, DC, said that since it appears the Justice Department has signed off on receiving the gift, it “could make it harder to hold him accountable”.

Bowman said the Justice Department, according to longstanding policy, wouldn’t prosecute a sitting president.

Faulkner said Trump stands to benefit again after running out the clock on emoluments challenges during his first term. “Enforcing the Emoluments Clause in the courts would face similar challenges (in his second term), including the challenge of finding a plaintiff who has standing to challenge the violations,” she said.